What if Katrina and Rita are also terrorist-related phenomena, wonders Mohamed Sid-Ahmed A few days ago, scores of people received a "breaking news" SMS on their mobiles reporting that Al-Qaeda had claimed responsibility for the New Orleans flooding disaster and that the alleged culprit was "a suicide plumber". Though clearly sent by a prankster, it took its recipients moments to realise that it was a sick joke with no basis in fact. The incident is significant in that it shows how people have been conditioned in recent years to believe in the omnipotence of terrorism and the long reach of terrorists. Indeed, the topography of the region, which lies below sea level and is protected only by a man-made levee, made this a plausible scenario. 9/11 introduced a new dimension in the escalation of terrorism. It suddenly become clear that terrorists had a formidable weapon in their hands, as long as the cause they fought for remained in their eyes more important than their life. Moreover, a new phenomenon came into being, namely, that a terrorist act need not actually occur for terrorism to prevail; the mere belief that it could have occurred is enough. In other words, it has a multiplying effect, its impact much wider than the event itself. Terrorism remains a permanent threat, a continuous sword of Damones. It is not in one place alone. As long as it is anywhere it is everywhere, though, apparently nowhere. Once it takes hold it is virtually impossible to uproot. No half measures are effective in this respect. Terrorism is a state of mind and not only a material situation, its frame of reference is death, not life. Death is becoming the key factor in determining what options life has; how free humans are. Terrorism proceeds from the assumption that a state of death commands the state of life. In the final analysis, with terrorism having the upper hand, it would seem that people live with the aim of dying, not the opposite. What is new about terrorism since 9/11 is that this fateful date has proved able to overstretch its traditional limits. A new game has been introduced. Terrorism has proved able to have an overwhelming surprise effect. It is no accident that whenever an accident occurs, 9/11 is mentioned as a frame of comparison. Terrorism is to be regarded as a comprehensive whole. With respect to any specific player, one can either be in or out of the game, but not partially in or out. That needs an agreement, implicit or explicit, over the quantity and type of weapons that will be tolerated in the hands of each player in the game. Any such agreement can only be formulated in the context of the prevailing balance of power. What this actually means is that weapons will never totally disappear, because no protagonist can ever be sure, as he disarms, that the balance is not tipping to the advantage of his opponents. How to deal with this critical threshold is a top political decision at the heart of present-days politics, not a technical problem only. The global population is divided into two distinct categories: those for whom living is perpetual suffering and those who benefit from the suffering of the latter; the haves and the have- nots, the dispossessed and the privileged. Not surprisingly, this is creating tensions that are affecting the viability of world order as we know it. The discrepancy between rich and poor is now at the forefront of global concerns, and the fight against poverty high on the agenda of developed countries. As even Bush admits, terrorism feeds on anger and despair, and it is now universally recognised that the war on terror is inextricably linked to the fight against poverty. Moreover, a situation in which one segment of the global population lives in opulence while most of the rest live in dire poverty is not only untenable but morally reprehensible. The issue of terrorism cannot be addressed exclusively by police measures. Responding to violence in kind can only create a vicious circle of violence and counter-violence. The argument that terrorism can be eliminated through the elimination of terrorists is a dangerous fiction. Some way down the road, a political deal will have to be struck and the sooner the better. This would not be the first time diplomacy is brought into play to resolve a standoff with those bent on using violent means to make a political point. The latest successful example is what happened with the IRA. Some degree of violence cannot be avoided. State-violence is an indispensable tool. Violence is not in all cases illegitimate. Even if a peace deal is envisaged, peace will have to be guaranteed by the neutralisation of terrorism through not totally eliminating state violence. Even after neutralisation is reached, state violence will not be unconditionally eliminated. Technical achievements will have to go on being realised. For example, instruments that are not weapons of mass destruction and which nullify the effect of weapons of mass destruction will have to be invented. The creation of such instruments is not only a technical issue, it will have to be binding to all parties including the terrorists. It will have to be negotiated with them, it will have to be a political deal as well. A parallel could be drawn with the Palestinian problem. The Palestinian Authority is not a terrorist organisation. Only Israeli fascists would dare to claim otherwise. This does not apply to all Palestinian factions, but is recognised as such by the overwhelming majority of the peoples of the world and all members of the Security Council, including the US. Now, everybody recognises that to reach a peaceful solution to the conflict, a political deal between the conflicting parties is unavoidable. A Palestinian state with at least part of Jerusalem as its capital will have to be established side-by-side with Israel. This is a political act that all parties will have to adhere to. Conditions that both parties find difficult to accept will have to be worked out. Only the ability to overcome such difficulties can ensure that terrorism can be defeated and that peace can be reached. So far, there is no evidence that such an aim is attainable.
