If you think religion is the source of terrorism you really fail to see the root causes of conflict and extremism, writes Ayman El-Amir* Despite our best efforts at self-denial, we are experiencing a conflict of political cultures of which the recent London bombings and the murder of the Egyptian envoy in Baghdad are but manifestations. Madrid, Moscow, Istanbul or New York; each one, as well as the daily carnage in Iraq, is part of a global phenomenon of terror that is now a political ideology which is gathering momentum. London's police, in response to public shock and outcry, have mustered all their investigative powers and uncovered many important leads, quickly concluding that the bombings carried the hallmarks of the notorious Al-Qaeda. Everyone is curious to know "who, where and how?" and seems to be getting the right answers. However, no one is asking the fundamental question on which everything hinges: Why? Only by addressing this question can we understand the political fervour driving acts of terrorism that have so far sent shockwaves through five continents of the world. Terrorism is a consequence of political ostracism, not religious fanaticism. It is fermented not in the mosques of Egypt or the madrassas of Pakistan but in solitary confinement cells, torture chambers and the environment of fear wielded by dictatorial regimes as instruments of legitimate government. Foreign military occupation in Iraq, targeted assassinations in Palestinian territories and foreign military presence in several Middle Eastern countries nurture it. Perpetrators consider it a means of resisting the distortion of national identity and traditional values under the aegis of globalisation. If terrorism were a by-product of religious tutoring, few of the Judeo-Christian, neo-conservative clan in Washington could escape its definition. One has only to point to blood- drenched Iraq to see that terrorism has no religion but only political motivation. In the post-9/11 era, the US administration of President George W Bush drew the right conclusions but adopted the wrong policies. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice conceded during her visit to Egypt last month that for 60 years United States policy in the Middle East "pursued stability at the expense of democracy and we achieved neither". Stability in the Middle East, and in many other regions of the world, has never been more elusive than it is now, and terrorism has never been more lethal. For Russian President Vladimir Putin, terrorism is "the plague of the 21st century" and, contrary to brave public statements by leaders of afflicted countries, people are scared. It would seem that the debate on terrorism, which produced 12 international treaties against it in the 1960s and 1970s, has been frozen in time and space after the attacks of 11 September 2001. Only one policy prevailed: the whole world is to become one battlefield against terrorism. Perspectives were blurred; the agenda was confused and acts of terrorism escalated. Fundamental elements of the debate on terrorism, which included the legitimacy of armed resistance against foreign military occupation, the illegal acts of state terrorism committed against people under occupation and the persecution of individuals by dictatorships in the name of state security, were overlooked in favour of a broad, indiscriminate definition. So, the whole issue was reduced to how to protect Western civilisation against Muslim marauders who are incited by a murderous religious cult. This definition had a silver lining for Israel whose leaders manipulated the 9/11 trauma to convince the Bush administration that Palestinian fighters were akin to Al-Qaeda suicide assailants -- they are all Muslims, fanatical and bent on the destruction of the symbols of Western civilisation. To raise the question of why is, by no means, to legitimise wanton terrorism or to undermine the issue of security. When the lives of people and the security of property are at stake, then protecting both is the primary responsibility of every government. However, reducing the global phenomenon to an issue of security is missing the point and it clearly does not minimise the threat. Exploring and addressing the ethno-political root causes of terrorism could be a starting point. This is where the decades-long efforts at the United Nations to coin an airtight definition of terrorism faltered, and the debate came to an end. It may be that the attempt to craft an all-inclusive definition was much too ambitious a target for the motley membership of the UN. The central issue in the debate, however, was the distinction between national liberation movements, fighting for independence from foreign military occupation, and indiscriminate acts of terrorism committed by criminal gangs for political intimidation purposes or economic gain. While developing countries overwhelmingly supported the distinction, some Western countries led by the United States, as well as Israel, opposed it. This was to deny support to the anti- apartheid struggle in South Africa, which tried and convicted African National Congress activists on charges of "terrorism", and to the Palestine Liberation Organisation fighting Israeli occupation. When dialogue failed the world scene became a free for all, with good and bad in the eyes of the beholder. Some may suggest that we have been at this juncture before and terrorism was defeated. They will recall the heydays of the 1960s and 1970s when pseudo- revolutionary movements masterminded by pseudo-idealist Marxists rocked global society. Those were the days of the Chicago Black Panthers, the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Weathermen, the Baader Meinhof Group and the Red Army brigades, among a ragtag of other movements in the US, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Overwhelming security force and the lack of grassroots support for extremist ideology quashed them all. What we see these days is not the same landscape. There is good reason to believe that linking Islam with political terrorism is not coincidental. It is designed by Israeli- backed neo-conservatives in Washington to force a showdown with those forces in the Arab world that see in their Muslim faith a rallying point for salvation. To prod the confrontation onwards, Islam is being presented as synonymous with terrorism, and the anti-Islamic backlash, particularly in Europe, is rising. However, should cool heads prevail, a collision course may not be inevitable. What is needed now is to revive the debate on terrorism, its root causes and the means to reduce and eliminate it. It should be conducted, not at the level of ministers of the interior, but among inter-cultural, political, religious and human rights groups of civil society. The spectrum of issues and participation should be as wide-ranging as possible to avoid charges of exclusion, which in itself is one of the root causes. This should be an ongoing dialogue that would be parallel to inter- governmental conferences that usually seek the introduction of more statutory instruments to deal with terrorism. It would help focus -- and possibly isolate -- the causes of terrorism and develop a grassroots consensus on related issues. To equate Islam with terrorism and fight both globally would not only create a fictitious parallelism but a wider and more dangerous conflict, as the situation in blood-drenched Iraq has graphically demonstrated. On the other hand, a consensus of cool heads is the only salvation from this growing scourge. * The writer is former Al-Ahram correspondent in Washington, DC. He also served as director of United Nations Radio and Television in New York.
