Mohamed Sid-Ahmed argues that a breakthrough towards overcoming conflict is still an unattainable goal When I observe what is now happening in our region and in the world at large, I am optimistic about the future, at least in the long term, provided, of course, that we can, in the short term, overcome so many obstacles still blocking the path to a better tomorrow. Long- term prospects are contingent on what happens in the short term; indeed, the failure to cure short-term ills can adversely affect, or even nullify, long-term opportunities. And, while I am optimistic that in time the world will eventually sort itself out, I am pessimistic about the immediate future. This reminds me of the word "pessoptimist" which was coined by the Arab-Israeli scholar Emile Habibi to describe those who wavered between optimism and pessimism according to how things unfolded in the Middle East peace process. Actually, the word has a much wider application in today's complex and multi- layered world, where optimism and pessimism often go hand in hand. Humankind ran the risk of mutual extermination and of disappearing altogether more than once under the conditions of the Cold War. The price was exorbitant the collapse of one of the two world poles, the apparent end of equilibrium and stability in the world system and the replacement of the bipolar world order by a unipolar order with the threats such a fundamental restructuring of the world posed. One effect that this transformation brought about was the attacks launched on 11 September, 2001, against the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington. The previous bipolar world order, based on mutual deterrence between the two superpowers, engendered a sort of mutual neutralisation. Neutralisation disappeared with the disappearance of the communist pole. The Soviet Union's implosion and fragmentation removed the constraints which had hitherto kept its various components in check, leaving the door open for negative forces, including the forces of terrorism, to assert their presence on the world stage. The emergence of terrorism as an integral part of the new world order has unleashed an era of unprecedented world disorder that is inimical to stability, security and human progress in general. So how to put an end to terrorism? How to neutralise its effect? How to convince the forces of terrorism that random violence will not help them achieve their aims but will produce just the opposite effect? Because terrorism is more of a reaction than an action, it will not go away spontaneously. A strategy aimed at eradicating terrorism must be put in place, a collective effort that includes the input of parties from outside the realm of terrorism to help terrorists realise that it is in their interest to relinquish their methods. An important consideration in this respect is to act within the bounds of the law, to observe the principles of democracy and to firmly oppose their violation. The problem here is that the world of terrorism is a dark and secret world that does not divulge its secrets willingly. Fighting terrorism entails drawing out these secrets using the most effective methods available. Unfortunately, torture appears to be unavoidable as part and parcel of the anti- terrorism drive. We now seem to be caught in a vicious circle: the use of torture provokes more terrorism which in turn provokes more torture by counter-terrorism authorities and so on ad infinitum. How to break the cycle? In the short term the war on terror as it is now being waged can be counter-productive, engendering the escalation of violence rather than ushering in an era of stability and security. There are two ways of inducing an individual to do something he does not want to do either through coercion or by temptation, by resorting to deterrents or to incentives. Which is more effective? As the systematic torture inflicted on inmates of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib attests, only deterrence has been used so far. Surely in some cases incentives would be more effective, or perhaps a combination of carrot and stick. Whether the combination would work on hardened criminals is problematic, but much depends on how the two techniques are used. Moreover, it is important to realise that one is totally illegal while the other is not. In the final analysis, the effectiveness of incentives or deterrents depends on the balance of power between the protagonists. How to be sure that democracy has the final say? How to ensure that long term interests come to be seen as more fundamental than short-term interests, which could eventually backlash? Any hope of eradicating terrorism and of overcoming conflict in general lies in working towards those goals, a task that requires an entirely different approach than is now being used. With the prospects of this happening any time soon extremely remote, it is hard to feel anything but pessimistic about the foreseeable future. A political climate must be promoted where every party comes to consider responding to the basic demands of the opposite party as part and parcel of the final deal. As long as no solution to this equation is sorted out, we will remain closer to deals aimed exclusively at winning time than to genuine attempts at accommodation, a formula that hardly inspires optimism.
