The Al-Azhar bombing should have come as no surprise. Ahmed Abdel-Halim* examines its causes and implications By 6pm last Thursday the bazaar area close to Al-Azhar had been turned into a military garrison as security forces, forensic teams and police inspectors rushed to scene of the bombing that had killed several people and left many others wounded. There was the inevitable rush of questions. Was the perpetrator a loner or was there a terrorist organisation behind him? Was the timing random or planned? What was the operation intended to signify, and why did it target a commercial area frequented by foreigners and Egyptians alike? Was it directed against the Egyptian tourist industry or was it an extension of the instability prevailing throughout the Middle East as a result of the inequitable foreign policies of one country towards an entire region? Terrorism has a precise definition. It is a form of violence aimed at achieving certain political ends, whether in the country it targets or in a larger, international arena. It is an illegitimate form of violence, violating public and international law as well as moral conventions. It is a symbolic act in that it aims to convey a message to its potential targets. The Al-Azhar incident has both domestic and external ramifications. At a time when great strides in political and economic reform have brought Egyptian society to the threshold of a more participatory political life and economic growth and development within reach, the bombing rocked the stability and security upon which all this depends. It is no coincidence that this incident occurred so soon after proposed constitutional amendments intended to boost the democratisation process and enhance the investment climate, opening up the prospect to higher levels of employment and economic security. There is nothing as yet to indicate that Egypt faces a return to the levels of violence that rocked the country in the 1980s and 1990s. The potential for terrorism, though, exists in all countries of the world. It is, if anything, greatest in Arab and Islamic states which have come under enormous pressure from outside forces that are perfectly aware of the economic, political and social strains inside these countries. It seems obvious, therefore, that one aspect at least of the terrorism we see today is that it is a weapon in a political conflict the use of which is determined by both the circumstances and resources of the forces terrorists and the iniquitous policies adopted by Western powers towards the region. The ongoing investigation into the bombing is focussing on the possible responsibility of factions that broke away from the extremist groups that several years ago renounced violence. In continuing to espouse violence such splinter groups operate in the belief that this is the only viable way to advance Arab and Islamic causes under the conditions that negate these causes in favour of Israeli interests. Any analysis of the motives behind terrorist actions in this region must, therefore, consider not only conditions in the target country but also the impact of global policies on the region. The two levels of analysis are interrelated: the connection between acts of terrorism experienced by some countries in the region, Egypt among them, and regional and international political developments has intensified the confrontation between political movements within these countries and the existing regimes. Some terrorist groups came into being as a result of America's recruitment, training and funding of radical Muslim fundamentalist elements at the time when Afghanistan was under Soviet occupation. Once its purposes were served the US abandoned them and they, in turn, turned against the US. Eventually they became a force to be reckoned with, as was dramatically illustrated by 11 September 2001 attacks against New York and Washington. Having vowed to avenge itself the US waged an invasion against Afghanistan, where the Taliban government was harbouring Al-Qaeda leader Bin Ladin, and quick upon the heels of this war launched the US-British invasion of Iraq. The American-led wars altered the form and methods of terrorist violence. Groups that had once loosely assembled under the Al-Qaeda umbrella dispersed, decentralising their operations and lines of command. As a result their activities spread, seemingly at random, throughout the Middle East and beyond. Terrorist operations struck Yemen, Jordan, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and, more recently, Lebanon, where the assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri has raised the spectre of renewed internecine warfare in Lebanon and its dangerous impact on the rest of the region. The Al-Azhar bombing is the latest incident in this wave. Which is not to suggest that it is structurally linked to incidents elsewhere, only that it cannot be viewed outside an international and regional climate -- the ongoing encroachment of the US and its allies on the region -- conducive to such acts. It must also be viewed in the context of terrorism's new organisational mode whereby groups now act independently of any centralised Al-Qaeda-like chain-of-command even if in keeping with Al-Qaeda's overall aims. The randomness of terrorist acts in recent years suggests the existence of dormant cells throughout the Arab world ready to spring into action in order to force regimes to adopt firmer stances against foreign aggression in the region. While no information is yet available on a group or agency that might have been behind this tragic event there have been indications of a possible rise in terrorist activity in this crucial year of parliamentary elections and the country's first multi-candidate presidential elections. This possibility compels government agencies to draw up detailed plans for halting terrorist violence. Although certain aspects of these plans will bear fruit only in the long run, other measures must be implemented immediately to curb any possible escalation. Implementing such plans requires close coordination with regional and international efforts to combat terrorism towards which end I recommend the creation of a regional and international anti-terrorist coordination committee. It is impossible to handle a phenomenon as complex as the sources of terrorism through security measures alone. There must be a complete revision of our political, security and media rhetoric as part of the campaign to deal with all forms of extremism. It would be useful in this regard to set up a research unit as part of the terrorist control mechanism we establish. The function of this unit should be two-fold. It should compile and analyse information on terrorist activities and the development of terrorist networks and their methods of recruitment and at the same time build psychological profiles of the individuals and sectors of society targeted by terrorist groups for recruitment. The emerging picture of terrorist groups' modus operandi and the individuals or sectors of society vulnerable to their approaches will contribute towards a holistic remedy of the phenomenon. Any comprehensive drive must also mobilise educational establishments and sectors of civil society with the purpose inculcating the values and attitudes characteristic of balanced and rational individuals who place the interests of their nation foremost. Simultaneously, it will be necessary to counter indirect means of subverting our youth, by which I refer to the extremist literature and cassette tapes that are produced independently of any scrutiny by religious authorities and sold on bookstalls and on the pavements. Even as such urgent measures are undertaken we must continue to forge ahead with the processes of economic and political reform. Only then will we be able to fill the breaches through which extremism infiltrates, strengthen the hand of civil society and enhance the principles of democracy and civil rights. Towards these ends we must sustain the spirit and substance of dialogue as a mechanism for resolving political, economic and social conflicts that otherwise form the breeding ground for new generations of terrorists. Terrorism is a global phenomenon. It cannot be identified with a specific country, region or people. Yet the international community has still to achieve a minimum consensus that will enable it to reach an acceptable definition of terrorism. This, in turn, has contributed to the lack of resolve to convene a UN-sponsored international conference on terrorism, as requested by President Mubarak as long ago as 1986. Mubarak urged that a comprehensive approach be taken to the phenomenon, addressing everything from the root causes of terrorism, its methods of recruitment, funding and organisation to collective security measures and collective actions taken against countries and agencies that sponsor or harbour terrorists. The Al-Azhar bombing, and its suggestion of the possibility of a rise in terrorist activity in Egypt, in the region and elsewhere in the world, must serve as a wake-up call for the international community. Mubarak's call for an international conference on terrorism has been lent even greater urgency. * The writer is a member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs.
