TERRORISM –
A WEAPON OF THE WEAK
Brig (Retd)
Mohammad Yousaf
“Terrorism
and State Terrorism are the two sides of the same coin. State
terrorism breeds terrorism.”
What
is terrorism? It is the form of warfare in which violence is
directed primarily against non-combatants (usually unarmed
civilians), rather than military and police forces or economic
assets (public or private). There is a thin line between
freedom fighters and terrorists. All freedom fighters are
called terrorists by the states against which they are
engaged. If the terrorists succeed in their struggle, they go
down in history as heroes and should they fail, they live and
die with tarnished image.
The
terrorism of insurgents and freedom fighters is purposeful
rather than mindless violence, because freedom fighters seek
to achieve specific long-term, intermediate and short-term
goals. The long-term goal is to change the political
community/system, authorities or policies. The intermediate
goal of terrorism is to deplete the government’s physical
resources, to erode its psychological support by instilling
fears into the officials and their domestic and international
supporters. The short-term goal is to show their presence in
being to draw the attention of the world. TERRORISM IS A
WEAPON OF THE WEAK.
There is
yet another form of terrorism called ‘STATE TERRORISM’ which
is conducted by the armed forces and intelligence agencies.
The most recent examples of state terrorism against the
freedom movements are of Israel’s terrorism against the
Palestinian’ struggle for their homeland with the overt
American support, the Indian’s against the Sikh in Punjab, and
the Muslims in Kashmir struggling for their homeland.
We
must not differentiate between the individual/group terrorism
and state terrorism. The state terrorism is worst because of
its magnitude and use of lethal weapons but it is seldom
condemned and generally ignored by the news media. On the
contrary, the individual/group terrorism is widely condemned
and mostly over projected by the electronic news media. Since,
the state terrorism is generally conducted by the powerful
states, they mostly get away with their heinous crimes, and
while the individual/group terrorists are haunted all over the
world.
If the generals and colonels can be ‘terrorist’, can Freedom
fighters be legitimately thought of a ‘Soldier’? But the axiom
that states alone are authorized to commit murder complicates
the picture of inter-group violence considerably. At the most
extreme, it even prompts non-state groups to claim statehood
as a way of legitimizing the violence in which they are
engaged. The generals commit acts of violence rationally,
because they are part of trained armies that obey orders.
Nevertheless, personal commitments make the crucial
difference.
At the end of Second World War, Nazi generals were tried for
killing thousands of ‘Jews’ and punished. Some escaped, but
continued to haunted, captured and brought back by Israel for
trial. On the contrary, Americans killed almost half a million
civilians with the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki when
the Japanese were at the verge of defeat and got away with a
heinous crime. Had they NOT been defeated, the Japanese would
have certainly put the American president and some of their
generals on trial for their crimes. But the axiom that victors
and powerful alone have the right to commit acts of terrorism
breeds hatred amongst the weaker nations.
The suicidal attack on World Trade Center and Pentagon on
11th September, Perhaps of it's kind the most horrific act of
terrorism and being on US soil shocked and panicked NOT only
the American Nation but the entire world. It was widely
condemned than any other case of terrorism in the world
history. All the states in the world got united to fight
jointly against terrorism but surprisingly not against the
‘state terrorism’. Some states joined voluntarily and others
because of the economic compulsion or a direct threat from a
Super power. Thus a free hand was given to USA to wage war
against the Taliban in the garb of hot pursuit to capture
Usama, dead or alive despite the willingness of Taliban to
hand him over to a neutral country, if ‘prima facie’ evidence
is handed over to them.
The 11th September incident created such a
devastating effect on the entire American nation that most
armies could have not achieved in a conventional war. Over a
month has passed, yet a deep sense of insecurity prevails in
the minds of Americans. Airports still give a deserted look
and one finds fewer passengers and more security personnel.
Why did those nineteen men choose to give their life to kill
over 6000 innocent people. Certainly they did not give their
lives for worldly fame as they have died in obscurity. What
was the motivating force to commit such an act against the
US? Was it because of the long deep-rooted hatred based on
the injustices towards the Arabs over the last 50 years by the
US? The time has come to find the root causes of terrorist
acts against the US dispassionately.
Talibans or for that matter Afghans were never involved in
any act of terrorism against US. Hitherto, only Arabs of
multiple nationalities conducted all terrorist acts against US
including the sad incident of 11th September. It is said that
all hijackers were trained in US and none were trained in the
alleged ‘terrorist camps’ in Afghanistan.
The reluctance of Taliban for not handing over Usama Bin
Laden to US was primarily based on their centuries old
traditions and customs of protecting their guest. Most Afghans
try to live up to their honour code – Pushtunwali. Aside from
courage there are two aspects of this code namely vengeance
and hospitality. The need to secure revenge for any slight or
insult has been the part of the Afghan’s life throughout his
history. Revenge may not be swift, the injured party may bide
his time for years if need be, until at the right moment he
strikes. A son must kill his father’s murderer. In many cases
his mother will insist he does so, otherwise she will disown
him and he will be disgraced. If the murderer himself is dead,
then his son, or his brother, or his uncle must die.
Sometimes hospitality clashes with vengeance. To refuse a
person shelter, or sanctuary, is unthinkable to Afghan. Even
if the person seeking refuge is a bitter enemy he cannot be
refused. While in that man’s house he is absolutely safe; his
host would fight to protect him at the cost of his life
On the contrary, US attitude towards Taliban was of a
“master’ and was not friendly. Certainly the US would have
found Usama Bin Laden, sooner or later, with the help of their
satellites, electronic surveillance, and human sources. But
the US intentions are different. An opportunity was seen to
remove the government of Taliban and replace it with a pro US
government in Afghanistan, which could safe guard their
economic interest in Central Asian states, rich in oil and gas
reservoirs. Turkmenistan alone contains the world’s third
largest natural gas reserves and a total of 7.4 billion
barrels of oil. It is not a war against terrorists but a war
for economic gains.
The US had been supporting various factions of Afghan
including Taliban. Now, they are supporting Zahir Shah, in an
attempt to have a subservient government in Afghanistan. The
US policy makers, perhaps, do not understand the basic
character of an Afghan. They need friends but not master. One
can hire an afghan temporarily but can’t buy him out rightly.
What is the guarantee that the next government would accept
the US dictations?
Hundreds of innocent civilians including women and children
are being killed daily either deliberately or due to error.
But the naked fact remains that civilians, through no fault of
their own, are being killed. And surprisingly there is not a
teardrop in the eyes of those who are supporting the war
against terrorism. The UN is showing concern for the
starvation in Afghanistan and making gigantic efforts to
supply food in an attempt to ensure that Afghans do not die
with empty stomachs during the bombardments. No State has the
moral and physical courage to ask US to stop the war.
The US is already responsible for creating a number of
‘terrorists’ in the Arab world because of their policy in the
Middle East. With the war against Taliban, who knows how many
Usama Bin Laden’s are being born daily?
THE US WILL CONTINUE TO EXPERIENCE TERRORISM, IF THE ROOT
CAUSES ARE NOT REMOVED. |
