• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

The path of expanding terror:

Coming to terms with September 11

by Simon Longstaff

As I write this piece, the world is still trying to come to terms with the implications of savage attacks launched by terrorists against the people of the United States on 11 September 2001. Most people have been touched by the fate of those killed in New York and Washington. Some mourn the loss of their loved ones. Some mourn the loss of their safety. Others mourn for a world that could produce such terror.

At one level, the depth of popular distress is curious. Acts of terrorism have torn at the heart of civilised life for centuries. So, why should this particular manifestation of evil have had such a baleful effect on our spirit? Perhaps it was the immediacy of seeing the horror unfold on television – again and again.

Perhaps we were shocked by the fact that terrorists could successfully attack the most powerful nation on earth. “If they are not safe”, we asked, “then who is?” Or perhaps our distress is a response to the fact that the causes of this brutal event are sufficiently complex to deny us the comfort of fixing blame on a clearly defined enemy.

Let me be clear about one thing. There is no conceivable justification for what the terrorists did. Those responsible should be brought to justice. However, if at all possible, the administration of justice should be real – not just a 'kangaroo court' convened in order to rubber-stamp a policy of retribution.

If justice is to be done, then it will have to be comprehensive in its scope. This will mean having to face up to some very tough questions about the role played by developed countries in allowing the conditions for enmity to sprout and spread throughout the world. I am not suggesting that conditions of poverty and oppression justify acts of terrorism.

However, I agree with many others that the poor and the powerless are easy prey for those who preach hatred and terror. There is no mystery in this. The 'have nots' are a favourite group from within which to recruit zealots. There are millions throughout the world with nothing to lose (sometimes literally so), with fire rather than food in their bellies and with their dignity denied. They are latent handmaids to terror.

Just as acts of terrorism have always been with us, so have poverty and oppression. However, to meekly accept these facts is to usher in the possibility of encountering an almost overwhelming culture of despair. One of the potentially redeeming features of human beings is our capacity to recognise patterns and break those most destructive. In other words, I do not believe that the mistakes of history are bound to be repeated in a never-ending cycle of human folly. Instead, I embrace the possibility that a combination of enlightened common sense and principle will be powerful enough to save us from repeating the worst of history.

There are few tasks more difficult than that of changing the habits of history. However, if we are to deny oxygen to the fires of terrorism, then we will have to re-define the case for development assistance across the globe.

For a start, we will need to improve the material conditions of the poorest people on earth – many of whom are susceptible to the siren call of fundamentalist Islam, Christianity or whatever. This may mean having to confront economic fundamentalists who support what has come to be called, in some quarters, capitalism sauvage. That is, we may need to set aside the purity of theoretical markets in favour of something that has an immediate and positive effect on the lives of the poorest in the world.

We will also have to clarify what is meant when talking of a ‘war on terrorism’. For example, how will we distinguish between ‘terrorists’ and ‘freedom fighters&rsuo;?

We should not forget that the West once treated people like Osama bin Laden as ‘freedom fighters’ when combating the former Soviet Union. If we are to pull the fangs of terrorist sentiment, then we will need to be fair and consistent in our response to the world's conflicts. We cannot afford for there to be a permanent 'underdog' that becomes progressively mangy and vicious through neglect.

This is not to suggest that historic conflicts should be forced to a point of resolution by denying justice to one or more of the parties – simply for the sake of a quiet life. But the world's most powerful can no longer afford to sit back and watch historical wounds grow into festering sores capable of infecting us all.

If we can ensure justice for all, if we can resist the temptation to see an enemy in the face of every stranger, then there is reason to hope that the wheel of history might bend its course away from the path of expanding terror.

discuss this article

---