WHAT does one do when faced with the classical question: which came first: the chicken or the egg? This is the classical conundrum that has been bandied around for as long as one can remember, and that not just by philosophers. One would rather not get involved in the ramifications of this seemingly insolvable mystery, particularly considering that one’s intention is to dwell upon international affairs. What draws one’s attention to it, though, is that every now and then providence throws up a murky situation that invites comparison with this never-ending spin of the wheel. The world as we have come to accept it finds itself in the midst of one such situation in the present epoch. In what can roughly be called the ‘chicken or egg’ syndrome, the intelligentsia of the world are called upon to pronounce upon what came first: ‘state terror’ or ‘the terrorist’. The Indian gurus, who can be credited with having coined such devastating phrases as “nuclear non-proliferation”, “cross-border terrorism” and the like, will have their own axe to grind and more about that some other time. For the time being, suffice it to state that India’s formidable state disinformation apparatus has managed to convince the so-called developed world that its 800.000 strong security force in Indian-Held-Kashmir is there purely as a bulwark against “cross-border terrorism”. And the Western minds have swallowed the bait, hook, line and sinker.
With the benefit of hindsight, how about taking a look at what happened – so very long ago – in London. This metropolis – thanks to the bubbling enthusiasm of former Prime Minister Tony Blair – appeared to have emerged as the fulcrum of “anti-West terrorist activity”. It was difficult to find adequate words to express one’s shock and sense of grief at the loss of so many innocent lives in the London bombings (remember?). One had listened to Tony Blair as well as other allied leaders all reiterating their unshakeable determination to continue the “war against terror” and to root out the perpetrators of terror, or words to that effect. None of them, however, spelled out how they intended to go about it. Surely not, one trusts, by physically liquidating all “the usual suspects”. If the situation hadn’t been so tragic, one would have gone a step further to allude to the regrettable tendency to come up with knee-jerk reactions and/or jump to unwarranted conclusions.
A good hard look over the shoulder would not be entirely out of place at this stage. The London bombing episode, it may be recalled, was followed by a ‘non-event’ relating to the hullabaloo about the somewhat implausible scenario, according to which a group of young persons allegedly conspired to “blow up” several planes (and themselves) over the Atlantic, through the agency of a few bottles of soft drinks and some chemicals with unpronounceable names. Just how they were going to mix the ingredients in the correct proportion on the flight and then to detonate the resulting ‘device’ was left to the imagination.
This said, one would have thought that the powers that be would take a hard and dispassionate look at the whole sordid affair (war against terror et al)? Not just a dispassionate look, but also one denuded of preconceived notions. To start with, there was the imperative need to agree on a definition of ‘terrorism’. It would also be necessary to put a finger on what “terrorism” implies and, more importantly, what are the circumstances that give birth to it. Why was not time taken off for serious reflection before the fateful plunge was taken? For instance, the advisability of unleashing a cruel war on the hapless people of Afghanistan, that included carpet bombing with “smart bombs” and “daisy cutters”, just to flush out “a handful of miscreants” is open to debate. Western leaders express shock and anguish at the loss of innocent lives in terrorist attacks. Should they not spare a thought also for the thousands of innocent Afghan men, women and children (be they children of a lesser god!) who were obliterated by the military juggernaut? And what about the innocents killed in drone attacks? The mere fact that the latter were euphemistically dismissed as “collateral damage” does little to lessen the shame of it all. It would perhaps be asking too much of the powers that be to delve into the reasons that drive people to terrorism. Nevertheless, some sanity must enter into the proceedings. For one thing, unnecessarily provocative reactions would need to be tempered a bit. Condemning an outrage, per se, is understandable, but qualifying it with such loaded phrases as “this is an attack on Christian civilization” or “We will not allow Islamic fascists to destroy our way of life” is neither rational nor, indeed, accurate. Why start with the assumption that all terrorists have something to do with the Islamic faith? There have been Jewish and Christian terrorists in the not too distant past, but their religious denominations were never played up. Why, then, make a notable exception in the case of followers of Islam? Most terrorist attacks are not against a particular religious denomination or even a “way of life”. They are mainly in the nature of desperate acts by such entities as are driven to the wall and who see no other way to register their protest. How about enlisting the help of the world’s elders? There are several Nobel Prize laureates who are on the loose end, so to speak. With possible exceptions, most of them are brilliant and outstanding persons. Could the United Nations not consider setting up a Panel of Elders drawn from amongst the Nobel Prize laureates to study this problem in depth and come up with viable options? If it comes to that, members of the panel could even serve as a bridge between the powers-that-be and potential terrorists so as to preempt the worst. Or, does one talk out of turn?
— The writer is a former Ambassador and former Assistant Secretary General of OIC.
Email: [email protected]
