Focusing on the Causation

The News, Sun, June,27, 2004.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema



The tragedy of 9/11 led to the formation of an international coalition to combat terrorism under the leadership of the United States. This global coalition draws its moral strength from the endorsement of the United Nations. The global war against international terrorism therefore enjoys the universal support. However, there are many observers and analysts who think that the US has interpreted this support as the license to act unilaterally and without any regard to the rules of international law and authority of the United Nations. The current situation in Iraq is the manifestation of this unilateralism. However, it is heartening to note that the United States has now once again involved the United Nations through a new resolution in the Security Council in the transfer of authority and sovereignty to the Iraqi people beginning with June 30.

The war against terrorism has changed the concept of security. It is a new form of war in which the enemy is no longer the traditional state entity. It is a war against an enemy, which can no longer be identified, located or predicted. It is therefore a highly complex, difficult and unpredictable war. However, it is being increasingly recognized that war against terrorism cannot be won only through military means. As it is the war against terrorism would not only confront many obstacles but would also be a painfully long affair.

While international community supports the United States in its war against international terrorism, the war against terrorism has created new tensions between and within a number of nations. This is because of conflicting perceptions of terrorism and failure to address the main impediments influencing the course of war. Unless and until serious considerations are given to the six factors that are and would continue to impede progress on this front, the war is going to be a long drawn pursuit. These factors include lack of definition, lack of clearly recognized distinction between a legitimate freedom struggle and terrorist movements, inability to opt for a comprehensive approach, quick acceptance of prejudicial interpretations, not properly addressing the root causes of terrorism and finally not much emphasis is placed on tracking money trail.

While each of the above mentioned factors deserve a comprehensive analysis, this piece only concentrates on the root causes. What causes terrorism? What transforms a peaceful citizen into a terrorist? Why a peaceful organization adopt terrorist methods in order to attain its own objective? Why a state with all the available means feel compelled to opt for what has been often described as state terrorism?

Undoubtedly the most important factor that needs to be addressed deals with the causation and this has indeed been so far ignored either inadvertently or deliberately. What causes terrorism? Injustice, deprivation, denial of legitimate rights in a comprehensive sense, excessive use of force are just few of the causes that often give birth to undesirable violent approaches. Injustice experienced by an individual or an organization tend to leave deep impact and in consequence one sometimes both feel compelled to take a stand against the experienced injustice. Injustice works both ways. Sometimes the victim gives in and acknowledges it as a fate. But sometimes the victim feels more determined to undertake measures to rectify the injustice and in this connection the concerned individual or organization often opts for violent means. The perpetrator invariably tends to describe the reactive action as terrorism.

Deprivation also invokes strong and unpredictable reactions. Dispossession or disinheritance of something deemed as legitimate and dear could also result into violent pursuits. At individual level many cases of  deprivation often result in violent struggle. The anthropological studies often reveal that deprivation of either land or honor gave birth to the emergence of  dacoits. The poor economic conditions and increasing gap between the rich and poor further facilitates grounds for deprived young men to take up guns. Some studies have amply highlighted that the young Kashmiris took up guns only after having experienced deprivation rather consistently. Similarly the Palestinian feels that they have been deprived their own land. The outsiders have pushed them out of their own land. The Israeli policy of systematic and gradual nibbling of Palestinian lands is not helping the situation.

Equally important factor that facilitates the advent of terrorism is the denial of legitimate rights. The situation invariably becomes even uglier if the well acknowledged and promised right to self determination are denied on some lame excuses. The Kashmiris feel that they were promised to exercise their right of self determination during the early post partition days but the practice of the last fifty seven have seen nothing but the clever efforts to deny them the promised right to self-determination.

Additional two factors such as disparity between power and forces and gap between rich and poor tend to exasperate the situation. Undoubtedly democracy, justice and improved economic situation with job opportunities could certainly help in improving the situation. A concerted effort to effectively deal with causation aspect could put war against terrorism on the right track. Unless the causes are treated properly this war is likely to continue for years without attaining the desired containment. A concerted hard look at the Kashmir dispute or the Palestine issue could not only lead the international community towards the desired panacea but may also prove the first major gain in this war. Concentration on the removal of causation could pay the dividends that are becoming even more illusive than they were in the past.

One important prong of President Musharraf’s concept of ‘Enlightened Moderation’ also focuses on the resolution of dispute. He suggests that the international community should facilitate and help in resolving the ongoing dispute especially those confronting the Islamic world. The other prong of the same concept dealt with internal dynamic of Islamic societies. The concepts tends to involve both the insiders as well as the insiders. In some ways it can be viewed as a bridge. It seeks the support of the outsiders in order to resolve disputes but it also impresses upon the insiders to take a hard look at the internal weaknesses and problems. Simultaneous treatment of the internal problems and concentrating to resolve the disputes with the help of the outsiders could remove the undesired misunderstandings that have influenced thinking in the west.

Why does a terrorist opt for violent approaches? One school of thoughts suggests that after exhausting all other available means to redress the situation, a terrorist feels that the only way to attain his objective is to adopt what are generally considered intimidating means. This of course denotes that a terrorist is defined by the means employed rather than by his goals however justifiable they may seem. Another school of thought simply believes that opting for violent means appears to be short cut towards the attainment of stated goals. A terrorist views violent approach as the most effective mechanism to air his point of view.

A systematic extermination of important individuals who are spearheading a movement against the established authority is often interpreted as state’s efforts to eliminate them and weaken the movement. Judged by any yard stick, Israeli policy with regard to target killing falls into the category of calculated state terrorism. Disregarding that the Palestinians struggle is a genuine freedom struggle and Sharon’s attempts to crush the movement is not condoned by most states and their cause is viewed sympathetically by many.  However it needs to be stressed here that the states that are opposed to such freedom struggles and are involved the processes of crushing the movements, they always tend to project them as terrorist movements.

Another important aspect of such state policy deals with the targets or the people involved. While the international community is unable to make a clear distinction between what is a freedom struggle and what is a terrorist movement, it has been able to evolve an agreed definition of certain aspect of terrorism. It is universally accepted that any act that involves the death of innocent civilians would be regarded as an act of terrorism. Even in this category, problem is confounded by the different situations.

Three situations can be narrated in order to highlight the problem. If the civilians are deliberately targeted, then it is indeed a simple case of terrorism and nobody is going to condone the act. The second situation would be in which an act is directed against a certain target but it also causes deaths of civilians, the dilemma is how to ascertain whether or not the death of the civilians were fully considered prior to the acts. If it were considered that there exists a possibility that some civilians may die and plan was approved, then it would also be viewed as an act of terrorism. A third situation would be in which no deaths of the civilians was visualized but some die in the process, then how to assess the act objectively. It seems that there exists a consensus that death of the civilians would inevitably transform a legitimate action into an act of terrorism.