Divisions in Our World are Not the Result of Religion

Divisions in Our World are Not the Result of Religion

by ANDREA BISTRICH

Karen Armstrong was a Catholic nun for seven years before leaving her order and going to Oxford. Today, she is amongst the most renowned theologians and has written numerous bestsellers on the great religions and their founders. She is one of the 18 leading group members of the Alliance of Civilizations, an initiative of the former UN General Secretary, Kofi Anan, whose purpose is to fight extremism and further dialogue between the western and Islamic worlds. She talks here to the German journalist, Andrea Bistrich, about politics, religion, extremism and commonalities.

ANDREA BISTRICH: 9/11 has become the symbol of major, insurmountable hostilities between Islam and the West. After the attacks many Americans asked: "Why do they hate us?" And experts in numerous round-table talks debated if Islam is an inherently violent religion. Is this so?

KAREN ARMSTRONG: Certainly not. There is far more violence in the Bible than in the Qur'an; the idea that Islam imposed itself by the sword is a Western fiction, fabricated during the time of the Crusades when, in fact, it was Western Christians who were fighting brutal holy wars against Islam. The Qur'an forbids aggressive warfare and permits war only in self-defence; the moment the enemy sues for peace, the Qur'an insists that Muslims must lay down their arms and accept whatever terms are offered, even if they are disadvantageous. Later, Muslim law forbade Muslims to attack a country where Muslims were permitted to practice their faith freely; the killing of civilians was prohibited, as were the destruction of property and the use of fire in warfare.
The sense of polarization has been sharpened by recent controversies — the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, over the Pope's remarks about Islam, over whether face-veils hinder integration. All these things have set relations between Islam and the West on edge. Harvard-Professor Samuel Huntington introduced the theory of a "clash of civilizations" we are witnessing today. Does such a fundamental incompatibility between the "Christian West" and the "Muslim World" indeed exist?

The divisions in our world are not the result of religion or of culture, but are politically based. There is an imbalance of power in the world, and the powerless are beginning to challenge the hegemony of the Great Powers, declaring their independence of them-often using religious language to do so. A lot of what we call "fundamentalism" can often be seen as a religious form of nationalism, an assertion of identity. The old 19th-century European nationalist ideal has become tarnished and has always been foreign to the Middle East. In the Muslim world people are redefining themselves according to their religion in an attempt to return to their roots after the great colonialist disruption.

What has made Fundamentalism, seemingly, so predominant today?
The militant piety that we call "fundamentalism" erupted in every single major world faith in the course of the twentieth century. There is fundamentalist Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism and Confucianism, as well as fundamentalist Islam. Of the three monotheistic religions-Judaism, Christianity and Islam-Islam was the last to develop a fundamentalist strain during the 1960s.

Fundamentalism represents a revolt against secular modern society, which separates religion and politics. Wherever a Western secularist government is established, a religious counterculturalist protest movement rises up alongside it in conscious rejection. Fundamentalists want to bring God/religion from the sidelines to which they have been relegated in modern culture and back to centre stage. All fundamentalism is rooted in a profound fear of annihilation: whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim, fundamentalists are convinced that secular or liberal society wants to wipe them out. This is not paranoia: Jewish fundamentalism took two major strides forward, one after the Nazi Holocaust, the second after the Yom Kippur War of 1973. In some parts of the Middle East, secularism was established so rapidly and aggressively that it was experienced as a lethal assault.

The fact that fundamentalism is also a phenomenon in politics was stressed only recently by former US president Jimmy Carter when he voiced his concerns over the increasing merging of religion and state in the Bush administration, and the element of fundamentalism in the White House. Carter sees that traits of religious fundamentalists are also applicable to neo-conservatives. There seems to be a major controversy between, on the one hand, so called hard-liners or conservatives and, on the other, the progressives. Is this a typical phenomenon of today's world?
The United States is not alone in this. Yes, there is a new intolerance and aggression in Europe too as well as in Muslim countries and the Middle East. Culture is always-and has always been-contested. There are always people who have a different view of their country and are ready to fight for it. American Christian fundamentalists are not in favour of democracy; and it is true that many of the Neo-Cons, many of whom incline towards this fundamentalism, have very hard-line, limited views. These are dangerous and difficult times and when people are frightened they tend to retreat into ideological ghettos and build new barriers against the "other". Democracy is really what religious people call "a state of grace." It is an ideal that is rarely achieved, that has constantly to be reaffirmed, lest it be lost. And it is very difficult to fulfil. We are all-Americans and Europeans-falling short of the democratic ideal during the so called "war against terror."

Could you specify the political reasons that you identified as the chief causes of the growing divide between Muslim and Western societies?

In the Middle East, modernization has been impeded by the Arab/Israeli conflict, which has become symbolic to Christian, Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists and is the bleeding heart of the problem. Unless a just political solution can be found that is satisfactory to everybody¸ there is no hope of peace. There is also the problem of oil, which has made some of these countries the target of Western greed. In the West, in order to preserve our strategic position and cheap oil supply, we have often supported rulers-such as the shahs of Iran, the Saudis and, initially, Saddam Hussein-who have established dictatorial regimes which suppressed any normal opposition. The only place where people felt free to express their distress has been the mosque.

The modern world has been very violent. Between 1914 and 1945, seventy million people died in Europe as a result of war. We should not be surprised that modern religion has become violent too; it often mimics the violence preached by secular politicians. Most of the violence and terror that concerns us in the Muslim world has grown up in regions where warfare, displacement and conflict have been traumatic and have even become chronic: the Middle East, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir.

In regard to the Arab-Israeli-conflict you have said that for Muslims it has become, "a symbol of their impotence in the modern world." What does that really mean?

The Arab-Israeli conflict began, on both sides, as a purely secular conflict about a land. Zionism began as a rebellion against religious Judaism and at the outset most Orthodox rabbis condemned Zionism as a blasphemous secularization of the Land of Israel, one of the most sacred symbols of Judaism. Similarly the ideology of the PLO was secular-many of the Palestinians, of course, are Christian. But unfortunately the conflict was allowed to fester; on both sides the conflict became sacralized and, therefore, far more difficult to sort out.

In most fundamentalist movements, certain issues acquire symbolic value and come to represent everything that is wrong with modernity. In Judaism, the secular state of Israel has inspired every single fundamentalist movement, because it represents so graphically the penetration of the secular ethos into Jewish religious life. Some Jewish fundamentalists are passionately for the state of Israel and see it as sacred and holy; involvement in Israeli politics is a sacred act of tikkun, restoration of the world; making a settlement in the occupied territories is also an act of tikkun and some believe that it will hasten the coming of the Messiah. But the ultra-Orthodox Jews are often against the state of Israel: some see it as an evil abomination (Jews are supposed to wait for the Messiah to restore a religious state in the Holy Land) and others regard it as purely neutral and hold aloof from it as far as they can. Many Jews too see Israel as a phoenix rising out of the ashes of Auschwitz-and have found it a way of coping with the Shoah.

But for many Muslims the plight of the Palestinians represents everything that is wrong with the modern world. The fact that in 1948, 750,000 Palestinians could lose their homes with the apparent approval of the world symbolizes the impotence of Islam in the modern world vis-à-vis the West. The Qur'an teaches that if Muslims live justly and decently, their societies will prosper because they will be in tune with the fundamental laws of the universe. Islam was always a religion of success, going from one triumph to another, but Muslims have been able to make no headway against the secular West and the plight of the Palestinians epitomizes this impotence. Jerusalem is also the third holiest place in the Islamic world, and when Muslims see their sacred shrines on the Haram al-Sharif [the Noble Sanctuary, also known as Temple Mount]-surrounded by the towering Israeli settlements and feel that their holy city is slipping daily from their grasp, this symbolizes their beleaguered identity. However it is important to note that the Palestinians only adopted a religiously articulated ideology relatively late-long after Islamic fundamentalism had become a force in countries such as Egypt or Pakistan. Their resistance movement remained secular in ethos until the first intifada in 1987. And it is also important to note that Hamas, for example, is very different from a movement like al-Qaeda, which has global ambitions. Hamas is a resistance movement; it does not attack Americans or British but concentrates on attacking the occupying power. It is yet another instance of "fundamentalism" as a religious form of nationalism.

The Arab Israeli conflict has also become pivotal to Christian fundamentalists in the United States. The Christian Right believes that unless the Jews are in their land, fulfilling the ancient prophecies, Christ cannot return in glory in the Second Coming. So they are passionate Zionists; but this ideology is also anti-Semitic, because in the Last Days they believe that the Antichrist will massacre the Jews in the Holy Land if they do not accept baptism.

Do you think the West has some responsibility for what is happening in Palestine?

Western people have a responsibility for everybody who is suffering in the world. We are among the richest and most powerful countries and cannot morally or religiously stand by and witness poverty, dispossession or injustice, whether that is happening in Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya or Africa. But Western people have a particular responsibility for the Arab-Israeli situation. In the Balfour Declaration (1917), Britain approved of a Jewish homeland in Palestine and ignored the aspirations and plight of the native Palestinians. And today the United States supports Israel economically and politically and also tends to ignore the plight of the Palestinians. This is dangerous, because the Palestinians are not going to go away, and unless a solution is found that promises security to the Israelis and gives political independence and security to the dispossessed Palestinians, there is no hope for world peace.

In addition, you have stressed the importance of a "triple vision"-the ability to view the conflict from the perspective of the Islamic, Jewish and Christian communities. Could you explain this view?

The three religions of Abraham -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- can and should be viewed as one religious tradition that went in three different directions. I have always tried to see them in this way; none is superior to any of the others. Each has its own particular genius; each its own particular flaws. Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God and share the same moral values. In the book A History of God, I tried to show that throughout their history, Jews, Christians and Muslims have asked the same kind of questions about God and have reached remarkably similar solutions-so that there are Jewish and Muslim versions of the incarnation, for example, and very similar notions of prophecy. In The Battle for God, I tried to show how similar the fundamentalist movements are in all three faiths.

Jews, however, have always found it difficult to accept the later faiths of Christianity and Islam; Christianity has always had an uneasy relationship with Judaism, the parent faith, and has seen Islam as a blasphemous imitation of revelation. The Qur'an, however, has a positive view of both Judaism and Christianity and constantly asserts that Muhammad did not come to cancel out the faiths of "the People of the Book": you cannot be a Muslim unless you also revere the prophets Abraham, David, Noah, Moses and Jesus-whom the Muslims regard as prophets-as in fact do many of the New Testament writers. Luke's gospel calls Jesus a prophet from start to finish; the idea that Jesus was divine was a later development, often misunderstood by Christians.

Unfortunately, however, religious people like to see themselves as having a monopoly on truth; they see that they alone are the one true faith. But this is egotism and has nothing to do with true religion, which is about the abandonment of the ego.

Too often it seems that religious people are not necessarily more compassionate, more tolerant, more peaceful or more spiritual than others. America, for example, is a very religious country, and at the same time it is the most unequal socially and economically. What does this say about the purpose of religion?

The world religions all insist that the one, single test of any type of religiosity is that it must issue in practical compassion. They have nearly all developed a version of the Golden Rule: "Do not do to others what you would not have done to you." This demands that we look into our own hearts, discover what it is that gives us pain and then refuse, under any circumstances, to inflict that pain on anybody else. Compassion demands that we "feel with" the other; that we dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there. This is the bedrock message of the Qur'an, of the New Testament ("I can have faith that moves mountains," says St. Paul, "but if I lack charity it profits me nothing."). Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, defined the Golden Rule as the essence of Judaism: everything else, he said, was "commentary." We have exactly the same teaching in Confucianism, Daoism, Hinduism and Buddhism. I have tried to show this in one of my most recent books, The Great Transformation.

The traditions all insist that it is not enough simply to show compassion to your own group. You must have what the Chinese call jian ai, concern for everybody. Or as Jewish law puts it: "Honour the stranger." "Love your enemies," said Jesus: if you simply love your own kind, this is purely self-interest and a form of group egotism. The traditions also insist that it is the daily, hourly practice of compassion -not the adoption of the correct "beliefs" or the correct sexuality- that will bring us into the presence of what is called God, Nirvana, Brahman or the Dao. Religion is thus inseparable from altruism.

So why aren't religious people compassionate? What does that say about them? Compassion is not a popular virtue. Many religious people prefer to be right rather than compassionate. They don't want to give up their egos. They want religion to give them a little mild uplift once a week so that they can return to their ordinary selfish lives, unscathed by the demands of their tradition. Religion is hard work; not many people do it well. But are secularists any better? Many secularists would subscribe to the compassionate ideal but are just as selfish as religious people. The failure of religious people to be compassionate doesn't tell us something about religion, but about human nature. Religion is a method: you have to put it into practice to discover its truth. But, unfortunately, not many people do.

Islam and the West

Discussing Western ideas of justice and democracy in the Middle East, British foreign correspondent of The Independent, Robert Fisk, says: "We keep on saying that Arabs ... would like some of our shiny, brittle democracy, that they'd like freedom from the secret police and freedom from the dictators-who we largely put there. But they would also like freedom from us. And they want justice, which is sometimes more important than 'democracy'". Does the West need to realize that Muslims can run a modern state, but it is perhaps not the kind of democracy we want to see?

As Muslim intellectuals made clear, Islam is quite compatible with democracy, but unfortunately democracy has acquired a bad name in many Muslim countries. It seems that the West has said consistently: we believe in freedom and democracy, but you have to be ruled by dictators like the shahs or Saddam Hussein. There seems to have been a double standard. Robert Fisk is right: when I was in Pakistan recently and quoted Mr Bush-"They hate our freedom!"-the whole audience roared with laughter.

Democracy cannot be imposed by armies and tanks and coercion. The modern spirit has two essential ingredients; if these are not present, no matter how many fighter jets, computers or sky scrapers you have, your country is not really "modern".

The first of these is independence. The modernization of Europe from 16th to the 20th century was punctuated by declarations of independence on all fronts: religious, intellectual, political, economic. People demanded freedom to think, invent, and create as they chose.

The second quality is innovation as we modernized in the West: we were always creating something new; there was a dynamism and excitement to the process, even though it was often traumatic.

But in the Muslim world, modernity did not come with independence but with colonial subjugation; and still Muslims are not free, because the Western powers are often controlling their politics behind the scenes to secure the oil supply etc. Instead of independence there has been an unhealthy dependence and loss of freedom. Unless people feel free, any "democracy" is going to be superficial and flawed. And modernity did not come with innovation to the Muslims: because we were so far ahead, they could only copy us. So instead of innovation you have imitation.

We also know in our own lives that it is difficult-even impossible-to be creative when we feel under attack. Muslims often feel on the defensive and that makes it difficult to modernize and democratize creatively-especially when there are troops, tanks and occupying forces on the streets.

Do you see any common ground between Western world and Islam?

This will only be possible if the political issues are resolved. There is great common ground between the ideals of Islam and the modern Western ideal, and many Muslims have long realized this. At the beginning of the twentieth century, almost every single Muslim intellectual was in love with the West and wanted their countries to look just like Britain and France. Some even said that the West was more "Islamic" than the unmodernized Muslim countries, because in their modern economies they were able to come closer to the essential teaching of the Koran, which preaches the importance of social justice and equity. At this time, Muslims recognized the modern, democratic West as deeply congenial. In 1906, Muslim clerics campaigned alongside secularist intellectuals in Iran for representational government and constitutional rule. When they achieved their goal, the grand ayatollah said that the new constitution was the next best thing to the coming of the Shiite Messiah, because it would limit the tyranny of the shah and that was a project worthy of every Muslim. Unfortunately the British then discovered oil in Iran and never let the new parliament function freely. Muslims became disenchanted with the West as a result of Western foreign policy: Suez, Israel/Palestine, Western support of corrupt regimes, and so on.

What is needed from a very practical point of view to bridge the gap? What would you advise our leaders-our politicians and governments?

A revised foreign policy. A solution in Israel/Palestine that gives security to the Israelis and justice and autonomy to the Palestinians. No more support of corrupt, dictatorial regimes. A just solution to the unfolding horror in Iraq, which has been a "wonderful" help to groups like Al-Qaeda, playing right into their hands. No more situations like Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay. Money poured into Afghanistan and Palestine. A solution to Kashmir. No more short-term solutions for cheap oil. In Iraq and in Lebanon last summer we saw that our big armies are no longer viable against guerrilla and terror attacks. Diplomacy is essential. But suspicion of the West is now so entrenched that it may be too late.
____________________
ANDREA BISTRICH is a journalist based in Munich, Germany.

Terrorism and World Peace: Issues and Concerns

Dr.K.M.Sajad Ibrahim

In the contemporary world no other issue has acquired much importance than terrorism. This is mainly because of the impact of terrorism basically affects the civilians. In fact, the issue of terrorism is not located in one or two places in the world; rather most of the regions of the world are vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Similarly, the nature of terrorism is not same even in one region. Even though terrorism is treated as a great menace to global peace and security, it has been recognized many as the right way of expression of protest against injustice and colonialism against a powerful enemy. Hence many terrorist movements are popular, at least in their respective regions. While examining the methods of counter terrorism, it is equally important to understand the nature and objectives of terrorism. Any blind opposition to terrorism will not help to wipe out terrorism. To secure permanent peace, it is essential to understand the major undercurrents of terrorism.

Meaning and Nature of Terrorism

Terrorism’s most enduring feature remains its capacity to provoke anger, frustration and fear. Terror incidents are sudden, violent, and highly publicized. The concept of terrorism is deeply contested. The use of the term is often polemical and rhetorical. In principle, terrorism is deliberate and systematic violence performed by small numbers of people. It is mainly political and symbolic unlike any other violence. The term terrorism has its origin in the French revolution, during which it had a positive annotation, being associated with virtue and democracy. In the contemporary world terrorism has pejorative implications. Terror, as a concept means “intimidating”, but this intimidating is in great intensity and capable of creating sudden feeling of fear on individuals. Even though terror is frequently used the actions in question today, there is no other definition accepted and recognized by all. Many new definitions have been introduced regarding terror, but in the international arena, no common concept has been determined. This is because the person who is declared as the terrorist by one side is called a warrior of freedom by the other side.

The 9/11 attacks unleashed an army of scholars trying to pinpoint the root cause of terrorism, with most of that effort focused on Middle Eastern and Islamic societies. But two years after the attacks, no consensus has emerged. One group believes economic reasons to be the underlying causes of terrorism and point a finger at economic inequality being a root cause of terrorist violence. However, such ideas are rejected by some others on the ground of terrorist operations in the Middle East. Most of the terrorist groups in the Middle East are targeting Israel and the US. So it is naturally fighting against the US policy of upholding the illegal occupations of Israel. So, post 9/11, majority of academicians and intellectuals are asserting that the Islamic terrorist attacks are part of clash civilizations as envisaged by Samuel Huntington. At the same time, the US President George Bush insists that the American war on terrorism is not a war on Islam rather “it is against barbarism by the civilized world”. As part of this, the US has mainly targeted Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and replaced regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq with the help of military aggression. Moreover, the US described terrorism as a great menace to peace and democracy in the world. Ironically, the countries that extended support to the US in the Middle East have no relation with democracy. So it is obvious that the US targets only those terrorists who harm its interests in international affairs.

If we trace the growth of Muslim fundamentalism in the latter half of the twentieth century that the US itself had played an important role in its expansion. During the cold war period, the US provided major assistance in the shape of military hardware, expertise and finance to Muslim fundamental organizations in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East to fight the Soviet-backed regimes. It was Saudi Arabia, who with the full support of the US injected the doctrine of jihad in legitimizing the war for Muslim warriors. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the same group turned against the US intervention in the Middle East. Moreover, the US is blindly supporting the state-sponsored terrorism promoted by Israel and Pakistan.

The US vehemently condemned the terrorist attacks on innocent people. At the same time during the Gulf war of 1990-01, Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, hundreds of innocent people and children lost their life due to the American bombing. Moreover, Israel has been following the same policy since its inception in 1948. These are some of the instances of double standards adopted by the US policy towards terrorism. Terrorist groups in the Middle East are mainly opposing the aggressive policies of Israel. Even the UN failed to take any action against the unjust policies of Israel due to the veto power exercised by the US. In this context, it is imperative to understand the real nature and objectives of terrorism.

Types of Terrorism

Most of the Scholars believe that there are six different sorts of terrorism viz. nationalist, religious, state-sponsored, left-wing, right-wing and anarchist. Nationalist terrorists seek to form separate state for their own national group, often by drawing attention to a right for ‘national liberation’ that they think the world has ignored. This sort of terrorism has been among the most successful at winning international sympathy and concessions. Nationalist terrorism is difficult to define since many groups accused of practice that they are not terrorist but freedom fighters. Eg. Palestinian liberation movements like Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc.; Irish Republican army, Basque Fatherland and Liberty, which seeks to create a Basque homeland separate from Spain; and the Kurdish Workers Party, which seeks to create a Kurdish state independent from Turkey. Earlier nation terror groups were Irgun and Lehi (both Jewish militants for creating Jewish sate) in 1940s and the National Liberation Front (opposed to French rule in Algeria in the 1950s).

Religious terrorists seek to use violence to further what they see a divinely commanded purpose, often targeting broad categories of foes in an attempt to bring about sweeping changes. Religious terrorists came from many major faiths, as well as from small cults. Examples include Osama bin Laden’s Al- Qaeda net work, the radical Jewish groups affiliated with the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, the Israeli extremists Baruch Goldstein ((who machine gunned Muslim worshipers in a Hebron Mosque in 1994) and Yigal Amir (who assassinated then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995).

The state-sponsored groups are deliberately used by radical states as foreign policy tools. America and Former Soviet Union had effectively used this mechanism during the cold war period. In the post-cold war period America is the frontrunner deploying this method by killing innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq and also supporting some secessionist movements in Latin America. The left wing and right wing terrorists groups are located in some countries for creating their own states or demanding for their recognition. They are seen in Nepal, Tibet, African countries and countries in the South East Asia. Anarchists group also find in many locations fighting against democracy and Parliamentary institutions.

Reasons for the Rise of Terrorism

Several reasons are cited for the rise of terrorism. Among all the reasons, the most important one is the current unipolar world, dominated by the US. The US has been viewed by many groups as a threat to their regional economic and political interest. Unlike in the cold war period, no other power in the contemporary world is ready to challenge the US interventions in many parts of the world. Hence many movements and groups have claimed the role of challenging the US presence in their areas. Most of the terrorist groups in the Middle East have come under this category. Similarly, in the era globalization, the promotion of global market has been treated as the most important. Hence the twenty first century witnessed free movement people across borders in search of jobs or promoting business activities. This mass migration has been viewed by the indigenous people as a threat to their culture.

The revolutionary development in the field of communication net work was a boost for the activities of various terrorist movements. In the conventional mode, the chances for the prediction of terrorist strikes were possible. Hence to some extend the terrorist attacks were foiled. But with the availability of WMD and high technology the terrorists enjoy the advantage of operating its activities more intensively and clandestinely. The economic backwardness constituted another vital factor for the rise of terrorism. Most of the people recruited for the terrorist activities belong to poor families. As such, the availability people to join for these activities further encouraged the terrorist to indulge in violence. The state sponsored terrorism and state’s indirect support to some terrorist groups were identified as a boost for many terrorist activities in many parts of the world.

Methods of Counter Terrorism

Since most of the terrorist attacks are launched against the intervention of foreign forces, the dominant powers in the world should be ready to end their policy of intervention and colonialism. The withdrawal foreign forces, especially from the Middle East region, would help to reduce the activities of the terrorist groups. Similarly, Israel should vacate all the Arab lands and thereby follow a policy of compromise with all other countries in the region. In this respect the US and other western powers have a crucial role of not supporting the aggressive policy of Israel.
In other cases, stringent legislation should be brought about to handle the individuals who have nexus with terrorist groups. In this respect civil liberties of the citizens are threatened due to the presence of such ‘special laws’. Hence, the states will have to measure the risk of compromising on civil liberties in the name of security.
Collection and analysis of intelligence is perhaps the ‘least visible’ but in many ways one of the most important counter-terrorist tools. It is often perceived as the ‘first line of defence against’ terrorism. However, the challenge is that the information gathered can often be too fragmentary, ambitions and lacking in credibility. Military force is the perhaps the most powerful counter terrorist action, and the most visible demonstration to defeat the terrorists. The consequences of a security response cannot always be, and rarely are, anticipated.
Diplomacy is vital mechanism to counter terrorism. Since the terrorist network is scattered far and wide, the time has come to strengthen ‘counter-terrorist diplomacy’. The cooperative effort of the international community in this direction is inevitable under the circumstances. It needs to be pointed out that counter terrorist diplomacy is not necessarily the job of the professional diplomats attached to the foreign ministries of their states. However, the cooperation of officials from other ministries is essential to coordinate such counter terrorist movement.

World Peace: Contemporary Realities

World peace can be attained only with the existence of certain conditions viz., democracy, freedom, rights, equality and justice. In the contemporary world constant struggles are going on in different forms for the realization of theses objectives. In fact, one form of struggles is in the nature of terrorism. Most of the struggles are for freedom and justice. Unfortunately these struggles are most important threats to global peace. The aggressive and colonial policies of the US invited more violence than peace. The case of Iraq and Afghanistan is cited as the examples of deterioration of the law and order situation. Theses places witness incidents of violence at a regular interval in the form of terrorism. So war not only kills innocent lives but also devastates the entire structure of peaceful society leading to protracted violence and conflicts.

With the end of the Cold War, nuclear dangers did not evaporate. Rather, new dangers of nuclear proliferation, terrorism and war emerged, in a climate of public ignorance, apathy and denial. Awakening the public to these dangers and building global peace are the greatest challenges of our time, challenges made necessary by the power and threat of nuclear arsenals. Peace is a two-sided coin: it requires ending war as a human institution and controlling and eliminating its most dangerous weapons, but it also requires building justice and ending structural violence.
One important policy should be to oppose society’s thrust toward war and injustice, and to actively support efforts to resolve disputes nonviolently and to promote equity and justice in one’s society and throughout the world. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.” We know, though, that it doesn’t bend of its own accord. It bends because people care and take a stand for peace and justice.

If we are committed to building global peace in the Nuclear Age, we must say an absolute No to war, and we must demonstrate by our words and actions our commitment to peace. We must have confidence that our acts, though the acts of a single person, can and will make a difference. It is our challenge to awaken ourselves, to educate others and to consistently set an example for others by our daily lives. To be fully human is to put our shoulders to the arc of history so that it will bend more swiftly toward the justice and peace that we seek.

Issues of peace and war are far too important to be left only to political leaders. Most political leaders don’t know how to lead for peace. They are caught up in the war system and fear they will lose support if they oppose it. They need to be educated to be peace leaders. Strangely, most political leaders take their lead from the voters, so let’s lead them toward a world at peace. If you are an educator, educate for peace. If you are an artist, communicate for peace. If you are a professional, step outside the boundaries of your profession and act like the ordinary human miracle that you really are. If you are an ordinary human miracle, live with the dignity and purpose befitting the miracle of life and stand for peace.


Conclusions

In earlier periods, major wars threatened world peace. But in the post Second World War period terrorism, especially transnational terrorism poses a great threat to world peace. This is the situation in which people of many countries have to live under constant fear. Since terrorist attacks are in varied form, like suicide terrorism, transnational terrorism, car bombing, bombing of Aircrafts etc., there is less possibility of defending it. World peace is possible only if all the conflicts and issues are resolved. But this is only an illusionary concept since it is not possible to settle all the issues of the world. It does not mean that there is no possibility of peace. There are effective counter terrorist methods to bring peace in the world. In this direction, the major powers in the world have a crucial role. The declared policy of the US in the post 9/11 to combat terrorism through force already failed to tackle the issue. The US and other western powers should be ready to settle issues of national liberation movements.

If Palestine question is resolved it could tackle half of the terrorist issues in the world. Further, if the US is ready to withdraw its forces form the Middle East then the region will be free from terrorism. Similar types of positive attitude are essential to tackle terrorism. In this framework only handsome terrorist groups would persist without proper justification of their cause. Such groups in the normal case cannot survive if justice prevails in the world. An ideal world should be free from all occupations and dominations. But unfortunately, this situation is far from reality as the US and its allies are not ready for any compromise. So the world peace and world free from all forms of terrorism would be distant dream for the peace loving countries and people in the world.

References

1. Martha Crenshaw, “The Psychology of Terrorism: An Agenda for the 21st Century”, Political Psychology, Vol.21, No.2, June 2000, pp.405-420.
2. Walter Enders and Todd Sandler, “Transnational Terrorism in the Post-Cold War Era”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol.43, No.1, March1999, pp.145-167.
3. Jacob Shamir and Khalil Shikaki, “Self-Serving Perceptions of Terrorism among Israelis and Palestinians”, Political Psychology, Vol.23, No.3, September 2002, pp.537-557.
4. Howrd Zinn (ed.), Terror and War (New York: Seven Stores Press, 2002)
5. Martha Crenshaw, “The Causes of Terrorism”, Comparative Politics, Vol.13, No.4, July 1981, pp.379-399.
6. Lawrence Freedman et.al., Terrorism and International Order (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, !986)
7. Jeffrey D.Simon, “Misunderstanding Terrorism”, Foreign Policy, No.67, Summer 1987, pp.104-120.
8. Andrew Kydd and Barbar F.Walter, “Sabotaging the Peace: The Politics of Extremist Violence”, International Organisation, Vol.56, No.2, Spring 2002, pp.263-296.
* Dr. K.M.Sajad Ibrahim is a Faculty Member, Department of Political Science, University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram- 695581