13 Terrorism Solutions: A Clarion Call To Terrorist Groups and Governments Worldwide

13 Terrorism Solutions: A Clarion Call To Terrorist Groups and Governments Worldwide

As US President Barack Obama tries to woo the Muslim world and press for a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, we might reflect on what brought us to the current mess from Afghanistan and Iraq to Israel and Palestine. We are all guilty of terrorism double standards. We are loathe to admit that terrorism is often what the other side does to us. Despite the best efforts of governments, non-governmental organizations, academics, and terrorism practitioners of both state and non-state varieties, we live without a universal consensus definition of terrorism.

Almost all states usually argue they can never commit acts of terrorism because they are legal entities with what Max Weber called “the coercive monopoly over the use of violence.” Terrorist groups challenge the state’s monopoly in respect of the utilization of violence. Yet, these groups often call themselves “liberation movements,” thus conveniently excusing their use of violence. In reality, both states and terrorist groups can commit acts of terrorism. As Jonathan Barker points out, if states or non-state terrorist actors use violence against civilians (as opposed to combatants or soldiers) with the aim of pursuing a political objective, they engage in terrorism. With this definition in mind, our world is impregnated with terrorism. Yet, few are willing to accept such a definition because we live in a moral universe that often legitimizes the violence of our side and de-legitimizes the “illegal” violence of our opponents. Remember that the International Criminal Court (ICC) could be a perfect forum for prosecuting state and non-state terrorists, if only we could agree on a worldwide definition.

Leaving these thorny definitional issues aside, what can be done to stem the tide of terrorism as we enter the eighth anniversary of 9-11? As 13 is a lucky number for this writer, I have 13 suggestions for reducing terrorism, which I hope some governments and terrorist organizations will have the good sense to hear:

1) Avoid invasions of territorially sovereign countries because they are expensive and accelerate the rise of terrorist forces that call for national self-determination, free of foreign forces. Civilians and soldiers pay a heavy price. French colonial presence in Vietnam and Algeria eventually led to armed rebellions and two ignominious defeats against technologically inferior enemies at Dien Bien Phu (Vietnam) in 1954 and Algeria in 1962. The principle of national self-determination has been internationally recognized by the United Nations. In his Fourteen Points delivered to a joint session of Congress on January 8, 1918, US President Woodrow Wilson affirmed the principle of national self-determination. Point fourteen stated: “A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.” Moreover, the principle of national self-determination was already recognized in 1776 when the US revolutionaries overthrew British monarchical oppression.

2) When you defeat a terrorist foe militarily, as the Sri Lankan government recently did with the LTTE on May 17, 2009, winning the military battle is not necessarily the same as winning the war for hearts and minds. Remember how quickly the US routed the Iraqi army after the 2003 invasion, only to face an underground insurgency consisting of secular Ba’athists and Islamists that was both lethal and sustained.

3) To win the war of hearts and minds, simmering territorial, ethnic, cultural, and national disputes must be solved. This means, at least minimally, recognizing the claims for autonomy of your adversaries. More often than not it means creating new states, which in effect politically recognizes terrorists in the international community. Both Menachem Begin and Yasser Arafat made the transition from terrorists (Irgun and PLO respectively) to heads of sovereign or semi-autonomous states (Israel and Palestinian Authority). This position of negotiating with terrorists undermines the claims of ultra-nationalists that refuse to abandon even an inch of “sacred land.” It is also absolutely incumbent on states to minimize civilian deaths through counter-terrorist operations and wars. When we go after the bad guys that ordered suicide bombings against Israel or Turkey, we tend to also kill and injure lots of civilians. We sometimes wrongly use the long arm of the law to curtail the civil liberties of innocents. Both these communities become easy breeding grounds for new recruits to engage in “martyrdom operations.”

4) Winning the war of hearts and minds means negotiations with terrorist foes. It means giving ordinary people basic government services, security, fair chances for employment, and hope for a better tomorrow by teaching tolerance between cultures, nations, and religions in the schools, media, synagogues, mosques, and churches. Israel negotiated with the PLO after years of saying that it would never do so. Hamas will eventually need to talk with Israel, despite its covenant calls for Israel’s destruction.

5) No so-called “intractable” conflict is really “intractable” if there is enough goodwill, leadership, vision, and a spirit of compromise. All sides sometimes get addicted to conflicts. In conjunction with major powers like the United States, European Union (EU), and Arab states, Israelis and Palestinians are addicted to conflict. Taking a hard look at ourselves might get us to re-examine our mutual addiction to fundamentalist ideologies, unrealistic solutions devoid of compromise, hatred, and the ritualistic legitimization of violence. Historically, France and Germany, or Britain and France were addicted to geopolitical conflicts. Today they are all EU members committed to mutual trade and common political regulations, rule of law, human rights, and the principle of non-violence vis-à-vis member states. A peaceful EU for the Middle East is also possible one day.

6) Solutions will need to vary based on different historical circumstances of the conflicts in question. We cannot impose a one-size-fits-all solution on Turks and Kurds, Israelis and Palestinians, or Colombian leftist guerrillas and the Colombian state.

7) No side will get all it wants. Palestinians will not get Haifa and Israel will not get Hebron. Yet, if national groups understand that they will nonetheless survive and not be annihilated by the other side, then solutions can be flexible, open, and innovative. Jailed Kurdish PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan has made the transition from a Marxist committed to the armed struggle against Turkey with full independence towards Kurdish autonomy within Turkey. In his 2007 Prison Writings: The Roots of Civilisation Ocalan expressed regrets about “swallowing nationalist poisons” and violent insurrection, while pointing out that peace in the Middle East requires the rule of law, democracy, gender equality, separation of church and state, and respect for minority rights.

8) Full statehood might be re-considered by some groups like the PKK or LTTE. Perhaps autonomy is a better option because it will not invite the harsh repressive apparatus of state authorities and the rise of genocidal ultra-nationalist tendencies. About 30,000 people have died as a result of the armed conflict between the PKK and Turkish state. Consequently, autonomy is an option that the PKK’s Ocalan now seriously entertains, provided Kurd cultural institutions are protected and Kurds can achieve upward mobility with equal rights within the Turkish state and society.

9) Harsh state repression, as with the Chechens in Russia, will only invite harsher and more militant forms of terrorism. The group that seeks independence or autonomy from the state will carry sentiments of hatred and revenge that are difficult to extinguish. Chechens have rebelled against Russian rule many times since the 1850s and they were massively expelled by Stalin from their ancestral homeland. In the 1990s, disappearances of Chechen men accelerated as a common tactic of Russian security forces. The state repression led Chechen terrorists to undertake bolder suicide attacks against crowded schools and theatres even in Moscow. In addition, it is estimated that 100,000 Chechens died in two wars against the Russians between 1994 and 2009. In short, state repression hardens rejectionist and fundamentalist attitudes on both sides and sustains the conflict.

10) The reverse is also true: Little or no state repression can invite and embolden terrorists to seek more concessions through the gun. This is the reality of the current crisis in Pakistan where the Swat Valley was ceded to Islamists. As a result, the Islamists began to grab areas near the Swat and wanted to march to Islamabad. Israel under Ariel Sharon unilaterally left Gaza in 2005. Hamas responded by continuing to call for Israel’s destruction and a barrage of thousands of rockets. A tragic war ensued in 2008-9 in which over a thousand Palestinians and thirteen Israelis lost their lives. Yet, if we follow the logic of Point 3, which calls for the absolute necessity of states minimizing civilian deaths through counter-terrorist operations and wars, then it follows that the war could have been avoided. A more robust UN security force might have stopped both Hamas and Israel from firing their missiles.

11) Think about bringing in international monitors and organizations with the ability to use force to hold the peace. To paraphrase Thomas Hobbes, “Covenants without swords are but empty words.” Peace agreements without enforcement mechanisms become meaningless treaties, particularly if one party or both constantly violate its provisions using armed violence. If Obama is a real visionary, he might propose that Israel and a new Palestinian state both become full members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The NATO charter prevents member states from using armed aggression against each other. An attack on one NATO member state means that all other states must come to the defense of the attacked state. This would be an ideal mechanism to maintain the peace of a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine.

12) Think about ending the conflicts in a realistic fashion based on mutual compromise such as a viable two-state solution for the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Individuals, especially the maximalist radicals on both sides, will not be completely satisfied because they did not get “Greater Israel” or “all occupied Palestine.” Yet, both sides retain a residue of hope because they are alive and are recognized collectively as peoples within constitutional documents both regionally and internationally.

13) All of us must dream of solving these simmering conflicts, hope the impossible, and know that a “clash of civilizations” is something pushed by the fundamentalist fear-mongers of the world because they want the sirens of war to ring in our ears eternally. The peace of the brave will come if we understand that genuine peace is noble and humane. Peace will come if we understand that killing the other is like killing ourselves.

If terrorist groups and government want to sign on to this clarion call to stem the tide of terrorism, they can open their hearts, dial their enemies, tell their friends, and ostracize the war profiteers in their communities from the arms dealers to the religious and media preachers of hate. They can challenge authoritarianism and creeping authoritarianism, which breed ignorance, dogmatism, hatred, and the desire to have eternal foes. They can challenge the naysayers, the ones that won’t give peace a chance because they think humanitarianism and peace are synonymous with weakness. Governments and terrorist groups should begin by not killing their own people in acts of wanton terrorist cruelty, which illegally target civilians for political purposes. They should extend their care for the loss of life to all people of the planet, irrespective of culture, faith, sex, or ideology. For the loss of one life in the service of an abstract political ideology, whether state or terrorist group, is a grave loss to all of humanity.

Tamir Bar-On