Terrorism and War against Terrorism: Some Fundamental Issues

Author(s): Khurshid Ahmad

Source: Policy Perspectives, Vol. 3, No. 2 (July - December 2006), pp. 1-10
Published by: Pluto Journals
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42922636
Accessed: 04-04-2020 07:56 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Pluto Journals is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Policy
Perspectives

This content downloaded from 35.154.245.7 on Sat, 04 Apr 2020 07:56:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Terrorism and War against
Terrorism:
Some Fundamental Issues'
Khurshid Ahmad *

Abstract
[There is no standard, encompassing and universally acceptable definition of te
available so far. Terrorism is neither contemporary nor one-dimensional. It is an
phenomenon. Its forms vary, tactics dissimilar, and the underlying causes and the
outcomes catalytic toward earning it different names at different times. The h
evidence indicates that combating such acts with a tit-for-tat mindset are often sh
and rarely bear the desired fruits. The paradigm shift and the adjectives reshuffle
the sole prerogative of the super powers of their time. Extreme injustice, viol
abuse of power by the states, groups or even individuals involved in target killing
termed as heroics. Most just causes and resistance against tyranny and oppre
the contrary, can be treated as the acts of terror. The infliction of repressio
powerless by the powerful is bound to fail in addressing the scourge permanently.

Political and economical motives, international alliances and the ever-alt

national interests change the entire scenario through the ready-made afterthou
rationalizations. Good bad and ugly are always likely to switch their connotatio
Muslims all over the world explicitly condemn the acts of terror. The strong reser
over the heinous crimes committed in the name of "War against Terro
notwithstanding. The sublime yet subtle theme invites thinking minds towa
undercurrents as well as allied dimensions. The message: oppressors, killers, a
dictators, and occupiers are extremely susceptible to "terror" for being aware
own crimes. Given the opportunity, they will decry the most credible, just and pr
courts in the world for terrorizing them even if they are only made to stand trials
all terrorized are innocent nor are all armed seeking credence for spreading ter
occurrences ostensibly matching the acts of terror must be seen with fairne
considering the other available options as well as the complexities. Conflicts an
can be minimized if the powerful stop imposing their values on the weak. - Editor s

'This paper was presented as part of the case study on terrorism in the 35th se
of Erice International Seminars on Planetary Emergencies, jointly organized by
Ettore Majorana Foundation and Centre for Scientific Culture held in Italy during 18
- 22 may 2006.
* Senator Prof. Khurshid Ahmad is the founder Chair of the Institute of Policy
Studies, Islamabad, Pakistan as well as the Islamic Foundation, Leicester, UK. He
has served as the Member Senate of Pakistan for three terms: 1985-1991, 1991-
1997 and the current six-year term will end in 2012. He has authored or edited over
sixty publications. He is the recipient of the Islamic Development Bank Award on
Islamic Economics (1999) and King Faisal International Award (1990).

[1]

This content downloaded from 35.154.245.7 on Sat, 04 Apr 2020 07:56:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Policy Perspectives

1. Terrorism, however obnoxious and revolting it may be, is not a new

phenomenon. It is an unfortunate fact that there have been serious
episodes of terrorism or 'terrorisms' in almost all parts of the world and all
periods of history. This phenomenon has not been specific to any society,
culture, religion, or political dispensation, or to any historical period,
ancient, medieval or modern. Nor has terrorism articulated itself in any one
shape and form; there have been a variety of expressions. Even suicide
missions are not a contemporary innovation. Hence, my preference for the
plural: terrorisms.

History provides rich testimony for the strong presence as well as

diversity and spread, both horizontal and vertical, of the phenomenon of
terrorism. Indeed, the recorded history of terrorism and terrorist groups
goes back at least to the advent of the Christian era. Some highlights
preceding the twentieth century include the first-century struggle of Zealots
and Sicarits to liberate Judea from Roman occupation; the blood-stained
dagger play of the Assassins in the eleventh and twelfth centuries; the
Jacobit's blood-bath in the eighteenth century, and Russia's Narodnays
Volyel (People's Will) and Europe's anarchists in the nineteenth century.
Terrorisms of the twentieth century include the havoc-wreaking violent
outbursts of the Armenian Secret Army for 'the Liberation of Armenia
(ASALA), the Zionist armed brigades of Irgun, Stern and Haganah Gangs,
Ethnik's Organosis Kyprion Agoniston (EOKA) of Cyprus, Mau Mau or the
Land and Freedom Army in Kenya, Bader-Meinhof, Red Army Factors, and
the 2nd June Movement of Germany, Euzkadi tes Akantasone (ETA) of
Spain, Strategy of Tension and Red Brigades of Italy, Marighda of Brazil,
IRA and Protestant Volunteer Force of Ireland, November 17 of Greece, Ku
Klux Klan (KKK), Free Speech Movement of Berkley, Whether Underground,
Christian Identity (Elohim City, Oklahoma), Anti-Abortionists (Rev. Michael
Bray) of USA, Lords' Resistance Army and Holy Spirit Mobile Forces (HSMF)
of Uganda, Sendero Luminoso in Peru, FARC in Columbia, LTTE in Sri Lanka,
PKK in Turkey, George Habbash's Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine, PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jehad of Palestine, Fidayeen of Iran,
Nexaiites and a host of others in India, etc.1

Thus, Al-Qaeda may be the current symbol of terrorism, but

terrorism is a wider political reality the presence of which has been felt in
all times and climes. Exclusive obsession with one perpetrator is bound to
falsify the entire matrix of perception, analysis, diagnosis and prescription.
It is important to take into consideration the entire spectrum of terrorisms
- and not merely a particular candidate of our choice - if we really wish to

1 Though far from exhaustive, this list illustrates the immense variety in the nature
and context of terrorism in the world. Detailed and thorough research is essential to
understand how and why different people resort to violence in their quest for diverse
political objectives. Interesting material is available in Martha Crenshaw, ed.,
Terrorism in Context (Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995); Walter Reich, ed.,
Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies, Theologies, States of Mind
(Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 1998); RG Frey, ed., Violence,
Terrorism, and Justice (Cambridge University Press, 1991); Harry Henderson, Global
Terrotism: The Complete Reference Guide Henderson (New York: Checkmark Books,
2Ö01); and David J Whitaker, ed., The Terrorism Reader, (London: Rutledge, 2001).

This content downloaded from 35.154.245.7 on Sat, 04 Apr 2020 07:56:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Terrorism and War against Terrorism: Some Fundamental Issues

understand the complex and diverse phenomenon that is terrorism.

2. Although it is an awesome reality, terrorism has, by and large,

remained elusive and nebulous at the conceptual level. The Dictionary of
International Affairs (Penguin, 1998) captures this situation in the following
words:

"The issue of terrorism has not so far produced a specific prohibitive

treaty mainly because of definitional problems associated with
political preference. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom
fighter' and so international law has not thus far been able to
encompass the phenomenon."

Schmid lists over one hundred different definitions of the term.2 The
UN General Assembly has not been able to arrive at a consensus definition
so far. While there is some general agreement "that all acts of deliberate
violence against innocent civilians and other non-combatants directed
towards achieving specific political objectives belong to the genre of
terrorism," there remain serious differences in respect of violent reactions
and resistant movements that emerge in situations where processes of
peaceful resolution of political conflicts are denied and people are forced to
struggle against repression, occupation or aggression. This is why people's
struggle against foreign occupation, even if violent, could not be bracketed
with terrorism in any consensus document.

The question of "state terrorism" also remains a bone of contention.

There is no reason why the concept should be confined to individual and
group behaviour, to the exclusion of the state's use of arbitrary force
against its own people and in respect of other nations and peoples. The
authority of the state to use force is conditional by legitimacy of actions. As
such, the exclusion of state terrorism from any conceptualization of
terrorism is unacceptable. When there is a situation of foreign occupation,
the legitimacy of people's struggle to seek their right to self-determination
and independence cannot be equated with other forms of political violance.
Military repression by state authorities in such situations is as much a
species of terror. Similarly, state actions against its own people that
amount to "war crimes" or "acts of genocide" or "indiscriminate violence
against civilians," including bombardment of towns and villages and
collective punishment and targeted killings and executions cannot be
treated as legitimate uses of state power.

Aggression against other states and nations (i.e., actions not covered
by the UN Charter) must also be treated as acts of state terrorism. Respect
for the UN Charter and the principles established by the Nuremberg Trials
define the cornerstone of legitimate state behavior. A high-level UN Panel
has, in 2004, warned against stretching Article 51 of the UN charter too far.
It affirms:

2 AP Schmid, Political Terrorism: A Research Guide to Concepts, Theories, Data

Bases and Literature (Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co., 1983).

This content downloaded from 35.154.245.7 on Sat, 04 Apr 2020 07:56:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Policy Perspectives

"Article 51 needs neither extension nor restriction of its long-

understood scope.. .In a world full of perceived potential threats the
risk to the global order and the norms of non-intervention on which it
continues to be based is simply too great for the legality of unilateral
preventive actions as distinct from collectively endorsed action, to be
accepted. Allowing one to so act Is to allow all."

The Nuremberg Tribunal clearly stated that aggression is "the

supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it
contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Justice Robert Jackson of the US Supreme Court, who was the US

Attorney to the Tribunal, is reported to have pleaded before the Tribunal as
follows:

"If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes
whether the United States does them or whether Germany does
them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct
against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against
us.. .We must never forget that the record on which we judge these
defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To
pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips
as well."3

The principles established at the Nuremberg Tribunal, which make it

binding on the state authority to avoid crimes against humanity, violations
of fundamental rights, and aggression against other states, are more
relevant today than they were in the mid-twentieth century. Terrorism's
scope cannot be confined to actions of individuals and groups. The state's
actions are to be judged by the same touchstone.

3. Another lesson that is not difficult to draw from history is that every
occurrence of terrorism has a limited life. While there have been episodes
of terrorism in all ages and all regions, they have ended at some point. This
means that terrorism is neither uncontainable nor uncontrollable. Every
expression of this phenomenon has to be understood in its socio-historical
context and appropriate strategies worked out to contain, control or
eliminate it. In the last analysis, in most cases, terrorism is the end-product
of the failure of the processes of crisis management and conflict resolution
in a society.

A 'tit-for-tať strategy has very limited relevance and is, in fact,

rather costly. It is only by addressing the terrorism in all its complexity that
an effective, acceptable and least-cost package of strategies can be
identified for its solution. Reactions based on a vendetta mentality,
arrogance of power or any one-dimensional approach are bound to fail, and
even to prove counterproductive. This is why an increasing number of
intellectuals, analysts and strategists are expressing very strong

3 Quoted by Noam Chomsky in "A Just War? Hardly," Khaleej Times, reproduced in
The Daily Times (Lahore, May 10, 2006).

This content downloaded from 35.154.245.7 on Sat, 04 Apr 2020 07:56:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Terrorism and War against Terrorism: Some Fundamental Issues

reservations about the US-piloted global "War on Terror/' which was

unleashed after the catastrophe of 9/11. It is time to prepare an objective
balancesheet of what has been achieved through this strategy and what
costs are being inflicted on people in the United States and in the rest of
the world.4

4. It deserves to be noted that the Muslim people in general and leading

Muslim scholars and the leaderships of Islamic movements in particular
have, from day one, unequivocally condemned all acts of real terrorism,
including the 9/11 outrage against humanity. But they, and many others in
the world, including citizens of the United States and European countries,
have strong reservations about the global game being played in the name
of the w War against Terrorism." They regard much of what is being done as
no less a crime, because it is resulting in the death of innocent men,
women and children in the hundreds of thousands. They openly ask the
question: Can terrorism be fought by a war, as is being done by the present
US leadership? Does it not need a very different and multi-faceted
strategy? Is it possible to fight terrorism without clearly defining what
constitutes terrorism? Clearly, terrorism cannot be fought without clearly
identifying the object; otherwise, the fighter only chases shadows, adding
to intellectual confusion and political anarchy, and thereby producing
scenarios of greater insecurity.

There is also a need to distinguish terrorism and from other instances

of people resorting to force, such as war under international law and
genuine liberation struggles. The approach of indiscriminately equating
such events with terrorism - as is being done in the case of the Palestinian
Resistance, to give only one example - is not only flawed but counter-
productive. In fact, to permit such outlandish interpretations would call for
a rewriting of all history, in which even George Washington and Nelson

4 It is instructive to reflect on an interesting observation of a French intellectual,

Emmanuel Todd, about the changed Spanish strategy in the post-2004 Madrid
tragedy scenario: "I would like to end on a happier note. The Spanish withdrawal
from Iraq gives hope. Bush's drive to war could have produced, was perhaps meant
to produce, a vicious circle of ever rising and widening violence. Once the Spaniards,
the Italians, the Japanese, the British and the rest were attacked their population
would succumb to the logic of infinite war. When the terrorists struck Madrid on 11th
March 2004, nobody knew how the Spanish people would react. The Spaniards could
have accepted the big lie. The idea that the Iraq invasion was intended to reduce the
terrorist threat. The Spanish reaction to terrorism could have been a surge of ethnic
hatred, and a closer alignment with the US. It is so easy to forget the initial reason
for war (in that particular case the non-reasons), and to get trapped into the vicious
circle of primitive fighting. Perhaps the First World War is the perfect example. It
grew from the rational pursuit of national interests but soon turned into a
meaningless bloodbath. The nations of Europe kept fighting years after they had all
lost. The opposite happened in Spain. Spanish voters got rid of Aznar. Zapatero
withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq and perhaps this will be enough to break the
cycle of increasing violence expected by many, hoped for by some. Perhaps we
already owe much more to the Spanish people than we know, because to borrow
Bush's rhetoric for a moment, their vote, their decision, truly was a "victory of good
over evil." (Emmanuel Todd, After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American
Order [UK: Constable and Robinson, 2004], pp210-211.)

This content downloaded from 35.154.245.7 on Sat, 04 Apr 2020 07:56:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Policy Perspectives

Mandela would have to be placed in the category of "terrorists"!

Similarly, all acts of Terrorism cannot to be treated as the same.

They differ in their nature, context, objectives, and dynamics. It would be a
blunder to target terrorisms without addressing the contexts that have led
to their emergence, the causes that characterize them and the injustices
and oppressions that have forced the weak to rise. Asymmetry of power
and denial of genuine processes of conflict resolution are facts that can be
ignored only at our peril. It is imperative to understand the nature and the
extent of the agony that prompts a people to revolt, and to fathom the
causes and factors that drive them to use violent methods for achieving
political objectives.

It has to be acknowledged that Terrorism is a complex phenomenon

and any one-dimensional strategy to combat it is foredoomed to failure. It
may even aggravate the situation, as our present predicament implies.

5. Terrorism is primarily a tactic and a means, and not an end. To see it

as an ideology in itself, as is the practice in certain quarters, confuses the
issue terribly. There is no denying that treatises devoted to justifying the
use of terrorist tactics have been produced from philosophical, political, and
even moral and religious backgrounds. From Cicero, who is stated to have
said, "It is a virtue to kill," through philosophic discourses of the anarchists
in Europe and the revolutionaries of the Left in Russia ( John Most's
Revolutionary War Science, 1885), to Revered Michael Bray's A Time to Kill
(USA, 1980), there is no dearth of literature of this brand. Yet the fact
remains that, in the final analysis, even this diabolical literature in defence
of terrorism does not visualize it as more than a tactic - it is not proposed
as an end in itself or as an ideology.

In the current debate, the perpetrators of the War against Terrorism

are trying to confuse and obfuscate the issue by presenting terrorism as an
ideology and not a tactic. They try to trace its roots in some "twisted
religious concepts." This may have serious consequences as it may divert
the focus of attention from the real causes of terrorism and from the policy
parameters that constitute a decisive factor in its generation, to some
imaginary concoctions of conflict of values and clash of civilizations.5

Some interesting light has been thrown on the phenomenon of

suicide-bombing, a subset of terrorism, in a research study by Professor
Robert A Pape of the University of Chicago. The study, Dying to Win, is
based on data relating to all suicide attacks reported between 1980 and
2003. The author states that "The presumed connection between suicide
terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism is misleading." According to him:

5 See Joseph EB Lumbard, ed., Islam, Fundamentalism and the Betrayal of Tradition,
(Indiana: World Wisdom, 2004). Serious reflection on issues raised in Chapter 6,
"The Economics of Terrorism: How Ben Laden is Changing the Rules of the Game,"
by Waleed El-Ansary (pp 191-236) is highly recommended.

This content downloaded from 35.154.245.7 on Sat, 04 Apr 2020 07:56:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Terrorism and War against Terrorism: Some Fundamental Issues

"The data shows that there is little connection between suicide

terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's
religions. In fact, the leading instigators of suicide attacks are the
Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka - a Marxist-Leninist group whose members
are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion.
This group committed 76 of the 315 incidents, more suicide attacks
than Hamas.

"Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a

specific secular and strategic goal; to compel modern democracies to
withdraw military force from territory that the terrorists consider to
be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is
often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in
other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective."6

While it is useful to study the phenomenon of terrorism in all its

dimensions, including the psychological and even the possible pathological
aspects of individual actors, it would be unrealistic not to focus on the
political, strategic and contextual aspects. Motivational and bottom-up
factors must be studied and analyzed, true, but a reductionism that
emphasizes, out of all proportion, the pathological' or 'economic'
situations, is flawed, deceptive and unhelpful. Ignoring the core issues and
causes that lead to upsurge in violence would be fatal to any realistic
understanding of the phenomenon, and to developing sound strategies to
combat it. Let us face the real issues - they relate to political injustices
and policies that have so enraged the people that they prefer death to a life
of servitude, ignominy, humiliation and helplessness. Unless this delusion
changes, it is likely that "terrorisms" and "wars against terrorisms" will both
continue ad nauseam.

Theories of jihad and the concept of martyrdom, along with the

institutions of the mosque and the madrassa, have always been there. Even
"extremist" or "twisted" interpretations are not a novelty in history; they
have surfaced from time to time among almost all religions, ideologies and
sociopolitical systems. Since the world has seen long periods of peace,
amity and co-existence, despite the availability of the very "texts" and
"institutions" blamed for terrorism today, the reasons for the emergence
and escalation of terrorism in contemporary times must lie elsewhere, and
deserve to be identified and explored.

6. It is also imperative to look into the conceptual, political and

humanitarian costs of the present US War against Terrorism. How many
innocent civilians have been the victims of the terrorist's attacks, and how
many have been killed as a result of this war against terrorists? Has the
war to eliminate terrorists succeeded in weeding them out or has it actually
resulted in the production of larger and larger numbers of "terrorists"? How
is the US looked upon even in the 'beneficiary countries' it has attacked to
destroy alleged terrorists and give the citizens the gifts of "regime change"

6 Robert A Pape (2005). Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. New
York: Random House. p4.

This content downloaded from 35.154.245.7 on Sat, 04 Apr 2020 07:56:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Policy Perspectives

and "nation-building"? Has America won the confidence, love and respect of
the people of the world? Or has it caused an increase - even at an
explosive rate - in the discontent and hatred against America the world
over, and made the world on the whole a much more insecure place to live
in? It must be admitted that vast political landscapes that were peaceful
before the War against Terrorism have now been turned into fertile grounds
for the emergence of terrorisms: what was limited to a few orbits of
discontentment has been turned into a global phenomenon.

7. Some more fundamental issues are agitating the minds of thinking

people all over the world, including those in the United States of America.
The gross human rights violations - particularly the right to privacy; the
right to freedom from detention, save through due process of law; the right
to be treated as innocent until proven guilty; and the right to defense
through lawyers of the defendant's own choice are mind boggling. Many
people have been arrested and detained without trial after 9/11. The
percentage of those convicted by any court of law is another blow for Bush
Administration and its like-minded allies. Merely a few have been formally
charged from amongst those arrested on mere suspicion. The violation of
these rights has eroded the entire fabric of the rule of law, and damaged
the fortress of constitutionalism in a number of countries, including the
United States. What is happening in the name of "patriotism" and "national
security" to the civil liberties of common men and women in general, and
certain targeted religious and ethnic groups in particular, in America and a
number of other countries belonging to this 'Coalition of the Willing'? New
threats have been posed to the values of dignity of man, equality of all
human beings, and their right to be treated according to the law, within the
framework of civilized behavior, and Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghuraib and
Bagram are not the only festering soars. Is it not a fact that "rendition" and
"coercive interrogation" have plagued many parts of the civilized world?
The nightmares depicted in Huxley's Brave New World, Orwell's 1984 and
Solzenetsyn's Gulag are now haunting the havens of the 'Free World.'

Whatever has been achieved over the centuries in terms of

international law and consensus on the norms of civilized conduct in war
and peace is dangerously at stake. Basic precepts of law and international
law are being rewritten, at least in practice, in a unilateral and arbitrary
manner. The powerful are trying to bully and bulldoze others only because
they are weak and powerless. Shadows of imperialism and hegemonism are
looming on the world's horizons. National sovereignty no longer seems
sacrosanct; international borders can be violated with impunity. The UN is
becoming more and more irrelevant: Mr. Bolton, the United States'
representative at the UN, has the audacity to say that his country has
a right to invade Iran whether the UN concurs or not. Unilateral
interventions and forced or manipulated regime changes are being
sanctified. The very concept of self-defense is being redefined to suit the
interests and ambitions of the powerful. Peace and global equilibrium are
being increasingly threatened. Prospects of greater and more violent
confrontations are on the rise.

The effect is also felt within countries. Minorities in many parts of the

This content downloaded from 35.154.245.7 on Sat, 04 Apr 2020 07:56:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Terrorism and War against Terrorism: Some Fundamental Issues

world are being subjected to greater state repression. The War against
Terrorism is being used by more than one country to suppress its own
people. Indeed, the real magnitude of the "collateral damages" of this "war"
is assuming menacing proportions.

8. A fundamental question that must be faced squarely relates to the

limits of a military strategy in the alleged fight against terrorism. Is it really
possible to bring terrorism to an end by resort to military force alone? Can
this stateless and faceless enemy be chained down in that manner? Is it not
time to reflect on alternative strategies addressing the causes and factors
that breed terrorism? How long are we going to fight the branches while
ignoring the roots of the problem? The resistance to occupation, oppression
and injustice, is not the real problem - the real problem is the occupation,
oppression and injustice, which cannot but generate resistance. If we target
the resistance without targeting the causes, how can we succeed? Focusing
on resistance and ignoring the gruesome realities that give rise to struggles
for freedom and justice could well prove an exercise in futility. In fact, it
could be the very recipe for promoting further terrorism and hatred.

It is time to change the focus and address the real issues in a

forthright manner. The crying need is for a paradigm change, and not for
marginal changes within the paradigm. Logic, and not rhetoric, should
guide our policies. Only then might the world become a more peaceful place
for all of us.

9. Finally, we cannot a?ford to ignore the fundamental question relating

to restoration of the rule of law and establishment of a global system based
on justice and fair opportunities for all. Conflict resolution through peaceful
means and in accordance with universally accepted processes is a
prerequisite for peace and global amity. In this context, the critical iss
of globalization and the, so-called, clash of civilizations cannot b
sidestepped either. The plurality of faiths, ideologies, cultures a
civilizations is a reality. It is a reality as old as history. Co-existence, c
operation, and competition between ideas, ideologies and civilizations
natural, even healthy,, factors for promoting human progress. This plurali
only becomes a source of discord, conflict, confrontation and war when it
not regarded as 'authentic.' Instead, one particular ideology, civilization
political and economic system is forced upon others. If values are impos
on others by virtue of superior power, and their resources are taken aw
through manipulation, control or interference, this is bound to genera
strife, conflict and confrontation. When a hegemonic order is foisted upon
other nations, subjugating other countries and people, the seeds of
rebellion are bound to be sown, leading to insecurity, destabilization,
confrontation, warfare, and a spate of terrorisms and retaliations.

In the wider context, all people of goodwill should realize that, in the
current phase of globalization, it is only through honest acceptance of each
other, respect for plurality of systems, religions and cultures, and safeguard
against all hegemonic and colonial adventures that real peace and security
can be established on the globe.

This content downloaded from 35.154.245.7 on Sat, 04 Apr 2020 07:56:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Policy Perspectives

Samuel Huntington is credited with the current debate on clash of

civilizations. His book is definitely an invitation to such a clash. Yet, there
are a few revealing observations in this study that deserve serious
reflection. "Terrorism", he says, "historically is the weapon of the weak,
that is, of those who do not possess conventional military power"7. The
message is clear. If the strong are not prepared to respect the rules of law,
justice and resolution of conflicts by negotiation and dialogue, terrorism
cannot be ruled out.

About the alleged clash between Islam and the West, Huntington
claims:

'The underlying problem in the West is not Islamic fundamentalism.

It is Islam, a different civilization where people are convinced of the
superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of
their power. The problem for Islam is not the CIA or the US
Department of Defense. It is the West - a different civilization -
whose people are convinced of the universality of their culture and
believe that their superior, if declining, power imposes on them the
obligation to extend that culture throughout the world. These are the
basic ingredients that fueled the conflict between Islam and the
West."8

Huntington is only party right. Islam and the West do represent two
distinct civilizations. He is terribly wrong that the two must clash with a
view to overwhelm or annihilate each other. Clash is not the natural
demand of being different. Conflict and clash arise because the more
powerful believe and regard it as their right, an imperative, to use their
overwhelming power to impose their values and their rule over others. It is
this alleged "obligation to extend that culture throughout the world" that
gives rise to clash, not the mere fact of diversity and plurality. It is this
cultural terrorism that is at the root of the current crisis and confusion -
pushing mankind towards war, terrorisms and bloodshed. If genuine
plurality is accepted as the norm, then co-existence, cooperation and
healthy competition amongst civilizations could become the hallmark of
humanity. The operationalization of this vision - the paradigm of pluralism
and not hegemonism - can ensure a world order of peace and justice.
Then the clouds of a clash of civilizations may disappear, and the phantom
of terrorism laid to rest. Then only can the road to peace, security and
prosperity for all be successfully paved. Has the time not come to think
and strive for moving Beyond Terrorism ? Can mankind afford to ignore this
alternative?

7 Samuel Huntington, P. (1997). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remakin

World Order. London: Samuel and Schuster. pl87.
8 Ibid, pp 217-218.

10

This content downloaded from 35.154.245.7 on Sat, 04 Apr 2020 07:56:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms