Ihsan Bal Head of USAK Science Committee printable version send your friend

Monday, 30 May 2005

Introduction

The expectation that the 21^st century would be more peaceful for the people of the world reduced to pessimism with the September 11 tragedy and the ensuing terror attacks. The end of the Cold War brought about the third wave of democracy with the 1990s marking very promising developments for humanity. In fact, the high hopes that the Oslo Accord conveyed for the chronic Israeli-Palestinian question, the democratization process in the Eastern bloc, and the solution of the ethnic-religious strife in the Balkans with the efforts of various countries, Europe and the United States being the foremost, all came forth as auspicious signals that the future of our planet was to be safer and happier. However, what most of us, if not all, overlooked was the emergence of a deep and silent threat that took Islam hostage and began carrying out large-scale, sensational, and vicious operations. The peak of these operations was manifested in New York, Washington, Istanbul, Madrid, and Beslan. A general shock ensued and people wondered “why? for what?” However, it was George Bush’s administration that asked the least number of questions and was soon convinced that they found the answers. “The evils had declared war against the good” and there was a need for an all-out war. The CNN quickly shifted its subtitles from “America Under Attack” to “America At War” and the war against global terror commenced. With hardly any other country’s opposition, the first country that was targeted in the war against global terror was Afghanistan that harbored Usama Bin Ladin. However, targeting Iraq as the second objective, the methods used in this war, and the human rights violations not only endured immediate criticism from many nations but the mistakes committed played into the hands of global terrorists.

The events since September 11 have neither yielded any significant results in the fight against terror nor have Moslems been able to cast aside their shock for what the terrorists have done. As a matter of fact, some important religious scholars in the Islamic world did endeavor to counter the terrorists’ discourse. However, none of them have been able to attract publicity as much as the defenders of terrorism, such as Bin Ladin and Zewahiri. Moslems, pressurized under the popular image/wreckage of “barbaric Moslem”, were hindered from declaring their actual position to the world under the duress, for they did not have enough “bombs” to catch others’ attention.  The attempt was to draw the world into a war of hatred through America’s figurative and illusory discourse (the “evil, demonic” bin Ladin and Saddam “who murdered his own people and had chemical weapons”). President Bush’s statement that “you are either on our side or on theirs (the evils)” has been ringing in people’s ears since September 11. On the other end, Bin Ladin is using exactly the same rhetoric. He labels the affair as “a war between believers and infidels” and targets everyone presumed to be on the other camp.

In this section of the book, the dilemma that the world has been delivered to is going to be scrutinized. Moreover, the struggle against the increasing threat of global terror, as well as the question whether the approaches to these struggles will give a new direction to the Turkey-EU association will be examined. As such, the first two parts will analyze the historical development of terror and its expansion strategies. Understanding terror, which constitutes the most important aspect in defeating it, is to be done by looking at its historical process and the strategies devised by terrorists. The third part will cover the strategies forged by states to this day. In this regard, the US model in fighting global terror, as well as the EU and Turkish models will be investigated. Moreover, the third part will try to settle the effects that the improving Turkey-EU relationship can have on the fight against global terror. In the concluding parts of the section, the Turkey-EU partnership in the fight and in thwarting the clash of civilizations will be stressed at along with some noteworthy suggestions.

I) TERROR AND TERRORISM – A SHORT HISTORY

To reach a common definition or to have a common understanding of the historical process? We believe that the primary imperative to grasp this most important security problem dictates the need to know the evolution of terrorism. From its inception until today, terrorism, along with its discourse, will be closely scrutinized in three phases. It is useful to say that there are other ways to analyze terrorist activities and terrorism from the method suggested here. The classification in this study will focus on political, economic, and social processes and relevant terrorist actions and the shifts in terrorism’s discourse.

In this respect, the industrialization of the 19^th century, the independence movements of the 20^th century and the Cold War, and finally the post-Cold War era will constitute the categories in the study of terror and terrorism. Even though the post-Cold War era started in the 1990s, what has been called global terror truly started with the 21^st century. Moreover, terrorist activities used in the 20^th century’s independence movements falls under the scope of the Cold War.

19^th Century Terrorism (The Terror of Labor Movements)

As stated, terrorism passed through three stages in the past two centuries. The first stage was the armed conflicts that local groups pursued against central authorities in the years following the French Revolution of 1789. In this respect, anti-Czarist groups in Russia and anarchist and Marxist groups in continental Europe during the 19^th century can be reckoned as terrorist organizations. Their instruments for coercion consisted of basic bombs and explosives capable of inflicting very limited damage. When looking at their arguments for legitimization, the weak used it against the strong, the oppressed against despotic governments and these groups defended terrorism as a means to realize grand political tasks.[1]

Significant handicaps have been sustained in defining terrorism. Some commentators and especially some state officials labeled terrorists, aiming to degrade them vis-a-vis public opinion, as “lunatic, perverted, cruel, demonic, evil, nihilistic, barbaric”, attributes related to terrorists’ personalities. Meanwhile, studies on terrorists and terrorism mostly in academic circles concentrated on these peoples’ logical setup and why they do those seemingly senseless activities. However, societies and states have not reached a common definition of terror, which have occupied the world on local, regional, and international arenas for over two centuries. We are not to emphasize the reasons for this being so but in order to cope with a problem, concept, or phenomenon, a common ground is needed. It is obvious by now that this common ground is not going to be attained through a common definition.

Some studies do exist to shed light on the questions of who a terrorist is and what terrorism is. It can be said that the academic community is closer to a common definition.[2] In this regard, when examined as a means of coercion and violence, aiming to suppress masses by intimidation, terror can be defined as the deliberate and indiscriminate targeting of innocent civilians for a cause, political or otherwise.[3] This definition was made in line with terror’s qualitative aspect. Meanwhile, terrorism can be characterized as terrorist groups’ legitimization of their reasoning and the advocacy of their activities inferred from their political arguments.[4] For example, while Europe was undergoing industrialization, we can see those who took part in violence and tried to legitimize their indiscriminate use of coercion among ideologists such as Karl Heinzen (1849), Bakunin (1869), and Nechaev (1869). Karl Heinzen made one of the most fundamental defenses of terrorism:

“If killing is a crime, it should be a crime for everybody. If not, killing should be sanctioned for everybody. We do not stand for any killing and coercive behavior but if our adversaries do not share these views and conversely see their actions against us as legitimate, even sacred, we have the right to retaliate in kind. We can all be a Robespierre ourselves. We can and must generate legitimate arguments similar to his defense of violence, even more legitimate. This is our most natural right.”[5]

“What other chances does an unprotected labor group have against government authority in possession of a strong military?” was the argument used quite often throughout the 19^th century[6] and survived as the defense of terror attacks until today. A decision must be made by looking at the perpetrators of these attacks and the attacks’ characteristics. There is a method of struggle here that only calculates how close the attacks bring the terrorists to their goals. With this method, the terrorist disregards the legality of his actions, is bent solely on propagating his message, plans merciless attacks, and aims at symbolic targets not caring whether they are innocent civilians or not.[7]

Ideologists such as Bakunin, Karl Heinzen, and Nechaev argued that terrorism could serve as the way of expression for these hopeless people. These thinkers stated that it was the best strategy with such little power to carry out operations against the unreceptive state with its strong military and police forces. It was especially preferable for the operations to be based on armed propaganda, to be striking, sensational, and violent so as to create fear and panic, and to disregard any religious or moral rules. As a result, the ideologists of terrorism have repeatedly forwarded this argument; never in terror operations will as many people die as in the wars initiated by states to serve their political purposes. Anyway, there is no other alternative. Thus, the philosophical arguments in terrorism’s internal consistency are perfected, with terrorists ready to go underground, organize hierarchically and carry out ruthless operations with no remorse. We see that this concept lies in terrorism’s 200 year-old history.

Undergoing industrialization and urbanization during the 19^th century, Europe experienced new political, social, and economic problems. Especially with the populations in the cities exceeding hundreds of thousands and the fact that this rapid increase consisted mainly of workers, brought along social crises. Thinking that they were unjustly treated by factory management and that they were used as pariahs working long hours, unable to send their children to school, lacking adequate health-care and even the basic means of livelihood, the new labor class was ready to be manipulated and goaded. It was not hard to mobilize these people who were frustrated with their conditions. Looking at 19^th century terrorism as a phenomenon, it was not merely the combat strategy of a group of insane individuals but also a social, economic, and political result of the time. As such, it is imperative to understand that the issue at hand is not a group of adventurous “rouges” who take this road and to take necessary measures accordingly.[8]

It is possible to say that the basic arguments brought forth by ideologists of 19^th century terrorism are still valid after 200 years. In this respect, how this method of struggle, imported from the west to the east, finds its place in Islam’s domains is an important question for discussion by political scientists and sociologists. The phenomenon of terrorism, needing close scrutiny, has scorched many nations throughout the 20^th century. It is useful to analyze its modus operandi, arguments and strategies for the 20^th century.

20^th Century Terrorism (Terror During the Cold War)

The local character of terror lasted until the Second World War. Terrorist organizations, usually pressing demands to their governments in parallel with their ideologies in time emerged as independence movements against colonial empires. However, the 20^th century did not pass by with terrorist organizations pursuing “innocent” ideals with the “weak fighting strong and despotic tyrannies.” The most remarkable event of the 20^th century for terrorists was the advent of the Cold War. During this era, some states saw it fit to use terror as a bargaining chip in international relations.

Consequently, terrorism’s second phase comes about with the Cold War. Terrorist organizations grew rapidly in the second half of the 20^th century as the world entered the struggle between the capitalist and democratic Western bloc and the communist and Marxist-Leninist (Stalinist for some) East bloc. In this phase, unable to go to war due to the deterring influence of their respective nuclear arsenals, the two blocs carried the hot war to different platforms. The most effective area, perhaps the only one, which transformed the Cold War into hot wars was the utilization of terrorist organizations and the conflicts in buffer countries such as Vietnam and Afghanistan. The USSR’s support, especially to extreme leftist organizations in the form of logistics, arms, ammunition, training, and propaganda helped terrorist organizations to operative more effectively and internationally.[9] Now, terrorist organizations were able to move between countries and even had access to certain conventional weapons. As a result, they were able to inflict deaths in the hundreds with their operations by shooting down airplanes and conducting high-scale bombing raids.

During the Cold War, we see that terrorist organizations diverted from the basic arguments expressed in the 19^th century. Under the endorsement of certain states, especially the USSR, terrorist organizations lost their persuasiveness to such claims that they were innocent groups fighting despots or that theirs was a war of the weak against the strong. Especially in the case of organizations, backed by the USSR and operating in democratic countries, it is quite dubious how reliable these arguments are in the light of the inclusiveness of the respective parties’ political systems.

Ernesto Che Guevara, the legendary terrorist of the 20^th century, explains the path to terror and the primacy of being a terrorist;

“Hatred – the unyielding hatred against the enemy – as a factor in a struggle grants a resilience beyond the capacity of man and transforms him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. Our soldiers have to fight accordingly; a people without hatred cannot defeat their cruel enemies.

The war must be taken to where the enemy takes it. It should be carried to his home and his place of recreation. The war must be totalized, denying the enemy even the single instance of peace outside his barracks and even inside them. He must be attacked on sight and must feel like a wild animal being pursued in every step he takes. He will become more vulgar but also show the signs of his downfall then.”[10]

The parallel between Che’s and Heinzen’s discourse, almost a century apart, is noticeable. The rhetoric on the need for a terrorist to be a merciless killing machine fits the past century’s discourse. Indeed, one can see that by omitting the names, Usama bin Laden can perfectly fit into the picture. Therefore, the same or similar problems in different times produce people sharing the same motives.

During the Cold War, the unbalanced economic development in the Middle East, the establishment of Israel, along with a set of social events caused the rapid spread of nationalist terror groups under Gamal Abdul Nasser, followed by socialist-leaning ones. While terror increased with each passing days in the problematic Middle East, its sources and ideology underwent changes. It was nationalism for a while, then Arab socialism, and increasingly religious fanaticism since the 1980s.

We know that the Western bloc developed some mechanisms in order to counter terrorist organizations that appeared in the 20^th century. However, the terrorist organizations in question operated mostly on the national arena while it was mostly Israel that dealt with Middle East-centered groups. As such, this country was left to handle Middle Eastern groups. Israel’s strategy in fighting terror, on the other hand, has been far from being inclusive and integrating and has been extremely militaristic and alienating.

In reaction to terror groups emerging in the 20^th century, bearing in mind that they were backed by the USSR, the West’s policies mostly centered on disrupting their propaganda and to train specialized security forces against individual criminals. During the Cold War, rather than the US, it was mostly European countries and Turkey, which had a border with the USSR, that were the targets of terror strikes. Thus, during the Cold War, while the US was left out on the social, political, legal, economic, and cultural precautions taken against terrorism, it was a part of the security-centered policies.

21^st Century Terrorism (Global Terror)

The third phase of terror and terrorism comes about with the era of globalization. The commencement of this era was sealed with the attacks against the US on September 11 2001. Now, terrorism is a concept that has a new international war strategy, the solidarity of an international civilian initiative (it is estimated that the Al-Qaeda has over five thousand operatives worldwide from a variety of nations) with ever-stronger militants. This is a defiance of the leader of the new world, the leader of the invincible armada. Interesting to ask if Francis Fukuyama, the promulgator of the End of History, rethought his thesis? In a sense, the end of this idea did emerge with Fukuyama’s “The End of American Exceptionalism”, which sought the rise of a new war against global terror.[11]

We live in an age that even to question why we face a problem of global terror is a hard thing to do. For the people who lay claim to have found the truth neither have the time nor the patience to listen to other arguments and causalities. All the debates about terror center on taking sides and any argument brought forth is not examined whether they are reasonable or scientific, but to which side they would serve best. In spite of all these, in order to understand global terror, let us try to see things from the viewpoint of our enemies (assuming that the actors of global terror are our common enemies). With this approach, maybe we will be able to grasp terrorists’ perspective as authors such as Achcar try to lay out[12] and have the chance to take existing ideas used in thwarting global terror a step further.

Acquiring important avenues of propaganda regarding the problems of the Islamic world and the internal and external causes to these problems, the Al-Qaeda organization announced its aims in the Bin Ladin Declaration of Jihad in 1996, immediately after the meeting of its Grand Jury: “To remove American forces from the Arabian peninsula, to topple the Saudi regime, to liberate the holy places of Islam, to support all radical Islamic organizations around the world, and with its faithful youth, to kill Americans ‘invading’ the Saudi kingdom.”[13]

Seeing the increase in its base of support and those who are mesmerized by its rhetoric, the Al-Qaeda rose to prominence among other terrorist organizations. The organization acquired an international character in February 1998. After meeting with several terror groups, Bin Ladin called for attacks on anywhere that the US had an interest. The joint declaration by the leaders of five important organizations, led by the Al-Qaeda, and printed on the London-based Al Quds al-Arabi daily is very important. On the newspaper, Sheik Usama Bin Muhammad Bin Ladin; Ayman al-Zewahiri, leader of the Egyptian Jihad; Abu Yasser Rifa’i Ahmad Taha, leader of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad; Sheik Mir Hamza, leader of the Pakistani Jamiyyat-ul Ulama; and Fazlu’l Rahman, leader of the Bangladeshi Jihad Movement decreed under the title of “World Islamic Front” that:

“In order to rid the Al-Aqsa mosque and Mecca from occupation and kick their armies out from the lands of Islam, it is a must for all Moslems to kill – civilian or military – any American and their allies on sight.”[14]

Al-Qaeda claims to be the defender of Moslems all around the world. It promotes its activities through issues such as the Palestinian question and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. As in the case of its attacks in Kenya, Al-Qaeda tried to justify its action by arguing for the liberation of Palestinian lands occupied by Israel. From the viewpoint of the terrorist, the target and the means to that target are quite clear. Arguments on behalf of terrorism for the past 200 years have found suitable grounds for producing both leaders and militants in places where problems mount. The means and destructive power of the current organization is much greater and it has been able to lay great fear in the hearts of innocent people around the world. The arguments of global terror are of such kind that they basically leave nobody out. Usama Bin Ladin explains the murder of innocent people as such:

“If enemies are occupying lands belonging to Moslems and using innocent people as shields, this warrants us to attack them. For example, when thugs attack a house and take the children hostage, the children’s father would attack the thugs in kind even if this may harm his children. America and its allies are massacring Moslems in Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir, and Iraq. Moslems have a right to retaliate against America. Islamic law states that Moslems cannot live in infidels’ lands for too long. The September 11 attacks did not target women and children. The real targets were America’s economic and military symbols. Americans should not forget that they pay taxes to their governments, elect their presidents while their governments produce weapons that they hand over to Israel, which uses these weapons to slaughter Moslem Palestinian people. The American Congress upholds the American government’s discretion and this evinces that America is responsible for the cruelties committed against Moslems.”[15]

The Al-Qaeda’s final aim is to unite all Moslems under the rule of the Caliphate. Bin Ladin argues that “the sole way for the establishment of the Caliphate is by force.” For that reason, the Al-Qaeda strives to lift the borders by toppling “the decadent regimes in Moslem countries that are under the spell of the West.” Bin Ladin says that immediately afterwards, he dreams of “an Islamic world free from dictatorships that are America’s puppets” where “true Islamic sharia is practiced.” Another one of the Al-Qaeda’s plans is to force the US to increase its military spending, discredit its policies in the eyes of American public opinion, weaken its stock market and its economy, create tension and mistrust between the US and its close allies and deepen the existing ones, forcing Washington to pursue isolationist policies in the middle and long run.

Usama Bin Ladin states his mission as such:

“My mission is only to awaken Moslems. I have to tell them what is good and bad. What does Islam say and what does its enemies want? The Al-Qaeda was formed to conduct jihad against blasphemy and especially to protect Moslem countries from attacks. Jihad is the undeclared sixth commandment of Islam. Any person against Islam fears this commandment. The Al-Qaeda wants to keep this commandment alive and active and to make it a part of Moslems’ daily lives. The Al-Qaeda wants to elevate the word “jihad” to the status of worship. We are not against any Moslem country and do not perceive a war against a Moslem country as jihad. We are for the armed jihad against infidel states who kill Moslem men, women, and children simply because they are Moslem.”

Bin Ladin held that the Al-Qaeda and the organizations under its auspices are engaging in self-defense:

“Our terror is against America. This commendable terror is carried out in order to curb the oppression and the support for Israel, which massacres our children. Don’t you still understand? America and the leading countries of the West label organizations such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others as terrorists. How can one’s self-defense be terror? Then what is legitimate?”[16]

The Al-Qaeda’s declaration to legitimize terror perfectly fits with the statements of 19^th century ideologist of terrorism, Karl Heinzen and the discourse of the symbol of 20^th century terrorism, Che. Terrorists forward the same arguments for years that as murder is a crime everywhere on the world, every state commits it. If legitimacy in killing is in question, these activities by innocent people can be nothing more than the effort to protect themselves, their properties and their lives against stronger governments. Let bourgeois, imperialist, and capitalist America call them “terrorists”,that does not matter. If fighting for what we believe is called “terror”, let us be called “terrorists” is the mindset that has alleviated the terrorist’s conscience and has turned him into a ruthless killing machine.

When looking at the threat capacity of global terror, it is estimated that there are many adherents of the Al-Qaeda in the form of active militants and sympathizers with active militants amounting to over ten thousand. The Al-Qaeda terror group, active in 55 countries, organized in a shape similar to a bunch of grapes, is understood not only as a threat to countries such as the US, Israel, and the UK and Western values, but also as a major menace to Moslem societies and Islamic values. It is seen that these militants conduct very sensational and large-scale attacks by using new techniques. Bearing in mind the communication technologies of our times, these attacks are a major publicity for terrorists.

Why Are Terrorist Organizations So Widespread in the Islamic World?

When evaluating the Islamic geography, several points can be outlined: With the exception of Turkey and Malaysia, it is hard to see an industrialized country where Moslems are a majority. Even though industrialization is incomplete, unqualified and uneducated masses create massive migration and the problem of unhealthy urbanization. It is observed that most of the people living on the Islamic geography lack even the basic needs to continue their lives. Although an important portion of the world’s energy resources are in this geography, these riches have not been used for the well-being of Moslems. These natural resources were used and are still being used either through the local rulers’ dealings with the West or by Westerners directly.

Moreover, the establishment of Israel on Palestinian lands at the center of the Middle East has been a source of considerable political tension. Losing four consecutive wars against Israel, Arabs have missed the opportunity to gain the upper hand in this respect as well. Yet, “Moslem” countries like Iran and Iraq, in pursuit of nuclear weapons, were blockaded, isolated or invaded. The point here is not that everybody should have nuclear weapons but to show the pressure that those in possession of these weapons exert over those who do not, or the distrust between the West and “others.”

Becoming influential in the Middle East following the UK, the US preferred and supported oppressive regimes to democratic ones. In general terms, Moslem societies did have rulers with a notion of democracy, human rights, welfare state, and individual rights and liberties. The biggest exception to this case has been Turkey, which underwent the European Union process. In other words, the common values of Western civilization of industrialization, Enlightenment, urbanization, and modernity were not presented to the Islamic world in a correct manner. As such, the tautology that Moslems and their religious beliefs contradict these values and that they refute these values because of their beliefs is inaccurate.

The ways in which Moslems, constituting a geography with a population of a billion and a half, solve their problems varies. Those who blame the West or the rulers who collaborate with the West for the problems are mostly holding the mirror to others, so to say. Meanwhile, a minority has realized that they have a part in the problems and have thought of ways to overcome them. Moslems, in line with the reasons mentioned above, have been increasingly hostile and hateful towards the West and the government officials whom they perceive as collaborators and this increased tensions.

The spread of terror from the Islamic geography to the rest of the world can be summarized as follows; with the rise of radicals to prominence who have increasingly become inflamed due to a defeatist psychology and their resort to violence, terrorism has presented itself as a way of exit to those looking for the people responsible for the disasters that befell them. None of the reasons stated can be a proof to justify terrorism, but can be illustrative as to why people end up being terrorists.

In this respect, the question “why do Islamic countries harbor terror groups?” can be answered as such: With their rights violated, their lands occupied either directly or indirectly, having been denied development and left out of industrialization, facing double standards, and living in the Middle East and the Islamic world sketched above, convinced these people to resort to terror attacks and as such, organizing the structure to do just that has not proved difficult for terrorist leaders. We see that groups that express themselves through terrorism later move on to North Africa and other Islamic countries. The subject that requires attention is that terror and terrorism have been presented to these desperate peoples as an exit route along with nationalism, ideological and religious beliefs being used to motivate people for the cause. The current reality is not that nationalism, religion or socialism breed terror but their employment as levers by groups that face certain problems. The fundamental issue is the preponderance of sentiments of inequality, injustice, and backwardness and as a result, the piloting of a large segment of people by a certain group into terror activities. In Fred Halliday’s words, terror groups that find shelter in the Islamic world have more to do with economic, social and political bankruptcy than with theological questions. It is not at all a war between Islam and the West.[17] In Achecar’s expression, it is not a “clash of civilizations” but a “clash of barbarisms.” "Statements of facts or opinions appearing in the pages of Journal of Turkish Weekly (JTW) are not necessarily by the editors of JTW nor do they necessarily reflect the opinions of JTW or ISRO. The opinions published here are held by the authors themselves and not necessarily those of JTW or ISRO.

Materials may not be copied, reproduced, republished, posted without mentioning the mark of JTW or ISRO in any way except for your own personal non-commercial home use. For the news and other materials republished by the JTW you must apply the original publishers. JTW cannot give permission to republish this kind of materials."