Global Security and Terrorism

Terrorism in the 21^st Century

Since the ending of the Cold War, with the break-up of the Soviet Union, the world has been dominated by a sole superpower, the United States.  Apart from a long-term strategic threat from China, which will grow in importance in the next two decades as China’s national wealth exceeds that of the US, America today has no significant enemies amongst the countries of the world, apart from the bankrupt Stalinist state of North Korea.  There is hostility and dislike of the exercise of American power among many, but this is not in itself a threat, unlike the terrorist groups that have identified America, and its allies in the West, as the targets for their hatred.  Al-Qaeda’s attack on the Twin Towers in 2001 totally changed America’s perception of the nature of the threats that it faces in the 21^st century. 

Al-Qaeda is not the only effective terrorist group at this time, but it has changed the West’s appreciation of the nature of the terrorist threat that it faces.  This is important because the wealth and power (including control of the media) of the Western governments enables them to set the political and economic agenda for the rest of the world.  European countries, notably the UK and Spain, have long experience of their own terrorist groups, and Britons can remember a time when some Americans saw Irish terrorism as somewhat romantic.  These countries share America’s new found concerns about the nature of the terrorist threat, as a potentially serious threat to the security of their nations.

The impact of 9/11 also made it difficult to question to what extent the terrorism of Al-Qaeda has a political element, as opposed to being a nihilist organization wishing to force a militant brand of Islam onto the world.  Al-Qaeda would not be the first organization to provide a justification to its foot-soldiers which differed from the wider aims of its leadership, in fact this seems to be common within revolutionary groups.  It seems to me that the real objective of Al-Qaeda may have been to control the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and that attacks on the west could serve to give it credibility and to consolidate its support in the Kingdom.  Since 9/11 most of the terrorist attacks that appear to be most closely linked to Al-Qaeda have occurred in Saudi Arabia.  These are the contemporary versions of the attack on the Grand Mosque in Mecca in 1979 (‘al-Haram’), by several hundred Mahadi-ists who were finally killed by the Saudis, helped by French special forces and mercenaries. The ideas of the Mahadi-ists have continued to influence young Saudis to this day, and their experience in Afghanistan trained them in the acts of war and terrorism.

Scenes of Israeli violence against Palestinians have also radicalized the views of many young Arabs.  American support for Israel has long been regarded by many in the Middle East as the only reason why Israel has been able to resist pressure for a real peace settlement with the Palestinians.  I am not suggesting that this view is correct, but the billions of US Dollars given to Israel have been an essential life-line to that country.  Such conflicts, and the hatreds they generate, are the soil in which terrorist movements can be nurtured and grow. The corruption and inequalities in countries like Saudi Arabia only adds to the explosive mixture, as does the threat that modernity poses to some attached to a traditional Middle Eastern, male-dominated, culture, which many in the region confuse with Islam.  As has been the case in Ireland it does not matter what the “truth” of events is, what matters are the myths and the world view, or frame of reference, that is constructed around them.  A successful movement, or group, creates a hermetically sealed bubble around its members, then all who oppose are seen as heretical, denying the truth as up held by the group.  So in a strange way opposition is exactly what a terrorist group needs, as it reinforces its sense that it has a unique insight into truth, and this enables to it to undertake its terrorist acts without remorse, or compassion.

The response of the US Government in 2001 was to try to attack Al-Qaeda’s bases in Afghanistan (the original battle-ground for America’s proxy war against Russia).  But the roots of terrorist organizations do not lie in training camps; their supporters can quickly move, with their laptops computers, mobile phones and Web Sites they are as IT-aware as any US executive.  To a degree fighting terrorism is not a game for soldiers, it’s a game for intelligence services and special forces.  The war against terrorism is mainly a virtual one, fought over computer screens and the Internet, with software of increasing sophistication and data-warehouses accessing terabytes of information in real time. I should consider the implications of this below.

There is a second front, that is one of ideas and values, where the West must convince any potential terrorist that it is acting in the cause of the widest interest of all humanity, not merely parrot the words equality and liberty. The Western world, which controls much of the global economy, cannot afford to be seen as a huge conspiracy of power, using an Orwellian control system in order to protect the wealth of a privileged oligarchy based in Wall Street and the City.  Americans were very affected by the plight of the 2005 hurricane victims in New Orleans, for many in the Third World their life is little better than this, with no hope of rescue, the West has to address this disparity of power and resources.  The disenfranchised and poverty-stricken populations which lie outside the boundaries of the G8 states have glimpsed the life-style of the rich world and feel totally excluded. Terrorism has its roots in hatred and despair.