Home > London bombings and after
By MR JOSSE
– Many questions have been raised by the July 7 and attempted July 21 terror bombings in London, including whether they were the outcome of the UK’s involvement in the America-led war on Iraq.
Others centre on who is "responsible" for the lunatic mindset of the concerned terrorists: the UK, where they were born, bred and educated or Pakistan where many reportedly visited in the recent past.
DEBATES
While much has been made of Pakistan’s Islamic seminaries, as Peter Bergen pertinently recalls, "many British Muslims are young and poorly integrated into society and therefore vulnerable to extremism...Eight out of 10 believe that the war on terrorism is a war on Islam."
Daniel Benjamin argues that US President George W. Bush has been "the best recruiting sergeant for al-Qaeda." As much has been underlined in a report by the Royal Institute for International Affairs concluding that the war in Iraq gave a "boost" to al-Qeada and made Britain especially vulnerable.
That clashes with British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s declaration that there is no such link. It is also at variance with Australian Prime Minister John Howard’s public statement recently. Howard maintained that the London carnage was not "incident-specific" and that Australia was "a target for terrorism long before Iraq."
Incidentally, Time magazine’s Charles Krauthammer also dismisses the Iraq-as-cause theory arguing that the "seminal period" for al-Qaeda recruitment was the 1990s - before the invasion of Iraq or of Afghanistan. It is difficult, indeed, to dispute the rational that he advances below.
"The Clinton administration saw the most open, accommodating, apologetic US foreign policy since World War II. In fact, the 1990s were the decade of Muslim rescue: the US intervened militarily, and decisively, to save three Muslim peoples - the Bosnians, the Kosovars and the Kuwaitis - from conquest. Yet it was precisely during that era of good feeling that al-Qaeda not only recruited but also conceived, planned and set in motion the worst massacre of Americans in history."
LARGER QUESTIONS
Other issues have also been raised by noted commentators. Two come to mind. New York Times’ Thomas L. Friedman reminds readers: "The Qaeda threat metastasized and became franchised. It is no longer vertical, something that we can punch in the face. It is now horizontal, flat and widely distributed, operating through the Internet and tiny cells."
On the other hand, historian Walter Laqueur has observed: "There can be no final victory in the fight against terrorism, for terrorism (rather than full-scale war) is the contemporary manifestation of conflict, and conflict will not disappear from earth."
One grim reality remains indisputable: terror, especially the sort perpetrated by the al-Qaeda, can strike anywhere, particularly against soft targets in the West and locations elsewhere frequented by large numbers of their nationals.
It is surely instructive that the July 23 Sharm el-Sheik terror outrage, responsibility for which has been claimed by an al-Qaeda-linked outfit, was targeted against Egypt, a secular state with a majority Muslim population enjoying close ties with both the US and Israel.
Equally illuminating are the warnings that have been issued in that context. The Brigades of Abu Hafs al-Masri, for instance, issued this sombre warning July 9: "Our strikes in the heart of the British infidel capital are nothing more than a message to all European governments that we shall not relent until all infidel forces quit Iraq...
This is a warning to those who follow the policies of the president of infidel America."
No surprise, then, that as officials across Europe scrambled to beef up security in the wake of the London bombings, tension has been particularly building up in Italy, not only engaged in Iraq but
also poised for elections next year.
WORLD COMPACT
Blair has assured that his government would begin consultations on new anti-terrorism legislation soon. It is notable, too, that British police have asked for sweeping new powers to counter the terrorist threat, including the right to detain a suspect for up to three months without a charge instead of the current 14 days.
Senior officers also reportedly want stringent powers to attack and close down websites, and make a new criminal offense of using the Internet to prepare acts of terrorism, to "suppress inappropriate Internet usage."
Incidentally, their new shoot-to-kill policy has resulted in the tragic death of an innocent Brazilian who was chased down in a London Underground station and shot in the head and torso even though he was held down on the floor by five policemen in civil dress.
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the sprawling New York subway system has begun to security-check passengers. Significantly, US lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to extend the USA Patriot Act, America’s main anti-terrorism tool - just hours after the attempted London bombings of July 21. The Act, enacted after 9/11, initially was intended to last until December 31, 2005.
Notable, too, is the recent decree awarding Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra sweeping emergency powers to combat a violent insurgency in the country’s Muslim-dominated south.
The lessons from the above are clear: there must be genuine international compact on battling the scourge of terrorism; no more molly-coddling terrorism through a variety of guises; and an end to selective condemnation of acts of terrorism. The World Summit planned for September 14-16 would be the ideal venue where such a compact can be forged.
Let’s now see if world leaders are up to that urgent, difficult task.
The Kathmandu Post.
(MR Josse is a Nepali Journalist)