Our
View: Terrorism aids dictatorships
Since
Sept. 11, 2001, the United States and a
broad coalition of countries have become
embroiled in a "war" on terror.
This military term is certainly applicable
in many respects. Military and police pressures
such as regime changes and arrests, along
with high-tech intelligence, largely define
the global effort.
But
in another sense the struggle against terrorism
is a kind of international political campaign,
a battle to win "the hearts and minds,"
as the hackneyed saying goes.
Those
opposed to terrorism are striving to bring
people to their side who will cast their
lot with non-violence.
The
literal war on terrorism is necessary because
of the failure to win the quasi-political
campaign in the past. It will continue to
be essential to staving off terrorist ambitions
in the short-run because the failure to
win this political campaign has created
hard-line dead-enders with no desire to
be won back to the side of moderation and
peace.
But
in the long run, victory over terrorism
will rely on victory in this political campaign.
The United States has done some good things
to ensure this triumph. It has increased
the budget of the National Endowment for
Democracy, has created public relations
campaigns to counter radicalism from North
Africa to Central Asia and has engaged in
a military endeavor in Iraq whose real purpose
seems to have been tipping the first democratic
domino in a region dominated by autocratic
and oligarchic rule. All of this signals
a U.S. awareness that the defeat of terrorism
depends on several complex underlying currents
of dissatisfaction and anger.
Dangerously,
however, the very allies America needs to
cultivate may jeopardize the positive outcome
of this whole exercise in soft power. Terrorism
has proven itself a convenient excuse for
state leaders with a fetish for power. Under
the pretext of combating terrorism, rulers
across the globe have engaged in brutal
crackdowns on citizens with social desires
that do not square well with those of the
state.
In
a special report to the United Nations titled
"In the Name of Terrorism: Human Rights
Abuses Worldwide," Human Rights Watch
cataloged injustices done to an array of
dissidents, secessionists and social critics
around the world. China, the report said,
has used anti-terrorism scare tactics to
justify repression of advocates of independence
in a small autonomous region of the country.
Egypt was criticized for allowing torture
of suspected extremists. And Russia was
highlighted as a benefactor of the new worldwide
effort against terrorism in its brutal incursions
into Chechnya.
Admittedly,
these secular states face a dire threat
from real terrorists. Some face the specter
of an enemy who would employ violent means
to fulfill a goal of a caliphate stretching
from the Mediterranean Sea to the Himalayas.
Others feel the threat of violent movements
whose aims would harm a perceived national
interest. But for every terrorist imprisoned
in a massive police sweep, several more
may be created if the government uses unfair
or even cruel methods.
In
a 319-page report titled "Creating
Enemies of the State: Religious Persecution
in Uzbekistan," Human Rights Watch
details how the Uzbek government has jailed
thousands of Muslims -- some dissidents
and some not -- on charges of practicing
their faith outside the strict parameters
set by the state, including rules on mosques
where Muslims are permitted to worship.
The report predicts a backlash of precisely
the type the crackdown seeks to eliminate.
All
of these countries are vital partners of
America on issues including and independent
of terrorism. China and Russia have been
courted as strategic partners in the new
world order, Egypt is the second largest
recipient of U.S. foreign aid and Uzbekistan
plays an important role in the theater of
conflict around Afghanistan.
And
so America must use firm diplomacy to urge
-- and coerce if necessary -- these states
to differentiate between true terrorist
threats and discrete national interests
that do not warrant forceful responses.
It must show them that such measures endanger
not only America, but also create the potential
for blowback against these countries themselves.
It must show them that a conscientious approach
to terrorism will deliver these countries
the votes they need to win the political
campaign against terrorism.
|
