[A-List] Terror, the great leveller

[Bill Totten <shimogamo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

New Statesman Leader (March 22 2004)

For the first time since the Second World War, the civilian populations
of western democracies are themselves the targets of hostile, foreign
attacks. For nearly 60 years, the armies and air forces of America,
Australia, Britain and some other European countries have been able to
bomb and strafe people in faraway lands (most of them poor) with little
thought for consequences at home. Latterly, even their military
casualties have been light. Governments had to reckon with popular
compassion, but not with popular fear. Now, wars have become more than
television spectacles. The inhabitants of London, Paris, Rome, Madrid,
New York, Washington and so on have some first-hand knowledge of the
fears that have been all too real to people in Hanoi, Phnom Penh,
Baghdad, Kabul and many other cities, and of the anxieties that plague
those who live in, say, Tehran or Damascus.

To say this is not to take any satisfaction from the horrible bombings
in Madrid. On the contrary, it is to recognise that what is loosely
called al-Qaeda terrorism (al-Qaeda being a brand name rather than a
discrete entity) is nastier than anything perpetrated by Basque
separatists, Irish republicans or Red Brigades. The new terrorists make
no pretence of aiming to disrupt or even to hit prestige targets. The
Madrid bombers could easily have attacked outside rush hours and still
caused incalculable damage to the city's transport network, causing some
casualties (as does western bombing from the air) but claiming that
these were incidental. They aimed for maximum death rates, however - and,
since many victims were not commuting civil servants or bankers but
African and Arab migrants travelling to menial city-centre jobs, they
clearly do not care whom they kill. Only the deepest hatred can explain
such actions and, while it is no doubt satisfying to resort to the
political cliches of utter condemnation and resolve to stand firm
(against what exactly?), we had better try to understand where the
hatred comes from.

Two sources stand out. The first is the mirror image of western
politicians' claims that "our way of life" is under threat, that the
terrorists hate liberty and democracy. This may be true but, as many in
the Muslim world see it, the west threatens their way of life and hates
their most precious values. Many Europeans only slowly came to terms
with curry smells, Arabic and veils in their cities; and supposedly
liberal-minded folk still fret, in their respectable way, about the
future of "Britishness". Muslims have every reason to feel their culture
under far greater threat, as Microsoft, AOL Time Warner, Britney Spears
and so on spread to every corner of the planet, while US money and
armour almost invariably get their way. What is the US and British
ambition to spread democracy and free markets across the Middle East,
partly by force, but an attempt to defeat what some Muslims value as
their "way of life"? This grievance inspires mainly a section of the
Muslim elite - the likes of Osama Bin Laden, who thinks US troops on
Saudi soil defile holy places. But it is easy to see how such ideas can
whip up wider feeling among the Muslim masses, particularly when recent
invasions have strengthened the view that the western powers are hostile
aggressors.

Which brings us to the second source of hatred: poverty, misery and
despair. From Casablanca to Jakarta, in ever-growing slums and refugee
camps, these provide not only foot soldiers for terrorist missions, but
also an environment where they can get tacit support and physical
shelter. Wage war on poverty rather than on terror, we can argue, and
the terrorists can indeed be hunted down with all the hammed-up
determination that George W Bush and Tony Blair can muster. But, and
here's the rub, the neoconservatives in Washington and their curious new
Labour supporters in Britain truly believe that free markets (democracy,
when push comes to shove, seems to be optional) offer the best route out
of poverty.

Just as what was good for General Motors was once good for America, so
now, according to the neo-cons, what is good for Halliburton (or similar
corporations) is good for the world. In fact, free markets on the US
model increase inequality rather than general prosperity. Because of its
extravagant promises of earthly riches, capitalism leads to earthly
disappointment, making young men all too susceptible to an ideology
(call it Islamofascism, if you like) that promises other-worldly bliss
through martyrdom.

Thus, the approach of the US and British governments, by strengthening
both sources of hatred, seems doomed to intensify terrorism. Until now,
most voters have thought only spasmodically about geopolitics. To be
sure, bombing other countries was never popular in Europe, but it was
not a big vote-loser. The Spanish overwhelmingly opposed the Iraq war,
but seemed ready to forgive their government as long as it kept most of
them economically comfortable. The Madrid bombings changed all that.
Though the Aznar government's inept attempt to blame the Basques was
partly responsible, the Spanish made a simple calculation: if their
troops had kept out of Iraq, 201 people, now dead, would still be alive
in Madrid. Facing accusations of cowardice, they may find this hard to
admit. But treat sceptically any poll that gives other reasons for their
switch of support.

The idea that geopolitical strategies should be polluted by a crude
popular fear of attack, and that gangs of outlaws should influence
democracies, may be abhorrent. But the grisly truth is that poor people
in Iraq and Afghanistan have achieved a kind of equality with rich
westerners. Both now know fear. Our lives may soon prove as cheap as
theirs. That is the progress made so far in the war on terror.

Copyright New Statesman 1913 - 2004

http://www.newstatesman.com/site.php3?newTemplate=NSArticle_NS&newDisplayURN=200403220001