Question: How should the problem of terrorism be addressed?
Carmen Abubakar: Terrorism is always with us. It hangs like a net ready to catch, at the slightest prodding, persons and groups suspected of being terrorists or members of a group labeled as terrorist. Yet terrorism has not been clearly defined. Many innocent persons have been forcefully apprehended simply because of the similarity of their names with that of suspected terrorists’, or because they were found in a suspected lair of terrorists, or worse, because they were identified as terrorists by unscrupulous informants interested in earning their thirty pieces of silver. Many have been incarcerated, tortured, maimed, disappeared, or executed. All for a crime that, despite no clear-cut definition, has launched a war that threatens to engulf the world.
It has been argued that to solve the problem of terrorism, one must first look into its root causes. This challenge is often ignored in the heat of the moment after a terrorist attack and the impulse is to “get back” at the perpetrators, as in the “shock and awe” show that took place in Baghdad, Afghanistan, and to some extent, Mindanao. The result is often an indiscriminate “shooting war’ that wastes innocent lives callously shrugged off as “collateral damage.”
The situation is often compounded when states arrogate to themselves the authority to determine what terrorism is or is not. Often, even a legitimate struggle against a suppressive or indifferent state is regarded as terrorism and is therefore seen as a crime with corresponding harsh punishments. When this happens, the military solution easily becomes the preferred response. To meet force with force has the signal effect of producing a cycle of increasing violence that does little to resolve the causes of terrorism.
At the same time, national security becomes the highest priority, and all members of a group labeled as terrorist become subject to increasing harassment and violation of civil rights—not only from security forces but also from an increasingly hostile public frequently bombarded and desensitized by negative media coverage—which are encouraged under a sweeping anti-terror law. Continuing alienation and radicalization of the group’s members ensues. In some instances, the group accused of a crime, though not the actual perpetrator, becomes a convenient scapegoat, fall guy, or usual suspect for the police, who are pressured to come up with immediate arrests to show the public that it has done its job.
Obviously, the hard line is not sufficient to solve the problem of terrorism. If one does take the advice of looking at the root of terrorism, the questions to raise are: What are the group’s grievances? Against whom? Why? Facing these questions squarely and honestly allows for negotiations, mediations, and conciliations to take place. Recognizing, accepting, and correcting the injustices that underline many grievances will do more to alleviate some, if not the entire root causes of terrorism. So far, very little effort appears to be made in this direction.
But then the war on terror is not about justice, is it?
Clarita Carlos*: A twenty-four-year-old Palestinian woman, a new lawyer, straps herself with explosives and faces a video camera. She declares that she is willing to be a martyr for the Palestinian cause to establish an independent state and put an end to forty years of occupation by Israel. She then proceeds to a place frequented by the Israeli elite and detonates the bomb strapped to her body.
This and many other similar incidents in the nearly six decades of the Arab-Israeli conflict (beginning with the partitioning of Palestine in 1948), which have resulted in the deaths of many civilians and non-combatants, are labeled by many as “acts of terrorism.” Worldwide condemnation usually follows such actions. These incidents bring to our attention the continuing plight of peoples around the world who are progressively marginalized and deprived of their right to selfhood and personhood and who find no means for redress except to resort to violence.
The story of the Tamils, the Irish Catholics, the Basque separatists, the Chechens, and many others have common historical antecedents of progressive deprivation of their rights to use their language, to practice their religion, to be employed, to have places in the university, and to contest political positions in government.
While we do not condone the acts that result in the deaths of many innocent civilians, we also need to have a better understanding of the whys of “terrorism.”
The better way to address terrorism is to pay attention to the many ways people are deprived of their personhood. We must find ways for these peoples to add their voices to the conversation on how we can live together in harmony, recognizing each other’s differences.
In addressing the criminal acts of violence perpetrated by any group in the name of a particular cause, we must determine the root causes of such acts and seek to eradicate the environment which allows these acts to be perpetuated. This means avenues for conversations with the moderate part of these groups should be pursued relentlessly. Genuine efforts to change the environment that marginalizes and depersonalizes these individuals should be pursued.
How many billions of dollars does the US spend each day in pursuing its military agenda in Iraq? And, why is there only a miniscule amount of money devoted to rebuilding the industries of Iraq, once the most highly industrialized nation in the Middle East? Rebuilding these industries means creating jobs, and creating jobs means restoring the self-esteem of peoples who cannot continuously be at the receiving end of dole outs from occupying powers.
Unfortunately, countless more lives of Iraqis and non-Iraqis will be lost due to an abject lack in understanding why suicide bombings have become the order of the day in the country.
So long as the US global campaign against terrorism uses the military route, and so long as acts of terrorism are not seen as symptoms of deeper problems, there shall be no end to this.
Rhodora Bucoy: The issue of addressing terrorism has preoccupied all member states of the United Nations in the past years. After the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the seriousness of the issue came to be felt worldwide. In response to this critical global concern, the UN has drawn a strategic plan to combat terrorism.
Before crafting an agenda to address terrorism, we must clarify its meaning. This is vital given the highly contested nature of the subject. The famous cliché “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter” reflects the existence of differing views on the concept.
Terrorism, as defined by the UN and US, includes a list of activities or crimes that involve violent and life-threatening acts for political reasons. A UN Panel in March 2005 explicitly described terrorism as any act “intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.” While this definition zeroes in on terrorists as non-state actors, other writers like Johan Galtung of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation expand the concept to include state terrorism carried out by men and women in uniform. According to Galtung, both forms of terrorism use violence for political ends; harm people not directly involved in the struggle; spread panic or terror to bring about capitulation; involve an element of surprise in the choice of who, where, and when to attack; and make perpetrators unavailable for retaliation or incapacitation.
Given the diversity of meanings of terrorism, there is a need for a working definition to resolve the issue of state-sponsored terrorism and the issue of “terrorist” versus “freedom fighter.” The term as it is widely used in the West reflects a bias toward the status quo. Violence by established governments is sold as “defense even when that claim is considered dubious by some.” Any attempt to oppose the established order through military means, however, is often labeled terrorism. The labeling of groups as terrorists has raised controversies, especially if the naming is made by the enemies of the so-called “terrorist.”
This kind of thinking is echoed in the war the Philippine defense establishment is waging against the CPP and the NPA. Understanding a critical difference between a revolutionary group that is trying to overthrow a dictator or an oppressive government, and a terrorist group that is using intimidation and force to enforce its view of the world on an unwilling society, is relevant in the debate and in forging an agenda for peace and human security.
Aside from a conceptual rethinking, it is important to understand why terrorism exists. Comprehending terrorism does not imply forgiving terrorists for their assault on people. But to have a realistic perspective, we have to consider the whole gamut of the problem. We cannot discount the fact that the action of “terrorists” is partly related to the policies of the US throughout the world, especially in the Middle East. The US launch of a “war of terror” has further diminished the credibility of its intervention in the Middle East, and its all-out support for Israel has heightened the divide among the supporters of Palestinian struggle on one hand and Israel on the other. Its handling of the Iraqi issue in the name of what Bush refers to as war against the “axis of evil” has earned the US the reputation of a “rogue state.” A completely militaristic action to confront terrorism creates global insecurity.
Holistic political, economic, and social measures are necessary to address the problem adequately. The UN action against terrorism identified various procedures. It delineated the importance of addressing the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism, preventing and combating terrorism through a multi-pronged approach, and strengthening the role of the UN system in coordinated efforts to establish global security, address the use of weapons of mass destruction, and ensure respect for human rights for all and the rule of law as the fundamental basis of the fight against terrorism.
I see the urgency of the measures to address the conditions that abet terrorism as crucial to the resolution of the problem. The UN member states’ peace initiatives to respond to unresolved conflicts in many parts of the world, especially in the Middle East, would be a major step toward peace. The continuing war of the US in Iraq and interventions in Lebanon and Afghanistan give credence to terrorist claims that their war is just and a legitimate response to centuries of victimization and marginalization.
There is a need to review legislative actions of our government such as the Human Security Act and evaluate whether the law can really prevent terrorism or is just a ploy to stifle legitimate dissent. Legislation aimed at stopping terrorism should be repealed if this constitutes a threat to civil liberties in the guise of promoting human security. The University could play a leading role in collaboration with peace and human rights groups in the defense of human rights amid the continuing political killings. Academe must oppose provisions that curtail freedom of association, assembly, and movement.
Academe needs to study the phenomenon seriously and actively participate in debates on the issue.
UP can take the lead in setting up means for dialogue and promoting respect for different religions and identities. Given the divide between Muslim and Christian as seen in the war in Mindanao, we can vigorously pursue understanding through curricular changes. Education may not be the only venue for changing attitudes and promoting a culture of tolerance, but it is a powerful weapon to counter biases and “Islamophobia.” We can contribute to the global peace agenda in partnership with UN bodies like the UNESCO.
Educational change and dialogue should also be paired with the collective and individual actions to promote development, peace, and human rights. This implies a call for change in the global structure, which is dominated by few powerful countries and big businesses. There is a need to rethink our development paradigms and ensure that the resources and fruits of human labor will be enjoyed by all people. Terrorism will lose its ground if people no longer suffer from social exclusion and marginalization. Global poverty is a critical area of concern that must be addressed to stop hunger and deprivation and end the structural basis of violence. Combating terrorism necessitates a program of action that addresses the problems of underdevelopment which make peace elusive.
Terrorism is best deterred by policies which further social and economic justice, disarmament, human rights, and humanitarian aid. The solution offered by progressive parties in America and Europe, which calls for an international law-based prosecution of suspected perpetrators of terrorist acts, is laudable and deserves support. This means our continuing commitment to the universal declaration of human rights and international law and support for non-violence instead of violence, justice over revenge, and rule of law over brute power. This calls above all for continuing action to achieve sustainable development and global prosperity for all.
Raymundo Rovillos: History has shown that what may be considered terrorist acts are usually manifestations of dissent or a rebellion against the established order. It is therefore often the case that the State defines who the terrorists are and how to address the problem of terrorism. It is the moral responsibility of the State to protect its citizens from harmful acts by anyone, including its own operatives. It is also its moral responsibility to make sure that each citizen is able to live peaceably in a prosperous society. Hence, the State does not necessarily have to choose between two seemingly irreconcilable options, i.e., state security versus human security. The ability to address the economic, social, and political security of its citizens would eventually result in its own security as an institution.
The challenge for the Philippines State is how to address terrorist acts and at the same time protect human rights. Are these two goals mutually exclusive or complementary? We have experienced twenty years of dictatorship that justified summary killings, massacres, the suppression of the freedom to assemble and seek redress for legitimate grievances—all for the sake of political stability and economic growth. It came to a point when the means no longer justified the end. That was a sad chapter of our history as a people.
In a society where democratic institutions and processes are usually undermined and trampled upon by vested interests, how do we ensure the protection of the rights of citizens, especially the resource-weak citizens? In this country, protection and rights are largely determined by factors such as social status, social and political affiliations, and economic and political resources. The resource-weak citizens are often denied the opportunities for access to justice and protection of their rights. It is also often the case in this country that many bearers of the gun are in the service of unscrupulous elite politicians and big business.
The State as well as civil society should therefore seriously address the systemic causes of dissent, even as it attempts to curb terrorism. These systemic causes are: unequal distribution of assets/resources, lack of access to judicial or legal remedies, absence/lack of meaningful participation in the decision-making processes, and violations of the basic human rights of its citizens.
Even as it resorts to anti-terrorism as a means to an end, the state should make sure that ordinary citizens and peace-loving advocates are not caught in the crossfire, and their human rights are not violated. The idea of inculcating human rights through the educational curriculum and mass media should be pursued.
Ultimately, terrorism will not thrive where the citizens are not suffering from hunger, deprivation, and repression.
Miriam Ferrer: Although the US-led “global war on terror” is aimed at arresting indiscriminate attacks on civilians, its conduct rides roughshod over basic tenets of human rights and international humanitarian law. To begin with, the US’s invasion of Iraq is a violation of the rule of law at the international level. Gross human violations have been committed, as exemplified by the indefinite detention and torture of “terror suspects” in Iraq and Guantanamo. These practices are unacceptable, especially when done by the self-proclaimed guardian of world democracy.
After seven years, we can see that the US war on terror is not solving the problems that have stemmed largely from resentment over hegemonic cultural, political, and social forces located in the West. It has instead caused the mutation of this resentment, making the problem more intractable.
Because of the complexity of this chain of violence gripping the world, it has become convenient to paint a black-and-white picture of the problem. Today’s “anti-terrorism” has fallen back on the language of a fight between good and evil, reminiscent of the Cold War’s discourse on democracy versus communism.
In unconditionally accepting the language of anti-terrorism, citizens all over the world have bartered away many of their treasured rights. The right to privacy has been one of the biggest casualties. Under new laws in Europe, the United States, and also in the Philippines, with the recent passage of the Human Security Act, the state has been given free access to citizens’ e-mail accounts, phone conversations, bank/school/employment records, and the like. The right to due process has been suppressed, with warrantless arrests and detention for even longer periods of time made legal. Alongside these legal measures, extra-judicial killings are on the rise.
If states have, as a matter of course, practiced prudence in exercising power, selective limitations on our rights would have been the few inconveniences bartered for security. Unfortunately, history tells us we cannot stand in awe of the state. Nor should we just sit back and trust it will do its job well.
In the name of anti-terrorism, states are casting a wide net directed at one and all, including the legitimate opposition. In the Philippine case, this approach has complicated the resolution of long-standing armed conflicts whose roots and dynamism are nurtured by social injustice and bad governance.
Moreover, states are indiscriminately using brute force. In Afghanistan, Iraq, as well as in the Philippines, where US troops are stationed under different pretenses, “terrorism” is mistakenly being fought with bombs and troops.
Yes, terrorism is a problem. But let’s not forget that one of its variants is state terrorism.
Battling terrorism requires the painstaking and judicious building of intelligence, and the thorough cleansing and capability-building of the civilian police force. We need to strengthen the police force as the key agency to deal with terrorism. We need to correct the historical anomaly of an overdeveloped military relative to the underdeveloped, subordinated civilian police in our country. However, such strengthening of the police must stand on a solid human-rights foundation.
An equally important task is to contest the dominant discourse on terrorism. It is true that terrorism violates human rights and humanitarian norms. But “anti-terrorism” should not thwart the very same norms which it claims to protect.
|
browse the archives
