Why terrorism?

The French city of Strasbourg hosted an important international conference last week. Organised by the Council of Europe, "Why terrorism?" brought together diplomats, parliamentarians, journalists, scholars, students and - apparently - some ordinary citizens (though I saw none). The conference was the brainchild of Rafael Benitez, the Council's anti-terrorism coordinator, who gave us deep insights into the work of the organisation. Drafting conventions, bringing together the many voices in the international community, getting everyone to agree to a set of norms, or simply share a particular way of articulating problems and solutions - such measures are part of the fight against terrorism as well.

Ironically perhaps, it was Donald Rumsfeld who, shortly after 9/11, said that the so-called "war against terrorism" was a different kind of war: a war in which battles were fought not by angry-looking men in camouflage but by diplomats negotiating international conventions and treaties. Benitez and his colleagues are all warriors, then, and though their fights are just over words, the outcomes can be just as decisive.

The conference revolved around two issues: human rights and the role of inter-cultural dialogue. On human rights, all participants agreed there had to be more rather than less, with poignant interventions coming from Dick Marty, the gutsy Swiss parliamentarian whose reports helped expose many European countries' complicity in the American practice of "extraordinary rendition". However, with the exception of a BBC reporter, no one quite dared to challenge Russia's anti-terrorism coordinator, who also participated in the meeting.

Shamil Idriss, the deputy director of the Alliance of Civilisations, spoke eloquently about how very differently the problem is perceived in the Muslim world. Not only are Hamas, Hizbollah and the early mujahideen in Afghanistan widely regarded as legitimate "resistance fighters" - they are also seen as the only examples of Muslims successfully standing up to "oppression". Whether we like it or not, many Muslims view the western-led "war on terror" as a "war against Islam". This fundamental misunderstanding impedes dialogue and fuels further anti-European and anti-American sentiment.

Like many such conferences, "Why terrorism?" concluded without a tangible outcome. It is worth noting, though, that the Russian delegation readily agreed to the importance of democracy and "maintaining open political systems", a commitment highlighted prominently in the conference declaration. Whether the Russians trusted in the gulf between rhetoric and reality, or whether they simply didn't consider the conference important enough to make a fuss, is unclear. In any case, Moscow should be held to such pledges.

In the end, addressing the conditions conducive to terrorism has, in my view, less to do with identifying the "risk factors", which are already well-known: bad governance, systematic human rights violations, ethnic and religious discrimination, relative deprivation, rapid socio-economic change, to name but a few. Instead, the focus must turn to reconciling short-term coercive policies with the long-term imperative of creating a sound and stable environment in which extremist ideologies have no place and cannot take root.

What governments do in the short-term in order to prevent terrorist atrocities can have profound consequences for the conditions that are conducive to terrorism in the long term. The really tough question is how we can construct a comprehensive strategy that prevents terrorist atrocities without breeding alienation, resentment and new grievances.

| | | | | | | |

This article is published by Peter Neumann, , and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.