September 11, Crisis Resolution

Articles

Interviews

Letters

Responses to September 11th

Speeches

Beyond September 11th

By Min Zaw Oo
M.S. Conflict Analysis and Resolution

US and British combined forces have launched their first air strikes against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden’s training camps, 26 days after the attacks on US soil. After the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the US government rushed to conclude who the culprits were and what actions were to be taken against them. During this emotion-driven period, many have hesitated to question the wisdom of the US response for fear of the political repercussions. However, scholars from the conflict-resolution community are now beginning to address this issue.

At the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (ICAR) at George Mason University, many professors refer to those who committed the recent atrocities as "terrorists"—a term that Johan Galtung, a well-known theoretician and practitioner in the field, has refused to use, preferring instead to call them simply "the other side".

Terrorism is not an easy term to define with any degree of academic precision. If one defines terrorism as a violent act that targets civilians to achieve political goals, state actors would have to be included on any list of terrorist organizations. Even defining "violent acts" is no simple matter. Violence can take many forms. Apart from the more obvious examples, such as the dropping of bombs, there is indirect, structural violence, such as the imposition of absolute sanctions, which can lead to thousands of deaths. Under absolute sanctions, half a million Iraqi children are estimated to have died of diseases and malnutrition since 1991. But former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has argued that the continued use of sanctions is justified because they serve a worthy (political) goal.

Richard Rubinstein, a professor at ICAR, defines terrorism as an act of violence sponsored by a group. If a social class sponsors violence, it is an act of revolution. If it is violence between states, it is an act of war. He adds that this way of defining terrorism is not based on value judgments about whether a particular group and its objectives are right or wrong, good or bad. However, terrorism tends to have negative connotations that are utilized in political labeling.

Why do people commit acts of extreme violence aimed at killing large numbers of people? One of the fundamental assumptions in conflict resolution is that violence breeds violence. A cycle of violence starts when one or more sides initiate acts of violence that breed hatred. This in turn hardens negative attitudes that serve to further polarize the already incompatible aspirations that produced the conflict in the first place. Thus the Sept 11 attacks can be seen as an advanced stage of a cycle of violence that has its origins at some point in the past.

The attacks on New York and Washington were not the product of a recent policy of Islamic fundamentalists against the US. Sept 11 represents the culmination of accumulated hatred towards the US, which has played an active role in a long-standing and ongoing cycle of violence in the Middle East. The US is widely perceived in the Middle East as having taken sides with Israel against the aspirations of the Palestinian people, in a struggle that Muslims call their Second Jihad, or Holy War, according to Galtung. The stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia, home to many of Islam’s holiest sites, has further exacerbated the animosity that many Muslims have come to feel towards the United States. In the post-Cold War era, following the Third Jihad against the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan, escalating violence between the US and Islamic militant groups has spawned a Fourth Jihad, with America now identified as the chief antagonist.

Although the US and its Western allies have repeatedly stated that they are not at war against Islam, this conflict is deeply rooted in the historical relationship between Islam and the West. The first violent interaction between Christians and Muslims came when Pope Urban II made a call for the first Crusade in November 1095. That conflict, which Muslims regard as the First Jihad, lasted about 200 years. There has never been a real reconciliation.

One may argue that many Muslim governments support the US in the current situation. However, demonstrations against the US campaign in Afghanistan have been widespread in the Middle East, Pakistan and other countries that have large Muslim populations. The attitude of most governments in the region is simply to avoid angering the world’s sole remaining superpower. Even countries that have troubled relations with the US, such as Liberia, Iran, and Libya, have expressed sorrow over the attacks, and have made efforts to contain anti-American sentiment. In Liberia, the government ordered a radio station to temporarily shut down immediately after the attacks, as people called in to vent their feelings of resentment against the US. In Palestine, two protestors were killed and 45 others injured after the Palestinian authorities attempted to quell protests against the United States for its attack on Afghanistan.

The current conflict goes beyond national borders. Citizenship becomes an artificial boundary when identity is based on religion, and that religion is seen to be under siege. Basic human needs theory, one of the leading theories in conflict resolution, pronounces that violence may become an instrument if people perceive that their identity, one of their basic human needs, is threatened.

Professor Galtung expands this argument beyond religious identity. He argues that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon could be seen as a form of retaliation against the US for its use of economic power against poor countries. He also notes that the US has carried out 230 military interventions in foreign countries, mostly in the developing world, and cites claims by CIA dissidents that America’s intelligence agency bears responsibility for the deaths of 6 million people killed between 1947 and 1987. Farther back in history, the issues of slavery and the near extermination of America’s indigenous peoples also darken its image in the world. And in the world today, there are an estimated 100,000 people dying daily at the bottom of an economic system identified by many with American economic, military and political power. Seen in this light, the current conflict extends beyond the Islamic world to encompass other countries in the Third World where there is a high degree of resentment against the United States.

Victims of violence suffer both physically and psychologically. While only direct victims suffer from physical wounds, psychological damage extends beyond the individual and may even be passed from generation to generation. American Indians still recall the Long March, the flight of their ancestors from persecution by white settlers, when many were murdered or killed by disease. A young American said he would keep photographs of the destruction of the World Trade Center so he could share them with his children in the future. This chosen trauma breeds hatred and antagonism in the minds of victims and their descendants, impelling them to further acts of violence.

The concept of conflict resolution neither condones nor justifies horrendous acts of violence, like the attacks of Sept 11, which resulted in the wanton killing of thousands of civilians. No justification for this type of atrocity is acceptable. By pointing out that these attacks did not occur without reason, we are not suggesting that the United States actually bears some blame for the acts committed against it. Rather, the goal is simply to create an awareness of the cycle of violence that all parties find themselves in.

If conflict resolution seems too idealistic, we should consider the alternatives and question whether they can achieve the US’s goals of security. The so-called realist policy that urges military strikes in retaliation for the Sep 11 attacks is based on the power asymmetry between the US military and economic might and the Islamic extremist groups. However, if we consider the vulnerability imposed by both sides into their opponent’s power capacity, the asymmetric equation may turn against the US. When we consider power relativity, we need not only to look at the solid relative power but also to examine the vulnerability of both sides in the conflict.Wars end when warring parties compromise, or when one party capitulates. Wars are almost never won through the total annihilation of one side by the other. The termination of wars is a psychological process, even though they are fought physically. In the current conflict, the US may be calculating that its adversaries will surrender. But if this calculation proves wrong, can the US annihilate the other side? Historically, the odds against achieving this are extremely high.

If one argues that the current and future military strikes are designed to pressure particular states to stop harboring terrorists, it may be worth considering whether terrorists even require such bases to continue their operations. Investigations into the Sept 11 attacks have revealed that at least some of the hijackers involved received their flight training in the United States. Thus the attackers turned their target into their training ground. Even depriving them of sources of funding may have limited impact. "Terrorism is not an expensive sport," according to one Treasury Department official, who estimated the cost of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to be a mere $18,000. The only factor that seems to matter is the determination of the perpetrators of such attacks to continue to commit acts of violence based on their beliefs.

The current counter-terrorist policy based on "realist" concepts pronounces that if you commit acts of terrorism, you will be killed if you don t surrender first; there will be no negotiation with terrorists. Unfortunately, this policy fails to deter those who are willing to die. Many so-called terrorism experts are reluctant to admit the strategic and tactical difficulties of terminating suicide attacks on civilian and economic targets.

Modern warfare places enormous burdens on civilians. Women and children represent the largest number of casualties in modern wars. The definition of civilians is always unclear. Although not armed, civilian supporters are always targeted. Both sides attack civilians who they think are capable of providing resources to their opponents. Other civilians suffer simply because they cannot escape the crossfire. The bombing campaigns in Iraq claimed as many as 1,200 civilian victims as "collateral damage", while an estimated 500-1,500 non-combatants were similarly killed in Yugoslavia. And these numbers are nothing compared to those who will die as a result of the dislocation, disease, and destruction of infrastructure caused by an all-out military campaign. Although the US and Britain have acknowledged this fact, their response—dropping food rations close to border areas, away from Taliban-controlled areas where the need is greatest—has been denounced by the humanitarian relief agency, Medecins Sans Frontieres, as "military propaganda".

The use of military might to respond to the Sept 11 atrocities will not eliminate threats to America’s security. Civilian casualties in Afghanistan will boost support for extremists in Muslim communities around the world and serve only to provoke others to acts of violence. If America’s primary concern is to ensure peace and security at home, it should consider other approaches to resolving this conflict.

The perpetrators of the Sept 11 atrocities should be held accountable. The attacks in New York and Washington should be regarded as crimes against humanity. The US should pursue justice, instead of retaliating by declaring a "war against terrorism", as the political rhetoric describes the current campaign. The crime should be brought to trial in the International Court of Justice, and multilateral international actions should be carried out in accordance with a judicial decision. However, this type of justice should also be symmetrical, not one-sided.

The suffering of an American mother who loses her child in an attack is the same as the suffering of a Muslim mother for her lost hijacker son. We will need to see the other side in conflicts as human beings who have the same feelings as we do. Reconciliation is the only means as well as ends to prevent future violence.