|
Political Strartegies to Counterterrorism
Papers and Studies.
The Evolving Threat International Terrorism in post 9-11 era Publication
dated July 12,2006.
Presented by Charles Perera.
The following are extracts from a paper written by Michael Rubin who
is a resident scholar at AEI, and Suzanne Gershowitz a foreign policy
and defense studies researcher. Michael Rubin is the author of Eternal
Iran.
Their papers and studies as they present it, deals with terrorism in
the West and deals mainly with Palestenians, Hezbollah, Al –Qaeda
and Arab Muslim related terrorists that matter to them. Other terrorist
groups such as the LTTE had not claimed their attention. However there
are interesting ideas they have expressed some of which could be worth
taking into consideration by our government and politicians. I have
therefore extracted some of the interesting material which has a relevance
to our situation, which. may also be an eye opener to the International
Community.
“……As the terror threat grows ………………,
democracies fumble not only for an effective political strategy to combat
terrorism, but also for a definition. In order to protect pet interests
or excuse specific groups, diplomats and officials complicate what should
be a simple definition. Whether in Berlin or Beirut, the definition
should be the same: Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians
for political gain. Any nuance or justification of the targeting of
civilians for political gain merely undercuts efforts to eradicate terrorism.”
They continue their paper, and says that the key to defeat terrorism,
is ….”not through diplomacy, but rather through strategies
more forceful and less compromising. Terrorism will only cease to be
a useful tactic only when its costs become too great for terrorists
and their sponsors to bear.
Further on, they say some thing that a number of contributors to the
Lanka Web had been writing, that terrorism should not be legitimized.
“While European politicians, conflict resolution specialists,
and some journalists counsel diplomats to address root causes, any group
utilizing terror, regardless of their goal, makes their cause illegitimate.”
The next extract is interesting as it shows how some members of the
International Community could be double tongued
“Discussion of root causes can blur the immorality of terrorism
and actually encourage the act. No where was this more evident than
when, on April 15, 2002, France, Belgium and four other European Union
members endorsed a UN Human Rights Commission resolution condoning “all
available means, including armed struggle” to establish a Palestinian
state. While publicly declaring their opposition to terrorism, six EU
members joined the 57-nation Organization of Islamic Conference to legitimize
suicide bombing, at least in certain circumstances.”
They correctly argue against dialogue with terrorists. They say,”……dialogue
is dangerous. The very act of negotiating, whether directly or through
intermediaries, legitimizes the perpetrators and the act.” And
adds, further on “…..The belief that engagement can moderate
terrorists is naïve, for it ignores the importance of ideology.
Too often, political correctness undercuts the war on terrorism……….It
should simply never be acceptable to open negotiations with any group
whose goal is the destruction of a state or a people. “
What they say next is down right correct, it could very well apply
to people like Rupasinghe , Jehan Perera, Uyangoda or even Solheim,
and the like. This is what they say,”……How then can governments
counter terrorism? Ideologues ultimately must be marginalized to the
point of impotence, isolated, or eliminated. If Western officials, diplomats,
and self-described progressives engage with terrorists, they empower
them. Rather than be treated as powerbrokers, ……….(they)………
should be international pariahs. ( emphasis and (they), included by
me.)
The following extracts, are worth reading I have made the extracts
relevant to our fight against terrorism:
“…..Terrorists, whether secular or religious, engage in
terrorism for a simple reason: They find it a useful tactic. If the
West is to defeat terror, it must raise the cost of terrorism beyond
the endurance of terrorists. In this, diplomacy and compromise can be
counterproductive..
In the long-term, disrupting leadership weakens terrorist organizations.
When terrorist leaders are eliminated, leadership struggles ensue. Rather
than spark a cycle of violence, a desire for revenge can exhaust it..
Still, many governments are afraid to take action. They fear a cycle
of violence. Terrorists do not need a reason to attack.
It may be difficult for democracies to take effective counter terror
measures, but it is necessary. Terrorists may exploit public opinion.
………..Ultimately, investing in short-term force can win
long-term security and contain the terrorist scourge. Democratic nations
must not forget, though, that they are up against an international community
that accommodates terrorists and blames the victims...........-for terrorists’
actions. If democracies do not …… defend their own legitimacy,
no one will. “
|
