Click
an area of the map for world news.
Affiliated Programs: 
World Press Review is a program of the Stanley Foundation.
|
Undefined
Terminology in the Cooperative Effort to Fight Against Terrorism
Abd al-Rahman al-Rashid, Al-Sharq al-Awsat (Saudi-owned),
London, England, Sept. 17, 2001.
Translated by Peter Valenti
Web posted Oct. 2, 2001
The United States has rebuked those who have
expressed fears about its potential military strike against
Afghanistan and has displayed disappointment with any conspicuous
refusals to cooperate in the fight against terrorism. A majority
of people—and this means there is a minority viewpoint—want
to cooperate in order to hamper and prevent opposition movements
that possess military capabilities.
This majority has seen the destructive capabilities of armed
opposition groups across the world increase over the decades.
For example, a splinter faction inside the Irish Republican
Army in Northern Ireland, despite its limited size and resources,
was able to shake London twice. A violent secessionist movement
in Corsica threatens France. The Spanish must contend with a
violent secessionist movement in the Basque country. Similar
types of movements exist in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and
Pakistan.
But what of Pakistan? The country will be an important political
player during the coming days. Because of its role in fostering
the Taliban and because of its proximity to Afghanistan, it
risks being subjected to greater pressures than any other nation.
For many years, Pakistan has been preoccupied with regular,
destructive, terrorist attacks that kill dozens. For years,
Pakistan has attempted to persuade the British to extradite
the people it suspects of engineering these attacks. Britain
has refused, claiming that the suspects are in Britain as refugees,
and that no clear evidence had been presented against them.
We must remember that not only Western countries have suffered
from terrorist attacks. From Indonesia to the Philippines, the
Arab world, and even to corners of South America, countries
around the world suffer from Terrorism. These smaller nations
want to join the international cooperative effort—yet the
problems which impede this cooperation are numerous and complicated.
The U.S. government and its Western allies must understand that
if they expect less-powerful countries to arrest, prosecute,
and extradite individuals suspected of involvement in terrorist
acts against Washington, London, Madrid, or other Western targets,
they must reciprocate. The Western powers must not hamper the
efforts of less-powerful nations to bring suspected terrorists
to justice for attacks elsewhere. The anti-terrorism coalition
should clarify its position regarding opposition groups using
peaceful means. Will their rights be safeguarded? Will the groups
be eliminated? The Western leaders of the anti-terrorism coalition
must also understand that, in order for this international cooperative
effort to work, they must also be willing to reciprocate with
their coalition partners. If such considerations are not made,
the plan to fight terrorism will evaporate just as the [1996]
regional security agreement signed at Sharm al-Shaykh [Egypt]
evaporated when participants discovered that the agreement did
not distinguish between those who were trying to liberate their
foreign-occupied lands, those who were trying to shake up an
existing political system, and "terrorism," which
other nations claim to be fighting as a means of cloaking their
territorial conquests.
Without equitable cooperation between all the coalition members,
without a well-defined structure, all the current discussions
we've heard about a global coalition against terrorism will
vanish when the furor over the attacks on New York and Washington
D.C. plays itself out.
|
|
|
