OPINION & EDITORIAL
Terrorists must be dealt with delicately
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Natalie Mikhail:
- No more excuses for Israel (November 12, 2004)
- Bush appears poised to claim 2nd term (part one) (November 3, 2004)
- A messy situation in Haiti cries for international help (October 21, 2004)
- Saudi women barred from voting in upcoming election (October 14, 2004)
- Darfur genocide needs end (September 23, 2004)
Related Stories:
- Terror, tragedy, and triumph (October 28, 2002)
- Putin employs Soviet tactics (December 8, 2006)
- Terror can strike anywhere and must become universal priority (September 9, 2004)
- Write a letter, start a firestorm (December 1, 2005)
- Uncle Sam can't turn his back on old adversary (October 30, 2002)
by Natalie Mikhail
Thursday, September 9, 2004
A group of masked men and women wearing bomb belts burst into a school in Beslan, Russia Wednesday, Sept. 1. They took 1,200 people hostage, demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops from Chechnya. After three days of failed negotiations and fatal reactions, more than 300 of the children, teachers and parents inside the seized school were killed and approximately 700 were injured. The attackers’ hostile actions were a desperate and brutal cry for attention to their frustration and hopes for an autonomous state. Like other revolutionaries in history, Chechen rebels have resorted to terrorism to gain attention to their cause. But at what cost and what amount of legitimacy?
Chechnya is a republic in the southern part of the Russian Federation. For over two centuries, its people have been seeking independence from Russia. In a 1996 peace agreement, Chechnya received substantial autonomy. However, the war left it in ruins, and Russia has failed to invest in the reconstruction of the area, leaving more angered Chechens who express their frustration and desire for complete independence through acts of terrorism.
Terrorism is, by definition, violence or the threat of violence carried out for political purposes. Bombings, kidnappings and assassinations are the most prevalent forms of terrorism, usually targeting civilians in hopes of gaining international attention.
One cannot defeat terrorists only by the use of force, because it is a state of mind, an ideology or an agenda to achieve independence from another power. Only through a combination of force, cooperation between intelligence services of various nations, and in some instances negotiations, including efforts to remedy social, economic and political and human rights grievances that often are root causes of such conflicts, can we hope to effectively fight terrorism.
The same thing occurred in Vietnam, Lebanon and Algeria. The revolutionaries were relentless until they obtained their right to freedom and statehood. The United States and other western powers should learn from history and take new steps to work out viable solutions.
Terrorism is by no means a justifiable way in which to reach goals. It affects the innocent more than the powers it tries to fight. But it is the responsibility of governments to listen to the cry of the people, because governments are, essentially, in control of the lives of the powerless.
In the case of Chechnya, demands for autonomy have been suppressed by Russian President Vladamir Putin for numerous reasons, including the fear of further chaos on the border and a belief that Chechens did not take responsibility for their independence when offered it after the 1996 war. Russians fear that terrorists dominate Chechen opposition, and if independence is achieved, it will rule the country and spread to other neighboring Russian areas. According to Putin, terrorism, not nationalism, is the enemy.
However, as the conflict rages on with regular Chechen hijackings and the taking of hostages, despite previous agreements, Putin remains relentless in his policy. Unfortunately, this position leaves the path clear for more terrorism in Russia.
“Mr. Putin’s reputation is on the line. It is extremely useful to argue that this is international terrorism and that outside countries are involved. Frankly, this is rubbish. Any involvement by al-Qaeda to train or fund the Chechens post-dates the conflict,” Professor Margo Light of the London School of Economics told the BBC.
While these are classic cases of terrorism and can be solved, there is another type of terrorism that is more dangerous and cannot be pinpointed so easily. The most infamous case was that of the September 11, 2001, airplane hijackings and attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. Unlike the classic terrorists, the leader of this attack, Osama bin Laden, carried out these events not to achieve any kind of independence or freedom for a group of people, but simply to inflict injury and harm on the United States and its people.
In this situation and against this mindset, there is no way to negotiate a solution. The way to fight this type of terrorism is by hunting down the terrorists, arresting them, putting them on trial and punishing them for their crimes according to the law. In addition, we must examine the policies that create an environment that is conducive to breeding terrorists and that gives them a pretext to use violence.
These two types of terrorism — independence movements, on the one hand, and rogue violent extremists like bin Laden, on the other — must be distinguished. Western criticism of Russian tactics and human rights violations against Chechnya deadened after the September 11 attacks, and Chechens have since been portrayed as part of the global terror network. We are ignoring the legitimate complaints and grievances of the people of Chechnya because of the actions of a few who resort to violence. This will not achieve a long-term solution to the problem.
Policy review, more effective cooperation with other nations and a better understanding of the roots of terrorism, in addition to force, are the answers to fighting terrorism, not massive invasions of other countries.
Iraq is a perfect example of how trying to fight terrorism by way of traditional war only creates more terrorism.
Natalie J. Mikhail (nmikhail@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in journalism and international studies.
Anonymous (September 9, 2004 @ 12:51am):
This article and your previous articles suggest that you do not fully understand the evil and total lack of respect for human life of the Islamist Extremist terrorists. This is a global war waged by them against anyone who disagrees with them. This is not a "policy" issue.
As recently stated in Ottawa Citizen: "After Sept. 11, many people insisted that militant Islam despises Americans and other westerners for what we do rather than for what we are. The idea that Islamic terrorists hate us for what we are was too disturbing to contemplate, for it means there's no way to appease the enemy. If our foreign policy were the problem, we could change it. If the problem is our pluralism, secularism and modernism - the fact we don't organize our societies according to principles of Islamic law - then we're in trouble."
"Islamism is a totalitarian and violent political ideology. Islamists want to establish, by force, "Allah's rule on earth," as one of their great theoreticians, Sayyid Qutb, put it four decades ago."
"Moderate Muslims, as well as the people of Spain, France, Russia, Israel, the U.S. and now Nepal have been touched by Islamist terror. It's impossible to pretend this is anything other than a global war, one that we have no choice but to fight."
Your painfully naive collegiate thinking on such a life and death issue is something you really need to go back and reflect on.
Your family's life may one day hang in the balance.
Jeffrey Imm
jeffreyimm@earthlink.net
Washington, DC
http://www.unitedstatesaction.com
Anonymous (September 9, 2004 @ 4:40pm):
Written like a person who has never seen terrorism firsthand.
I used to be righthanded. Then, on a trip through the Middle East two years ago, a terrorist blew himself up on a bus I was riding in Jerusalem. Shrapnel severed a nerve bundle in my right arm. I can still use my arm, but I don't have enough manual dexterity in my right hand to do all the things I used to do. So now I'm lefthanded.
And I was one of the lucky ones. 15 innocent people were killed in that bombing. That night, as I waited to be taken into surgery, the Arabic TV station I was watching broadcast words of praise for the bomber from Yasser Arafat.
You say terrorists should be treated delicately? Why? Give them an inch of ground and they take it for weakness. In Beslan, they murdered over 300 children, but you want to treat them delicately. The only delicate thing about the treatment they deserve is that they should be killed quickly and efficiently so as to minimize the loss of more innocent lives in the future.
Josiah (September 10, 2004 @ 5:55am):
Jeffery Imm, what you painfully overlook in your argument is that Natalie doesn't talk about Islamic Extremists, but about terrorists and terrorism. It may be painful to you to separate the two, but the facts remain that they are different (read past the title to the definition of terrorism provided in article). Our rights didn't cause terror, so I ask are our rights our weakness or our strength.
Perhaps terrorists hate us for what we are or is it what we do? For which reason do you hate Islamic Extremists?
Anonymous (September 10, 2004 @ 11:34pm):
the person who wrote this editoral is a complete idiot. it is amazing such a moron was able to slide through UW's admission process.
Anonymous (September 10, 2004 @ 11:36pm):
negotiations with terrorists? are you completely incapable of critical thought? what do you figure happens if you concede to the demands of a terrorist? you are a fool.
Anonymous (September 24, 2004 @ 8:27pm):
Natalie is absolutely correct in saying that we must deal with terrorists delicately. We must, as delicately as we can, kill them all, and all their supporters too.
