The
recurrence of September 11 has unleashed a
flood of comments, some more
understandable and cogent than others, but for the greater part predictable,
pugnacious and inconclusive. This
could therefore be a favourable moment in which to analyze the phenomenon, in a feeble
attempt to stem the flow of totally
irrational anti-Islamic feeling which
has gained a firm foothold in much of the Western world -- particularly, of
course, the United States.
The tragic
events of
The formal
identification of yet another "terrorist"
group in
There is a
disturbing superficiality in the way terrorism is perceived and presented by
the media. The same applies to the practically unanimous consensus on the labelling of some groups or
activities as "terrorist", with no attempt to understand their motivations.
The
inappropriately coined term "war on terror" (briefly labelled
"crusade" before slightly wiser counsels prevailed) has always appeared as
destined primarily to domestic audiences
with the secondary, but by no means unpredictable, or unwelcome, effect
of creating the impression that some religious or ethnic groups are potential terrorists,
and, hence potential enemies. The resulting wave of Islamophobia, particularly in the
It may
appear otiose or redundant to point out that the term "terrorism" has been in
use for well over a century and that
people in occupied or oppressed areas
have, throughout history, used
tactics, against the oppressor, which today would be labelled
"terrorist".
It is
particularly important to remember that the misleading term "Islamic Terrorism"
is unique to our time. The IRA, or ETA activists were never labelled "Catholic
Terrorists", and yet many of them were devout Church-goers, and probably
partook of the Holy Sacraments whenever possible.
It would
appear that, as the strength of nations develops, so does their feeling of
insecurity, and, as a result, the militarily
stronger Countries (The United States and the United Kingdom come to
mind) deeply feel the need of
identifying an "enemy" who deserves no quarter and who is out to destroy the
State's very foundations. Every Empire has its version of "Cartago Delenda Est",
and the phenomenon was acutely analysed
in Orwell's "
The quest
for a new face to label as "Public Enemy Number1" was made easier by events such as the Lockerbie tragedy: Here,
presented, as it were, on a silver platter, was a reason to raise hysterical reaction, as long as no mention
was made of the events which, perhaps, at least partly inspired the
perpetrators of this horrible crime, such as the unjustified, unexplained and,
above all, unpunished shooting down of a scheduled Iran Air civilian
flight in the Persian Gulf some weeks prior to the Lockerbie event. So the
attention was shifted, in the space of
very few months, from "Communists" to "Islamic Terrorists", and,
finally, to "Islam". The necessary language adjustments were made, and the
propaganda machine was in full efficiency well before the
S.S. Cole incident, the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi and
Dar Es Salaam, and, of course, the immense tragedy of September 11 2001.
The subsequent
disasters caused by a cynically incompetent conduct of the "war
on terror" need not be stressed, and it
can suffice to say that not only was the
main objective unfulfilled, but
terrorist bases were created where none had existed before.
It would be
a specious exercise to search for
historic parallels, but even a
superficial glance at more recent events makes it easy to notice how the quality of being a terrorist resides very
much in the perception of others. Yesterday's
terrorists often become the heroes and inspirators
of a new order, and at times end up
facing the earlier oppressors, on a footing of parity, in the course
of international negotiations.
To my
knowledge, a "war on terrorism" has
never been won, but, in the long run, wherever
there have been waves of perceived "terrorism", the conflict has been more
often than not decided in favour of the cause defended by the "terrorists" -- Enough to mention Partisan or Resistance movements in
the Soviet Union, in Greece, in the Balkans, in France, in Italy, in Libya, in Abyssinia and, in the course of
time, in many other nations subject to colonial rule, domestic oppression or
foreign occupation.
The words
that precede are not an attempt to defend terrorism, but rather to explain the
phenomenon in an historical context. In
These are
points on which serious reflection is called for, rather than emotional, pavlovian rhetorical
responses, or, worse, retaliatory
attacks which can only drive a growing
number of young people in the arms of
the targeted organizations.
Carlo
Ungaro
The author
of this submission, Ambassador Carlo Ungaro is a senior Italian Diplomatic
Officer, now retired. He has spent many years in Central Asia and especially
1
1
1
