NEVER NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS?

By Mario Soares and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

LISBON, Mar 1 2004 (IPS) - Global terrorism represents an absolute horror which must be fought with the greatest determination, courage, and force, but it must also be fought with intelligence, information, and knowledge, writes Mario Soares, president of Portugal between 1986-1996. In this analysis, the author argues that military force is necessary but not sufficient. To deal with this new and complex phenomenon born of Islamic fanaticism, we must consider other components, including the profound humiliation by the West felt by the populations that have been permeated by terrorism, and the socio-economic conditions they live under. Regarding the Bush strategy, it is worth asking whether it is true, as is often repeated, that democracies don\’t negotiate with terrorists? History is full of examples to the contrary, including two from the past year involving Bush and the UK and Libya and North Korea. Soares calls for a dialogue with Islamic scientists, theologians, intellectuals, and political scientists as the correct way to begin negotiations — though from a position of strength, noting that negotiation does not mean capitulation, much less abdication.

I am not a pacifist despite the fact that I love peace and recognise its extraordinary human and political value. I am not because I would not sacrifice peace –or the fear of war– to other values like freedom, country, dignity, and the future. For these same reasons I have never supported capitulation. I was young when in 1938 Chamberlain and Daladier, the heads of state of Great Britain and France, made their historic visit to Munich where they humiliated themselves before Hitler, abdicating the democratic values that they had an obligation to defend, signing large parts of Czechoslovakia over to Germany in the hope of avoiding war. This act of cowardice left an indelible impression in my mind.

It is clear that global terrorism –not to be confused with the terrorism inherited from the 1970s and 80s, such as that of the IRA and ETA– represents an absolute horror and so must be fought with the greatest determination, courage, and force. But it must also be fought with intelligence, information, and knowledge. Military force is necessary, but it is not sufficient. To deal with this new and complex phenomenon born of Islamic fanaticism, we must consider other components, including the profound humiliation by the West felt by the populations that have been permeated by terrorism, and the socio-economic conditions they live under.

What is Al Qaeda? A decentralised galaxy of terrorist groups organised into a network? If this is so, wouldn’t the capture of Osama Bin Laden be as irrelevant as the capture of Saddam Hussein?

To be fought effectively, Al Qaeda must be better understood. There has been considerable analysis made of global terrorism, which is intimately related to the ”predatory globalisation” and ”casino economy” that dominate the world today. These phenomena must be studied, along with the contact Al Qaeda seems to have with the murky depths of financing, particularly off-shore banks, tax havens, and fiscal paradises, with the illegal weapons trade, including atomic weapons, and the drug market.

It is important to listen carefully to Islamic scientists, theologians, intellectuals, and political scientists, who can provide the foundations for a productive dialogue. This is the correct way to begin negotiations — though from a position of strength. Also, it is important to note, negotiation does not mean capitulation, much less abdication.

All of this explains my sharp criticism of the strategy of reprisals outlined by the Bush administration to fight terrorism and its unilateralist approach. Its results have been appalling:

1. The Bush administration squandered the capital the US had after September 11 in the form of the near-unanimous solidarity of the international community, including the Islamic world.

2. It openly marginalised the United Nations with its concept of pre-emptive war and tried to subvert international law to impose the law of the strongest.

3. It gave Sharon carte blanche to pursue his foolhardy policy of crushing the Palestinian state — a policy contrary to any prospects for peace between Israel and Palestine, which is the key to bringing peace and a new equilibrium to the Middle East.

4. It launched a war of aggression against Iraq, going against the sentiment demonstrated by most of the peoples of the world, defying the advice of experts, falsely invoking the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and lying to the US and the world with consequences that are clear to see. Worst of all, it lost moral and political credibility.

5. It created absolute chaos in Iraq while destabilising countries like Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Turkey; it aggravated an already grave situation in Afghanistan, and formed an alliance with a dictator, General Pervez Musharraf, creating in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (countries considered allies) situations of extreme fragility.

6. It sacrificed human rights, which it claims to champion, to the extreme demands of security without considering that the superiority of democracies derives from the law and morality and not from brute force.

Bush now wants to move closer to the UN and the EU, which he effectively divided as part of his strategy to win reelection this November. He exhorted the UN to return to Iraq but failed to define the framework of relations within which it would work.

I am convinced that despite its devastating effects, it would be very difficult for Bush to change his strategy before the November elections. And if he doesn’t, we will be led towards a ”war of religions” which would represent an intolerable regression of contemporary civilisation for the West and the entire world.

Regarding the Bush strategy, it is worth asking whether it is true, as is often repeated, that democracies don’t negotiate with terrorists. History is full of examples to the contrary, including two from the past year involving Bush and the UK:

Libyan leader Muammar Ghaddafi is considered a terrorist and funder of terrorism, but this did not prevent negotiations that eventually transformed him into a friend. Tony Blair’s recent visit to Libya served to consecrate Ghaddafi’s rehabilitation.

Then there were Washington’s negotiations –using China as intermediary– with North Korea, a country Bush included in his ”axis of evil” after it menaced the West with its atomic bomb. The results of these negotiations have not yet been felt.

Global terrorism is a grave and complex threat that looms large in our disturbed 21st century. If these thoughts shed some light on this scourge, it will be worth having committed the crime of associating two words that are conventionally kept far apart: terrorism and negotiation. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)