There are many voices among intellectuals and politicians who dare to assert that terrorism is a problem to be addressed from realism and responsibility. We are engaged in a war against terrorism that brooks no space for reflection: for reasons unknown, we have "oppressed" someone, and now we must pay. The other option, the gamble on a hypothetical military solution can be as sterile as the absurd "Alliance of Civilizations" which preaches the Government of Spain.
By George Chaya for World Security Network
Although it is not the easiest path or the most attractive, it seems that it is advisable to follow the advice of Ernst Jünger when it held that "before we can act on a process we must have understood." The council questioned some Jünger repeated slogans such as unreasonable about the phenomenon of terrorist violence.
There are many voices among intellectuals and politicians who dare to assert that terrorism is a problem to be addressed from realism and responsibility. We are engaged in a war against terrorism that brooks no space for reflection: for reasons unknown, we have "oppressed" someone, and now we must pay. The other option, the gamble on a hypothetical military solution can be as sterile as the absurd "Alliance of Civilizations" which preaches the Government of Spain, whose foreign minister seems to have fallen prey of mental imbalance final few hours ago when he stated he has been significant progress in this area, the reality is that the fight against terrorism since the appeasement has advanced as much as human rights in Cuba.
Forced to act according to a set of values and principles, there are measures against terrorism that the West can not apply. There is no doubt therefore, that terrorism enjoys a tacit advantage in terms of rights and freedoms, which leaves for liberal democracies whose stability is threatened. But besides this novelty, which did not exist before, part of the terrorist phenomenon in recent times has been also seeking a state disproportionate reaction to sell the world to confirm the notion of oppression, aware that in a globalized world Report, War of the media is as important or more as military warfare. It is the dimension of terrorism victims. Those who doubt the importance of this new feature would do well to review the images of Palestinian children throwing stones at Israeli tanks, even a few hours of the dead victims of suicide turn.
Another novel feature of terrorism in the twenty-first century is impossible to talk about it. While in the early twentieth century there was no problem in talking about the phenomenon of Marxist Leninist, in the twenty-first century imposing a Manichean logic that allows only reason freely with the enemy. Many philosophers to rationalize the issue in terms of generalized rejection to any approach to the problem in terms of "clash of conflicting values within a multicultural society," but we see quite the contrary, relativism hollow to reducing the debate applies only to one side of the equation. The collective American media experts just disseminate a report very useful for this purpose: comparing the war last summer between Israel and Hezbollah with war this summer between Lebanon and the Palestinians, the Western news agencies 317 issued circulars about the first conflict in each of the second circular press. Curiously, 97% of the first and 85% of the latter can be classified "pro-Palestinian."
The remoteness from reality that involves treating terrorism as a function of terrorist explains further that the State, with foundations so stubborn rejected by progressive sectors-lawless, is subjected to a sort of illegitimacy that favors shares and the proliferation of same terrorism: we call laws and containment in democracies and only democracies, and we want to bring war crimes tribunal to democratic leaders and only democratic leaders. Recent statements by the actor Javier Bardem, nothing less from Cuba , illustrate the idea.
Terrorist violence in its various forms is one of the most extreme manifestations of conflict over political power from one region, either for purchase to expand or to retain it. At the confluence of terrorism and political violence with the prospect of achieving power: the power to dominate and submit to intimidate and control, to force political change and religious. Therefore, violence is the sine qua non of terrorists, firmly convinced that only through violence can succeed their cause and that their long-term political goals can be met as well. There are few groups around the world who are trying to achieve with the bombs that were unable to get in the polls. Here is the third feature of terrorism of the twenty-linked again with its media dimension: the terrorists of the twenty-first century wants power as their cousins the century, but increasingly tend to plan their operations in order to impress, making sure that their actions are sufficiently risky and violent as to attract media attention and, through them, the public and governments. Terrorism believes that indiscriminate and senseless as it has every sense of the world.
The terrorism of the twenty-first century is the language to draw attention to such an extent that I dare say that without this element, terrorism would not exist today. What makes such an act of terrorism today "is that terrorized." The acts to which we attach this concept are explosions and attacks carried out in places and times precisely calculated to be warned. Terrorism without horrified witnesses is as useless as a play without public.
It is this connection that appears the fourth defining feature of the phenomenon of the New Terrorism terrorism or the twenty-first century: in the discussion of the terrorist problem, are used improperly, more often than ever, absolutist arguments like "life is sacred" or "Any violence is perverse." Such slogans appear to be responding to previous feature: a terrorist group perpetrated an act of terror to draw attention and the victim, especially if West disseminates a number of slogans that serve only to evade the uncomfortable duty of enlightened reasoning. In a hypothetical situation in which violence had not yet broken out may be of some value, to the extent that managed to stifle it, an argument like "all violence is evil", but when they are part of the tragedy, it makes no sense. It is in this category that fits the famous phrase "terrorism does not work", read by a West not to make concessions to appease the Islamist phenomenon. Ask if terrorism works or not all these Palestinian organizations that without renouncing destroy Israel , are suddenly "partners in peace".
Although we see that the media are the cornerstone of each of these novel features - have appeared in all four descriptions - is not correct fault. In an atmosphere of extreme competition among the media for being the first to inform, it is difficult to anticipate see if it is reporting or whether it is serving as a puppet for the perpetrator of the facts. Who will be the first to collect the recent glove interviewing Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Did you make someone else if I do not? Do you have any sense to interview a terrorist organization given to lying and engaged in a global caliphate?
The terrorism of the twenty-first century is a problem with no obvious solution, but presents a crucial feature: while power relations remain unchanged, violence appears in a timely manner, here and there, reminding the concept pre-September 11 Americans from Democrats terrorism as a "small inconvenience" (Bill Clinton). This was shared with terrorism of XX.
But this does not: at the time that these relationships change, everything changes. We have seen in Algeria , the victory of Hamas in Palestine and to some extent in Turkey . Happen again: if the twenty-first century began a September 11, the new decade begins to heat firelight greenish the Iranian bomb.
Often my students ask me if the West survive the undeniable confrontation between democracy and Islam. My answer is simple: it depends on what you call "the West". I have no doubt that some form of civilized world will prevail. But include Spain ? Is Great Britain ? Will remain part of the West certain Parisian neighborhoods? What form this will take the West depends on the amount of time it cost us understand the new landscape of this conflict in which we live and still live many years, whether we want to continue to ignore or not. Europe , more than any other region, is the same key of this postmodern war. Its incomprehensible positions after the horrors of World War II, its policies and erratic in many cases the connivance of some of their governments with regimes engaged in terror will cost thousands, can millions of innocent lives. It will be the first letter of the mortgage to continue pretending that there is peace in which we live.
* George Chaya is Professor and Political International Analyst, Lebanese origin, Expert in Middle East . Expert and Lecturer at the International Consulting in Policy on Middle Eastern and Latin America . Official Web Site www.georgechaya.org
