Kourosh Mobiniasked

Kourosh Mobini asked me about Lech Valesa’s comment about religion.  From my perspective, religion is nothing more than an instrument for forming collective identities.  Therefore, it really does not matter if people agree that there is but one God.  Look at the conflicts between the Shi’as and Sunnis, and between Catholics and Protestants.  They have lasted nearly 1500 years.  Therefore, I find his comment to be overly optimistic.  It would be nice if our conflicts within and between religious faiths were confined to theological discussions.  Unfortunately, religion often follow the contours of other explosive faultiness, such as income inequality, social and political marginalization.  When that happens, religion becomes an instrument of forming political identity in the hands of some political entrepreneurs.  

What I was going to ask Mr. Valesa was the following:  Lech Valesa credits the Pope (John Paul) 50% for the fall of the Soviet Union; his own movement, 30%.  Presumably, according to him, the bumbling Gorbachev also has a good deal to do with the regime’s final demise.  In contrast, in this country, we – and particularly the Republican Party – attribute the credit to President Ronald Reagan’s policies for the destruction of the Soviet Empire.  From Mr. Valesa’s perspective, how did he view Mr. Reagan’s arms buildup and his call to “tear down the wall”?  

Uniting Nations Agai

Uniting Nations Against Terrorism

The United Nations has a comparative advantage over other organizations and countries trying to thwart terrorism, according to Alex P. Schmid, the officer in charge of the United Nations Terrorism Prevention Branch in Vienna, Austria.  Schmid headlined the ninth installment of a semester-long lecture series about terrorism, held April 6 in the Hardy Tower auditorium.
Schmid said there are four areas where the United Nations has a comparative advantage over other organizations when it comes to fighting terrorism.
"The United Nations can set the ground rules for international behavior and it can enhance international coordination and cooperation," Schmid said.  "The U.N. can also build up the capacity of less developed countries through technical assistance programs. Capacity-building, however, must take place in a framework of the rule of law — otherwise it contributes to strengthening state repression which in turn can foster further acts of terrorism."
Schmid said terrorism is one of half a dozen growing threats to international security in the decades ahead, next to nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons, transnational crime, internal conflict, inter-state conflict, economic and social threats, and environmental degradation.
Schmid outlined the United Nations' strategy against international terrorism, which United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan presented in March 2005:
● Dissuade disaffected groups from choosing terrorism as a tactic to achieve their goals;
 
● Deny terrorists the means to carry out their attacks;
 
● Deter states from supporting terrorists;
 
● Develop state capacity to prevent terrorism;
 
● Defend human rights in the struggle against terrorism.
Schmid said that a variety of United Nations offices, departments and programs are involved in promoting international measures against terrorism.
Schmid said the General Assembly and its committee on terrorism have focused efforts to find a criminal law definition of terrorism. He said the criminal law definition of terrorism can be narrower than a social science definition, which might contain the following elements:
● The demonstrative use of violence against human beings;
 
● The (conditional) threat of more violence;
 
● The deliberate production of terror/fear in a target group;
 
● The predominant targeting of civilians, non-combatants and third parties;
 
● The purpose of intimidation, coercion and/or propaganda;
 
● The fact that it is a method, tactic or strategy of conflict waging;
 
● The importance of communicating the acts of violence to larger audiences;
 
● The illegal, criminal and immoral nature of the acts of violence;
● The predominantly political character of the act;
● Its use as a tool of psychological warfare to mobilize or immobilize sectors of the public.
"At the heart of the U.N. debate on terrorism are underlying issues of defining power, just war theory and double standards," Schmid said.  "There is some hope that in 2006 the long-awaited Comprehensive Convention Against International Terrorism, which includes a definition of terrorism, will be presented to the General Assembly."
He said the Security Council's activities in the field focus on the imposition of sanctions and binding counter-terrorism obligations on all member states.
"In the course of April 2006, the Secretary-General is likely to propose a broader strategy," Schmid said.
While the content of the broader strategy is not yet known, Schmid said there are four elements he feels should be included:
● Counter the ideologies, propaganda and indoctrination of secular and non-secular terrorists and try to get the upper hand in the war of ideas — the battle for the hearts and minds of those the terrorists claim to speak and fight for;
 
● Prevent radical individuals and groups from becoming extremists by confronting them with a mix of tactics and search for effective counter-motivation measures;
 
● Address the underlying conflict issues exploited by terrorists and work towards peaceful solutions while not making any substantive concessions to the terrorists themselves;
 
● Maintain the moral high-ground in the struggle with terrorists by defending and strengthening good governance, rule of law, democracy and social justice.

Lecture Notes 4-4-06

Lecture Notes, 4-4-06

The next three articles in our reading list concentrate on suicide bombing.  The desire to kill oneself in order to kill others for political or religious purposes assault our notion of rationality like nothing else.  Therefore, it is no surprise that there are many theories about who they are what motivates them.  Yet, this seemingly inexplicable event has spread all over the world, increasing at an alarming rate in the past ten years.  

Ariel Merari defines suicide attacks as (p. 71) “… is a situation in which a person intentionally kills himself (or herself) for the purpose of killing others, in the service of a political or ideological goal.”  By this definition, volunteers in a risky military operation (e.g., Saving Private Ryan) do not qualify, since, despite the high risk, their deaths were not certain.  On the other hand, the Kamikaze pilots in the WWII, would be considered as suicide attackers.  

Although many people think of those who take part in suicide attacks as “brainwashed”, desperate, or religious fanatics, empirical data show a much more complex picture. Very few, if any are crazy or have psychological disorder, most groups are not inspired by religious fanaticism.

While we theorize about the motivations of the suicide bombers, the Palestinian authors see them as reaction to Israeli occupation and the associated humiliation and brutality that the community faces on a daily basis.

Andy’s comment is well taken. In political persuasion, the need is to find a phrase that conveys a clear picture with the simplest of terms. That is why “war on terror” became so popular with the Administration. However, my (and Martha Crenshaw’s and most other terrorism experts’) objection is to the term, war. War gives the impression of a defined enemy and a final outcome of absolute victory. In the absence of these two essential elements, we may try to find another term which is less “inspiring” but is far more accurate of the situation at hand. For me, “battle against terrorism” or “struggle with the terrorists” are, perhaps, closer to the reality. What do you think?