05 October 1998
(Calls for a multi-track approach to defeat terrorists) (1400) Washington -- "Much attention has been focused on a new 'war on terrorism' in the aftermath of the U.S. retaliatory air strikes against targets in the Sudan and Afghanistan," says Edward P. Djerejian, former Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East and South Asia, and Director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. "The international community has been combating terrorism for decades and a so-called new 'war on terrorism' is misleading as a policy statement without a comprehensive strategy behind it," he recently declared. "No, this is not a new war. Rather it is a continuing battle which needs a coherent policy that goes beyond the necessary, but last resort, instruments of military retaliation." "The question," he said, "is whether or not world leaders are prepared to work together to adopt such a sustained and pro-active approach." Following is the text of an article by Dejerejian: (Begin text) The recent bombings of the United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania with the tragic loss of life of both Americans and Africans has raised, once again, the specter of terrorism and the challenge to policymakers, on how to combat it. Much attention has been focused on a new "war on terrorism" in the aftermath of the U.S. retaliatory air strikes against targets in the Sudan and Afghanistan. However, a larger perspective is needed to define the issue and to coherent policies and actions to deal with the resort to violence and terrorism to achieve political ends. First, we must not forget recent history. The international community has been combating terrorism for decades and a so-called new "war on terrorism" is misleading as a policy statement without a comprehensive strategy behind it. Who has forgotten the Munich Olympics, the hijackings of airplanes in the 1970's and 1980's, the bombings of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and the Marine barracks in 1983, the hostages in Lebanon, and the series of terrorist incidents in Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, New York, Oklahoma City, Tokyo and elsewhere. No, this is not a new war. Rather it is a continuing battle which needs a coherent policy that goes beyond the necessary, but last resort, instruments of military retaliation. Much has been written and said about Usama bin Laden and Islamic extremism recently. Bin Laden has taken up arms against the United States after having been trained and active in Afghanistan fighting the former Soviet Superpower. At the end of the day, individuals like Bin Laden who have adopted the path of terrorism are exploiting the frustrations and perceptions of many people in the Muslim world over political, economic, social and cultural/religious issues which are central to their lives. Understanding this central reality is the first step toward a more effective policy toward terrorism. Addressing these issues coherently is the major challenge. What can the United States as the world's remaining Superpower do? First, in terms of organization, the United States government must better understand the depth and complexity of the forces at play in the Muslim world as a whole and, thereby, form the basis for realistic and effective policy planning and formulation. This should be a priority for the State Department and the National Security Agencies which should refocus their efforts in order to provide policy makers with the acknowledge and information they need to construct realistic and effective policies toward the Muslim world. While intelligence, law enforcement and military actions are critical components of any counterterrorism policy, they need a larger strategic frame of reference in which to work. Second, while accepting Islam as one of the world's great religions with its mainstream message of tolerance and recognition of the "people of the book" (i.e., Jews, Christians and Muslims), U.S. policy must strongly differentiate in word and deed between this mainstream of Islam on the one hand, and, on the other hand, Muslim individuals, groups, and regimes which work against U.S. interests by, inter alia, their advocacy of terrorism, violence, repression, and quest for authoritarian rule. The United States should make clear that we do not view Islam as the next "ism" confronting the West or threatening world peace. That is a simplistic response to a complex reality. The Cold War is not being replaced with a new competition between Islam and the West. The Crusades have been over for a long time. Americans recognize Islam as one of the world's great faiths. It is practiced on every continent. It counts among its adherents millions of citizens of the United States. Of the nearly one billion Muslims in the world, more than half live outside the Arab world and differ linguistically, ethnically, racially and culturally. There are large Muslim populations in South and Southeast Asia, China, and Africa. The Muslim world is also diversified by its two major sects -- Sunnis and Shiites, as well as the various cultures in which it lives. Therefore, there is no monolithic bloc or international effort behind groups and movements. However, U.S. policy should strongly oppose those who, whatever their religion, practice terrorism, resort to violence, reject the peaceful resolution of conflicts, oppress minorities, preach intolerance, disdain political pluralism, or who violate internationally accepted standards regarding human rights. Third, the United States should as a consistent policy urge and work actively with governments in the Muslim world to reach out to their societies on the dual track of broadening participatory government and promoting privatization and market economies as the most effective approach, in the final analysis, to diminish the manifestations of social injustice which give rise to extremism. The United States in concert with the Europeans and Japanese must adopt a more assertive role in encouraging the governments of this region to initiate and sustain market reforms as expeditiously as their particular circumstance permits, especially in those countries which are hamstrung by archaic and inefficient statist systems. In so doing, however, we must be sensitive to the complexities involved. The modernization process of the West is viewed in parts of the world with suspicion and even hostility and as alien to local culture and beliefs. Imposition of secular ideas can lead to resistance. This is certainly the case, in my view, of those individuals, groups, and classes in these countries who are not sharing in the modernization process and who see themselves as largely dispossessed victims. This is the breeding ground of extremism. That is why it is essential in launching and fostering modernization programs to assure that the fruits of political participation, market reforms, and economic and social development are shared by the greatest number of people. Fourth, the Middle East peace process is at a critical crossroads. Progress toward resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict is very important to defuse anti-Western sentiment among Muslims and undercut the influence and spoiler potential of the extremist groups, especially in the Levant. This conflict has been an important factor in forming Muslim attitudes toward the West. Indeed, we have seen how the secular dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, cynically wrapped himself in the cloak of Islam during the Gulf War to attack Israel and its Western supporters. Fifth, the United States Government in the elaboration of its policies after the Cold War and on the eve of the next century must also take cognizance of the underestimated role of culture and religion in international affairs. We must be prepared to complement our political, economic and security policies with efforts aimed at fostering, wherever appropriate, a dialogue among different religious groups. It is clear that enhanced exchanges among Jews, Christians, and Muslims can only help promote peace and understanding in the Middle East. The Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Muslim World League can expand their education programs and efforts in helping to resolve inter-Arab disputes, for example, by reaching out as a point of contact with other religious groups and organizations to promote inter-faith dialogue. In the South Asian context, efforts to promote dialogue between Hindus and Muslims should be fostered. In sum, to combat terrorism effectively, a coherent and comprehensive strategy is called for. The question is whether or not world leaders are prepared to work together to adopt such a sustained and pro-active approach. (End Text)