Date Published: 01/03/10

What’s New About Terrorism or the Nuke? By Idumange John

Since the elevation of religious pervasion over and above reason and the recent attempt at blowing up a plane by Umar Forouk Mutallab, the world seems to be in a state of panic. Why the panic, I asked a friend? Is there anything new about terrorism? Is it because it is coming from a Nigerian? Was it not Yigal Amir - a Law student that pulled a gun and abbreviated Rabin? – a Jew killing a Jew?. In Nigeria, the leadership is punishing the masses electing or selecting them. For me afflicting the people with hunger, darkness and mal-governance is equivalent to genocide.

 There is hardly any part of the world where some form of insurgency or violent protest has not taken place. The Israelis and Palestinians have been trading blames of terrorism even though in Sept 13, 1993, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the PLO leader Yasser Arafat shook hands at the White House Lawn. While the Israeli ruling class is accused of Machiavellian tendencies by their Semitic cousins – the Palestinians, the spread of Al Qaeda, and the conspicuous signpost of Hamaz’s terrorism in Lebanon and Syria, has redefined Israeli-Palestinian relations. At least the Israeli experience on counter-terrorism has helped American to reduce causalities in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Insurgency as an organized protest or rebellion against a lawfully constituted government has existed throughout history but it has ebbed and flowed in accordance with the dynamics and sophistication of socio-economic and technological advancement. Basically, insurgency is a strategy adopted by groups perceived to be disadvantaged to extract concessions through psychological warfare, political mobilization and military confrontation insurgencies. Under the first category, the primary antagonists are the insurgents and a national government which has national legitimacy. Usually, insurgencies of this typology are often triggered by identity, racial, religious and ideological factors. On the other hand, liberation insurgencies are aimed at liberating an occupied territory from an alien nation. The Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Taleban in Afghanistan, the Chechnya insurgency against Russia and the Palestinian insurgency are a few examples of Liberation insurgencies.

In Mexico, the Zapatista Movement was started by the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN), in 1994. The EZLN declared war on the Mexican government and proclaimed a revolutionary agenda against the government. Upon brutal suppression by the government the rebels withdrew into the Lacandons’ jungle near the Mexican Guatemala border, Although,  it was a non-violent movement, the Zapatista Movement created increased pressure for democratic reforms thereby raising the specter of instability in the United States.

In Latin America,  there existed the Sandinistan National Liberation Front - the contra-rebels led by Daniel Ortega. In Mexico, the Zapatista National Liberation Army fought for years for a separate State. In Peru, the Tupac - Amaru Revolutionary Movement held away as an insurgent group since 1980. In Venezuela, the Revolutionary Bolivarian Movement for National Salvation provided a solid pedestal for Hugo Chavez to come to power. The Society of Muslims in Trinidad and Tobago, the Jungle commandos in Surinam, the Puerto Rican Nationalist party - all played active parts in their nations. From the experience drawn from the Middle East and Latin American, it is obvious that opposition to any established government through insurgency has become part of the democratic process.

Even before the World War 1, there had existed some form of revolutionary syndicalism in France and Britain; industrial unionism in the U.S, anarchro-syndicalism in Spain and Italy and Larkinism in Ireland. So even in the advanced democratic nations, variants of revolutionary movements had existed, sustained and even admired by people of those countries where there was perceived injustice

In Sri-Lanka, the Tamil Tigers raised a strong guerrilla movement, which actively negotiated the creation of a separate state. In 1956, the administration of Bandaranaike introduced a “Language Policy” of Sinhala Only Act, which replaced English with Sinhala as the “Lingua Franca”. By this policy, the Tamils were placed at a disadvantage. While the Tamils protested against this policy, government also introduced communal quotas for university entrance, which led to the exclusion of Tamil Students. Thus the Tamils came to the conclusion that their socio-economic aspirations could only be fulfilled within a separate Tamil State. Again, in Sri-Lanka, there is the problematic of the “wedlock” between political ideology and communitarian hagiography. While Buddhism tends to promote the renunciation of material concerns but individual monks engage in political activity aimed at reforming society. These contradictions in the society have strengthened the position of the Tamil Tigers in their struggle for a separate state until recently when the Tamils crumbled.

In the Philippines, there is the security dilemma associated with the continuing conflict of the government with armed communist and Islamic insurgent groups. The government and insurgents trade accusations and denounce each other as the cause of the nation’s economic stagnation. The communists had since the late 1960’s started to pressure the Filipno government for policy reversals. Government also reacted with brutal suppression of the insurgents. The Muslim insurgents unlike the communists are not intended to supplant the national government. Under the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the Muslims seek to establish a separate Muslim state in the Southern Philippine Island of Mindanao. The Muslim insurgency is an attempt to undermine the political homogeneity of the country.

Even the United States of America perpetrated atrocities at the Guantanamo Bay operations during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, and under the cover of the cold war, America elevated global terrorism to its apogee with a view to vilifying Soviet interest and the much-dreaded global sovietization that was the thrust of Marxist-Leninist ideology.  Under the Bush administration, the detention camps in Guantanamo Bay now compete favourably with the torture chambers of the Nazi regime. The situation was so horrible that former Secretary of States General Collin Powell (retired) has authoritatively implored the Pentagon to close the detention camp because it has blistered America’s human rights record.

The action of the U.S has created the impression that ideological differences are better settled with brute force as symbolized by the atom bomb. That is why Pakistan and India are vigorously pursuing the armament race at a very huge cost even at the point of neglecting very pressing domestic needs. If the atom bomb is the key to power, why will the Persians not look for it at all cost even if it would serve civilian ends.

The actions of President Bush have cast doubts on America’s record as the policeman of the world as compared to the so called “access of evil”, a phrase used to describe the enemies of America. America has a track-record of wrecking havoc in other lands. America wrecked havoc in Vietnam but the people’s resolve was so strong that Vietnam inflicted heavy casualty on the Americans. America also unilaterally invaded Grenada, Afghanistan, Panama and Cuba under the guise of curbing terrorism. Because of America’s belligerence, China adopted isolationism as a foreign policy option. The bombardment of Benghazi and Tripoli by the Ronald Reagan administration was also borne out of morbid fear of the ever increasing Libya-Moscow alliance.

In human affairs when leaders deliberately try to cover up the truth to satisfy their selfish interests, they end up telling more lies in an attempt to authenticate earlier fabrications. This has been the course of events in America since the ascendancy of President Bush eight years now. George Bush demonstrated colossal naivety in the area of foreign policy. Even the presence of Condoleezza Rice could not save the foreign policy disaster. As Secretary of States she has shuttled between Washington and Tel-Aviv, but could not diffuse the tension in the Middle East. Even the modicum of success achieved in Korea and Lebanon has been dwarfed by the interminable sectarian violence in Iraq.

In blatant disregard for international law and the diminution of the United Nations, President Bush elevated the idea of preventive strike not only as a strategic option to secure America, but to the pedestal of a core security doctrine. Under Bush’s tyranny, America legitimized the use of force by pontificating that the atom bomb in the hands of a dictator would be dangerous and a world without Saddam Hussein is a safer and more peaceful place.

This wretched doctrine was sold to the capitalist and Washington Lobbyists with immense oil interest in the Middle East. Without the U.N approval, Bush unilaterally took America to Iraq in order to rewrite the history of the U.S. Like Pharaoh Rameses II of Egypt, Bush has re-written the history of the Middle East with the blood of youthful American soldiers whose death could have been avoided if caution was not thrown to the wind. Bush’s aggression has portrayed America as a bully in the Middle East rather than a peace maker. To use the word of Late. Senator Robert Kennedy, Bush’s action in Iraq was “unilateralism run amok”.

America’s curiosity and overzealousness in preventing the armament race has lured many countries who are now desperate to acquire nuclear power. Today India and Pakistan are trying to outrun each other in the mad race to obtain the nuke. Iran seems to have made some progress in the enrichment of Uranium which is a logical step towards the development of nuclear weapons. North Korea is yet to lay all the cards on the table of the International Atomic Agency. The policy of Pyongyang vacillates between termination of nuclear enrichment and frequent policy reversals of sustaining the programme.

Although America’s pre-emptive strike wrecked havoc on Iraq, America has also sent a clear signal that no country can be safe without acquiring some quantum of nuclear strike force. In fact the nuclear issue bothers on the national security of countries hence even developing countries now have the increasing quest for acquiring sophisticated military build-up in order not to be mesmerized by any superior military power.

There is another consequence of America’s unilateralism namely: the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world. It is true that the process of acquiring nuclear weapons ranging from uranium enrichment, the production of nuclear fuel to the development of nuclear weapons is a very complex procedure; the enthusiasm shown by nations will obviously culminate in the proliferation of the technology. The result is that the world would be more insecure as countries may no longer feel secure. The phobia that other countries are front-runners in the race to pick the nuke technology will heighten the mad race.

Now in Iran, nuclear weapons are seen as symbolic of state power, modernity and identity. In North Korea, the Nuke now serves as a bargaining chip attracting as it were much needed economic assistance from America and Europe. South Africa, Libya, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Argentina and Brazil have given up on their nuclear programmes. Thus as the advanced capitalist countries approach the nuclear threshold, emerging nations are now making a big push for the nuke in spite if the colossal cost involved.

Again, the civilian use of nuclear power as a twin imperative of energy security and climate security has also made the tinderbox attractive. The general perception is that Positive Security Assurance may gradually begin to wane giving way for Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The fact that the Middle East is a Nuclear Free zone has provided justification for the hard-line posturing. Worse still, disarmament initiatives and its diplomacy have never been effective because of insincerity on the part of the world powers and their strategic allies. In fact, disarmament diplomacy is convoluted to favour the allies of the West.

The Federal Government purports to have extended amnesty to the “militia” groups in the Niger Delta. The aim is to stop the cyclical instability characterized by the systematic, but piecemeal violation of oil facilities. If MEND’s operations were total, Nigeria’s Foreign exchange would have been nil. Even the U.S. had to appreciate the sad reality that globalization is characterized by progress and subversion as evidence in the 9/11 terrorist attacks- targeted at the Pentagon and the New York World Trade Centre.

The recent attempt by the 23-year old Nigerian born Umar Forouk Mutallab, who is obviously a product of Al Qaeda may be the first test of the capability of Obama to use dialogue and persuasion to curb terrorism made in Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen. My only regret is that Obama has come to bear a rugged, heavy cross manufactured by his predecessor. This is the burden of the Obama Presidency.

Idumange John, Is a University Lecturer & Activist