May 5, 1999
Terrorism is not a subject to be simply extrapolated forward, assuming that it will worsen at an accelerating rate, just because technology is always progressing. Not least the politics that propels terrorism can change incredibly quickly. The worst alien terrorist act in a western city in recent years, at least in terms of dramatic effect, was the bombing of the World Trade Centre in New York. Many commentators read into this that it was the onset of an Islamic fundamentalist campaign to wreck havoc in the West. Yet, 6 years on, we gather that its father figure, the Muslim cleric, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, has now forsaken violence and his movement, the Gamaat Islamiya group in Egypt which, not very long ago, was sabotaging the tourist industry with its indiscriminate killings, today regards itself as defeated and is looking for non-violent means of expressing its political agenda.
This is part of a trend. At the time of the Gulf War there was a definite rise in international terrorism. But since then, despite Osama bin Laden and his Afghanistan-based zealots, it has declined in frequency.
As for the so-called "rogue states", they are a diminishing breed. Now that Mu'ammar Qaddafi has handed over the suspects in the Lockerbie airline bombing case to a Scottish court for trial Libya can probably be safely struck off the list. Iran certainly can be. Yugoslavia can't really be added to it since it has threatened no one except its own people. North Korea blatantly uses its sophisticated weapons program not to terroriise but to earn revenue. That leaves Iraq.
Do we still keep up the good fight with Iraq because we honestly think if we don't Saddam Hussein's research program into weapons of mass destruction will one day bear fruit? Surely Saddam knows if he ever tried to use them his country would be met by a devastating response? Isn't that deterrence enough?
We are, moreover, in real danger of misunderstanding the nature of weapons of mass destruction. It's one thing to make them under laboratory conditions, another to make them fly and seriously affect a sizeable target. Biological weapons demand enormous technical prowess to use. For truly deadly results they need to be dispersed in very low altitude aerosol clouds, which is extremely difficult to do. Chemical weapons to be effective need to be used in enormous quantities and, historically, most of those incapacitated by such weapons have not actually died.
The worst case scenario, of course, is Iraq developing nuclear weapons. Yet even here we fall into the trap of exaggerating the progress made. Even India and Pakistan with all their sophistication have only produced bombs with yields that are Hiroshima size or smaller. This does not announce the end of civilization.
With all these weapons, we are told time and time again, if they loaded on to missiles our defense forces and our cities are imperilled. Yet ballistic missiles are probably the least likely method of delivery. The kinds of missiles likely to fall into the hands of a rogue state or terrorist group can only carry a small pay-load and are inaccurate and unreliable to boot. All are inferior to aircraft. General Schwarzkopf once described the Iraqi scud missile as the military equivalent of a mosquito.
The real question is why do we punish Saddam Hussein for his probably ineffectual efforts to develop such weapons by crippling the ordinary people of Iraq with sanctions? According to John and Karl Mueller, writing in the May issue of Foreign Affairs, economic sanctions are THE weapon of mass destruction. "They may have contributed to more deaths during the post-Cold War era than all the weapons of mass destruction throughout history."
In Iraq's case the evidence is compelling that sanctions have proved to be a vicious and indiscriminate weapon that has harmed the most vulnerable far more than it has hurt the power elite. It has led to an increase of 40,000 deaths annually of children under five. Multiply this by the eight years of the confrontation and this is a horrendous death toll. Even the Nagasaki nuclear bomb only killed 40,000 people.
The post-Cold War West, rather than defeating terrorism, has become its chief sponsor. Saddam Hussein appears no weaker. Only his people pay the price. Why are not sanctions limited to military items and the overseas' bank accounts of he and his henchmen?
In the fight to defeat terrorism western governments--aided by a volatile media--have become prisoner to their own supercharged hyperbole. It has become dangerously counterproductive. They should start to re-think both what they fear and what they are trying to do.
Copyright © 1999 By JONATHAN POWER
Contact the Webmaster
Created by Maria Näslund © 1997, 1998, 1999 TFF