|
|
|
|
Map of Europe |
CIAO DATE: 08/06
International Affairs:
A Russian Journal
Prelude to a Big War?
A. Adamishin*
Out of all the wars mankind has been through in the course of its existence the current one is without precedent. This is a war that blew up the twin towers in New York City, took the lives of hundreds of school children in Beslan, plunged into tragedy Madrid and London and radically changed the established views. Who could have foreseen military operations where rules are laid down by only one side which chooses the place and time of striking blows and keeps the opposite side at first in suspense and then makes it guess as to where to hit back? The suicide bombers are dead and their masterminds are hard to find.
It is still being described as a phantom warfare because the adversary is immaterial, it has no territory, no army and no economy in the usual sense of these words. More often than not the adversary is faceless.
It is hard to fight and at the same time impartially examine a phenomenon whose diversity has not become fully manifest and which does not provide sufficient clues. This naturally gives rise to conflicting views. People are still arguing about the meaning of terrorism, about how to discriminate between terrorists and fighters for national liberation, about whether terrorism is global or it occurs here and there. Some people are trying to console themselves with the talk about the inevitability of the terrorist evil.
But the more explosions continue, the more discernible in their glare are the real outlines of the enemy.
At any rate, the front rank of the attackers is now discernable clearly enough. American suicide terrorism expert Robert Pape has studied 67 out of the 71 suicide bombers who blew themselves up in the name of Al-Qaeda in Western countries. A vast majority of them were citizens of Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf countries. There are almost no people from the countries, which, according to the American theory, support terrorism - Iran, Syria, Libya, and Iraq. Afghanistan began to provide suicide bombers only after the American invasion in 2001.
It is thus quite justifiable to say that not every Muslim is a terrorist but that practically all the terrorists are Muslims of the Sunni group. This also applies to London bombings. That their perpetrators are British subjects carrying British passports only attests to a wide choice of human resources, the organizers' ability to strike where least expected.
The territory of terrorism, even if this term is very arbitrary, comprises countries strongly influenced by radical Islam. Precisely they concentrate tens or, possibly, hundreds organizations that preach terror. Not only do they include actual Islamic countries, but also some European countries with extremely rapidly growing proportions of Muslim populations. In France alone, Muslims number about six million. "Europe will become part of the Arab West, or the Maghrib" as one expert has put it recently.
The army of terror comprises thousands of people prepared to die because they are firm that only thus is it possible to bring closer the triumph of Islam, to redress the injustices.
It also goes without saying that big money is there.
Do such organization, or a greater part of them, form some sort of a single body? The prevailing view is that they are vertically arranged with a "big spiritual leader" at the top of the pyramid. There is, most probably, a horizontally arranged network whose self-contained cells are not necessarily connected to each other. As for Al-Qaeda, it is more likely a symbol, a unifying idea. In the commercial lingo, it operates as a franchise.
It seems that such a view will have to be slightly adjusted. The growing impression is that ideologues and masterminds of extremism, including those stationed in different parts of the globe, and their field commanders coordinate their moves. This is extremely hard to track in conditions of a rapid growth of modern information technology: The Islamists run hundreds and thousands of web sites, and thousands of hours of their secret telephone conversations have been intercepted but not deciphered yet. The key factor is that the war is waged strictly in accordance with the chosen strategy and system. This would have been hard to achieve without cooperation between, possibly, several centers. They are headed by actually nameless phantoms, because they observe strict rules of secrecy originating in medieval times. Operating on the surface are one or two nearly mythical persons, or "lieutenants" whose capture or destruction does not change much. A general staff is either nonexistent or yet to be discovered.
Where there is a common idea and common understanding of the ways to implement it, there appear sooner or later organizational forms. No wonder they already talk about a terrorist international.
The most difficult question is what sparked the war and in the name of what it is being waged. Experts agree that the fundamentalists wage it to protect and preserve Islam. Their theses are: Not only was Muslim civilization destroyed by the crusaders, colonial empires and Zionists, Islamic values are being threatened with degradation. In the meantime, they are superior to all those existing on Earth because they are a detailed law regulating all spheres of life and they provide answers to all existing problems ranging from faith to the government and family systems. Hence, they should be restored to their original luster. For the sake of this alone it is worthwhile for a Muslim to live.
Fundamentalism is no terror in and of itself, had it remained a theory it would not have caused the big trouble. There, however, came along people described as Islamists, or jihadis, who have proceeded from words to deeds. Naturally, they had to first of all identify the enemy whose activities threaten with the loss of Islamic spirit and corrupting the Muslims. The enemy, however, was found back under Khomeini's rule, and it is the United States of America, the "big Satan." It was only one step away from bin Laden's battle cry: The duty of every Islamist is to kill Americans.
Not only do extremist organizations thus get a common ideology - the debunking of Western values as a direct opposite of the Muslim values, but also a unified policy: To first of all deter the USA, its allies and most importantly Israel and then, under the right circumstance, to destroy them along with their values. They also rank Russia among Islam's enemies making charges against it for Afghanistan and especially Chechnya. A victory for jihad is supposed to make up for all the humiliations, hurts and losses past and present to the Islamic world and become the keystone of its historic recovery.
The frequently debated question is which of the two components - ideological or political - is prevalent in the current Islamist offensive. Advocates of one school of thought contend that it is not Western civilization per se that is to blame but the policy of the USA, first of all its unreserved support for Israel over many years and, today, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They cite as proof the results of public polls indicating a sharply falling approval rating of Americans in the wake of their invasion of Iraq. When Americans behave well, they say, their approval rating grows also in Muslim countries.
According to a different view, the emotional accusations and threats look like a trick to divert attention from the true motives that drive the radicals. The point lies precisely in Western values, such as civil society and human rights, which erode Islam. What is the main vehicle of these values? The United States, of course. Closely related to it is the geopolitical factor. It is the United States that has gained most from the Soviet Union's collapse. The only superpower today, it has made "democratization" of the world its banner and practical policy and begun by the Middle East. Thus, nobody knows which poses the greatest threat to Islamists - ideology or politics, all the more so because in real life they go hand in hand. They have found a way out in striking at both.
On the other hand, the loss of the alternative to the Western structure of the world that socialism used to represent ideologically and geopolitically, also helped to bring into the open the Islamic world's "emotional element." Its finest representatives took over as it were the banner of struggle for a more just world. The Islamic caliphate idea filled the niche formerly occupied by communist ideology. As is often the case, noble impulses are being used for unseemly ends.
Percolating into the Muslim world, basic Western postulates bring a certain proportion of it out of control of the local elites and clergy. The standoff is increasingly turning into a conflict of ideas. The extremist attacks on European cities are also attacks on the values of the Western way of life. These attacks show plainly that, whereas these values are behind the economic prosperity, they offer no protection against death and terror. This perturbs minds because, unlike in the past when assassins targeted emperors, archdukes or presidents, now they launch blanket attacks and there is no knowing who may get killed. The authorities in a developed civil society cannot but take into account the resulting anxieties. Society is prepared to have its democratic rights and freedoms abridged in exchange for greater security. This weakens its resistance because in the absence of a reliable civil society the authorities can fail in controlling terrorists without conscious popular support.
Thus, whereas this is a war for ideals for some people, for others this is a war for power, for holding and expanding it. These latter people are vitally interested in continuing the war because the danger of unchecked Western penetration is very concrete as far as they are concerned. Having accumulated tremendous material, technical and ideological potentials, the United States is in a position to modernize Islamic societies. In this, the United States sees the firmest guarantee against extremism. But this also threatens with big segments of the elite exiting the scene.
In practical terms, the process of change in Muslim society is under way. The examples of such nations as Indonesia, Turkey, and Malaysia show that the Islamic world is coping with modern economic development and is not alien to democracy. Television, radio, cinema and the Internet are making their way into Arab courtyards traditionally fenced off from outside influences (it is to be recalled that the Sunnis prohibited the printing press until the 18th century). Local TV producers emulate their Western counterparts - just watch some of the Arab serials. The American and European films are pushing the Western way of life. Even TV news larded with biased comment cannot do without presenting facts, hence this breeds freethinking. The rich go to the West so "hated" by many imams for their medical treatment, education and entertainment.
Under the present circumstances, the distance between the radicals and the ruling secular-clerical elite is not so big perhaps as it is portrayed for outside consumption. Several thousand Saudi princes are known not to be exactly ecstatic about bin Laden who is branding "traitors" who have sold themselves to Americans. But can we say this about the very influential Wahhabi clergy? Those in top echelons of power have to reckon with the clergy.
It is also possible that the elites are fixing boundaries between themselves: one part of them is as before looking to the United States for rescue, the other part feels that the base for mutual support is beginning to grow weaker in the wake of 9/11. The very same Saudi Arabia, albeit it is doing something to oppose terrorism, is coming under a much stronger fire from the USA than before. Some political figures don't hesitate ranking Saudi Arabia among the financial strongholds of extremism. Hence one should look for new approaches. More accurately, fall back to prepared positions.
The indisputable fact remains: The reactionary regimes of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf have began stoking enmity for the USA and the West as a whole by direct sponsorship or indirect support long before the twin towers of the World Trade Center went down in New York City.
For many years, Muslims were being told in the mosques that the West is to blame for all their woes. Thus they become convinced that it was true no less because the USA and other Western nations gave cause for accusations. This sort of operation was needed to channel the disaffection growing inside.
There are many things in the world around us that arouse protest. It is hard for us to persuade ourselves that the world is growing more just, it is sooner the other way round. The gap between rich and poor widened ten-fold over the 20th century, and this is not the only alarming factor. Today, modern technology broadcasts pictures of outrageous contrasts all over the world in real time. This leads to the radicalizing of demands. Historical experience, however, shows that inequality and poverty, even despair and hopelessness, don't automatically lead to terror. Fanaticism has to be taught. This is what they have been doing for long years.
Preoccupied with confrontation with the "evil empire," with lucrative "oil for arms" deals, the USA failed to notice a simple trick the sheiks pulled. (I will not talk here about our own oversights.)
The result, as it appears today: According to public polls, up to 80 percent of people in the Muslim world support Al-Qaeda as an organization, which dared to defy the Western world. Many, and the number of these people is fortunately greater, disapprove of all its methods. 1 Its fanatical gestures are still accompanied by an underground rumble of approval. We know from Karl Marx that theory becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses, all the more so because this is a simple and inflammatory theory.
The masterminds behind the Islamists believe - and this was yet another most important discovery - that they have a weapon for which there is no protection. These are living bombs. And indeed, with all the might of its technology the West has not found an effective antidote. Western justice has been at all times based on the premise that the best deterrent to the commission of crime is the inevitability of punishment. But what's to be done when perpetrators of crime sentence themselves to death and carry out the sentences?
Yet another monstrous discovery are so-called "soft targets," or public transit and institutions, streets and buildings where you cannot provide 100-percent protection for the people there much as one would like to.
This deadly weapon was widely tested in the Middle East in the 1980s and 1990s. Authorship is believed to belong to the Lebanese Hezbollah group. Over recent years, Russia suffered most of the suicide attacks. For some time, this weapon was being reserved for a surprise and powerful attack against the United States. The next target was Western Europe.
The disaffected millions of believers asking why they should go to war hear an answer based on a simple formula like "We will destroy the entire world of violence to the base, so as to then … [lines from the Russian translation of The Internationale]." What is to happen "then" is deliberately coached in vague terms. Instead, the strategy of the war is set out loud and clear.
Hitting the United States in September 2001, the adepts of radical Islam scored at least three important results: They hit at America's heart, demonstrated for the first time its vulnerability, something no one succeeded in before, drew the Americans into protracted and exhausting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and drove a wedge between the Muslim and Western worlds. Now that the USA is mired in Iraq, where the main battle is unfolding, the fire has been switched to its coalition allies. The second front has been opened to relieve pressure on Iraq.
This tactic fits well into the primary objective of the present phase. This is, many experts conclude, to eject Americans and their allies from the oil-rich Arab East. This tactic proved viable in Spain after the bomb explosions in Madrid timed for the parliamentary elections where pro-America parties were defeated. The Socialists who aspired to win power and promised to withdraw the Spanish troops from Iraq, did that. Islamic web sites announced that countries whose troops were fighting in Iraq would be attacked one after another. They are trying to make the Americans fight single-handedly in Iraq and thus add to their already heavy burden. The more personnel and materiel they are sending to Iraq, the easier it is on the Taliban and drug barons in Afghanistan and on the very same Al-Qaeda.
Iraq is the main reason why the latest attack was made against Britain. At any rate, this is the opinion of political scientists from the influential Chatham House, although this has evoked strong denials from the British government. 2 Italy is worried: "Terrorism is knocking on our door." The opposition to Premier Silvio Berlusconi is already clamoring for the withdrawal of Italian units from Iraq.
There were two further motives in Britain's case: One is obvious, the other is not quite so.
Having staged a "bloody fireworks" for the Group of Eight, the organizers terrorist acts achieved a strong psychological effect: television showed footages of the leaders of eight major nations of the world alternating with footages of people covered in blood. Who controls the situation in the world, how come bin Laden (even if it wasn't the man himself) stages bombings where and when he wishes? Many must have been asking such questions.
It is appropriate to ask in this connection: Did people realize what was happening in the 1930s? Could they suppose that war was imminent, that it would be bitter and sanguinary and devoid of all signs of the humane heritage built by mankind during the millennia of its existence? That the war on Nazism would be intolerably long? Today, as ever, the world is being late with identifying the primary threat.
Now to the second motive. The London bombings hit at the British people's attempts to separate extremists from the vast majority of normal Muslims who want to live in peace, to separate these two unequal parts, to isolate the former without antagonizing the latter. In other words, to separate religion from radicalism ruinous for any faith. The British with their inherent tolerance must have progressed farther than anyone else in these attempts. This policy is clearly almost the decisive factor in combating terrorism and this basic policy will be certainly continued. But it is equally clear that the terrorists realize this, too. Hence their attempts to constantly ratchet up pressure and scare the Western public with the nightmare of a full-scale conflict with the Islamic world. They engineered a refined chain reaction where bombs kill people including even Muslims (like in London); this provokes hatred among titular ethnic groups, indiscriminate hatred of all who can be suspected of terrorism. Faced with this attitude, Muslims, who already feel cut off from the mainstream living in Western countries and are huddled together in ethnic and religious ghettoes, would turn to extremism and swell the ranks of the fifth column. The latter, for its part, would chip away at traditional Western values from within.
Even before the explosions in the London underground and a double-decker, a symbol of the British capital, and especially after the blasts, the British were criticized for being extremely lenient with Muslims organizations of doubtful nature, with "preaching hatred" in the mosques, an expression they now readily use. In short, they are criticized for flirting with extremists in the hopes that the latter would leave the people of Britain in peace. Many of these criticisms are certainly fair, although it would be a good idea to separate condolences from veiled accusations instead of presenting them in one package, at least during the first few days after the tragedy.
We can recall the just indignation in Russia sparked by the EC demand voiced by the Dutch, even before blood had hardly clotted in Beslan, to explain how that had been allowed to happen.
Today, the British are adjusting their approaches and seriously tightening laws to permit measures including deportation or imprisonment of those who "attack Western values." "The time for excuses is past for the terrorists," officials now say. Based on centuries-old traditions, the British thought they were strong enough to show tolerance for all sort of dissidents, incidentally including Russian emigrants ranging from Hertzen to Lenin, 3 that they were able to easily integrate hundreds of thousands from Pakistan, India, Jamaica, and so on, including 1,600,000 Muslims. To maintain, so to say, peaceful coexistence of civilizations and greatly benefit from this. Apart from everything else, British security services have always thought that a potential adversary is less dangerous when it is under control. They prove correct to some extent: Britain's Muslim community has bitterly condemned terror, 4 the special services have quickly identified the terrorists, although not their organizers.
Characteristically, having reacted to criticisms of using double standards, the British thought it necessary to remember the Chechen leader Zakaev and confirm that they would extradite him as soon as they have been provided with conclusive proof of his guilt.
In a word, the British recognize: Many of the methods found effective in the past don't work in combating jihad.
What is it that makes young people, many of whom are not poor by far, agree to die? This is still largely a riddle.
First, they are those who are deceived or accustomed to regard with respect the words from their seniors and thus are an easy prey for resourceful recruiters.
Second, they are fanatics believing blindly that their death would bring closer the reign of genuine Islam and their own bliss.
Third, and it must be the most numerous category, they are idealists willingly sacrificing themselves on the altar of the messianic idea of universal happiness. They most probably believe that it is only through sacrifices that it is possible to bring the idea to fruition. Earning a ticket to paradise, Islam experts think, is not the most important thing for them, although most of them believe that is what would happen to them.
And one more thing. Islamic leaders expertly combine suicide bombers' explosions with the tools of ideological and political influence. The objective is to try and influence the shaping of policies in both Islamic and Western countries, and where possible, to stir up conflicts between ethnic and religious groups.
The school in Beslan was seized so as to trigger clashes between the Ingush and Ossetians. This, happily, did not happen, but attempts to play on ethnic differences do not stop, as developments in Dagestan show. There are increasingly tangible signs emerging there of religious extremism, both homegrown and brought from without.
Part of the same tactics consists of stirring anti-American sentiment in countries of Western Europe and in Russia for that matter. The United States' behavior provides fertile ground for this. Today, the growing differences within the world to which Russia belongs are more dangerous than before. Mutual suspicion between Western Europe and the United States, between Russia and the United States is one of Al-Qaeda's most important trump cards.
In a wider context, the reaction of the world community to terror appears almost pathetic. How much more blood is to be shed on European sidewalks before the people realize that the technological and sociopolitical superiority cannot win victory for the civilized world? Even the states on the main line of resistance fail to fully realize the danger and do not think it so threatening as to really warrant rallying together for joint struggle.
The creation of a truly united antiterrorism front is hampered by the absence of confidence. This is mostly because the combat on international terrorism (I'm using this term more for brevity than for precision) proclaimed a top priority is not top priority in real politics. 5
Here are a couple of typical examples.
Hearing statements from U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and CIA Director Porter Goss ("We know where bin Laden is and he is not in Afghanistan") observers conclude that the head of Al-Qaida is hiding in Pakistan. Pakistan's authorities, as Ahmed Rashid, a reputable analyst, writes are in no hurry to capture him because they are facing strong opposition inside the country, especially in the armed forces. Furthermore, they fear that should the "spiritual leader" be captured, the United States that recently signed with India a ten-year strategic defense pact would lose interest in Pakistan.
Here's another illustration. Right on the heels of the explosions in London, Scotland Yard held a closed-door conference of law and order services of twenty European countries and the USA, shared with them rather sensitive information and asked them for assistance. Literally the next day, the information was leaked to the press in France. Now, The New York Times writes, British sleuths wouldn't breathe a word to anyone again. The same paper underlines that a whole range of antiterrorist measures already agreed by the European Union remain on paper.
Now about what is closer to home. Russia is justifiably displeased to see that many in the West exclude Chechnya from the common struggle against terrorism referring to it as a special case.
But we are still not quite clear about what is more dangerous for us, the Islamic extremism or the United States together with NATO? On the one hand, Russia and the USA call themselves strategic partners, at least when they discuss war on terrorism. On the other hand, incomprehensible is the malicious pleasure with which news analysts of the major TV channels speak of the U.S. woes in Iraq and the explosions in London.
One thing is to criticize the USA for the big mistake in Iraq, but to wish it defeat and withdrawal means not to know the ABCs of politics. It is obvious indeed that the resulting wave of militant extremism would also engulf this country. Russia may probably be the first because, even if it is rich in natural and other resources, it is, unfortunately, not the strongest state in the path of Islamists. Besides, they have prepared springboards. In conditions of today's standoff with terrorist Islamist terrorism, Russia, as any other state, is in no position to protect security alone. It needs strong allies, first of all in the West. And this is not only owing to the common roots of their civilization. The most reliable alliance is based on pragmatism and coinciding interests. The United States and Western Europe cannot permit reinforcing at Russia's expense those who have challenged them to engage in a mortal fight. They, I think, are Russia's allies in what is vital for it - preserving its territorial integrity. This, of course, does not rule out but presumes that we will uphold our own interests in relations with our Western partners.
It is, without a doubt, not easy to build a united front against terrorism. There is a strong tendency in some Western countries to "sit it out," to refuse to get involved into the conflict on the plea that let the others do the fighting, we did our share of fighting in the 20th century. Islamic extremists take advantage of this trying to advance their positions as far as possible. In the past, Western politicians competed with Stalin to see who would succeed in forcing Hitler's hand. We know the rest - everyone had to drink the bitter cup to the dregs.
So, despite all the difficulties, the single will to combat international terrorism, as common foe number one, should prevail. The enemy will not stop, appeasing it is extremely dangerous and it is practically impossible to come to terms with it. If and when it lays its hands on weapons of mass destruction, the explosions in London would seem kids' crackers.
Endnotes
Note *: Anatolii Adamishin, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Honored Diplomatic Service Worker. Back
Note 1: A significant number of those polled by the Pew Global Attitudes Project in several Muslim countries reject the use of "living bombs" against civilians. Back
Note 2: They write that the UK runs the greatest risk because it, the most loyal ally of the USA, took part with its armed forces in military campaigns to depose the regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, and assumed the leading role in international cooperation of intelligence services and law enforcement bodies against Al-Qaeda, as well as in the efforts to deny it finance. There are 8,500 British troops in Iraq. Back
Note 3: As Russian ambassador in London, I saw a plaque in the British Museum Library marking the desk where Lenin used to sit. There were no longer tours there for visitors from the former Soviet Union but the plaque is still there. Back
Note 4: Such condemnations were not very frequent until recently. The first fatwa against Bin Laden was issued by the Spanish Muslim Council on March 11, 2005 marking the first anniversary of the explosions in Madrid. It declares bin Laden to be apostate and calls on all Muslims to denounce him. A similar fatwa was issued by the Sunni Council in London. However, already after the London developments, 170 Muslim theologians gathered for a conference in Amman refused to support this stance. Furthermore, the conference communique maintains that no single group of Muslims can be declared apostate as long as they believe in Allah, in other words, until they have abandoned the religion. Back
Note 5: General L. Ivashov said recently in a statement that not a single terrorist has been captured to date through joint efforts of Russia and the United States. And this is when there is a bilateral antiterrorism group, which otherwise is working rather well. Back