In the wake of 9/11 ASPA members shared their thoughts, expertise and insight on their own experience with the horrific incident and ways forward for the country. On the cusp of the 10 year anniversary, we recall some of these poignant articles. These articles were first printed on the ASPA website. The viewpoints expressed by ASPA’s online columnists are the individuals’ and are not necessarily the viewpoints of ASPA or the organizations the columnists represent.
============================================================================================
Tough on Terrorism, Tough on the Causes of Terrorism
By Colin Talbot
I spent the week of the awful events in New York and Washington in South Africa with many colleagues from their public policy and administration community. It made me reflect on how two organisations that had both been called “terrorist” – the African National Congress (ANC) and the apartheid state – eventually reached a peaceful settlement. And it made me realise why no such compromise is possible with those who attacked the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair first used the tough slogan above in relation to crime some years ago. A balanced response from democratic peoples to the utterly appalling events in New York and Washington has to look closely at how we both make sure justice is obtained, by whatever means are necessary, and that we remove the fertile soil in which terrorism grows.
We must reflect on what exactly is the terrorist menace we are confronting. We need to distinguish here between two distinct types of terrorist activities and terrorist organisations. The (Irish Republican Army) IRA, the Basque Euskadi ta Askatasuna (ETA), the Irgun, Hezzbollah, Al Fatah, and even the ANC of South Africa, are or have been, terrorist organisations fighting for causes they believe to be just.
They believe or believed – rightly or wrongly – that their specific peoples – the Irish, the Basques, the Jews, the Lebanese, the Palestinians, or South Africa’s majority – had a legitimate cause. They often received explicit or tacit support from a wide section of their populations. In every case they carried out specific actions which by any civilised standards are barbaric and which killed innocent civilians.
Historically it has often been the case that one set of terrorist activities – the protestant Ulster Volunteers in 1920s Ireland or the Zionist Irgun in 1940s Palestine – have led to settlements which simply beget another round of terrorism – the IRA or Palestinian groups today. So the first lesson we have to learn is we must find ways of producing just, equitable and lasting settlements to disputes over territory and rights.
Just because someone pursues a legitimate grievance with illegitimate means doesn’t mean we can ignore the grievance. The only way to finally stop terrorism in these situations is to find a peaceful settlement, a compromise surely that recognises all people’s rights. There are few examples of where a genuinely aggrieved people who have resorted to terrorism (however wrongly) have been stopped by force alone, except of a genocidally unacceptable kind. While security and law enforcement are vital, they will not solve the problem alone.
The peace process in Ireland, for all its faltering nature, and especially the democratic transition in South Africa have lessons for us all. South Africa’s negotiated peace involved compromises on all sides, it involved a new tolerance for each other’s rights and it involved purging old wounds through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
The leading democratic nations of the world have a duty to start seeking and enforcing such settlements much more even-handedly and not merely when it is convenient to geo-politics or garnering votes back home.
Having said all of that, the terrorist threat posed by attack on the Pentagon and World Trade Centre is of an entirely different order. Whilst the terrorist networks involved may gather their supporters from those disgruntled by more specific grievances, their organisations are waging an ideological war. They seek not to achieve a specific righting of wrongs – against the Palestinians for example – but to overthrow a whole system – e.g., secular liberal democracy.
These groups are just as ideological as the 1970s Red Army Faction in Europe or the Symbionese Liberation Front, or more recently the Militia movements which led to the Oklahoma City bombing in the US. They simply have a different set of ideas and a different vision of an alternative society that they seek to create through terror – that of an intolerant, autocratic theocracy.
Because these groups are so ideologically, almost hermetically, sealed against any outside pressures they are willing to commit atrocities on a scale rarely contemplated by more limited groups. The IRA, for example, could almost certainly have hit a UK nuclear power station or carried out some similarly catastrophic attack over the past 30 years. They did not, not because of any inherently more civilised approach to terrorism but simply because such an attack would have seen their popular hinterland evaporate overnight and destroyed their political base.
The second lesson we have to learn is that whilst there can be compromise and settlement with specific groups with specific grievances (the IRA or ANC), there is no compromise possible with these ideologically based forces.
This leads immediately to a third conclusion – our strategy to defeat these ideologically based groups must encompass settling genuine grievances in order to remove their ‘hinterland,’ isolate them and eventually crush them. If we fail to resolve the genuine grievances that create fertile soil for their activities, we will find it exceedingly difficult to defeat them. But we also have to realise that this is a war – however you define it – that has to be fought through to victory. These groups cannot be negotiated with – they simply have to be defeated. Their grievances have no legitimacy whatsoever and their aims are completely antithetical to the values of democracy. They would rip up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – we must defend it.
Moreover, because they reject any basic democratic and legal values and operate far beyond the remit of normal justice systems, we may need to use extraordinary measures to defeat them. That of course includes military action – preferably as surgical as possible even if it means more risk to our own side.
Collateral damage may not concern many in the US and beyond too much at the moment, but it only helps to provide more recruits and support for the terror networks and is ultimately counter-productive (as well as being morally wrong). We need also to consider other means – for example the hijackers in the US used money that had somewhere to have gone through the banking system. There is more than one way to cut off their supplies.
Hence we have to be tough on terrorism and tough on the causes of terrorism – never more so than after last week’s unspeakable events.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Colin Talbot is Professor of Public Policy and Management at the University of Glamorgan, Wales, UK and a founding member of Public Futures, a public service knowledge company.
The viewpoints expressed by ASPA’s online columnists are the individuals’ and are not necessarily the viewpoints of ASPA or the organizations the columnists represent.
============================================================================================
We’ll Rise to the Occassion
By Harlan Cleveland
This week’s terrorist attacks in New York and Washington were enormous as a human tragedy, historic as a turn of events. While most news media have focused on what well-known leaders around the world and especially in the United States are saying about what will happen next, the main thing to watch is how the American people react — and what they will tell their leaders to do about it. That’s how it really works in the US: on important policy issues, the people get there first and their leaders follow sooner or later.
The attacks shocked us and changed us. Nothing like this has happened here since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. That attack instantly unified the American people. Since then, we have felt we had a firm grip on President Franklin Roosevelt’s first freedom — the Freedom from Fear. No American less than half a century old could ever have imagined the puncture in that freedom as we saw on television, in living color, on Tuesday, September 11.
The American people, once again instantly unified, have now made a judgment that we are at war. It’s not in us to walk around frightened about our future, so we’re going to do something. But do what? And who’s the we that will be doing it?
The first instinct of some leaders may be to lash out at the most obvious symbols of terrorism, and do it in a hurry-at whatever expense to our own democracy-and on our own, as a self-isolating action. My guess is that the instinctive wisdom of the people will prevail over the itch of the instant-response hotheads, and that the case for acting internationally in an interdependent world will trump the urge to express our unilateral impatience.
The day after the disaster, the UN Security Council had already unanimously condemned the terrorist actions. The European Union expressed its solidarity with its transatlantic partner, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) began making operational, for the first time, the NATO Treaty provision that an attack on one ally is an attack on all.
Under the impressively calm and clear-headed leadership of Secretary of State Colin Powell, the United States has begun “a worldwide effort to build a coalition against all forms of terrorism.” This will be, at best, the beginning of a long-term coalition-of-the-willing that won’t be satisfied to decapitate a few obvious villains but that writes and enforces new rules for peaceful change and civilized behavior in the 21st century.
Like most things worth doing, this won’t be done in a hurry. It won’t be done without casualties, and it won’t be done at bargain prices. For a start, it will doubtless cost a lot more than we were planning to spend on “defense.” This may require changing some suddenly premature Republican ideas about tax cutting, and some postponable Democratic ambitions about social spending.
The American people are heir to one tradition that is a feature of our history but is, curiously, not yet expressed in the lyrics of our patriotic songs. Ours is a nation that rises to the occasion. We have done it before, and we will do it again.
This column was reprinted with permission of The World Paper.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Harlan Cleveland is a former US Assistant Secretary of State and US ambassador to NATO and past president of the World Academy of Art and Science. He passed away in 2008.
Marketing for nonprofits serves two important purposes. First, it is important to get the word out that the nonprofit exists, including information about the programs, services and goods that can help clients address their needs. Simply put, to serve the community, the community needs to know you’re out there! Fundraising is the second purpose. Fundraising is the fuel of nonprofit operations. Whether you are seeking charitable donations, legacy gifts, or writing a grant your nonprofit needs potential funding sources to know who you are, what you do, how well you do it, and the myriad ways the world is a better place because of your nonprofit.
