THE ATTACKS on the United States last week signal a new challenge to this country, that of terrorism. The United States must enact a comprehensive policy to fight terrorism around the world. This plan must define what terrorism is, how the United States and an international coalition can stop it, and how the lives of certain groups of people can be improved so that they will not have to rely on terrorism.
The actual definition of terrorism must be provided before anything can be done to stop it. Webster's defines it as "the systematic use of terror esp. as a means of coercion." This definition is not very helpful. One distinction of terrorism is that it involves civilian targets. Another distinction is that it involves non-state actors, although these people often receive indirect state support. Therefore, the United States and the world must fight against non-state supported acts of violence against civilians. This is not to say that the United States and the world should ignore actual wars or states that oppress their populations. But a distinction must be made to define terrorism.
|
How is terrorism different from revolutions? Don't certain Palestinian groups use terrorism against Israel, because they are trying to fight for their land? Of course they do. The same could be said of the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, or the Chechens against the Russians. But this doesn't make it right or acceptable. Prof. James Sofka, who teaches international law, said in an e-mail interview, "Violence only galvanizes the public. There is never an excuse to use terrorism, be it in Chechnya, Ireland or New York. It's immoral, counterproductive and illegal." Groups must not be allowed to try to advance their political causes through organized terror.
The issue then becomes how to stop terrorism. The key is an international coalition, similar to the one that President Bush is trying to develop. This coalition must include countries from around the world, not just Europe, and it certainly needs the moderate Arab countries of the Middle East to join. Prof. Michael Smith, a government professor and program director of the Political and Social Thought Program, agrees: "An international coalition is indeed required to combat terrorism, and to build and sustain such a coalition requires careful, discriminate use of force but also sustained use of all the other tools of diplomacy."
The coalition must have military forces backing it up, and these forces must be provided by all countries, not simply the United States. But military force alone is not enough.
Prof. William B. Quandt, a government professor and expert on Middle Eastern studies, said in an email response, "Military force works best against other militaries. In this case, we are not dealing with an organized military, and therefore must also use economic and diplomatic means."
This is entirely correct. Economic isolation of certain countries could prove more fearful to them than any military action. Diplomacy is the only way to bridge gaps between countries that are totally different but agree in principle that terrorism is wrong.
While the United States and the world must become and remain vigilant against terrorism, leaders must at the same time listen to the voices of the oppressed.
As Smith said, "We must, over the long term, begin to understand and address the reasons that the U.S. is targeted as the symbol of power among many poor third-world countries."
If certain groups feel that the only way for their voices to be heard is terrorism, then the system is flawed. One solution may be to invite certain ethnic minorities to the United Nations and allow them to hold non-voting memberships, such as the one that the Palestinian Liberation Organization currently enjoys.
Prof. John M. Owen, who specializes in international security, points out that allowing all groups to have a voice at the U. N. might be impractical. But after the vicious terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, the world has changed. What might have once been seen as impractical or wrong must be reassessed. People around the world must understand that terrorism will not win them freedom, and that by committing these acts, they will have greatly hurt their causes in the eyes of the world community. Yet, they also should understand that their voices will and can be heard.
This plan has flaws and raises more questions than it provides answers, but any proposal to combat terrorism would suffer from similar problems due to the complexity of fighting terrorism. While it may be complicated to create a strategy to deal with terrorism, actually enacting anything would be the most difficult task. The U.S. has no other choice. We did not ask for this new mission in the world; our enemies have decided it for us. Therefore we owe it to ourselves, the world and future generations to win this war.
(Harris Freier's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at hfreier@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 5 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
