Real causes of terror can no longer be swept under the carpet

SOMETHING odd is happening in the war on terror. Although there have been apparent successes in Britain (the conviction of three men for conspiracy to murder) and Australia (the arrest of an Indian doctor on suspicion of terrorist activity), the overall picture is by no means as rosy as these events make it appear. In the United States, the media has turned on the architects of the war, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney, with a viciousness that would been unthinkable a few years ago.

By Phillip Knightley

  • Follow us on
  • google-news
  • whatsapp
  • telegram

Published: Sat 14 Jul 2007, 8:45 AM

Last updated: Sun 5 Apr 2015, 1:13 AM

In its current issue, the influential New Yorker magazine blames Cheney for what has been happening. It accuses him of manipulating a “callow, lazy and ignorant” Bush into refusing to accept that the laws of the United States can in any way stop them from doing whatever they want in their “endless, endlessly expandable war on terror.” The magazine says they have inflicted unprecedented disgrace on America’s moral and political standing by launching the Iraq war under false pretences, conducting it with “stupifying incompetence” and of crippling America’s armed forces, “which no longer overawe and will take years to rebuild”.

Britain is beginning to think the same way. Admiral Sir Alan West, Gordon Brown’s new security minister, warns that the war on terror is not going to be won quickly and could take ten to fifteen years or longer. He says the government has failed to get its anti-terrorism message across and what is now needed is some “un-British snitching”. But how extensive this informing on your neighbours might become was highlighted by Professor Anthony Glees, director of the Centre for Intelligence Studies at Brunel University.

The same day as Admiral West gave his downbeat assessment of the war on terror, Glees estimated that there were “up to 200,000 potential martyrs at universities at home and abroad who are susceptible to recruitment” to terrorist groups, a terrifying thought for the counter-terrorism services. In my view, the problem is that governments have from the beginning failed to define what they consider terrorism to be. Is it simply “a form of violence you don’t like” (Professor Richard Rubenstein, Centre for Conflict Analysis and Resolution)? Is it attacking civilians, rather than soldiers?

But, according to British author Phil Ress, the USA and Israel are bigger killers of civilians than their terrorist foes, so such a definition would sweep both governments into the net as well. And if you leave terrorism undefined or defined loosely so as to get agreement, then you have to accept that it will never go away. Next, we have refused to consider what the terrorists’ motives might be. Instead we simply wrote all terrorists off as “evil people” out to destroy our way of life. But this begs the question: why do there appear to be more evil people around today than there used to be. We ruled out in advance any negotiations of any sort with our terrorist foes. But anyone who has studied recent history knows that the best chances of ending terrorist attacks is through negotiations. Terrorism over Kenya, Cyprus, Aden and, especially Northern Ireland, ended because negotiations brought compromise.

And finally we allowed those with a vested interest to exaggerate the terrorist threat. Counter-terrorism has proved a boom business, providing thousands of new jobs for security and intelligence officers, surveillance and forensic experts -- and, yes, authors and journalists. All of these naturally tend to paint any threat in strong colours, because it is in their professional and financial interests to do so. When commentator Christopher Hitchens writes that the dominant fact of our future will be that nowhere is safe from terrorist attack, that no matter where you live, “it’s coming”, that makes headlines. But when anyone points out that it is irrational to spend billions of dollars a year on anti-terrorism measures when food poisoning killls far more people, no one wants to hear. Dame Stella Rimington, former head of Britain’s security service, is one of the few experts to try to put it all into perspective. “We are tending towards this sense that we must all be one hundred per cent safe. A better way of presenting it is to say that the world is a difficult and dangerous place and [if we want to be safe] then we have to make choices about how much of our civil liberties we want to give up.” My answer is: none.

Phillip Knightley is a veteran British journalist based in London

More news from