The terrorism that we have come to associate with al-Qaeda is unusual in many ways. It is global and technologically sophisticated, but above all, it is not about an achievable political objective.
It is not aimed at creating a united (Catholic) Ireland, an independent Basque country or even a Palestinian state, but promotes a particular world view and those who represent it. It is aimed at what used to be called the West; that is, at the liberal order of things, at a free world.
Because the US is the most visible and powerful representative of that free world, it is aimed against America and its closest allies in Europe and elsewhere. This is a critical fact to remember. What we describe under the heading of al-Qaeda is an essentially negative, destructive movement. It does not offer an alternative view of the modern world other than the implicit claim that modernity is neither necessary nor desirable.
Moreover, that claim, when made by men who appear to be religious leaders, is almost certainly dishonest. Such leaders are using religion for their own highly modern political purposes; they use it to organize and mobilize their supporters -- to commit individual or collective suicide, if need be. In this they resemble the totalitarian leaders of fascist movements, who likewise built on popular frustration to pursue an essentially destructive purpose in the name of anti-modern beliefs and promises.
Violence born from such sources is difficult to fight. Signs of frustration with modernity are never hard to find. They are present in highly developed countries, but above all in entire regions of the world that are suspended between a yesterday that no longer exists and a tomorrow that has not yet come into being.
How do free countries deal with terrorist expressions of organized frustration? Without doubt, the first priority for any free country must be to protect its citizens and assets against acts of terrorist violence.
Given a globalized movement of fury, this is not simple. It requires measures that do not come easily to citizens, groups and authorities steeped in a tradition of liberalism and tolerance.
We must accept that there are limits to tolerance. Opting out of the values and customs of free societies is problematic, but it is ultimately acceptable. Non-aggressive demonstrations of difference -- including Islamic headscarves worn by students or teachers in largely Christian countries -- should be bearable.
But violence should never be tolerated. The monopoly on the use of violence exercised by democratic states must be preserved, which may involve expelling non-citizens who choose violence or advocate its use, and the detention of citizens who have practiced or threatened it.
However, it is of critical importance that the treatment of terrorists and those suspected of terrorism remains strictly within the rule of law. Indefinite detention without trial is as unacceptable as defining people as "illegal combatants," to whom no rules of any kind apply. The status of the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay and the recent incidents of possibly systematic humiliation and torture of Iraqi prisoners cast doubt on the very values on which a liberal order is based.
Such incidents make one wonder whether the terrorists have, in the end, achieved their aim of destroying the West and what it stands for. Terrorism aimed at the destruction of the liberal order is a test of that order.
This is particularly so if one accepts intervention in the internal affairs of countries in order to prevent genocide or the murderous suppression of minorities and opposition groups. But intervention must never borrow methods from those against whom it is undertaken.
This applies also to the intervening powers' objectives. Terrorism of the al-Qaeda type is basically destructive. Any response must be basically constructive. The frustration of many in economically developed countries is a challenge, as is the frustration of entire countries in developing regions.
This challenge cannot really be met by simply promising unlimited opportunities, as they uniquely exist in America. It requires a sense of social responsibility that accompanies and cushions the painful process of modernization.
People who are suspended between a lost past and a future not yet gained need help. Such assistance will not yield immediate results, but awareness of the medium term -- which means readiness to face it by delaying immediate gratification -- is also a sign of a liberal order.
Thus, fighting al-Qaeda is not a war. It is partly self-defense, partly an assertion of the rule of law in difficult circumstances and partly a constructive effort to redress the causes of frustration.
Ralf Dahrendorf is a member of the British House of Lords and a former London School of Economics rector.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs