After nine-and-a-half years of pursuit, one of the world’s most dangerous men reaped what he sowed, early yesterday morning. Osama bin Laden, the exiled Saudi millionaire who left a trail of death and devastation behind him, is dead.
Despite what is already being hailed as a victory for embattled US President Barack Obama, the death of the al-Qaeda leader will not bring an end to the threat of international terrorism for several reasons — some of which were probably foreseen by bin Laden himself.
Since the devastating Sept. 11 terror attacks on the US, which reinvigorated the hunt for a man who had already been sought by the US for about a decade, bin Laden’s organization has become increasingly decentralized, so much so that terrorism experts and intelligence agencies are often at a loss to determine whether certain terrorist organizations are part of bin Laden’s network or not.
In many instances, despite the fact that some members of terror organizations received training at al-Qaeda terror camps in the 1990s, many of the organizations they formed have proven themselves to be financially and tactically independent, meaning that they have not relied on bin Laden for financial support or operational planning.
As such, despite bin Laden’s death, those terrorist organizations that belong to the “al-Qaeda” franchise only inasmuch as they share certain aspects of its ideology, will continue to exist and threaten mayhem.
What this means is that as long as the conditions that motivate groups to resort to terrorism are not addressed, the slaying of one man, however influential a rallying figure he may have been, or indeed still proves to be, the instrument of terror will not go away.
Despite claims by former US president George W. Bush’s administration and others that al-Qaeda was targeting the West because it abhorred its democracy and freedom, there is ample evidence that for the great majority of those who support Islamic extremist organizations, the real reasons for that support are far more pragmatic and localized than ideological. Among these factors are opposition to repressive regimes propped up by the West and wars of national liberation pitting weak oppositions against a modern military (again often funded by the West).
The widening gap between rich and poor that is now occurring on a global scale, which is often, if somewhat unfairly, blamed on US-style capitalism, also remains an object of hatred for many have-nots, pushing some to adopt violence as a last, desperate resort. Unless that iniquity is resolved, poverty will continue to feed the sense of injustice that, for some, apparently makes commiting violence against civilians a just cause.
Terrorist organizations often vow revenge following the death of their leader and there is no reason to believe that al-Qaeda will be an exception.
Aside from the need for the new leadership to prove its mettle, in order to remain relevant such organizations must prove to their “audience” that they remain a threat. For terrorist groups, nothing signals relevance more than turning rhetoric into action.
Already, Interpol has warned of a “heightened terror risk” amid the high likelihood of reprisals.
Undoubtedly, al-Qaeda has been struck a serious blow with the killing of bin Laden and this will likely have an impact on its finances. However, this development by no means diminishes the threat posed by global terror.
The fundamental problem is political in nature and simply cannot be resolved by force.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has created a dilemma that could soon cause him to be hoisted with his own petard, bringing his leadership of China to an end. His threatening rhetoric over the unification of Taiwan with China, in which he has said, “we are willing to draw blood if necessary,” has placed Xi in a corner. Xi is portrayed as a strong world leader, yet he has created a scenario for himself that most likely would have an unfavorable outcome. With the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) scheduled to convene this month, Xi cannot
The 77th session of the UN General Assembly opened on Sept. 13. More than 10 overseas Taiwanese organizations had submitted a petition to the UN secretary-general, protesting that 23.5 million Taiwanese are excluded from representation. As president of the Taiwan United Nations Alliance, I also submitted a letter to the UN, saying that Taiwanese should have the right to be represented under the name of Taiwan. The government has been asking its allies to support Taiwan’s entry into the UN, but under its official name, the Republic of China (ROC). Doing so would have involved the right to represent China, with
I was privileged to meet with many of Taiwan’s leaders and leading thinkers during a study tour visit in August. One theme I heard several times during that trip was that bad relations between the United States and China benefit Taiwan. At first thought, I empathize with the argument. After all, there is a troubling record of America’s leaders negotiating with Beijing over the heads of Taiwan’s leaders. For example, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt returned Taiwan to China after World War II. President Richard Nixon surprised Taiwan leaders with his 1972 trip to China. President Jimmy Carter unilaterally chose to normalize
Washington’s “one China” policy has not changed and the US does not take a position on Taiwan’s sovereignty issue, a US Department of State spokesperson has said. He said that this has been the principle of US policy toward Taiwan since 1979, and the policy has remained in effect. He also said that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has privately made this clear to Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅). The US’ “one China” policy and China’s “one China” principle recognize China as the “representative of China.” The two diverge on the issue of Taiwan: Beijing asserts sovereignty
RSS