French Prime Minister Manuel Valls was not speaking metaphorically when he said that France is at war with radical Islam. There is, indeed, a full-fledged war under way, and the heinous terrorist attacks in Paris were part of it. Yet, like most wars, this one is about more than religion, fanaticism and ideology. It is also about geopolitics, and its ultimate solution lies in geopolitics as well.
Crimes like those in Paris, New York, London and Madrid — attacks on countless cafes, malls, buses, trains and nightclubs — affront our most basic human values, because they involve the deliberate murder of innocents and seek to spread fear throughout society.
People want to declare them the work of lunatics and sociopaths, and they feel repulsed by the very idea that there might be an explanation beyond the insanity of their perpetrators.
Illustration: Yusha
Yet, in most cases, terrorism is not rooted in insanity. It is more often an act of war, albeit war by the weak rather than by organized states and their armies. Islamic terrorism is a reflection, indeed an extension, of today’s wars in the Middle East.
With the meddling of outside powers, those wars are becoming a single regional war — one that is continually morphing, expanding and becoming more violent.
From the jihadist perspective — the one that US or French Muslims, for example, might pick up in training camps in Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen — daily life is ultra-violent. Death is pervasive, coming as often as not from the bombs, drones and troops of the US, France and other Western powers. Also, the victims are often the innocent “collateral damage” of Western strikes that hit homes, weddings, funerals and community meetings.
People in the West hate to acknowledge — and most refuse to believe — that their leaders have been flagrantly wasteful of Muslim lives for a century now, in countless wars and military encounters instigated by overwhelming Western power. What is the message to Muslims of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003? More than 100,000 Iraqi civilians — a very conservative estimate — died in a war that was based on utterly false pretenses. The US has never apologized, much less even recognized the civilian slaughter.
Or consider Syria, where an estimated 200,000 Syrians have recently died, 3.7 million have fled the nation and 7.6 million have been internally displaced in a civil war that was stoked in no small part by the US, Saudi Arabia and other allied powers.
Since 2011, the CIA and US allies have poured in weapons, finance and training in an attempt to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. For the US and its allies, the war is little more than a proxy battle to weaken Assad’s patrons, Iran and Russia. Yet Syrian civilians are the cannon fodder.
Long before there was Islamic terrorism in the West, the UK, France and the US relied on diplomatic chicanery and launched coups, wars and covert operations in the Middle East to assert and maintain Western political control over the region. Historians know this sordid story, but most Westerners do not — in no small part because many of the interventions have been covert.
Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire a century ago, Western powers have sought to control the Middle East for a variety of reasons, including claims on oil, access to international sea routes, Israel’s security and geopolitical competition with Russia in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
The US now has more than 20 military bases in six nations in the region — Afghanistan, Bahrain, Djibouti, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Turkey — and large-scale military deployments in many others, including Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
It has funded violence for decades, arming and training the Mujahideen — in effect building the precursor of al-Qaeda — in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets; stoking the Iraq-Iran War in the 1980s; invading Iraq in 2003; trying to topple Assad since 2011; and waging relentless drone attacks in recent years.
That jihadist terrorist attacks in the West are relatively new, occurring only in the last generation or so, indicates that they are a blowback — or at least an extension — of the Middle East wars.
With very few exceptions, the nations that have been attacked are those that have been engaged in the post-1990 Western-led military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria.
The terrorists themselves cast their actions in political terms, even though we rarely listen; indeed, the terrorists’ words are typically reported only briefly, if at all. However, almost every terrorist attack in the West or against Western embassies and personnel has been accompanied by the message that it is in retaliation for Western meddling in the Middle East. The Paris terrorists pointed to France’s operations in Syria.
To be clear, Western actions do not provide Islamic terrorism with a scintilla of justification. The reason to point out these actions is to make clear what Islamic terrorism in the West represents to the terrorists: Middle East violence on an expanded front. The West has done much to create that front, arming favored actors, launching proxy wars and taking the lives of civilians in unconscionable numbers.
Ending the terror of radical Islam requires ending the West’s wars for control in the Middle East. Fortunately, the “Age of Oil” is gradually coming to an end. Society should make that end come faster: climate safety requires leaving most fossil-fuel resources in the ground. Nor do the other ancient motives for Western interference apply any longer. The UK no longer needs to protect its trade routes to colonial India and the US no longer needs a ring of military bases to contain the Soviet Union.
It is time for the West to allow the Arab world to govern itself and to choose its path without Western military interference. There are heartening reasons to believe that a self-governing Arab Middle East would wisely choose to become a peaceful global crossroads and a partner in science, culture and development.
The Arab world has played that beneficent role in the past, and it can do so again. The region is filled with talented people and the overwhelming majority in the region want to get on with their lives in peace, educate and raise their children in health and safety, and participate in global society. Their objectives — prosperity and human security — are the West’s own.
Jeffrey Sachs is a professor of sustainable development and health policy and management, as well as director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. He is also special adviser to the UN secretary-general on the Millennium Development Goals.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS