A Coalition against Terrorism?
19 Sep, 2001 · 584
Sonika Gupta argues till perceptions of terrorism are linked solely to different national interests, there may not be any effective solution of it
The attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon in the
US
raise many questions pertaining to terrorism. The outcome of a terrorist attack is the same worldwide; the loss of innocent lives and a serious disruption of normal life. However, different countries perceive terrorism in different ways. And till perceptions of terrorism are linked solely to different national interests, there may not be any effective solution of it.
New York
and
Washington
.
US
will make no distinction between those who perpetrated the attacks and those who harbour them, the fact that it is reviving its old alliance with
Pakistan
contradicts its intention to address the issue of terrorism. In fact, in a bid for revenge, the
US
is focussing narrowly on the capture of Osama Bin Laden. This may assuage the feeling for revenge in the
US
, but it will not go very far in combating terrorism.
Pakistan
’s symbiotic relationship with the jehadi forces in
Afghanistan
is well established. However, by condemning the attacks and complying with US demands in the event of a military operation against
Afghanistan
,
Pakistan
is making a distinction between terrorist attacks in the
US
and the “ freedom struggleâ€Â
While violence in all its forms must be condemned, it is imperative to keep in mind that terrorist violence is an armed expression of discontent. This discontent may be born of social, economic and political inequalities in a society, a nation state, or the community of nations. When the channels for political expression of this discontent are perceived to be either hijacked by the dominant parties or suppressed, terrorist violence erupts. The eruption of violence, however, is not intended to solve problems but to coerce a solution favorable to the party indulging in terrorism. Ironically, the state then has a legitimate reason to crush any popular revolt against its policies. This cycle of violence only perpetuate more violence and takes both parties further from any solution. Until the futility of violence is recognised by both sides in a conflict, there can be no solution to the conflict. This fact must be kept in mind while discussing policy options for responding to the terrorist attacks in the
The Bush administration has made contradictory statements regarding its response to these attacks. While on the one hand, George Bush has declared that the
POPULAR COMMENTARIES
