Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Terrorism was the story in 2003 By Dr Iffat Idris There will be all sorts of reviews of the year 2003 written in these days. The news reviews will of course be dominated by the Iraq war: the coalition attack, the capture of Baghdad, Jessica Lynch, Iraqis after Saddam, Dr David Kelly and the Hutton inquiry, the shooting of Uday and Qusay, and most recently the capture of Saddam. Other news items featuring in the annual review will be: the Soham murder trial in England, the ongoing crisis in the Middle East, rapprochement between India and Pakistan, trouble in Zimbabwe, Aids, Concorde's last flight, Libya's about-turn on terrorism and WMD, the devastating earthquake in Iran.... 2003 was an eventful year. But even with the multitude of diverse events and people, one phenomenon stands out: terrorism. Terrorism was the story in 2003. The scenes, the people involved, the scale might have changed from one attack to the next, but the story was always the same: 'A bomb exploded/a suicide bomber struck in place ABC killing X number of people, and injuring y number.' This statement became almost a cliche in news broadcasts - such was the frequency with which reporters had to use it: 'On 19 August a suicide bomber hit the UN's headquarters in Baghdad, killing 22 people (including the secretary-general's special envoy to Iraq Sergio Vieira de Mello). 'In August, a bomb blast at the Jakarta Marriott Hotel killed 13 people and injured over 100. 'On August 25 two bomb blasts in Mumbai (one at the Gateway of India monument) killed 50 people and injured over 150. 'On August 29 a car bomb at Najaf (Iraq) killed leading Shi'a cleric Ayatollah Baqr Al-Hakim and 125 others. 'On November 9 an attack on a residential compound in Riyadh killed 17 people (mostly expatriate Arabs) and injured scores. 'In November 2003 two bombs struck synagogues in Istanbul killing 23 people and injuring dozens more. 'Days later, two bombs blew up outside the HSBC Building and the British consulate in Istanbul, killing 28 people (including the British consul-general) and injuring hundreds. 'In December two suicide bombers drove their vehicles into President Musharraf's convoy, killing 15 people and injuring 46.' [Note: these are just the major acts of terrorism that took place in 2003: the total number was many times greater. In Iraq alone, acts of terrorism ran well into double figures.] But terrorism was more than just the story in 2003: it defined the global mood. Whether it was organizing a sports event, deciding foreign policy, formulating legislation, making travel plans - in all cases the primary consideration was terrorism. 'How big a danger was it? How could it be prevented? How to counter it? How to find those responsible?' Thoughts of terrorism were never far below the surface. Think back just a few years and the scale of the shift in global thinking becomes clear. The 1980s and 90s saw major acts of terrorism, but nothing like the 2003 concentrations. Lockerbie, Enniskillen, Omagh, Oklahoma, Nairobi, Tanzania - these stand out in the mind precisely because they were such an aberration from the norm. And yes, terrorism was a concern in this period (particularly after the 1998 US embassy bombings in Africa), but again nothing like the same extent it is today. September 11 changed our world into one dominated by terrorism. The year 2003 emphatically underscored that change. Examine 2003's terror list closely and you see that the primary focus of terrorist attacks was the Muslim world. The majority of victims were Muslims. Highly ironic, given that the fear of terrorism is primarily a western phenomenon. Few western leaders dare say this openly, but when they talk of the threat of 'terrorism' what they mean is ' Islamic terrorism'. The year showed that, in fact, it was Muslims who had most to fear. Viewed from this perspective - that of the victims - the terrorism of 2003 could be seen as largely an inter-Muslim phenomenon: Muslims killing Muslims. This should be a source of deep shame and concern for the ummah. While nothing can justify the killing of innocents, absolutely nothing can justify the killing of innocent Muslims by other so-called Muslims. The year 2003 saw the banner of Islam being used to carry out acts far removed from true Islam. The shame lies also in the Muslim world's (both public and leaders) response to the threat of terrorism. In 2003 Muslim peoples showed a tendency to condemn the 'catalysts' of terrorism - George Bush and his policies - but to forget the actual perpetrators: groups like Al Qaeda and Jem'a-al-Islamiyya. Conversely, Muslim leaders were guilty of supporting the US-led war on terror and ignoring the real causes of terrorism (many of them rooted in domestic problems like lack of democracy). The year 2003 highlighted the Muslim world's continued failure to effectively address the terrorism issue. Examine 2003's terror list closely and you see countries that were rarely mentioned in the context of terrorism before. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iraq (yet more irony) stand out in this regard. For a year in which the biggest international development was the US-led war against terror, there is something both deeply ironic and deeply disturbing about this trend. 2003 showed the war on terror being waged against a backdrop of escalating - not diminishing - terrorism. This trend did not start in 2003: 2002 also saw terrorist attacks becoming more frequent and breaking new ground. The Bali bombing that killed over 200 people took place in October 2002. That and other attacks in 2002 did not prompt a strategic rethink in the war on terror: surely the attacks of 2003 would? Throughout 2003 there was no change in anti-terrorism strategy in Washington or London. The focus continued to be on security: preventing terrorist attacks through better intelligence and tighter security measures. Make it harder for terrorists to get into 'Fortress America', was the mantra. And go after potential terrorists in their home bases before they can hit the US. The war on Iraq (the main development in the war on terror in 2003) was part of this strategy: sabotage Saddam's plans to use WMD against the West by toppling him from power. While those WMD plans have since been confirmed as non-existent (not to mention the WMD themselves), the US-led occupation of Iraq sparked a massive increase in regional terrorism. The year 2003 was further proof of America's capacity to make mistake after mistake. There was one positive development with regard to terrorism in 2003. As the war on terror repeatedly proved to be disastrous, questioning (even critical) voices were finally raised in the US. Silenced for months by the shock and enormity of 9/11, in 2003 Democrats and others dared to speak out against the Bush administration. They dared to point out what had been obvious for months: that the war on terror, as waged by the Republicans, was dangerously counter-productive. The year thus saw the first glimmers of a democratic (with a small 'd') awakening in America. The year 2003: a year of terror, then. A year of mistakes, cruelty, carnage, suffering and fear. The sad thing is that 2004 promises to be much much more of the same. Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
