The world after September 11: Challenges and Opportunities, edited by Moonis Ahmar: A Review by Ahmad Reza Taheri

     The only way for Muslims to avoid their dark future is to democratize their systems. In this way they can develop. It is the responsibility of the intellectuals to come forward and play their due role in the society.

September 11 attack was a coordinated terrorist strike on the United States in 2001 that killed more than 3,000 people and shook the world. On 11 September 2001, 19 terrorists, working in teams of 4 or 5, hijacked four commercial jetliners and turned them toward targets chosen for destruction. Two of the planes, loaded with fuel and passengers, flown at full speed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in the financial district of New York City. The buildings burst into flame and then collapsed, killing thousands. The third terrorist crew smashed the plane into the Pentagon, headquarters of the US military in Arlington, Virginia. The hijackers of the fourth airliner apparently intended to hit another target in the Washington, D.C., area, but passengers on the plane realized what was happening and fought back. This airplane crashed in a field in rural Pennsylvania. The 19 men who carried out the hijackings came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other Arab states. They affiliated with the al-Qaeda network, a radical Islamic group led by Saudi exile Osama bin Laden and dedicated to waging a holy war against the United States. The targets they selected to destroy perfectly symbolized the US financial, political, and military power. Years in the planning, the attacks in New York and Washington constituted the first major foreign assault on the continental United States since 1814, when the British army invaded Washington, D.C., and burned the White House. More people killed on US soil on September 11 than on any day since the American civil war.

***

      Terrorism is not something new; it existed before but in different forms. Actually, since the early 1990s ethnic-religious conflicts and terrorist activities have increased in number, which is exactly what today has become a more dangerous, more complex, and more uncontrollable phenomenon. Recent events such as the Iraq’s daily bomb blasts by suicide bombers are clear examples. In spite of the US active presence and its control over the country, one can still witness daily murder of citizens, foreigners, and US troops. Today (2004) the situation in Iraq is so intense that concerned officials have no idea whether they would be able to manage the crisis or not.

      The World after Sep 11 consists of ten research papers written by different Pakistani scholars on interrelated issues about 9/11 and its aftermath. It is a sort of Pakistani Muslim perspective. Forward and Introduction are the first parts of the book in which an introductory information about 9/11 and its aftermath is provided. This book has mainly focused on terrorism, and definitional complexities. The authors overall believe that a universally acceptable definition of terrorism does not exist, because each state has its own view of terrorism.

      In the first paper, Moonis Ahmar argues that even before 9/11 we had terrorism in both forms as challenge and opportunity. The growth and spread of violence against innocent people tend to call for more attention on the part of policy makers to deal with a situation in which the conflict escalation resulted into massive loss of human lives. Here, six important realities, while discussing the fears and concerns of terrorism in the pre and post 9/11 periods have been mentioned as follows: (1) Both USSR and USA were involved in ideological terrorism during the cold war. These two states were involved in acts of terror, and unwarranted use of force like overthrow of governments and assassinations. (2) During the war of national liberation (1950s, 1960s, 1970s) though innocent people killed, the purpose of liberation movement was to fight for social justice and not to use people as a shield or hostage. (3) State sponsored terrorism is an undeniable fact. Both Pakistan and India accuse each other of supporting terrorism. (4) West views the Islamic extremist groups as the main factor involving in acts of terrorism. The extremist groups provided adequate reasons for the US to depict the entire Muslim community responsible for promoting terrorism. (5) Islamic extremist groups justify their violence against non-Muslims. They say that Muslims are a victim of colossal discrimination and they have no option but to retaliate. (6) The western media and centers of power are projecting threat perception on terrorism supported by the Muslims.

      Many groups are involved in creating fears in the West that the threat of terrorism is Islamic centric. The author in fact is of the opinion that terrorist attacks such as 9/11 were in the name of Jihad and against the Islamic code. The concept of "US war against terrorism which reflects a clash between Islam and Christianity," needs to be changed. Well, after 9/11 the widespread debate on terrorism tended to open new challenges and opportunities. For the West in general and US in particular, the event of 9/11 poses a great challenge not only to their hold over global affairs but also to their culture and civilization. However, these challenges would give them an opportunity to unleash the process of dialogue with the Muslims. This had brought once again the US and her allies in the region where huge natural resources exist. For South Asia, the biggest challenge after 9/11 is the worsening of relations between India and Pakistan, and the failure of SAARC to provide a leadership role so that deal with the challenge of terrorism. For Pakistan, being as a front line state by becoming an important ally of the USA, domestic opposition; India’s attempt to compel the US and international community to declare Pakistan a terrorist state; and threat of war with India after the Indian Parliament attack in December 2001, are some important challenges. Although the economic assistance and removal of sanctions are two important opportunities for Pakistan, domestic opposition is a great threat to the regime of Musharraf. Preventing terrorism is the need of hour, but unfortunately, instead of that, the focus of US led war against terrorism has been of combating. As far as the question of meeting challenges and seizing opportunities for a better world after 9/11 is concerned, it all depends on the role of other powers such as EU, Russia, China, India, and Japan. If these powers exert substantial pressure on US to review its hard line approach on Iraq, open support to Israel, and war against terrorism, there may be a possibility of preventing disorder in the world politics.

      Ross M. Hussain’s paper deals with the concept of terrorism. What is terrorism? Most experts hold the idea that terrorism is the threat of use of violence, as a method of combat or strategy to achieve certain goals. However, agreement on an acceptable definition of terrorism still does not exist and there is no reason to assume that there will be one in the near future. The author believes that today state-sponsored terrorism is more dangerous and frequent than in the past, and weak bureaucracy and corrupt administration help to create an environment in which determined groups or individuals are encouraged to use illegal and unfair methods to overthrow their targets and bring about their own way of administration. Terrorism would certainly persist in the future and large-scale incidents will become more common. The following factors may lead to more terrorist activities in the future: growth of membership in racist groups; rise of religious fanaticism; decline in police intelligence activities; government failure in protecting public safety; and economic and social injustice. The future targets of terrorism will be the same ones as of today: political leaders, symbols of nations, airlines, etc. Since terrorists attack soft targets they may have unlimited range of targets. However, terrorism probably may not enter into the world of high technology and mass destruction. Although total elimination of terrorism may not be possible, it can reduce to some manageable degrees; international community can join hands to develop a prompt and credible response to reduce terrorism.

      Pervais Iqbal. C has divided his paper into four sections. The first section deals with the definitional complexities of terrorism. Terrorism is a strategy used by individuals, groups and states for different purposes. Every leader views terrorism from his/her own point of view. For example, to George Bush terrorism may mean use of violence against Americans by extremists. To Vajpayee, it may mean the Pakistani sponsored infiltration of terrorists into the Indian held Kashmir. To Sharon it may mean the suicide attacks in Israel by the Palestinians. And to Pakistan, it may mean what the Indian intelligence forces do in the Indian held Kashmir. Three main categories of terrorism, which are universally recognized, are: 1) Individual (a) estranged individual (b) trained individual. (2) Sub-national group: they belong to particular school of thought. (3) State terrorism: state acts against any particular group and the justification given is for the greater national interest. The second section of the paper discusses about the differences between freedom struggles and terrorist activities. It tries to probe into the issue that why an individual becomes a terrorist. Who is freedom fighter and who is terrorist depends on whose point of view one looking at. Here, the author has criticized India, Israel and Russia who practice terrorism in Kashmir, Palestine and Chechnya. These states are involved in some form of state terrorism, killing innocent people on the pretext that they are eliminating the terrorists. He views the Kashmiris, Palestinians, and Chechens as freedom fighter and tries to demonstrate that terrorism is exercised even by the democracies like India, Russia, and Israel. The author says that a terrorist takes violent approach as the most effective way of airing his point of view. The third section of the paper attempts to discuss the political impacts on both internal as well as external situations. Terrorist activities do not only generate insecurity but also influence the economic developments badly. The impact of terrorism on the global system have manifested in the following different ways: preference for unilateral approaches; promoting the notion of preemptive use of force; and surfacing of hidden agenda, such as the right of intervention. The fourth section tries to cover the impact of all these developments upon Pakistan with special reference to its relations with US, India, and Afghanistan. With US, Pakistan has experienced many difficulties. Despite the domestic opposition, Pakistan decided to join US in the best national interest, which this brought both advantage and disadvantage. In terms of advantage, almost all types of sanctions lifted, and in terms of disadvantage, many people and groups turned against the rulers. Regarding Pak-Afghan policy, Pakistan undertook a U-turn, because Taliban failed to cooperate (to handover Bin Laden). Concerning Pak-Indo relations, prior to 9/11 some positive efforts took place to resolve the outstanding issues. However, after 9/11 circumstances turned worse. The author is more critical of India and believes that India is always on an outlook to damage Pakistan. 

      Mutahir Ahmed examines the linkage between terrorism and religious extremism. He points out that the terrorism of militant Islamism has become a subject of concern all over the world and western civilization regards this as a threat. But, the supporters of Islamic military view it differently i.e. they criticize Israeli occupation of Palestine, Indian occupation of Kashmir, Russian occupation of Chechnya, and US occupation of Afghanistan. Moreover, in order to resolve these issues, they pronounce Jihad as an Islamic way to fight the aggressors. Jihad (holy war) is defined in Quran, as “there is only Jihad for Allaha or God." Allaha orders the Muslims in Quran "to fight for the right of the poor and battle against the atrocities.” What is going on in the Islamic countries, have made the Muslims (hardliners) angry and directionless. Thus, in their view, violence is the only way. The author has classified the Islamic countries into the following categories: authoritarian regimes, restricted democracies, traditional monarchies, totalitarians, and semi-democracies. Around 70 percent of the entire membership or at least 40 members of the OIC are at variance with the Quranic prescription. He has concluded that Arab ruling elites have exploited the religious sentiments of the Arab masses and suppressed them politically. Al Qaida and Taliban are the products of anarchy and under such type of organizations there is no room for healthy democratic debates. Such anarchy in any Islamic state is because of the rulers and absence of pure Islamic law; there is nothing wrong with Islam. Islam is not against democracy. The only way for Muslims to avoid their dark future is to democratize their systems. In this way they can develop. It is the responsibility of the intellectuals to come forward and play their due role in the society.

      Ammara Durrani has taken a non-US perspective regarding US war on terrorism. Terrorism is defined according to the FBI as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” In this paper, the following issues are discussed: 9/11 attacks, US attack on Taliban, and US policy on Iraq for its alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction. In fact, this policy (US policy) viewed by china, Russia, and Iran as a direct military intervention in the region carrying the risk of serious geo-political implications. The US anti terror campaign is not only aimed at the eradication of terrorists and weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but it also aimed at the global spread of American democracy and free market values. Here, the views of different western and non-western scholars on 'terrorism and US policy' are taken into account. The US is criticized for its war against Afghanistan. The author has backed up and justified his critique by the help of the following factors. 1) the American population was against the war. 2) the worldwide demonstration against the US war on terrorism. 3) most states particularly the close allies of US itself disagreed with the US war on terrorism. 4) many human right organizations criticized the US policy of war. Finally, the paper says that though US is a superpower, she needs the help of her allies in political, military and intelligence fields.

      Noman Sattar provides information about the American Muslims and their status after 9/11. Muslims in America have been very active in the various fields, but the events of 9/11 brought a tough time for them. Even though president Bush’s government tried to control the damage by saying that “the Muslim faith is a peaceful faith and this war is not against Islam,“ the primary target were Muslims including the Pakistani Muslims. The government of Pakistan asserted that Pakistan has played the role of a frontline state in war against terrorism and so US should exempt the Pakistanis from registration procedure. However, from US point of view, Pakistan has remained a part of those states whose nationals attack America and Americans. Well, this paper overall believes that the ongoing war on terrorism has its focus on the Muslims, which in the US has alienated the American Muslims. This has led to anti-Americanism in other parts of the Muslim world. If war continues like that, it will alienate the Muslim world from the US for a long time.

      Sridhar K. Khatri’s article is the seventh one. This paper is about understanding and combating terrorism in South Asia. According to the author, the only comprehensive international definition of terrorism is that of the 1937 convention for the prevention and punishment of terrorism, as “criminal acts directed against a state or intended to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public.” One has to understand the motives of terrorists. The terrorists may have religious motivation; they may be entrenched in ethnic, tribal or national issues that espouse new course and ideology. They hide among emigrants and refugees and at times are engage in legitimate trade and illicit smuggling of drugs and weapons. On combating terrorism, the author has focused on the past and current methods which followed by different countries. For instants, in 1999 the US had allocated $ 10 billion for “unclassified terrorism related program,” and after 9/11 US established the Homeland Security Department, and since then the US government has allocated 58 $ billion for homeland security and combating terrorism. Nevertheless, these developments have failed to act effectively. One of the main reasons for such failure is the lack of co-operation among various government agencies. Well, the overall operation of different countries in war against terrorism has been unsuccessful and still all countries of the world facing difficulties in developing a comprehensive strategy. This paper also provides several ways of how to prevent terrorism. An Indian expert suggests the following approaches. (A) propaganda as a way to win the side of the people. (B) determination, meaning authorities should prove that they are powerful enough to punish and prevent terrorism. (C) establishing law governing terrorism to control and manage it. Another Indian expert has suggested the carrot and stick approach. However, despite that, combating terrorism is difficult. There are some limitations, as follows: financial aspect, most of the funds come through various sources including the smuggling of narcotics. Due to technological developments, terrorists become more sophisticated and the idea that terrorists may use WMD is becoming more real. There are no comprehensive studies on how the South Asian countries should deal with terrorism; overall, South Asia has failed to deal with terrorism efficiently.

      Naeem Ahmed discusses about Indo–Pak relations after 9/11. This paper regards that US as a mediator can settle down the differences between these two neighboring states, which on a number of sensitive issues several times they were about to wage war against each other; attack on Indian parliament in 2001 is a major example. Kashmir is an ongoing issue. For many years, both India and Pakistan have accused each other of supporting terrorism in this area. Why Pakistan always supports religious organizations in Kashmir? It is because of the following two reasons, as believed by the author. (1) Pakistan saves large sum of money which could have been spent on the deployment of regular army to keep alive the spirit of Jihad. (2) To engage India in a non–regular proxy war; India has to spend a large sum of money to suppress the insurgency. Well, the author believes that these organizations (non–state actors) though want to capture Kashmir, it is impossible because of changing global trends. Arms race in South Asia or missile tests by both India and Pakistan is another worrying factor that has aggravated the situation. The falling of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons into the hands of non-state actors particularly terrorists is one of the most important threats. This paper also adds that the US war on international terrorism has provided a justification to other powerful states to use their power against the weak states without UN's approval. For instance, India considers Pakistan a fit case for pre-emptive action because according to India Pakistan is possessed of WMD, shelter terrorists, and lacks democracy. The author actually has criticized both parties for not being able to solve their differences, and believes, “US direct involvement in South Asia has provided an opportunity to both India and Pakistan to pave the way for normalizing their relations.” Thus, US should influence both countries to go for negotiations over mutual concerns and for that it should set out the following modalities: India should be more flexible; Pakistan should disassociate itself from the elements fighting in Kashmir in the name of religion; and Kashmiries should be allowed to take part in the issues of concern over Kashmir. At the end, the paper concludes that violence should not be used; diplomatic methods must be used.

      Nausheen Wasi has divided her paper into two parts. Part one deals with the SAARC’s perspective on terrorism in theoretical framework, that SAARC has very effectively dealt with the issue of terrorism as far as theory is concerned in the post 9/11 period. Part two explores whether the effective planning has been transferred into action, which this indicates that SAARC was weak in practice. Why it failed? Because, member countries have different attitudes and approaches, for instance, countries like India and Pakistan instead of cooperating and combating terrorism, blaming one another for harboring and abetting terrorists, and it is more or less the case with other members. Therefore, the SAARC's role in fighting terrorism was unsuccessful in practice. The author has given some suggestions so that SAARC may undertake, such as: 1) the SAARC secretary-general should be granted due responsibility to reactive the organization. 2) democratic institutions in the SAARC countries and the SAARC structure itself should be reformed. The decisions taken by the highest authority must be put into action. 3) technical committees should be established by SAARC to force the leaders to take concrete measures. 4) there should be dialogue among the members at different levels. 5) visit of scholars and exchange of views should be organized.

      Shahid Hassan Siddiqui’s article titled “Economic predicament of Pakistan after 9/11.” This last paper has focused on those factors that affected the Pakistan’s economy. Well, Pakistan’s role in war against terrorism caused removal of sanctions. In few weeks, most of the sanctions lifted, and Pakistan received economic aid provided by US to avert the economic crisis in the country. According to the finance minister of Pakistan, "on the whole, the events of 9/11 cost Pakistan more than 2 billion $." According to the studies conducted in DEC 2001, “the GDP loss could be up to Rs 140 billion”. The total foreign exchange reserves including those held by commercial banks on 11 Sept 2001 were $ 3.38 billon. After the 9/11, foreign exchange inflow through banking channel has brought some positive factors to the country’s economy. However, the investment climate was already weak and deteriorated further in post 9/11 era; the investment-GDP ratio declined to 13.9% in FY02. The author has referred to those factors that had disturbed the economic situation of Pakistan. These factors explained briefly in the following way. Tension with India on international borders, financial terrorism, privatization which has led to corruption and unemployment, Pakistan’s nuclear program and its uncertainties resulting in further spoiling of the investment climate, war on Iraq would have serious negative implication for the economy of Pakistan due to higher oil prices, lack of effective cooperation and efficient management within the government, and lack of confidence between government and investors. The author is of the opinion that though Pakistan received economic assistance and its economy gained significantly in post 9/11 era, most of these gains are not sustainable. The existence of weak laws and regulations mainly due to Pakistan’s role as a front line state, and lack of confidence between state and domestic or oversea investors will continue to have negative impact in the near future. The author has recommended that Pakistan’s role in combating terrorism has provided a good opportunity for taking revolutionary measures for reviving the economy. The paper says that Pakistan should do the following: reduce unproductive expenses, call for domestic and oversea investors, fight the corruption, and review the privatization programs; a commission should be appointed to look into the previous privatization programs.  

      In conclusion, the book presented a good work on terrorism. Methods and suggestions regarding combating and preventing terrorism are valuable provided these should transform into action. This book mostly has focused on post 9/11 period and has failed to give any remarkable hypothesis concerning the US long-term policies in South Asia.

      Here, I would like to criticize Mutahir Ahmed’s statement mentioned in the fourth paper of the book in which he says, “AL Qaida or Taliban are the products of anarchy.” He believes, “such anarchy in any Islamic state is because of the rulers and absence of pure Islamic law, and there is nothing wrong with Islam". Further, he points, "the only way for Muslims to avoid their dark future is to democratize their systems. In this way they can develop. It is the responsibility of the intellectuals to come forward and play their due role in the society."

      Well, firstly, this statement shows that the author has a poor knowledge of the pure Islamic rules. Secondly, the author has failed to tell us which form of democracy one has to follow to democratize an Islamic system like Pakistan and Afghanistan. Thirdly, he has failed to tell us what should be the responsibility of intellectuals.

Notes

The World after September 11: Challenges and Opportunities (edited by Moonis Ahmar), Karachi: Program on Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution, Department of International Relations, University of Karachi, 2003.

For a general knowledge on 9/11, see, the following sources: Dudley, William, ed., The Attack on America: September 11, (Greenhaven, 2002). Hampton, Wilborn, September 11, 2001: Attack on New York City, (Candlewick, 2003). Lalley, Patrick. 9.11.01: Terrorists Attack the U.S., (Raintree/Steck-Vaughn, 2002). Landau, Elaine. Osama bin Laden: A War against the West, (Millbrook, 2002). A Nation Challenged: A Visual History of 9/11 and Its Aftermath, (Scholastic, 2002). Stewart, Gail., America Under Attack: September 11, 2001, (Lucent, 2002). Tom Gjelten,"9/11", Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation.