The world finds itself plunged into a new conflict, or rather a nascent conflict has erupted into violence which carries global reach. Two sorts of response have been suggested. The first is to fight the terrorists to the death. The second is to rely on diplomacy, sanctions, international law and dialogue. The lesson of Northern Ireland is that the truth, as so often in human affairs, lies somewhere in between.
In the first phase of any conflict, the one which we are in now, the room for dialogue is badly squeezed. Violence radicalizes opinion on both sides of a conflict. In this particular war, there seems to be no room at all. Although the West would, I think follow a political path if it could, the option does not seem to be available. For Osama bin Laden and his organization, war is an end in itself, not a means to an end. There is nothing America can give that will stop them.
Afghanistan has been under sanctions for years because of its support for Al Quaida. It has had no effect and Osama used the time to plan mass murder in America. Sanctions cannot hurt the Taliban. Their money comes from the drugs trade which is illegal already. As in Iraq, sanctions only hurt civilians and make them more reliant than ever on their government (aid can only be delivered with government co-operation). One wonders how many people have to be killed before people accept that sanctions will not work.
All the West can do is defend itself against this particular threat using all possible means. For two decades, the IRA would not consider dialogue with the UK. They had developed a doctrine called "the long war" where they believed that they would gain their objectives by wearing down the will of the British people with a relentless campaign. Throughout this period successive British Governments entered into various constitutional experiments in an attempt to resolve the conflict. The IRA was not involved in any of them not because they were excluded but because they refused to negotiate.
During this time, there was little the British State could do except protect its citizens using a range of political, security, intelligence and economic measures which fall outside the normally understood bounds of democracy. So, for instance, a terrorist suspect could be held without charge for seven days. Police in Northern Ireland are armed, unlike in the rest of the UK, and they are supported on the streets by the British Army. Parts of Northern Ireland are under intense police and army surveillance. A number of operations have been undertaken by security forces to arrest or kill terrorists who were engaged in attacks. Political representatives of paramilitary groups were banned from having their voices broadcast.
It is certain that without this response from the British State, many more people would have died in the Troubles.
This is why relying on diplomacy and sanctions in the current crisis is so dangerous. We know that war is dangerous. We know that people will be killed and new extremists will be created. But people will be killed anyway. It is not revenge or even justice that calls for war. It is the simple fact that these people will kill again unless they are stopped.
We should also be aware that it was only when the security response had depleted the IRA's ability to act with what it would regard as military success. By the 1990's they were able to murder women and children on the Shankill Road and in Warrington. They were able to destroy empty buildings in London and Belfast. They were finding it close to impossible to attack military targets. They were only able to find people to murder by widening their list of "legitimate targets" to a ludicrous extent. This was crucial in convincing them that politics would serve them better than violence.
But while accepting the necessity of war, we need to have a plan for peace. This has to start with an accurate analysis of the causes of conflict. My analysis can be found here. Briefly, it is that the real conflict is between different types of Islam which take the West as their reference point. Both have arisen from questioning why the Islamic world is "less successful" than the West in the modern era. One answer is that Muslim countries need to be more like the West. The other is that they need to reaffirm their commitment to Islam.
Some of the more radical of the second group have carried their answer to include a complete rejection of everything modern and western (except weapons, of course). And some have gone even further and concluded that not only must they reject the modern and the western but they must destroy it. They believe that the murder of thousands of Americans demonstrates the superiority of their version of Islam.
This situation can be compared to that within Irish Nationalism in the 1980s. Constitutional Nationalists saw their interests being best served by politics and by entering into dialogue with their traditional enemy, the British Government. They concluded that dialogue would see their legitimate grievances addressed long before violence would. Republicans rejected this and pursued their campaign of violence.
There were two developments in the 80s. One was a political accord between the British and Irish Governments called the Anglo-Irish Agreement. This was used to demonstrate to the Irish that political dialogue brought results. The second development was the Hume-Adams dialogue in which the leader of the Moderate SDLP, John Hume tried to persuade the leader of the hard line Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams that politics would work better for them. The eventual result was that support amongst Nationalist voters for the hard line position fell and the IRA were left facing complete rejection from their own constituency. This was the context in which they declared a ceasefire.
The lesson for the current crisis is that the Muslim world needs to see that dialogue and diplomacy will see their legitimate grievances answered and their lot bettered. There are two parts to this process.
First, the West needs to recognise that Muslim grievances are genuine and that we need to enter into a real dialogue with the Islamic world to understand what these grievances. We then need to be prepared to make a genuine effort to address what we find, even if that means sacrificing some things. It is very much in our interests to demonstrate to poor and dispossessed Muslims that they have better options than war. What I mean by "genuine dialogue" and the process of compromise which should follow it can be found here.
Second, those Muslims who reject Osama's version of Islam need to take responsibility for winning the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world. The West cannot fight this battle. The lesson of Northern Ireland is that it is not enough to condemn the methods employed by terrorists who act in your name. You must confront them, not with guns and bombs but with superior arguments.
Muslims also have to accept that dialogue and conflict resolution has to involve give and take. Both sides of this conflict need to recognise that their view of what is wrong in the relationship between them will be subjective and incomplete. If either side enters into dialogue believing that it is absolutely right and that the point of dialogue is to persuade the other side that they are wrong, then the process will fail. It is only with a sincere attempt to re-evaluate bottom lines that enough space will be created for a settlement to be found and for the likes of Osama bin Laden to be starved of the raw material of desperate people. The lack of such an attempt to re-evaluate bottom lines in Northern Ireland has blighted the peace process and could yet derail it. The world can't afford the mistake to be repeated.
So the last lesson is not for the world but for Northern Ireland. Our peace process is stumbling and could fall. The issue is, of all things, the refusal of terrorists to destroy their weapons. Will they destroy the peace process rather than give up the means to wage war? Time will tell. But it is clear that the world needs a successful peace process in Northern Ireland more than ever.
| | | | ||