The fight against terrorism (Part 2)

we give the terrorists the status of “combatants”, don’t we legitimize and legalize them that way?
  3. It is a disputable thesis that only the authoritarian, totalitarian and repressive regimes give birth to terrorism, while democracy and the development are antidote of terrorism, because terrorism is an internal problem of countries like Spain and Great Britain; and one of the richest regions in Spain have turned into terrorist centers.
  In general, the issue of democracy in the fight against terrorism is one of the most discussed. It is clear, that democracy plays a huge role for the effective fight against terrorism, that the democratic goals could be achieved only with democratic means and no violent acts could be used even for the most humane aims; that limiting the human rights in the fight against terrorism doesn’t mean that the terrorists had achieved this way their biggest victory.
  Democracy is a mean, but not a panacea for the fight against terrorism. Not for every dispute, a political solution could be found, not every conflict could be solved with peaceful means. That is why, the military, the powerful means are legitimate and important. There are moments, when democracy should be able to defend itself trough violence. If today ETA is weaker, it is because it is approached in a complex manner, including trough the use of force. Even under democracy, it is nonsensical to reckon that all projects (political and ideological) have the right of existence and expression. The freedoms, the democratic freedoms, are not abstract. They are those freedoms which are written down in the democratic laws. For this reason, not every freedom is as a matter of fact actually political and civil freedom, namely one that should be defended, fought for and vindicated.
  Democracy is something more than elections, discussions and procedures, because under it, huge masses of people could be also not represented, they could be isolated, marginalized. Democracy is sometimes unable to tackle with the aggression and fundamentalism of the market, and they could be dangerous not less than all aggressions and fundamentalisms. Apparently, democracy itself needs treatment and self-analysis. And one more thing, democracy could not be enforced from outside; it could not be grafted; it could not be let down as manna by decree.
  However, On the one hand, if in this duel, the first opponent, has voluntarily bound his arm to his body, while the other opponent undisturbed uses all possible means, if the former fights in the classical style, the latter fights in the freestyle; and if the former boxes according to the rule, while the latter is a kick boxer or kicks in the groins), then the result could be even regrettable. On the other hand, however, if the former, acts in the same manner as the latter in this duel, then what would be the difference between them?
  Despite our will, there always would raise the question: When it is admissible to follow the maxim “an eye for an eye” toward the terrorists? Nowadays, there is no single but only two-faced and insincere answer to the question as well. If the terrorists defy all humane and rational norms, and if they have put themselves beyond ethics, moral and law, then should we tie our hands with any ethnic, moral and legal restraints?
  4. There are disputable points in the thesis that Democracy and Security are inextricably bound up with each other.
  Other disputable points are that we could not guarantee one at the expense of the other, that strengthening of the one strengthens the other and vice versa; that Security today is either existing for everybody, or it is non-existing for anybody; and that, finally, in the fight against terrorism we should remember t Benjamin Franklin’s testament that a nation, which sacrifices its freedoms in the name of any temporary security does not deserve both its freedoms and security.
  Yes, it is true that terrorism is a denial of Democracy, and Security. In the fight against it we should not let the dilemma “either democracy or security”. The right answer here is “both democracy and security”. But whether recently it appeared that those from which we took lessons on democracy now demonstrate us how in the fight against terrorism we could learn from them lessons on how to restrict democracy? I heard Madeline Albright in Madrid (2005) explaining pathetically: “When they ask us whether we feel more secure in the USA after Bush’s measures, I am afraid to say that no, I don’t feel more secure because the government would immediately state: Ah, so you feel insecure! O.K., we will take further additional measures to make you more secure!”.
  5. There are sharp discussions on the following question: “Should we negotiate with terrorists?”.
  It is a fact that the countries which refused to negotiate with the terrorists in Iraq, most often received the beheaded bodies of their fellow-countrymen in return. It is a fact also that countries which overtly or covertly entered into negotiations with the terrorists, rarely succeeded to rescue their compatriots. This is an extremely delicate question, to which the answer (not as a political declaration, but in its deeply hidden sense) is oblique. Meaning, that it depends on the circumstances, for example, on the captured people (What if they are children?); from the possibility to play for time, and that negotiating not always means resort to unscrupulous concessions.
  6. What are “the benefits” of terrorism?
Terrorism is a very serious issue, but this is so also because it is used for achieving political goals and so to say. It is “worth” it, it pays back generously. We see in our region as well that brutal terrorists are today politicians with which the West talks, negotiates and comes into agreement. Such cases are a message to other “fighters”: “Use terrorism, achieve your political aims and afterwards you would be recognized because accomplished facts will come into effect and the regional problems will be solved together with you$. An old but proved fact (even treading in the steps of some democratic countries) is that a part of the political class always legitimizes (secretly and sometimes even publicly), fosters and uses terrorism.
  7. Whatever we talk about terrorism, the following question will be always open: What is the difference, where lied the border between terrorism and resistance?
  There is no clarity, in repudiating the destructive violence, what should do those, who have exhausted all means and ways of peaceful solving and achieving of their strivings, ideals, and political goals? The very hard problem is related to the place where lies the difference between the terrorist and the freedom fighters, between the terrorists and opposition warriors, rebels, the partisans. Can we put a sign of equality between them? This is exactly the dilemma in Iraq due to the partial overlapping between the terrorists with the different branches of the opposition.
  It is disputable, but when we try to clarify what is terrorism, should not the accent when using force is put not on what it does but why it does it? When the violence is used for getting free from slavery, from foreign government or imposing a foreign culture, ideology, identity, then we have not terrorists but freedom fighters, whereas if the force is used to generate chaos, to destroy the normal pace of the things, to impose one’s will, culture, ideology and identity upon the others, then this is terrorism. And the subtle dividing line passes through the complete, explicit unacceptability of destroying, deliberately, innocent peoples’ life, health and property. The fear of terrorism and violence is not manifested only at the everyday level, but it is very strong at the political level as well. It could be said, that the politicians in their vast majority are not less afraid of terrorism, they lack of personal courage and this undermines their political will to fight with terrorism, as they restrict themselves to declarations and strengthen their personal security, besides, at the expenses of the society and the regular taxpayers.
  8. Is terrorism a spontaneously arisen phenomenon or it is a reaction to objective processes?
  In addition, what are the goals and the means of terrorism? Don’t the terrorists act in accordance with the market principles seeking the biggest and fastest profit, by means of insurance and social security, future deals’ bonds and rise-lower playing? Isn’t terrorism a perverse manifestation of the ruling culture of violence, pornography, decay of the values (love, moral, family, loyalty, duty, responsibility, solidarity, compassion and concern), the culture of egoism and personal interest, the culture of the rupture of the social ties and the use of the chaos for achieving maximum additional value and subjective benefit? In this culture, people have no inhibitions, it becomes increasingly easier to seize and kill. We want the terrorists not to kill innocent people, but we allow the tycoons on the stock-exchanges to collapse stock prices and devalue currencies, thus forcing thousands, millions of small entrepreneurs into bankruptcy, dooming them to be poor and desperate. Wasn’t this the case recently in Southeast Asia or in Russia? And these hyper-sharks aren’t they financial terrorists?
  Terrorism is a means, a tactic and a tool. It is a business activity which product, produced and sold commodity, is violence. It is the atmosphere of fear that is the environment in which the highest dividend from that business activity is earned. The fight with terrorism shouldn’t be like a smoke-screen, behind which are hidden real problems of humankind. As we speak about the globalization of terrorism, we should envisage and fight this phenomenon not in isolation from the other problems, but as a part of the common processes and as inscribed in the overall context of the current global development. In counteracting terrorism the rejection of double standards and moral, of black-white dual color thinking is extremely pressing.
  9. We are far away from fathoming the depth of the psychology of terrorism.
  We are far away from finding at least partially acceptable explanations why people resort to suicidal actions, to such a sacrifice, why people cross the rational line and permeate with violence, what are these form of narcotic addiction to such actions?
  10. The role (and the sense as well) of the International Criminal Court and its jurisdiction in the fight against terrorism are yet to be clarified.
  11. There is a lack of a unified behavior code aimed to regulate our cooperation with the non-democratic countries on the fight against terrorism.
  12. A new meaning should be given to nationalism, not negation.
  We should make clear what means “Democratic Nationalism”, how to be a nationalist, including in this term the extreme case, without accusations of being a terrorist.
  13. In search of a more general definition of terrorism, let us bear in mind the extent to which that definition includes “State Terrorism”.
  14. The fact that nearly nobody talked about Iraq made strong impression at a couple of conferences abroad and in addition those were top-level conferences (for example the Conference in Madrid in memory of March 11th, 2004, in 2005).
  It could be said, to some extent that what was happening in Iraq is not looked upon as a decisive contribution in the fight against terrorism. That suggested to many people that one day when would be squared accounts on all that had happened in Iraq during in Iraq during these two years (2003-2005), what if the history judges it in a different way and not the same as what is not proclaimed by the Bulgarian political elite?
  15. The role of the media is an issue that is gradually turning in a security problem.
  The media are increasingly turning in an environment without which the effect of the activities and the power of the terrorists would have been much smaller and de facto they turn out to be a powerful weapon in the arsenal of terrorism, i.e. Media of Mass Destruction. It is necessary in one way or another find a way to control the use of the media for propagandizing inhumane and immoral value, spreading hatred, violence and perversions.
  16. The relation between terrorism and the public opinion.
  In the war (or the fight) against terrorism it is essential to win the public opinion in your own country and the support of the people in the State, where this war is being conducted, i.e. a crucial element of this war is the fight for the hearts and minds of the nations and societies (Hearts-and-Minds Campaign) including the operations for strategic influence (Strategic Influence Operations). The win gained on the war field could at the end turn out to be the defeat on the ideological and propaganda field, especially in the current information society age.
  17. There are discrepancies even in the valuation of the relation between poverty and terrorism.
  The political class in the developed countries imposes the thesis that there is no direct relationship between poverty and terrorism and that poverty itself doesn’t lead to terrorism, but creates a prolific ground for terrorism. And only if on this ground get the seeds of aggression and violence, then this what would sprout could cause terrorism. But if such seeds could be found everywhere (as it is logical to think), then the accent should not be anymore on the seeds but on the ground, so poverty in this logic happens to be one of the basic conditions for terrorism. That is why it could not and should not be tolerated and even created. Scores of countries and billions of marginalized, even nearly doomed people need chances: to survive, to lead an at least tolerable life, and to have some hope.
  18. The ideas on globalization are contradictory as well.
It is necessary, without denying this objective process, to optimize these manifestations of globalization which are socially useful to the nations and to minimize as well the damages which it brings upon the development and of the poor countries. Globalization should not be demonized, but should be humanized. The solutions of the problems should be sought in a peaceful and righteous, ecological and sustainable way and not for nothing I talk about sustainability.
  The development today hides a lot of injustice, inequality, and double-standards. Security is inseparably linked with the development: there could be no security without development and without security there could be no development. But we don’t need just any development but this one which generates security; this development which is sustainable and humane and doesn’t widens furthermore the “North-South” gap between the rich and the poor countries.