After Bali: Has Bush succeeded in war obsession against terrorism?

Abdillah Toha, Executive Director, Institute for Socio-Economic and Political Studies (In-SEP), Jakarta

One year after the Sept. 11 attack we should ask ourselves honestly whether the world has become a safer place and whether Bush has succeeded in the "war against terror". We have quite often heard statements made by the Pentagon and the White House that the war in Afghanistan was conducted successfully with minimum casualties on the part of the allied forces.

The Taliban and its militant gang has been routed, its financial sources have been cut off, its leaders and followers are now either killed or scattered in variously remote places without much capacity to re-organize effectively. A new and "legitimate" government has been installed in Kabul and reconstruction of the devastated country is now under way.

Now, less than one year after the siege began in Afghanistan, there are clear indications of a new escalation and revival of terror. The recent barbaric slaughter of hundreds of innocent civilians in Kuta, Bali is the climax of the new terror. Less than 10 days before the Bali bomb attack, there were at least two other incidence of terrorism, a suicide bombing of French tanker off the coast of Aden and an individual attack on the U.S. Marine camp in Kuwait, which killed one U.S. marine and two Kuwaiti soldiers.

Five days after the Bali tragedy, at least six people died and more than 140 seriously injured when two bombs exploded in different public places in Zamboanga, Southern Philippines. We could still add a longer list of deadly incidents since Bush declared the war on terror before the joint session of Congress, such as what happened in a Pakistani attack on a busful of French military advisers and on innocent people attending Christian churches there, and on the U.S. Consulate in Pakistan.

Although the Bush administration frequently warns the American public that the war on terrorism is not going to be short and conclusive, could we possibly conclude that we have made progress in reducing the risk of terror. What kind of yardstick should we use? Is it the number of "enemies" killed, the sum of people interrogated and detained, or the replacement of a hostile regime with a friendly one?

Or, should we measure the success and failure of the war against terror with the frequency and quality of terrorist attacks following the various military and security measures taken after the attack on New York?

In the war against terrorism, we can only say that we have won the war if the terrorists have been completely stopped, or at the very least, that there are clear signs of a drastic reduction in the threat of terrorism. The evidence cited above are contrary to this. One year after Sept. 11, people are now much more apprehensive about terrorist attacks and the facts, especially the huge bomb explosion in Kuta, undeniably draw our attention to the escalation of terror.

If we accept the above observation, the first step the world should take is to be brave enough to admit that the American way of fighting terrorism has so far been a failure. The world, under the collective leadership of the United Nations should now sincerely reverse its mindset and look for more effective short- term and long-term ways of eradicating terrorism.

This is not to say that military and security deterrence should be completely abandoned, but we should acknowledge the cold facts that those alone might not lead us to the achievement of our common goal, but could perhaps even encourage a further escalation of terror in the future.

Being the strongest economic and military power in the world, America should still be in the forefront in the fight against global terrorism using its abundant resources. But this time America should declare war not only against terrorism, but also concurrently against poverty, against world economic inequity and against state terror, especially in the occupied territories of Palestine.

President Bush should lead the world against corrupt dictators and tyrants who oppress whole societies, against unilateralism, against international financial speculators and greedy trans- national corporations responsible for ecological damage. The world is sick, and the problems faced globally are multi-faceted, hence declaring a war against terrorism alone without fighting the root causes is doomed to fail. Terrorism, as has often been discussed, is not a cause but rather a product of so many other ills in the world.

The fight against terrorism will only succeed if it gets the support of the majority of the world population, especially those who feel marginalized. Once they are convinced that wealthy and powerful countries are sincere in their efforts to help them get fix their own deficiencies, there is no doubt that rich and poor people in the world would work hand-in-hand to make sure that the world is a safe place and that no tolerance should be given to any kind of violent act.

Unfortunately hawks that believe that military power alone can provide effective deterrence to the "enemies" of the free world now surround Bush. Sophisticated weaponry has proven incapable of deterring unseen enemies.

The US$40 billion military expenditure planned for the war to oust Saddam Hussein of Iraq could well be placed in a much better way to feed the hungry and build schools and hospitals for the poor in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Success in the war against global terrorism would be guaranteed if American foreign policy were based on a new definition of its national interest that coincides with short and long term global interests and respect for a truly just cause.