Can cycle of violence end?

By Omar Halim

JAKARTA (JP): The awful and tragic scenes of billowing smoke, huge balls of orange flames, falling people and the ultimate crumbling of the structures of what used to be the World Trade Center manifested once more how violent the human race can be.

Thousands of innocent people were killed. This unconscionable act of terrorism must have been committed by humans completely opposed to, and with such a hatred for, the present world order, its power structure and rules of the game.

A few days ago, America was in shock and in grief. Now, injured America is angry and full of vengeance. The mighty United States, supported by other countries, will strike with full force at whomever are determined to be the perpetrators and supporters of these terrorist acts.

The United Nations Security Council resolution 1368 (2001) provides the necessary legal basis. Depending upon the condition on the ground, massive military operations will be launched.

Innocent civilians could perish as a result. If successful, the targeted group or groups will be completely immobilized. Then others will come to the fore and the cycle of violence will continue.

There are many other less dramatic acts of violence in other parts of the world, e.g. in the Middle East, Africa, southern and western Europe, south and central Asia and in Latin America. These conflicts also form cycles of violence in their own respective ways and forms. Why can't this violence end so that the human race can concentrate on working together to develop economically and socially for the benefit of all, especially the poor?

There are different reasons why humans act violently toward each other. One major factor is the distribution of wealth and power. At the national level, acute discrepancies in wealth and power have, when conditions have been conducive, resulted in the uprooting of the existing order under the control of the elite, such as in China, Cuba, Iran and South Africa.

The same forces, though not as potent, are also present at the international level, where the discrepancy in per capita income between the richest and poorest countries could reach a ratio of 50 to 1.

The differences in the level of technology mastered, particularly in information and communication, military and intelligence, are so enormous that those at the bottom of the ladder feel a sense of helplessness, frustration and despair.

On top of all that, the recognition of the regime of Iranian Shah Pahlevi as the "policeman" of the Middle East in the 1970's and now that of Australia's John Howard as the "policeman" in Southeast Asia and the Pacific could definitely trigger a feeling that external powers are trying to exert total control over developing countries.

Amid such deep-rooted sentiment, some people or groups in the developing world would probably feel that resistance and struggle to unshackle the grip of rich nations would be the only alternative to fight for their survival. This is particularly reinforced if they feel that their religion is also at risk of losing to Christianity.

The rich and militarily powerful countries have argued for continued globalization where competition would result in benefits for all. But the discrepancy in the economic, financial and technological capabilities of different countries and peoples is so enormous that unbridled competition would only benefit the rich and powerful.

The elite countries preach democracy and respect for human rights, but the application of these values in conditions of abject poverty and ignorance would not achieve the intended sense of participation in decision-making.

To diminish and eventually eliminate the enormous discrepancy in the distribution of income, the developing countries have the primary responsibility to put their houses in order. They should undertake political, economic and judicial reform to provide their citizens with the framework to fully participate in political decision-making and to be able to compete effectively in international economic relations.

The government should give utmost priority to education and provide the necessary resources to accelerate the proficiency of advanced technological capabilities of the people.

There are countries that have indeed caught up, and even surpassed, those which were more advanced. Examples are Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. Others such as Malaysia and Thailand are in the process of attaining this status. Only by attaining comparable levels of income per capita and possessing high technological capabilities will these countries reach a status comparable with developed countries. Developing countries that do not make the enormous effort and sacrifices needed to attain this status will be left behind. It is their choice.

Rich countries should facilitate and support the efforts of those developing countries that make a concerted effort to catch up. The focus should be on the alleviation of poverty, particularly in accelerating an increase in educational standards, on attaining high, sustained and equitable economic and social development, and on developing much greater technological capabilities.

Developed countries should also practice what they preach at the international level. Democratic practices, instead of veto powers or weighted voting, should be applied at the UN Security Council and in the international and regional financial organizations.

With equal rights in decision-making, developing countries would cooperate in making international organizations streamlined, efficient and effective. With international aid and facilities provided to those developing countries trying their utmost to catch up, pressure will be upon those that do not make such efforts.

At the people to people level, cultural exchanges should be organized and inter-religion ecumenism should be attempted on a sustained basis, with the understanding that no one culture or religion would dominate the others.

If all of these measures could be undertaken and a completely new environment created, conflicts around the world, especially the Arab-Israeli issue, should be resolved. The U.S. would be the only party capable of mediating, provided it strictly adheres to impartiality. Europe and, especially, Japan could provide the enormous resources needed to build the economies and societies previously in conflict.

The massive effort to form an international coalition against terrorism must be followed by actions to deal with the underlying cause of dissatisfaction, frustration and even hatred. If not, even an airtight anti-terrorism system would most probably not be effective forever.

The final question is: Will the human race make the efforts required to end the cycle of violence?

The writer is a former senior staff member at the UN, now based in Jakarta.