Can cycle of violence end?

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.