Nonviolence as a means to combat terrorism

Muhamad Ali, Hawaii

Terrorism has today become an overworked term in domestic, regional and global politics in many areas, not least of which, the United States. However, the major focus has been on physical, often violent reactions to it.

It is unfortunate that many policymakers have continued to respond to terrorist threats by strict military actions, rather than by finding out ways of dealing with it much more effectively.

It should be stressed that there are nonviolent responses to terrorism as many peace studies scholars have attempted to promote.

Among the many studies of how terrorism should be curbed nonviolently, is the work of Tom H. Hastings, entitled Nonviolent Response to Terrorism (2004), which argues that the war in Iraq and other places in the name of the war on terror is not effective in preventing terrorism. Hastings maintains that what needs to be worked out is many different short-term and long-term nonviolent ways of responding to terrorism.

Despite the on-going militaristic mindset of many of the policymakers in the United States and other countries, there have been rapid and significant advances in non-militaristic ideas. International negotiation, mediation and adjudication have progressed through experience and research in the past several years and the skills are available to negotiate with anyone, including officials of terrorist organizations of all stripes. The fields of international aid and nonviolent interposition have grown in knowledge and application.

It is useful to understand different nonviolent responses to terrorism. For the moment, there are sanctions that focus on and affect elite officials only (not the populace in general), mediation, negotiation, adjudication, international law enforcement, nonviolent resistance and interposition, as well as global opprobrium against all violence and a complete halt of arms trade and manufacture.

Long-term nonviolent responses to terrorism can include the scaling back of consumption by rich nations, massive aid to poor nations and populations, refugee repatriation or emigration and debt relief to the poorest nations. Other responses include education about the roots of terrorism, education and training about nonviolent power, promotion of culturally and ecologically sensitive tourism, cultural exchanges, sustainable economics and energy use, as well as fair distribution of agricultural products.

There are a wide range of actions that can be undertaken, but unfortunately, very few has been seriously taken into consideration by domestic or international policymakers. The roots of terrorism have been recognized by many people, but few leaders have paid attention to dealing with them.

One of the roots include cultural gaps because of the natural differences between human beings. This is related to ignorance and a sense of injustice, whether imaginary or actual. Here cross-cultural communication is crucial in bridging such gaps, but many policymakers pay little attention to this.

What they are very eager to demonstrate is their force and power. They reinforce militarism, while overlooking the need to ask for consultation from the many peacemakers, religious leaders and community figures.

I still find it hard to understand why the administrations of the the U.S., Britain and Australia do not start to use nonviolent responses to terrorism. Violence will only create more violence. I share the belief that violent response to violence tends ultimately to breed continual violence. History proves that each time the military is used, civilians are killed or become major victims.

What we see each day in Iraq, and often in Palestine, is that hatred has been responded to by another, often more destructive, hatred. Killing civilians, including women and children, is never justifiable, but many policymakers seem to ignore the very fact that according to the latest reports thousands of Iraqis and soldiers have lost their lives, not to mention property. This obvious fact has never made the government leaders or the people of the U.S. and others rethink their militaristic policies.

Nonviolence is more effective that any other mode of response to violent attack. A nonviolent response to terrorism does not mean tolerating terrorism. It does not mean that military strength is not important. What I disagree with is the mindset and policies that always respond with violence first and foremost before anything else.

It is high time for the policymakers to rethink their military responses to terrorism and to find alternative ways and give more attention to nonviolent responses. If a leader really intends to build peace, then he or she should first exhaust all nonviolent means of dealing with violence. Otherwise, our world in which we all live together, will not be a safer place. People will always think of others in terms of their antagonists rather than which commonalities we share. People will always have a negative perspective about what the other side is doing. If there is no trust, there is no peace. And trust can only be built by mediation, negotiation and dialog.

Muhamad Ali, lecturer at the Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University; he is pursuing his Ph.D in History at the University of Hawaii at Manoa and is a fellow at the East-West Center, Hawaii.