And then, for about four decades, from the late ’40s to the ’80s, the cold war existing between the US and the then USSR and their allies and supporters, threw an ideological dimension to much of the terrorism within that span of time. In Europe, terrorism was the ugly defining caricature of the organizations, and in the countries of the Third World, it was a strategy utilized by the insurgent organizations and was merely one aspect of a bigger, more pervasive revolutionary strategy which included extensive use of propaganda, paramilitary strikes against the government military and the liberation of territory.
As the cold war ended, most Russians acknowledged that their Marxist-Leninist vision had become moot. Furthermore, the most populous country, China, despite her socialist proclamations, was already experiencing an economic boom she had never experienced before, as she encouraged the development of a free market which led to her acceptance recently into the WTO to be formalized in December.
How can we ensure that the knowledge we possess, the world’s towering technological brilliance, will have decent and not destructive effects? For the generation just before us, this question took shape in the giant mushroom clouds that rose over the destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. For our generation, this question loomed in the graceful hyperbolic silhouettes of the cooling towers at Three Mile Island, USA, where suddenly on the 28th of March, 1979, technological genius threatened to melt uncontrollably into technological tragedy. Though unintentionally, what was created there was a huge container so filled with deadly radiation that it became unapproachable for months – even years. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were deliberate acts of wartime destruction. Three Mile Island was an accidental by-product of the peaceful use of nuclear power.
It was an ironic coincidence for America that on both occasions, the question had been expressed in nuclear terms. In fact, the question arises in many fields where man’s skill threatens to outrun his wisdom, not only in nuclear technology but in medicine, communications, agriculture, biology, espionage strategy, munitions manufacture and a host of other fields.
Will our scientific genius be tempered by and informed with technological morality? Will technology, the commercial and industrial application of the world’s scientific knowledge, be the servant of humanity or its master? What about terrorism, international terrorism, the kind the whole world has just witnessed, what kind of moral standard are we to use both as to its dreadful execution and in its retribution?
According to well-known lecturer and writer Walter Reich, "Despite couching their agenda in Islamic terms, organizations such as Hizballah (Party of God) in Lebanon, Hamas in the West Bank of Israel, and the Jihad group in Egypt, are fueled by nationalist sentiment. The expression of this sentiment is evident in their belief that other Western values have a corrupting influence on Islamic cultures requiring an Islamic initiative or a new revolution to rectify this situation. Indigenous political leaders in such countries as Egypt and Saudi Arabia are seen as having sold out to the West. Israel, despite her historical association with the region, is viewed as an outpost of Western interests and values. The ideological clash of democracy and communism during the cold war has now been replaced by the insidious clash of mid-eastern and western civilizations which could reach ugly proportions!" Reich is not Nostradamus but he did say that in 1990. Which brings us to today...
The US is in the midst of an act of international terrorism inflicted as never before...surrealistically vicious and suicidal, displayed on the world’s grand stage. It has been in the Middle East that the US has come face to face with what is called in International Law, "International Terrorism" defined simply as "terrorism involving the citizens or territory of more than one country." Through a period of only one year, in 1983 which is pretty recent, in Lebanon alone, 241 Marines were killed in the bombing of their barracks; the US embassy was destroyed by a suicide truck bomb costing 17 lives; and US citizens were regularly taken hostage by Hizballah. Several "terrorist spectaculars" occurred in 1985 as the hijacking of TWA flight 847 by Islamic extremists which lasted 17 days; the takeover of a cruise ship by Palestinians in 1985 highlighted by the unbelievable murder of a handicapped tourist in a wheelchair, and of course the attacks in the Rome and Vienna airports by the Abu Nidal organization which left 18 dead and 114 wounded.
I wonder if you still remember in 1988 when a bomb was placed aboard a PanAm flight which exploded over Scotland resulting in the death of 259. Just the other day, CNN recalled this particular act of international terrorism. Conducted apparently by Libyan intelligence agents, this act of state-sponsored terrorism more than any other single terrorist incident prior to the 9/11 attacks, galvanized cooperation among Western governments. Of course, the bombing in 1993 of the World Trade Center, the nerve gas attacks on Tokyo’s subway in 1995, and the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 are indeed spectacular acts of international terrorism, the perpetrators of which, just yesterday, were meted life imprisonment sentences by a US court.
Today, the fear of what is called "WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) Terrorism" is so widespread, and the international coalition of states that has evolved is of such a magnitude that it has surpassed any such formation in the past. As noted by Brian Jenkins, an authority on contemporary terrorism: "Terrorists want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead." That was exactly what happened on 9/11. Such rationale can be extended to the use of chemical and biological methods, which, when used, will therefore lack the dreadful publicity aspect of the terrorist act. 9/11 happened in full view of a world audience. That could be absent in WMD terrorism.
In the case of religious extremist organizations that engage in suicide destructions, they differ from secular organizations because the audience they are trying to impress is God, as opposed to a segment of the public. Therefore, religious convictions make it easier to engage in actions causing a large number of deaths when the act is done in the name of God and allegedly with His blessing. This logic of mine may be indicted as unacceptable and incorrect and I accept this, but I am sure no one will argue with this statement: That religion often acts as a justification as opposed to a constraint on terrorism.
The 1990s saw the emergence of a new category of analysis as regards ad hoc terrorists or individuals who came together to plan and pursue a specific operation, and here one of the masterminds of the 1993 World Trade Center (WTC) bombing, Ramzi Yousef, comes to mind. He entered the US with an associate and made contact with a diverse set of people, not identified with any particular group until his arrival. The thing Yousef had in common with his group was an association with a store front mosque in Jersey City. Acting as the catalyst, Yousef recruited a sufficient number of individuals to carry out the WTC bombing then. We probably will be able to recall the fact that the same modus operandi was utilized by Yousef when in the Philippines in late 1994, he recruited Islamic extremists to execute an ambitious operation to assassinate Pope John Paul II on his visit to Manila then.
The point I am trying to make is that there was no "Ramzi Yousef Group" with a dedicated cadre of supporters or any website or official insignia. And a related phenomenon concerns what could be termed the "privatization" of tourism, which now brings us to Osama bin Laden who had been, quite early in the 1990s, known for financing attacks against US interests. It was already very much talked about then that he facilitated, instigated, and inspired terrorist attacks. Aside from published reports that Yousef stayed in one of Bin Laden’s safe houses, what the two have in common is the fact that they both fought the Soviets in Afghanistan and share an extremely fierce hatred for the US. Bin Laden could be the private sector equivalent of a state sponsor of terrorism. Such a phenomenon could be a very difficult intelligence target – there is no pattern, no particular modus operandi, no defining signature.
It could be as massive a display of insane destruction as the 9/11 massacre; it could be the emerging bioterrorism so very much reported over media these past days, it could be cyber terrorism just around the corner. While the latter may not have the visual impact of a destroyed skyscraper with all the drama attendant to it, the alteration or wiping out of financial records, etc., such computer hacking could certainly cause economic chaos. The cyber terrorists can, very certainly, use the Internet to access military, police, air traffic control and other networks on which public safety depends. What then?
What then indeed? One of the most intensely compelling and profound books I have ever read is Human Involution, first published, please note, more than 17 years ago. The book states that: "Nightly the world watches on television how limited wars sprout and are carried on at much cost in all the continents, while wondering when the great explosion will occur that would make man extinct. Already, Hollywood has released well-received feature films focusing on the stark dangers of nuclear warfare. One does not have to be a cineaste to mull the question: if Hollywood is here, can reality be far behind?"
The Filipino author warns: "Mankind is only an insane impulse, a faulty judgment, or an accident away from doomsday. Man stands within an earshot of a second big bang that can bring about his destruction as surely as the first had set the stage for his creation. Is the force of violent and immediate disintegration as natural to our planet’s destiny as chaos was during its initial creation? Can that destiny be reversed into a force of peaceful and gradual integration which is just as natural in life?"
Human Involution is given as the only solution and defined as the "peaceful, personal, internal revolution desired in all of us. If its realization is widespread enough, it should be able to generate the equivalent of a population ‘implosion’ that can reverse the course of violent upheavals. It is in fact the only possible alternative." Saying that the pursuit of this process is more important than the goal itself, the author describes the starting point of Human Involution as "FIRST, harness his intelligence: to think, to understand himself, to build, rebuild and even change his value systems, and to develop his beliefs. And SECOND, to commit himself emotionally to the motivation and the will to change, to thereby improve himself and subsequently to integrate harmoniously with his institutions."
Human Involution seems to be the only solution to what the author has labeled as the "widespread dysfunction of man with his basic institutions." Are the inhabitants of planet Earth capable of this?