Is Radical Islam Caused by Poverty or Oppression? Yes.
It would be stating the obvious to say that the West has been unfortunately divided in its execution of the war on terror. But I am not talking about the obvious, the rift caused by the invasion of Iraq. What exists is a much deeper-rooted disagreement as to the causes of radical Islamic terrorism between the United States and Europe. America, at least during the Bush years, has taken the approach that people become terrorists because they live under oppressive regimes. Europe, by contrast, believes that poverty is the main root cause of terrorism; addressing the recent World Economic Forum in Switerland by phone, French President Jacques Chirac called on wealthy nations to funnel billions of dollars to the world's poorest areas as a way prevent "extremism." George Bush also advocates spending billions of dollars to fight terrorism, but in the form of funding the US military to spread democracy by force.
What both Europe and the Bush Administration unfortunately forget are some of the most important lessons of history, that either poverty or oppression alone are each sufficient to lead a populace to extremism. The only way to guarantee extremism does not take root is to ensure that both are eradicated. Freedom alone does not prevent extremism- exhibit A, the Weimar Republic. Nor does wealth alone- Exhibit B, Iran under the Shah. It is tragic that the US an Europe are split on this issue, when working together their strategies cover all bases- the US spares no expense creating and maintaining the most awesome military might the world has ever known, and Europe is much less adverse to spending large sums on development aid to the developing world. Working in concert, these two pillars of democracy and prosperity could ensure that no potential terroism breeding grounds are ever again created in our time. But this potential is not being fulfilled, and the future of the world cannot wait forever for this rift to heal.
What I propose is a global project of NATO based loosly on the International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) currently working with success in Afghanistan. Generally, NATO is building pseudo-bases in the remote areas of Afghanistan, which allow for the deployment of troops to hunt the reminants of the Taliban. But the operations are not military only. The ISAF takes on a number of civillian projects, namely helping rural villages rebuild infrastructure and schools, and helping the Afghan government build a functioning system of justice. This approach is decimating the root causes of terrorism so well in the Afghan countryside, that Taliban remnants are taking advantage of an amnesty program to return to civil society because they have so little remaining popular and logistical support to continue their activities. And this is being accomplished with truly half-assed monetary and troop commitments by the US. Imagine what something like this could do on a global scale when given a significant portion of the NATO countries' financial and military resources.
Every day this is not undertaken is another lost opportunity to rid this earth from the cancer of terrorism.
by Rich Boatti
What both Europe and the Bush Administration unfortunately forget are some of the most important lessons of history, that either poverty or oppression alone are each sufficient to lead a populace to extremism. The only way to guarantee extremism does not take root is to ensure that both are eradicated. Freedom alone does not prevent extremism- exhibit A, the Weimar Republic. Nor does wealth alone- Exhibit B, Iran under the Shah. It is tragic that the US an Europe are split on this issue, when working together their strategies cover all bases- the US spares no expense creating and maintaining the most awesome military might the world has ever known, and Europe is much less adverse to spending large sums on development aid to the developing world. Working in concert, these two pillars of democracy and prosperity could ensure that no potential terroism breeding grounds are ever again created in our time. But this potential is not being fulfilled, and the future of the world cannot wait forever for this rift to heal.
What I propose is a global project of NATO based loosly on the International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) currently working with success in Afghanistan. Generally, NATO is building pseudo-bases in the remote areas of Afghanistan, which allow for the deployment of troops to hunt the reminants of the Taliban. But the operations are not military only. The ISAF takes on a number of civillian projects, namely helping rural villages rebuild infrastructure and schools, and helping the Afghan government build a functioning system of justice. This approach is decimating the root causes of terrorism so well in the Afghan countryside, that Taliban remnants are taking advantage of an amnesty program to return to civil society because they have so little remaining popular and logistical support to continue their activities. And this is being accomplished with truly half-assed monetary and troop commitments by the US. Imagine what something like this could do on a global scale when given a significant portion of the NATO countries' financial and military resources.
Every day this is not undertaken is another lost opportunity to rid this earth from the cancer of terrorism.
by Rich Boatti
posted by Rich at 9:05 PM
2 Comments:
Hear, hear! The whole project most definitely demands both approaches. The trouble is that the two problems feed off each other. Oppression breeds poverty, since tyrants will always siphon off huge amounts of needed capital for themselves. Meanwhile, poverty breeds oppression, since people who struggle daily for food and shelter don't really have the ability to throw off their oppressors. It's all a seriously vicious cycle, and it's the fundamental reason that whole regions of the world (Africa, South America, South Asia) have remained poor, oppressive sewers for centuries.
Clearly, if we are to stamp out the root causes of terrrorism we need to spread both freedom and prosperity. The question is, with which one do you start? Reasonable people disagree, of course, but to me (and many war supporters) the history of the twentieth centry suggests that freedom really ought to come first. It's true that free, poor countries (ie, Weimar Germany or contemporary Venezuela) can slip into tyranny. But a foreign presence can easily prevent that from happening until the economy gets running (witness Germany, Japan, South Korea, and others). By contrast, giving monetary aid to dictators and ensuring that it actually helps the people it's intended for is much harder (witness Somalia and then Iraq under the Oil-for-Food program). So while I agreee that both parts of the strategy are needed, I happen to think the President has got it right in pursuing freedom before prosperity.
Hey Brian, thanks for the comment. I'm glad that you posted your view in support of Bush because it gives me a chance to address something I think needs to be articulated. What you're talking about is Bush's rhetoric- freedom for all- which no good person, and especially no good democrat, could or should disagree with. My problem with Bush is that he applies his own rhetoric too narrowly and his actions contradict his rhetoric far more often then they buttress it. I do give him credit for the successful election in Iraq, but he is sorely lacking in the much broader picture, mainly the democratic-hapering effects America's unabated consumption of oil has on several tyrranical regimes throught the world. Marina Ottaway wrote an excellent op-ed in today's Times about it, I suggest you give it a look-http://nytimes.com/2005/03/31/opinion/31ottaway.html. Likewise, when bad regimes run out of oil, they are forced to liberalize and modernize their economies, which more often than not leads them to political reform. Example A of this is Jordan, which has followed exactly this course since the depletion of it's oil reserves in the late 90's. If Bush truly made his foreign policy to match his rhetoric, I wouldn't have many disagreements with him. I am disappointed in him because he only follows his rhetoric selectively and ingores solutions that would support it that just aren't that spectacular, like raising the mandatory gas mileage for American cars and investing in mass-transit and wind power. I do agree with you that we shouldn't give aid to dictators, and in cases of poor prople living under bad governments, we should try to either reform or overthrow those regimes first. But I believe that Bush just makes this process too messy and expensive- whatever happened to the bloodless coup? (but we should ensure that a democracy follows instead of another Musharraf-type situation). I do credit Bush with increasing the funding for the Milenium Challenge grants, which reward good governance with development aid, but again, Bush's top-heavy tax cuts are making future funding for the Millenium Challenge untenable. I would agree with Bush if he only saw the big picture and followed his own rhetoric. Until then, I can only dig in my heels.
Post a Comment
<< Home