Paper no. 1521	29. 08. 2005
Terrorism: The ‘root causes’   Guest Column by Swati Parashar   One debate that seems to occupy the center stage in the discourse on terrorism is the one on its ‘root causes’. This debate has for long been a part of the non traditional approach of looking at conflicts and terrorism. The traditional approach that strongly advocates a law and order or military solution to the problem of terrorism has also begun to acknowledge that unless the ‘root causes’ of terrorism are eliminated, the war against terrorism can never be won   What are root causes and does terrorism have root causes? Is it necessary to address the root causes? A better way to focus on this debate would be to try and understand whether terrorism can be justified at all.   The Permanent UN Representative of Finland , speaking at a debate in the General Assembly, in Oct.2001 said—“there is no just terrorism whatever the causes”. The problem with the discourse on terrorism is the ‘ism’ attached to terror, ‘ism’ meaning a state or theory of terror. Terrorism is not the same as other isms like communism, nazism, fascism, liberalism, communalism….secularism. It is a means to an end that could very well be any of these ideological political systems. Since violent and destructive strategies cannot be justified for any cause, terrorism has no justification, if defined in terms of the violent acts that are committed.   To put it simply…..terrorism might grow out of inequality, oppression etc. but such circumstances do not justify terrorist attacks on unarmed civilians, by any political, religious, philosophical or moral considerations. Terrorism can be defined in terms of the act that has been committed without actually losing the argument over intentions, motivations and ideology of the perpetrators.   Another important point that needs due consideration is that the post-9/11 discourse on terrorism is dominated by American perceptions and strategic concerns. This is very crucial to the understanding of root causes. Before 9/11, no matter what we said about cross-border terrorism, the US was not listening. Post 9/11 it is nothing less than a ‘global war on terror’.   The unprovoked indiscriminate killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan is collateral damage. It is part of the legal war waged by states. If a non state actor in a similar manner attacks the nation states and unarmed civilians, it is terrorism despite the fact that there may be legitimate grievances behind those attacks. If one defines terrorism strictly in terms of the act and not the perpetrators, there are guilty states and no one to wage a global war against state terrorism!! States that have a history of sponsoring terrorist activities against other states are frontal allies in the US led ‘global war on terror’. A close observation will reveal that the acts are not different, only perpetrators are. Can we on the basis of who committed those acts claim that one terrorism is legal and the other is not?   The ‘root causes’ debate especially in the current context seems more like an eyewash to thrust the blame on particular regimes, cultures and societies, instead of a genuine attempt to look closely at the deeper issues underlying the problem. It is quite convenient for the US and its allies to argue, in the light of their failures in Iraq and Afghanistan and to curb terrorism, that the roots of terror lie in the backward looking, fundamentalist, non democratic societies which continue to breed terrorists. Are the US and its allies willing to accept our root causes? We might argue and even rightfully so that it is America ’s policies, Western neo colonialism and imperialism and a hegemonic international system that are the real ‘root causes’ of terrorism. Will it be acceptable if we claimed that Pakistan is the ‘root cause’ of terrorism? It is the occupation of Iraq , the Western support to the Jihadis fighting the soviets in Afghanistan and the unjust economic policies that have led to unequal societies that breed terrorism. The convenient ‘root causes’ like poverty illiteracy, backwardness, fundamentalism, authoritarianism are hardly the considerations in sustaining terrorism or in winning recruits. Thus like much of the debate on terrorism, even the ‘root causes’ debate has already been defined.   In this complex debate the moot point is to realise the fallacy of any ‘global war on terrorism’. America is fighting its Frankensteins whether in Iraq or in Afghanistan . There is nothing ‘global’ about the war being waged. Each state confronted with terrorism has to work out its own strategy and understanding of the problem it faces. Similarly there is no ‘global terrorism regime’ as well.    In this entire effort to fight ‘global terror’ through a ‘global war’, the local problems are getting neglected. Terrorism today is also the result of the spillover effect of local conflicts and issues. No two countries are faced with similar problems. Therefore a universal counter terrorism strategy cannot be applicable.   Let us put it this way, if terrorism is the inevitable result of ‘root causes’ like oppression, poverty, disenfranchisement, dispossession alone where are the Haitian, Tibetan, Greek Cypriot, Kashmiri Pandit and Sindhi terrorists? Similarly radical religious ideas that have gained ground in Central Asia are yet to appeal to the people of Turkmenistan , considering that it is the most ruthless of all oppressive regimes and public resentment against the government is very high. The root causes for Islamists to be active in Uzbekistan , Tajikistan , and Kyrgyzstan should have also applied to Turkmenistan . There are a number of specificities that need to be looked into instead of the simplistic ‘root causes’ argument.   The ‘root causes’ debate really is a debate to keep the international community engaged in a meaningless exercise because like the definition of terrorism itself we will now start debating about what we mean by the root causes of terror and that one person’s root cause may not be the other’s. Essentially all terrorists violate what they might claim to be fighting for--- human rights, dignity and freedom. All of these are violated in a single act of terror. There can really be no justification for terror whether used by states or non state actors.   Terrorism is largely about the eternal struggle for power. Groups and individuals engaged in this power struggle use terrorism to suit their ends. In some cases terrorism is legitimized by its perpetrators i.e. if the state uses it as an instrument of its policy.   Everything has a ‘root cause’. For example, a rapist also has a root cause of committing the crime, which could be anything from lack of female company to having had an abusive childhood to vengeance or even insanity. On these grounds should there be any consideration of sympathy towards him? Is the crime any less heinous just because there are these ‘root causes’?   There are a number of conflicts that plague the world. There are also other problems created by an unequal world and unjust and hegemonic system in place and these have to be resolved and corrected but linking them to resolve terrorism will make the fight against terrorism unfocussed. Addressing these problems and conflicts and fighting terrorism has to be along side. Terrorism has to be taken out from the ‘global’ framework and has to be placed within local contexts so that the issues and concerns are brought to the fore.   Recruitment to terrorist groups continues not really because of ‘root causes’ but largely due to the counter terrorism policies of the US and the ‘global war on terror’. The United States has launched an over reactive counter terrorism campaign which does not address or respect peoples’ sensitivities, community sensitivities, states sovereignty, human rights etc while dealing with terrorism. What we are witnessing in Iraq by no measures owes to ‘root causes’ the way the West defines it.   Finally, unless the terms of the debate are changed and the West is prepared to accept that it has made colossal mistakes in first supporting and then in dealing with terrorism, there can be no real war on terror, nor a meaningful engagement with the ‘root causes’ of terrorism. Combating terrorism and responding to terrorism will have to go hand in hand. Terrorism cannot be justified but while responding to terrorism, a number of factors will have to be taken into consideration. To determine, whether these factors are the ‘root causes’ of terrorism or not is merely an exercise in semantics, like much of the discourse on terrorism.   (Based on a presentation made at a seminar on the subject organised by the Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi , on July 18, 2005)   (The writer is an Associate Fellow with the International Terrorism Watch Programme, ITWP, of the Observer Research Foundation (ORF). She is based in New Delhi . E-mail address: swatiparashar@orfonline.org)
Back to the top Home  | Papers  | Notes  | Forum  | Search  | Feedback  | Links Copyright © South Asia Analysis Group  All rights reserved. Permission is given to refer this on-line document for use in research papers and articles, provided the source and the author's name  are acknowledged. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes.