Current issue: Vol.1, No. 3 July 2001

Go to Content page Feedback Emotion and Analysis in the Face of Terror By Laurenti Magesa The recent terrorist attacks in the United States raise a host of issues ranging from what should be the world's appropriate response to what is the definition of "terrorist." Most important to remember is that long-term questions and problems must always be kept in mind when contemplating immediate and short-range plans of action. On 11 September 2001, four commercial jets that had been overtaken by hijackers crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York City, the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and in a rural area of Pennsylvania. These four terrorist attacks proved to be of a magnitude never before seen in the history of the United States. It is estimated that almost 7,000 people were killed in the New York and Washington attacks, while billions of dollars' worth of property and international trade activities must have been lost. The terrible images were flashed on TV screens and written about in newspapers and magazines around the world. It soon became clear that most of the world agreed on one thing: the actions were a crime against humanity that no kind of grievance could ever justify. This practically universal feeling of revulsion transcended political, ideological, and religious differences in a way rarely seen before. The world was united in condemning the perpetrators. Everyone was horrified - to hijack planes full of innocent passengers and use them as weapons against civilian installations is an act beyond human decency. Horror and glee In his General Audience of Wednesday 12 September, Pope John Paul II described the terrorist acts as "a terrible affront to human dignity." "How is it possible," he lamented, "to commit such acts of savage cruelty?" He put it down to the evil inherent in the uncontrolled human heart, and assured all religious people that faith can overcome evil. "Faith comes to our aid at these times when words seem to fail," he said. "Even if forces of darkness seem to prevail, those who believe in God know that evil and death do not have the final say." Many other religious leaders echoed the same sentiments in the days following the tragedy, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Carey. But there were also reports of a few individuals who could not contain their glee as they rejoiced at the tragedy the U.S. was suffering. This mixture of feelings and opinions over the attack in the U.S. needs to be seen in its proper context. Some religious and national leaders, individuals, and different organizations who, while are unreserved in condemning these particular incidents in the U.S., are counselling that the world needs to reflect seriously about what may be the hidden but real reasons for such dastardly acts. While these people do not want to trivialize the terrorists' crime, nor dishonour the memory of those innocent people who lost their lives, nor exonerate the hijackers and their backers of their barbarity and inhumanity, they do wish to point out that reacting to barbarity with barbarity fails to distinguish clearly justice from blind revenge. This is why the U.N. Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, hoped and prayed that cool heads and hearts would prevail in judging how to respond to the tragedy. It is an opinion and prayer that has subsequently been endorsed by other world leaders everywhere. Extraordinary restraint So far, the U.S. government has shown extraordinary and mature restraint under the circumstances. It certainly has the power to unleash havoc and terror against those it suspects to be the perpetrators of the tragedy. But it has been patient in its effort to establish and ascertain facts, despite the impatience of some to strike back. Three questions occupy thoughtful leaders and people touched by the tragedy. Two are immediate and directly concern the incidents in the U.S.: What is the appropriate response to the crime in the U.S.? What is the proper way to carry out this response? The third question - in the international coalition that is being formed against the scourge of terrorism, can the whole world agree in all cases about who the terrorists are? - is long term, and is perhaps the most significant because it is so far-reaching. Concerning the first two questions, although the idea of a massive retaliation or a "crusade" against terrorism was foremost in U.S. government rhetoric in the aftermath of the attacks, it fortunately does not feature as prominently any more. Although understandable in the heat of the pain, it was dangerous language. Donald W. Shriver, the President Emeritus of Union Theological Seminary, once said that this type of response does not serve the cause of peace and humanity. "When, while at war, the religious idea of the Devil begins to be applied to the enemy, who then begins to be classified as 'inhuman, subhuman,' and therefore easier to kill… Of all the contributions of religion to violence, this is perhaps the most vicious: as when a war is turned into a 'Crusade,' which happened when European Christians wearing the cross of Jesus went to war with Muslims." Yet this is not to say that some sort of military, coercive, or violent response must be ruled out. Some religious leaders are saying that if events make it necessary, the response must respect the rules of human decency, as much as that can be done in war. At the beginning of his recent visit to Kazakhstan and Armenia, Pope John Paul II seemed to have been advising against using military means to respond to this crisis in the U.S. But towards the end of the visit the Pope's spokesman, Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, intimated a different view. He said that the moral principles of the Catholic Church allowed room for legitimate self-defence in such situations. He was implying that the U.S. in principle would not be morally wrong if it used force to retaliate against its attackers. Hard questions Is military force, then, the way the U.S. and the world should deal with the present crisis? Hard questions have been posed in view of this option. Apart from those immediately involved, who exactly are the surviving perpetrators? Is there hard evidence upon which to convict them, or is the evidence merely circumstantial? Can the hijackers' accomplices be captured and brought to justice in a court of law? If certain governments and terrorist organizations throughout the world are protecting these accomplices, how can these governments and organizations be made to hand them over? And if they refuse, how should they be treated? Would an attack on them not put the lives of innocent people at risk? Such questions need to be asked if and when the military option is contemplated and carried out. Questions also face the option of radical pacifism. Pacifism argues that, since violence begets violence, using military force to retaliate will only create a circle of violence. According to this view, fundamentalists of any hue or colour consider their fellow terrorists as martyrs when they are punished. This becomes a confirmation of their cause and its "truth." They try to imitate them, and in doing so, make an already bad situation only worse. But how does pacifism propose to contain universal terrorism? If pacifism suggests dialogue, then how do you dialogue with someone who does not want to talk, but is intent on annihilating you? In a real-life situation such as the world witnessed in the U.S. on 11 September, how practical is "turning the other cheek?" In fact, what does turning the other cheek mean in this case? No easy answers Real life does not supply easy moral answers to these and similar questions. And the situation gets even murkier when we consider the third question: In the worldwide coalition that is being formed against the scourge of terrorism, can the whole world agree in all cases about who the terrorists are? Even in the apparently clear case of the attacks in the U.S., this does not seem so certain. One person's terrorist may be another's freedom fighter, which was why some were joyful and celebrated the attacks. At a global level, Northern Ireland and the Middle East are places in which these stark contradictions can be seen. But they exist elsewhere: in Eastern Europe, India and Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and so on. In Africa, Rwanda is still coping with the 1994 genocide that was orchestrated by tribal and ideological "terrorists." Is it conceivable that "terrorists" can also be governments terrorising their own people, as much as individuals and groups? How should the "World Community," then, deal with such terrorism? Finally, this question cannot be sidelined: Is there such a thing as "economic terrorism?" In the aftermath of the U.S. tragedy, some have been suggesting that the poverty of the world's majority - the "wretched of the earth," people who literally "have nothing material to lose" - may well be a chief cause of domestic and international terrorism. For such people, strapping dynamite sticks around themselves to kill individuals they consider to have caused their poverty, or blow up a building that symbolizes to them the wealth of the rich exploiter, means almost nothing. An African scholar in Kenya suggested that it is almost impossible to understand the terrorists' actions if one just focuses on indoctrination as a sufficient explanation for these actions. In his opinion, desperation from poverty may be closer to the truth. It is necessary to reflect upon this possibility. When analysing the situation of terrorism in the world, there is the danger that we might scatter our intellectual energies too wide and fail to deal with the immediate issue. One should insist that long-term questions and problems must always be kept in mind when contemplating immediate and short-range plans of action. The international alliance against terrorism now being attempted universally has risen, of course, because of the crisis in the U.S., but it should not be forgotten that it has the long-term purpose of eradicating terrorism throughout the world as its primary goal. Laurenti Magesa a priest from the Diocese of Musoma (Tanzania), is one of Africa's best-known Catholic theologians. He has taught theology in Africa and America. Currently, he is lecturing at Tangaza College in Nairobi, Kenya. African Scribe is guest on PeaceLink web site