FW: Solutions: The Best Long-Term Strategy

THE BEST LONG-TERM STRATEGY
By Morton Deutsch <md319@...>

Director Emeritus & E.L. Thorndike Professor Emeritus
International Center for Cooperation & Conflict Resolution
Teachers College, Columbia University

September 20, 2001

Dear Colleagues,

We are all horrified and shocked by the horrendous events which have
occurred recently in which thousands of innocent victims were killed by well
organized terrorists actions directed against people and buildings in New
York City, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C.

From various news reports and statements of U.S. government officials, it
seems that our government believes that:

1. The terrorist actions were planned, organized, and carried out by the bin
Laden group.

2. The Taliban government in Afghanistan has provided harbor for the bin
Laden group.

3. Elements within the government of Iraq, and possible others, have
provided support of various kinds for the bin Laden group.

The U.S. government, with the support and possible cooperation of other
nations, is preparing a series of responses directed at the bin Laden group,
the Taliban government, the Iraqi government, and to the general problem of
terrorism. Among the likely responses is a strong military action by the
U.S. and its allies.

What can those of us who have been working for a just, peaceful, humane and
sustainable world do in the light of the above? I suggest that we should be
sending the following message to our political leaders: to the President and
members of his Cabinet, to members of Congress, and to other people who
influence policy:

(1) It is important to encourage thoughtful, deliberate policy-making which
has a long-term perspective and which fully takes into account the possible
long-term consequences of one's action. There should be every effort to
resist premature judgements and actions. Time must be taken for careful
policy-making. Hot-tempered actions, based upon a primitive impulse for
revenge, are likely to be ineffective, costly, unduly dangerous to ourselves
and to many innocent people, and to produce long-term consequences which
promote rather than eliminate terrorism.

I suggest that the best long-term strategy will involve:

(a) Differentiating Islam and the terrorist groups so that the terrorist
groups are perceived to be anti-Islam rather than acting as agents of Islam.
This will involve very strong opposition to anti-Muslim actions in the U.S.
and elsewhere. It will also require getting the active support of Muslim
religious authorities in denouncing terrorism and terrorist groups. We do
not want our actions against terrorist groups to provoke a war with Islam
(this is exactly what the terrorists want). We want to cooperate with Islam
in de-legitimizing violence against civilians whatever their religious
background. We should encourage leading Islamic religious figures to
broadcast statements that people who engage in terrorism are not acceptable
in the Islamic community, will not be allowed to enter paradise in the
after-life, and will be condemned for eternity.

(b) Addressing the causes which engender hatred and terrorism toward the
United States. The causes are discussed below under (3). Although it would
be a mistake to feel that the actions and policies of the United States in
any way justify the terrorist actions, it is well to examine in what ways we
can prevent or reduce the animus against the United States.

(2) We can support diplomatic, political, economic, and limited military
actions to bring to justice those who planned, organized, or provided
support to the terrorist actions. The implementation should be so focused
and limited that it results in no or minimal harm to the population of the
countries attacked. Through disproportionate and cruel actions we do not
want to create a backlash which will only create more terrorists and a
continuous cycle of destruction.

(3) We must begin to think seriously about the causes of terrorism and
address its causes rather than believe that violence against terrorism will
eliminate it. Long-term effective action to eliminate terrorism and other
forms of violence will mainly involve positive action to eliminate its
causes. Its causes are manifold: psychological, economic, political,
religious, educational, and the easy availability of highly destructive
weapons. Each of these causes are addressed briefly:

(a) Psychological: It is important to understand the underlying motivations
and cognitive perspectives of both the leaders and also the followers of
organized terrorist groups. At a deep level, it has been well stated that
"violence is the expression of impotence grown unbearable." At a more
direct level, the leaders of terrorist groups such as those connected with
the drug traffic are mainly seeking to protect and promote their illegal
business. In contrast, the leaders of such groups as bin Laden's are
seeking to promote a political-religious ideology under conditions in which
they feel impotent to achieve their objectives through peaceful means.
Osama bin Laden apparently seeks to destroy the modern, secular, democratic,
dominating, globalizing capitalism as symbolized by the United States and
return to a more medieval, pre-capitalistic theocratic world (such as found
in the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan). The leaders of terrorist groups are
often well educated, from backgrounds of upper-middle or higher
social-economic backgrounds, but often of marginal, disrespected ethnic,
nationalist, or religious groups within their society. They often harbor
deep resentment against the leaders of their own society and those who are
allied with them.

The active followers of the terrorist leaders are often alienated, educated
people from petit bourgeois families who are seeking a power and
prestige-enhancing self-identity as well as the emotional and economic
support of being a member of a close-knit group. The political-religious
ideology of their leaders provides them with an acceptable moral
justification for their violent behavior.

(b) Economic: During the past decade, the United States has gone through a
period of considerable economic prosperity but many people throughout the
world, as well as in the U.S., have not shared in this prosperity and a
considerable number have seen their economic situation worsen. Some believe
that those who have prospered have done so because they have exploited those
nations and people who have not. There is considerable envy and resentment
toward the U.S. as a result. To overcome these feelings, as well as for
other good reasons, it is important for the U.S. to take an active, leading,
and visible role in improving the economic well being of those nations and
people who are suffering economic difficulties.

(c) Shortsighted policy-making: In the past, we were so anti-Communist that
we supported any group (including bin Laden's and the Taliban) that fought
against the Soviets whether or not, they shared any of our other values.
Our bombing of Sudan was seen to be an unjustified terrorist attack against
a Muslim state which, in turn, justifies an attack against us. Apparently,
our limited foresight can produce policies which are destructive to our own
interests.

(d) Political: Political violence, to paraphrase, grows out of unbearable
political impotence. In other words, political violence is less apt to be
stimulated in a democracy where one has the freedom to express one's
political views and to openly try to persuade others to elect to political
power and leadership those who represent your views and interests than in
the dictatorial nations of the Middle East. Dictators are, often, able to
prevent internal violence by severe, repressive controls and by deflecting
the pent-up rage on to other targets. The United States, partly because of
its support of Israel as well as its leading role in the modern globalizing
world, has become a handy target for this displaced rage. It is evident that
the U.S. has much to gain by supporting the development of democratic
institutions and leadership to replace the backward autocratic governments
in this region.

(e) Religious: The central tenets of all the major religions - Christian,
Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Jewish - respect the sanctity of human life.
They all oppose violence against innocent human beings. However, there are
deviant radical "fundamentalist" groups in some of the religions who distort
the basic teachings of their religion to condone and, even, encourage
politically inspired violence against innocent victims. Although this has
been particularly true, recently, in the Middle East, where deviant
"fundamentalists" have legitimized and even glorified people who have
engaged in terrorist violence, it has also occurred in the United States,
Israel, Ireland and other countries. The United States should encourage the
religious leaders of all religions to take very active leadership in
de-legitimizing violence against innocent victims.

(f) Educational: Education in many parts of the world, as well as in the
United States, does not provide students with the knowledge, attitudes, and
skills to become active participants in - and advocates of - a peaceful
world. Too often, it is narrowly ethnocentric, glorifies violence by one's
own group and dehumanizes members of out groups. It predisposes students to
use zero-sum power strategies and tactics in conflict wit out groups, rather
than cooperative, problem-solving methods. Clearly, if we are to have a
world free of terrorism, much effort will have to be directed at educating
our students to have the knowledge, attitudes and skills for constructive
conflict resolution.

To sum up, we are in a win-lose conflict with terrorism; we must not allow
it to escalate to a conflict with Islam or Muslims. We must also prevent it
from battering our democratic freedoms as we take steps to decrease our
vulnerability to terrorism and to de-legitimize as well as undermine
terrorist groups. And, of course, we must continue our active efforts to
create a world that is characterized by a cooperative peace, social justice,
and a sustainable environment.

(g) Availability of Weapons: The U.S. government pursuit of an
anti-missile defense program is likely to lead to a unilateral ending of an
important arms control treaty and hamper the development of international
agreements to limit and control the production and widespread availability
of weapons of mass destruction. Our emphasis should be on developing
effective international control of such weapons rather than on taking
actions to militarize space unilaterally.

Respectfully Yours,
Morton Deutsch

P.S. Please feel free to circulate this message.

****************
Morton Deutsch
Director Emeritus & E.L. Thorndike Professor Emeritus
International Center for Cooperation & Conflict Resolution
Teachers College, Columbia University
525 W. 120th St. Box 53
New York, NY 10027
Tel: 212-678-3246
Fax: 212-678-4048
***************