The terrorist exception: a response to Roger Scruton

Why not discuss this article with friends and colleagues on the first anniversary of the Madrid atrocity, 11 March 2005?

For the why and how of such a meeting, click here

To register your own meeting, click here

I want to thank Roger Scruton for his articulate, albeit mostly inaccurate, analysis of my article on the root causes of terrorism. There are several fundamental flaws in his interpretation of my piece, and, more important, of his approach to addressing the causes of international terrorism.

Scruton surveys terrorism across the ages. He proposes that what unites it is the achievement of those who are its victims. Terrorists “resent” success. This fills them with hatred, an evil which, though always a part of the human condition, they are unable to handle or contain. Terrorists should not resent success in the way they do and their hatred is a form of evil that has to be stamped out. They are the problem, not us. Therefore we must not start by looking at the “causes” of terrorism, as I do, as this concedes them “politically correct” rights that quickly merge into a sort of apology.

More from openDemocracy’s debate on “democracy and terror”:

Karin von Hippel, “Five steps for defeating terrorism” (January 2005)

Roger Scruton, “The power of resentment: a response to Karin von Hippel” (January 2005)

Anthony Barnett, “From terror to democracy: an open letter” (March 2005) – describes why the international summit on the anniversary of the Madrid bombs is so important – and invites you to participate

Well, at least this poses the issue at a grand level that fully acknowledges its importance. And his analysis of various forms of terrorism throughout history is indeed illuminating. But I was writing about a brand of new international terrorism as espoused and inspired by Osama bin Laden.

There are grey areas between “old” and “new”, and increasing overlap as many “old” groups have become hijacked or, now, inspired by the al-Qaida network. This “new terrorism” differs from the “old” or domestic variants in significant ways with which I am sure Scruton is familiar. What is important to note here is that new terrorists aspire to cause massive devastation, large-scale destruction, and are indiscriminate in their choice of victims, the vast majority of which are civilians. Al-Qaida’s apocalyptic worldview can be sharply contrasted with the more precise political goals of the Irish Republican Army or the Basque group, ETA.

In view of this I believe it is irresponsible to discuss root causes for all forms of terrorism since the beginning of time, just as it would be irresponsible to lump all conflicts in the same boat, whether they be inter-state or intra-state, resource-driven, or based on ethnic grievances. Incidentally, I also do not agree with his analysis that a “hatred of our success” is the driver for domestic terrorism, but that is another conversation.

Moreover, Scruton notes that while my “intention is not exactly to blame the United States for the terrorist attacks on it, the implication is that the US is, nevertheless, part of the cause…”. But whose argument is it that is “implying” something unstated?

President Bush makes the simplistic assumption that much of the anti-Americanism we are witnessing today is based on a “hatred of our freedoms”. My argument is that it is much more complicated and sophisticated than this. Some of the hatred comes not just from terrorists but, much more important, from their many potential sympathisers who we need to win over so that they oppose terrorism. And some of this hatred is fuelled by a rational interpretation of US foreign policy. Such as, for example, US support for several un-elected, authoritarian regimes in the middle east.  The surge in recruitment for al-Qaida and its affiliates in the aftermath of the war in Iraq, which was predicted by numerous analysts (including myself in openDemocracy) provides further evidence to back up this latter point.

“The avoidance of any manifest US occupation of Iraq is crucial to thwart what could otherwise become a successful recruitment campaign by al-Qaida. Such an occupation would serve to enrage Islamic extremists, while humiliating moderate Muslims, and increase anti-Americanism in many parts of the world.”

Karin von Hippel, “American occupational hazards” (10 April 2003)

Much of bin Laden’s platform is indeed irrational, based on extreme interpretations of religion, as Scruton notes. But it is far too simplistic to say that terrorism is only about hatred and resentment. This will get us nowhere.

There are two fundamental issues here which assist – or prevent – the intelligent discussion of terrorism, the precondition of its containment and defeat.

First, it is absurd to suggest or imply that the United States, or in the larger scheme of things, to use Scruton’s term, the “successful”, are so innocent as to be beyond responsible criticism, or have policies that are not in need of reform. They are not pure, untouched by history.

The two brief and moving pieces by Mient Jan Faber and Pere Vilanova published as part of this openDemocracy debate make this distinction clear in a morally powerful, personal way. No apology is involved at all in a discussion of dealing with its rational causes, it is simply the right thing to do.

Second, Scruton is right to say that terrorists are hateful. But, to borrow a phrase, the larger question is surely, why is it that not all those who are hateful are terrorists? In other words, the very fact, as he well describes, that resentment and hatred are part of the wider human condition while terrorism is exceptional, means that we must in addition have other, more precise forms of analysing why terrorism has arisen if we are to work out how it can be combated.

So, while of course we need to use all our means to prevent terrorist attacks and detain and prosecute those responsible, it is also vital to address the wider causes of the rise and popularity of terrorism. Fares Braizat’s poll results of opinion across the middle east appeared to confirm such popularity, and this was the starting point of my article. It remains of fundamental importance that we address the “enabling environment” which provides support for terrorism.

Instead of concentrating on the individual terrorist, who is likely to be beyond reach, we should be focusing our efforts on those who are not terrorists themselves but may sympathise with the arguments of terrorists, and those who may provide tacit support, or more worryingly, eventually give overt support.  This is where the real battle with terrorists is won or lost. It is thus of the utmost importance to challenge the arguments and platforms of al-Qaida head-on where they are wrong, and it is also essential to reform our own policies when this would undermine their support without harming the security of our democracies.

How do we do this? By supporting public education in parts of the world where poor parents have no other choice but to send their children to extremist madrasas. By resolving long-term, festering conflicts (such as in the middle east or Kashmir).  By making a more concerted and radical effort to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. We already have evidence that this strategy works:  the impressive US military response to the Asian tsunami seems to have made an enormous impact on a whole generation of Muslims, and has made bin Laden’s most recent appeal seem hollow by comparison. Beyond his rhetoric, he was offering nothing. If to argue in this way makes me “politically correct”, God forbid, then perhaps I am.