Posted on 08/02/2004 8:06:16 AM PDT by Tolik
Prof. Israeli: AWADS to Fight Terrorism
You Wish to Fight Terrorism? Join the Alliance of Western and Democratic States (AWADS)
[Provided to IMRA by Prof. Israeli for distribution]
Coexistence between the West and the Muslim world, if not peaceful then at least non-belligerent, cannot exist or last unless a system of unilateral measures of self-defense is adopted by the West, but advertised and made clear to all, on the one hand; and another system of reward and non-lethal punishment is put in place, as a menu for every Muslim country or organization to choose from, if it elected to enjoy the goodies of the West, on the other. Both do not require any agreement on the part of the Muslim countries, but do assume a united and uniform policy of Western countries, who are willing to participate in the effort and also to benefit from its fruits, those who belong there today, or prove in the future that they respond to the cumulative criteria, set by the West itself, for joining in, such as a certain per-capita income, a certain GNP judged necessary to maintain Western norms, a regime of liberal democracy- elected, with pacific transfer of power, accountable, a-personal, non-hereditary; a free press, transparency of government, human rights and freedoms; free enterprise, freedom of property, transaction of real estate and funds; freedom to create in the arts, the humanities, literature, and protection of one's creation; and a strong and independent judiciary to oversee all this.
Such countries that would be accepted to the AWADS (Alliance of Western and Democratic States), at the center of which will be the US, Canada, Australia and Western Europe, will add other applicants as they prove their adaptability to its rules and their willingness and capacity to live by and up to them. This system may sidetrack the chaotic situation in the UN today, where politics and shifting majorities, composed of dictatorships for the most part, determine the moral and other standards of behavior in the world body. Durban 2001, should remain for ever a warning to the level of hatred and bigotry that the UN today is capable of stooping to.
Rules of Co-existence
AWADS will announce that it is organized to fight in unison terror , but is open not only to cooperation with Muslim countries who so desire, as long as they meet the two criteria of renouncing violence externally and enhance human rights domestically, but would even consider co-opting them into the organization if they should wean themselves from terror and develop political systems acceptable to it.
Thus, without threats, recriminations, forced reforms and all the rest, a powerful incentive is introduced in the international arena for change, the Western way, if a country so elects, or stay in the putrid marsh of UN politics. The West will then determine whom to get into AWADS, and once there what sort of obligations every country has to meet, proportionately to its strength, population and wealth, in contrast to the universality of the UN, which permits that any group of evil terrorist countries, such as Algeria, Syria and Sudan can determine the agenda and resolutions of, for example, the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. Handing public order and morality to the heads of the mafia, is not exactly the most efficient way to achieve peace and equity.
It is important to emphasize, that in order to come across the most horrendous incitement, libel and hatred , one does not need to look for the fundamentalists' discourse. It is there across the board, in mainstream and opposition newspapers, among the populace and amidst students and intellectuals, in official chanceries and in Arab and diplomatic missions abroad.
Before anything else, however, an iron-clad definition of terror has to be adopted unilaterally and announced by AWADS, as there is no chance that Muslim countries would agree to any Western definition or abide by it. For them, things are clear: the US and Israel are terrorists, while the Arabs and Muslims are either "freedom fighters" or they "fight back" out of "frustration" and "despair".
Even should the West agree unanimously on the formula of the State Department, there will remain the problem of who are the states which support terror and that President Bush pledged to regard also as terrorists. For example, Lebanon's government does not support terror openly, but it lets the Hizbullah operate in its territory, in conjunction with Iran and Syria who do support it. Or Saudi Arabia and Egypt, who are supposed to be aligned with the Americans, not only for fear of their wrath, but mainly because they are themselves threatened by domestic terrorism which jeopardizes their regimes; so, while they do not strictly encourage terror of give it shelter, Saudi Arabia does finance the Hamas and Islamic centers around the world which spawn terror, and both she and Egypt have permitted such a high level of home-grown incitement and hatred against the West and Israel, including in their state-controlled media, that it is doubtful whether they can be released from responsibility. We have seen above the furious rank-and-file American reactions to that incitement in the press of those "allies", but those who lodged the protests were unaware of the venomous anti-Western and anti-Jewish sermons in the Saudi mosques, and of the violent student demonstrations in Egyptian universities where not only support was voiced for the Palestinian Islamikaze, but horrendous scenes of massacres of Israeli civilians were re-enacted on campus while the police was looking.
Thus, only after having arrived at an internally agreed formula, fine enough not to let anyone slip through, and being aware that even though the West did not declare war on Islam, Muslim fundamentalists did vow to wage war on America and Israel, AWADS can then announce its rules of engagement with the Muslims, and the rest of the world for that matter:
1. Immigration from those countries to AWADS, will be strictly curtailed, in view of the Muslim undergrounds that have been festering in the past years in Europe and America, due to the extremely liberal policies of the West, which have been abused, right and left, by terrorist Muslim organizations. Control must not rely on the countries where immigration originates, not only because they are unwilling to stem the tide of the reconquista of Europe and of setting a Muslim foot in all continents, but even had they been willing to arrest the immigrants, their chaotic and corrupt systems would be incapable of implementing the decision. Therefore, only stringent defensives around AWADS countries, interception of illegal immigrants and their repatriation without ceremony, and expulsion from their territory of operatives who assist them, will slow down the invasion.
2. Immigration, tourism and study by Muslim aliens in the West will be allowed only to nationals of Muslims countries which themselves allow such an unhampered flow of Western immigrants, students and tourists, without discrimination towards other races, faiths or nationalities.
3. Economic aid, food grants, technical assistance, health and education, and development projects outside AWADS will be offered only centrally by the organization if certain conditions are met by the applicants/recipients, such as: accountability, progress in democratization and human rights, a tangible effort in population control, renouncement of force in dealing with others, monitoring and taking steps against their centers of incitement in the media and the mosques, and the like. The central choice of programs by the organization will not only eliminate the current competition between member-states, which generates a waste of funds and a disruption of priorities, but will act as a positive incentive on candidates for aid to improve domestically in order to qualify.
4. No military assistance or sales of weapons will be permitted by AWADS to non-member states, experience having shown that armed dictators are more lethally equipped to perpetuate their brutality and to divert their national wealth to undesirable ends; AWADS will also announce that any weapon-manufacturing third party which sells or transfers weapons to those regimes, will itself be disqualified from dealings with AWADS members.
5. Muslim assistance, especially by Saudi Arabia to building mosques and other Muslim institutions in the West, and their continued funding thereafter, will be made contingent upon parallel permission to build religious institutions for other faiths in Muslim countries, including the Arabian Peninsula, and on the contributor and the recipient's commitment that no incitement and no hatred would be propagated therein.
6. Import will be allowed to the West of Muslim cultural assets, in the form of books, movies, art shows and exhibits, performing art groups, missionaries and clerics, newspapers or tapes , only from countries that allow a free flow of the same Western assets to their territory, forbid by law the dissemination of hate and act upon that law..
Rules of Confrontation
AWADS ought to be the main world body to fight terrorism, when the rules of peaceful engagement have been violated, or in preparation to such an eventuality.
The struggle against terror is a continuous, never-relenting process, involving governments and populations, overt and covert means, punitive and preventive measures, legal and political, diplomatic and military initiatives, national and international efforts, education of the population to help avert catastrophe, and to deal with it when it strikes, morale, combat tactics and an overall strategy, intelligence gathering and analysis, and sometimes plain luck or sharp intuition can make the difference between disaster and relief.
If AWADS does not establish, lead and operate an integrated system of this sort, the world efforts against terror will remain diffuse, un-coordinated and inefficient; every country, organization and intelligence machine will remain suspicious of the others and jealous to preserve its own gathering networks and analysis staff, and every operational unit will be continue to elect its reputation and glory over the general good of the Western world.
The very joining of AWADS should be a sign by its members that they are willing to surrender some national pride and resources for the sake of eradicating terrorism and neutralize its causes. It is understood that the West has little patience for the tremendous waste in human power and resources which terrorism forces on it collectively by compelling it to spend so much energy and attention to prevention and watching. But it is exactly the challenge to the West to show to the terrorists that their goal of sagging Western strength into submission will not happen. As we have said before, a succession of three dichotomic concepts will have to be addressed: prevention and deterrence, punishment and reward, coping and eradication.
Prevention and Deterrence
When AWADS is established, its goals stated and the necessary resources, chains of command, operational tools and organizational frameworks wielded together, that in itself will signal to the Muslim terrorists that the West has taken up decisive steps to eradicate terror, and will no doubt act as a deterrent and preventive measure.
But the list of deeds only begins : preventive arrests of suspects worldwide, not only in the US; concerted intelligence efforts to penetrate terrorist rings, by all the means that human, electronic and communications intelligence can afford; stringent monitoring of AWADS countries borders, less generous visas, eviction of students originating from countries who support terrorism, and more difficult access to those in doubt; a blanket prohibition of the use of weapons and explosives by non-governmental agencies; outlawing operations and fund-raising for terrorist, or otherwise "charitable", Muslim organizations and freezing/confiscating their funds; a total ban on importing foreign money to build mosques for AWADS countries Muslims, or to finance their activities or other Muslim activities, unless the same is allowed to other faiths in Muslim countries.
Also, the special forces trained to battle terrorism or to curtail its activities, should be given high visibility, and the AWADS budgets for that purpose should be advertised, both to explain to its own population the burdens it is asked to bear, and also for the sake of deterrence of the prospective terrorists, who should know that they face an impregnable wall if they want to penetrate AWADS countries, and if they do succeed, their bodies would be returned in bags to their homelands, with great fanfare to deter others.
Select pre-emptive operations could also be held against bases of terrorists prior to their setting out for action against the West or its allies.
Punishment and Reward
Deterrence works only when a credible and devastating force of punishment (not revenge, as the Muslims would have it) is ready to be unleashed every time an identifiable act of terrorism is perpetrated.
Naturally, since the Islamikaze themselves are likely to perish in own blasts, the rapid detection of their sponsors, dispatchers, financers, supporters and trainers is crucial for swift and deadly retribution. No terrorist organization should escape unscathed by hiding under the apron of its sponsor state: just like the Taliban in Afghanistan, so the Hizbullah in Lebanon, the Hamas in Jordan or in the Palestinian Authority, the Tanzim and Aqsa Brigades under Palestinian rule, or the Islamic Jihad in Damascus, all should be aware that any terrorist activity emanating from their territory would bring destruction and devastation to their sponsoring country. This is the only way to make those countries responsible for eradicating terrorism in their midst or to signal to them that they cannot escape economic and political pressure to conform, in addition to military strikes, unless they relent.
Conversely, if those authorities battle terrorism themselves, which for them may amount to domestic insurgency that they are unable to control, like in the Philippines, AWADS would step in to help, to allocate generously equipment, funds and expertise, and to assist the self-purging society to make its steps towards even joining AWADS itself, if it meets the requirements.
Coping and Eradication
While total eradication of terrorism is apparently impossible, bringing it to manageable levels, like in the 1960s, is quite feasible, if the pressure on terrorist organizations keeps escalating to the point that their own societies would have to eject them from their midst.
The irony may be that, while Muslim countries may be willing and able to adopt the requisite steps to eradicate terror, if only to allow their regimes to survive, it may be that European countries themselves, who had allowed for years al-Qaida bases to thrive on their turf, would have difficulties to invoke the necessary legal and political steps to wipe out would-be terrorists in their lands.
In any case, no program of long-term eradication is possible if the citizenry of AWADS is not taught to cope with the new situation in the long haul. It is not only a matter of patience in long security lines, alertness to suspicious people or parcels, precautionary steps entering a building or exiting from it, night-watching in urban areas against terrorist mischief under the cover of darkness; but also training to be calm in the face of adversity and not to panic, how to assist the injured after a blast, how to block off a disaster area, to identify non-conventional blasts, to self-inject anti-dotes and to self-administer treatment, how to evacuate to hospital oneself and others, and how to accept placidly additional outlays that are not usually anticipated. A well-prepared, well-rehearsed and determined citizenry has proven, as in the unfortunate case of Israel, that it can not only reduce the panic and face up to the disaster, but also as a deterrent in the final analysis, when the terrorist enemy knows that his initial scheme of sowing terror and fear had been a-priori aborted.
These measures seem harsh, even inhuman and undemocratic to the squeamish and faint-hearted among us. But they are needed by democracies to defend themselves in this hour of emergency.
Other optimistic minds believe that by explaining and apologizing, the West's righteousness shall prevail and the bad spirits that have been threatening all of us shall be soothed and mitigated. Still others are expecting "other interpretations" of Islam to emerge, which will be more enlightened, accommodating and modern. Such interpretations do exist, but in the underground, they are based more on apologetics than on moral grounds, and their authors have been attacked, killed, maimed or disgraced.
The masses of the Arabs are not exposed to free speech and to liberal media with contradicting opinions, they are subjected to the uniform and repetitive message of hate and illusion that is hammered into their heads, day in day out, in the form of incitement, therefore they do not know any better. No enlightenment can be expected to emerge from a conservative Islam, which does not even possess the humanity of compassion to victims of terrorist massacres, and no liberal Muslim individuals will have the courage, let alone the power and stamina to enforce their dissenting marginal views on the terrifyingly deluded and incited masses.
Therefore, the West has no much choice but to go all the way all alone in thinking, planning and implementing its measures of self-defense and survival
By Raphael Israeli [Professor - Departments of Middle Eastern and East Asian Studies, Hebrew University]
Heavy language, but anyway, interesting article PING.
This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of good stuff that is worthy attention. I keep separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson, Lee Harris, David Warren, Orson Scott Card. You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about).
It sounds like a wonderfull idea. I would love to see an organization along these lines. Sadly Western Europe would never agree to most of th policies laid out in this essay. But it is possible for the democracies to unite even if they disagree.
Bump for later
I have LONG thought that this is the response that the REAL democracies should take with respect to the UN (i.e. they should drop membership in the UN and set up a new organization with essentially the identical policies outlined here).
Agree. Japan and Taiwan are primary candidates, South Korea as well. Democratic Alliance must replace UN, sooner the better.
and set up a new organization with essentially the identical policies outlined here).
You might want to take a look at
"Inside the Asylum"
why the united nations and old europe are worse than you think
by Jed Babin
He give some mention of this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.