For years, Americans have watched news clips of bomb blasts, suicide attacks and other acts of terrorism aimed at civilians, from all over the world. Shots of bloodied faces, wailing relatives and destroyed buildings have been beamed into the homes of Americans from Kashmir and Colombo and Northern Ireland and the Mideast. Terrorism has been a part of daily life for residents of those places — in Srinagar, as much as in Belfast, troops are constantly patrolling the streets. Yet, that doesn't stop acts of brutal terror against innocents taking place.Yet, for the most part, U.S. policymakers have tended to either downplay the gravity of such occurrences or tried to play a mediation role. Many people feel that America, by urging other governments to negotiate with militant organizations, treats perpetrators and victims equally. Often the terrorists are called "freedom fighters," imbuing them with a romantic hue that somehow legitimizes their horrible deeds. Many of these groups receive financial and other support from organizations and individuals based in Western countries. It is no secret that money flows from countries like Canada and Australia to the IRA in Ireland, for example, or the Tamil cause in Sri Lanka, as it once did to Sikh separatists in Punjab. This is not to say that no one should sympathize with those causes or by doing so is necessarily fuelling terrorism. But victim countries are well within their rights when they ask Western governments to help curb such financial support so that militant organizations, which believe in violence, are starved of much needed cash. Yet, most Western governments claim the donors are not violating any domestic laws and, therefore, cannot be reined in. Politicians' fear of losing support is, of course, one reason no one wants to upset ethnic communities that maintain close ties with their countries of origin, but the notion of multiculturalism, as preached and practised by the West, is also to blame. In the past two decades, the mantra of multiculturalism has assumed almost sacred status — not confined merely to acceptance of different faiths and cultures, but allowing "minority" communities leeway to pretty much run their own affairs. The state, which otherwise does not hesitate to prescribe and proscribe behaviour, becomes ultra-careful about appearing to interfere in any way in community matters for fear of being branded racist, thus allowing the most regressive and even dangerous elements to have a free run. Instead of promoting the idea of citizenship and subscribing to commonly held values, the overly multicultural state promotes differences. This is because the Western world places culture, race, religion, language and, most of all, ethnicity at the centre of identity. Cultural identity is valued more than common citizenship and commitment to the core values that make the modern nation-state. Those who believe, genuinely enough, that the cultural rights of people are valuable and should be protected, tend to take too narrow a focus. They lobby governments on behalf of ethnic minorities that are quick to take advantage and ensure that their cause is kept in the spotlight and their affairs not too closely questioned. From there, supporting those who are fighting secessionist wars on the basis of ethnicity is a short step.
Terrorism is terrorism, whatever the cause, and attacks on civilians must be met with retribution
|
The genuine human rights of all must be respected and protected, but do the victims not have a point when they feel the West is being somewhat sanctimonious and selective in its condemnation? Terrorism is terrorism, whatever the cause, and attacks on civilians must be met with retribution, not lectures. In the past, the United States has been reluctant to make terrorism a major foreign policy issue. It was too remote and not connected to immediate American interests. All that will have to change now. As the events of Sept. 11, 2001 have shown, no one can take safety for granted. Even the most powerful are vulnerable. Already there is talk of a broad coalition of democracies across the globe to combat the menace of terrorism; countries like the U.S. and Canada will have to take a key leadership role. They will have to work closely with countries that have suffered the ravages of terrorism. This will mean changing not only American and Canadian foreign policy but taking a fresh, new look at domestic policies, too. Identity politics cannot be allowed to get out of hand.
Sidharth Bhatia is an Indian journalist and Associate Press Fellow at Cambridge University. He is based in Toronto.
|