Underlying causes must be pulled up by their roots

It is also praiseworthy that the leaders of the people of faith -- Christians, Muslims and Jews -- immediately came out and made joint statements condemning this heinous attack and agreed to work together to stop further attacks. Al-Qaida connected organisations reportedly claimed responsibility for the attacks and that put the UK Muslim community under immediate suspicion. Such reactions were undoubtedly unwarranted as the mindless work of some disgruntled individuals cannot be the reason for putting the blame on the entire community. Though certain areas witnessed some sporadic disturbances including vandalising of mosques, as was also seen in New Zealand, immediate actions by the law enforcing agencies brought situations under control. Later Prime Minister Blair spoke in the House of Commons and emphasised on the need for maintaining harmonious community relationship. One can hope that good sense would prevail and the situation would remain calm.

However, such an attack in the heart of London brought into light the real truth -- the truth that no amount of security measures can stop such attacks from the determined but mindless people, howsoever condemnable these acts are. Therefore, the solution lies in finding the real roots of discontent that lead to such terrible attacks against innocent people who have nothing to do with events unfolding elsewhere. Indeed, immediate actions must be taken to redress them effectively. Prime Minister Tony Blair was absolutely right when he said that the 'underlying causes of terrorism' must be "pulled up by its roots,.... Probably with this type of terrorism the solution cannot be the security measures. I have never doubted this myself... the underlying issues have to be dealt with too, in terms of trying to get rid of this dreadful perversion of the true faith of Islam."

This time Tony Blair's stand on terrorism which is certainly the right one, turns out to be at odds with that of his great friend Bush who said -- we must take the fight to the enemy till they are defeated. President Bush is, as usual, ill advised. The people responsible for such attacks cannot be defeated; they only multiply and spread like fire. This is why it is no use pursuing bin Laden or Al- Zarqavi to their dark caves. If they are caught and killed, more and indeed bigger bin Ladens and Zarqavis will rise up and make the life of world community a hell. Whatever President Bush might call them -- insurgents or terrorists -- the US Administration created them in Afghanistan and Iraq and those insurgents are indeed taking the fight to their "enemies" and striking at ease at targets of their choice -- Twin Towers, Madrid, Bali and now London. Unfortunately, they are killing the innocent people.

For the real answer, one does not have to travel very far -- as far as Srebrenica where the UN and the world community failed to save 8000 Muslim men and boys from the genocide committed by the Bosnian forces. Just see what has been happening in Iraq. In the name of flushing out insurgents, the innocent Iraqis are being killed by the American army and there British involvement made the innocent lives of Britons so insecure --many Londoners had to pay the price. Though nothing can justify London carnage, the truth of the matter, however, is that insurgents' actions also cannot justify America's army actions against the innocent Iraqis. At the dead of night American army kick-open Iraqi family homes and look for insurgents among traumatised and trembling Iraqi women in night-gowns and children in shorts. Is it the way to spread Bush's liberty and democracy among Iraqis? Saddam killed or gassed 5000 Kurds as they were seen by Saddam as insurgents. For Bush, many Iraqis are insurgents and his army is killing them. The number is at least 25 times higher than what Saddam killed. So for the civilized world, what is the difference when it comes to killing insurgents? Then why should Saddam alone be tried in the Hague court?

It's not that only Iraqis are being killed; the American men and women are also being sacrificed in Iraq for spreading Bush's freedom and democracy there. Who asked him to do this? Iraq has been the most developed among the Arab countries. Before UN sanctions, Iraqis had enough in all respects food, water electricity, medicine etc. Women had the full liberty to go round and work without any discrimination; 12 years of UN sanction made them impoverished, half a million kids lost their lives because of malnutrition. But Saddam made his fortunes all right. He had his palaces which are presently being conveniently used by the Americans while Saddam is in jail. So what was the purpose? Saddam was not punished; Iraqis were punished by the UN -- a body of civilized nations.

When justice does not exist in the Security Council of the world body, how can we expect just behaviour from those who have been suffering for years under the UN sanction? The situation came to a head with Bush's unilateral attack on Iraq which even the UN could not stop. Then the question arises as to why the world should have the UN at all, let alone it be expanded, when one country can completely defy the UN and dismember a sovereign country. Now the world is facing the attacks against innocent civilians and more attacks including dirty bomb or biological attacks are being talked about and indeed cannot be ruled out. Who are responsible for all these disasters? These words may sound very rough and tough and indeed annoying, but the time has come to raise these questions openly as the ordinary citizens of the world -- the innocent people are becoming the targets. May be London bomb victims are some who joined the crowd of some two million that protested Iraq war. Why should they be among the casualties? It's no use blaming only the insurgents; those created them are really to blame.

All said and done, there is absolutely no doubt that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and their root causes must be "pulled up by their roots" as put by Prime Minister Tony Blair. Indeed, the answer lies in what Spain -- a member of EU did and showed by solid proof that the "terrorists" can be won. Talk to them, take care of their problems at least to an acceptable level and bring them in to civil society system. They are also human beings and not born insurgents; they also want to live -- live like normal human beings provided their problems are taken care of. Spain did it to a large extent and the communities are living together peacefully. Hopefully, this would continue. They should, however, show similar conciliatory attitude to the ETA too.

Even half a century old religious conflict in Northern Ireland resulting in terrible violence and terrorism came to a reasonable situation because of the negotiations that brought these two religious communities to the talking level. Interesting enough is the latest peace between deadly rivals in Sudan John Garang has been brought into the political system as he joined the government as the Vice President. So there is no doubt that negotiations are the best means to bring the rebels into the peace fold provided genuine desire is there for peace among all parties involved in the conflicts.

The present world is no longer a place where war can solve problems. President Bush's vow that the war (if he meant military intervention only) on terror must continue is too dangerous in a nuclear world. President Bush is too back-dated or trying to practice neo-colonialism through unilateral military means -- by defying the UN. He must read history and see what has happened to Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire and similar other powers. America must abandon its Jewish idea that talking to the rebels giving in to terrorism. No, that's not true. The good examples have been mentioned above. The world must talk the rebels into what is good for them and for the world. Negotiation is the only means to solve problems. If giving autonomy is the answer, give it as long as it is agreed to be practiced within the limits of a country's sovereignty. It is quite in line with the extended meaning of democratic principles. Democracy is not a solid hard nut. It should be flexible enough to accommodate variables that exist in societies and this is how democracy should work and be meaningful for the people.

Muslehuddin Ahmad is former Secretary and Ambassador and founder VC of North South University and Presidency University. He is also the Chairman of Civic Watch-Bangladesh and Movement Against Corruption.