The International Terrorism SUBJECT AREA - Topical Issues CSC 95 THE INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MILITARY ISSUES PAPER BY COLONEL ALFALASI JUMA, U.A.E. QUANTICO, VIRGINIA APRIL 1995 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Title: The International Terrorism Author: Colonel Alfalasi Juma, U.A.E. Armed Forces Thesis: The continuous use of terrorism warfare around the world and its effect on international security and relationships. Background: Terrorism is not an Islamic or Arabic invention or Palestinian innovation. It is a unique instrument in the political turmoil in modern times. At first, terrorism was known as an expression and practiced two centuries ago. While the organized and unorganized wars are sold as human kind, terrorism did not crystallize actually until 1773. It was during the "Reign of Terror" in France in the 1790's when the English and French termed the word terrorism. During the French Revolution, Robespierre and St. Just practiced political violence on a large scale. Out of 27 million Frenchmen, 90,000 were beheaded and 300,000 were jailed. Political violence can be a revolution if it succeeds in bringing down a regime and seizing the power of the ruling class as evidenced during the Russian revolution in 1917. It can be terrorism, if it succeeds in creating political unrest, as in Latin America. A terrorist could be a revolutionary, and a revolutionary could be a terrorist according to one's point of view. At the same time, the world considers a terrorist a defendant to be trailed as the terrorist acts as a judge of the political system it is trying to change. The first half of the 20th century saw numerous wars while the latter half, only the Iran-Iraq and Gulf war. Presently, political movements are adapting violence and guerilla warfare as a means to achieve their aims. Recommendation: What is required for countering terrorism is cooperation instead of confrontation or imposition of one's will upon another. History teaches us that some countries are leaders who are instrumental in the formation of worldwide policies. The need to utilize the United Nations to enforce laws and rules according to logic and ethics is extremely important in the world community. OUTLINE The roots of terrorism and the outlook to the year 2000. Thesis Statement: The continuous use of terrorism warfare around the world and its effect on international security and relationships. I. Historical background II. The threats of international security and relationships III. To counter these threats, a policy of deterrence should be implemented: A. World intelligence gathering is essential. B. Anti-terrorism warfare should be planned by the United Nations. C. Aerial surveillance and early warning systems must be established. D. The need for S.O.G. - United Nations TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1 II. TERRORISM OF COUNTRIES 12 III. THE ISLAMIC SUMMIT 16 IV. USE OF ADVANCED WEAPONS BY FUTURE INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS 27 V. POSSIBILITIES OF USING NUCLEAR WEAPONS 30 VI. THE INFLUENCE OF THE MEDIA 34 CONCLUSION 42 BIBLIOGRAPHY 47 END NOTES 48 CHAPTER 1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Terrorism is not an Islamic or Arabic invention or Palestinian innovation. It is a unique instrument in the political turmoil in modern times. At first, terrorism was known as an expression and practiced two centuries ago. While the organized and unorganized wars took its toll on humans, terrorism did not crystallize actually until 1773. It was during the "Reign of Terror" in France in the 1790's when the English and French termed the word terrorism. During the French Revolution, Robespierre and St. Just practiced political violence on a large scale. Out of 27 million Frenchmen, 90,000 were beheaded and 300,000 were jailed. Political violence can be a revolution if it succeeds in bringing down a regime and seizing power of the ruling class as evidenced during the Russian revolution in 1917. It can be terrorism if it succeeds in creating political unrest as in Latin America. A terrorist could be a revolutionary, and a revolutionary could be a terrorist according to one's point of view. At the same time, a terrorist is seen through the eyes of the whole world as being a criminal committing a crime against humanity, while the terrorist acts as a judge of the political system it is trying to change. In his book Terrorism, Walter Liqueur mentioned that terrorist movements would usually start as small groups, while researchers will concentrate usually on large groups. Liqueur noticed that terrorism always claims defending some certain aspects of our time. Some undisciplined forces would float on the surface of the ideological strategy of the leftists or rightists which always provide those more interested in violence instead of liberty and justice. As a matter of fact, terrorism has a lot to do with politics. "The concept of politics based on the saying that it is social activity supported by the force of law in order to ensure the external security and internal unity in a frame of political unit keeps order in the middle of disputes which might be aroused due to the interests and opinion diversities."1 But at the same time, it does not mean terrorism cannot influence politics, or terrorism cannot achieve its goals. Due to terrorism's interaction with politics, it can offer a major problem which is the complexion of the political relations from both the enemy and friendly point of view. In 1954, Egypt completed negotiations with Britain on withdrawal from the Suez Canal and dissolved the British military bases. At the same time, Egypt was negotiating with the United States for military assistance. Israel was also trying to offer some proposal for political compromise with Egypt. Israel was watching these contacts with the Western world concerned about its own political future. Israel's objectives at the time were: 1. Geographical expansion at the coast of Syria and Jordan in order to complete the boundaries of Israel before any political compromise. 2. Breaking the Arabic force. 3. Convincing the United States that Israel is the natural ally and not the Arab states. In order to achieve these objectives, Great Britain and the United States needed to break down the contacts between Egypt and Great Britain and on the other side, Egypt and the United States.2 For that reason, the Israeli military intelligence created undercover groups to carry out terrorist operations in Egypt. That group was supposed to report directly to the Israeli Defence Minister, who at the time was Benhas Lavon. The group arrived in Egypt in June 1954 and was joined by another group already operating within Egypt. They began a series of terrorist operations such as: bomb attacks on the British theater in Cairo; on the main Post Office; and on the Cairo bus station. They even tried to set some of Cairo's theaters on fire. It was unclear whether this action was aimed at the British or American interests. But as a result, it delayed negotiations between the three and any effort for political settlement between Egypt and Israel. During the arsonist's try in Alexandria, Philip Natason, leader of the group's 13 other members was arrested. Ten other members were also arrested, but two managed to escape from Egypt. In October 1954, the Egyptian Interior Minister announced the arrests. After one week, they were referred to the Military Court. In January 1955, the Court ordered the execution of four members (two in absentia) and jail terms for six with two being found not guilty. In Israel an investigation committee was formed. The task was to identify those responsible for backing the group. Was it the Defence Minister, Lavon or the Director of Military Intelligence? Even though no specific answer was reached, the Israeli Prime Minister asked for the resignation of the two officers and they resigned in February 1955. The terrorists objectives used terrorist methods. But neither the terrorist objectives nor the terrorist methods were condemned by London or Washington. As terrorism has a special and circumstantial case in relation to political conflict, it is also different from the latter. There are differences between the various types of terrorism, especially what is called political terrorism. Terrorism is political only when it has certain meanings in political fields. Political terrorism does not end in assassination. It is more than that, even though assassination is an integral part of the terrorist action. Terrorism is such a decisive action, and that is why it is used in politics. It is a method based on violence that plays a very important part in finding a solution to political disputes or shaping the results through what terrorism does in the main stream of violent political conflict. In some cases, it becomes the only method that parties may find in order to go in a conflict due to some social, ideological or economical reason. In the two cases, terrorism has one role to play--to create a status quo in the conflict. Hijacking is not a new word introduced by the Palestinians to the terrorism dictionary. In 1956, France hijacked a civilian Moroccan plane boarding five members of the Algerian revolutionary leadership on their way to Tunisia to attend a meeting with French officers. While in international skies over the sea, it was rammed by French fighters forcing it to land at an Algerian airport. France kept those members jailed until 1962 when Algeria got its independence. Two years later, the United States hijacked a Cuban flight that led to the death of 17 persons. During 1960- 1964, a total of 40 Cuban flights were hijacked and those responsible were warmly received at American airports. The U.S., encouraging and financing these incidents, was attempting to deprive Fidel Castro of his air fleet. In 1968, an Israeli air raid destroyed 13 civilian Lebanese planes that landed at the Beirut airport. By these examples, Arabs did not create terrorism, but were victims of the original inventors. The most eloquent example is Israel which built its existence with the help of the Irgun and Stern gangs. Menachim Begin was in charge of the der Yaseen massacre in 1948 in Palestine where 30 persons were massacred. He was wanted by the British judicial system on charges of a bomb attack on King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946. Some years later, despite these acts he became Prime Minister of Israel. Lt. Isaac Shamir, another Israeli leader led the team assassination of Count Bernadotte, the U.N. representative, because of his proposal establishing a confederation between Jordan and Palestine instead of advocating dividing Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. Ariel Sharon led the massacre at a Libyan village where 69 civilians died. This terrorism was continuous up to sabra and shatilo camps in Lebanon in September 1982 and to the PLO headquarters in Tunisia in October 1985. Southern Lebanon is still suffering from the series of terrorist actions Israeli forces carried out. Every time Lebanon asked the U.N. for a resolution against Israel, the U.S. veto in the Security Council aborted their try. This happened during the Israeli invasion, during the seizure of Beirut, and after that. U.S. support encourages the Israeli terrorism and to some extent participates in it by supporting the Israeli action politically and through military support. In his book, Isiam and War, Jean Paul Charley presents a theory saying: Islam includes (like all other great religions and philosophies, except those derived from the essential idea of external peace) religious texts belonging to the classical phases of Islamic history. These texts are pointed out and identified the conditions allowing Muslims to adapt war, or in more specific words, the legal circumstances that authorize Muslims using legal violence and the religious limit that this violence cannot surpass.3 Islam then, is not a religion of war, but as most other religions, accepts the action of war as either forced or is reluctant to use it. But even acceptance is included with special cases where religion would allow war when it is a fair war. The common understanding in the Western world about Islam is that terrorism is a trademark, so to say. This trademark is due to practices of some countries or to policies adapted by some movements that take Islam as ideology. It is obvious that these practices then give the impression that Islam is a religion which includes a great deal of violence that can be used in the political game. We have to differentiate whether these practices are abiding to the Islam religion. In this case, there are different explanations. Some Islamic movements adapt violence as it is legalized by Islam and some go far beyond. But, both depend on explanations of the religious text as shown in the Holy Koran or the Prophet's Hadis. This case lead us to the contradiction established by the extremists actions. These groups are very far from the essence of Islam even if they claim they are defending their religion. They don't respect the logical Islamic explanations for the Islamic doctrine which was established by the doctrine itself. Concerning the limits of war and revolution, the concept of the word "Jihad" has a wide range of meanings. It implies effort we do against ourselves and others. Some Islamic countries mixed the two concepts of Jihad and revolution through its political and military actions. In this case, the concept of revolution implies two meanings: The first refers to change and development in the political, social and economical infrastructure. The second refers to reviving, purifying and refining the moral and ethical values. At this level, revolution could be a violent act, but it should respect the legal conditions in its effectiveness, or it should compromise with the Islamic doctrine. Secondly, danger because of terrorism upon a country's national security is the same as a regular war and may be considered more. For the U.S., being defeated in war is not a strong possibility, however, in facing terrorism, the outcome becomes unknown. An example was terrorist operation costing 500 Marines their lives in Lebanon. We have seen from the previous discussion that countries exposed to terrorism's danger cannot depend upon the decisive action carried out by others in the international community. Article 51 in the United Nations Charter ensures the inherited rights of individuals and groups upon legal self-defense. Without international coordination and agreement, it is impossible to prevent the financing of terrorist organizations, stopping the flow of its weapons supplies and elimination the terrorist methods. The United Nations' unit for counter terrorism could operate in much the same way as U.N. peacekeeping forces, international emergency forces or establishing a criminal court to be responsible for terrorism trials in a manner similar to the International Court of Justice. As total international coordination and agreement is presently not possible, given the examples mentioned above, it is necessary for a country being attacked by terrorists to take the following actions: 1. To enact strong and integrated national legislation imposing severe sanctions for terrorism crimes. 2. To establish a strong organization for collecting information about terrorists and their activities in cooperation with friendly countries. 3. To impose strict and powerful systems for securing targeted persons and installations such as airports and other public places. 4. To form new units in police units and military forces capable of repressing terrorism operations. 5. To sign dual or multinational conventions with countries having common points of view and common interests towards terrorism and terrorist operations. These conventions state on exchanging support regarding information on terrorist units including the main condition that prevents terrorist from gaining benefits from the spoils. This can be achieved by delivering the terrorist to the countries hurt by the terrorism operations or by putting them on trial with extreme penalties given. 6. To impose punishment and embargoes upon those countries giving shelter to terrorists or supporting terrorist actions.4 CHAPTER II TERRORISM OF COUNTRIES In 1985, 25 Americans were killed in terrorist incidents abroad. In the same year, 1063 Americans died in their baths, 3,100 died in food suffocating and 43,500 Americans were killed in traffic accidents. In New York City alone, 1,384 were killed in criminal incidents. In 1991, more than 24,000 murders were registered in the U.S. more than the 1990 record by 500 crimes. A Senator commented on these number saying: "1991 witnessed how the world became more safe for Americans, when the nation became less safe for its citizens."5 That means the crime rate for every 1,000 Americans is 947 crimes in 1991 and 942 in 1990 compared with 980 in 1981. Most of the homicide crimes in 1988-1989 were related to drugs. The number of these crimes went down only to increase the rate of crimes without a known motive. It has presently become common to have people killed through random firing from cars on the highways or while waiting at traffic lights. Decreasing violence rates brought great debate in the U.S. Analysts agreed that it is not an easy matter and it needs years through educational programs and enforcing the morals of the new generation who did not know drugs and fire arms. Those who are already familiar with these kind of things, there is no hope to do something for them. Legislatives confirm that the court system is unable to find a solution.6 The international statistics show that between 1967- 1970, there were two million victims in the war in Nigeria alone; in 1971, one half million in Bangladesh; 100,000 and in Burundi and more than 30,000 in Uganda. In the south of Phils, more than 60,000 Muslims were claiming self-rule. There are no statistics about the numbers claimed in the wars in Chad, Rhodesia, Cambodia and Vietnam. The Iran- Iraqi war victims were estimated to number one million persons. In Southern Yemen, more than 10,000 persons were killed during one week of violence alone. The victims of the Lebanese civil war exceeds 125,000. No exact total is yet given for the Gulf war of 1990-1991. Who stands behind this terrorism which costs countries millions of dollars? When T.E. Lawrence furnished terrorist operation services in the Arab countries against Turks demolishing bridges and railways, Sir Winston Churchill, British Prime Minister endorsed these operations by saying "The Turkish army depends on this railway in its operations against British forces in Egypt. This narrow railway goes for hundreds of miles through the desert, if it is cut, the Turkish forces will be terminated."7 If we take these justifications as a general rule, it gives the Palestinians, for example, the right to demolish Israeli planes. Lawrence's mission not only hit the Turks, but also achieved Lawrence's original mission. Concerning Sharif Hussain's revolt against the Ottomans part of his message to the British Intelligence reads: Hussain's revolt in Hijaz is useful for Britain because it goes with the present aim-- crushing the Islamic forces and overcoming the Ottoman Empire. The countries to be established will not be of any harm for us, as Turkey before becoming a German tool, providing the Arabs are more stabilized than Turks--if they are well handled, they will remain in political discretion and small states.8 This political terrorism which deals with people's destiny, propagates reacting terrorism while looking for liberation and national sovereignty. Victims of the first kind of terrorism, such as war, are all innocent victims. Most types of terrorism are immoral and anti-human. Unfortunately, it becomes a rule in international politics because of the methods used to achieve an ultimate goal. Using violence to influence the political decisions of another country could lead to major changes in the rules of politics. Some countries possessing a nuclear arsenal against a lesser technologically developed country could bring down a regime of that country. On one side, small countries with limited capabilities could achieve an international presence by using violence in effective ways in order to disturb the powerful country. The most obvious example of the former is the U.S. and Panama and in the latter case, the U.S. and Libya. For that reason, some weak countries in terms of the traditional standard of military force can compete successfully with nuclear countries when using extremist terrorism skillfully. Terrorism can overcome the problem of limited sources and capabilities and as a result, it becomes an effective way to achieve the ambitions of those countries. Not only small countries would look to use terrorism, but also powerful countries may try to use it. Countries who depend on military power, to establish its external reaction, would use force to solve political problems. The international community's reaction against the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and the American aggression against Libya has proven that the powerful military action of two super powers could not achieve what was desired. CHAPTER III THE ISLAMIC SUMMIT Many observers considered the Seventh Islamic Summit in Casablanca in 1994 as an Arab summit run by Arab states. This was reflected throughout the statements and side discussions conducted during the week's time. What was discussed in Casablanca goes back to many historical incidents, and if this summit did not achieve an Arab reconciliation, it created the right environment for Arabic convergence which makes reconciliation a needed thing. The Islamic Summit was moderate in its dealing with both international and Arabic crises. Nevertheless, it did failed to achieve Arab reconciliation and not because its direct aim to achieve reconciliation. The Arab situation was very complicated and needed a lot of time and effort. As Moroccan Prime Minister, King Hassan said that any try on this effort: "...should be processed gradually, so it is more logical to look at results achieved and the proposed ones, taking into consideration two events to take place in Morocco next month which are the meeting of "Jerusalem Committee" and "The Arabic Parliamentary Union.""9 The Arabic reconciliation dominated the agenda as opposed to the issues of Islamic matters and economic cooperation among Arab countries. The Arabic situation was tension-filled due to the additional crises of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Jordanian-Palestinian dispute over holy places in Jerusalem, the increased Algerian-Moroccan dispute, the border area disputes between Egypt and Sudan near Halayeb and Saudi Arabia and Yemen, increased tensions due to extremism in Egypt and Algeria and the situation in Somalia. King Hassan's speech during the opening ceremony of the Islamic Foreign Minister's Conference failed to mention Jerusalem and Bosnia. It did not mean those cases were not worthy, but Arabic solidarity was the priority topic in the summit. King Hassan's stated political campaign exactly after the Gulf War was to break the wall between Iraq and its allies on one side and Kuwait and its allies on the other. For that reason he launched his 1992 tour to include Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Egypt, Syria and Jordan. He looked at the Seventh Islamic Summit as a chance to achieve Arab reconciliation especially between Iraq and Kuwait. The title of this summit was "Fraternity and Revival" which was intended to deepen the feeling of forgetting the Gulf crisis and its political and psychological results. This concept was enforced by a series of meetings held between the Moroccan king and Arab leaders focusing on Arab unity to be addressed at the summit sessions itself. Apart from the officially announced meetings were secret meetings between King Hussain and the Kuwaiti Foreign Minister, later confirmed by Al Majali, Jordanian Prime Minister. Information was leaked about a meeting between Taha Yaseer Ramadan, Iraqi Vice President and a top ranking Gulf official. The meeting of the two foreign ministers was the third of its kind to take place and it received high importance after Iraq's statements terminating the war with Israel. There is a big difference between the Sixth Summit in Dakar and the Seventh in Casablanca. It was the first time that all Arabic countries showed the necessary flexibility to the Moroccan intentions supported by Egypt. Observers had an unusual understanding of the Iraqi and Kuwaiti positions. Dakar's summit concentrated on pushing the two states "to deal with the pending matters through the spirit of Islamic fraternity." Iraq's Saddam Hussein went so far when he confirmed his willingness to propose steps to regain the confidence between Iraq and other Gulf countries. The Moroccan efforts also succeeded in compromising the Iraqi and Kuwaiti stands. These efforts changed the title of the decision concerning their dispute from "the sequences of the Iraqi invasion to Kuwait" to "the relationship between Iraq and Kuwait." The ministers of the Gulf countries also expressed relief over Iraq's recognition of the Kuwaiti border and a show of sympathy for the Iraqi people. At the same time, a meeting was held between Ali Abduhl Saleh, the Yemeni President and the Saudi Crown Prince. This meeting was the first between the leadership and was considered a good step toward decreasing tensions in their recent border crisis in order to keep it from spreading. The Moroccans were the prime winners of this summit. The Prime Minister said: We have to think about future enforcing of our relations in this changeable world because we can't change geography, nor mutual history. In that course, a meeting between the Algerian and Moroccan Foreign Ministers will be held next January to discuss mutual problems. It is agreed by the two countries to revise the mutual relationship and other pending problems. The meeting is proposed to discuss the last developments especially the problem of closing the borders.10 The Arabic disputes still exist, but some issues are not so sharp and sensitive as before. This summit made a real attempt at Arabic reconciliation. It also laid the framework of the Arab relations on the basis of balance and realities imposed by the international changing circumstances. Terrorism, practicing violence in the name of Islam, and monopolizing Islam representation were all matters engaged by the speakers at the Seventh Islamic summit in Casablanca. It should be noted that country participating delegates at the Conference included Interior Ministers and important security figures of each country making discussions and exchange of ideas possible. In addition, the military security summits, which were held simultaneously, may have achieved the same success as the summit itself. Some Muslim leaders see the assassination of the Egyptian President Anwar Al Sadat in 1981 as the birth of the violence phenomena in one of the most important countries in the ICO. Two previous ICO summits in 1984 and 1987 ignored this phenomena. The Dakar summit in 1991 took a stand against the violence in the name of Islam, without directly mentioning the word terrorism. This was considered a major step forward. Some Western sources said that most of the Arabic countries asked the Moroccans to add the violence case on the summit agenda and also requested additional action be taken in dealing with the Islamic violence in the East and the West. If ICO was not able to adopt a decision in some conflicts like Jerusalem, Bosnia and Kashmir, many felt the ICO should at least do something for at least one Arabic country fighting a real war against extremists. President Mubarak proposed an agreement of honor to be approved by all Islamic countries. But, terrorism was dealt with in the summit in a way aimed to refine the Islam vision rather than referring to the "stains" which related Islam to terrorist type action done in some ICO countries--clearly referring to Algeria and Egypt. The Saudi Foreign Minister believed: ... that if we reject any conduct against Islam from outside, including ICO countries which distorted that image, we should reject also any conduct from an Islamic country that may cause the same distortion. If we refuse any outside aggression, we should also refuse any aggression on the Islamic interest by an Islamic country. ICO moves on two axis, internal and external, and its determination to sort out terrorism is just on time. But goodwill among the Islamic countries is the main base for any kind of attitude. So we should reach something that can control the attitudes prevailing among the Islamic countries. The Algerian Foreign Minister's reference to the "expected regional result for the confrontation in Algeria" expressed his views for the quiet handling of terrorism at the summit. But the Egyptian Foreign Minister saw that "terrorism by the name of Islam is not a private Egyptian problem any more. It has become more imposing and it should be treated in a regional way but effective at the same time."12 But the question becomes, can the ICO take a clear stand on what is going on in more than a member country? Hamed al Ghabe, General Secretary of ICO thinks that this organization is not an ethical court to convict countries or to prove charges about supporting terrorist groups in another Islamic country. ICO is not even supposed to take any position in any political debate between Islam in countries or in the regional area. But in spite of that, we see Hussain Abusaleh, Sudanese Foreign Minister, insisting on finding a specific definition of world terrorism. The West described a country's national resistance as terrorism mixing between the legal right of resistance and violence for political reasons. ICO did not notice the interaction between the position of Islam inside the ICO countries and the outside world perception and the image of Islam in the West due to the wrong doings of extremists. Abdulhadi Boutnl, advisor to King Hussain of Morocco said, "what was achieved is a good and promising staff." Rather than waiting for the 8th summit in Tehran in 1977, it was agreed that ICO should address this phenomena before that time. It would be ridiculous that Iran would host an Islamic summit debating terrorism when Iran itself was one of the first countries charged with supporting extremist groups. The following are some views expressed by key players at the summit: Dr. Issam Aryan The narrow corner for those extremists were founded due to the repeated arrest which lasted for three years in some cases. This arrest is organized by the law, but the government is breaking the law. The person will stay in jail and will get the release order. The government will keep him for three years if he was not liquidated. That is the most serious thing. When the young man will feel he is dead by all means, he has no other choice but to use his gun. But here we have different things in 705 and 805 violence aims to control the country. But now, it's aim is to shake the state dignity, that means or a try to coverage.13 Dr. Amro Abdul Samie It has been said that there are some relationships between the extremists in Algeria, Tunis and Egypt. We heard about coordination among these countries of facing the violent directions which confirm the coordination basically between the Islamic groups.14 Dr. Mohammad Amara I believe there is media exaggeration. Extremism and violence is present in most Islamic countries and not only Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia. I believe we are facing a media plan started locally to maximize and escalate this phenomena--first in preparation to confrontation with the Islamic phenomena as all and to distort and abort this Islamic phenomena. When we compare between what is being written about Omas Abdul Rahman and other Islamic scholars who have millions of readers, we will realize that it is a designated plan. The American media is just trying to find a resemblance between Khomani of Iran when he left France and how Omar Abdul Rahman living in the U.S. he will come back to invade Egypt. It is the media phenomena exaggerating things because these extremists have not political experience at all. In 1981, those who killed Anwar Sadat though some members will come from the southern city of Asiet to seize power in Cairo. They are so naive that they could believe seizing power is so simple like that. There are three factors that set differences between extremism and moderate directions. The extremist direction antagonizes society and considers it as an unbeliever. This direction believes that the only solution is the change. There is a difference between violence as individual acts and the violence as theory and ideology. It was Sayed Kotib who first adopted this theory. The question now is why these ideas could find acceptance among young men rather than other age levels. Why did it spread in some environments rather than others. In other words, why is it more obvious in the south province of Egypt than in Cairo. And even in Cairo, why is it more popular in the racist poor suburbs of the capital. We believe the frustration due to the Islamic situation in the present time compared with its golden ages drive the fury young men out of control. The second reason is the provocation of the Islamic values. When comparing the tourist village and farming village in one Western country, we call it provocation. In Egypt there is no problem with the best cars in the world, but with the public buses. No problem with the finest wines, but with the drinking water. We are angry because some Hindu assaulted a Mosque in India, but we have mosques in Egypt assaulted as never before happening. These kind of phenomena provoke the values.15 Dr. Amro Abdul Salamie We would like to welcome the participants in this seminar which deals with this very serious subject. It is the terror in which some groups use in the name of Islam. And even we who are concentrating on this phenomena in Egypt, we believe that the importance goes far beyond the Egyptian case since many countries in the region are suffering due to this phenomena of 20 years old. The question in 1975 was why did this direction come out? We used to answer, for example, because of the 1967 war. After awhile, there was another question, why did these groups use violence? I think that the third question is: why did these groups look in a certain moment so confident that they did not act as to protect the movement but replace it? Actually, we are dealing with a changing and developing phenomena, and if we want to understand it, we should ask many questions. Not why it is founded, but why is it using violence. The Islamic movement in Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt, and on a smaller scale in Jordan and Kuwait, is accused of using violence. Here we have to differentiate between using a violent attitude of individuals and political groups representing itself as a substitute for the present political regime using violence as a method. In Egypt, we should look at the position of these groups concerning the assassination of Faraj Fouda. Most of the Islamists said they condemn the assassination, but Fouda was instigating like that, they justify the act. So many statements have taken a pro-Islamist direction condemning the assassination as principal, but it is necessary sometimes to punish some so and so. The first question is to try to understand and talk to this direction, which is an actual one having its entity--what is this direction position to violence? The second question, is why are they confident? The extremists in Egypt are confused between the desire of the government not to confront, and the weakness of the government. The Egyptian government hesitated to carry out total confrontation--that gives the feeling of not being willing to become involved due to weakness.16 At the same time, the Algerian experience was a bad lesson to the Egyptian extremists. Some people in Egypt thought that the election was just a trick. But, I believe this is not true because Algeria is not Egypt. But the question is what is the government's reaction to some practices done by certain extremist groups. For example, when followers of extremist groups dominate an area causing minor disturbances, the local police may not think it is a threat to the government so they will ignore this conduct. But when this conduct escalates to a larger scale, like killing a policeman, it sends a clearer message that these groups are so organized that they can confront the government. We come here to the most important point that it is not the right thing to consider these groups as solid because there are different points of views within these groups--those who believe in dialogue should speak out and deny violence as a means of seizing power. CHAPTER IV USE OF ADVANCED WEAPONS BY FUTURE INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS The terrorist organizations always try to approach any progress in the military sciences. They often get some weapons which are not available yet to particular country's armies. The Irish Republican Army (IRA) for example, used the weapon, "Armalite" which is an advanced version of the M-16. The IRA used this weapon even before it was used by the American Army. It was because the British Company, Sterling who produced the weapon gave the authority of production to some factories in Japan and Florida and consequently, it reached into the hands of terrorist organizations. Not limited only to the light weapons, terrorist organizations also used medium range weaponry (heavy weight and large size) like the multi-purpose machine gun M60 which comes with its ammunition link of 40 pounds in weight. This weapon is a major infantry weapon and is not fit for terrorist operations due to its large size, despite that it was used in previous incidents. While leftist terrorists used missiles like the SA-7, RPG, the rightist groups backed by the U.S. in Latin America used those provided by the CIA. Though there are no clues of using these sophisticated weapons, Red-Eye missiles seemed to be available, and the light weight anti-aircraft missile, Stinger seemed to make its debut in 1981. This missile can work with infrared aiming, as well as, ultraviolet which makes its hit a certainty. The American Military Weapon Association invented "Mac" after six years of research which was the smallest machine gun in the world (Ingram M-10). This machine gun was expected to be the main terrorist weapon during the 1980's and 1990's. It was discovered in 1981 that 350 units of this weapon managed to find their way to Northern Ireland. It is not a surprise that terrorist organizations can access the use of chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are prohibited internationally in accordance with the Laha Agreement of 1899 and Geneva Convention of 1925. But all world armies keep chemical war units ready to use within their armies in times of need. Israel used napalm during the 1967 war and in the 1980's in Lebanon. The U.S. used in addition to chemical weapons in Vietnam, some other types of chemicals such as: 1. Suffocating Chemicals: PHOSGENE 2. Nerve Chemicals: Sarin, Napon, Roman, Alpha X7 and Alpha R55. Available, but not used. 3. Blood Chemicals: Hydro Cyanide, Siatogin Chloroid. Available, but not used. 4. Vomiting Chemicals: ADM Like chemical weapons, terrorists tried to use biological weapons to treat rivers and water tanks. Some threats of this kind occurred, but were not executed. Where terrorism takes the place of the conventional war, it is possible that some countries will provide its terrorist agents with the most advanced weapons it may have, including those prohibited by the international community (since these terrorists do not abide to any rules or conventions). CHAPTER V POSSIBILITIES OF USING NUCLEAR WEAPONS Along with the invention of nuclear destruction weapons, there was an accepted idea that nuclear materials are very dangerous to deal with. It could not be handled by ordinary people. But with the growth of terrorism, to be a tool to be used by countries and gigantic organizations, this idea became a point of argument. In 1975, a number of scientific and political debates arose in the United States about what constituted the individual use of nuclear weapons. The spark of these debates was an American high school student who could reach to the theoretical construction of a small atomic bomb. When asked how he came to his conclusion, the student answered that anyone could construct one. This incident plugs the discussions about the possibilities for terrorist organizations to use atomic weapons. The question still needing an answer is, what if a terrorist managed to produce an atomic bomb, or to steal one, and threatened the complete destruction of a city? This idea was used in the movies also. In 1983, NBC produced a film about a terrorist group using a ship to carry an atomic bomb. They entered South Carolina and took some hostages. The threat was to destroy the entire city unless their demands were met by the U.S. government. At the end, the terrorists ignited the bomb and destroyed the city. The film initiated a wave of turmoil in the U.S. and the television station did not rebroadcast the film again due to the possible ideas it could generate. Therefore, this case was under discussion in the most serious studies about international terrorism. It is clear that terrorists will try to use nuclear weapons in the future. We can say here that with the increasing number of civilian nuclear complexes in the world, the nuclear knowledge is not restricted to super powers anymore. It is clear that some of the smallest countries have nuclear bombs now. It is also due to the increased number of workers in these complexes that nuclear secrets have become common knowledge. Three things are needed so a terrorist can produce nuclear bombs: 1) scientific knowledge; 2) facilities for production, and 3) nuclear raw materials. The acquisition of these three factors is no longer impossible now. However, experts in the field see that circumstances are not yet ready for terrorists to use nuclear weapons. These circumstances may occur in the future and it will be only a matter of time before terrorists use this destructive tool. All governments realize that this threat is probable but are not sure under what circumstances this threat will be used. We can now see that using nuclear weapons for terrorism is possible due to two important points: 1. Suicide operation phenomena which has begun in terrorist activities. Those willing to give up their lives will enable a suicidal group to use some kind of nuclear weapon during operations. 2. It is possible that science can provide mini- nuclear complexes or clinical nuclear weapons that terrorists can use. The most serious problem to be faced is that some rich, Third World countries are very interested in breaking the nuclear monopolization without a regard for global peace. These countries can finance terrorist projects to threaten the international security and safety to bring attention to their cause or to effect a change in policies. Unfortunately, this destructive dimension is not receiving the serious attention from researchers. Consideration is still given to the traditional methods of terrorism like the TWA hijacking from Athens to Beirut, holding Americans hostage for 18 days. Another serious incident was the bombing of an Indian airline where a terrorist of the Sikh cult put explosives onboard which led to the death of 329 passengers. There are a lot of similar incidents, but the international media does not give a lot of attention to them unless they are similar in magnitude to the TWA incident. It is also worthy to mention the Achille Lauro cruiseship and the sequences of these incidents. The objective or this operation was not hijacking. As the planned journey for the ship began from Boursaeed to the destination Port of Ashdood in Israel, four terrorists boarded in order to carry out offensive attacks against certain Israeli installations upon arrival in Israel. After leaving Alexandria, the four were compromised and they were forced to highjack the cruiser which later led to the hijacking of an Egyptian airline plane and intervention by American fighter planes. Hijacking the Egyptian plane to Malta and the two bomb attacks on Rome and Vienna airports show us the new tendencies in terrorism until it ends with the suicidal attack. If this development in methods continues forward, we really cannot exclude the possibility in the near future to have chemical weapons used by terrorists. CHAPTER VI THE INFLUENCE OF THE MEDIA Since counter terrorism became an essential part of NATO's foreign policy, the media of these countries has dealt with terrorism as an Arabic phenomena, and then as an Islamic one. It is Israel who first started hijacking in the Arabic region (air raid on Beirut Airport in 1968) and later knocking down the civilian Libyan flight in 1973. Although these actions were condemned by the U.N., the European and American media did not describe them as acts of Israeli terrorism. Some spy convictions appeared in the Western media during the Israeli massacres in Lebanon in 1978 and 1982 or even the previous ones committed inside Palestine, Egypt or Tunisia. It is noteworthy that Western press reported on the convictions making it look as if Islam was the real enemy of the West. Regardless of the reasons and aims of some terrorist operations, the Western media has not describe the offenses of other allies it favors. It is this same media who concentrates on any incident of Arabic involvement and calls it Arabic or Islamic terrorism. The object behind their reporting seems not to condemn terrorism but to distort the reputation of Islam and the identity of Arabs. Islamic media has found itself cornered against these continued and concentrated campaigns. This situation forces Arab countries and their media to react most of the time to misinterpreted, distorted and abused facts. The French magazine Paris Match once said, "The world is witnessing nowadays a new kind of violence against persons and properties based on religion and supported by the most extremist religions in the world."17 It is the same Western media who described the Palestinian resistance and Intifada as terrorism, while at the same time, describing the Afghan resistance against the Soviet occupation as "Hiojahedin" using one of the most holy adjectives in Islam. The Islamic media constantly faces the contradicted stands of the Western media when dealing with the main and essential Islamic matters. The U.S. and Western countries support of the Afghan Mujahedin is done not because of their national right, but because they are opposing the Soviet Union. The Islamic media cannot handle efficiently the double standard. This may be due to the absence of the Islamic media in the Western world. Even those established and founded in the U.S. and Europe, do not use the languages of these countries, but use the Arabic language aimed only at the Arab community rather than the population as a whole. I think that the media is a major player in all conflicts. War is based on the continuity of political conflict in order to achieve a desired end. The media is one major tool of a conflict in its political and war versions. The conflict between the advanced world and the developing world takes place in various fields. It is similar in politics, economy, education and sociology. The Arab and Islamic world is part of the developing world. Consequently, it is part of the conflict. When this conflict takes on a religious feature, in other words, when the international media will stand up to the holy symbols of Islam and when the Islamic media will stand up against the conflicts and erroneous reporting, then the situation will normalize. It will be a conflict on behalf of God and here is the point of danger. The media process integrates with the political and military processes in order to achieve an objective for a country or group of countries against another country or group of other countries. The media process goes through many phases. The most important are: First. Alerting the international community and preparing the feeling of enmity against a certain country. Flooding the international media with fabricated news in order to prepare international opinion to accept any aggressive action against that country, even if it is in contradiction with the values of peace and human rights. Using the media in political or psychological war is not something new. In 1986, the U.S. National Security Council put a plan in motion to overthrow the Libyan President Quaddafi. The basis of this plan was to harmonize between fictitious and actual facts in order to make the Libyan leader think his regime was collapsing, forcing him into taking uncontrolled reactions, thereby justifying using the American military against him. The CIA was tasked with spreading false news in the international media about the situation with Libya. The Secretary of State was tasked with promoting this news by pretending to take it seriously. The Wall street Journal was another tool in this charade reporting on the possibility of a coup d'etat, terrorist operations and preparation of U.S. intervention on the Soviet bases in Libya.18 The plan was exposed after a short time of being carried out. The Washington Post published a report under the title "Network Offices" showing the importance of making false new official reports in order to overthrow the Libyan President. As a result of the report, the Secretary of State official spokesman resigned saying, "...because of using official media tools to promote misleading news for the public opinion."19 Second. Seducing the target country to the media concern so planners will have the necessary new materials to deepen the feeling of enmity against that country. This means pushing the target country to make a mistake. This way has become a specialty in modern media. Third. Flooding public opinion with a flow of information news, comments and opinions which justify the aggression. This aggression will appear later on as legalized and approved by the public international opinions. To achieve these goals, two points are necessary: First. Neutralizing or having the media of the target country be absent or fail to report in the country's language. It is worthy to mention that Arabic media in the Western world is not a force. In addition to the regional and narrow approach of the various types of Arabic media, no single Arabic newspaper is published in Europe and in the U.S. Second. Flooding the media of the target country with a huge flow of media materials. The following shows what the media said and published prior to launching an attack. Associated Press 17 Million words per day United Press 11 Million words per day Reuter's 10.5 Million words per day AFP 3 Million words per day Total 41.5 Million words per day Add to this millions of words broadcasted by radio stations directed at the Arab world. We can then understand the reason Arabs are suffering confusion as in their concepts, values and options which are being distorted. Jean Paul Charnay noticed that European media is responsible directly for creating a type of confused effect relating violence to Islam in the European mind. Facts are revealed in a one-sided fashion. It basically helps to create certain concepts to the Europeans in general, and the French in particular. The media uses behavior or statements made by some Arab politician known for supporting terrorism, in order to exaggerate and create a spirit of haste and disgust against Arabs. But, as soon as we go into details, we find that these terrorist actions are not a result of the Islam religion or carried out by groups adopting Islamic doctrine. Terrorism is not necessarily an action of Islamic organizations. It could originate with secular or Christian groups such as Palestinians and Lebanese groups. Charnay saw that Europeans believed that the terrorism in Lebanon was limited to the Islamic movement only; when in fact, there is no way that it related Islam to terrorism. Unfortunately, this misunderstanding began because of the media's nature and its mechanism and then as a result of the political understanding in the mentality of the European societies. The press and media was offering general political information strategically motivated towards a specific plan. News about Arab terrorists operating against Israel and then the Israeli military reactions was generated. The Israeli aggressive reaction is then justified against the Arabic action in the European reader's mind. Whatever the consequences, whether the number of victims is "excessive" or the brutality, Israeli aggression is seen as a self-defense action in the European mentality. The U.S.'s most unfortunate and unnecessary foreign policy failure is in the former Yugoslavia where communist hard-liners mounted an attack to destroy the democratic government of Croatia. There have been excesses on both sides, but the cycle of violence resulted when Serbian aggression increased against other Yugoslav republics. In 1991 the U.N., the U.S. and the European community vacillated, equivocated, orated, condemned and ultimately did nothing to counter effectively the Serbian onslaught. The massacre of scores of shoppers and their children in Sarajevo in February 1994 would most certainly not have occurred had the West acted sooner. Following the massacre, the U.S. and its NATO allies issued an ultimatum to the Serbs to withdraw their weapons around Sarajevo stopping the siege of one city. But, the U.S. did not take action until forced to do so by the public reaction to bloody images on television. My personal opinion is had the Sarajevo citizens been Christian or Jewish, the civilized world would not have permitted the siege to continue. CONCLUSION Terrorism is a strategy of organized and continuous violence in order to achieve political aims. It is the style which concentrates on political violence, due to excluding other styles of violence like total or general wars since it leads to the termination of the two parties in any conflict. Terrorism which was the weapon of the weak party in the past, is a method used by various countries' intelligence agencies through supporting terrorist organizations and who operations are directed to attain benefits of the originating intelligence agency. The most serious thing about terrorism is that it is a war without rules, and that its victims are not necessarily involved in the dispute or conflict that the operations are made for. Terrorism aims mostly to affect the political decision of those countries at which it is aimed. Terrorism depends its strategy of using the modern technological methods and utilizing the huge reporting abilities of the international media in painting behind exciting head lines. Clues provide us that terrorism will be more fierce in the future with the possibility of using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. These weapons will be used as long as it serves some country's political objectives. The media's responsibility is to search in depth for the actual causes and show them to the public from different perspectives, and to include those other than those of the government in power. Individuals can then see the actual problem and place pressures on their governments to take action to deal with terrorism on an equal basis around the world and stop using it as a policy tool or pressure card whenever it is needed. Terrorism must be clarified from the other types of political violence and in order to sort out its real identification which looks so confusing. Terrorism becomes the common word used by any person who wants to describe his enemies. Some thoughtful observers have warned that if the West mishandles relations with the Muslim world, a "clash of civilizations" could pit the West against Islam. Recent military conflicts in Bosnia-Herzegovina with Bosnian Muslims and Christian Serbs fighting for control have supported this thesis. Further examples are in the former Soviet Union of Christian Armenians and Muslim Azerbaijanis; in Lebanon where Christian and Muslim militia have been slaughtering each other for years; and in Central Asia where religious tensions have contributed to the fighting in Tajikistan. The United States must not let the "clash of civilizations" to become the dominant characteristic of the post-Cold War era. The real danger is not that this clash is inevitable, but by the Western inaction, it will make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. By ignoring conflicts in which Muslim nations are victims, the Western world will invite a clash between the Western and Muslim worlds. Since the U.S. is the last super power remaining, no worldwide crisis is irrelevant. It must have a reputation for being an evenhanded player on the international stage and not contribute to an image promoted by extreme Muslim fundamentalists that the West is callous to the fate of Muslim nations, but protective of Christian and Jewish nations. The "clash" will only be avoided if Islam fundamentalist forces take over the Muslim world. At present those regimes are still a minority, comprising only ten per cent of the Islamic world's total population. Countries such as Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt and Indonesia are seeking to combine the best of the West and Muslim cultures as a way to a better life. Whittaker Chambers wrote that communism was a faith and it was only as strong as the-failure of all other faiths. Muslim fundamentalism is a strong faith, appealing to the religious, not secular; to the soul, not the body. Neither secular Western nor secular Muslim values can compete with this faith. The U.S. being the strongest and richest nation is not enough. What will be decisive is the power of great ideas, both religious and secular that make the U.S. a super power. Both the West and the Muslims have profound differences in their cultural and historical development and can learn from each other by studying the reasons for the past failures and successes. What is required to counter terrorism is cooperation instead of confrontation or dedicating behaviors by force upon others. History has taught us the club of powerful countries has always been in existence with its spreading worldwide policies. However, its membership is continuously changing and it is incumbent upon the old members to give way to the newcomers. So, the principles which were established by the powerful ones will influence those less powerful. It is incumbent that they take care of the ideas they put forth and the resulting laws which govern all. Those laws should be according to logic and ethical values rather than a further extension of their political influence. Richard Nixon, former U.S. President depicted the stage we are now in which sums up the potential for success: The 20th century has been a period of conflict between the West and the Muslim world. If we work together we can make the 21st century not just a time of peace in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, but a century in which, beyond peace, two great civilizations will enrich each other and the rest of the world-- not just by their arms and their wealth, but by the eternal appeal of their ideals.20 BIBLIOGRAPHY Charley, Jean Paul. Islam and War. Liqueur, Walter. 1987. Terrorism. Mohamd Alsmak. 1994. Terrorism. Nixon, Richard. 1994. Beyond Peace. NOTES 1. Walter Liqueur, Terrorism, pp. 266-295. 2. Jean Paul Charley, Islam and War. 3. Ibid. 4. Mohamd Alsmak, Terrorism, Dar Anfas, 1994, p. 67-100. 5. Richard Nixon, Beyond Peace, 1994, p. 1-155. 6. Ibid. 7. Liqueur, p. 266-295. 8. Ibid. 9. Moroccan Prime Minister, King Hassan, Islamic Summit, Casablanca, 1994. 10. Ibid. 11. Alsmak, p. 67-100. 12. Ibid. 13. Dr. Issam Aryan, Al Majalla, 1994. 14. Dr. Amro Abdul Samie, Al Majalla, 1994. 15. Dr. Mohammad Amara, Al Majalla, 1994. 16. Dr. Armo Adbul Salamie, Al Majalla, 1994. 17. Charley, Islam and War. 18. Nixon, p. 1-155. 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid.
