Friends of Amida - Spiritual Networking -
Engage Buddhism: Is International Terrorism the greatest Threat to our Security?
Beyond Terror: The Truth About the Real Threats to Our World
In about a month’s time, Turning the Tide, the nonviolent social change network that I am part of, is having a “macro analysis” day. Macro analysis is about looking at the major trends that are happening in the world or will happen in the next five years and then looking at whether we should make any adjustments to the priorities of the Turning the Tide programme.
As preparation for the day I am currently reading a book called Beyond Terror: The Truth About the Real Threats to Our World by Chris Abbott, Paul Rogers and John Sloboda. Chris and John are from the Oxford Research Group and Paul is Professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University. The Oxford Research Group is one of the UK’s leading think tanks. It develops policy on national and international security.
Since the sight of planes flying into the twin towers on 11 September 2001, Western leaders have presented us with the unquestioning belief that international terrorism is is one of, if not THE, greatest threat to our security and the ‘war on terror’ is a necessary and effective response. This book debunks that. It agues terrorism is not the greatest threat to the world and the ‘war on terror’ is failing and actually increasing the likelihood of more terrorist attacks. Those trends that are most likely to lead to large-scale loss of life, (of a magnitude unmatched by other potential threats) and have the greatest potential to spark violent conflict, civil unrest or destabilisation that threaten the international system as we know it are climate change, competition over resources, marginalisation of the majority world and global militarisation.
It seemed to me reading this book that, for Western Governments, wealth, power and control over oil resources are more important than peace, security, and the long term future of the planet. The book did not say this and maybe I am being unduly cynical.
The book explained wealth exclusion: Overall global wealth has increased, but the benefits have not been equally shared, with a very heavy concentration in relatively few parts of the world. The gap between rich and poor is growing, with one in seven people on this planet not getting enough food to lead a healthy active life. 10 million of these die each year from hunger and hunger related diseases, yet there is enough food to feed the entire global population of 6.4 billion people. Poverty and inequality cause organised crime,social disorder and cultural tensions to thrive especially in the ever expanding urban areas. It would be a gross over simplification to say that poverty leads to terrorism. However growing inequality is one strand of discontent especially as modern communication technologies such as satellite television and the internet, mean there is growing awareness of the rich -poor divide.
Political exclusion. The book shows how the US and its allies are facing a decline in their perceived legitimacy because they are not abiding by the same rules they seek to impose on others but instead act on the principle that the only way to protect their security is by eroding others’ human rights. For example detention without trial in Guantanamo Bay, the widespread and deliberate bombing of civilian infrastructure in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the abuse and torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison are widely reported on TV news channels such as al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya.
Yet the US State Department’s own figures show that the number of US citizens killed each year by international terrorism is rarely more than two dozen. Even in 2001 when 2500 died, it is tiny compared to the number of innocent civilians killed by the US in other parts of the world or compared to US citizens dieing from other causes. For example in 2001 in USA 3,500 US citizens died from malnutrition, 14,000 died from HIV/AIDS, 42,000 were killed in traffic accidents and 62,000 died from pneumonia.
Many of the people suffering from political and wealth exclusion are talented and educated. They are faced with oppression, political disenfranchisement and a lack of opportunity which creates a sense of marginalisation. The book gives examples of British foreign policy and shows how current security policies and the ‘war on terror’ are not reacting appropriately to this trend and are actually causing an increase in support for radical and violent movements such as the al-Qaida network.
Competition over Resources: In the past 30 years or so, various resources have become depleted, but oil is the one resource that has a big impact on Western consumers and is a potential source of global conflict, especially between USA and China. China is rapidly becoming significant, partly from its rapid industrialisation and partly because, like the USA, it can no longer produce enough oil from its domestic oil fields. By 2010 it will need to import half its oil. The Middle East is the potential flash-point area of the world as it has two thirds of the world oil reserves. Since the 1970’s USA has had a unified military command call CENTCOM (US Central Command). CENTCOM’s zone of responsibility is centred on the Persian Gulf, and extends to South West Asia, North East Africa and the Caspian Basin. CENTCOM has hundreds of planes, scores of war ships and several hundred thousand troops. So any talk of a complete US withdrawal from Iraq is specious. It is establishing four permanent military bases there, three of them near oil fields. For the USA it is a core security requirement that it is able to deploy military forces that can maintain control of the region – for as long as the Persian Gulf is central to world oil supplies – no matter what the cost in innocent lives and global insecurity.
Climate Change. The book does not spend much time arguing whether humans are or are not causing climate change and whether there is or is not time to avoid more than a 2 degree rise in average global temperatures. Instead it looks at the global security implications of climate change and its effects and concludes that even for rich countries like the United States the imminent and long term security implications are far more serious, lasting and destructive than those of international terrorism. I was interested in the book’s argument that switching from oil to nuclear power can not be the answer to climatic change, either from a resources or a security point of view. Nuclear power could only supply the entire world electricity demand for three years before sources with low uranium content would have to be mined. Nuclear energy is not a carbon free technology. One of the main factors is the amount of carbon dioxide produced by the mining and enriching of uranium ore. The use of poorer ores in nuclear reactors would produce more carbon dioxide than burning fossil fuels directly. From a security point of view, nuclear power obviously encourages the spread of the technology and materials that could be used in the making of nuclear weapons and their use by ‘rogue states’ or terrorist networks.
Oil security and climate change are different aspects of the same problem. A more secure and reliable response is a rapid shift to renewable energy sources and radical energy conservation practices.
The global militarisation chapter gives a brief history of the cold war and shows that there is a persistent tendency by the authorities to maintain an aura of control and responsibility, when this is very far from what is actually happening. For example, in 1983 there was a crisis called Able Archer that happened without the world realising. It was not until afterwards that academics and analysts learned how close we had come to nuclear war. Able Archer was a test of NATO’s nuclear-release procedures, but the Soviet leadership thought the war games were a cover for an imminent NATO attack and placed nuclear capable planes on standby at East German bases.
Since the end of the cold war there has been a shift by powerful Governments, such as USA and Britain, away from heavy armour on the ground towards pre-emptive first strike mass destruction weapons delivered from a distance. These include the new generation of nuclear weapons; cluster bombs, which are far more pernicious than individual anti-personnel land mines, are cheaper to lay than land mines and are outside the Ottawa treaty; biological weapons which given the developments in genetic engineering and biotechnology have for the first time the potential to become effective weapons of war; and the USA star wars programme.
The book is well researched and backs up its arguments with interesting facts, yet (at 93 pages) is short and easy to read.
Beyond Terror: The Truth About the Real Threats to Our World by Chris Abbott, Paul Rogers and John Sloboda. Price £5 ISBN 9781846040702.
In about a month’s time, Turning the Tide, the nonviolent social change network that I am part of, is having a “macro analysis” day. Macro analysis is about looking at the major trends that are happening in the world or will happen in the next five years and then looking at whether we should make any adjustments to the priorities of the Turning the Tide programme.
As preparation for the day I am currently reading a book called Beyond Terror: The Truth About the Real Threats to Our World by Chris Abbott, Paul Rogers and John Sloboda. Chris and John are from the Oxford Research Group and Paul is Professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University. The Oxford Research Group is one of the UK’s leading think tanks. It develops policy on national and international security.
Since the sight of planes flying into the twin towers on 11 September 2001, Western leaders have presented us with the unquestioning belief that international terrorism is is one of, if not THE, greatest threat to our security and the ‘war on terror’ is a necessary and effective response. This book debunks that. It agues terrorism is not the greatest threat to the world and the ‘war on terror’ is failing and actually increasing the likelihood of more terrorist attacks. Those trends that are most likely to lead to large-scale loss of life, (of a magnitude unmatched by other potential threats) and have the greatest potential to spark violent conflict, civil unrest or destabilisation that threaten the international system as we know it are climate change, competition over resources, marginalisation of the majority world and global militarisation.
It seemed to me reading this book that, for Western Governments, wealth, power and control over oil resources are more important than peace, security, and the long term future of the planet. The book did not say this and maybe I am being unduly cynical.
The book explained wealth exclusion: Overall global wealth has increased, but the benefits have not been equally shared, with a very heavy concentration in relatively few parts of the world. The gap between rich and poor is growing, with one in seven people on this planet not getting enough food to lead a healthy active life. 10 million of these die each year from hunger and hunger related diseases, yet there is enough food to feed the entire global population of 6.4 billion people. Poverty and inequality cause organised crime,social disorder and cultural tensions to thrive especially in the ever expanding urban areas. It would be a gross over simplification to say that poverty leads to terrorism. However growing inequality is one strand of discontent especially as modern communication technologies such as satellite television and the internet, mean there is growing awareness of the rich -poor divide.
Political exclusion. The book shows how the US and its allies are facing a decline in their perceived legitimacy because they are not abiding by the same rules they seek to impose on others but instead act on the principle that the only way to protect their security is by eroding others’ human rights. For example detention without trial in Guantanamo Bay, the widespread and deliberate bombing of civilian infrastructure in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the abuse and torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison are widely reported on TV news channels such as al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya.
Yet the US State Department’s own figures show that the number of US citizens killed each year by international terrorism is rarely more than two dozen. Even in 2001 when 2500 died, it is tiny compared to the number of innocent civilians killed by the US in other parts of the world or compared to US citizens dieing from other causes. For example in 2001 in USA 3,500 US citizens died from malnutrition, 14,000 died from HIV/AIDS, 42,000 were killed in traffic accidents and 62,000 died from pneumonia.
Many of the people suffering from political and wealth exclusion are talented and educated. They are faced with oppression, political disenfranchisement and a lack of opportunity which creates a sense of marginalisation. The book gives examples of British foreign policy and shows how current security policies and the ‘war on terror’ are not reacting appropriately to this trend and are actually causing an increase in support for radical and violent movements such as the al-Qaida network.
Competition over Resources: In the past 30 years or so, various resources have become depleted, but oil is the one resource that has a big impact on Western consumers and is a potential source of global conflict, especially between USA and China. China is rapidly becoming significant, partly from its rapid industrialisation and partly because, like the USA, it can no longer produce enough oil from its domestic oil fields. By 2010 it will need to import half its oil. The Middle East is the potential flash-point area of the world as it has two thirds of the world oil reserves. Since the 1970’s USA has had a unified military command call CENTCOM (US Central Command). CENTCOM’s zone of responsibility is centred on the Persian Gulf, and extends to South West Asia, North East Africa and the Caspian Basin. CENTCOM has hundreds of planes, scores of war ships and several hundred thousand troops. So any talk of a complete US withdrawal from Iraq is specious. It is establishing four permanent military bases there, three of them near oil fields. For the USA it is a core security requirement that it is able to deploy military forces that can maintain control of the region – for as long as the Persian Gulf is central to world oil supplies – no matter what the cost in innocent lives and global insecurity.
Climate Change. The book does not spend much time arguing whether humans are or are not causing climate change and whether there is or is not time to avoid more than a 2 degree rise in average global temperatures. Instead it looks at the global security implications of climate change and its effects and concludes that even for rich countries like the United States the imminent and long term security implications are far more serious, lasting and destructive than those of international terrorism. I was interested in the book’s argument that switching from oil to nuclear power can not be the answer to climatic change, either from a resources or a security point of view. Nuclear power could only supply the entire world electricity demand for three years before sources with low uranium content would have to be mined. Nuclear energy is not a carbon free technology. One of the main factors is the amount of carbon dioxide produced by the mining and enriching of uranium ore. The use of poorer ores in nuclear reactors would produce more carbon dioxide than burning fossil fuels directly. From a security point of view, nuclear power obviously encourages the spread of the technology and materials that could be used in the making of nuclear weapons and their use by ‘rogue states’ or terrorist networks.
Oil security and climate change are different aspects of the same problem. A more secure and reliable response is a rapid shift to renewable energy sources and radical energy conservation practices.
The global militarisation chapter gives a brief history of the cold war and shows that there is a persistent tendency by the authorities to maintain an aura of control and responsibility, when this is very far from what is actually happening. For example, in 1983 there was a crisis called Able Archer that happened without the world realising. It was not until afterwards that academics and analysts learned how close we had come to nuclear war. Able Archer was a test of NATO’s nuclear-release procedures, but the Soviet leadership thought the war games were a cover for an imminent NATO attack and placed nuclear capable planes on standby at East German bases.
Since the end of the cold war there has been a shift by powerful Governments, such as USA and Britain, away from heavy armour on the ground towards pre-emptive first strike mass destruction weapons delivered from a distance. These include the new generation of nuclear weapons; cluster bombs, which are far more pernicious than individual anti-personnel land mines, are cheaper to lay than land mines and are outside the Ottawa treaty; biological weapons which given the developments in genetic engineering and biotechnology have for the first time the potential to become effective weapons of war; and the USA star wars programme.
The book is well researched and backs up its arguments with interesting facts, yet (at 93 pages) is short and easy to read.
Beyond Terror: The Truth About the Real Threats to Our World by Chris Abbott, Paul Rogers and John Sloboda. Price £5 ISBN 9781846040702.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Joaquim Monteiro on -
Dear Zee Zee:
Thank you for presenting a book with much valuable considerations. I am not an specialist in international politics and my knowledge of terrorism is very shallow, but it is very clear for me that terrorism is not the central matter of our age. This ideology of the "war on terror" looks to me to be the most grotesque form of evading the real matters of our age.
Thak you very much-Gashô.
Joaquim Monteiro. ( Shaku Shoshin )
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Modiano on -
As you've presented it, I'm in substantial agreement with the thesis of Beyond Terror, and I would add The Terrorism Trap by Michael Parenti and the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares as supporting arguments from other sources.
-
Permalink Reply by Dharmavidya on -
I tend toward the view that in reality "terrorism" is something that will always be with us, but that it is for the most part a marginal phenomenon. The problem with the "war on terror" is that it gives the whole matter far too much prominence and this has to be counter-productive. It also distracts from far more important problems. Of course, I would much prefer a world where guerilla warfare or any kind of violence did not occur, but the Buddhist way to move toward this is to create the conditions where a stable yet creative and dynamic society becomes possible and this is a matter of finding the right kind of middle path, informed by compassion and wisdom. It is, broadly speaking, more productive to build than to spend one's time trying to destroy the demolition agents.
-
Permalink Reply by Emma on -
I do not think that todays so called "International Terrorism" is at anymore of a threat to our freedom and security than it was in say ancient roman times or neolithic times. The real threat comes from people in general, whos minds are "closed" to possibilities and endless opportunities to experience the same as we do.
I believe that this so called "war on terror" is just a miserable excuse to try and express the way this world and how its people are going.
The world is on a downward spiral at its present state and if left to continue it will destroy it and everything inside it. It once was said that just 3 well placed nuclear bombs detonated at the same time would indeed end life on earth as we know it and even possibly blow it to dust.
Going foward as we are destroying other peoples "human rights" can only lead further to our own problems and create even biger rifts between countries, rather than trying to unite, educate and free these people, it can only end one way.
A shift in the perceptions of these leaders needs to occur as it cannot continue as it is, they hide behind this "war on terror" to control, frighten and enslave other countries and seize hold of whatever assets it may have that will benefit its own country (oil, food, water, gas etc..) yet in doing so, they cause unmeasurable suffering.
Not everyone can hold the right way and no leader can please everyone, but as Dharmavidya put it so neatly a "middle way" of finding a way to unite these people and share resources should be found rather than trying to just take by force.
Violence, agression, greed, slander and glutony will always be part of human nature, it goes with living on this planet, but also there is the opposites to and also the grey part in between, as nothing is ever completely black or white, wrong or right. There is also the middle way of various difference hues of grey. This is what the world strives for in truth, yet it has reached a climax now where it has gone either one way or the other.
About
Badge
© 2009 Created by Kaspalita on Ning. Create Your Own Social Network
