FROM TERRORISM TO TOLERANCE
Artículo de Jim
Hoagland en "The Washington Post" del 6-10-04
Por su interés y relevancia, he
seleccionado el artículo que sigue para incluirlo en este sitio web.
(L. B.-B.)
The struggle that most Americans call the war on
terrorism will be won by Muslims and lost by Muslims at its now-distant end. The
U.S. role must progressively shrink to shaping the battlefield for that contest
rather than waging the war as an American-run enterprise.
This will be true whether Nov. 2 brings victory to George W. Bush or to
John {grv} Kerry.
The next administration will need to pursue a
revised strategy that puts Muslim governments and institutions on the front line
of a civil war within Islam that the United States was drawn into on Sept. 11,
2001.
The mobilizing utility of the "war on terrorism" label has run its course.
To continue to use it for rhetorical or organizational purposes would obscure
the moral, political and social responsibilities that Muslim societies must now
assume to cleanse themselves of fanatical fringe groups and ideologies.
Terrorism, it has been widely argued, is a tactic rather than an actual
enemy.
Such sophistry obscures this essential point: Terrorism is a graphic
expression of the intolerance that the Islamist fanatics preach, practice and --
most important -- demand that their co-religionists adopt to become observant
Muslims. Terrorism is not just a tactic. It is also a statement of the inhuman
values that motivate those who organize suicide bombings, hostage-taking and
televised beheadings.
To the extent that any label can help, this must become a war for
something. It must become a campaign for tolerance -- for the simple human
decency involved in respecting and, when necessary, protecting the differing
beliefs and identities of others.
Christianity and other religions are historically not strangers to using
theological justification for holy warriors and sanctified atrocities. But in
its latest manifestation, which dates roughly from the 1979 Iranian revolution,
the struggle between Sunni and Shiite Muslims for domination of Islam has made
that religion this era's most important and deadly religious battleground.
The related military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq -- the operational
definition of the "war on terrorism" -- have had this clarifying effect: Muslim
governments that for more than a quarter-century ignored or sought to profit
from the spread of intolerance toward non-Muslims can no longer pursue those
options with impunity. The intolerance they countenanced or actively encouraged
has metastasized into an all-consuming ideology of religious hatred that now
threatens them as well.
Egypt and Saudi Arabia can no longer callously export their extremists and
the Wahhabist-inspired doctrine that animates them. Sudan and Yemen can no
longer safely sell protection and material support to al Qaeda and its ilk. When
the USS Cole was bombed in 2000, Yemeni authorities, aided by solicitous U.S.
diplomats and policymakers, frustrated the original FBI investigation of the
attack.
Now Yemen helps in the hunt for al Qaeda. A Yemeni court imposed death
sentences on two of the Cole saboteurs last week. That is one measure of the
change wrought in the brutal opening phase of the struggle to contain and
eradicate the most virulent strains of intolerance.
But these strategic gains must be consolidated into a new approach that
establishes the obvious: Not only Americans or Britons or Italians are
threatened by the hatemongers and must act to defend themselves. The wave of
kidnappings and theologically justified executions of hostages in Iraq may
paradoxically help in this necessary effort.
When kidnappers demanded as ransom that the French government change a law
about religious attire in schools that affected the country's large Muslim
minority, the leaders of that community quickly rejected that interference with
their rights and duties as French citizens. Last week British Muslims went on
television to plead for the life of a British hostage. Muslim clerics in Turkey
and Egypt have asked for the release of fellow nationals as an Islamic duty.
As small and halting as they may be, such reactions represent progress
over the moral and strategic blindness that prevailed in the region on Sept. 10,
2001.
But it is not enough for French or British or Egyptian Muslims to plead
for lives to be spared because they share the nationality or the religion of
hostages. Only by pleading for the lives of fellow human beings of whatever
nationality or religion, and by depriving the hostage-takers of any shred of
religious justification, can Islamic leaders purge their community of this
illness.
Launching a war against al Qaeda and other terrorism groups and their
supporters was necessary. Pursuing it in its present form will not be
sufficient, for President Bush or for President Kerry. The leadership in a
broader struggle must inexorably pass to Muslims who honor tolerance and human
dignity -- and who are willing to place themselves at risk to defend those
values for all faiths and races.