A real fight against terrorism
One of the popular myths out there is that ordinary people wake up one day and choose on the spur of the moment to become terrorists. That they suddenly say to themselves, "Gee, I think I'll decide to hate [enemy of the day] and blow some people up."
Another popular myth is that poverty causes terrorism. If it were, then Africa would be the worldwide center of international terrorism because it's the region with the most poverty.
In reality, terrorism is nourished by senses of desperation, powerlessness and hopelessness. Though poverty are contributors to those two sentiments, it is not a cause of terrorism in and of itself.
Fortunately, some people can see beyond those (somewhat self-serving) myths. Such, King Mohammed VI of Morocco, arguably the most progressive and most democratic country in the Arab world (its occupation of Western Sahara aside).
King Mohammed has launched a program to improve quality of life in the country's urban slums, a prime recruiting ground for radical Islam.
Mohammed VI said the problem was the country's most serious social issue, and made a reference to Islamic extremists preying on Morocco's poor. It was young men from the city slums who carried out the suicide bombings that left 45 dead in May 2003. Their poverty and desperation apparently made them ready recruits for Islamic extremist cells, according to the BBC.
"Any exploitation of social misery aiming at political ends, at nurturing extremist inclinations... cannot be morally accepted," noted the king.
The program, which will cost almost US$115 million, will bring the basics of clean water and schools to the dusty, corrugated iron wastelands, where so many thousands of Moroccans live.
This is one of the realities that the so-called war on terrorism ignores. The fact of the matter is that in many places, Islamist organizations provide services that the corrupt, inefficient or non-existent state does not. For example, the group Hezbollah has run hospitals, schools, orphanages and a television station since the chaotic years of the Lebanon's civil war. The group Hamas also provides welfare and social social services to residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, services which neither the Israeli occupiers or the Palestinian Authority provide. In other words, these groups are filling a vacuum. Thus, it's no surprise that while westerners see these groups as terrorists, many residents of Lebanon and the Palestinian territories have a different view.
Morocco's king is wise to try and fill that vacuum before Islamist groups do. And hopefully the 'terrorist warriors' will help him and other progressive-minded leaders do the same. It's not as exciting as blowing (someone else's) stuff up, nor does it cause the adrenaline rush of invading random, non-threatening countries. But it's a heck of a lot more relevant to actually preventing terrorism.
3 Comments:
owukori,
What I said was that Morocco was "ARGUABLY the most progressive and most democratic country in the Arab world " You provided one, single example of a more progressive, more democratic country: Lebanon. I will not argue with you the point that Morocco has its fair share of problems. I will not argue with you that development is not what it could be. It is from perfect. However, it is not a country suffocated by a brutal, corrupt military like Algeria. It is not a police state like Tunisia (even if it used to be). There is some breathing space for political opposition and civil society groups, unlike in Egypt or Syria or Libya. It's not a 16th century theocracy like Saudi Arabia. The king pushed through reform of the family code, requiring that women actually be treated something close to humanely. So yes, compared to its neighbors in the Arab world (save Lebanon, as you mentioned), I'd say Morocco is a relatively progressive country, relative compared not to Sweden or Holland, but to its neighbors. I'm sorry but if a country like Morocco is taking steps in the right direction, it should be praised and encouraged to do more. This doesn't mean anyone should refrain from criticizing Moroccan human rights abuses or its occupation of Western Sahara (a friend is involved with the pressure group ARSO and keeps me up to date on their activities).
I do not see Morocco as a democratic country, even by Arab standards. True, parliamentarians are elected but you only need discuss with Moroccans to see that the king holds absolute power in that kingdom. Morocco is like the rest of its Arab North African neighbors a de facto police state.
The monarchy in Morocco is incredibly powerful and cannot be questioned. Journalists who have attempted to write about the wealth of the king have been imprisoned or forced into exile. Nothing bad can be said about the king either in the print or electronic media. Little wonder that 'dissident' Moroccan websites are located and run from countries such as France, Belgium and the Netherlands.
King Mohammed VI may be doing a great job by providing social and economic incentives to his subjects, but he pretty much knows that like most of his Arab peers from Libya to Egypt and Saudi Arabia to Jordan, he sitting on a time bomb that is being fueled by the anger of Moroccans who would like to see greater freedom and inclusion in the polity of the country they call home.
Well the key is to remember that my analysis was a comparative one. I do not think Morocco is progressive compared to, say, Sweden or the Netherlands or, for that matter, South Africa.
However compared to most of its Arab neighbors, Lebanon aside, it's better off. Not a high standard, I realize. But can you imagine any other Arab monarchy or monarchical republic setting up a truth and reconciliation commission*? How about another Arab regime allowing the opposition to be prime minister and form the government?
*- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4457267.stm
Post a Comment
<< Home