Publication: Race and Class
Publication Date: 01-JUL-04
Format: Online - approximately 8796 words
Delivery: Immediate Online Access
Author: Tujan, Antonio ; Gaughran, Audrey ; Mollett, Howard
Article Excerpt
Abstract: The war on terror is affecting developing countries and development policy and practice. The international focus on counter-terrorism and security has influenced aid allocations and the nature of donor co-operation with developing countries. Counter-terrorism is being used to justify practices that undermine the achievement of development goals and run contrary to international commitments on human rights. Increases in military aid and the export of arms are jeopardising human security and livelihoods in many parts of the world.
Keywords: aid, counter-terrorism, human rights, military, September 11
**********
The global 'war on terror', launched after the September 11,2001 attack on the World Trade Center, has become an important defining influence on global affairs. It covers more than the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan and other military actions, as initiated by the US and supported by countries such as the UK and the Philippines. For fighting terrorism is not just a matter of identifying and neutralising terrorist groups in a war effort. Since terrorism does not represent the humanist, democratic aspirations of the people, but, in its narrow extremist logic, is more akin to fascism, the implication is that terrorist groups can be isolated from the overall social and political matrix of poverty and underdevelopment by a combination of social, economic and political measures coupled with police action. Isolating terrorist groups is not that simple, however.
It is frequently assumed that there is a development dimension to fighting terrorism and that a causal relationship exists between terrorism and the conditions of poverty and underdevelopment commonly associated with the countries where terrorism thrives. While a causal relationship has not been established, what is clear is that terrorism is able to utilise the conditions of dehumanisation that result from poverty, the militarisation of society, violent occupation and war as a justification for gathering some sympathy for indiscriminate, inhuman acts of violence against perceived oppressors and their supporters. In this sense only is the dehumanisation arising from poverty and injustice turned into a social base for terrorism.
In apprehending terrorism, the issues of social justice and development become of paramount concern. Terrorism can only be effectively combated within a framework of peace and development that upholds social justice and human rights, promotes inclusion and empowerment and enhances international understanding. In this sense, a war on terrorism in which ending terrorism itself is the paramount objective or the singular focus cannot be successful. But, too, development cannot be made an appendage to a war on terrorism.
The post-September 11 war on terror, by its very definition, takes a primarily militarist approach. But unless the social, economic, cultural and political contexts of terrorism are addressed, military action cannot solve the problem of terrorism. Rather, such action exacerbates it, as terrorism tends to thrive and further escalate in the face of military suppression alone.
The war on terror has made the world hostage to a definition of 'global security' understood as the security of the global powers. For example, the identification of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the 'axis of evil' addresses the security interests of some global powers, but not necessarily the security of the Middle East or, indeed, much of the rest of the world. The designation of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines as a foreign terrorist organisation and the particular identification of its leader, Jose Maria Sison, as a terrorist may be valid for the United States and the Philippine government under the Arroyo administration, but is not widely supported by the Filipino population.
In a matter of two years, then, the war on terror has significantly reshaped the world according to its objective of so-called global security. In the US, human rights have been recast, with the 'right to freedom from fear' paramount, according to Harold Hongju Koh, professor of international law at Yale Law School. (1) (It has to be presumed that the right to freedom from fear is not, however, viewed as a universal right.)
The war on terror has resulted in the militarisation of globalisation, according to which the integration of markets remains the main economic imperative, but is pursued within the framework of the global security agenda. The militarisation of globalisation effectively allows the global powers to bring military force to bear in securing their economic interests, removing opposition and threats and, with them, people's economic, social, cultural and political rights. Such political repression and military suppression mainly affect the poorest and most marginalised sectors and communities. As a result, political and social conditions that foster exclusion, poverty and underdevelopment are exacerbated. Weaker sectors of the domestic economy, often the means of livelihood of the poorest groups in society, are the most vulnerable to the negative impacts of military operations.
Security considerations provide justification and opportunity for strengthening the boundaries between the global North and the global South. While globalisation espouses economic integration and the free movement of capital, this has never included the free movement of people. The war on terror has, in fact, provided an excuse for pursuing vigorously the pre-September 11 agenda of increasing constraints on the movement--and the human rights--of refugees and economic migrants.
As the war on terror becomes the number one global political priority, development co-operation is increasingly being influenced or captured by the global security agenda. Security considerations are being promoted as key in the granting of development aid, either in the selection of programmes or partners or in the actual promotion of military or quasi-military assistance as development aid. Governance and the rule of law, promoted in development co-operation, are also being reinterpreted to encompass more effective anti-terror legislation and enforcement.
Even without the complications arising from the war on terror, however, the problem of terrorism has become increasingly unmanageable and internationalised--also as a result of globalisation. This situation makes the objective of global security increasingly urgent, requiring effective international co-ordination, based on a commonality of objective and action among all peace-loving nations.
Peace and security are essential conditions for the development and wellbeing of people and communities. But at what cost and through what means are these to be achieved? The more important question, however, is what kind of peace and security would achieve the goals of development and wellbeing for all people? Pacification through a military solution or genuine peace and security through social justice, inclusion and international understanding?
The war on terror and trends in foreign aid
Since September 11, leading foreign aid donors have been reorienting their aid programmes to address the war on terror. The 'securitisation' of aid is increasingly obvious; several donors, including the US and the EU, have strengthened formal links between their foreign, security and development policies, with long-term consequences for development co-operation and developing countries. Such trends have serious implications for the development of many poor countries that depend on foreign assistance.
Below, we examine how the war on terror has influenced the development policies and practices of four major donors: the US, Japan, Australia and the EU. Southeast Asia is considered the 'second front' in the US-led war on terror and the US claims that the region, home to 200 million Muslims, hosts groups belonging to the al Qaida network.
US bilateral aid is increasingly allocated according to concerns related to the war on terror. Countries with large Muslim populations and insurgency movements are automatic priorities for US assistance. After September 11, Washington substantially increased its foreign aid to Pakistan, India, the Philippines and Indonesia--these countries are now the foci of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism efforts in South and East Asia.
Statistics on US bilateral assistance in South and East Asia show an increasing emphasis on military aid:
* US official development assistance (ODA) to East Asia grew by 47 per cent between 2000 and 2003. In addition, the US economic support fund (ESF) grew by 104 per cent during the same period. However, these rises are dwarfed by huge increases in military-related aid. Expenditure through the US foreign military fund (FMF) in East Asia, for example, grew by 1,614 per cent between 2000 and 2003; during the same period, expenditure on US international military education and training (IMET) grew by 4,575 per cent. IMET is currently the largest US aid...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.
More articles from
Race and Class
Women Writing Africa: the southern region., 01-JUL-05
Books received., 01-APR-05
Spoken Here: travels among threatened languages, 01-APR-05
Looking for additional articles?
Click here to search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Click here to search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information. |
