Violent extremism and Saudi Arabia
Osama bin Laden was a Saudi national until Saudi Arabia revoked his citizenship. He came from the wealthy and large bin Laden family which has also disowned him due to his involvement in Al-Qaida and terrorism. Al-Qaida came from the mujahideen operations in Soviet-invaded Afghanistan. Bin Laden established the ideologically driven group to create conflict between Islam and the West. Al-Qaida used terrorism for this purpose.
Bin Laden set up terrorist training camps in Afghanistan where it was believed that in the mid-1990s 70 per cent of recruits in the camps were from Saudi Arabia. This may have been related to bin Laden's offer of mujahideen to protect Saudi Arabia being rejected in 1991 and bin Laden soon after issuing a self-styled fatwa condemning the House of Saud and demanding Muslims drive American forces out of Saudi Arabia. The high number of Saudi nationals being involved in Al-Qaida translated into the September 11 attacks with 15 of the 19 hijackers being Saudi Arabian.
The recent Brookings Institute Iraq Index publication has another interesting statistic. Of foreign insurgents killed in Iraq, Saudi Arabians account for 68 per cent, with 94 killed. It is estimated that the Iraqi insurgents number approximately 20,000. Of these around 1,000 of them are foreign fighters. In comparison to other nations, Saudi Arabia is over-represented when it comes to violent extremism.
Advertisement
Secular liberalism
The Saudi Arabian example shows that secular liberalism is not the problem, it is state-supported religion in autocratic regimes that is the main cause of disruption and disturbance in the world. Saudi Arabia is one of the more extreme examples. Disaffected Saudis are unable to change the state through voting, their monarchy being totally opposed to any form of popular merit. The Saudi schools teach a non-tolerant form of Salafism, and that is exported by Saudi money to madrassas internationally.
Since the state and Salafism are entwined, those that reject the state must also reject the Saudi form of Sunnism, often doing so by embracing a more radical, extreme and violent interpretation of Salafism. Adding to this is the demographics for the Middle East. About 60 per cent of the Middle East is under the age of 24. This leads to a massive problem that is having global repercussions.
Once again Indonesia is the great modern hope, through the people voting their own will, Indonesia has established a secular democracy embracing secular and liberal democratic traditions. It is important to note, it was the wisdom of the people that led Indonesia to this position. In 1999 the Indonesia people overthrew the Suharto dictatorship through a popular uprising, and then voted in secular, rather than religious parties.
Indonesians wanted good government, and gave themselves the environment to avoid the problems that Saudi Arabia, Iran and other parts of the Middle East face. When Indonesia was wracked by terrorism, it was quickly squashed through trials conducted openly and publicly. Rather than military trials which are conducted privately, the civil judicial system has popular legitimacy and the involvement of jurors.
The anti-reformation
Labor and Liberalism won in the 20th century. The major parties in Australia are social-democratic. Both left and right continue to expand the state and social services. Under the supposedly conservative Liberal government in Australia, the percent of GDP collected by the government in tax has increased from 26 per cent to nearly 35 per cent. Liberalism also won. Multiculturalism, which is a logical outcome of maximum liberty, was accepted: as was economic liberty through economic rationalism.
After September 11, the United States decided to pursue terrorism as a military problem. The United Kingdom and Australia were quick to follow. All three nations realigned their domestic focus to what appears to a permanent "National Security State". No longer are cities, or nations defined by their society, their culture, their economy or their liberty; they are now defined by how secure they are. Advocates of the National Security State go as far as to claim that a city or nation that is insecure is a failed one.
Advertisement
Australia, the US and the UK have expanded the private space of government by giving new powers to the "shadow state". Western nations have used terrorism and the "National Security State" to collapse the public actions of government and hide them from public view.
In the US, the Transport Security Agency has laws that the public must follow, but cannot read. Laws are now becoming secret. This makes them impossible to follow. The PATRIOT Act allows the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to act without civil oversight, or the knowledge of the suspect. The Act also enables the mixing of domestic and foreign intelligence; a result of the US deciding on a military solution to terrorism.
Attacking speech and liberty
The US has not acted to outlaw free speech, but the UK which has recently faced home-grown terrorism, now is. Foreigners that engage in hateful speech can be deported. From a BBC article:
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
8 posts so far.