Voices of Mexico no. 72

Our Voice

Two years after the invasion of Iraq, the horizons of the international order continue to be somber, and the preventive security defense policy imposed by Washington does not seem to have a successful future. Last July 7 the world was once again shaken by evidence that the terrorist threat has not abated. The London bombings demonstrate that the prolonged military action in Asia and the Middle East and the insistence on fighting the terrorist threat mainly militarily have only brought more death and destruction. The situation demands a comprehensive analysis of terrorism and the fight against it with the aim not of resolving it on the military front, but mainly in the sphere of policy and diplomacy, of development and international cooperation. Also, the gravity of the terror imposed by the bombings demands a true comprehension of the phenomenon on the part of the states involved, not from irreducible or fundamentalist positions, but by getting at the origin of the problems that have caused such profound polarization. For example, if there is no rapid, effective solution to the bloody differences between Israel, Palestine and a large part of the Arab world, there will be no way out, and bombs, occupying troops and blood-letting will continue to be international frontpage news. The military might and aggressive, unilateral foreign policy imposed by the U.S. government —to which the governments of Tony Blair in Great Britain and José María Aznar in Spain added their support, albeit with only minimal backing from their citizenries— have constituted the main obstacle facing those who have come out for the discussion of peaceful, multilateral alternatives. Perhaps the first premise that should be examined is if we are really witnessing a total war, as President Bush says, or it is a grave international conflict that must certainly be attacked from a totally different strategic perspective. In that sense, this conflict should be dealt with from the standpoint of the action of rational state actors and that of non-state actors who, precisely because they are anonymous, threaten to strike at the most sensitive part of democratic countries, that is, social consensus.