'Are western foreign policies responsible for global terrorism?'

One cannot think that there is any more appropriate answer to his question than a most emphatic: YES.

But before I explain why, it needs to be said that while the question is pegged on "western policy," what the minister does is dwell entirely on the British policy. One might ask whether these policies are representative of those of the other western countries, who, in certain exceptional cases, have broken away from the US and British positions, to assert their freedom of action, not always successfully though. Therefore one should rather read "British and US" in place of "western" policies.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

In fact the British policy, in as much it relates to the Middle East and the US war on terror, is considered by many as merely an appendage of the US policy, or as some prefer to characterise, Americanization of British foreign policy. Thus, there is every need to look at the tenor of the British and US foreign policies if Mr. Howells inquiry, as to what motivates someone to perpetrate acts of violence, is to be satisfactorily answered.

Mr. Howell so proudly announces his belief in democracy and its centrality in the existence of his country but cannot convince his country's greatest ally to accord the same benefits to others. That is why the Palestinians have to suffer both economically and physically for choosing, democratically, a party they feel would deliver their future to them. The US would have nothing to do with a government made up of terrorists, yet feels no compunction in arming a state to the teeth whose main strategy for achieving their own independence from the British was terrorist violence. All the talks by Mr. Howells of rejection of oppression sound hollow under these circumstances.

Mr. Howells, you "watch with horror the violence that has caused such terrible sufferings to both Israel and Lebanon" while the rest of the world, or at least those that are moved by sensate feelings, watch with consternation your inclination to equate the sufferings of the peoples of the two countries. Although death of one civilian is one too many, yet you and your ally allowed Israel to continue with their destruction of Lebanon, because to you, time was not propitious enough to call for a ceasefire!

You rightly say that violence shall never solve issues like this, only engender militancy, yet your greatest ally sees only the violence of Hamas and Hezbollah, ignoring the violence that Israel perpetrates on a daily basis on the people of Gaza and other occupied territories. Your country broke ranks with the US on the recent Lebanon issue, but you still feel that Israel was justified in killing more than a thousand civilians for the two Israeli soldiers captured (you call it kidnap) by the Hezbollah.

No doubt your government has tried to treat the Hamas as it should any other political party, notwithstanding its seminal background, but nonetheless could not prevent the EU from withholding its contribution to the PLA.

Your double standards in the Middle East are perceived as anti-Muslim, primarily because you equate the illegal occupier with the people of the occupied territories, and in some ways condone not only the occupation but also the violence perpetrated by Israel when you say that Israeli violence can end only when suicide bombings stop.

The common view is that the British attempt to play the honest broker in the Middle East has turned out to be a myth, trying to appear to be even-handed yet supporting Israel in its offensive strategy in the region.

Your policy on Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster, and no amount of literature can justify the very wrong steps in Iraq. Is your optimism in Iraq borne out by facts on ground? Why is it that local Iraqis rejoice when British forces abandon their bases? There is a Vietnam in the offing in Iraq. And yet you continue to "passionately" believe that it was the right course of action. It is like passionately believing that the world is flat.

You are correct in asserting that extremists offer no real alternatives to the Iraqi people, but have you ever paused to ponder why extremists have emerged in a country where there were none before you and your ally cooked up excuses to invade? And you are trying to "rebuild" and "re-energize" Iraq after having destroyed and enervated the society, and the country is now facing the very real prospect of breaking up into three parts. Suits your strategic interest!

The usual condescending tone of the West is noticeable in your remarks about the innate message of Islam and what it stands for. Yet the Muslims in your part of the world cannot escape racial profiling. For Muslims it has become problematic to speak in their mother tongue in a public place lest they be taken to be involved in conspiracy, or remonstrate to the aircraft cabin crew without the risk of the aircraft being diverted and the Muslim passengers taken to custody for questioning.

Your double standards become even more blatant by your position on Iran's nuclear policy. Your diplomatic efforts to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program while turning a blind eye to Israel's nearly 200 nuclear warhead arsenal does not surprise us since its nuclear weapons development owes much to the support your country gave to the Israelis through the supply of twenty tons of heavy water. Even if one were to accept that Iran was going for the bomb why is it that you consider them undeserving of pursuing a policy to protect their national interest?

If, as you say, the Muslims in Britain have a point in blaming their government's policy, that deserves the attention and response of those given the charge of governing the country, one is hard put to find any response that might assuage the apprehensions of the British Muslims. If anything, your policies have reinforced the misgivings of the Muslims in Britain as it indeed has many in the Muslim world, that it is Islam that has replaced the communist threat of the Cold War era. Utterances like Islamic fascism do nothing to allay their fears.

Violence and terrorism are to be abhorred. But only those that are wronged and feel aggrieved but find no other remedial means resort to it. It is also a defensive mechanism employed to resist and end illegal occupation. Can you really expect to see the Hezbollah exit the scene when the Lebanese see them as a symbol of their resistance that has shattered the myth of Israeli invincibility?

Mr. Howells, no policy that is not based on principled stand can pass the test of time. The US and British policies on Iraq and the Middle East suffer from double standards and deceit which have validated terrorism: let there be no doubt about it.

The author is Editor, Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.