The concept of being a cheerleader in the "War on Terrorism" is far less appealing than relying on stable, trustful and responsible global governments that foster environments where terrorism simply does not breed. In addition to the fight against terrorism, the greatest tool in fighting terrorists should be just as vociferous a war against poverty and repression: the true breeding-grounds for terrorism.

The invasion of Iraq a year ago, and the divisions it created, has resulted in a global environment which makes fighting for just societies around the world, and subsequently terrorism, all the more remote. Governments have to shoulder some of the responsibility for this situation, either through their actions or their complacency.

It is unfortunate and potentially catastrophic that just as terrorist networks are spreading throughout the world and causing anarchy, trust in the political leadership in fighting them is dwindling – and cynicism is prevailing.

An alliance of countries was called to war in Iraq one year ago, largely on claims of the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Since then, they have not been found. While few shed tears for the toppling of the government of Saddam Hussein, the subsequent instability and loss of life is a price that continues to be paid in the occupied Iraq of today. The prospect that this alliance is fighting a war on false pretences will certainly have repercussions in any future military actions where international cooperation would be necessary.
Last month, the first signs of a backlash against the politicizing of terrorism were seen. Following the March 11 terrorist attacks in Madrid, the worst in European history, the people of Spain lashed back at their government for what was largely perceived as a political cover-up. The conservative government of Jose Maria Aznar quickly lay blame for the attacks on the Basque separatist group Eta, in an attempt to deflect claims that the attack had anything to do with Spain’s involvement in the US-led coalition, which was unpopular with the local electorate. It was discovered that in fact, signs pointed clearly to an Islamic "brigade," which claimed links to al-Qaeda. Spain’s conservative party paid the ultimate political price and what was expected to be a victory for Aznar’s party, ended with the Socialist rival swept into power.

If it is true that WMDs were in fact not in Iraq, as would seem today, then the psychological loss of trust in governments through such intelligence failures could have shattering results. The Spanish example shows that the electorate has realized this, and sent a message to politicians around the globe that their jobs are on the line.

Cracks in the alliance of countries that formed the US-led coalition in Iraq have already been felt. Poland has expressed concerns about being misled by the US, and Spain’s incoming government has threatened to pull out troops unless there is more UN involvement in the area.

We don’t have to go that far back in history to remember how a divided Europe during the Cold War lived in constant fear of a simple event that could well have set off a large-scale nuclear war. Certainly at that time, nobody could have afforded a catastrophic intelligence failure. Nor can we afford it today. With today’s decentralized landscape, the consequences are no longer a large-scale nuclear war, but the mushrooming of regional flare-ups around the world. We should relish neither. We should insist on good global governance.

Andrew Princz
Editor