Osama bin Laden, Marrakesh, Arab Spring
Published in Le Nouvel Observateur
(France) on 2 May 2011
by Pascal Boniface (link to original)
(France) on 2 May 2011
by Pascal Boniface (link to original)
Translated from
by Drue Fergison.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
Between the death of bin Laden and the attacks in Marrakesh, terrorism has been central to the news.
Osama bin Laden's death is good news, but do not expect it to put an end to terrorism. It will exacerbate the decline of al-Qaida but not end its existence. Osama bin Laden symbolized terrorism, he embodied it, but he alone was not responsible. It will reinforce Obama’s position — that he succeeded where George Bush failed. This will make it easier, politically and in the media, to negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
But beyond security, we also know that terrorism is fought by political means. One must not only fight against its effects but also against its causes. The resolution of conflict in the Middle East and in the arc of crisis extending to Afghanistan would contribute mightily to it. The ongoing democratization in the Arab world would as well.
The attack in Marrakesh, which killed 16 people, was aimed at both the Arab spring and the reform process underway in Morocco. It has not yet been claimed but was most likely organized by al-Qaida.
What did those who committed these attacks hope for? That giving in to fear, the liberalization of the Moroccan political system would stop and that security would be tightened on behalf of the fight against terrorism and the protection of economic and tourism interests in the kingdom.
All is not rosy in the kingdom. There are still serious social injustices — literacy can progress and the status of women can be improved.
But even before the beginning of what is commonly called the Arab spring, Morocco was considered a more advanced country than its neighbors in terms of freedom of expression and democratic breadth. When the protests took root, there were regimes that fell (Tunisia, Egypt), others that entered into civil war (Libya), others that responded with often violent repression (Yemen, Bahrain, Syria) and others that have not budged because there was not much political demand (Qatar, United Arab Emirates). We should recognize that Morocco is the country that best responded to demands. In his speech on March 9, the king announced major policy reforms and an emphasis on the democratization of the country. This is the most intelligent response; regimes that rely on repression alone to keep peace are eventually doomed. They may gain a few weeks, but they will not stay for years only by firing into the crowd. Those days are over. What was possible in Syria in 1982 — Hafez al-Assad killed over 20,000 people without any domestic or international impact — is no longer possible at this time of globalization.
Of course, the severity of outside powers is still relatively related to the state of their relations with the relevant country, but now there are lines that can no longer be crossed. The prevailing climate of freedom in Morocco is not a handicap but an extremely important asset; to go back would only return the kingdom to a cycle of repression — violent protest, which would be much more damaging to its economy, its image and its attractiveness to tourists. Mohammed VI, by visiting the site 48 hours after the attack, had the right response and once again developed his image of closeness with his people. The opening must not be slowed, but the effort accelerated and deepened in favor of greater social justice.
The fight against terrorism rests on two legs: It is a vital security component, but the economic, social and political components are even more important. We must not only fight the effects of terrorism but also its causes.
Osama bin Laden's death is good news, but do not expect it to put an end to terrorism. It will exacerbate the decline of al-Qaida but not end its existence. Osama bin Laden symbolized terrorism, he embodied it, but he alone was not responsible. It will reinforce Obama’s position — that he succeeded where George Bush failed. This will make it easier, politically and in the media, to negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
But beyond security, we also know that terrorism is fought by political means. One must not only fight against its effects but also against its causes. The resolution of conflict in the Middle East and in the arc of crisis extending to Afghanistan would contribute mightily to it. The ongoing democratization in the Arab world would as well.
The attack in Marrakesh, which killed 16 people, was aimed at both the Arab spring and the reform process underway in Morocco. It has not yet been claimed but was most likely organized by al-Qaida.
What did those who committed these attacks hope for? That giving in to fear, the liberalization of the Moroccan political system would stop and that security would be tightened on behalf of the fight against terrorism and the protection of economic and tourism interests in the kingdom.
All is not rosy in the kingdom. There are still serious social injustices — literacy can progress and the status of women can be improved.
But even before the beginning of what is commonly called the Arab spring, Morocco was considered a more advanced country than its neighbors in terms of freedom of expression and democratic breadth. When the protests took root, there were regimes that fell (Tunisia, Egypt), others that entered into civil war (Libya), others that responded with often violent repression (Yemen, Bahrain, Syria) and others that have not budged because there was not much political demand (Qatar, United Arab Emirates). We should recognize that Morocco is the country that best responded to demands. In his speech on March 9, the king announced major policy reforms and an emphasis on the democratization of the country. This is the most intelligent response; regimes that rely on repression alone to keep peace are eventually doomed. They may gain a few weeks, but they will not stay for years only by firing into the crowd. Those days are over. What was possible in Syria in 1982 — Hafez al-Assad killed over 20,000 people without any domestic or international impact — is no longer possible at this time of globalization.
Of course, the severity of outside powers is still relatively related to the state of their relations with the relevant country, but now there are lines that can no longer be crossed. The prevailing climate of freedom in Morocco is not a handicap but an extremely important asset; to go back would only return the kingdom to a cycle of repression — violent protest, which would be much more damaging to its economy, its image and its attractiveness to tourists. Mohammed VI, by visiting the site 48 hours after the attack, had the right response and once again developed his image of closeness with his people. The opening must not be slowed, but the effort accelerated and deepened in favor of greater social justice.
The fight against terrorism rests on two legs: It is a vital security component, but the economic, social and political components are even more important. We must not only fight the effects of terrorism but also its causes.