Je suis an oil state
A missing aspect in the mountains of commentary about the massacre is the economics of the quasi oil state
ow do you make sense of an event like the terrorist attacks in Paris? And the extraordinary reaction? And the extraordinary nonreaction to even more troubling acts of terrorism on the African continent, the Middle East and elsewhere? The events in Paris themselves are horrific, tragic, mesmerising and awful. It makes you wring your hands not just about terrorism, but about the nature of humanity itself. Yet the popular reaction was almost equal-and-opposite: brave, uplifting, humanising and bountiful. Apparently more people turned out on the streets for the protests in France on Sunday than turned out when France was liberated from Nazi occupation. It’s incredible.
Yet as an African you can’t help but feel a dual tug to sadness and anger because we see none of this reaction when terrorism happens in Africa or the Middle East. According to the global terrorism index, about 18 000 people were killed in terrorist attacks last year, up 61% on 2013. Just over 80% of the attacks happened in five countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria. Nobody with any humanity can fail to be distraught about what happened in Paris last week. But how should we react to Iraq, where there were 17,4 attacks a day?
I have my own theory about the causes and therefore the solution, and I suggest them here in the spirit of discussion rather than declaration.
But first, it’s important to know what does not cause terrorism. One thing that does not cause terrorism is poverty. According to most analysis I have pored over in the past week, poverty rates, levels of school attendance and other economic factors are, at most, tangential causes.
The “Global Terrorism Index Report” cites three main factors associated with terrorism: statesponsored violence such as extrajudicial killings; group grievances; and high levels of criminality. I think this goes some way towards an explanation, but is unsatisfyingly broad.
I also don’t think it has much to do with Islam. I know many claim Islam is based on the notion of jihad and of course the terrorists themselves claim Muslim religious affiliation. But we all know religious texts tend to be contradictory, open to interpretation, and often not intended to be literally construed.
It just doesn’t add up. The Islamic world was for centuries the cradle of civilisation, science and learning. Religions are interpreters, justifiers and perhaps collaborators of war; but generally they are not the root cause.
I was absorbed by aspects of the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek’s views on the Charlie Hebdo massacre. In the New Statesman , he asks whether WB Yeats’ famous assertion that “the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity” is really true. “If today’s so-called fundamentalists really believe they have found their way to Truth, why should they feel threatened by nonbelievers, why should they envy them? . . . In contrast to true fundamentalists, the terrorist pseudo-fundamentalists are deeply bothered, intrigued, fascinated, by the sinful life of the nonbelievers. One can feel that, in fighting the sinful other, they are fighting their own temptation.” Now we are getting closer.
Yet, from a broader perspective, what is happening in North Africa and the Middle East is not terrorism exactly, but war with a terrorism adjunct. And the common denominator in the region is the oil state.
Oil states are very odd entities: like having a healthy balance of payments and a weak middle class. Without the impetus to really educate, innovate, trade, build social structures and develop a productive populace, the state becomes an appendage. It increasingly relies on some justifying ideology, like nationalism or religion, to underpin its repressive existence. But the result is a frustrated, trapped population. Quasi oil states are all that but lack the power to impose strict control.
In that world, what emerges is chaotic and, frankly, mad.
fmeditor@fm.co.za