A terrorist bomb killed 19 Americans in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, and U.S. President Bill Clinton took the fight against terrorism to France. Here's hoping he had more in mind than a reinvigorated pitch for trade sanctions against the usual suspects.
Departing for the G-7 economic summit in Lyon, Clinton promised to give terrorism top priority. "We cannot have economic security in a global economy unless we can stand against these forces of terrorism," he said.
How true. The bomb in Dhahran, like the one 8 months earlier in Riyadh that killed four Americans and an Indian, threatens national and international interests. In order of importance, they are:
- Safety of innocent people.
- The flow of Middle Eastern oil.
- Security of movement of goods of all types.
Victims this time were exclusively American. But when terrorism strikes, international interests suffer. A coordinated, worldwide response is in order. And the G-7 club of industrial nations is as good a starting place as any.
How to respond
The challenge is reaching agreement on how to respond.
Specifics of Clinton's plan weren't known at this writing. Hewing to recent U.S. strategies would mean trying to persuade G-7 partners to shun business with Libya and Iran, suspected terrorist sponsors. Until now, the U.S. has had to press this approach alone.
Other countries have opposed trade responses. Although it remains to be seen how they would otherwise deal with terrorism in the Middle East, they are right to resist the U.S. approach.
Terrorism is not about trade. It is about politics-the politics of desperation or fanaticism or both. Terrorism is politics taken to violent extremes.
Terrorism, in other words, is war. And responding to terrorism or any form of war with trade measures amounts to the ultimate flinch.
What is more, trade responses aggravate the problem they are supposed to address. Sanctions apply pressure on governments by making whole populations suffer. Suffering populations breed desperation and fanaticism-terrorism's unifying essentials.
If the U.S. is to lead the antiterrorist fight, as Clinton promises, it must assert that terrorism ultimately has more to do with war than with trade. The commitment the U.S. seeks from its allies must be clear and appropriate. To be effective, responses to terrorism must be military in nature.
To fit the problem, they also must be generic-even when attacks, such as those in Saudi Arabia, seem to have local origins. For victims and countries whose interests are at risk, distinctions between sponsored and spontaneous acts of terrorism have value only as tactical intelligence. The goal must be to discourage anyone, anywhere, from committing random murder for political purposes.
Saudi Arabia itself can help ease terrorist pressures-and not just in the kingdom. Modernization is clashing with Saudi tradition. Hostility is growing over the royal family's privileges. Even before terrorist bombs began to explode, change was inevitable. The kingdom needs effective leadership, which requires some sort of compromise in royal prerogatives.
Regional effects
How the House of Saud deals with its problems will have regional effects. If it ignores or mishandles pressures building in its realm, tensions will gain international dimensions. Political responses will continue to come from the desperate and fanatical. A better alternative for the royal family would have two parts: 1) sharing of power and more of the national wealth with the Saudi populace, and 2) assertion at home and abroad that Saudi culture is strong enough to endure and benefit from international commerce and the cultural exchanges that come with it.
A world committed to civilized commerce and prosperity must recognize the nature of the terrorist threat. Nations must respond as they would to any other form of war-with uncompromising resolve and consummate care.
Copyright 1996 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.
