By Chandramouli

Three of the Bali Bombers have been handed down the death sentence. At last, their waiting is over. In a quixotic way, they could now go down in history by claiming to be martyrs, for all wrong reasons though.

Would rigorous imprisonment for life, without any parole, coupled with solitary confinement, have met the ends of justice? It is not to be construed, however, that any mercy or leniency is shown to perpetrators of terrorism.

Death is a salvation – not an easy and early exit. The terrorists should have been allowed to introspect and repent whole of their lives, in solitude. Paradigms change and people, at some stage or other in life, do alter their long-held views. Who knows? One day, even hard-core terrorists might realize the futility of their inhuman fanaticism, a cause for killing hundreds of innocent people.

Jails should serve as correctional institutions. Even convicted terrorists should be given a chance to turn a new leaf. In fact, one of the terrorists in Bali blast has already admitted his guilt and he genuinely seems to respond to his conscience. It is noted that he has been sentenced for life.

The debate is still on in various countries whether capital punishment should be abolished. We have no right to take away another human life – except, perhaps, in the case of terminally-ill, brain-dead patents living on life-support systems, having no hopes of recovery.

Capital punishment, in a way, is a legal revenge. Many European countries, and even neighboring Australia, don’t have capital punishment in their statute, though the U.S. continues to be steadfast in maintaining the capital penalty.

Besides that, what if, by a very remote chance, there is a miscarriage of justice? Death penalty is irrevocable. We can’t bring back one’s life. Judges are also human – they base their judgments on testimonies of witnesses and circumstantial evidence produced before the court.

Is capital punishment sufficiently deterrent? Can it really contribute to reducing the scourge of terrorism from the face of the earth? Only the future will tell.

President George W. Bush, in the aftermath of attack on World Trade Centers in New York, declared: “Every nation is a potential target of terrorism and civilization itself is under threat”.

As a matter of fact, terrorism existed even before 9/11 but only the third world countries faced the full brunt of it earlier. More particularly, India has been a victim of cross-border terrorism for almost a decade now, culminating later, on an attack on its Parliament, the citadel of the world’s largest and vibrant democracy.

Only when all hell broke loose in the U.S. on that fateful “Black Tuesday” in September 2001, the western countries were jolted out of their complacence, and they started taking notice how dangerously the tentacles of terrorism have spread globally.

The U.S. had the world nations’ whole-hearted support in getting rid of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which was not only providing a safe haven for the hard core terrorists but also openly supporting Osama bin Laden’s nefarious designs to turn the world upside down. The world couldn’t any longer afford to put up with the deadly combination of Omar and Osama.

Effecting regime change in Iraq by a preemptive war was a different ball game altogether. That Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) came in handy for the U.S. and British troops to invade Iraq.

Although later events proved to the contrary, Saddam Hussein’s potential for spreading venom and hatred, particularly against the U.S., was crystal clear. If the global war against terrorism was to succeed, undoubtedly Saddam had to go.

The U.S. administration has a mammoth task in hand to rebuild Iraq along the democratic lines, but given the huge resources at its command, the U.S. should be able to smoothen out the teething problems sooner or later.

Sidelining the United Nations by the U.S.A. was an ill-timed and ill-conceived idea. America, in its quest for eradicating international terrorism, must in future ensure broader international support by strengthening the UN role, and should no longer act unilaterally. “There is no alternative to the United Nations”, as French President Chirac said.

Nations that initially refused to participate in ousting Saddam now appear to be ready to forgive the U.S. for going on its own, and before long, would be expected to join hands with the U.S., thanks to the immense economic benefits that would accrue to them, once the re-construction of oil-rich country commences in right earnest in the next few months.

“Things happen for a reason”, to quote President Bush again. There is a cause and effect relationship for anything that happens. Rooting out terrorism anywhere and in any form continues to pose a serious challenge to the world community.

Winning the war on terrorism must be a two pronged attack. Presently, a very great emphasis is laid on only tackling the after-effects of terrorism. It is like dousing a fire after it erupted.

What is required is nothing short of a massive action to address the root causes of terrorism - poverty, inequality of opportunities, racial discrimination, religious fanaticism, real or perceived injustice, use of brute force to suppress grass root political ambitions, violation of individual fundamental human rights often under the guise of national interests (read: politicians’ selfish interests), etc. – the list is indeed long.

It may be relevant to recall the oft-repeated phrase here: “Think globally – Act locally”. In the context of terrorism, this would mean that the roots of global terrorism and solutions thereto, mostly lie within the national boundaries.

The world leaders would, therefore, do well to ponder over their current stance on terrorism and shift their focus appropriately. The million dollar question is: are they prepared to do a bit of soul searching, and face the tough challenges ahead?

======================================================

(Contributed by D. Chandramouli – mouli@cbn.net.id )