Dr. Gerard Henderson's Keynote Address

Held in Melbourne's Gandel-Besen Hall on 22nd August 2003, this year's second annual Keren Malki Forum was honored by the participation of keynote speaker Dr Gerard Henderson, director of the Sydney Institute. The chairman of the panel was Member of Parliament Michael Danby. Introductions were made by Charles Leski on behalf of the Australian Friends of Keren Malki, and Arnold Roth also spoke.

With his kind permission, Dr Henderson's speaking notes appear below. 

Global Terrorism: The New World War

It’s an honour to address the Malki Foundation forum. I first became aware of Arnold Roth in tragic circumstances – following the murder of his daughter Malki. Since then I have observed that the Roth family’s grief has been directed at positive outcomes.  Not only in ensuring that Malki will be remembered and not only in setting up a foundation to assist the families of severely disabled children. But also because Karen Malki has been established to cater for the needs of all Israelis – Jewish and non-Jewish alike. It was good to hear Jane Hutcheon report this fact on the ABC TV 7 program last night. 

I always enjoy returning to Melbourne – where I was born and educated and where I worked for some years. Tonight it’s great to catch up with Michael Danby – in his capacity as the Federal Member for Melbourne Ports. It is important to have MPs like Michael Danby - and his Melbourne-based Liberal colleague Tony Smith – in the Australian Parliament. Both men were interested in theMiddle East – and in the implications of international terrorism – well before the tragic events of 11 September 2001 and 12 October 2002. And both bring a knowledge, born of hard work and experience, to debates on national security – like tonight’s public forum. 

In June 2002 the Israeli academic, Boaz Ganor, addressed The Sydney Institute. In his essay published in ICT Papers on Terrorism, Dr Ganor defined terrorism as “the intentional use of, or threat to use, violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims”. There was considerable discussion about this definition during question time at the Institute following his talk. Not surprisingly, attention focused on how this definition could stand when the experience of World War II was examined. Namely, the widespread carpet-bombing of cities, which was initiated by Nazi Germany but soon copied by the Allies in retaliation. 

In the event, there was general agreement concerning Boaz Ganor’s definition of terrorism as the intentional targeting of civilians. An empirical view was taken. Namely that the bombing campaigns of World War II – which targeted civilians – were unlikely to be repeated. Many contemporary terrorist movements, on the other hand, have adopted attacks – aimed specifically at civilians – as their signature means of achieving their political ends. 

In my column in The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald on 25 June 2002 , I quoted Boaz Ganor’s definition when writing about terrorists. It was my intention to link the suicide/homicide attacks on Israelwith security concerns the world over. And so I commenced my column with the following statement:

Every time a terrorist detonates a bomb in the streets of Jerusalemor Tel Aviv it has implications for adults and children on the roads of New York, or London or Sydney. That’s why the war between Israelis and Palestinians has implications for all democracies. Including Australia. 

That was in June last year. Just four months before the suicide/homicide attacks in Bali which murdered Westerners and Indonesians alike. If, in mid 2002, some Australians did not recognise that there was a connection, albeit an indirect one, between attacks on civilians in Israel and attacks on civilians at an overseas holiday resort – after Bali, most Australians understand this. That’s why – in the House of Representatives last Wednesday – conservatives and social democrats alike were as one in condemning the suicide/homicide attack on the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad along with the contemporaneous mass murder – involving many children – on a bus in Jerusalem.

The attack on the UN in Iraq – presumably carried out by either remnants of Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist regime or militant Islamists – does not mark the beginning of the end in the new world order on global terrorism. Nor even the end of the beginning. But it does define the end of the confusion. We now have a clearer idea of who are – and who are not – the principal antagonists in this conflict. This is essential if the war is to be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. Two examples – before and after what the Americans term 9/11 – demonstrate the point.

In 1996 Samuel P.  Huntington’s book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order was published. This was a reworking – in book form – of Samuel P.  Huntington’s article in the Summer 1993 issue of the journal Foreign Affairs titled “The Clash of Civilizations?”. The question mark of 1993 had been removed by 1996. In his book, Professor Huntington depicted an on-going clash between Islamic and Western societies:

The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.  The problem for Islam is not the CIA or the U. S.  Department of Defense. It is the West, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the universality of their culture and believe that their superior, if declining, power imposes on them the obligation to extend that culture throughout the world. These are the basic ingredients that fuel conflict between Islam and the West. 

Following al Qaeda’s attack on the United Stateson11 September 2001 , Samuel P. Huntington claimed confirmation of his thesis. The American commentator Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, did not agree. In an article published in The Age on4 October 2002 , he nominated the real enemy – namely “militant Islamic groups”. 

Western leftists were relatively quiet in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 murders. But, not for long.  Take Melbourne, for example. Writing in The Age on Christmas Eve 2001, cartoonist Michael Leunig reflected:

Might we, can we, find a place in our hearts for the humanity of Osama bin Laden and those others [al Qaeda operatives].  On Christmas Day can we consider their suffering and the possibility that they too have their goodness. It is a family day and Osama is our relative. 

Then, in the lead-up to the inaugural anniversary of the first attack on the UShomeland, Janet McCalman wrote in The Age about the “good folks” in the US “who don’t read quality newspapers or watch public broadcasting or travel overseas unprotected by tourist buses”. She described such “folk” as knowing “almost nothing about the outside world” but maintained that “the shocking events of September 11” may have awakened them to their “lowly place in the affections of the poor and the struggling”.

Get it? According to Dr McCalman the events of 9/11 were, somehow or other, the fault of Americans – a revenge against an insular, wealthy society by “the poor and the struggling of the world”. She was not the only one to make such a claim. The American leftist, Noam Chomsky, in his contribution to the collection War is Peace (Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation, 2003), declared that, in the aftermath of 9/11, the USwas seeking to evade “the consequences of our actions”.  In other words, according to Professor Chomsky, the suicide/homicide attacks of 9/11 were a “consequence” of (unnamed) US “actions”.

By the way, in focusing my critique concerning Australian leftists on Michael Leunig and Janet McCalman I am not signaling out The Age. In fact this newspaper has published a plurality of views on the Middle East and terrorism – including the important journalism of Pamela Bone and Tony Parkinson along with John Spooner’s illustrations.

The comments of Michael Leunig, James McCalman and Noam Chomsky overlook some crucial facts.  The 9/11 suicides/homicides were not the consequences of any action by any American. Moreover, in the lead up to 9/11, the likes of Osama bin Laden and Mohammed Atta (who flew the first plane into the World Trade Center) were neither poor nor struggling. But they were militant Islamist intent on destroying Western democracies along with the rulers of their own nations – Saudi Arabia and Egypt respectively.

There is no doubt that we are all involved in a new world war. In such an eventuality, it is imperative to answer the basic question – who are our enemies and who are our friends? Right now, the central enemy of the West is not Islam or Muslims – but, rather, militant Islamism. In other words, Samuel P.  Huntington got it wrong, badly wrong. Moreover, militant Islamists do not oppose us because of what we have done – but, rather, because of whom we are. That is, citizens of Western democracies who practise democracy, and espouse, freedom.

In his recent book The War Against the Terror Masters (published in 2002), Michael A.  Ledeen asks his readers to:

Look at the amazing number of times the United States has sent soldiers, advisers, and hundreds of millions of dollars overseas to defend Muslim populations. We twice intervened in Afghanistan, first against the Red Army and then against the Taliban. We rescued Kuwaiti Muslims and defended Saudi Muslims from the depredations of Saddam Hussein, along with Northern Iraq ’s Kurdish and Shi’ite Muslims.  We fought for Muslims against their Christian enemies in Bosniaand Kosovo. Without us, Osama bin Laden might well have fallen to atheist Soviet troops in Afghanistan.  None of this wins us any admiration or gratitude, because our existence, rather than our policies, underlies the terror masters’ rage against us. 

However, the rage of militant Islamists is no longer exclusively directed against us. It was possible to say this when the targets were US property (embassies in Africa , ships in the Gulf) or gathering places for Westerners (in Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia). But, recently, militant Islamists have directed their murderous hatred at their own societies. Witness the suicide/homicide bombings in May 2003 in Riyadh(Saudi Arabia) and Casablanca (Morocco) and in August 2003 in Jakarta. And, now, the truly appalling suicide/homicide operation against the United Nations – an international organisation which comprises men and women of all faiths and political beliefs. 

The war over the past three months demonstrates the fallacies propagated by some participants in the public debate. Contrary to Samuel P.  Huntington, this is not a clash of civilisations.  Take predominantly Muslim Indonesia, for example.  There the Indonesian and Australian police forces are cooperating fully to bring to justice all those involved in the suicide/homicide bombings in Bali and Jakarta. This makes it clear that the enemy in this war is not Islam but, rather, militant Islamism. 

What’s more, recent events make it clear beyond doubt that – contrary to Noam Chomsky’s thesis – the attacks made by militant Islamism are not a consequence of the West’s actions. If this were the case, why would Islamists be intent on destroying governments in Indonesia, Saudi Arabiaand Morocco? Or attempting to kill as many UN personnel as possible, including the much admired Brazilian-born Sergio Vieira de Mello? 

The conflict against global terrorism, is going to be a long war. Yet, there is evidence to suggest that – by widening the flanks of the battle – the perpetrators of militant Islamism are demonstrating the inherent evil of both of their actions and their cause.  This may, just may, have the unintended consequence of increasing opposition to Islamism – within Muslim and Western societies alike. 

Already militant Islamists have changed their operational strategy from hitting increasingly difficult targets in the West to attacking essentially soft targets in predominantly Muslim societies.  This has had its own consequences.  Witness the apparent success of Indonesian, Moroccan and even Saudi Arabian authorities in identifying and arresting militant Islamists operating within their own societies. 

We grieve for the (most recent) victims of terrorism in Jakarta, Jerusalem and Baghdad. But there is reason to recognise that their deaths will not have been in vain if – out of the carnage – peace loving people the world over recognise that a war is being waged and take appropriate actions to prevail against the common foe. 

Return to Keren Malki Activities

Dr Gerard Henderson (above and at left) was the keynote speaker at the Second Annual Keren Malki Forum in Melbourne. The theme of his speech, reproduced at left, was "Global Terrorism: The New World War". 

Dr Henderson is one of Australia's leading political and social commentators. He was educated at the University of Melbourne and is now executive director of The Sydney Institute. He writes a weekly column for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age (Melbourne) and appears fortnightly in The Courier Mail (Brisbane) and The Sunday Tasmanian. His books include Menzies Child: The Liberal Party of Australia 1944-94, A Howard Government? Inside The Coalition, Mr Santamaria and the Bishops, Australian Answers and Scribbles On... He was also a contributor to The Eleven Deadly Sins and The Eleven Saving Virtues, both edited by Ross Fitzgerald. Between 1976 and 1979 Dr Henderson worked on the staff of Kevin Newman, a minister in the Fraser Government. From 1984 to 1986 he was chief of staff to John Howard (who took over the Liberal leadership in September 1985). Dr. Henderson also comments on the ALP and the labour movement. In August 1994 he reviewed Bob Hawke's memoirs for the ABC TV Four Corners program.

For a report on the evening as published in the Australian Jewish News, click here.