The hand that signed the paper
The hand that signed the paper felled a city;
Five sovereign fingers taxed the breath,
Doubled the globe of dead and halved a country;
These five kings did a king to death.The mighty hand leads to a sloping shoulder,
The fingers’ joints are cramped with chalk;
A goose’s quill has put an end to murder
That put an end to talk.The hand that signed the treaty bred a fever,
And famine grew, and locusts came;
Great is the hand that holds dominion over
Man by a scribbled name.The five kings count the dead but do not soften
The crusted wound nor stroke the brow;
A hand rules pity as a hand rules heaven;
Hands have no tears to flow.– Dylan Thomas, 1935
ISIS is not about ideology – it’s about methodology. A London barrister mentioned this casually at a seminar, as if common understanding. However, this crucial point remains dangerously overlooked. It is not just a comment about the brutal group operating in Syria and Iraq, referred to as “Islamic State”. This observation reveals the inherent flaw within the way “the war on terror” has been fought in its entirety.
With the Patriot Act awaiting another four-year reauthorisation in the US and the Counterterrorism and Security Act 2015 having whizzed through Parliament without controversy in the UK earlier this year, what governments are targeting is – without question – ideology. The UK Government’s Prevent Strategy specifically aims at “challenging ideology” by requiring all teachers and other public sector workers to report suspicious behaviour of the children or adults under their care or within their work environment. And suspicious behaviour is not perhaps an obsession with violence, but a turn towards faith, like wearing a headscarf or growing a beard.
US General John Allen said during an interview with Al Jazeera: “When we have defeated the idea of Daesh [ISIS], then we have truly defeated Daesh.” The “War on Terror” has been fought under this false pretense exactly because terrorism is a method, not an idea – practiced by various actors, for various goals.
If our aim really is to achieve international peace and security, then we should not strive to eliminate certain ideas, but rather certain methods.
Imagine for a moment how the situation would look like if we targeted methodology, instead of ideology. Firstly, we couldn’t drop bombs on those who commit violence. We couldn’t kill those who kill. Prevent would target families which spread hate and violence, not cultural, religious or political beliefs. And most importantly, the State could not pre-emptively or preventively imprison those with challenging views for what they think, say, write – instead of for what they do (See A and Others v UK).
Rulers don’t like to be compared. Their motives for indiscriminate killing may be distinct – but nevertheless all stem from a fear and distaste of the other. Do ideas justify methods?
“A hand rules pity as a hand rules heaven;
Hands have no tears to flow.”
R-Bol 