Bahá’í World/Volume 29/World Watch

←Previous

The Bahá’í World Volume 29

Next→

[Page 201]

Ann Boyles looks at terrorism, the

threats that it poses to contemparaiy nation-states, and the various means

Qfaddressing this global Challenge.

WORLD WATCH

Bombs planted in parked cars explode near crowded marketplaces. Trucks loaded with explosives, driven by suicide bombers, crash through barriers into embassies and wreak devastation. Kidnappers abuse and manipulate the innocent. The nerve gas sarin is released in a subway station of a huge city, resulting in agonizing deaths and widespread casualties. Airplanes are hijacked and passengers are threatened with Violence or death if the hijackers’ demands are not met. These and similar events have occurred with such frequency in recent decades that one writer has speculated that terrorism could become “the incendiary torch and the devastating storm of the coming century.”1 Indeed, the rise of the power and reach of terrorist threats throughout the twentieth century ranks as one of the most unsettling developments of current times. What, if anything, can be done about this pernicious and multidimensional phenomenon, With its many global ramifications?

‘ Walter Z. Laqueur, The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms ofMaSS Destruction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 282.

201

[Page 202]TE Bahá’í WORLD

A clear definition of the problem would aid in the formulation of appropriate and effective plans to combat it. Terrorism has been described as “a special kind of Violence designed to create a climate of fear among a wider target group than the immediate Victims, usually for political ends,”2 and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation defines it as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” But while many definitions have been advanced, none has proven universally satisfactory. Such Violence may be seen as both “a special kind” and “unlawful” by internationally accepted standards, but, depending on particular political affiliations and aspirations, one nation’s “terrorist” may be another’s “freedom fighter” and the terrorist’s actions, rather than regarded as reprehensible, are justified as part of the heroic stmggle for a noble cause. As long as governments or their peoples hide behind such rhetoric and countenance such actions, effective international response will remain beyond reach.

In the meantime, the need to address the issue has become increasingly urgent as terrorists’ actions generate wider and wider destruction. Their motives are often complex and sometimes unclear, but political theorist CJM Drake has identified separatism, religion, liberalism, anarchism, communism, conservatism, fascism, specific single issues, and/or organized crime as the most common ideologies embraced by contemporary terrorists.3 Commitment to such ideologies enables the “true believers” to dehumanize their targets and transform them into representative symbols. Ideology also provides a measure by which terrorists can easily identify “enemies” and determine the relative “innocence” or “guilt” of people and organizations. This, Drake says,

3 Paul Wilkinson, “Security and Terrorism in the let Century: The Changing International Terrorist Threat,” 13 January, 1996; see <www.st-and.ac.uk/ academiC/intrel/researeh/cstpv/publications1a.htm>, p. 1.

3 C] M Drake, “The Role of Ideology in Terrorists’ Target Selection,” Terrorism and Violence 10, no. 2 (Summer 1998), pp. 53—85; see <www.st-and.ac.uk/ academiC/intrel/research/estpv/publications4.htm>, pp. 3—4.

202

[Page 203]WLRLD WATCH

allows them to identify particular people and things as “legitimate targets.”4

Such targets include business, industry, various government facilities, and civilians who happen to be in the Vicinity. Paul Wilkinson, Of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at St. Andrews University, Scotland, describes a trend towards “massive car and truck bombings in crowded city areas and ‘spectacular’ terrorist attacks, for example, on civil aviation, airport facilities or military or diplomatic facilities. . .”5

Overall objectives generally extend well beyond destruction of immediate targets, however. Terrorists’ acts are designed to shock, to outrage, and to provide leverage for perpetrators’ de mands. Wilkinson lists the following as characteristic objectives:

massive and immediate publicity as a result of an outrage or a series of atrocities; to inspire followers and sympathizers to further acts of terrorism or insurrection; to provoke the authorities into repressive over-reaction which the terrorists can then exploit to their political advantage; as a means of extortion to force the authorities into making concessions, such as the release of imprisoned terrorists or the payment of ransoms; to sow inter-communal hatred and conflict; to destroy public confidence in government and security agencies; and to coerce communities and activists into obeying the terrorist leadership.6

As more and more of the world’s nation-states operate on a commonly understood platform of conduct, bound together—albeit imperfectly—by international conventions, treaties, and other kinds of protocols, terrorists know basically what kind of behavior to expect from their targets and what they may or may not expect from them in retaliation. With such Widely accepted standards, terrorists possess perhaps the greatest weapon of all: the ability to create a climate of fear and to intimidate and/or coerce others on a wider scale than ever before in history. And terrorist

4 Drake, pp. 3 and 6. 5 Wilkinson, p. 8. 6 Wilkinson, p. l.

203

[Page 204]TH_E Bahá’í WORLD

acts have a disproportionate impact. While only a handful of people perished in Aum Shinri Kyo’s sarin attack on the Tokyo subway system in 1995, for example, the entire population of the city—and the country—was terrified at the thought that if this had occurred in one subway station, there was no telling when and where it might happen again. Similar fear could easily be generated through media reports of the release of even a small amount of biological or chemical toxins almost anywhere in the world, even though the actual efficacy of such attacks has so far been limited by inadequate delivery mechanisms.

While the popular notion is that terrorism is a recent phenomenon, experts are quick to point out that it has a long history, reaching back at least to Biblical times. Secret societies in China and India also engaged in Violence to achieve political ends—activity that, in various guises and in support of various causes, can be traced throughout history.7 The end of the nineteenth century was perhaps one of the “high points” in this long chronology. With the assassinations of a number of European leaders, including members of royalty and the US president, “it seemed no one was safe from terrorist attack.” Walter Laqueur writes, “Terrorism became the leading preoccupation of politicians, police chiefs, journalists, and writers from Dostoevsky to Henry J ames. If in the year 1900 the leaders of the main industrial powers had assembled, most of them would have insisted on giving terrorism top priority on their agenda. . 3’8

Terrorism has continued to flourish during the twentieth century, leaving almost no area of the world untouched. It has been used as a tool by both left- and right-wing causes and by groups of every conceivable stripe—anarchists, fascists, nationalists seeking independence, communists, extra-legal militias, and ecoterrorists—in places ranging from Europe to Asia, from South America to the Middle East, from the US to Africa.9

7 See Laqueur, The New Terrorism, pp. 84-18 for a useful discussion of the history of terrorism.

8 Walter Laqueur, “Postmodern Terrorism,” Foreign Aflairs 75, no. 5, p. 24.

9 See Laqueur, The New Terrorism, pp. 1936, for a summary of various terrorist movements throughout the twentieth century.

204

[Page 205]

WORLD WATCH

One alarming recent development, noted by former US ambassador for Counter-Terrorism Paul Bremer in 1995, is the evolution of “a new form of decentralized, religion—motivated terrorism.”10 Other writers, too, have remarked that religion and nationalism have combined to become a powerful motivating force for contemporary acts of terror. One has noted, for example, that in 1968 there were no identifiable religious terrorist groups, while by the early 19903 almost one quarter of the world’s active terrorist groups were motivated by their religious beliefs. The number of terrorist acts committed by such groups has risen sharply since 1988; they are estimated to be responsible for more than half of the 64,319 recorded incidents that occurred between 1970 and 1995.11

Terrorism has been called the poor man’s way to wage war. While less affluent states are reluctant to be drawn into conflicts, some have found that they can best pursue their objectives by sponsoring terrorist activities. However, the inherent risks of such state—sponsored terrorism (terrorists turning on their hosts, for example) and actions by the international community, including diplomatic and economic sanctions, have worked to isolate state sponsors of terrorism. A few “rogue states” still do harbor terrorists, but the number of such havens is dwindling.

While experts generally agree that state-sponsored terrorism is in decline, the number of transnational terrorist networks is proliferating—a development related to the upsurge in religiously motivated terrorism. The Report of the National Commission on Terrorism t0 the 105th US Congress (1997—98) noted, for example, that “today’s terrorists. . .are. . .forming loose, transnational affiliations based on religious or ideological affinity and a common hatred of the United States.”12 The detection and

10 L Paul Bremer 111, “The New F aces of Terrorism,” New Perspectives Quarterly (Summer 1995), p. 7.

” See Bruce Hoffman, “Holy Terror”: T he Implications Q/‘Terrorism Mott'vated by (1 Religious Imperative (Santa Monica: RAND, P-7834, 1993), p. 2; Cited by Magnus Ranstorp in “Terrorism in the Name of Religion,” Journal of International Affairs 50, n0. 1 (Summer 1996), pp. 41—62.

‘3 “Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism,” the Report of the National Commission on Terrorism t0 the 105th US Congress, p. iv.

205

[Page 206]TE Bahá’í WORLD

prevention of attacks carried out by such networks is very difficult.

The development of global communications systems and of technology that allows the production of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, radioactive, chemical, and biological weapons, has provided terrorists with access to more powerful tools than they have ever had at their disposal. Coupled with this, the destabilization of various governments and a general sense of social, political, economic, cultural, psychological, and spiritual crisis in the world have given them fertile new ground in which to flourish. The fragmentation of the world in the years since the end of the Cold War and widespread fear of globalization have radicalized various groups, and, in the words of one writer:

The uncertainty and unpredictability in the present environment as the world searches for a new world order, amidst an increasingly complex global environment with ethnic and nationalist conflicts, provides many religious terrorist groups with the opportunity and ammunition to shape history according to their divine duty, cause, and mandate while it indicates for others that the end of time itself is near.13

Some commentators, however, Offer a more prosaic explanation. In the particular case of the Arab world, for example, Fouad Ajami writes:

We have looked to the heavens, and we have looked in the scripture, for explanations for the appeal of political Islam. We have spent a generation speaking of “Islamic filndamentalism,” of that theocratic force that has come into Arab life. But the truth lies in material circumstances. Theoeratic politics blew in when economic growth faltered. .. When a deep recession hit in the mid-198OS, due to the fall of oil prices, a politics of panic and resentment overtook the newly urbanized and newly prosperous... In the cities and in the no man’s land trapped by the recession, the newly urbanized were strangers living on their

‘3 Ranstorp, p. 12.

206

[Page 207]WORLD WATCH

nerves. Their children were available to the politics of millenarianism and turmoil.14

The ascendancy of the United States—the so-called Great Satan—as the world’s sole superpower has given focus to fundamentalist Islamic groups. The resentment of Western prosperity and the perceived threat of secularization, combined with the influence of charismatic, militant clerical leaders, has provided a fertile breeding ground for terrorism. Most Muslim terrorists, who are young, single men, have grown up in what they perceive as a climate of social injustice, oppressed by the Western powers, and the religious fervor—or fanaticism—that moves them is cultivated in the schools that they attend. Their education promotes a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam and emphasizes the duty of the individual to engage in “jihad.” While some Islamic scholars interpret “jihad” primarily as “the righteous struggle” within the individual between the good and darker forces operating within the self, fundamentalists emphasize the interpretation of the term as struggle in a military sense, in which the “true faith” does battle against satanic forces (e.g. Western civilization with its “corrupt values” and “imperialism,” the state of Israel, or other targeted groups). The Vision that these young men acquire through their schooling provides them with an alternative to submission to the modern, secular forces they see not only as causing their own oppression but also as perpetrating evil throughout the entire world. An act against even one small element of those forces then becomes holy, Virtuous. Death—even suicide—for such a cause is martyrdom. Their objective, as Paul Bremer writes, is “not a shift in American policy but the destruction of American society.”15

Terrorists have sometimes been depicted as “idealistic and courageous young people, patriots and social revolutionaries, driven by intolerable conditions, by oppression and tyranny, to undertake desperate actions.” But more than one writer has credited fanaticism, indiscriminate murder, and sheer aggression as

'4 Fouad Ajami, “The Arab Inheritance,” Foreign Aflizirs (September/October 1997), pp. 13940.

15 Bremer, p. 7.

207

[Page 208]THE Bahá’í WORLD

the motive force behind contemporary terrorist acts. This kind of “apocalyptic nihilism” represents a pure urge to destroy—terror for solely terror’s sake. '6

Whether the destruction wrought by terrorists is the result of economics, ideology, or sheer aggression, the question remains: What is the most effective way to combat this transnational problem, to which modern states are extremely vulnerable? As stated earlier, terrorists trade on the fact that most states in the world today abide by a general code of conduct and that a general climate of trust and openness exists among many countries. People pass across borders with great frequency; international business deals are routine; and instantaneous communication occurs across the entire globe. Western citizens regard their freedoms as sacred,

and curtailment of civil rights and liberties is not likely to be well

received. Such a climate presents a real dilemma to democratic states attempting to address terrorist threats:

On the one hand, the democratic government and its agencies of law enforcement must avoid the heavy handed over-reaction which many terrorist groups deliberately seek to provoke: such a response would only help to alienate the public from the government and could ultimately destroy democracy more swiftly and completely than any small terrorist group ever could. On the other hand, if government, judiciary and police prove incapable of upholding the law and protecting life and property, their whole credibility and authority will be undermined.17

Confronting such issues, nation-states must decide whether terrorist attacks actually constitute acts of war or criminal activity and, in consequence, what kind of response is appropriate. If a terrorist attack is seen as an act of war and a government responds to pressure from its constituents to retaliate with extreme military force (even where evidence is not conclusive), such a reaction could quickly result in the escalation of conflict, either at home or abroad. Civil Violence could erupt, instigated by citizens who do not agree

‘6 See, for example, Laqueur, The New Terrorism, p. 274. ‘7 Wilkinson, p. 9.

208

[Page 209]WORLD WATCH

with the government’s actions. And the nation’s defenses could be weakened by the diversion of military personnel from other roles. In the worst-case scenario, such a response could trigger an international conflict.

Pursuing military action in response to the kind of “asymmetrical warfare” represented by a terrorist attack is likely to be problematic for a number of reasons. Terrorists can easily move their bases of operations and, while the infrastructure of their host country and its civilian population bear the brunt of retaliatory attacks, they may well escape unscathed. Furthermore, if the terrorist group is transnational, destroying just one cell in one country will not wipe out its operations. It is difficult, if not impossible, for countries to fight a traditional war against such an adversary.

If, however, the world chooses to View terrorist attacks not as acts of war but as criminal activity, then it needs to establish effective mechanisms to prevent, respond to, and punish the perpetrators, and to address root causes of terrorism. At present, few such mechanisms exist, either within or among nation—states.

One starting point for their formulation could be international agreement on strategic principles for states seeking to reduce terrorism. Such principles might include the following, as suggested by one writer: refusal to surrender to terrorists’ demands; resolve to use law and the democratic process to defeat terrorism; refusal to make deals or concessions, even when intimidated and blackmailed; persistent efforts to bring terrorists to justice through the legal process; penalization of state sponsors of terrorism; and refusal to allow terrorists’ activities to block international diplomatic efforts to resolve political conflicts.18 Embrace of such principles would allow the mechanisms for combating terrorism a chance to

‘8 Wilkinson, pp. 12—13. The report of the US National Commission on Terrorism, “Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism,” also recommends specific measures that should be taken, including improvement of intelligence gathering capabilities, the use of legal means to disrupt and prosecute terrorists and their support networks, efforts to convince other nations to stop supporting terrorists, and ensuring the readiness of officials at all levels for attacks that could result in large numbers of casualties.

209

[Page 210]T_H_E Bahá’í WORLD

evolve, including the formulation of a universally applied standard by which to punish perpetrators.

Key to whatever process is pursued will be “the quality of the political leaders and the moral strength and determination of democratic societies,” who must show

consistency and courage in maintaining a firm and effective policy against terrorism in all its forms. They must abhor the idea that terrorism can be tolerated as long as it is only affecting someone else’s democratic rights and rule of law. They must adopt the clear principle that ‘one democracy’s terrorist is another democracy’s terrorist.’l9

It seems, in fact, that events are impelling most Western nations towards consensus in regarding terrorism as criminal activity. “During the 1970s,” Paul Bremer notes, “the West lacked a conceptual basis for meeting the terrorist threat that had begun to besiege it. By the 1980s, however, Western countries had reached two Vital conclusions: That terrorists are criminals and that government-sponsored terrorism is unacceptable.”20 Such a “shared perception,” he says, was the basis for successful applications of diplomatic, political, economic, and military measures that controlled the spread of terrorism during the 19803.

While the adoption of such measures is important, it is not in itself sufficient to bring an end to conflict, whether traditional or “asymmetrical.” In a 1985 statement on peace, the international governing body of the Bahá’í Faith, the Universal House of Justice, wrote:

Flaws in the prevailing order are conspicuous in the inability of sovereign states organized as United Nations to exorcise the specter of war, the threatened collapse of the international economic order, the spread of anarchy and terrorism, and the intense suffering which these and other afflictions are causing to increasing millions.

The same document states emphatically:

‘9 Wilkinson, p. 12. 3“ Bremer, p. 7.

210

[Page 211]WORLD WATCH

Banning nuclear weapons, prohibiting the use of poison gases, or outlawing germ warfare will not remove the root causes of war. However important such practical measures obviously are as elements of the peace process, they are in themselves too superficial to exert enduring influence. Peoples are ingenious enough to invent yet other forms of warfare, and to use food, raw materials, finance, industrial power, ideology, and terrorism to subvert one another in an endless quest for supremacy and dominion. Nor can the present massive dislocation in the affairs of humanity be resolved through the settlement of specific conflicts or disagreements among nations. A genuine universal framework must be adopted.“

Collaboration in the gathering of accurate information through intelligence, the signing of international treaties and protocols, and the application of various kinds of sanctions undoubtedly represent forward movement in efforts to combat terrorism. However, addressing problems such as terrorism in isolation from the many other issues that disrupt and destabilize society will ultimately prove a futile exercise. Nations must look beyond simply responding separately to disparate problems and move towards the building of a comprehensive international order based on social justice and collective security, in which all can live in dignity. This will be the most decisive factor in the creation of enduring change.

There is evidence that the world is slowly moving towards that “genuine universal framework.” The Universal House of Justice sees hope in the “tentative steps towards world order” made by nations since World War 11, especially the “increasing tendency of groups of nations to formalize relationships which enable them to cooperate in matters of mutual interest.”22 The establishment of an international war crimes tribunal in The Hague is a definite positive step. The rising influence of organizations of civil society and their participation in international gatherings such as the forums for non-governmental organizations that have been held in conjunction with United Nations summits for

3‘ The Universal House of Justice, The Promise of World Peace (Haifa: Bahá’í World Centre, 1985), Section 11, para. 1. 23 T he Promise Q/‘World Peace, Section 11, para. 3.

211

[Page 212]TH_E BAHA’l WORLD

government leaders on issues such as social development, habitat, human rights, women, the environment, and sustainable development show an increasing demand for a “new order.” One need only look at the extraordinary gatherings held in 2000—the Millennium Forum, the Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders, and the Millennium Summit of government leaders and heads of state—to see evidence of the yearning of civil society, the major faith groups, and the nations of the world to live in greater harmony one with another. Initiatives such as UN proposals for a standing international rapid-reaction force (a kind of prototypical international police force) and efforts to set up an international criminal court, have, however, met with resistance—evidence that acceptance of a framework for a peace ful world is far from universal.

Resistance to such change should not be unexpected. As a document released by the Universal House of Justice in 2001, entitled Century ofLight, points out:

It was against the most intense resistance at every level of society, among governed and governors alike, that the political, social and conceptual changes of the past hundred years were achieved. Ultimately, they were accomplished only at the cost of terrible suffering. It would be unrealistic to imagine that the challenges lying ahead may not exact an even greater toll of a human race that still seeks, by every means in its power, to avoid the spiritual implications of the experience it is undergoing.23

At the root of this resistance, the House of Justice says, lies

a deep-seated conviction of the inevitable quarrelsomeness of mankind, which has led to the reluctance to entertain the possibility of subordinating national self-interest to the requirements of world order, and in an unwillingness to face courageously the far—reaching implications of establishing a united world authority. It is also traceable to the incapacity of largely ignorant and subjugated masses to articulate their desire for a new

33 Century ofLight, prepared under the supervision of the Universal House of Justice (Haifa: Bahá’í World Centre), p. 90.

212

[Page 213]Wow) Wagon

order in which they can live in peace, harmony and prosperity with all humanity.24

This reluctance, the House of Justice states, must be “carefully examined and resolutely dealt with.”

The genuine acceptance of a universal framework that can bring real, enduring stability—stability that allows people to live in peace, allows for a more equal distribution of wealth, promotes literacy, and provides education and training that will equip people to earn a livelihood—must spring from a new mindset. If the world’s leaders do not sincerely believe that the peoples of the world can learn to overcome their differences and live in barmony, how will they ever agree to cede their power to any kind of wider authority?

The foundation of Bahá’í belief is that the Prophets or Manifestations of God have been sent by an all-loving Creator to “bestow universal moral training”25 through which men and women acquire “new Virtues and powers, new moral standards, new capacities”26 that help society advance. The ultimate purpose of this course of divine education is “that men should live in unity, concord and agreement and should love one another.” True religion provides the one source of moral discipline that is capable of welding together the disparate peoples of the world with ties that cannot be broken. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says that “the bonds which hold together the body politic are not sufficient” for such a task; rather,

The real bond of integrity is religious in character, for religion indicates the oneness of the world of humanity. Religion serves the world of morality. Religion purifies the hearts. Religion impels men to achieve praiseworthy deeds.

34 The Promise Q/‘World Peace, Section 11, paragraph 2.

35 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace: Talks Delivered by ‘Abdu ’l-Bahd during His Visit to the United States and Canada in 1912, rev. ed. (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1995), p. 401.

2" Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day Is Come (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1996), p. 119.

213

[Page 214]Tit; Bahá’í WORLD

Religion becomes the cause of love in human hearts, for religion is a divine foundation, the foundation ever conducive to life. The teachings of God are the source of illumination t0 the people of the world. Religion is ever constructive, not destructive.27

Here is an antidote to the nihilism that seeks to destroy lives and institutions through acts of terror.

Recognition of the inherent nobility of each human being, the conviction that all people have a role to play in developing an “ever advancing civilization,” and unswerving commitment to spiritual principles as the basis of that civilization are the only foundations upon Which a universal framework can be built. As ‘Abdu’l-Bahá wrote, “Material civilization is like the body. No matter how infinitely graceful, elegant and beautiful it may be, it is dead. Divine civilization is like the spirit, and the body gets its life from the spirit. . .”28 Century ofLight takes up this same analogy in the context of the end of the twentieth century:

...this Body of humanity’s material civilization calls aloud, yearns more desperately with each passing day, for its Soul. As with every great civilization in history, until it is so animated, and its spiritual faculties awakened, it will find neither peace, nor justice, nor a unity that rises above the level of negotiation and compromise.29

Belief in the nobility and unity of humanity is not common today, but future generations can be taught to think in these terms. As the constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) states, “since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.” Giving attention to people’s moral and spiritual development is crucial to the creation of a peaceful, secure world.

37 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation Qf‘Universal Peace, pp. 32, 344.

38 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1997), p. 317.

3° C entwjv OfLight, p. 94.

214

[Page 215]WORLD WATCH

In a recent statement on sustainable development, the Bahá’í International Community cautioned, “Any strategies for overcoming such constraints and challenges as war, poverty, social disintegration, extreme nationalism, greed, corruption, and apathy, which do not take into account spiritual principles will prove ephemeral, at best.” It urged the holding of international consultations among religious representatives and leaders to examine the spiritual dimensions of development, which “would undoubtedly produce innovative ideas and approaches and might possibly generate a powerful Vision based on spin'tual principles—principles which, because they resonate with the human soul, have the power to motivate the sacrifices and changes that will be needed if humanity is to overcome the seemingly intractable problems it faces.”30 Another initiative that has been promoted by the Bahá’í International Community is the development and global implementation of a children’s education program in world citizenship. Such a program could contribute to effecting change over only a few generations, enabling the young people of the world to see each other as members of one human family, all with the same rights—and the responsibility to guard others’ welfare as well as their own.

We are now moving through a difficult and dangerous time of transition, but while the world faces grave problems, it is also making progress, however halting the pace and whatever the temporary setbacks it suffers. Writing at the beginning of the twentieth century, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá referred to seven “candles of unity,” which, He said, were even at that point “dawning upon the world’s darkened horizon”:

The first candle is unity in the political realm, the early glimmerings ofwhich can now be discerned. The second candle is unity of thought in world undertakings, the consummation of which will erelong be witnessed. The third candle is unity in freedom which will surely come to pass. The fourth candle

3" See pp. 229—33 for the full text of this statement, which was presented by the Bahá’í International Community to the first session of the Preparatory Committee of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in New York in April/ May 2001.

215

[Page 216]T11; BAHA’T WORLD

is unity in religion which is the corner—stone of the foundation itself, and which, by the power of God, will be revealed in all its splendor. The fifth candle is the unity of nations—a unity which in this century will be securely established, causing all the peoples of the world to regard themselves as citizens of one common fatherland. The sixth candle is unity of races, making of all that dwell on earth peoples and kindreds of one race. The seventh candle is unity of language, i.e., the choice of a universal tongue in which all peoples will be instructed and converse. Each and every one of these will inevitably come to pass, inasmuch as the power of the Kingdom of God will aid and assist in their realization.31

While the world still has far to go before it realizes this Vision in anything like its complete form, Century osz'ght affirms that the processes involved in several of these seven areas “are far advanced, however great may be the resistance in some quarters.”32

According to the Bahá’í perspective, the world is currently engaged in “simultaneous processes of rise and of fall, of integration and of disintegration, of order and chaos,” which have “continuous and reciprocal reactions on each other.”33 These processes are necessary, as outworn social structures, suited to a prior age but no longer adequate for today’s reality, are discarded. In 1936 the Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith, Shoghi Effendi, wrote in these terms about the principle of the oneness of humankind that must underlie a new order:

It implies an organic change in the structure of present-day society, a change such as the world has not yet experienced. It constitutes a challenge, at once bold and universal, to outworn shibboleths of national creeds—creeds that have had their day and which must, in the ordinary course of events as shaped and controlled by Providence, give way to a new gospel, fundamentally different from, and infinitely superior to, what the world has already conceived. It calls for no less than the reconstruction and the demilitarization of the whole civilized

31 Selectionsfrom the Writings of ‘Abdu ’l-Bahd, p. 32.

32 Century ofLight, p. 83.

3’3 Shoghi Effendi, T he Advent osz'vine Justice (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1990), pp. 72—73.

216

[Page 217]WORLD WATCH

world—a world organically unified in all the essential aspects of its life, its political machinery, its spiritual aspiration, its trade and finance, its script and language, and yet infinite in the diversity of the national characteristics of its federated units.34

The struggle of the world to resist this fundamental principle and the revolutionary changes it entails is evident in the upsurge of nationalism, racism, religious fundamentalism, and terrorism seen today. Yet Bahá’ís believe, as a matter of faith, that “world peace is not only possible but inevitable” and that “the current world confusion and calamitous condition in human affairs [is] a natural phase in an organic process leading ultimately and irresistibly to the unification of the human race in a single social order whose boundaries are those of the planet.”35 But Whether that stage of unity and peace “is to be reached only after unimaginable horrors precipitated by humanity’s stubborn clinging to old patterns of behavior, or is to be embraced now by an act of consultative will, is the choice before all who inhabit the earth.”36 How the nations of the world choose to deal with the threats that terrorism poses to their peoples will be one clear indicator as to the path that humanity will choose.

3“ Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1991), pp. 43.

35 The Pmmise o/‘World Peace, Introduction, paras. 6—9.

3" The Promise of World Peace, Introduction, paras. l and 2.

217