of suggesting that 'clash of civlisations' was at hand. Some of the attacks carried out by these radical Islamic groups against western targets have been manipulated by the US to project itself as the primary target of world terrorism. This, despite the fact that over the past fifteen years there have been only seven terrorist strikes involving the loss of American lives of which Oklahoma bombing was essentially a case of internal terrorism. America has never treated Islamic fundamentalist ideology or its militarised foot-soldiers in adversorial terms. Nor is it likely to do so as long as it remains committed to the pursuit of its hegemonist designs by means fair or foul. Precisely for this reason, it is selective in its condemnation of terrorist groups and 'rogue' states. Bin Laden is a monster, not because he carries the burden of a rogue ideology, but because he has turned anti-US. A major chunk of Osama's secret funds lie stacked in US banks under third-party bank accounts. And US agencies have been reluctant in uravelling his financial empire, which sustains the international terrorist network. US has been quite careful in not censuring Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which sponsor cross-country terrorism. It has been quite harsh to the secular Arab regimes like Iraq. The truth remains that America uses Islamist groups and friendly terrorist regimes to carry out its geo-political imperatives. The notorious Taliban militia is a joint creation of US-Saudi Arabia-Pakistan. In Kashmir also, US continues to extend patronage to the neo-fundamentalist separatist groups in pursuit of its design of creating an 'Independent' Kashmir. 

Samuel Huntington's conjuring of 'clash of civilisations' in essence is a convenient and elaborate justification for frequent and otherwise unjustifiable interventions in areas of perceived American strategic interests. 

American strikes against terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Sudan last August did try to generate some euphoria. The past experience and the follow-up of these attacks are enough to put America's role vis-a-vis Islamic fundamentalism in perspective. 

LIBERAL ENTRY 
The US government has been quite liberal in allowing entry to terrorists or agents of terrorist regimes and organisations. Many terrorists enter US on 'student visas' to camouflage their illicit activities as operatives for terrorist organisations. Others come for advanced education and return to their countries, where some might work in nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programme. A recent study carried out by the state department shows that there are at least two hundred known terrorists or agents of terrorist regimes and organisations, who have received student visas in the past decade to pursue undergraduate or graduate training. 

Despite advanced computer systems employed by the US security, Islamists encounter no difficulty in entering the US. Terrorists manage to enter us using false identification, while others simply sneak in because they are not on any watch-list. 

There is yet another category of  terrorist agents, who enter for shorter periods. Clerics, officials, representatives and leaders of the terrorist groups come to attend Islamic Conferences, organised by pro-militant association of American Muslims. The members belong to such terrorist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jehad, al-Gama'at Islamiya, Sudanese National Islamic Front, Jordan's Islamic Action Front and Hizbullah. The real purpose of these visits is to recruit new members for terrorist organisations, facilitate fund raising for terrorist activities, coordinate political and even military strategies with other militant leaders, indoctrinate new 'foot soldiers' and even participate in terrorist training sessions. In December 1989 three top fundamentalist leaders visited US to 'attend' a conference at Chicago. These included Rachid Ghanouchi, an accused in the plot to kill Tunisian President; Bashir Nafi, the funding member of Islamic Jehad and Abdul Aziz Odeh, the spiritual leader of the Islamic Jehad. In Kansas city in 1989-90, in the off-stage secret meetings, new Hamas recruits were reportedly taught car-bombings and other types of terrorist warfare. A Keffiyeh-draped leader of Izzadin Al-Qassem death squads-the military arm of Hamas, delivered a rousing account of the specific violent terrorist attacks carried out by the HAMAS. 

On June 19-21, 1991, the virginia-based United Association for Studies and Research (UASR) co-sponsored one of the largest gatherings of Islamist militants ever held in the US. Kamal Hilbawi, the leader of Muslim brotherhood of Egypt, openly incited terrorist attacks against the Jews. Bassam Al-Amoush, a top Pan Islamist leader from Jordan who echoed similar rhetoric at Chicago in 1994, had audience with top officials of the State department and at Capitol Hill, by courtesy of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). 

The two top fundamentalist leaders who have been regularly visiting US for 'lecture circuit' are Sheikh Ghuniem (Egypt) and Yusuf Qaradawi, an Egyptian-born militant cleric living in Qatar. Qaradawi's 'The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam', is extremely popular among HAMAS ativists. He openly preaches violence and hatred against jews on his website. Despite preaching avowed disaffection, Qaradawi never had a problem in entering US. He praises Sudan as a model for the Muslim world. Ghuniem, a firebrand cleric is a regular visitor to US and delivers lectures in large and small venues. He has his own style of communication laces his talks with interesting anecdotes. Ghuniem praises terrorists and rationalises the terrorist attacks. 

Ghuniem was the star speaker at Brooklyn, (New York) conference organised by Pan Islamist groups on May 24, 1998. He declared that 'the conflict with the jews was not over land but one of religion'. The assembled audience heard Ghuniem in rapt attention.He later led them in a special song condemning Jews. 

Canadian authorities denied him entry in December 1997 on the grounds that he belonged to Muslim brotherhood and Hamas. But US not only allowed him entry but overlooked his activities involving recruitment of new members, raising funds, and coordinating strategies with other militant Islamic leaders passing the US. 

There are many more militant Islamic leaders, who appear regularly before large Muslim audiences in the US. The Islamist militants on the US 'lecture circuit' are sponsored by major American Muslim organ-isations. They travel throughout the America, lecturing at mosques and Islamic centres filled to the capacity. The level of popularity, these militants have achieved, would seem to suggest an ideological acceptance by the members of the audience. The Clinton administration is also guilty of legitimising self-declared 'civil rights' and 'mainstream' Islamic organisations that infact operate as propaganda and political arms of Islamic fundamentalist movements. Leaders of such groups have often been given audience with top officials. Twice Hillary Clinton hosted receptions for American Muslims at the end of the Ramadan. It was organised by Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). This council has consistently promoted the activities of HAMAS, Turkey's fundamentalist welfare party, the Muslim brotherhood etc. Its officials have also repeatedly defended Hezbollah, while publicly insisting that they condemn terrorism. Thus known militants and supporters of Islamic extremism get invited, to White House, through the courtesy of such American Muslim organisation-Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Islamic Centre of Southern California (ICSC). 

About these organisations, Steve Emerson, the international authority on radical Islamist networks, writes 'MPAC and the ICSC hide behind a facade that disguises their extremist views, which they try to keep from becoming fused with the image they want to maintain as mainstream responsible leaders and moderate American Islamic group'. 

There is growing resentment, among American people over State department's softpeddling of radical Islamist groups. The accusations range from allowing and protecting financial network of terrorist groups, not touching safe havens and according religious legitimacy to the terrorist groups. 

In the US, militant Islamic movements raise tens of millions of dollars a year-much of it through tax-exempt charitable organisations. This is then funnelled to oversease radical Islamist groups. Though US laws prohibit such fund raising but since the law does not name cover groups, it allows sufficient space to terrorist groups to operate their financial network. So far the Clinton administration has gone after only politically easy targets of Afghanistan and Sudan. It has avoided closing down all other terrorist safe havens, particularly in Pakistan. 

US's softpeddling has serious consequences in the legitimisation and proliferation of the culture of violence among the growing number of militant supporters of radical Islamist outfits. By allowing free entry to the militant Islamist leaders, the US government makes mockery of its own counter-terrorist policy. The 'lecture circuit', conducted by the radical groups is contributing to the radicalisation of segments of the American Muslim community. Regular visits by foreign-based Islamist leaders have also facilitated the indoctrination and recruitment of new foot soldiers into the international terrorist network. The visits also provide a forum for fundraising, a key component of the terrorist infrastructure. 

Again on a note of prophetic warning, Steve Emerson, writes 'If the battle against Bin Laden is to be won, then it will require systematic effort to isolate and undermine the ideological underpinnings of militant Islamic ideology. The vast majority of Muslims worldwise do not support violence. They deserve leaders who will unequivocally condemn the extremist wing of militant Islamic ideology.' He also advocates a sustained and comprehensive counter-terrorist programme-one that aims at drying up terrorist financing, taking away terrorist safe havens and denying terrorists the religious legitimacy.
 

Previous Article

Next Article