Win hearts to fight terror

Western countries will be in trouble as long as they appear to be reluctant to put pressure on Israel to respect international law and support Palestinians' rights

The Nato summit which was held recently in Strasbourg and Kehl has been widely seen as a success. Some of the salient features of the meeting were the presence of a new and popular US President Barack Obama; the re-integration of France into the Western military bloc without any opposition from the French public, mainly due to the Obama factor; consensus on almost every point; and the unanimous appointment of a new secretary-general, former Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, despite initial opposition from Turkey.

Wisely, Obama has accepted not to make a case concerning the inability or unwillingness of European countries to send additional troops to Afghanistan. It is better to agree to disagree and hopefully the attitude of "either with us or against us" is over.

Usual sources of dispute among members seem to be under control. Obama is by conviction a multi-lateralist. Of course, disagreements and contradictory interests will emerge from time to time between some European members of Nato and the US. These will probably be managed without useless dramatisation. In the near future, Nato and European security and defence policy will appear as complementary rather than contradictory.

It would be wrong to think that Nato has entered into an era of clear skies. The future of Nato is at stake in Afghanistan. The new strategy -a more civilian-oriented approach - is not certain to prevail, but the previous one (which sought military victory mostly through military tools) was a recipe for defeat.

The most important challenge for the Western world is the future of its relationship with the Muslim world. Nato is the military alliance which brings most Western countries together. Therefore, what should be its role regarding this peerless strategic challenge?

First there is the question: Is Nato the most convenient Western structure to deal with the Muslim world? Are there no risks in giving a military response to a very sensitive, political challenge? Is there not a risk for a collective defence body to appear aggressive? The risk is for Nato to scrutinise the effects of the problem and to go to its roots.

For example, it is obvious that a large part of the Muslim world's anger against the West is linked to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and for following a biased a pro-Israeli policy.

Al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden and other extremists are using the double-standards of the West to rally Muslims to their cause. Hence Nato should address these issues for a viable future strategic policy.

The only way it can fight terrorists and potential terrorists is through cooperation with the Muslim world at all levels - judicial, intelligence, military, police and political. Also it should formulate measures to limit the influence of extremists.

Do we think that terrorism is something which cannot be explained and must be blindly fought or must we think about its roots? Why is there more terrorism now in the Middle East than, say two or three decades ago? If some are fighting the Westerners for what they are, many others are fighting for what the West has done or is doing.

If Nato wants to deal adequately with this challenge, should it have a broad vision of strategic affairs emphasising political aspects?

The West is threatened as much by terrorism as the Muslim world is. But the denomination 'war on terror' must be forgotten. It is linked to the Bush period and gives the impression of putting the cart before the horse because the former US president gave priority to military solution than to a political one.

The Nato leadership emphasises that it is not anti-Muslim itself and that it has signed many agreements and has conducted military exercises with various Arab and Muslim countries. Not only governments but also public opinion must be convinced by the close cooperation that Nato has with the Muslim world.

However, the Western countries will be in trouble as long as they appear to be reluctant to put pressure on Israel to respect international law and support the rights of the Palestinian people. They must understand that plain words, without action, are not sufficient to have good relations with Muslim countries.

Dr Pascal Boniface is the founder and director of the Institut de Relations Internationales et Strategiques.