Does Bin Laden’s death mark the end or a new beginning for al Qaeda?

The killing of Bin Laden crowns a series of defeats suffered by Al Qaeda in recent years, as a response to the attacks of 9/11 and those in Europe. Al Qaeda’s members have been hunted down everywhere: in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries, obliging the organization to set up a new form of leadership spread out in the Islamic world. Hence new affiliations have appeared in all those areas where tension runs high, such as Somalia, Chechnya, Iraq, Yemen, and also in the Maghreb countries, with a new strategy based on kidnappings.

Terrorism can only be effectively opposed through international coordination and cooperation, and by identifying the reasons for its spread. It is not enough to oppose terrorism simply by capturing, putting on trial or killing only the leaders, since many of those involved in attacks blamed on Al Qaeda have not even been trained or have not even ever come into contact with the organisation’s leaders, but rather agreed to implement their plans spontaneously and for ideological reasons.

Many reports and research papers confirm that the spread of Al-Qaeda to many areas of the world does not depend on personal affiliations relations or orders from above, but is instead an ideological self-affiliation resulting in the founding of cells independent from the central organization.

Why does President Obama insist on saying this war is not against Islam?

From the very start President Obama sent positive signals to Muslims. However, the fact remains that what has taken place in the field concerning the Palestinian issue and the occupation of Iraq, has removed some of the meaning from these messages. There was a desire to gain the sympathy of Muslims and Islamic countries, so as to isolate Al Qaeda and avoid others sympathising with its agenda.

Have the peaceful Arab uprisings caused the projects of Islamist movements preaching terrorism to fail?

There is no doubt that the masses that have taken to the streets in Arab countries, led by the young, have resulted in a reassessment of peaceful change. Hence the consensus of various elements in society gathered around a series of shared claims and objectives, siding against one single school of thought.

How do you judge the revisionism enacted by some leaders of Islamist and jihadist movements?

I believe that resorting to terrorism means eliminating reasoning and the culture of difference, dialogue and coexistence, especially when innocent civilians are targeted. It really appears that, faced with criticism and the stigmatisation of violent methods, both within individual states and at an international level, many movements have resorted to revisionism, contributing decisively to shifting ideological positions that often lead people to commit acts of violence.

Is the world a safer place following the death of Bin Laden, as the American president has said?

The creation of a real strategy in the battle against terrorism should be based on a global concept of terrorism, overcoming the approach based solely on security. The real war on terrorism will never be won if all regional dossiers and international issues remain unsolved (Israel’s occupation of Palestinian Territories and the American occupation of Iraq), if America continues to have a provocative attitude with unfair policies in many areas, even obstructing the work of international organisations such as the United Nations or leading them astray from their legitimate objectives. Scholars and experts unanimously consider such attitudes as instigation to terrorism.

After the announcement of the killing of Bin Laden, the debate has been centred on the manner in which he was buried at sea. Will the Bin Laden nightmare continue also after his death?

Many observers have expressed their disappointment with the manner in which Bin Laden’s body was treated, thrown into the sea with the excuse that a grave could have become the destination for pilgrims and a source of inspiration for Al-Qaeda’s philosophy.

Al-Qaeda’s project did not end with the killing of Bin Laden, evidenced by the spreading of the organisation to other areas and a rise in the numbers of its supporters and sympathizers, even in Western countries. It appears that the USA is fully aware that things will become increasingly dangerous due to a desire for revenge.

Dictatorial regimes in Arab countries have exploited terrorism to repress freedom and strengthen the state of emergency. Is this bogeyman game now over?

What has taken place in Tunisia and Egypt, as well as the loud protests held in an entire series of Arab countries, prove that these regimes are on a dead-end road as the people gain awareness of the need to be free from corruption and injustice.

Even Western countries are becoming aware of the cost to their policies and economies arising from complicity with totalitarian regimes. It is thus best to support the democratic process, which is a reliable path to stability and transparency.

If violence is of no use for bringing change and democracy, then how should tyranny in the Arab world be defeated?

The loud popular protests taking place in many Arab countries have led to a reassessment of the role played by the will of the people. Many Arab political regimes have managed to control their elites (military, intellectual, economic, religious, party etc.), at times with threats and at times with flattery, restricting their space for political-constitutional manoeuvring. This has made them incapable and no longer legitimately able to take part in the leadership during the period of change, and regimes continue with their misuse of power and contempt for the will of the people.

Translated by Francesca Simmons