What
about the threat of terrorism?
There is clearly a threat of terrorism but the way in
which the war on terrorism is being fought is, I think, very
counterproductive in that it relies very heavily on military
measures in which tens of thousands of people have already
been killed, mostly civilians, and, if anything, there's still
very little attempt to get to the root of the terrorist organisations,
particularly where they are getting their support from and
why; if anything, their support is growing. One has to say
candidly that the occupation of Iraq has been a gift to organisations
such as Al-qaeda and, if anything, they have more support
than they had two or three years ago so you are going to have
to rethink what is admittedly a serious problem.
So
you don't think the US has done all it can to combat terrorism?
I think the US attitude and, to some extent, the attitude
of some other countries, is based on traditional counter-terrorism...20,000
civilians have already died in Iraq alone. You have tens of
thousands of people detained without trial, all with the aim
of controlling these terrorism movements, but it's proving
counterproductive because you are getting anger, bitterness
and almost a thirst for retaliation which is actually being
strengthened, not weakened. In other words using these traditional
methods won't work on their own. In fact they are being used
excessively as well.
How
deeply do you think terrorism is rooted in religion?
Not as much as most people think. I think if you look
at terrorist organisations in different parts of the world,
while some of them have been rooted in religion, many others
haven't. The Maoists in Nepal, who have a major insurgency
underway, are not religion-based. The Shining Path guerilla,
a bitter insurgency - that was political, so it's not always
religious. I think sometimes when people are embittered and
marginalised they tend to fall back on religion rather than
it being the root cause so I am dubious about how much is,
at root, religious.
 |
| Should
questions of conflict and reconciliation be left to the
United Nations and the great powers? |
We've
talked about the dominant powers and the UN, and what they
might have done for peace? Is there anything you think individuals
can do?
There's a huge amount looking at the kinds of problems
we're going to be facing over the next 30 or 40 years. We
still have this very bitter rich-poor divide. About one and
a quarter billion of us are doing very well but most of the
rest aren't, but are much more aware of this than in the past
through education and the media, and that is what is driving
some of these radical movements. It's this knowledge about
their own marginalisation.
I
think environmental constraints are going to be massively
significant, particularly climate change...You know the world
is more and more dependent on oil from very few parts of the
planet, mostly the Persian Gulf, and to some extent the Caspian
basin, and unless we can get over that addiction to oil we
are going to have wars in that region and bigger problems
of climate change. Now all of this relates to what individual
people need to know and do themselves. Knowledge is usually
important and there have to be changes in governmental policies
in many countries which I do believe may be more likely to
come from concerned individuals pushing very hard. It's a
huge task but I think it does have to be done.
The
very notion of Peace Studies as an academic discipline is
very much associated with the University of Bradford. How
did this come about?
It's
nearly 35 years ago now. It was actually a group of Quakers,
members of the Society of Friends who had a concern - they
wanted to see some sort of Peace Studies centre established
in a British university. There were others, the Stockholm
one was already operating very well, but they wanted to see
one in Britain...They approached a number of universities.
Bradford was interested in the early 1970s - it had only got
its charter a few years previously and was heavily technological
and wanted to balance this technology with applied social
sciences. Its Vice-Chancellor, a radical educationalist, Ted
Edwards was known as Red Ted and his deputy Robert McKinley
was actually a Quaker, and so they took up the idea. The Quakers
set up an appeal and raised the present day equivalent of
well over half-a-million pounds in a few weeks to get the
department started, and then it became a conventional department
getting its money from research grants and student fees. It
was a Quaker initiative but the department has grown and is
now easily the biggest in the world, and probably the best
known with an incredible range of students, many of them mature
students who have experienced war at first hand, a remarkable
group to teach.
 |
| Many
of the Peace Studies students at the University of Bradford
have experienced war at first hand. |
What
part do you think the United Kingdom can play in the 21st
Century?
It could be a very powerful role. The UK is a relatively wealthy
country. It has good links with the United States. It has
the European dimension, it has the Commonwealth dimension
and it's a much more multicultural society so if one wanted
to be positive about it there's an immense amount Britain
can do. International development work has improved a lot
and I think Clare Short [former Secretary of State for Overseas
Development] was excellent in terms of promoting that, and
we could be doing far more in terms of our domestic policies
and also agenda-setting internationally. To be fair to the
British they've tried to get the issue of international debt
on the G8 agenda more systematically in recent years. Britain
could be a lead country in combating climate change. You know
we have a huge capacity for wind and wave-power and other
things for energy conservation - again we could do much more
domestically while at the same time promoting a much better
agenda internationally.
The
British armed forces are very professional. They were never
really interested in peace-keeping until the 1990s but they
have embraced it and they are getting quite competent at it.
Britain could be much stronger on the peace-keeping role and
be very pro the UN. There are all sorts of ways in which a
middle-ranking power can have a positive influence out of
scale to its actual size if it chooses to do so, and Britain
has done a bit of that. It's been a little bit better in recent
years. I think it could be very much better though.
Professor
Rogers was interviewed by Chris Verguson
