「テロとの戦い」は間違い

▼「対テロ戦争」は誤りだった　英外相、有力紙に投稿
http://www.asahi.com/international/update/0116/TKY200901160015.html
《英国のミリバンド外相は１５日付有力紙ガーディアンに掲載された投稿で「『対テロ戦争』は誤りだった」と断じた。……外相は、テロは世界各地で多様な事情から発生しているにもかかわらず、「対テロ戦争」という概念は「諸グループを十把一絡げにし、善悪あるいは穏健派と過激派というように２者対立の境界線を引いてきた。しかしそれを進めれば進めるほどあまり共通点を持たないグループの統一に手を貸すことになった」と逆効果が大きかったことを指摘。……そのうえで法治主義や地域協力、人権の推進などがテロへの回答でなければならないと主張。オバマ米次期大統領によるグアンタナモ収容所の閉鎖方針を歓迎した。英国政府は２年余り前から「対テロ戦争」という用語の使用を避けるようになっていた。テロをかえってあおるとの判断からだ。「対テロ戦争」は英語では「ｗａｒ　ｏｎ　ｔｅｒｒｏｒ」。日本語では「テロとの戦い」と訳す場合もある。 》

▽The Guardian
'War on terror' was wrong
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/15/david-miliband-war-terror
《The idea of a "war on terror" gave the impression of a unified, transnational enemy, embodied in the figure of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. The reality is that the motivations and identities of terrorist groups are disparate... They are as diverse as the 1970s European movements of the IRA, Baader-Meinhof, and Eta. All used terrorism and sometimes they supported each other, but their causes were not unified and their cooperation was opportunistic. So it is today.
The more we lump terrorist groups together and draw the battle lines as a simple binary struggle between moderates and extremists, or good and evil, the more we play into the hands of those seeking to unify groups with little in common. Terrorist groups need to be tackled at root, interdicting flows of weapons and finance, exposing the shallowness of their claims, channelling their followers into democratic politics.
The "war on terror" also implied that the correct response was primarily military. But as General Petraeus said to me and others in Iraq, the coalition there could not kill its way out of the problems of insurgency and civil strife.》