Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov made us silent by ploughing down pedestrians and cyclists on a New York bike path with a truck on October 31, as the attack on humanity shocked all of us.
It is difficult to understand the psychology of a terrorist, like Saipov, who can easily claim lives of many innocent people. On the last day of October, 11 people died in New York. Others are still in hospitals. People, across the globe, have learned how to live with fear in recent times as terrorism knows no geography and respects no boundaries.
Saipov had a clean criminal record. When such a person carries out a terror attack singlehandedly (without receiving support from a terror outfit), the entire society comes under tremendous pressure. Moreover, Saipov is a Muslim. So, his ‘act’ makes the entire community the ‘most vulnerable’. The ‘all powerful’ state starts considering all the members of the community as immigrants or illegal residents. All of a sudden, the minority community feels socially isolated (even in a democratic country).
And if those, who are in charge of the state or administration (read Donald Trump), don’t know how to tackle a ‘lone wolf’, then the state plans to take ‘revenge’, instead of trying to get rid of the global menace. Inevitably, the society becomes divided in a minute and terrorists, who try to create this situation, feel ‘happy’ and ‘satisfied’. Saipovs have singlehandedly won the ‘battle’ this way in Paris, Brussels, London, New York and in other places. That’s why they are most dangerous.

The challenge is different, if terror attacks are carried out by an organisation or a network. To claim lives by launching attacks on trains or on aircraft is a part of terror strategy and the state can adopt a counter strategy to foil such attacks. But when a driver near the London Bridge or in Manhattan proves that any vehicle can become a dangerous weapon at any time, it becomes ‘impossible’ for the state to protect its people. It also becomes difficult for any administration or any intelligence agency to find a solution.
Of course, the state can keep every person under surveillance as a precautionary measure. But, such a move will be practically impossible and unethical. The way to handle the second challenge is still ‘unknown’ especially in a liberal democratic society.
President Trump certainly thinks he knows everything. He did not include Uzbeks in his travel ban released in October. However, he changed his mind soon after the New York attack and decided to add the Central Asian country to the travel ban as Saipov is an Uzbek national.
In an article published in ‘Newsweek’ on November 2, immigration policy analyst David Bier wrote: “…..adding Uzbekistan to the travel ban would be unwise for a president whose administration has guided him toward adopting a very specific strategy to defend the ban: that the governments of the banned nationalities fail to meet certain criteria relating to identity management, information sharing and terrorist activity in their country.” Bier added: “…the president did not apply the criteria in any objective way, banning some countries that meet the criteria while not banning many other countries that fail them. But adding yet another country that he himself said just a month ago meets the criteria would further expose the travel ban criteria as the sham that they are.”

Like the American president, not everyone believes in simplification of rules. So, the danger will exist, even if the US government cancels the ‘Diversity Visa Lottery Programme’. That’s why people, like Bier, are opposing the president’s move. The problem is that the liberals, too, simplify matters while opposing the conservatives’ moves.
The crisis is really a serious one. It is difficult to predict how a liberal democratic state will defend itself. The state will have to review the situation and to consider opposite views on war against terror before making a move.

Boundless Ocean of Politics on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/boundlessoceanofpolitics/

Boundless Ocean of Politics on Google Plus:
https://plus.google.com/+KoushikDasboundless

Boundless Ocean of Politics on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/kousdas?s=09

Contact us: kousdas@gmail.com

Published by Koushik Das

Koushik Das (born on May 16, 1976 in Kolkata) is a career journalist. Based in the Indian capital of New Delhi, Koushik writes mainly about foreign policies and current geopolitical issues, and rarely about other topics. His own political ideas are highly influenced by Antonio Gramsci, Louis Althusser, Michel Foucault, Michael Oakeshott and others. English philosopher and political theorist Oakeshott (Dec 11, 1901-Dec 19, 1990) says that “in political activity, men sail a boundless and bottomless sea. There is neither harbour for shelter nor floor for anchorage, neither starting-place, nor appointed destination. But we have to keep afloat”. (Rationalism in Politics, 1962) As a student of Political Science, Koushik loves to share his views on issues, which have great impacts on his thought process (and also on India, South Asia and of course on the global community), with his readers through his website – Boundless Ocean of Politics. By doing so, he tries to keep himself afloat. You will find some of his articles in https://inserbia.info/today/ (https://inserbia.info/today/author/kou_das13_i/), as he has been trying to assess the global geopolitics since 2003. You can also mail him at kousdas@gmail.com View all posts by Koushik Das