By Mark Coddington
mark.coddington@theindependent.com

That's where Nabil Fahmy's objections started.

"I don't see any real relationship between democracy and the war against terror," said Fahmy, Egypt's ambassador to the United States.

"The linkage between lack of democracy and terrorism is really very, very weak."

Fahmy was one of three ambassadors to the U.S. who took part in the forum, which was part of UNK's annual James E. Smith Midwest Conference on World Affairs.

This year's conference, whose theme is "Global Power, War and Inequality in the 21st Century," runs through tonight.

Fahmy and Pierre Vimont, France's ambassador to the U.S., agreed that while promoting democracy and fighting terrorism are two noble and worthwhile goals, it's best not to pursue the former in order to help the latter.

Fahmy pointed to examples of terrorism from splinter groups in Germany, Spain, Egypt and Japan during the past half-century to argue that terrorism occurs across democratic and non-democratic forms of government.

Instead, he said, the common link among terrorists has been a perception of being cheated by those in power and a strong desire for radical change.

"All terrorists will use legitimate issues in our societies to argue for an illegitimate cause," Fahmy said.

Fahmy divided terrorists into two camps: ideologues like Osama bin Laden, who head up organizations, and supporters, who often carry out the attacks.

The ideologues should be seen primarily from a perspective emphasizing global security, Fahmy said, but the supporters often join for social, economic and political reasons.

The U.S. would do best, he said, to address those root issues, which exist regardless of form of government.

Vimont made a similar point, arguing from the history of terrorism in France that referring to a monolithic "war on terror" oversimplifies something that has been changing for centuries.

"Terrorism is not something that you can generalize easily," Vimont said.

Sudjadnan Parnohadiningrat, Indonesia's ambassador to the U.S., disagreed with Fahmy, saying that his country's process of building a full democracy since 1998 has led to great strides in combating terrorism.

Between that date and 2004, when it held its first fully democratic election, Indonesia faced several terrorist attacks. But in 2003 and 2004, he said, the country's leaders were able to pass laws building the government's ability to stem terrorism, including the creation of a center for its anti-terrorism efforts.

Adopting a democracy allowed Indonesia to become more of a part of the international community, Parnohadiningrat said, enabling it to become a stronger partner in the global fight against terrorism.

Likewise, all three ambassadors applauded the idea behind the United States' efforts to build democracy.

But Fahmy and Vimond criticized its method, saying the U.S. was trying to impose a Western-style democracy on countries that needed to develop their own form.

In Afghanistan, Vimond said, the U.S. underestimated the role tribal chiefs have played in local government.

"We have put there a democratic model that has very little to do with the history of the country," he said.