As Figure 3 shows, AUC students were more likely than Rider students to choose to “go it alone and cooperate only when necessary” and to “cooperate when possible, and go it alone only when necessary,” rather than to work together with all countries to discover the root causes of terrorism.

One clear message emerging from the discussion was that the AUC students did not trust the definitions, motives, or approach of the United States when it came to dealing with terrorism. They acknowledged it was a problem, but perceived (correctly) that the semantic battle over defining terrorism would ultimately affect judgments of the parties involved:

AUC STUDENT: We are [all] having a difficult time because we don’t want to be labeled terrorists.

SECOND AUC STUDENT: There is a difference between terrorism and fighting for one’s own land.

RIDER STUDENT: We can’t agree on [a definition of] terrorism…

The Rider students understood the AUC students’ position, but did not initially share their fear of being labeled as supporting terrorism. Yet, the students were able to reach some common ground after an incident in Cairo on April 7, 2005, despite the AUC students’ continuing mistrust of American methods and motives:

AUC STUDENT: Yesterday, a bomb exploded in Cairo. I was really scared because it was in a very important area. Actually, it made me think about our discussions about terrorism. I think terrorism can be defined as any violent act against civilians that spreads feelings of fear. What do you guys think?

RIDER STUDENT: I was really shocked to hear about the bombing in Cairo. The thing that is so scary about these terrorist attacks is that there is no warning and no apparent reason for them. I wish I thought terrorism in the world was going to go away. I just hope with a worldwide effort it can be contained and there will be less attacks.

AUC STUDENT: I also hated the bombing in Cairo and I condemned it a lot… But to what you were saying about you hoping terrorism would go away… to tell you the truth, I think what they [the United States] are doing under the name “war on terrorism” is only going to promote and encourage more terrorism with more “creative” ways, due to the fact that the war on either Afghanistan or Iraq or whomever is coming next is creating hatred and hostility between the different nations in specific [ways] and different civilizations in general… How could you ever ask people to stop violence through violence?

It would appear from the results that the differences between the AUC and Rider students were so profound on the issue of terrorism that no amount of deliberative discussion would allow them to reach common ground.  However, the project required that they attempt to do just that—to create a statement of common principles for a “global civil society” that would apply to all nations.  On the subject of terrorism, the students worked together and drew up the following statement:

We believe terrorism is a method—a means to an end—not an ideology. Thus, it should be defined as “The threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives." We concluded that the root causes of terrorism are poverty, lack of education, political oppression, retaliation out of anger and retribution, unjustified hatred and fundamentalism. In order to minimize terrorist attacks the international community should strive to lessen the aforementioned root causes of terrorism and increase international and domestic collaboration among intelligence agencies.

Clearly, this statement does not address all of the issues raised in the deliberative forums. But it does, perhaps, indicate greater progress towards settling on definitions and common ground than government officials and diplomats have been able to achieve. While one must add the caveats that this was a pilot project, and that students are not burdened with the extra considerations that elites have, it suggests the usefulness of continuing and expanding these dialogues between United States and Middle Eastern students. As Hal Saunders said in his book, The Public Peace Process,

Only governments can write peace treaties, but only human beings—citizens outside government—can transform conflictual relationships between people into peaceful relationships.

As such, citizens have a critical role in this process apart from their leaders.  To put it another way, as a student from AUC stated, after all is said and done, “It is important for all of us that the West and the East realize they need each other.”

Roberta Fiske-Rusciano is an adjunct assistant professor in global and multinational studies, gender studies, and multicultural studies, and Frank Louis Rusciano is a professor of political science, at Rider University. Ibrahim Saleh is an assistant professor in the Journalism and Mass Communication Department at the American University in Cairo. Listing of authors’ names is alphabetical, and implies no ordering about their relative contributions to this study.

For more on world opinion and terrorism, see Professor Rusciano's just-released book, Global Rage After the Cold War, which is featured in this month's edition of In Print.

Clash of Civilizations as a Cause of Terrorism

Additional reading