Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo were key in the conflicts of former-Yugoslavia in Europe. In Russia the Muslim phenomenon has been the cause of the Chechen war in times when similar movements are scattered across several former Soviet Republics in Asia. Meanwhile, in China, India and Pakistan, Muslim minorities have been involved in terrorist and separatist acts. In Africa, there are terrorist movements of Muslim origin in countries like Egypt and Algeria. On the West, the attacks of the ‘90s perpetrated against Argentina and the attacks to two US embassies in Africa proved the conflict had already turned international before the end of the XX century.

From this perspective, the attack against the United States crowns a long-running global conflict whose lead players are Muslim bigots scattered around the world.

In November 2000, a research work we conducted in Centro de Estudios Unión para la Nueva Mayoría studying the risks for global security derived from the Middle East conflict pointed that ‘history shows that crises generally escalate due to errors in calculation. In addition, unexpected events usually alter likely scenarios and may influence the development of the crises’.

We added that the ‘Middle East crisis has already escalated due to errors in calculation’ and so it was ‘a crisis likely to affect global security that proved essential to control for in case of calculation errors consequences could be very serious for worldwide peace’

The military logics of the global conflict sparked by the September 11 attack against the United States, has been present in the Palestine-Israeli dispute since the end of last year. At that time, a Palestinian suicide immolated himself at a night club claiming dozens of deadly victims among Israeli people. Israel responds with military retaliation against Palestinian facilities and militants thus causing countless deaths. A new Palestinian suicide sacrifices himself at a beach again claiming the lives of dozens Israelis. Israeli military forces answer back targeting precisely on Palestinian forces causing a high toll.

It is clear that Israeli military reprisals failed to thwart Palestinians’ suicide attacks. Israelis act under the Western military logics while Palestinians stick to the rules of Muslim fundamentalism.

The long-running showdown between Israelis and Palestinians must be carefully observed in times when the United States readies to launch its military reprisal against countries supporting fundamentalist terrorism.

The logics of this new conflict shows that a military retaliation may spark new terrorist acts -rather than thwart them- not using planes this time but actions related to a bacteriological war or missile deployment or even nuclear tactic weapons.

This does not mean the West should give up efforts before this threat but that military plans can by no means be subject to the urgencies perceived in anxious public opinions but to the need to take effective steps to eradicate terrorism.

The military strategy requires time. Just as after Pearl Harbor the allies took over one year to disembark in Northern Africa , several months to do in Sicily, almost a year to disembark in France and another to be present in Berlin and some months more to nuke Japan. The conflict will be long.

Despite Muslim minorities are today involved in conflicts around the world, the Palestinian-Israeli dispute and its escalation in the past months as well as Washington’s support to the government of Tel Aviv in this conflict, is key to understand the situation despite Bin Laden’s role or the protection granted to him by the Taliban regime that rules Afghanistan.

Likewise, the dispute between Palestinians and Israelis is fundamental to understand the logics of the conflict and from this view, the decision of the Israeli government to accept new talks with Palestinians may solve an efficient situation to avert a greater global conflict escalation.

Against this framework, Latin America is not a major trouble spot but is equally involved as it is part of the Western Hemisphere and culture just like the United States.

Despite the TIAR resolutions, Washington will request two major efforts on regional countries: prevent the settling of fundamentalist terrorist support networks and have a symbolic involvement with limited troops –as happened with Argentina in the Gulf War- in the military coalition against the aggressor.

In the face of these two requirements, Latin American countries will have to take a definite stance in the days ahead.