Between February 17-19, a large conference on 'Countering Violent
Extremism' convened in Washington, bringing together political and
diplomatic representatives from over 60 countries, law enforcement
officials, religious leaders and experts.
The meeting constituted
a reaffirmation of the need for an effective multilateral strategy to
counter and prevent violent extremism in today's increasingly
challenging environments. At the same time, it hinted at a very
significant change in the international community's approach to these
problems: scope, strategy and semantics are being duly reconsidered. And
yet a series of contradictions threaten to hamper the possibility of
making credible headway.
A change in scope
9/11 is
considered the paradigmatic moment that transformed definitions of
terrorism and the general global security framework. Today we are
experiencing another paradigm shift. The scope of the "problem" itself
has changed dramatically and the response to the problem is slowly
following suit.
The crucial distinguishing feature of today's
threat boils down to one word: territory. That violent non-state actors -
epitomized by Daesh - are in control of territory as large as Britain,
marking a serious evolution, both tactically and strategically, from the
Al-Qaeda-esque organizations of the last decade.
They also act
as trend-setters for other non-state actors - Boko Haram, for example -
that "territory" is both up for grabs and attainable. Indeed, "black
holes" - to borrow a term from John Simpson - are traceable across the
Middle East and North Africa from Mali to Iraq, from Libya to Syria. The
counter-terrorism and counterinsurgency architecture in place since
2001 and customized to Al Qaeda-style organizations is therefore out of
tune with the realities on the ground. Shortsighted military response -
while necessary at times - is no longer adequate to deal with such
deep-rooted entities that have a persuasive ideological premise.
The
sustained use of terror by said rogue elements may constitute
continuity, though today's actors are proving to be true "entrepreneurs"
of violence. Tactics and methods have evolved. Daesh is the innovator
of barbarism par excellence with its sophisticated video productions of
immolations, beheadings and other atrocities, all of which is part of a
sensationalist propaganda campaign that intends to both shock the world
and inspire new recruits. With over 90 nationalities now represented in
Daesh, a dynamic online presence and reverberations in Ottawa, Paris and
Copenhagen, it is a decidedly "global" operation.
Getting the strategic diagnosis right
The
statements that came from Washington indicated that we are slowly
coming to the correct strategic diagnosis of the problem. In his
remarks, President Barack Obama raised the "undeniable" nexus between
oppression and the socio-economic exclusion that gives rise to
terrorism.
This is a clarion call that fighting extremism is
anchored in human rights. But it is also a reminder that violent
extremism is a symptom of an underlying cause and a physical
manifestation of governance deficits. Member states are thus faced with
asking an important introspective question: what policies are incubating
violent extremism? What are the economic, social and political
circumstances that render certain individuals vulnerable to recruitment
and prone to radicalization?
Elephants in the room
When it
comes to the appropriate response, a number of elephants continue to
crowd the room in which this discussion is being had at the highest
level of international diplomacy. First, the discussion on human rights
and oppression becomes more complicated when some of the major players
in the fight against extremism are amongst the least inclusive and
undemocratic countries in the world.
This is a paradox that
requires overcoming and serves as an example of the real disconnect
between the "national" and "multilateral" channels of political play.
Second,
a similar contradiction exists in the "global" will to address the
scourge of terrorism versus the tendency by some members of the
international community to instrumentalize the use of armed groups to
further national interests at the expense of the sovereignty of other
states.
There has yet to be a frank and open conversation about
this two-tiered chess game: the one taking place on the table and the
other taking place directly below. This geopolitical contradiction will
continue to undermine any concerted international effort to address
violent extremism.
The third and final elephant relates to the
issue of religion. President Obama's deliberate decision to opt for the
umbrella term "violent extremism" rather than the more specific
"Islamist" label has some practical benefits.
It keeps the
conversation broad by recognizing other "extremisms", from the ilk of
Anders Breivik in Norway to Buddhist groups in Myanmar. Additionally, it
prevents the United States - and the world at large - from feeding into
the propaganda ploy that the West is at war with Islam more generally
(a statement President Obama choose to deliberately refute in his
remarks).
This should not deter from the reality that the
majority of extremist groups are "perverted" variations acting in the
name of Islam. Part of addressing this burden thus falls on the Muslim
world itself, to play a more engaged role and mobilize a
counter-narrative through its religious institutions, authorities and
civil society groups.
Conclusion
There is now momentum for
a meaningful change in the global fight against extremism. It first
manifested itself following an international solidarity rally in Paris
last month and more recently at the Washington meeting.
But to go
beyond the symbolic pageantry of a street rally and a political summit
requires a serious and frank conversation that addresses how best to
implement and frame the question within the lens of social inclusion and
effective governance, and one that acknowledges the troubling
disconnect between so-called national interests and global security when
it comes to violent extremism.
(Hardeep Singh Puri is Vice
President - International Peace Institute, New York and Omar El Okdah is
Senior Policy Analyst - International Peace Institute, New York. The
views expressed are personal. They can be contacted at
[email protected] and [email protected])
