Farid Shafiyev, Counselor of the Embassy of Azerbaijan in Canada
In diplomatic service since 1996. Major in History and Law from Baku State University, MPA from Harvard University Kennedy School of Government.
.
The opinions expressed in the essay are those of the author alone.
.
The Reflection Cafe thanks to Mr. Shafiyev for his request to re-publish his article in the Cafe.
.
Published first in “World of Diplomacy”, No. 14, 2006 (MFA of Azerbaijan)
.
The struggle against terrorism has a very important aspect which is overlooked by policy makers and experts – ideological dimension. The rise of Islamic extremists is based on the solid ideology and has the resemblance with a communist-type movement. It is necessary to understand the ideology of extremists and to counter it with one’s own in order to combat terrorism successfully. The essay examines different waves of Islamic movements (Pan-Islamism, Islamic Socialism and what we call “fundamentalism”) and concludes that radical Islam was interconnected to the policy of Western countries and sparked by the geopolitical games of global powers. The international community and the Western countries, in particular, is missing targeting root causes of terrorism, some of them related to own errors. Without properly devised ideology it will not be possible to curb extremist movements.
.
The July 2005 terrorist attacks on London, which involved local Muslims, caused heated discussion about the role and the place of the so-called Western Muslims in both Islamic extremist movements and European society. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, this is the second distinctive wave of deliberation and debate by Western think tanks and policy makers about further ways of fighting terrorism. This struggle has two dimensions – first, combating terrorists and their networks, which involves law-enforcement-type measures, and second, eradicating the roots of terrorism, involving political and social measures. In 2001 the international community focused on ways of strengthening legislatures, cutting off the financial resources of terrorists, and coordinating intelligence. Now, more experts are speaking about the necessity of addressing the problems which are behind Islamic extremism.
.
Americans have put their efforts into the first dimension. They argue that the roots of terrorism are not clear, and, at least, multiform and diverse. If terrorism is bred by poverty, conflict in the Middle East, and disturbances in Iraq, then it is unlikely that in the near future Western powers will be able to curb the causes of terrorism. Moreover, Americans reject the idea of the occupation of Iraq or the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the major reasons of terrorism. Policy makers, including high-level ones, point to Islamic fundamentalism as doctrine that is naturally backward and directed against democratic values. So, as predicted by Samuel Huntington, the clash of civilizations is inevitable. Meanwhile, other group of scholars and policy makers argue that there is no clash of civilizations, and that Islamic extremists are confined to a narrow goal of ousting Americans, Britons and Israelis from Muslim lands. The “War on Terror” is a diplomatic cliché. It is almost equal to saying “the war against bombing” or “the fight against hostage-taking”. Terrorism is a tool for certain extremist groups to achieve their various political goals. The American War on Terror concerns the problem of Islamic extremism. Until recently American officials were reluctant to call it in public as “the fight against Islamic radicals”. It should be called thus to distinguish those who resort to killing the civilians from peaceful and loyal followers of Mohammad. Unfortunately, the Western media portrays all Muslims in a similar manner – a bunch of fanatics with beards and guns. The American media and some corporate circles significantly contributed to the creation of this new enemy. Thus, cynics say, the ideological vacuum which emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union was filled with the images of Saddam and Osama bin Laden, and the Evil Empire was followed by the axis of evil. Some high-level politicians cursed Islam, declaring a new crusade against Muslims and even suggested dropping a nuclear bomb on Mecca. Along with the Islamic extremists, some Western policy-makers are responsible for the current burst of terrorism.
...
Along with external occupation, another source of radical Islam is dissatisfaction with the internal situation in Muslim countries where political power is concentrated in the hands of royal families or a group of elites led by an authoritarian leader. The youth is alienated from political life. After the defeat of Arab socialism or its debilitating evolution into dictatorship, as happened with Baath Party in Iraq, the only ideological domain left is fundamentalism. Leadership in many Muslim countries is not producing any ideology which would mobilize their constituencies – they simply rely on police and rigid security intelligence. The only exception is the ruling Ak Party in Turkey – a successful example of the combination of Islamic doctrines and modified European values.
.
Continual harassment and persecution did not stop radicals but made them skillful conspirators, just like communists in the last century. In Europe, communism was considerably diluted by social democracy, not by suppression. When the Soviet Union lost its supporters in Europe in 1970-1980s, even among communists, Soviet leaders did not appreciated the significance of Euro communism but found comfort in repressing their own people and pouring money into weak pro-USSR communist parties abroad. Eventually the time came when the Soviet people turned down communism.
.
Muslims, particularly in the Arab world are reasonably suspicious about the real objectives of recent Western undertakings in the region. They believe that the West thus far has brought neither liberty nor democracy to the Middle East. The images and the information from the Guantanamo base and Abu Greib have increased hatred towards Americans.
.
Bin Laden was not evil when he confined himself to killing Soviets. This is one of many arguments which Islamic radicals put forward to those who demonize Al-Qaeda leaders who are gaining more and more popularity not only in poor Muslim countries, but in wealthy Gulf countries as well.
.
As Solzhenitsyn’s novel “GULAG” turned many intellectuals within and outside of the Soviet Union away from the very concept of the socialist state, “the damage done by the Abu Ghraib pictures – used as anti-American posters the world over – is incalculable.”[6] Human rights activists named Guantanamo a new “gulag”. It is not only radicals but also a wide range of people, including those in neighboring Canada, NATO-tied Europe and economically dependent Latin America, who dislike U.S. foreign policy. Arnaud de Borchgrave, Director of Transnational Threats Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) assert: “Before we can readjust our sights and recalibrate our strategy, we should consult those who do not agree with us, but who have had long experience in dealing with transnational terrorism. This should be a time for listening carefully to current and former officials whose countries have been victims and who abhor Islamist extremism as much as we do”.[7]
.
The Americans opted for blocking Al-Jazeera and other information sources from the Middle East, just like the Soviets fought Free Europe and Liberty. Instead of blocking and suppressing, the U.S. Administration has to think of how they are going to exert their influence and exhibit moral authority to the people in the countries where terrorists are recruited. Following the declared goal of spreading democracy in the Greater Middle East, we have not seen any coherent steps undertaken by the U.S. to confront radical Islam with an alternative ideology...
..
.
No comments:
Post a Comment