World leaders need to blend use of force with political options and invest more in preventing crises than just in containing violent extremists to stem the current and so far the most perilous wave of militant violence, according to the International Crisis Group.
A new report released this week calls for avoiding past mistakes that provided fodder to extremist militant movements around the globe.
In a 50-page report “Exploiting Disorder: al-Qaeda and Islamic State” launched this week, the Group questions the use of drones for target killings ( although, they weakened al-Qaeda considerably in Pakistani tribal areas), saying such tactics may hinder groups’ operation, but at the same time they also feed resentment against local governments and the West.
A recommendation in the report also urges governments to engage even radicals to de-escalate violence – something that is seen as hard for the governments, particularly those engaged in the fight against violent groups.
“In the report we acknowledge that many of their (militant outfits’) goals and aspirations will be – would be extremely difficult to accommodate. That’s one of the challenges that we look at, and we’re certainly not recommending a peace process with the Islamic State. What we are saying is that there may be opportunities, in some cases locally, to open lines of communication, and that these lines of communication may lead to the alleviation of human suffering,” lead author Richard Atwood told National Public Radio (NPR).
The report examines the existing landscape dotted with rise of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), revival of al-Qaeda and other extremist movements while focusing on Middle East and crises in West and North Africa, the Horn of Africa and Central and South Asia. As all groups differ with each other in terms of their birth and goals, their resolution require different approach and means, the report argues.
While force usually must be part of the response, the report urges its judicious use and stresses that efforts to oust militants must be followed with a viable plan for what comes next. For instance, it says, a heavy bombardment in Libya or deployment of Western troops against ISIS without a wider political settlement would be mistakes.
“Vital, too, is to de-escalate the crises they feed off and prevent others erupting, by nudging leaders toward dialogue, inclusion and reform and reacting sensibly to terrorist attacks,” the report said, particularly calling for action against “violent extremism” which are escalating major and regional-power rivalries.
The report applies term “jihadist” to the groups that call or define themselves so, and identifies four waves of “jihadist” violence in the past quarter-century, starting from early 1990s, when many of the foreign volunteers fighting the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan returned to Algeria, the Caucasus, Egypt, Libya, Sudan and elsewhere. Afghan theater fighters also joined revolutions or civil wars elsewhere, particularly in Algeria and Russia, contributing to their radicalization.
This wave subsided in 1990 with many members retreated to Afghanistan, then under Taliban control. From there, al-Qaeda launched a second wave targeting mostly what it called the “far enemy.” That wave, which sucked Western powers into wars, peaked with the 9/11 attacks on the United States. As many militants had feared, the U.S. reaction decimated the Taliban’s emirate, with many foreign fighters taking shelter in the Pakistani tribal areas.
The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq fueled a third wave, reviving the militant movements as thousands of Muslims, many from the Gulf and North Africa, travelled to fight the Americans in the heart of the Arab world. That wave was stemmed by a U.S.-backed tribal revolt against al-Qaeda’s franchise in Iraq, and the Arab Spring protests that spread across towns and cities in 2011 then appeared to break it.
Suppression of most of the Arab-Spring-generated revolutions spurred a fourth wave – the most powerful than the earlier three waves – which saw the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS also known as ISIS or Daesh) and al-Qaeda-linked groups taking over territory, gaining new footholds in Africa and posing a great danger to much of the Muslim world and the West.
Today, the Middle East is at war, extremists being the main winners, and a sider belt – from West Africa to at least South Asia – appears vulnerable. The ISIS, which has attracted thousands of foreigners from the world over, has taken over vast swathe of Iraq and Syria.
The expansion of militants (self-labeled jihahists) is caused by different things, happening in different places. But their immediate causes are clear enough and explain why this fourth wave is potentially the most destructive and hardest to reverse, the report said.
The researchers also propose narrowing down the “countering violent extremism” (CVE) agenda.
“As a corrective to post-9/11 securitized policies, the CVE agenda, pioneered mostly by development actors, is valuable; so, too, are recognizing the underlying conditions that can, in places, enable extremists’ recruitment and shifting funds from military spending to development aid.”
The authors also noted that “re-hatting as CVE activities to address “root causes”, particularly those related to states’ basic obligations to citizens – like education, employment or services to marginalized communities – may prove short-sighted.”
“Casting “violent extremism”, a term often ill-defined and open to misuse, as a main threat to stability risks downplaying other sources of fragility, delegitimizing political grievances and stigmatizing communities as potential extremists. Governments and donors must think carefully what to label CVE, further research paths of radicalization and consult widely across the spectrum of those most affected.”
With regard to ongoing troubles in the Middle East, the report explains that upheavals across much of the Arab world are the first and the foremost cause that triggered the fourth wave of violence. Enmity between states means “regional powers worry less about extremists than about their rivals, or even quietly indulge such groups as proxies”, the report notes.
“The sectarianism and deep sense of Sunni victimization that the Iraq and Syria wars and the perception of an ascendant Iran have helped spawn play into extremists’ hands”, and their cause has been helped by failed governance, authoritarian backlash and the elimination of legitimate and politically viable alternatives. All of this contributed to anti-establishment sentiment across the region.
“Geopolitics hinders a coherent response,” the report says.
The starting point, the report said, should be to dial back the Saudi-Iranian rivalry that drives Sunni and Shia extremism, deepens crises across the region and is among the gravest threats to international peace and security today.
“Easing other tensions – between Turkey and Kurdish militants, for example, Turkey and Russia, conservative Arab regimes and the Muslim Brotherhood, Pakistan and India, even Russia and the West – is also essential. In Libya, Syria and Yemen, tackling jihadists requires forging new orders attractive enough to deplete their ranks and unite other forces.
“Of course, none of this is easy. But redoubling efforts to narrow other fault lines would be wiser than papering them over in an illusion of consensus against “violent extremism,” the report suggests.
FEATURED IMAGE above shows a candlelight vigil for victims of Peshawar school attacks on December 16, 2014 when terrorists killed more than 140 schoolchildren and staff. Photo Credit: Kashif Haque via Wikimedia Commons
