The international community has been battling an ever-elusive enemy: terrorism. It is a force with many names, masks, agendas and yet with no clear definitions. Perhaps this problem is more severe in the Muslim world. Many Muslim countries are presently racked with violence unleashed by groups that claim to represent Islam. The need for Muslims to engage in dialogue with others for resolving conflicts and for mutual enrichment is urgent today as it has always been. The problem is who speaks for Muslims? Which Islam is the true Islam and which one speaks the truth about Islam? Is it the Turkish cleric, Fethullah Gulen, the founder of the Gulen missionary schools around the world, including the ones in Zamboanga and in Manila, or is it the leader of ISIS Abu Bakr Al Bagdadi? Is it Jema'ah Islamiyah in Indonesia? Is it Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Is it the leader of Iran Hiummeyni? Is it Hamas? Is it Hezbollah? Saudi Arabia with its funding? Which one of these represents the true Islam and speaks for Islam?
What we see today is a war within Islam itself. Muslims are killing Muslims in a power struggle. The problem is groups of elite imams who control knowledge in the Muslim world, claiming they are the best followers of Mohammad, the soldiers of Allah, and the representatives of a version of Islam that is the true Islam; and, therefore, they believe the crowd should follow them. The statement, “One man‘s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” in addition to terms such as rebel or revolutionist, good Muslim or bad Muslim, good terrorist or bad terrorist have become not only clichés but also one of the most difficult obstacles in eliminating terrorism. You cannot defeat the enemy with no name, nor can you fight if you do not know which one is the enemy.
In the struggle against terrorism, the problem of definitions is a crucial element in eliminating them. Terrorism is no longer a local problem of specific countries but is an issue involving a number of international aspects. The victims of an attack can be of different nationalities; the offices, headquarters, and training camps of terrorist organizations function in various countries; and terrorists get direct and indirect support from a myriad of nations. For example, on January 12, a suicide blast that ripped through a historic tourist district in Istanbul’s Sultanahmet Square killed ten people, all whom were foreigners. Last week the Islamic State terror group claimed responsibility for the deadly attack in central Jakarta where a bomb was detonated at a Starbucks near the United Nations building claiming eight lives.
Since terrorism is a global phenomenon, the response must be on a global scale as well. The first thing the international community should do is agree on the definition of what we are dealing with; in other words, we need a definition of terrorism. Without defining “What is terrorism? “ it will be hard to enforce international agreements against terrorism. The struggle to define terrorism is as hard as the struggle against terrorism itself. Also, the background of terrorism is always political. Many countries fail in their obligations to extradite the individuals wanted for terrorist activities. The tragic event of 9/11 changed the international system, shifting international perspectives on both the threat of terrorism and the tools needed to prevent it, so that generating a comprehensive response have proven difficult.
The United Nations, the world’s foremost multilateral body, is going to celebrate its 71th anniversary, but until now it has not been able to define terrorism. If defining terrorism takes so long, how long will it take to tackle it? Since the world has failed to define terrorism, we will continue to see such talk take place about good terrorists and bad terrorists. Yet member states’ perceptions of defining terrorism remain uneven. Recently terrorists have evolved moving away from a dependency on states to become non-state actors, taking advantage of interconnected international systems. The international community should remind themselves that there are no such categories as good terrorists or bad terrorists. All terrorists are bad, there is no excuse for terrorism, and all terrorist organizations should be eliminated and stopped. If terrorism is to be fought, all terrorist organizations must be fought. The idea that some terrorist organizations should be used as allies in the fight against other terror groups is incredibly bad policy. For example, the United States, the European Union, Russia, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia are attempting to build an anti-ISIS alliance that will include Iran, a terrorist sponsored state and the sponsor of Hezbollah; the Assad regime; and any other group such as the Kurdish guerrilla group, the PKK militants, who carried out car bomb attacks in Eastern Turkey, killing many civilian people including children.
History teaches us that tensions and conflicts are more likely to happen when new powers emerge. Historically, the Middle East has always been in a mess, but the civil wars in Syria and in Iraq have made it worse. Putting into practice an effective policy is not easy. Even if the Assad regime leaves, a post Assad country will not have a single power or a coalition that will dominate Syria as whole to end all the sectarian problems and to defeat the ISIS. Especially the Russian involvement in Syria is a game changer for at least two reasons: Russian has personal interests in the region and because Russia has no exit plan. Russia is not helping Syria nor going after the ISIS; instead, Russia is there to protect its national interests and knows that sooner or later Assad will go. Russia wants to have some pieces of the pie, so that is why Putin is supporting Assad’s terrorist regime. Another problem with Russia is that Russia does not have any exit plan in Syria. Sooner or later Russia will suffer from terror as well. Let’s remember that there can be a solution only if the international community comes to a common point in its shared wisdom to define what is “ terrorism” and to stop sponsors of the terror groups. Then we will not have so many terrorist problems
The international community invented the ISIS, and their objectives are not to eliminate the ISIS until they accomplish their goals. For example, for a long time President Obama declined to go after the ISIS in Syria and refused to share Intel about the ISIS. Terrorism is a cash game for the powerful players, and that is why they do not want to end it. As former Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee argues, “No state should be allowed to profess partnership with the global coalition against terror, while continuing to aid, abet and sponsor terrorism.”
Dr. Aland Mizell is President of the MCI and a regular contributor to Mindanao Times. You may email the author at:aland_mizell2@hotmail.com
