This week we discussed terrorism
in Africa. First, we talked about the differences and similarities of
terrorists and rebel groups in Africa. They both use similar tactics including
rape, looting, kidnappings etc., they both mobilize people with the help of
feelings of marginalization and both want to limit the neo-colonial influence,
what is different is their ideology for example. There was an opinion that
terrorism is too generic and subjective term. I absolutely agree with that
claim. There is still no agreement on the term terrorism, no agreed definition.
From my previous knowledge on terrorism I am familiar for example with the idea
that terrorism is something we do not agree with. It is interesting and there
is some truth to this as we can see from the case of Nelson Mandela that was
also discussed, for people who agree with his cause, he is freedom fighter. I
think that we should stop using the term terrorism completely because it has
too much of emotional leverage. When we label something terrorism we are unable
to think clearly about it. We usually want to respond wit the strongest power
and crash the opponent, but we seem not to realize that we only make it worse
(feeling of victimhood of new recruiters, new radicalization etc). States do
not even want to negotiate with terrorists, but they are willing to negotiate
with rebel groups. Why? These groups are very similar. If we were able to
negotiate with them maybe it would help. Of course, we do not want to show that
if you use terrorism we give you what you want but it could at least reduce
recruitment of new people. At least the ones who join because they feel
marginalization and victimization of certain group of people. If someone join
for grievances or revenge, we need to find different strategies of course. Someone
in the discussion mentioned that we need to address the grievances of the
people. I agree with that.
We and African states as well seems to be focusing on militarily defeating rebels and terrorists, but this makes the situation only worse and increase violence. We need to focus less on these groups and more on the state and the structural causes. Africa need to create strong states. Strong in that sense that they will be able to for example to create jobs or working justice system. The justice system may punish people and there will be less need for revenge and the job creation will cause that people will have no need to join these groups to make a living. Also, African states need to address discrimination and reduce the feeling of marginalization and alienation. I understand, as was said in class, that every state is different, and we always need to look at the context, but these solutions should work in all contexts. In the fight against terrorism (and this is true for the whole world) we should stop focusing on the terrorist groups themselves but rather the structural causes that creates terrorist groups and new recruits. But before we do that there is need for definition. We spend almost whole discussion on what is terrorism. That is problem that is still very important in the terrorism studies. As was mentioned, some groups are mentioned by different names – rebels, terrorists and every state see them differently. For example, I am still confused about the case of LRA. In the readings for first or second class the LRA was mentioned as terrorist group, designed as terrorist by both Uganda and United States who for that reason decided to deal with it militarily because there can be no negotiations with terrorists. But I am still under the impression that LRA does not qualify as a terrorist group because it does not seem to use psychological warfare and does not seem to have clear political goal anymore. Am I mistaken, is it a terrorist group?
Besides that, we talked about the motivations of terrorist groups that are not monolithic but every member joins for different reasons as well as about the solutions that I already mentioned. One of the interesting things about the solution was the problem of how to deal with the crimes committed by these groups. There were some opinions that all members need to be punished. This does not make any sense to me. We need to deradicalize the people, address the reasons why they joined (grievances etc) and we need to reintegrate them back to society. We cannot punish half of the population and we cannot marginalize these people again or there will be new problem. We need to use the healing strategies and bring them back to society and grand them amnesty. The only ones who need to be punish are the leaders, the ones who mobilize people, abducted them to fight etc. The main leaders should be punished, and the rest should be brought back to society and start over again. The solutions seem to be very similar for both terrorist groups and rebel groups. That is why I still think that we should abandon this term (terrorism) because the only think it does it that we lose perspective, cannot think clearly and focus on revenge and military solution rather than solution that can work.
We talked for example about the Boko Haram. When it was mentioned that terrorist have also different reasons to fight, not only the religious ones I am curious to what extent is it true for Boko Haram. I am asking about the leaders not the foot soldiers who all join for different reasons including revenge, grievances or criminal activity. Do they truly believe in Islam or are they using it only to justify their fights? There are some discussions like that about Islamic State, if it is Islamic group or just using Islam while not really believing in it so I would like to know to what extent is it true for Boko Haram.
I want to get back to the solution to terrorism now and the case of al-Shabaab in Somalia. It was said in the class that people mostly support them and go to them if they have any problem because they know that al-Shabaab, unlike the Somali state, can solve the problem. I wonder, if they had abandoned their violent tactics if they could be part of new government. Because while rebuilding state you need someone who have the trust of people. So, if they could give up their arms and become former terrorist group can this solution work to creation of strong and functional Somali State?
The last think I would like to mention is the similarity between the terrorist groups in Africa and the Arab world (that is also partly part of Africa). We did not have time to discuss that in class. I think that it is obvious that every terrorist group is, at least in some respects, different. It was said that we need to consider the context and that is different in every state. I think that in Africa there are for example different grievances than in Arab worlds and different problems that motivate foot soldiers to join terrorist groups. We could also see this in one of the readings that even the jihadi groups are every different and sometimes even compete with one another. I believe that if we can see some similarities it is mostly in groups with international interests and reach. For example, Boko Haram and Islamic State, since they are allies and part of the global jihad are similar. When we talk about solution to these group I think these are still like the local ones. The global war on terror is, too emotional to us, that we lose perspective and focus only on fighting and military solution but even there, in my opinion, it is important to focus on mostly on the structural causes that makes people join.
We and African states as well seems to be focusing on militarily defeating rebels and terrorists, but this makes the situation only worse and increase violence. We need to focus less on these groups and more on the state and the structural causes. Africa need to create strong states. Strong in that sense that they will be able to for example to create jobs or working justice system. The justice system may punish people and there will be less need for revenge and the job creation will cause that people will have no need to join these groups to make a living. Also, African states need to address discrimination and reduce the feeling of marginalization and alienation. I understand, as was said in class, that every state is different, and we always need to look at the context, but these solutions should work in all contexts. In the fight against terrorism (and this is true for the whole world) we should stop focusing on the terrorist groups themselves but rather the structural causes that creates terrorist groups and new recruits. But before we do that there is need for definition. We spend almost whole discussion on what is terrorism. That is problem that is still very important in the terrorism studies. As was mentioned, some groups are mentioned by different names – rebels, terrorists and every state see them differently. For example, I am still confused about the case of LRA. In the readings for first or second class the LRA was mentioned as terrorist group, designed as terrorist by both Uganda and United States who for that reason decided to deal with it militarily because there can be no negotiations with terrorists. But I am still under the impression that LRA does not qualify as a terrorist group because it does not seem to use psychological warfare and does not seem to have clear political goal anymore. Am I mistaken, is it a terrorist group?
Besides that, we talked about the motivations of terrorist groups that are not monolithic but every member joins for different reasons as well as about the solutions that I already mentioned. One of the interesting things about the solution was the problem of how to deal with the crimes committed by these groups. There were some opinions that all members need to be punished. This does not make any sense to me. We need to deradicalize the people, address the reasons why they joined (grievances etc) and we need to reintegrate them back to society. We cannot punish half of the population and we cannot marginalize these people again or there will be new problem. We need to use the healing strategies and bring them back to society and grand them amnesty. The only ones who need to be punish are the leaders, the ones who mobilize people, abducted them to fight etc. The main leaders should be punished, and the rest should be brought back to society and start over again. The solutions seem to be very similar for both terrorist groups and rebel groups. That is why I still think that we should abandon this term (terrorism) because the only think it does it that we lose perspective, cannot think clearly and focus on revenge and military solution rather than solution that can work.
We talked for example about the Boko Haram. When it was mentioned that terrorist have also different reasons to fight, not only the religious ones I am curious to what extent is it true for Boko Haram. I am asking about the leaders not the foot soldiers who all join for different reasons including revenge, grievances or criminal activity. Do they truly believe in Islam or are they using it only to justify their fights? There are some discussions like that about Islamic State, if it is Islamic group or just using Islam while not really believing in it so I would like to know to what extent is it true for Boko Haram.
I want to get back to the solution to terrorism now and the case of al-Shabaab in Somalia. It was said in the class that people mostly support them and go to them if they have any problem because they know that al-Shabaab, unlike the Somali state, can solve the problem. I wonder, if they had abandoned their violent tactics if they could be part of new government. Because while rebuilding state you need someone who have the trust of people. So, if they could give up their arms and become former terrorist group can this solution work to creation of strong and functional Somali State?
The last think I would like to mention is the similarity between the terrorist groups in Africa and the Arab world (that is also partly part of Africa). We did not have time to discuss that in class. I think that it is obvious that every terrorist group is, at least in some respects, different. It was said that we need to consider the context and that is different in every state. I think that in Africa there are for example different grievances than in Arab worlds and different problems that motivate foot soldiers to join terrorist groups. We could also see this in one of the readings that even the jihadi groups are every different and sometimes even compete with one another. I believe that if we can see some similarities it is mostly in groups with international interests and reach. For example, Boko Haram and Islamic State, since they are allies and part of the global jihad are similar. When we talk about solution to these group I think these are still like the local ones. The global war on terror is, too emotional to us, that we lose perspective and focus only on fighting and military solution but even there, in my opinion, it is important to focus on mostly on the structural causes that makes people join.
No comments:
Post a Comment