The terrorist attacks of 13 November in Paris, which caused the death of about 129 persons, have rightly evoked worldwide condemnation. This gruesome murder of innocent civilians, for which ISIS or the Islamic State (IS) has claimed responsibility,has served to expose further to the international community the brutal character of this generally reviled terrorist organization. France has declared a war on IS and intensified air strikes against it in Syria. French President Francois Hollande has undertaken visits to Moscow and Washington to drum up support for France in the fight against IS. There has been general support and sympathy for France on the issue and there is almost unanimity of view among the governments of the world on the need to destroy IS. However, the level and nature of support for France have varied from country to country both within the European Union and outside.
Whereas the British parliament authorized air strikes against IS in Syria, Germany has decided to deploy aircraft and a frigate in an effort to aid the French forces over Syria besides sending military trainers to Kurdish forces in Iraq. Juncker, President of the European Commission, rejected calls to rethink the EU’s policy on immigration. US President Obama agreed with the French President in a meeting in Washington on 24 November that IS must be destroyed but he promised no new American means to that end besides more US-French intelligence sharing. Apparently, Obama wanted to avoid overcommitting in Syria, having already announced in October the stepping up of operations against IS including the dispatch of about 50 Special Operations troops to help its Syrian enemies.
According to the official NATO policy, terrorism poses a direct threat to the security of the citizens of NATO countries and to international stability and prosperity. It is a persistent global threat that knows no border, nationality or religion and is a challenge that the international community must tackle together. NATO’s work on counter-terrorism focuses on improving awareness of the threat, developing capabilities to prepare and respond, and enhancing engagement with partner countries and other international actors. What the NATO policy fails to do is to effectively deal with the root causes of terrorism emanating from the Middle East, particularly the continuing Palestinian issue and the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The Paris attacks have ignited an intense debate in the US, where I am now on a private visit, on the ways and means of overcoming the threat of terrorism that IS poses. The issue of IS-inspired terrorism has become an essential topic of discussion among the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates. Generally speaking, the Republican candidates led by Donald Trump tend to take extremist positions on the threat of the so-called “Islamic terrorism”. Donald Trump, for instance, has proposed a halt to refugee admissions from Syria, expulsion of those already admitted into the US, preparation of database of the Muslims in the US, and the monitoring of mosques. Senator Ted Cruz, another Republican hardliner candidate, has proposed a law to ban Muslims from Syria from seeking asylum in the US while admitting only Christians.
The attack at San Bernardino, California on 2 December killing 14 persons and wounding another 21 has further heated up the debate in the US on the threat of terrorism posed by radicalized Muslims. Initially, the US authorities were unsure of the motives behind this senseless and brutal massacre of innocent civilians by Syed RizwanFarook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, both of whom were killed in a shootout with the police. Later, however, it was revealed that Tashfeen Malik had pledged allegiance to IS on the Facebook and IS subsequently claimed that the San Bernardino massacre was committed by its followers. The US investigators, therefore, now believe that the massacre may have been inspired by IS but they remain of the view that it was not connected toany terrorist network plan.Still, the Republican presidential candidates have hyped their rhetoric on the threat of “Islamic terrorism”. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey claimed that the US was facing “the next world war”. Senator Ted Cruz joined in by stressing that the enemies of the US were at war with it. Jeb Bush described the looming threat as “Islamic terrorism that wants to destroy our way of life, wants to attack our freedom.” He added, “They have declared war on us. And we need to declare war on them.”
More sensibly, Hillary Clinton on 4 December spoke not of war but of the need to ferret out “those folks who are on the Internet radicalizing people” and called for fighting “terrorist networks” from the air and from the ground, avoiding the phrase “Islamic terrorism” and urging sensitivity toward Muslims.To put the issue in proper perspective it must be pointed out that according to New America, a research organization in Washington, the death toll from “jihadist terrorism” on American soil since the Sept. 11 attacks — 45 people — is about the same as the 48 killed in terrorist attacks motivated by white supremacist and other right-wing extremist ideologies.
President Obama, already under pressure from the Republicans generally for not being tough enough on terrorists and not doing enough to destroy IS, in his address to the American people on 6 December assured them that his administration would do everything possible, short of involving the US in another ground war in Iraq or Syria, to defeat IS in cooperation with American allies. The main elements of his strategy would be air strikes, Special Operations forces, and support to the US allies and friends in destroying IS. While acknowledging that Islam as a religion was opposed to terrorism and that the vast majority of the over one billion Muslims had nothing to do with terrorism, he called upon Muslim leaders all over the world to overcome the wave of religious extremism of which a tiny minority of the Muslims had become a victim. Domestically, he called for measures to make it difficult for potential terrorists to buy guns while reminding the American people that Muslim Americans, barring a few radicalized individuals, were peaceful and patriotic citizens who should not be discriminated against. On the whole, Obama’s speech was a powerful appeal for reason and moderation to the audience both in the US and abroad, and for concerted efforts to destroy IS. Soon after the speech, the White House let it be known that a Summit would be convened on 17 December to choke off the flow of financial resources to ISIS.
There is no doubt that Islam is a religion of peace which forbids terrorism causing the loss of the lives of innocent civilians. But as shown by our own experience in Pakistan, this has not prevented a tiny minority among the Muslims to hijack the fair name of Islam to serve its sinister motives through acts of terrorism. It is, therefore, incumbent upon Muslim leaders, religious scholars, opinion makers and people at large to take all possible steps to defeat terrorism, overcome religious extremism, and highlight the teachings of Islam enjoining moderation and tolerance. If we expect foreign countries to look after their Muslim minorities and safeguard their fundamental rights, it is only fair that we should leave no stone unturned in ensuring the security of the non-Muslims amongst us. Such an approach would not only be in our best interest but also in accord with the teachings of Islam. Finally, no strategy to combat terrorism would succeed unless it includes steps to remove the root causes of this menace.
The writer is a retired ambassador and the president of the Lahore Council for World Affairs.
javid.husain@gmail.com