US needs to address Muslim sentiments
The White House hosted a three day summit last week on Countering Violent Extremism (CVE); to prevent extremists and their supporters from radicalising, recruiting, inspiring or inciting others within the US and overseas. The purpose of the summit was to engage a diverse group of experts, education administrators, mental health professionals, religious leaders and a law enforcement agency in a discussion on violent extremism.
More than sixty representatives from all over the world participated in the event with Pakistan’s very own anti-terrorism grand wizard Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar representing the country. Unfortunately, he could not conjure up any ground breaking statements with a wave of his wand during his speech. This is of course apart from a well-rehearsed reiteration of the theme of the summit. He pulled his five points (strengthening local communities, winning the trust of mainstream peace-loving majority, building resilience in local communities against radicalisation, addressing the push factors driving people to extremism and lastly focusing on education to promote tolerance) out of his hat and prepared listeners for his next trick, a wishful promise to properly implement the same in the near future.
Simply changing the language and engaging in the pomp and circumstance of a three day affair may not be enough to achieve the lofty task of winning the full support of the Muslim world
President Barack Obama, in his speech, emphasised on changing the language of anti-terrorism initiatives. Using terms like ‘Islamist terrorism’, ‘Islamic extremism’, and ‘Islamists,’ etc, should be replaced with CVE as a label for counter terrorism mechanisms. He further elaborated on the point by stipulating, “groups like al Qaeda and ISIL promote a twisted interpretation of religion that is rejected by the overwhelming majority of the world’s Muslims. The world must continue to lift up the voices of Muslim clerics and scholars who teach the true peaceful nature of Islam.”
It is a widely held belief that the coalition formed to eradicate the Islamic State (IS) from its strongholds should be predominantly comprised of Muslim states that may feel undermined in this initiative if there is a constant link created between Islam and extremist factions like IS. The US clearly wants support from the Muslim world, especially those states surrounding the territories that IS is infiltrating, in combating the threat.
In light of this, two pertinent questions arise. Is there really a need to change the language of anti-terrorism and will changing this language successfully garner the support of Muslim states? There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, the vast majority of which oppose al Qaeda and IS, whose members and supporters are few in number in comparison. Using language that generalises Islam as a religion that fosters extremism is perhaps not the best plan. Removing Islam from the nomenclature of anti-terrorism is a very obvious effort to place ownership of future CVE actions with Muslim states. Perhaps President Obama has the right idea, considering that if the top ten groups that have recently inflicted terrorist attacks, seven claimed to represent an Islamic ideology, and of the top ten states in which terrorist attacks took place, seven were Muslim majority.
Regardless of the language, states including Egypt, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have made efforts to denounce IS and actively engage in military strikes against them
Simply changing the language and engaging in the pomp and circumstance of a three day affair may not be enough to achieve the lofty task of winning the full support of the Muslim world. It is only the beginning of long-term efforts by the US that will be required to secure an effective alliance with Muslim states. This will only happen after the American debate on the use of such language is resolved.
Regardless of the language, states including Egypt, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have made efforts to denounce IS and actively engage in military strikes against them. The possibility of these states being discouraged in their efforts against IS simply because of the use of terms like “Islamist terror” seems highly unlikely at this point in time.
The Summit has sparked a grand gesture of solidarity with the Muslims in fighting a common enemy and the Muslim world may certainly benefit by having the US as an active ally and vice versa. IS poses a grave threat in its promise to infiltrate into Europe. It may seem an arduous task for states to work together for a secure future but it is certainly not impossible. The Obama administration needs to move away from merely changing the language of counter terrorism to focusing on concrete efforts to counteract the alienation of Muslim states. Only then will an effective CVE strategy be deployed against IS and related threats.
