05 Apr 2007: ISS Today: Disarming the War of Perceptions

5 April 2007: Disarming the War of Perceptions

 

I made reference in a previous commentary (ISS Today 15 March 2007) to the urgent need for governments to develop strategies to prevent the radicalisation of local Muslim communities, which carries the danger of recourse to violent political extremism. In no way did I mean to imply that only Islam is used to justify the use of violence or that only Muslims are responsible for acts of terrorism. It is frequently, and erroneously, assumed that religious conviction lies behind the resort to terror; this is by no means true, and in any case is an example of the reductionist fallacy.

 

When carefully listening to Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri it is clearly possible to differentiate between the reasons presented to justify acts of transnational terrorism. In reality, and at root, it is national and international political and economic inequity that incite terrorism: the religious packaging is simply being used to market these claims. Religion, in this case Islam, is being used and manipulated to justify the use of violence – often directed against fellow Muslims – and to recruit new members by presenting the world as being divided into two camps: the ‘Western Crusader invaders’ and their oppressed Muslim victims. In many respects this presents us with the mirror image of Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of civilisations” paradigm.

 

The first order of business should be to dismiss the superficiality of such arguments and to separate the core of their arguments from the “religious” language in which they are disguised. The success of individuals such as Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri can be measured in how successfully they are able to divide the world between Muslims and non-Muslims. Much can be said for those supporting Huntington’s thesis. Indeed, the countermeasures advocated and adopted by the mutual adversaries end up providing apparent support for their opponents’ claims: racial profiling, deportation or rendition on the suspicion of being involved in terrorism and so on have contributed to a growing perception that the ‘war against terrorism’ is little other than a ‘war against Islam’. In effect, a bipolar us/them distinction provides a fertile recruiting ground for extremists in either camp: little sophisticated propaganda is required once one’s opponent’s own words provide all the motivation needed.

 

In the middle are those being manipulated on both sides – replaceable foot soldiers – believing that the ‘war against terrorism’ is a war against Islam and that Islam is at war with non-Muslims. This contributes to a situation in which people are being labelled as either for or against, and thus pressured into choosing sides for fear of being seen as sell-outs, insufficiently patriotic or religious.

 

Introspection and dialogue are the only tools we have to help us break out of this mental prison, and the cycle of violence that takes place within its walls. This involves introspection on an individual level, in realising the impact of perceptions in widening the divide between people. It also involves a conscious effort to narrow that divide by engaging in dialogue involving people from different religious and cultural backgrounds. There seems a pressing need at present for dialogue between the Muslim community and the state and its security forces in countries with Muslim minorities and between the more radicalised and moderate religious leaders in countries with a Muslim majority. With reference to the former, Australia, the United Kingdom and South Africa come to mind, where interesting formal strategies have been developed to engage with their respective Muslim communities. Previously dialogue between al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya and the Egyptian authorities once proved reasonably successful as one example of the latter. Libya and Saudi Arabia recently adopted similar strategies to reincorporate into the mainstream those previously belonging to radical structures. In Saudi Arabia former members of al-Qa’eda are being re-introduced to the fundamental teachings of Islam against the use of violence accompanied by assistance from the state to search for other employment opportunities, in recognition of the influence of poor socio-economic conditions in the radicalisation process.

 

These initiatives serve as examples of more constructive strategies to prevent radicalization through hardening and fixing perceptions. Much more is needed in realising that the world is not constituted of bipolar opposites, and that identities are multiple and in constant flux. In the search of a comprehensive strategy to prevent and combat terrorism it is time that questions were asked about the motives of those who would have us believe that the world is made up of viscerally or immutably hostile camps.

 

Anneli Botha, African Security Analysis Programme, ISS Tshwane (Pretoria)