This weekend marked the start of the
major Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha, a three day celebration that takes place
at the end of the Islamic lunar calendar (Glossary). It is celebrated by Muslims across
the world but was tainted this year by a number of bombings and attacks that
resulted in the death of 31 people and countless more injuries throughout Iraq
(BBC). These deaths occurred as a result of seven seemingly isolated acts of
violence that were spread across the country. Most of these bombings occurred
in heavily populated Shiite regions of Iraq and also affected those of the
minority sect of Shabak (Tawfeeq, Deadly). In some cases the victims were
Iranian pilgrims on their way to worship at the Golden Mosque. The government
has blamed these attacks on Sunni dissidents with possible al-Qaeda ties, but no
one has stepped forward to officially claim responsibility for these bombings.
These attacks are especially alarming as they demonstrate a clear increase in a
wave of violence that began in August, and reached a climax with a death toll
of 365 people in September, the highest mortality count since 2010 (Tawfeeq,
Twin Blasts). Most of these acts seem to be aimed at religious minority groups
and government service providers. In one instance, after the detonation of a
bomb in al-Jihad Bagdad, police were called to scene only for a second bomb to
go off killing “one police man and two others” (Tawfeeq, Deadly). In Bagdad
“gunman killed two police officers and another was fatally shot outside his
house” (Tawfeeq Twin Blasts). Since then, numerous international officials have
stepped forward to condemn these attacks including the Secretary General’s
representative Martin Kobler, who claimed they were “atrocious acts of violence
against innocent worshippers of various faiths” (Tawfeeq).
Terrorism, itself, to this day
remains elusive of any international standard by which criminals can be
prosecuted. There are however, certain factors that more nations are starting
to recognize as a means of identifying terrorist groups. The most commonly
accepted components include the use of violence against civilians for a
political or ideological reason in order to promote fear. The violent attacks
that have occurred in Iraq fall into this category of terrorism and therefore confirm
it, because they meet many of these components. Those responsible for the
violence, though not confirmed, are believed to be non-State sponsored actors,
and therefore undermine the government from below. Furthermore the sites of the
attacks took place in public spaces, a minibus in Bagdad, open market places,
and even busy restaurants (BBC). These specific locations provided a large pool
of victims which in turn provided mass media coverage that would facilitate the
spread of the terrorist goal that is “dependent on their impact on the public”
(Micewski). Furthermore, the deaths and injuries were inflicted on the civilians
through violence to achieve the goal of those responsible. If the Sunni’s are
indeed behind the attacks, they are lashing out at what they believe to be a
government that does not adequately represent them, and are motivated by
tension between Sunnis and Shiites that has been ongoing since the initial religious
split in 7th century (Boeree). In addition, because these terrorist
are using violence, they are ignoring the transcendental rights that belong to
all humans which include the right to life and physical integrity. The focus,
regardless of whoever is responsible is not to promote the wellbeing of others.
Subsequently,
if it is confirmed that these attacks in Iraq, are religiously motivated, they
would also demonstrate the confliction that many individuals in the world are
experiencing as a result of globalization. As human beings are drawn closer and
closer together, and continue to interact with one another they begin to create
a cosmopolitan identity. An identity that consists of not just one component but
many, while there are those who still ascribe to a particularism identity in
which there is only one component. The conflict between these two types of
identities, and ways of life, are often culminated in religious terrorism as
one group may attempt religious homogeny while and another will resist. These
issues are further escalated in dispersed persons who end up with conflicting
identities, and unfortunately, in war torn Iraq, they happen to be in large
supply. Added to the already pre-existing tense Sunni Shiite relationship, it’s
easy to see why the situation in Iraq is ripe for ideological and political
strife.
Nevertheless, while the causes and
the reasons for terrorism have been studied and identified, the issue has yet
to be resolved and it remains to be seen whether it ever will be. Terrorism itself
can be traced throughout history, perhaps in its earliest, and clearest, manifestation,
the Reign of Terror of the Jacobins during the French Revolution. But even
before that, the people of Rome in the year 105 BC experienced it as well, so
the concept in it of itself is not a modern day issue. If it hasn’t been
eradicated in the thousands of years since its first historically recorded
appearance, it is unlikely that a solution will be found now and this stems
from the fact, that oppressed individuals are not the only ones to use
terrorism. State sponsored terror has also been endorsed in countless instances
across the globe, and while the actors may have government authority, they
still rely on the same fear through violence.
In addition, terror has been used by various types of regimes, left and
right wing governments and other political entities and organizations. In order
to fully resolve the issue of terrorism, the international community would have
to address the causes and the grievances for all of these different
organizations in order to prevent the formation of future terrorist
organizations. And even before that, a concrete definition of terrorism would
have to be established in order for the international community to be able to
understand exactly what it is working to counter against. A definition would
also be needed for Freedom Fighters, people who are fighting against truly
oppressive and illegitimate governments as there are often conflicting views on
whether or not a group or organization fits one category or another. Furthermore this would not just have to be an
international effort but also a domestic one as well which also complicates the
issue, as one nation may be unwilling to work towards a terrorist free world,
or might use terror as a form of rule itself. If that were the case, the
International community would have to come to a consensus on how to proceed
with such a state, through either direct intervention, sovereignty violation, or
seek other alternatives, like embargos. Regardless of the course of action
taken, it would have to be unanimous in order to truly be effective and as
often seen in the UN Security Council, unity, is extremely hard to come by,
leaving the citizens of the international community with a somewhat unclear
future in regards to terrorism and terror.
Works
Cited
"Iraq Hit
by Deadly Attacks." BBC News. BBC, 27 Oct. 2012. Web. 28 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20110320>.
Boercee, George
C., Dr. "Sunnis and Shiites." Sunnis and Shiites. Shippensberg
University,
n.d. Web. 28
Oct. 2012. <http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/sunnisshiites.html>.
Micewski, Edwin
R., Gen. "Terror and Terrorism: A History of Ideas and Philosophical-
ethical Reflections." Strategic
Insights August IV.8 (2005): 1-15. Center for Contemporary Conflict.
Web. 28 Oct. 2012.
Taweeq,
Mohammed. "Twin Blasts Kill 11 in Iraq." CNN. CNN, 20
Oct. 2012. Web. 28
Oct.
2012.
<http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/20/world/meast/iraq-violence/index.html>.
Taweeq,
Mohammed. "Deadly Attacks Hit Iraq amid Eid Festival." CNN. CNN, 27
Oct.
2012. Web. 28 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/27/world/meast/iraq-violence/index.html?hpt=imi_c2>.
Great article! You mentioned in your post, "If the Sunni’s are indeed behind the attacks, they are lashing out at what they believe to be a government that does not adequately represent them." In this specific instance, under your own definition of terrorism, would you consider this terrorism? Many would see it as more of a liberation movement and in the "muddy" area that we talked about in class because it is fighting a repressive government.
ReplyDeleteIf the Sunni's are in fact responsible for the Eid attacks, their actions should be classified as terrorism by both the definition mentioned in class and the more commonly accepted US definition. The Sunni attackers would have been focused on the achievement of programmatic rights and would have eschewed other transcendental rights in favor of them. They would have also created fear with the violence they used against the civilians and Iraqi government. Coupled together these factors would lead them to qualify as terrorists under the US definition because of the ideological motivation behind the attacks. In terms of describing their movement as that of a group of freedom fighters it is plausible but a consensus on that would be extremely difficult to create. After all, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter so if the Sunni movement does wish to be classified in that way they should consider restricting their political demonstrates in order to avoid the label of terrorists. They should refrain from violent attacks against the ordinary citizen and focus their protests against the government whom they are opposing. In addition, they should also limit if not stop their violent attacks as they remove their credibility as enactors of true reform. By separating their movement from violence the Sunni opposition would find it much easier for the international community to classify them as freedom fighters and would also be more inclined to support them because of their legitimacy. Though there would also be the real possibility that their movement could lose its effectiveness by becoming more peaceful which is what makes armed resistance so difficult to classify and combat. I hope that answers your question.
ReplyDeleteBased on your last paragraph, it seems like you're implying that institutions are the most effective way to tackle the issue of terrorism. Do you think that a liberal approach such as this is the best approach? Are there any examples of the international community working together that have really deterred terrorist activity?
ReplyDeleteYou mention that some options for dealing with terrorism around the globe include "direct intervention, sovereignty violation, or...embargoes". It also sounded like you wanted to channel these actions through international institutions, particularly the United Nations. However, wouldn't you agree that the United Nations is in large part run by Western philosophy and Western interests? Indeed, all the great powers in the UN, barring China and Russia, are Western. One would think that this might lead to a skewed use of power. We have often seen in the past that the use of military force through the security council represents the West's interests strongly, and not so much those of other nations (ie NATO intervention in Libya.) Inevitably, combatting terrorism through those channels would lead to increased Western domination and could thus paradoxically create an even larger divide between the West and the rest of the world, as combatting terrorism would hopefully lead to.
ReplyDelete*I meant to say that combatting terrorism would hopefully decrease the divide between the West and the rest of the world.
Delete