Roots of extremism

The POST, Sun, Feb,03, 2008.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

The new Governor of NWFP Awais Ahmad Ghani recently stated that the roots of terrorism lie in Afghanistan and peace cannot be maintained in the region unless extremism is eliminated from Afghanistan. The Governor stressed that NATO has failed to control Taliban and drug smugglers in Afghanistan. In an implied form he also suggested that the US and NATO should also employ political approach which should include all groups in Afghanistan and not be only dependent upon military operations only.

The Afghan President Hamid Karazai also acknowledged in an interview with CNN that more is needed to tackle the growing extremism in the countries including Pakistan and Afghanistan. However he also stressed that fight against terrorism should be more focused in Pakistan than in Afghanistan. He expressed concerns over growing terrorism in neighboring Pakistan. He hoped that Pakistan would take harder and clearer measures to eradicate extremism.

After repeated denials President Karazai has now begun to acknowledge, though indirectly, Afghan’s inability to inject stability in Afghanistan and that Taliban are funded by drug money. The failure to eradicate poppy cultivation along with a combination of religious extremists, criminals, and misguided policy objectives have sustained Taliban struggle. However he has begun to stress that to deal with the problem in both Pakistan and Afghanistan need to undertake concerted efforts.

Scanning through the above mentioned statements, one gets the feeling that not only two different interpretations are being advanced but also both word terrorism and extremism are being used synonymously. It needs to be stressed that the two words have different meanings as well as connoting same meaning within a specific context. Sometimes in a generalized form they are employed to generate the same meaning.

According to Oxford dictionary the word terror means extreme fear. If we accept this meaning then a terrorist is the one who attempts to instill extreme fear among the target audience as suggested above. Terrorism is defined 'as an act or threat of violence against non combatants with the objective of exacting revenge, intimidating or otherwise influencing an audience'.

A 'terrorist' is a person who uses or favors violent and intimidating methods of coercion. The essence of this definition is the employment of violent methods in order to instill fear and influence the targets, which may be a government or a community or a particular individual. Terrorists are defined not by their goals but by how they opt to attain them. It needs to be highlighted that by this definition only a non state actor is portrayed as a terrorist, which is not necessarily true.

A plethora of definitions is available with each one of them reflecting requirements of the changing political environments in different countries. How one defines terrorism reflects the thinking and profoundly affects the likely response. The US considers 'premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated against non combatant targets by sub national groups or clandestine agents' whereas there are others who define terrorism as 'a process of deliberate employment of psychological intimidation and physical violence by sovereign states and sub national groups to attain strategic and political objectives in violation of the law.

Extremism can be defined as a state of being extreme. It can be described as immoderate and uncompromising attitude. Many factors can cause the advent of extremism. Among these factors are included socio-political environment, oppressive cultural norms, social injustice, ideological contradictions, rigid religious beliefs and outsider’s interferences. The contributory factors include poverty, unemployment especially unequal employment opportunities, illiteracy etc.

The rise of extremism in South Asia is primarily the product of three factors. First is the slow economic progress along with a fairly high population growth rate. Second, the phenomenon of poor governance which was unable to address the socio-economic issues confronting the people of regional states. Third and perhaps the most significant is the foreign interference. The operative global environment along with the incumbent international political system is conducive to foreign interference.

President Karazai’s interview clearly tends to put the blame more on developments in Pakistan as responsible for causing the growth of extremism and terrorism whereas Governor Ghani’s remarks tend to put the blame on incumbent Afghan government’s inability to stamp out extremism in Afghanistan. President Karazai’ expressed concerns over growing terrorism in Pakistan where, according to him, President Musharraf is confronted with mounting opposition to quit amid spreading militant violence whereas Governor Ghani categorically stated that extremism would not evaporate unless it is eliminated from Afghanistan.

An objective analysis of the situation reveals that both countries are facing problems of the twin menace of extremism and terrorism. The Afghan government along with its NATO and ISAF partners has not been able to either control the Taliban or even effectively check infiltrations. In fact, in many ways, Pakistan government’s successes are neutralized when the militants use their hideouts in Afghanistan for regrouping, training and re-equipping purposes.

According to many independent sources, the Pakistanis were able to check the infiltrations to some extent but the fleeing militants take refuge in Afghanistan and their foreign supporters help them in a comprehensive way and then send them back to undertake their nefarious missions. There is no doubt that as long as Afghanistan continues to remain unstable, it would be quite difficult to stamp out the twin menace altogether.

While it may not be easy to quickly eradicate extremism, one thing is certain that the best course of action lies in the collaborative efforts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It would be appropriate for both to shed the notion of blaming other but focus more on how collectively they can stamp out this menace. An honest joint approach could pay the desired dividends much earlier.

In almost all recent interviews and statements, President Karazai has been painting a gloomy picture of both Pakistan and Pakistan and urging the international community to pay heed to the ground realities and to make concerted efforts to defeat the extremists. Undoubtedly the earnest joint efforts could enormously help in stamping out the twin menace. However it is advisable for President Karazai to avoid giving statements that contain insinuations and can impede collective efforts. Although President Karazai has been relatively careful in recent times and appears to be embarked upon a more appropriate path but he still has to shed his habit of employing diversionary tactics and putting blame on Pakistan in order to cover his own shortcomings and inabilities.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.