For decades now, the international community has looked at terrorism as something external and far-removed. Seldom have there been coordinated and sustained efforts to look at the underlying issues and work towards long-term solutions. Even in cases where terrorism has reared its ugly head and caused much grief, we have tried to douse it with temporary fixes, only for it to re-emerge in new places in more vicious forms.
If it was not apparent before, it is quite apparent to everyone now that terrorism acknowledges no religion and knows no boundaries. It is tragic that this much was realised only after a series of traumatic events in Beirut and Paris earlier this month, but such is the world we live in. Think about all the lives that have been affected by terrorism and try to feel the grief the affected must feel. We are no strangers to the horrors of terrorism ourselves and perhaps this is a true for a lot of other populations throughout the Middle East. But just like the US was shocked after the tragedy of 9/11, so do the French now find themselves astounded over what transpired in Paris on that fateful night.
In times like this, it is painful to point out the vagaries of colonialism or the systemic bias outsiders face in French society as possible culprits. But it does not make such assertions any less true. However, politicians do not have time for such long-drawn political lectures. They, as always, are looking for easy fixes; much to their chagrin, there are none.
Horrific events such as this recent spate of attacks have the power to galvanise support around common causes and make people take action towards addressing the critical issues of our time. But they also hide within themselves a much sinister possibility: causing mass hysteria and clouding our judgments. In one fell stroke, Islamic State (IS) seems to have achieved the impossible: not only has it inflicted irreparable harm on hundreds through its horrific attacks in Beirut, Paris and the like, it has also created a charged atmosphere in western countries that could lead its ranks to swell in an unprecedented manner.
The response from France and other nations — predictable given the panic they face — has been focused towards introducing extremely harsh measures for allowing refugees from Syria and Iraq into their territories. But wait, what about human rights, you ask. Well, apparently, it looks like they are only selectively applicable to some and general admission for the time being is closed. Sadly though, the response has not stopped at that: Muslim populations living within many western countries have also had to face backlash in the wake of recent events. There is a genuine fear that in the face of ridicule and alienation that Muslims will now have to face in Europe and elsewhere, the marginalised religious communities will have no option but to radicalise and walk straight into the arms of IS, a possibility that IS recruiters would doubtlessly welcome.
As mentioned earlier, terrorism is a trans-national issue, one that requires overcoming coordination issues on an unprecedented scale. But the irony is that the more terrorist activity there is, the response from the international community is to further close off their borders and retreat to their safe cocoons, only to be forced out of there by further attacks.
Amidst all this chaos, the question that is on everyone’s mind right now is this: can we address the IS threat in a meaningful way to somehow magically stop the vicious cycle of perpetual violence and terror? To this end, this much is clear: there is no military solution to the IS situation. We can all lament about the tragedies that IS has inflicted upon us all, and we can retaliate with much brutality, but the fundamental truth is that the extremist ideas that drive fanatic groups like IS are not going to simply die out.
In recognition of such limitations, there has been talk of empowering moderate Sunni factions within Iraq and Syria to act as a foil against the IS onslaught but this kind of solution is not grounded in the political reality of the Middle East either. The US and other European countries — all too happy to respond in kind to the fanaticism of IS — are not too keen on getting down to business and really invest their energies in the Middle East. It is not just the western powers that are wary of getting tangled up in Syria and Iraq. All of the regional countries that face a threat from IS are also more interested in resolving other issues rather than pooling their collective wisdom into transforming the balance of power in the Middle East.
Turkey, for instance, is obsessed with the Kurds for now. The Saudis and other Sunni states are more concerned about defeating Iran and its proxies, and Iran is more concerned about the protection of Shias in Iraq and Syria rather than addressing the IS threat head on. In such times, perhaps the only viable solution would be to undo the artificial colonial borders in the Middle East and allow for more ethnic and religious contact amongst the populations.
Desperate times call for desperate measures, and our grief and despair over recent atrocities could be an opportunity to not just right a historical wrong but to also create avenues for a better future for the people of the Middle East. By declaring the atrocious Sykes-Picot Agreement null and void, and by allowing for controlled movement along national borders, the despairing refugees from Syria and Iraq can be accommodated in a better manner. Additionally, such mobility could also bring together the moderate forces in the region to address the issue at hand.
But who will ever dare to undertake this Herculean task? It will most certainly not be the powers responsible for creating and enforcing those borders in the first place. So as we wait for a messiah that might never emerge, let compassion and better judgment keep the crazies out and instead let the right ones in.
The author is a freelance columnist with degrees in political science and international relations