Opinion

US vision for countering violent extremism

Thrust of countering violent extremism in US remains focused on contending with perceived threat of Muslim extremism

Syed Mohammad Ali February 26, 2015

The writer is author of the book Development, Poverty and Power in Pakistan, available from Routledge

Against the backdrop of ongoing violence in Muslim countries, and the spate of recent terrorist attacks in Sydney, Ottawa, Paris and Copenhagen, the US government hosted a high-profile conference on countering violent extremism in Washington this past week. The conference brought in delegates from 60 countries, the United Nations and the European Union, and saw the active involvement of the US president himself.

President Barack Obama rightly urged Muslim leaders to unite in rejecting militant groups like al Qaeda or the so-called Islamic State. Muslim leaders can be much more vocal in denouncing the false narrative of such entities, which aims to portray violent extremists as holy warriors, representing grievances or aspirations of the larger Muslim community.

It was also encouraging to see consensus amongst the conference delegates that the fight against extremism cannot be won with military might alone. However, proposals for how this menace should be contended with remain contentious, especially how the threat of ‘home-grown’ terrorists needs to be dealt with.

The Obama Administration’s efforts to counter ‘home-grown’ extremism are being criticised for placing the onus of responsibility unfairly on American Muslims. For instance, the US president and the vice-president emphasised the need for engaging with Muslim immigrants who may be radicalised because of marginalisation and provide them with a sense of belonging that discredits the terrorists’ appeal to lure them towards extremism by exploiting their sense of fear, isolation, hatred and resentment. The US vice-president cited Boston, Los Angeles and Minneapolis as examples of cities which had made progress in countering such extremism, through federal pilot programmes that are aimed at building community resilience and preventing disaffected young people from becoming susceptible to extremist messages.

While the above programmes are trying to involve Muslim community leaders in helping curb violent extremism tendencies, there is simultaneous need for much broader measures to empower Muslim communities, and address hurdles preventing their integration in countries like the US. Human rights activists and Muslim advocacy groups fear that attempts to counter extremism through the singular lens of national security or law enforcement will morph into fear-mongering, and boost surveillance efforts that will further trample civil and privacy rights of Muslims in America.

Moreover, despite a plethora of attacks by domestic right-wing extremists and the increase in white supremacist hate groups within the US, such instances of violent extremism were not given due attention during the conference. The thrust of countering violent extremism within America still remains focused on contending with the perceived threat of Muslim extremism, which in turn can reinforce the stereotype of Muslims in the US as security threats.

To counter the threat of violent extremism across the world, Obama acknowledged the need for the international community as a whole to offer disenfranchised segments of Muslim society positive alternatives which are vital to undermine their susceptibility to the false promises of extremism. Obama claimed the US would “do its part” by promoting economic growth and development, by fighting corruption and encouraging other countries to devote more resources to education. This of course is easier said than done in practice, for there is much evidence to refute such rhetorical aspirations, and illustrates instead how ongoing US policies end up perpetuating transnational corporate interests in collusion with elites across the developing world, while further marginalising the disempowered masses, even if this widespread disenfranchisement continues sowing the seeds of extremism, violence and even anti-West sentiments.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 27^th, 2015.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

COMMENTS (4)

Sexton Blake | 9 years ago | Reply Mr Syed Mohammed Ali started off with mentioning ongoing violence in Muslim countries, and a spate of terrorist attacks in Sydney and other countries. By doing so the writer has opened a plethora of discussion topics. Starting off with Sydney it appears that it has the highest Muslim population out of a total of 476,291 Muslims Australia wide. To my knowledge Australia has suffered the indignity of one physiologically damaged Muslim killing one person. This works out that 0.0002% of the Australian Muslim population is a danger to Australia. If we only include males it works out at 0.0004%. I do not think I would lose too much sleep over it. Compare this to Australian husbands killing their wives at the rate of one a week, severe domestic violence in Sydney works out at 15,413 per annum, and I will not go into robbery with violence or other types of killing. Perhaps the other countries mentioned have similar statistics? It is interesting to note that America has been at war for 93% of the time since it gained independence in 1776, and has only been at peace for 21 years. I will not torment the readers with statistics from 1776, but in the last 12 years alone the US has been instrumental in bombing several African countries, helping to raze Libya and Iraq virtually to the ground, reducing Syria to a basket case, and creating untold suffering in Afghanistan. I will not go too deeply into the death toll or the radiation poisoning from depleted uranium weaponry, which has a half-life of half a billion years. To rub salt into the wound, when the US and its Western colleagues invade and install puppet governments they label people who fight back as terrorists. Virtually all the countries which have been attacked for spurious reasons by the West were Muslim. They have suffered a high death rate and the economic damage is incalculable. They will not get back to normal within the lifetime of most people. I notice that people are constantly mentioning that Muslims from various countries are volunteering to fight overseas. No mention is made of the fact that a large percentage of people in the IDF comprise foreigners with dual passports from Western countries. In 2014 the IDF killed 3,000 people and 700 were children. I also noticed that Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande were marching arm in arm down a Paris street after 17 people were killed in Paris. I have never noticed them marching arm in arm when hundreds and thousands of Muslims are routinely killed. Perhaps President Obama is correct when he states that Muslims are starting to become extreme, but is it any wonder. I think Muslims have been patient beyond belief. Just look what America did to the Muslims after 9/11, when they attacked several countries in a row who arguably had nothing to do with 9/11. I do not know what vision the US has for countering so called Muslim extremism which has been a direct result of US/EU/Israeli mischief, but would it be too much to ask that as a future course of action they treat the Muslims in a civilized way and discuss and negotiate instead of routinely invading and bombing and installing compliant puppet governments?

Shah | 9 years ago | Reply You nailed it in the last few line "This of course is easier said than done in practice, for there is much evidence to refute such rhetorical aspirations, and illustrates instead how ongoing US policies end up perpetuating transnational corporate interests in collusion with elites across the developing world, while further marginalising the disempowered masses, even if this widespread disenfranchisement continues sowing the seeds of extremism, violence and even anti-West sentiments."

VIEW MORE COMMENTS

ajeet | 9 years ago | Reply An internment in a camp, as done during the second world war with the Japanese Americans till all attacks stop will work here.

John B | 9 years ago | Reply Literally immigrants from all parts of the world are in the US, and those who are here legally have made a good life for themselves and no one is complaining about disenfranchisement and is packing the bag to join the IS, other than those few individuals who profess Islamic faith. Incidentally, these guys are not some poor guys who live under the bridge! They all come from wealthy Muslim families and their parents worked hard to send them to school. These individuals have become terrorists based on one stated ideology and that is establishment of Sharia, as per their own declarations. Instead we are all arguing whether their ideology is correct or wrong. The current ongoing terrorism is not due to some neonazi group. It is a stated fact by the terrorists that they want to establish caliphate. The people who should be worried about these terrorists are those who live in the Muslim countries, since the caliphate struggle starts from there. The onus is on Muslim community to stop the spread of this classical version of the faith which has no relevance or theological basis in this 21st century. Never before in the history of Islam, the term radical Vs moderate Muslims was used and such distinction was brought by these terrorists and not by US vision or by some neo Nazi group. It would be illogical for police to look for would be IS terrorists among Buddhists or Hindu or Sikh or Mormon faiths. And it is the terrorists who made the muslim community insecure in their own land and not the US(or other nations). The question the author should be asking is "What are the visions by the Sunni Islamic Umma to stop these Caliphate terrorists"; Who is going to stand up and denounce the establishment of Sharia code in islamic and non islamic countries; who are going to resist caliphate in Islamic countries and say we are happy as we are; Who are going to say, "please leave the Shia, Ahmadi, Bahai, Christian and other faiths alone" to these terrorists. This is a declared Jihad, terrorists admit it openly. Only the rest of the world are sugar coating it. and the rest of the Muslims are uncomfortable in admitting it and arguing on the meaning of jihad. The first casualty of this jihad are those living in Muslim nations. Unless we are honest about it, we are not going to solve this problem. We will be only bombing each other until we run out of blood. The longer this conflict continues, the harder it will be equally for Muslims living in non Muslim and Muslim nations.

Replying to X