Extremism: A Reaction that Extermines Self-Determination

We all around the world have heard about terrorism and how world leaders and international organisations claim for it to end as well as condemnations and ‘This is not the last of it’ declarations coming from the perpetrators. The part of why these attacks and terrible activities happen and why it is increasing however, really few international actors and Governments have wondered about the real reasons behind extremism and terrorism. In this entry, I am seeking to explore a bit this issue in what respects to possible reasons, with an emphasis on some cases and also, to give an argument of why Extremism can make self-determination disappear and therefore, a reaction that instead of bringing an end to the problem, dooms all those who participate in it along with their places of origin.

Extremism, according to Oxford Dictionary (2013) in the most basic way can be defined as 'the holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism', therefore inside the concept there are a number of different factors that could be considered in order to determine if an action, reaction, or any other activity is derived from extremism. In this sense, extremism here does include terrorism either from the State or non State actor to a certain group or civilians inside or outside the national territory or, we can also consider terrorism coming from a part of the oppressed ones. There are many other extremist actions that are not considered as terrorism, such as the implementation of certain laws or policies as well as social norms (such as the ones we see with the Taliban).

Terrorism has many different definitions which are normally context dependant. In general terms however, to me terrorism is a group of people or the State itself who share a common set of cultural, political, etc. values as well as interests and seek to either pressure or put fear to the State or to people in order to achieve their goals or interests by targeting civilians or people from a specific background (either specific group, nationality, ethnicity, religion, even armies etc.) through violent means. Terrorism has different origins, either cultural, religious or political.

There are many origins of terrorism as such however, the part of it associated with religion is not new at all. There is some debate about the real reasons behind the Crusades and, those who invaded Muslim grounds on those centuries did perpetuate some acts that today could be considered as terrorism such as massive killing and cleansing. Then, after some centuries, there were some traces of terrorism during the independence struggle of Algeria, when people would go to the compounds where French used to live and either put bombs near them or set them in these places. The cases of Palestine, Muhajideen, Al Qaeda and those groups related to them, came afterwards.

Nature of terrorism has also changed in many ways. Normally, some tend to relate extremism and terrorism but at least to me, extremism comes first and then it can translate to terrorism because the former does not necessarily imply that it will end up in the latter. There are also extreme capitalists, extreme leftists, etc. Religion however, has become into an excuse for some groups to make either their attitudes or attacks as legitimate and even justified. Ideologies, either religious or economic or of any other kind, brought to their last consequences could be more damaging that actually fruitful for those who support them.

What causes extremism that could later be translated into terrorism? The main factors (among others) are past events held in the country or specific region, as well as cracks or faults inside social structure inside these places. Now, from these events, the part of intervention and wars as well as nationalism plays a particularly important role. Places in which we see extremist groups such as Northern Ireland, Palestine, Spain, Afghanistan, Chechnya, India, Japan, among others, have had wars and interventions as well as painful recovering processes. In other cases, they are still under occupation and, in this case, people become vulnerable and prone to extremism.

The 'easiest' reason of why a person could become extremist could be due to human nature. Everybody has the capacity to feel hate, sadness, frustration and fear. The combination of negative emotions, along with rancour and historical memory or present events could make a person be convinced about doing unimaginable things such as killing. In this respect, I remember a quote coming from the book Dark Ages America, in which the author, Morris Bermann (2006) mentions that if a person lives in a place in which a group of outsiders or a foreign power are imposing draconic laws (or dictators) in order to achieve their objectives by crushing locals, (forbidding them of being free or taking their human rights away), what other option does that person have but terrorism to defend his/herself?

How can a person could be convinced about doing such thing? Indoctrination also plays a key role in this topic. People who live in fragile societies in which basic family structures or values are broken are even more prone to get into these activities or, people who grew watching violence (wars, occupation). Since others are aware of the fragility of human nature, they might take advantage for this in order to achieve their personal or collective objectives. Every single one of these reasons has a solid and up to some point, a reasonable argument but, getting into this kind of things will most likely cause death on the short term and even put either the person's or the person's country or,places of origin or ethnic group in danger. I will illustrate this with some examples that will also serve to support the argument of why extremism dooms self determination.

The participation and strong presence of Al Qaeda everywhere is undeniable. It is highly questionable how they began and why they started to commit all crimes seen throughout this century. The West is a hard partner and also a very unpredictable one. The context in which Al Qaeda was born was generated by the West almost in an absolute way. The Cold War constituted a conflict of selfishness and ideological intolerance rather than an arms race as such. When the USSR got into Afghanistan, the US, (like they did when Korea, Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Vietnam, etc.) did not get there for helping to the Muslim cause of getting rid of foreign presence there but more for their interest of stopping communism and also to start to get some control of the region.

After a long time in which the US had links with certain people from these groups in order to achieve certain goals inside this region, they eventually broke up with the Muhajideen and got Osama Bin Laden against them. Priorities then changed and links got weakened and 9/11 came, the US gets into Afghanistan to get rid of Al Qaeda's support (Taliban) and the ones who are suffering from it are civilians, not only in Afghanistan but also in the US, because both have lost security and mental peace. The worst is that this is not finished yet. Is it worth risking so much national integrity for such unpredictable outcomes? The US got attacked in their own land and people are scared apart from the terrible reputation they acquired after 2001 and 2003 invasions that did not lead anywhere and, on the other hand, Afghans live with fear everyday either due to Taliban draconic laws (the Q'uran does not say anything about such laws to be legitimate from the religious point of view) going around here and there.

We can also find another exampleofextremism and to a certain point of nationalism wih the case of Hamas and Hezbollah, who are 'terrorising Israel'. This last thing is put in quotes on purpose because the existence of both groups is mainly due to the imposition of Israel on a land that was inhabited by others long before they got there at the end of the Second World War. There are a number of different factors that can be analysed inside this conflict. Since this entry is not focused on the Israel-Palestine question only, from my point of view one of the main issues here is the idea of 'terrorist-freedom fighter' dichotomy, because in the end these groups do have a set of ideals that seek in general terms, achieve freedom for Palestine as well as respect for Palestinians and of course, getting their territory back. Unfortunately even though these objectives sound reasonable to most (except the US) in the international community, these groups have put Palestine's self determination in danger, for Israel has support that in many ways cannot be matched and also have put Lebanon and Lebanese people in danger many times. 

The fact of Palestine being considered in the UN today is the beginning of its path to self determination and respect, which are well deserved. The day in which the international community appeals to historical memory in a deep sense by seriously remembering the reasons BEHIND the Holocaust then Israel will stop its 'Palestininiancaust'. I would like to mention that historical memory is what today divides Israelis, because not everybody in Israel supports what Israeli forces do to Palestinians (occupation, torture, killing, etc.) Elderly people in particular have a better sense of this: 'It is not fair what is being done to Palestine, because well you know, I lived the Holocaust and I would never wish that to be done to somebody else'. This is a reflection that should be done on the global level.

Now, in this part of risking self determination and integrity, the case of Kashmir is something to which the world should shift its attention to, particularly to the part occupied by India. Occupation from both India and Pakistan has caused in some Kashmiris to appeal to the negative part of human nature. Unfortunately, Pakistan is fighting against the presence of Taliban in their own territory and trying to somehow negotiate with them in order to have peace conditions not really succesful at all, for Minister Khan now has to spend his time arguing with the US and leaving the Taliban get angrier and angrier. Young Kashmiris living in India are being put into danger by being indoctrinated by some Taliban sympathisers disguised as Imams or Mullahs who appeal to the Q'uran and leading them to religious extremism.The question is, where is this going to lead them? The issue of Kahsmir is getting worse and worse because of this religious indoctrination to young Kashmiris and also to the extreme wings of India such as the RSS or the Bajrang Dal violating their rights every single day. 

Kashmir does have sympathisers in many places, and it would be wiser not to get into the lines of people like the Taliban or to Al Qaeda because this will bring one of these or all of these outcomes: being recruited to cooperate with Western powers (and then have a fate similar to Bin Laden's), or being killed by NATO/US forces in a 'humanitarian intervention' or 'counter-terrorism' operation,or end up in a place like Guantánamo or Abu Grahib, or in the best of the cases just found dead in the places they attack. Nobody deserves such thing. Kashmiris in general and as far as I know, are peaceful and honest people, to which is a mind blowing fact to many people in India. Kashmiris have a smarter and more effective way of resistance: by preserving their culture and traditions in spite of the pressure they are subject to. If extremism gets into Kashmiris, then Indians will now have a 'reason' to crush them, turn monolithic in this issue and put self determination out of the question. 

Nationalism plays a very important role inside the issue of Kashmir and also inside the issue of Palestine, of Northern Ireland and even from Spain. There is no reason in this century to impose ideas or a certain cultural mindset to others who do not share it. There have been many events throughout history that have shown that imposition does not lead anybody anywhere as well as killing for the sake of interests. Armies follow orders, but the problem is those who are behind them. 

Resistance does not necessarily has to be violent or has to drag innocents of the army/country who is occupying or invading- A very good example of peaceful but at the same time strong, resistance is the one being made by Tibetans, particularly the ones who are on exile serves as an example of a smart way to oppose the policies of the CCP by denouncing atrocities on the international level. The international support for the cause is mainly due to how Tibetans approach the issue by not hating their counter part or perpetuating the same or worse things to their occupators (this is a question with Israel and the Holocaust memory). The role of HH the Dalai Lama in promoting negotiation and also peace, has made the world to regard China as the responsible of self immolations and of people's questionable situation not only in Tibet but in the whole country. HH Dalai Lama's teachings and speeches have been congruent with his and Tibetans' actions worldwide and this is what has made the movement for a Free Tibet to be consolidated and supported. Nobody can claim for legitimacy or for justice if actions are opposite to principles. 

Warriors can be bureaucrats, but not the other way around. If the international community (and western countries in particular) turn to see the consequences of their occupations or wars then maybe they could get into what the real reasons for extremism and terrorism could be and therefore, be able to either solve the problem or try to tacke it in a more effective way or at least prevent it. It is not hard to respect and try to negotiate with all groups involved in policy making processes, some States have been able to do so. Nobody can expect people who are being occupied, oppressed, killed, etc. to just accept things and try to follow their lives, because bowing down to such things is opposite to human nature and even to common sense.