The age of terror

Around Latin America, revolution was not only revered, it was a way of life. Even now there can always be an odd Hugo Chavez who can rekindle the romantic strains that many like Che Guevara and Fidel Castro added.
There was one exception, though. They fought to overturn imperial order, and hegemony and exploitation by foreign masters. The higher purpose was always their underlying objective – nationalism in its truest colours. They were leaders of unimpeachable commitment, devoted to their cause. Terror as a brutal brand, as it is today, was never their way. Revolution had a certain class to it.
Even Arafat could be excused his violent ways. His people chose shock, and an odd murder, to convey their intent to serious purpose, but when hijacking of airliners began to be their pet tactic to force their notice it was new and unconventional, and yes violent, but still meant to remind the world that a people awaited justice. It was horrendous enough but still wasn’t about imposing their brand of belief, or a way of life, or destroying one of the other. They stood for a cause still patently nationalist – ‘give back our home, Palestine’. Notably, this is when violence, for all the genuineness of their cause, began to find relevance.
And don’t forget the Israelis before the Palestinians, and even after when they got their state. They trained as non-state actors of violence and hate – the Ben-Gurions and the Begins of the revolutionary period – till they, with their external patrons, imposed the state of Israel and evicted the Palestinians out demonising them as the terrorists of their time.
The pantomime goes on even today, even with Israel well and truly recognised in the world order by their patrons as a state of genuine democratic and progressive potential. The Palestinians lumber along fighting for their cause in a hope that they too might realise their potential one day. This chasm has existed long and deep for an undergrowth to nurture, hiding within its folds the darkness of the human soul. Civility and chivalry have since given way to savagery; secular nationalism since replaced with religious zealotry.
Paris, Peshawar, Beirut and Mumba, in hindsight, have been nothing but savagery. Questions will be asked in the existing world order of how Daesh was allowed to emerge and blossom to the point that it has; of why order in the Middle East, howsoever non-egalitarian but order still, was upstaged to a point of chaos and disorder under the impulse of colouring the entire world in Jeffersonian democracy.
The Arab Spring has only widened and deepened those fissures. Nations will still wrong other nations but its reactive reflux can never be in destroying humanity. This is what was in evidence last week when 129 innocent civilians were mowed down maligning the great religion of Islam. Hate will still be a human sentiment, yet it must never let itself express in savagery.
There may yet be a Paris redux and a ‘ruthless’ reaction in an imperial rage a la the US reaction in Afghanistan to 9/11 with attending and unending consequences of hate and venom with abandon destruction. Yet, nothing of note would have been achieved in each of these actions and reactions. In strict strategic terms what tactical, operational or strategic gains may have returned with the Paris massacre, or indeed of a one-off response? Nothing; zero, zilch, only mindless savagery.
There is only the defacing of humanity. The religion of Islam alone will get a bad name. The Muslims all over, especially the expatriates – of which there are a few from the African Maghreb in France – will be hounded and for the next few weeks each of them will find themselves covered in fear of reprisals. Walking away from home, or returning from work, they will be watching over their shoulders in fear of an equally mad reaction. When that happens, the perpetrators of these horror scenes would have realized their first success: of sowing the deep shadows of suspicion, of apprehension, of hatred and of fear – truly satanic. This to them may be their strategic gain, but of no consequence.
To many, man has been known to be savage, but to recreate what is antiquated is in direct contrast to the great civilisational progress that we claim to have made over time. What should be of even greater concern is that many of our fellow-beings have been left behind in this march of time. For power, or for making up the deprivation in this world of unequal shares and opportunity, they resort to exaggerations in the name of religion and tribalism with violence. Medievalism is the result. The consequence is savagery.
This is what is likely to happen in the short-run. Nations within Europe will be forced to review and more than likely cancel the Schengen facilitation to nationals of some countries. These potential visitors to Europe will need to negotiate their visas with each intended nation of travel separately. The borders will close again and unless one carries a European passport one would need to gain clearance to the next nation in long queues at entry points.
Those escaping terror in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan will be under increased scrutiny, or simply refused migration or asylum. Their Muslim brothers would have only closed the global space on them. Alienation will be the result, and isolation will be forced. Away from the global links of education, ideas, progress and development, the Muslim world largely will begin to drown in its own cesspool of ignorance, tribalism, regression and medievalism.
When Pope Francis calls it a ‘piecemeal third world war’ he gives meaning to what Huntington called the ‘war of civilisations’; he was shouted down for it. It remains within the powers of the world and its composite nations to make it into a civilisational confrontation that Al Baghdadi so earnestly hopes for, or call it a war of the ‘deviants’ against the rest who are rational and inclusive in their socio-cultural mores.
France was attacked for being a symbol of civility and free society. It was also easy to attack for exactly the same freedoms it offers all others who wish to be a part. France’s culture of a free society may be anathema to some sensibilities but can in no way arrogate to them to force a change to it through death and violent destruction.
As General Raheel Sharif heads out to the US there are two possibilities before him. He could either make his case for fighting terror together with the rest of the world as a priority, or simply listen to the Americans talk to him as the man in the dock for not doing enough. He will know though that a 21st century nation-state, which is also nuclear capable, must be run differently as per the principles that define a modern nation-state – in control of its territories and its borders, and linked into the global economic and legal system of governance. If not, it could easily regress to a medieval state where Baghdadis and Zawahiris become a foregone conclusion. This is also when the ISPR’s public sentiment of dissatisfaction with the governance in the state begins to make sense.
As the world seemingly divides into two camps on its way to either a ‘world war’, or a war against irrationality in human conduct, it is likely that the choice for Pakistan has already been made. That may be the unintended consequence of General Raheel Sharif’s visit. It may also push Pakistan and its leadership to shed subterfuge and fight in earnest all agents of medievalism, inside and out.
Email: shhzdchdhry@yahoo.com
The writer is a retired air-vice
marshal, former ambassador and a security and political analyst.