How come after the successes in the war on terror since 9/11, it seems likes we’re still fighting the war on terror? There seems to be a bit of Lewis Carroll unfolding here:
The faster I go, the behinder I get.
Are the world’s militaries trying to fight a new enemy with old weapons? 1st Lieutenant Rogerio Paiva Cietto, a legal adviser in the Brazilian army, explores the notion in a paper for the U.S.-based Peace Operations Training Institute:
By Rogerio Paiva Cietto
During the time this paper was written, the War on Terror carried out by some Western countries had made public what they called a major success in this mission: the death of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan, leader of the organization called Al Qa’ida. Other factions supported by Al Qa’ida, like the Talebans in Afghanistan, are also said to have been weakened and demoralized.
It seems contradictory that, after this so-called success of the War on Terror, initiated after the events occurring on September 11th, 2001, international peace and security are still threatened by retaliatory attacks of terrorist groups. Maybe this mission in Pakistan provided what terrorists need most: a martyr to mirror themselves, and ideals that, although corrupt, still motivate many to die and to kill.
Additionally, the allegations of human rights violations of detainees accused or suspected of being involved with terrorism may fuel the hatred that terrorists need in order to recruit new members for their cause. For those who know only poverty and suffer all their lives, believing in a fantastic world is easy, and all what a new recruit must do to pursue his terrorist mission is to believe that terror is the only way he can change his miserable condition.
Terrorism works by inculcating fear and insecurity in a population, and as a result the government loses its credibility and legitimacy, because their citizens expect a certain level of security from the State they live in. However, if the government itself acts in an aggressive way against its population, for the purpose of fighting criminals or terrorists, the government loses its credibility in the same manner. In both cases, the terrorists win some deference from the population.
The objective of the present study is to present an alternative solution to the fight against terrorism, since the War on Terror, despite its achievements, needs to be readdressed in order to eliminate the causes that make a terrorist come into existence. By preventing the root causes of terror, the ideals and beliefs of terrorism will be weakened.
In order to show how terror can be fought in the long term, and be expelled from a specific population (minorities in a fragile country, for example), it is necessary to understand some important issues:
– Who has the authority to combat terrorism?
– What are the causes that proportionate terrorism to begin?
– What efforts have been made to fight terrorism?
– What is terrorism, what are the terrorists’ objectives and motivations?
– What are the rules and laws that regulate this situation?
International terrorism, like any threat to international peace and security, is within the jurisdiction of the United Nations Security Council, which is responsible for authorizing, or not, measures against rogue countries or governments that stimulate or support terrorist activities, including the use of force, i. e., military activities, economic embargoes, arms embargoes, among others.
For the purpose of this study, we will present the different kinds of peace operations carried out by United Nations, for three reasons, which show the relation between terrorists, in one side, and Blue Helmets in another:
– Terrorism is more likely to raise and be sustained in fragile countries with a weak sovereignty because groups can maintain their activities without local repression.
Example: Al-Qa’ida terrorist training camps were made possible in Afghanistan only because the national government was not able to detect and stop its activities.
– Governments that do not respect, or do not care for the human rights of their populations also create a good field for hiring new members for a terrorist cause.
Example: religious and ethnic intolerance and hatred between Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda resulted in terrorist acts in which women and children were killed or mutilated (children which had their hands chopped by machetes in order to cause fear to the entire ethnic group).
– When the Government uses force arbitrarily to maintain its power among its population, some citizens may join rebel forces to protest, and this helps terrorists.
Example: the energetic way the Haitian Political Police (Les Tonton Macoutes) dealt with the population during the government of Jean-Claude Duvalier (Bébé Doc) may make Haitians oppose the government, and give support to local gangs to struggle the State (this support is usually indirect, with food, fuel and hiding from the authorities).
Countries with these sorts of problems, in the past and nowadays, are of concern to the United Nations Security Council when they become a threat or breach of international peace and security, and some of them had, or still have, a Peace Operation deployed in its territory. Since they are used to this kind of operation, and are trained to deal with this situation, the Blue Helmets can be an alternative solution against the menace of terrorism, if properly authorized and employed.