May 13, 2018 | Marc Batac and Gus Miclat

Initiatives for International Dialogue (IID)
Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict-Southeast Asia (GPPAC-SEA)

In the last few years, since 9/11 and the Global War on Terror, there has been a resurgence in interest in discussing and addressing violent extremism (VE) and its prevention. In the Southeast Asian region, the most recent precursors are the Marawi siege in Southern Philippines and the Rohingya crisis in the Rakhine state in Myanmar.

Let me provide emphasis on the Rohingya.

As you may remember, in early May 2015, the world watched as Southeast Asia was rocked by a humanitarian crisis involving hundreds of Rohingya refugees. Having been subjected to systematic discrimination in their home country of Myanmar since the 1950s, the Rohingya have been forced to flee for their lives and attempt to seek refuge in any country that would take them in. Last year, on 25 August, violence dramatically escalated in northern Arakan/Rakhine State, aTer the Tatmadaw / Myanmar military’s heavy-handed response to an attack by a newly formed armed group, the Arakan Rohingya Salvadoran Army (ARSA). The aftermath of the ferocious military action has led to hundreds of innocent civilian people being killed and hundreds of thousands displaced. Over 600,000 civilians from northern Rakhine State, mostly members of the Rohingya community, have been forced to flee their homes. Most alarming are the “clearance operations” conducted by the Tatmadaw / Myanmar military, during which various independent reports have documented systematic burning of Rohingya villages, sexual violence against Rohingya women, and opening fire on unarmed civilians. Within Arakan and Myanmar itself, the rift between Muslims and Buddhists, and between Rohingya and non-Rohingya ethnics have also widened, with discrimination against the Rohingya raging especially on social media.

But let us echo and emphasized the argument of partners working at the grassroots level on this issue: the Rohingya issue is not merely a lateral, social conflict that came about because of coincidental, essentialist disagreement between religious beliefs (Buddhist versus Muslims) or racial interests (between the various ethnic nationalities in Myanmar). What ultimately drives this is not just reactionary, unscientific tendencies of communities. Rather (which is part of the reason why we chose to emphasize on the Rohingya) it showcases how in many contexts as Southeast Asia, conflicts are manufactured and enabled by governments and political elites through interchanging use of assimilation and of segregation /divide-and-rule strategies.

At the center of this, of course, is the Myanmar government, particularly its military, which has also received immense criticism for its policies against other non-Bamar ethnics, and its widely documented human rights violations in other regions of the country, particularly in Kachin and Northern Shan states, where serious crimes continue to persist and security forces have targeted civilians with extrajudicial killings, rape, and sexual violence, arbitrary detention, and forced displacement.

While the Rohingya issue best illustrates the contradictions of ASEAN’s regional integration project, this problem is not limited to the Rohingya issue, or to Myanmar’s treatment of some of its minoritized ethnic and religious communities. We see this in other SEA countries and beyond, in various forms and gravity but with the same element of systematized discrimination enabled and at Dems perpetrated by states.

For decades, the region has been hounded by a history of hegemonic nation-building tactics by governments post-colonization, which often led either to repressive and violent assimilation programs or to discriminatory segregation programs against minoritized communities. In response, various self-determination struggles were born in Timor, Aceh, Bangsamoro/Mindanao, West Papua, Patani/South Thailand and Burma/Myanmar, with many of these violent conflicts continuing until the present. In the last years, we have also witnessed in Indonesia and Malaysia, the rise in intolerance fueled by the politicalization of religion and race for narrow political gains of one or several competing elites, which have in turn undermined the democratic instituition in and pluralistic nature of these societies.

While we indeed need to talk about the immediate threat of VE, we, especially civil society and peoples’ movements, must not forget about the struggle for human security and self-determination of peoples that is intertwined with this issue.

And as we tackle VE, we must continue to talk about its causes. We will talk about poverty, joblessness, alienation, marginalization, and intolerance as some of the drivers of the VE phenomena. But we need to also talk about accountability of governments and political elites in the politicalization of race and religion for narrow interests.

Radicalization and Violent Extremism

It is worth emphasizing that violent extremism is not a new phenomenon. When we talk about VE, our minds have been virtually conditioned to picture Muslim fighters such as ISIS/Daesh, Al Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah, Abu Sayyaf or the Maute Group. While their methods and actions are indeed brutal and yes, terroristic, we tend to forget that terrorism is also employed by states or their agents.
Thus we need to be candid with each other that the understanding of violent extremism is contested and, still in many quarters, remain misunderstood and prone to confusion. When some of those who avow Islamic beliefs perpetrate VE, it is called terrorism. But if a Caucasian male who does it, he is called a crazed or disturbed person, and if a state conducts it, is called national security or national interest.

This should not be taken as a justification of any of these, rather a challenge for all of us to clarify our understanding of very disputed concepts.

When we say that accurate conflict analysis is critical, we do not mean this just in a rhetorical sense; we mean this in very concrete terms. For some, this seems to be sophistry, but to conflate and mix these concepts and these contexts with each other is a critical mistake we can make as allies and advocates of peace.

Fundamentalism means “Changing from the roots”. While Radicalization is a process of developing extremist ideologies and beliefs.

1. Extreme – deviation from the norm
2. Norm – informal understandings that govern the behavior of members of society

It is important to note however that there was a time when the concepts of human rights, democracy, the calls for racial and gender equality and the right to self- determination of peoples, to name a few, were also a deviation from the “norm” of the times.

Violent extremism. on the other hand, is an “ac?on pathway” or as a process of engaging in violence.

So while Radicalizedtion remains to be just in the area of idea/belief, Violent Extremism entails an “action”.

Moreover, Terrorism, another controversial concept, and trend, is just one form of VE; it is the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence to create terror/fear, in order to achieve a political/ religious/ideological aim.

Sociological and political science theories still do not have a consensus on the causality between radicalization on the one hand, and VE on the other. One school of thought argues that radicalization per se does not lead to the violence.

b.1. Not all those who have radical ideologies, take part in violent extremism.

b.2. Also, not all those who take part in VE, are radicalized due to an ideology or belief; in fact, some members of Al Qaeda/IS are not ideologues or deep believers in nuanced, extremist doctrine. In fact, a recent analysis of the background of Americans and Europeans who partake in violent extremism does not show that they have a background on radical ideological doctrine and training.

Thus, while there is a relationship between radicalize?on and VE, we should not jump into assuming the linear relationship between these two.

Conclusion

So how does the misplaced antagonism toward any belief that is perceived by mainstream culture and society as “deviant” and extreme”, and how does the conflation of the meanings of “radicalization” and “violent extremism” affect(s) civil society and peace building’ work?

For example, most of the VE tendencies we face in the SEA region (in the various ethnic states in Burma/Myanmar, in South Thailand, in Mindanao in the PH; before, in Aceh and Timor) are ethno-nationalist struggles in nature that is driven by the assertion of their right to self-determination. Focus in the process of transformation of “ideas/beliefs”, rather than addressing the “acDon pathway”, may lead to crackdown of perceived “radical” beliefs, i.e., crackdown on madrasas (e.g. attempts by governments toward nationalisation of madrasas without community participation and ownership are counter-productive in transforming these ethno-nationalist conflicts), and on legiDmate and peaceful expression or practice of cultural, linguistic and religious characters, of self-determination, all are protected under international law; further discriminating against and radicalizing minoritized communities and sectors in society.

In cracking down on “peaceful” pathways, such as direct but non-violent actions to express legitimate dissent, states push peoples and communities towards other pathways, some of those are violent.

As a final message, we call for a fundamental change in how we perceive violent extremism and violent conflict. Rather than addressing manifestation of these, we should work to address the conditions that give rise to these. We should ensure spaces and conditions for the respect for diversity, equality and peoples’ right to self-determination. We call for a shift from reaction to prevention, from state-centered security towards human- and people-centered security.

GPPAC has developed 10 Human Security Guiding Prac?ces for Countering/ Preven?ng Violent Extremism, which may be useful to consider, to wit:

1. Human security guards the essential freedoms, safety, identity and human dignity of all people. It reflects the values in the preamble of the UN charter and encompasses development, humanitarianism, human rights, and security. It calls for holistic and context-specific strategies to counter violent extremism.
2. The ultimate goal and responsibility of any security policy, including counterterrorism policy, should be the preservation and protection of the freedoms, safety, identity, and dignity of individuals and their communities.
3. Terrorism must be fought within the rule of law and with respect for human rights. Police and military functions must be distinguished and operate within the rules of national and international law.
4. Military strategies to eradicate terrorism oTen harm innocent civilians. Such strategies must be amended to prioritize individual freedoms, safety, identity, and dignity.
5. Militarized counterterrorism measures do not change radical ideologies. They oTen backfire, further radicalizing vulnerable populations, and should be used only as a last resort.
6. Both victims of terrorism and counterterrorism measures should receive international recognition and reparations.
7. To effectively address terrorism, the security policy must address root causes and focus on conflict prevention and transformation.
8. Civil society organizations are essential partners in countering violent extremism. Local civil society actors have valuable knowledge and relationships that are essential for transforming conflict.
9. Restricting civil liberties and civil society space in the name of security creates the conditions of repression that fuel violent extremism.
10. Listing practices have the unintended consequence of impeding peacebuilding and humanitarian access. Civil society must have legal and political space to engage with armed parties and the communities in which they operate.

As we in GPPAC and hopefully the rest of civil society endeavour to internalize and practice these principles, we call for a partnership and engagement between and among governments, multilateral, civil society and even with non-state actors to promote pluralism, prevent and transform conflict, and build a durable peace.

Not one player can do it alone.

***This was delivered during the Asia-Europe Peoples’ Forum (AEPF) Peace and Security Circle Workshop last April 14-15, 2018. This is an abridged and updated version of the piece entitled “promoting Pluralism In Countering Violent Extremism: A View from Civil Society” delivered during the Conference on Peace and the prevention of Violent Extremism (PVE) in Southeast Asia held in Manila, Philippines last September 23, 2017.