extremism – Engaging Peace

Why the U.S. doesn’t prosecute its war criminals

Posted on October 13, 2016 by kathiemm

Why doesn’t the U.S. prosecute its war criminals? This has been on my mind for a long time, and I’m reminded of it anew after seeing Donald Trump’s threat to prosecute/jail Hillary Clinton should he become president, not to mention the chants of “Lock her up” at Trump rallies.

One bulwark against fascism in the U.S. has been our cultural adherence to “insure domestic tranquility” in the preamble to the Constitution. That adherence has in turn become part of our political culture. In particular, elections in the U.S. are ways to change leaders and policies without violence; unlike in other countries the winners in the U.S. are not expected to threaten to jail or execute the losers. Or prosecute them by bypassing the presumption of innocence. Absent these protections, history shows that not only leaders but also their followers leap to civic violence when elections do not turn out as they like.

It may be true that we carry the political custom of insuring domestic tranquility too far. I’d certainly like to see the U.S. join the International Court of Justice. I’d like to see Henry Kissinger, for example, brought before it. But as a matter of justice, not the result of an election.

So of all the things I don’t like about Trump’s candidacy, the one that’s most frightening is that a great deal of his constituency seems to believe that the fascism embodied in his statements to jail his opponent is OK. I hope that this doesn’t turn out to be an eerie replay of the destruction of the Weimar Republic. I don’t usually panic by claims that, say, electing a warmongering president will destroy the country; the country seems to get through these things, at least domestically. But now I worry that even if Trump fails, what will those fellow citizens who agree with him do? And what should reasonable citizens do to discourage the dangerous extremism of Trump and his excitable followers, who after all are our neighbors?

———-

Ed Agro, an occasional contributor to Engaging Peace, is administrator of the online war tax resisters online forum wtr-s. The above essay is a slightly edited version of the one that recently appeared in that forum.

Terrorism personified: The Boko Haram in Nigeria (Part 3 of Fundamentalism vs. Extremism)

Posted on January 6, 2014January 5, 2014 by kathiemm

Third in a series by guest contributor Emmanuel C. Mbaezue

Map of Nigerian states with Boko Haram activity between 2010-2013 — Nigerian states with Boko Haram activity between 2010-2013. By Nerika, used under CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. From Wikimedia Commons

At first they started as a political interest group, seeking, since the 1999 elections, to return the “Northern Oligarchy” in Nigeria to power. But today, the true face of the group has been revealed and their real intentions exposed.

Boko Haram has gone from a politico-religious extremist group to global terrorists—at least according to the global terrorist watch list published by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).

As the state of unrest, chaos, and political instability in Nigeria continues to worsen, Boko Haram has consistently taken advantage of the situation, using it to expand their frontiers and strengthen their affiliation with other terrorist groups operating in sub-Saharan Africa, the Maghreb region, and the horn of Africa.

In recognition of this deepening crisis, the African Center for Strategic Studies (ACSS), in collaboration with intellectuals from both Africa and the U.S., recently came together to deliberate on this developing situation under the platform of “understanding and mitigating the drivers of Islamist extremism in Northern Nigeria.”

This video provides information about those discussions. It also serves as introduction to the development of extremism within a context of colonialism and post-colonialism and its links to religion in Africa, with a focus on Nigeria, Africa’s most populous Muslim country.

Emmanuel Chukwuemeka Mbaezue has a Master of Science in Conflict Management and Peace Studies from University of Jos, Jos, Plateau State. He is a member of the Institute of Chartered Mediators and Conciliators, and works as a paralegal counsel at the Legal Aid Council for the Federal Ministry of Justice in Nigeria.

Fundamentalism vs. extremism (Intolerance, cohesion, and killing in religion, Part 2)

Posted on October 21, 2013October 29, 2013 by kathiemm

By guest contributor Emmanuel C. Mbaezue

Though intertwined with many beliefs and purposes, religious fundamentalists and extremists depart significantly from each other in their basic operations.

War image mural in Son Severa by Frank Vincentz — Mural in Son Severa by Frank Vincentz, used under CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license

Typically, it is the fundamentalist who creates the vision of the group and their religious and moral legitimization for action. While the leaders provide the concept, the followers design the practice or action.

It is usually in the process of implementing those designs that discrepancies between the original ideas held by the group leaders and subsequent actions arise—the traditional “follower fallacy.” Most importantly, it is also at this point that overzealousness, particularly from the followers, tends to magnify discrepancies.

There are a lot more differences between fundamentalism and the extremism that explain the violence-prone nature of religion today. However, it is important to deemphasize the role of religious leaders in religiously-motivated violence and focus instead on the most basic underlying causes of violence—for example, poverty and inequality–which can be manipulated for personal and group purposes.

Basically, the radicalism and blood-stained nature of religion today can be blamed mainly on structural defects. People frequently need something to believe in, particularly in times of crisis. As Karl Marx once opined, religion is the opiate of the masses.

If the violence and killing prevalent in society today are to be reduced, then we must be ready to help people gain the basic necessities of life. This could be achieved through an honest respect for fundamental human rights, recognized by both international and local laws.

Emmanuel Chukwuemeka Mbaezue has a Master of Science in Conflict Management and Peace Studies from University of Jos, Jos, Plateau State. He is a member of the Institute of Chartered Mediators and Conciliators, and works as a paralegal counsel at the Legal Aid Council for the Federal Ministry of Justice in Nigeria.

Intolerance, cohesion, and killing in religion, Part 1

Posted on October 14, 2013October 20, 2013 by kathiemm

By guest contributor Emmanuel C. Mbaezue

Confrontation between mounted archers by Tabriz, 14th century. Image in public domain.

“Terrorists and Peacemakers may grow up in the same community and adhere to the same religious traditions. The killing carried out by one and the reconciliation fostered by the other indicate the range of dramatic and contradictory response to human sufferings by religious actors.” (Scott Appleby, 2000)

Appleby’s quote reflects the ambivalence inherent in religion. Though on the one hand, religious leaders have condemned acts of religiously motivated violence, on the other hand they have also failed to contain the frequency and scope of such acts. According to Little (2007), rather than playing a soothing role in response to societal problems of violence and murder, religion itself seems to contribute to violence in the world today.

Furthermore, the current preponderance of religious violence has presumably been stirred by religious leaders. Most of them have deviated from their spiritual calling and have sometimes deliberately created crisis situations in order to abrogate existent religious laws.

To understand how they are able to accomplish this, we must examine the two practices responsible for the violence-prone nature of religion: fundamentalism and extremism.

As defined by Appleby (2000), fundamentalism is a specified pattern of religious militancy by which self-styled true believers try to: (a) resist the extinction of religious identity; (b) fortify the borders of a religious community; and (c) create viable alternatives to secular structure and processes. The fundamentalist’s main goal is to protect his religious identity while competing with secular authorities, without necessarily employing violent means.

Extremism on the other hand can be viewed as the deliberate use of violence to “purify” society while fighting against external forces. While the fundamentalist does not necessarily see the use of violence as a means to an end, the extremist believes that violence is not only necessary, but also a legitimate way of maintaining order.

REFERENCES

Appleby, Scott. (2000). The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence and Reconciliation. Maryland, United States of America: Rowman and Little Field Publishers.

Little, David, ed. 2007. Peacemakers in Action. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Emmanuel Chukwuemeka Mbaezue has a Masters of Science in Conflict Management and Peace Studies from University of Jos, Jos, Plateau State. He is a member of Institute of Chartered Mediators and Conciliators, and works as a paralegal counsel at the Legal Aid Council for the Federal Ministry of Justice in Nigeria.