terrorism – Page 4 – Engaging Peace

The Rise of Mercenary Armies, Terrorism, and Peace. Part 2

Posted on March 2, 2015May 19, 2018 by kathiemm

Part 2 of a two part series by guest author Dr Majed Ashy.

US State Department contract security, International (Green) Zone, Baghdad, Iraq. Image by Tmaull, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Companies that provide mercenaries need international regulation and must to be subject to international law. Unlike governments that can be held accountable by voters, international law, and the freedom of information act, these private national and international businesses resist any intrusion into their work and claim a right to secrecy.

One of the many disturbing features regarding mercenary groups is that the standards of hiring are different of those of regular national armies. In different parts of the world, these mercenaries can include individuals with criminal, psychiatric, or drug issues that influence their conduct. In addition, as we have seen in several incidents, these contracted mercenaries and their companies might not be held to the same standards of accountability as regular professional armies.

We might be moving into an era in which wars are not conducted by national armies for the sake of certain ideologies, religions, or national interests, but by private contracted armies of mercenaries who will fight outside the restrictions of international or national laws for the narrow interests of individuals or groups or governments. This will take us into a new understanding of wars, terrorism, and peace.

Suggested reading: The Modern Mercenary: Private Armies and What They Mean for World Order by Sean McFate. A brief excerpt is available here.

Dr. Majed Ashy is a certified consultant in psychology in Saudi Arabia. He received a bachelor degree, a master degree, and a doctorate degree in psychology from Boston University in the USA, and a post-doctorate in psychiatric research at the Developmental Bio-Psychiatry Program (DBPRP), MacLean Hospital at Harvard University Medical School, and a second post-doctorate at the Mind, Brain, and Learning Program at Harvard Graduate School of Education. He has been a research fellow at DBPRP since 2008.

Dr. Ashy’s research examines the developmental and neurological bases of political thinking, attitudes, and behavior, including the role of childhood maltreatment and trauma in brain development and later attitudes towards peace, war, terrorism, extremism, torture, protests, human rights, apology, forgiveness, and reconciliation. He is an advocate for peace and human rights as pre-requisites for mental and physical health, and advocates for cross cultural understanding and cooperation in making mental health services available to cultural minority groups and promoting healthy relations among groups. Dr. Majed has several professional publications, presentations, and memberships in the area of peace psychology.

Dr. Majed Ashy is a certified consultant in psychology in Saudi Arabia. He received a bachelor degree, a master degree, and a doctorate degree in psychology from Boston University in the USA, and a post-doctorate in psychiatric research at the Developmental Bio-Psychiatry Program (DBPRP), MacLean Hospital at Harvard University Medical School, and a second post-doctorate at the Mind, Brain, and Learning Program at Harvard Graduate School of Education. He has been a research fellow at DBPRP since 2008. Dr. Ashy’s research examines the developmental and neurological bases of political thinking, attitudes, and behavior, including the role of childhood maltreatment and trauma in brain development and later attitudes towards peace, war, terrorism, extremism, torture, protests, human rights, apology, forgiveness, and reconciliation. He is an advocate for peace and human rights as pre-requisites for mental and physical health, and advocates for cross cultural understanding and cooperation in making mental health services available to cultural minority groups and promoting healthy relations among groups. Dr. Majed has several professional publications, presentations, and memberships in the area of peace psychology. He is a regular contributor to Engaging Peace.

How to Defeat Terrorism 101

Posted on October 2, 2014November 15, 2014 by kathiemm

By Dr. Majed Ashy, Guest Author

Terrorism emerges in environments that feed it. Such environments provide intellectual, financial, and personnel support and supplies. The main intellectual supply comes from a few branches of Islam in which some members are intolerant of other religions and sects and tolerant of coercion–even violence. The main financial and personnel supports come from governments pursuing their own interests.

Terrorism can be defeated if governments stop providing both direct and indirect support to violent groups. History has shown repeatedly that when the US government supports a group in its fight against a perceived “enemy,” this group starts to have a life of its own and turns against us. Destabilizing countries, governments, institutions, and cultures creates fertile environments for the spawning of terrorist and criminal groups.

The goal of international terrorism is to weaken the US militarily, economically, and image-wise. They try to do this by creating multiple hot spots internationally, and shocking the American public with atrocities intended to pressure the American government into ever expanding military involvements. Such involvements stress the economy and, given the nature of terrorism, rarely if ever end with a victory.

We need a new concept to replace that of the “sovereign nation state,” which is the basis of the UN and international affairs. Many developments are weakening the “nation state,” such as the Internet, media, globalization, communication, and terrorism. Defeating terrorism requires more than aggressive responses from individual nation states; it needs a coordinated international effort that is holistic and cooperative. The best antidotes to terrorism include inter-group tolerance and pluralism, as well as the establishment of justice and better living conditions, less war, and more hope for all.

Dr. Ashy is an assistant professor of psychology at Merrimack College and a research fellow in psychiatry at McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School. He was born in Lebanon and is a Saudi. He earned his B.A., M.A, and Ph.D. in psychology from Boston University. His research in psychoneuroimmunology and political psychology focuses on childhood experience of adversity and its psychobiological consequences.

Tomorrow’s wars: Let’s stop them now.

Posted on August 7, 2014August 15, 2014 by kathiemm

Battle_of_Giannitsa_(1912-11-01),_First_Balkan_War,_Greece; published in the US before 1923 and public domain in the US.

Part 2 in a two-part series by Dr. Majed Ashy

Leaders can use their power and authority for good or bad. Unfortunately, some leaders promote moral disengagement by persuading the masses that the crimes of wars and terrorism are, among other things, essential, unavoidable, victimless, ways of preventing more evil, fully the responsibility of the other side, and will be the last war or act necessary to create peace.

The foot soldiers who carry out the fighting are led to believe that they are fighting for their country, race, religion, sect, tribe, peace, or whatever they are told the conflict is about—which may be something quite different from what they are told. For example, while spewing out rhetoric about patriotism and loyalty and faith, the leaders might actually be fighting over natural resources such as natural gas, gas pipelines routes, mines, or oil, drugs or drug smuggling routes, money, influence over their own people, regionally, or internationally. Or they may be seeking to obtain the votes of extremists in their group. Or they may be pursuing violence just to satisfy their own narcissistic needs or psychopathology.

On the other hand, the relationship between the leader and the masses can contribute to a lot of good. The grip of war and terror mongering leaders on ordinary people needs to be shaken, their intentions and motives need to be examined, and their strategies to manipulate and mobilize the masses and to fuel the conflicts need to be exposed and countered. The relationship between such leaders and the ordinary people in their domains are the main origin of all international and local wars and ills.

Such leaders have sometimes been deposed or convinced to end their love affairs with violence in the past, and this can happen again. The enforcement of the Hague and international law might convince some of these leaders to accept alternatives to violence and change the nature of their relationship with their people or followers.

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.