Fighting off the common enemy

Terrorism is neither nationalistic in outlook nor state-specific. It nurtures a global vision and its reach is beyond international borders. Be it Daesh, Al-Qaeda or Boko Haram, their agendas are virtually one and the same. They can easily recruit volunteers from far and wide via the internet. You defeat them in one country and they regroup in the next. If they have not been routed and crushed it is essentially because of the global reach they have acquired. And they are out to conquer the world if they can. If this war is to be won - and it must be won, because its alternate is apocalyptic - even states that are away from the battlefield will have to join the anti-terrorism campaign, one way or another. On Wednesday, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, Pakistan's Interior Minister told the closing session of the two-day Pak-UK International Seminar hosted by the National Defence University that Western powers and media need to revisit their perceptions and perspectives on terrorism, by separating the myth from the reality of this threat to universal peace. First and foremost, it must accept the fact now that - in this late stage of "the war on terror" is really not about Islam or religion, and what they call the international community must come out of Islamophobia. Were there a link between the two, Muslim-majority countries such as Pakistan should not have been the main victims of terrorism. "I feel humiliated when my religion is targeted and equated with terrorism," the interior minister said. Those in the West who vandalize mosques, insult women in hijab and refuse entry to those fleeing tyranny, must know that their actions only terrorize peaceful people, not terrorists or terrorism. They only help the cause of the terrorist outfits. Indeed, many victims of the Islamobes - including women, of course - have been joining terrorist outfits.
Equally disturbing is the failure of any set of regional countries to forge unity and common outlook against the menace of terrorism. The minister did not name India or Afghanistan, but he was spot-on arguing that "mutual mistrust and blame-games would only lead to strengthening of non-state actors and those who want to sabotage peace for their ulterior motives." It is here that the international community must step in, as the "policy to remain indifferent to long-standing regional issues (Kashmir, for example) and to intervene only when it suits them or for their short-term goals has taken us nowhere." He did warn India that it won't have peace by fanning unrest in Pakistan and by spilling the blood of Kashmiris. Kashmiris' is a freedom movement and it should not be called and treated as terrorism. And as for the Kabul rulers, their "tendency to play as tool into others' hands" is counterproductive in efforts to promote regional peace. Instead of conspiracies being encouraged against neighbours, efforts should be made for promotion of regional peace. Compared to others, Pakistan has achieved great successes in the fight against terrorism. But it also knows that use of military power is a short-term measure and needs to be complemented with a robust administrative structure in order to ensure that people in the affected areas can restart normal lives. At the same time, moves should be afoot to ensure that tendencies towards extremism are instantly checked and effectively encountered. It is in this country that terrorism has been virtually defeated - something which should serve as role model for others. But being global in its reach, terrorism must be vanquished the world over. For that to happen, those watching it from afar have to join hands in fighting off the common enemy.