Here is an article I did about Extremism and Radicalisation. It tackles the idea that being a radical extremist depends on where you’re standing. Click below to see the article as it appeared in the magazine in PDF format. Keep scrolling for a text only version.
Extremism : Text only version
Extremism
When we try to examine the practices of any so-called terrorism we must tread carefully. Before I start this article in earnest I would like to refer to two quotations and three definitions.
“The first casualty of war is the truth”
and
“History is written by the victor”
These quotations are self-explanatory. Consider for a moment how the German history books would be describing events had Hitler won World War II.
From the Collins English Dictionary
Extremist – (noun) a person who favours or uses extreme or violent methods, esp. to bring about political change.
Radical – (adj) favouring fundamental change in political or social conditions (2)
Radicalise – (vb) to make (a person, group or situation) radical or more radical.
Once we understand the language that is being used we should be better able to understand the phenomenon – in theory.
Yet as highlighted by the above quotations the distinction between heroes and terrorists can often be dependent on whether or not your side were victorious. History has also proven that today’s heroes can become tomorrow’s villain as international perspectives and politics evolve. We don’t have to look too far back in history to find the perfect example.
The USA and the West were naturally concerned when their Cold-War adversary, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in the 1980’s. The Americans were loathed to oppose the Russians directly for fear of an escalation to World War III.
As a result, the Americans instead opted to supply funding and weapons to the indigenous Afghan warlords. Thus it was that the USA funded, armed and trained a native force to fight the Russians. That native force proved very effective; not only did they force the Soviet withdrawal from their country, but they united the various warlords under one banner and formed a government.
So who were the extremists? Consider the earlier definitions. The Russians wanted to bring about fundamental change in Afghanistan’s social/political conditions (Radical) and they were willing to use extreme or violent methods to bring about that change (extremism). So if we say that the Russians were the extremists, were the Americans the moral defenders? Were the native soldier’s heroes?
One can also argue that the Americans were determined to see a fundamental change in the social / political climate of a Soviet occupied Afghanistan AND they were willing to use extreme methods to achieve their aims (arming and training a guerrilla force), ergo the Americans were also radical extremists.
But what about the native force that the US had trained and armed? Surely they were heroes? They fought to defend their homeland and drive out the Russians. At that time these freedom fighters were directly aligned and allied with the Americans. Yet when the Russians withdrew, this revolutionary force formed a new type of government (Radical), and they used extreme and violent methods to ensure its success (extremism). So whatever happened to these heroes? They became The Taliban Government of Afghanistan.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan shows how any organisation or Government can be perceived as being radical and extreme. It also shows how any group can be portrayed as heroes one day and then vilified as terrorists the next – without them making any change in their policies or practices.
After the Russian withdrawal, the Taliban pretty much disappeared off the international radar until one fateful September day.
Before the sun had set on the 11th September the whole world knew who the Taliban were. Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin-Laden exploded from relative obscurity to become Public Enemy No.1. The Western media were happy to oblige by putting a face on the modern day version of The Bogeymen – to give scared and angry people an outlet for their fear and a target for their rage.
There is no denying that the Al-Qaeda attacks of 9/11 were the work of radical, extremist terrorists. But in the interest of fairness, we should also examine the subsequent actions of the Bush & Blair alliance. How should they be described?
The simple fact of the matter is that they sought to bring about fundamental social & political changes in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Subsequent investigations by weapons inspectors and the lengthy Chilcott enquiry have also shown that Bush & Blair were willing to go to any extreme to justify their war, including exaggerating the risk that Iraq posed to the world.
We are only now finding out about many of the deceits perpetrated by the Bush / Blair alliance before the invasion, with designer buzzwords like “axis of evil” being drummed into our consciousness.
In the weeks prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there were army tanks in place outside Heathrow airport to protect from Iraq’s chemical weapons (that could be deployed in 40 minutes!). Over 150,000 Iraqi citizens were killed as a direct result of the Allied invasion. Which brings me to one more definition. Rationalise – (vb) to find a reason to justify or to explain one’s actions. Which is effectively what Bush and Blair have tried to do since. If we return to the Collins definition we can comfortably describe both George Bush and Tony Blair as radical extremists.
Therefore we need a means to measure an individual’s or a group’s rationality, motivation and intent before labelling them. There is no point in pointing the finger and yelling ‘Extremist!’ We need to examine the fire that drives extremism.
It stands to reason that anybody who can rationalise using extreme measures must have been radicalised.
Some of our key social principles include being considered innocent until proven guilty, being entitled to legal representation and also being entitled to a swift judicial hearing. Therefore, one could argue that the American people must have been radicalised in order to allow or support the use of Guantanamo Bay.
By that same principal, the UK people must have been radicalised in the 80’s when the government of that day introduced internment without trial. Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the judicial process was abused in order to secure the wrongful convictions of the Guildford four and Birmingham Six.
Other fundamental socio-political changes such as the ‘Snooper’s Charter’ (with Governments being able to monitor everybody’s communications) can also be seen as extreme; but those in power will seek to rationalise such Big Brother surveillance as being for the greater good. Subsequent protesters who describe such a government as being radical and extremist will in turn be called radical extremists by said government.
If a man detonates a suicide vest in a crowded market he will be dubbed an extremist by one side and a martyr by another side. If he has been radicalised to commit this heinous act – who is responsible? Is it the fault of the hate-preacher that motivated him or is it the government that launched the airstrike that destroyed his home and killed his family.
Most people will find it impossible to find any way to rationalise a suicide bombing, yet history has been littered with examples of people willing to lay down their lives for a cause they believe in. Even today the US Secret Service is awash with wannabe heroes that would be honoured to take a bullet for the President.
Despite media and institutional stereotypes, criminals, terrorists and extremists do not have horns and hooves. They do not stand out in a crowd. They look just like every other ‘normal’ person. So it seems that whether we categorise an individual as an extremist or a hero merely depends on which news channel you watch or which paper you read.
