Manchester Attacks: Has the West failed to crush terrorism?

Yet another brutal attack on hapless innocents claims in Manchester left 22 dead and over 50 injured. Britain is two weeks away from general elections.  The explosion occurred at the foyer of the sold-out show of Araina Grande at Manchester Arena stadium when people were coming out after the show at around 10:30 pm. Teenagers and children attended the concert in huge numbers and the terrible attacks claimed their lives leaving the parents shattered. The gruesome attack reflects the mindless depravity of a cruel mind. Details of the perpetrator of the suicide bomber aren’t available at the time of writing; social media is replete of celebratory messages of IS supporters who shamelessly encouraged each other to carry out more “lone wolf attacks”. Meanwhile, leaders condemned attacks in unequivocal terms and called for resilience. Political parties suspended election campaign.

Since the uprisings in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region and subsequent inflow of migrants in large scale, Europe has become a victim of violent terror attacks. Most of these attacks apparently have IS connections. After the attacks, while the British Police averred from making any immediate conclusions, the US security agencies categorically opined these as terror attacks. It is unfortunate that despite the unabated spree of attacks countries in the EU refuse to wake from the long-drawn stupor.

For decades, India having suffered worst attacks cautioned and warned various international agencies of burgeoning cult of terrorism; however, nations chose to ignore. It is quite evident now no part of globe is untouched by this scourge. Still, the nations and high profile multilateral agencies haven’t thought it appropriate to at least define this brutal inhuman savagery. Hoisted on the high pedestal of human values and freedom, it is nothing but obvious that even the advanced countries failed to appropriately collaborate, cooperate, identify, and extricate the roots of this menace. Having been a victim of terrorism, India spearheaded a campaign calling for international cooperation on counter terrorism. India has proposed a  Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT), back in 1996 and since then  consistently worked towards it. Prime Minister Modi during his first address at the 69^th Session of UN General Assembly once again reiterated the need for such a convention. Ever since, CCIT had become an important aspect of Modi’s agenda on his foreign visits. Though Modi managed to elicit support from various countries, the negotiations have hit a deadlock over differences in defining terrorism. Thalif Deen, who has been covering UN since late 1970s said, “the key sticky point in the draft treaty revolve around several controversial yet basic issues, including the definition of ‘terrorism’”. Draft treaty itself was roiled in the medley of contrasting views with the Western delegation and members of Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) failing to reach a consensus hijacking the progress. While ideological differences stymied CCIT, the West’s zealotry to be “politically correct” and the driving urge to remain in a vantage position for larger economic gains have lulled them into silence, unfortunately.

The deluge of radicalization and penetration of jihadist ideology into the most innocuous regions of the globe could have been controlled had the nations displayed the true tenacity and determined wills to exterminate it. Most cases, societies silently suffer humongous losses for failing to identity the ailments afflicting it. Now the genesis, causes and dissemination sources of malafide ideologies that are tearing the very fabric of humanity are universally known. But the dubious ineptness of nations to collectively launch an offensive against these terror safe havens have emboldened emissaries.

In the wake of the recent attacks, it is important to recall the important strategic decision of President Trump that elucidates US’s take on terrorism. Trump’s choice of his first foreign state visit to Saudi Arabia, an exporter of jihadi-Salafist ideology besides leaving his supporters exasperated have evoked severe condemnation from strategic experts. Blissfully burying the 9/11 traumatization, Trump, an obdurate businessman, clinched arms deals and commitments in infrastructure worth $400 billion that could revitalize the job market in the US.  Treading along the strategic concept of renewed partnership Trump made concessions of Saudi Arabia addressed the Sunni-NATO attended by over leaders of 50 Islamic states. Shelfing US traditional policy of exerting moderate diplomatic pressure on Arab nations and occasional incentivization through arms deals, Trump with no holds barred welcomed leaders who grossly violated human rights to White House. He embraced Egypt’s Abdel Fatah Al-Sissi and Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa. Trump throughout his election campaigning strongly denounced his predecessors for adopting a soft approach towards Arab States. Now he openly forged an alliance with Arab nations. Further his subdued reference to Islamist extremism and mellowed tone on terrorism are raising fresh doubts about West’s take on terrorism. Speaking at the Sunni-NATO alliance, he characteristically avoided any references to “radical Islamic terrorism” and instead talked about “shared interests” and “common security”. Referring to murderous trails of terrorism spread in the region, he noted, “This not battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations. This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life and decent people of all religions who seek to respect it. This is a battle between good and evil”. These statements of concern and pragmatic approach might have been music to Sunni-NATO.  But the quirky volte-face pulled off by Trump whose election speeches hardly ended without reference to radical Islam were at its dubious best. 

It is an open secret that petrodollars of Middle East are instrumental in nurturing Salafist-Wahabi ideology. Appealing a conglomeration of nations whose foundational planks are swamped in noxious philosophy for crushing terrorism is truly delusional. Urging the Arab nations to fight a battle between good and evil, who have clearly defined logical explanation for good and bad terrorists is illogical and baleful. Moreover, the hesitation in calling a “spade a spade” by the West will continue to do more harm than the radicalized youth.

Like the strategic ploy of Trump to be “politically correct”, British politicians have turned blind eye to the reports of burgeoning Islamization in Britain. Be it the proliferation of Madrassas, the bastions of radicalization, (Birmingham Centre Mosque Scandal), spurt in grooming gangs, mass conversions into Islam, wide endorsement of Sharia law etc. Indeed, many leaders preferred to remain silent for the fear of being labelled as “racist”. These insidious developments which if unchecked unshackle the foundations of any multicultural society.

With IS losing foothold in Levant and Syria, the indoctrinated terrorists are seeking refuge in new havens. Unfortunately, South Asia had the distinction of rearing legions of radicalized militants as early as early 1970s. Ever since, many hues of radicalized outfits proliferated and flourished in this region. Over centuries people of different ethnicity, religion, culture, language and tradition made India their home. Diversity has been the corner stone of Indian civilization. Extremist ideology of any hue can severely endanger the integrity of our country. India must exercise utmost discretion and obliterate elements sympathetic to IS or its ilk.