Terrorist attacks are the outcome of International politics but the dilemma is that instead of finding of the solution of terrorism, international powers are exploiting these terrorist attacks to fulfill and justify their vested interests. 9/11 was the outcome of ignoring post Jihad era in Afghanistan but today after bombing Afghanistan, USA with the help of regional countries is sitting on negotiation table with Taliban. Democratic government of Afghanistan is compelled to sit with extremists after fighting Taliban for a decade and half. The question is whose position is strong today? The defeated Taliban or Afghan democratic government? This negotiation scenario could be set after 9/11 with Taliban who were not involved in international terrorism. Taliban atrocities were confined to Afghanistan. The fact is, apart from few exceptions, Taliban were not having any intentions to impose their ideology on international level like Islamic State. Their willingness to interact with International powers for economic projects in Afghanistan was the sign of Taliban’s leniency.
On the other hand Islamic State is international terrorist organization but the efforts of international community are confined to overthrow Assad government. Russian air strikes were criticized on the same pretext that these strikes were intended to strengthen the Assad government.
The rise of Islamic State goes back to post fall of Sadam’s era. Putting the blame on Assad government or its policies to provide an opportunity to IS and other extremist organizations to expand is the distortion of history. The civil war in Afghanistan after soviet withdrawal provided an opportunity to Taliban to get strengthen. But this civil war was different from the civil war in Syria. Afghans were left on the mercy of circumstances but in Syria the government of Assad has become headache for the interests of international establishment and regional rivals.
The simple fact is where there the interests of international establishment are at stake Islamic State is found there. The same was the case of Osama bin Laden. He was blamed for the incidence of 9/11 and Afghans were bombarded. Today again the same technique is used to find justification for overpowering Assad. But the way terrorism was not controlled after conquering Afghanistan, overpowering of Assad will also not bring the giant of Islamic State in control.
Terrorist attacks in Europe will pave the way for overpowering Assad but the seeds of terrorism have transferred from Asia to the Western World. Overpowering Assad might end the civil war in Syria but does it guaranty the overpowering of Islamic State in Syria. The overthrow of Assad will not satisfy the Islamic State. It might again create an environment that we have witnessed in Afghanistan when different warring factions started fighting for power.
Assad government has the advantage that at least it has an organized army and still Syria is not divided. At present the issue of Islamic state activities is more dangerous than overthrowing Assad. Helping and strengthening Assad government can eliminate the terrorism in the region. Controlling terrorism in Europe is only possible if the Asian countries where terrorist bases are established are provided with resources. Only then can the Western countries concentrate on their own security. Western nations are fighting against terrorists on the Asian soil but its results are not encouraging.
Entrusting the responsibility to regional powers to deal with the menace of terrorism will allow the western nations to tackle the growing extremist mentality in western societies where now Muslims are becoming a major part of the community.
Writer: Farman Nawaz
The writer hails from Bannu, he can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org,
THE PASHTUN TIMES