Terrorism_Reading Memo

In my memo, I will firstly summarize all four required readings which were dealing with issue of terrorism in African states as Nigeria or Kenya and also particular terrorist groups and their similarities and differencies. I will provide thoughts and insights of these authors as well as their opinions. I will be focused mainly on the ones I considered as indeed important and interesting. I will also provide my own proper views, opinions and questions that came to my mind while reading these articles.

The first article written by Caitriona Dowd and Adam Drury: Marginalisation, insurgency and civilian insecurity: Boko Haram and the Lord´s Resistance Army provided a comparative analysis of these two well-known terrorist groups. Authors revealed interesting similarities between Boko Haram and the LRA. They also focused on state responses to insurgency and highlighted the issue of violence against innocent civilians. There are significant similarities in use of violence and mainly evolution of two groups over time despite the fact that these groups operated in different contexts. Authors stated that their findings could significantly contribute to debates about peace-building strategies and security of civilians in conflicts.  They argued that mainly state and non-state actors could affect security of civilians by their strategies and counter-measures. They could indeed cause that insurgents started to target civilians more often.

Authors firstly focused on each group and described its particularities. However, the main narratives are the most important and influencing. Boko Haram is typically labeled as religious group and LRA is normally connected with stories of madness and Kony as evil perpetrator. According to authors, we should focus on marginalisation, inequality and socio-economic context and study how these groups recruited their fighters and evolve over time. Just in mobilisation and evolution of ideology, we could find significant similarities between groups. Of course, colonialism and history played indeed important role. Thus, LRA and Boko Haram tended to mobillise people based on their identities – whether marginalised ethnic group or marginalised religious group. However, later these motives and also narratives changed. People joined these groups rather based on economic incentives and also perception of who is enemy became more fluid and flexible. Finally, LRA completely lost its narrative and their main victims were people they firstly claimed to protect. Boko Haram have not yet reached this point. I indeed liked thought that violence was primary a tool to advance an agenda and then evolved into essential part of existence and influence of both groups. I think that this statement explains natural evolution of majority of terrorist groups. Some of them, like LRA, indeed lost their primary goal and focused only on violence and power. In my opinion, politicians should treat groups in this phase differently and scholars and policy-makers should more focus on issue of violence and psychology.

Then authors focused on state responses. Both, Nigeria and Uganda, used mainly force rather than dialogue or peaceful means. And again, the main victims were civilians. Military interventions and force lowered the effectiveness of both groups, but these measures made them targeting civilians more often than before. In their conclusion, authors highlighted that politicians should be focused more on marginalisation and economic inequality in regions because these are basis for primary mobilisation and emergence of dangerous groups. I indeed liked this article, because it provided really interesting insight into issue of terrorist groups. For me, these two groups were firstly also particular and different, but after having read this article, I agree with opinion of similar context, tactics and evolution. I think this could be indeed helpful in understanding other groups or maybe dealing with Boko Haram which has not yet reached the final stage. I would be interested in what concrete measures authors had on their mind when they were writing about political and economic measures focused on marginalisation and economic disparities. I also wonder whether there exists any successful case of dealing with terrorist group in Africa or stopping the emergence of such a group.

The second article by Alex Thurston: „The disease is unbelief“: Boko Haram´s religious and political worldview is also dealing with Nigerian jihadi group, Boko Haram, that caused humanitarian crisis around Lake Chad. Author described two main points of their ideology: Boko Haram is against democracy and Western type of education. Two features of this group are religious exclusivism and victimhood. They tend to claim that violence is only response to persecution of Muslims in Nigeria. However, the definition of Muslim is indeed narrow and strict for them.

Author firstly explained four incorrect narratives about Boko Haram. The first one is that they are understandable result of poverty in Northern Nigeria. The second one: Boko Haram just reacted to marginalisation of the North. The third one: Boko Haram is connected with al-Qaeda. And the last one connects Boko Haram with Nigerian Maitatsine sect. However, Boko Haram should be rather connected with Salafi jihadism and Salafi community. They refuse other forms and approaches to Islam. They want to purify Islam and mainly Muslim community. We could see this mainly on their opinions towards political system and education. They just refuse current Western style of education and Western democracy. They claim that this education and political system deeply contradict with true Islam.

Interesting point for me was when author stated that brutality against civilians was caused by exclusivism of Muslim and victimhood identity. This could be questionned based on arguments from the first article. I tend to rather agree with arguments of the first text and the notion of evolution of group, however I think that exclusivism and victimhood identity are also deeply important for Boko Haram or maybe, at the beginning of their existence, the issue of identity was more important than now. Thus, at the beginning it could be driving force for targeting civilians which was later replaced by another reasons such as economic incentives.

Author also studied other aspects of Boko Haram such as its history, its leaders, regional context and connection with Islamic state. At the end, he provided some recommendations for Nigerian government as well US government. He highlighted understanding of various religious communities, focusing on powerful narrative, dialogue and human rights violations. I think that these recommendations are not new and we should question why governments have not already applied them or whether they are simply not functionning.

The third article by Dr. Marc-Antoine Pérouse de Montclos: Jihad in Sub-Saharan Africa. Challenging the Narratives of the War on Terror provided indeed interesting insights on the issue of jihad in this region of world. I especially liked statement that malaria and traffic accidents have more victims than terrorists. I think that people need to understand broader context of issues such as terrorism. Better understanding could influence their fear and hatred against for example foreigners or refugees. I liked that author tried to explain complexity of situation in Africa. First, he focused on the issue of religion and the discourse about demography which could influence our wrong perception. Then, he stated that Christians are not the main targets of Jihadists. Their victims are rather Muslims who do not behave according to their ideas about pure Islam. This I think is well illustrated in the second article on the case of Boko Haram. Author of this article compared Jihadists with other guerilla groups and he argued that they tend to use similar tools – abduction, rape, child soldiers,... Jihadists are not even united. There used to be many internal splits and rivalries. Author also highlighted that there is no single pope or dogmas, thus Islam indeed varies and emergence of Jihadists depends rather on particular situation and context.

Author also connected Islam with colonial period and explained its various roles among them. I would like to stress that it was also civilising factor. However, it also contributed to slavery. Terrorism is according to author not new phenomenon and Islam is only misused as motivation for fighters. Majority of Muslims are moderates and do not identify themselves with radical sects. Then author clarified the urban and rural dynamics. He stated that countryside is better for training camps and recruiting because of its remoteness. He downgraded the role of social media in mobilisation. I especially liked this article because it explained and clarified various aspects of Islam and provided useful statements and comparisons. I agreed with opinion that terrorism is not new issue and we should understand Islam differently not according to our fears, main narratives or media. So, why is terrorism today so widely known, discussed and feared? Is this attention caused by media, politicians or only by events just like 9/11? And why politicians and media prefer narratives of fear and hatred? Is there any reason or goal for this?

The last article by Jeremy Lind, Patrick Mutahi and Marjoke Oosterom: „Killing a mosquito with a hammer“: Al-Shabaab violence and state security responses in Kenya was for me the least understandable. It could be caused only by writing style of authors. Article was however focused on different insurgent group – Somali Al-Shabaab, however not in Somalia but in Kenya. Thus, authors tried to explain networked, transnational forms of violent groups and connect this phenomenon with instability and marginalisation. Attacks by Al-Shabaab in Kenya significantly increased and according to authors Kenyan state responses were not at all adequate. They compared state measures to killing a mosquito with a hammer.

Authors firstly focused on inequal citizenship and marginalisation of Somalis and Muslims. State-society relations are indeed poor and contribute to the worsenning situation of Kenyan Somalis and Muslims. State officials used to mistreat Somalis. They are subjected to state surveillance and violence. Bribing is another current practice. Also harassment and extra-judicial assassinations became ordinary. Force and measures used by Kenyan state were excessive and unnecessary.

Article also dealt with the issue of refugees and new law amendements. Wrong policies, anxiety and fear enabled Al-Shabaab operate effectively. Authors argued that ideology, different socio-economic development and historic marginalisation are factors which contributed to extremism and enabled Al-Shabaab to operate in this country. They stressed the issue of equal citizenship and state-society relations which could improve the peace-building process. However, the lack of political will does not make it possible. Politicians rather promote harder security measures which increase violence, fear and marginalisation.

I think that this article provided useful insights on Al-Shabaab and mainly on the role of government and state-society relations which are primordial when we want to successfuly deal with threats such as transnational violent group. Authors revealed that wrong state measures significantly contribute to fear and violence. The victims are again civilians. I think that the most important notion is that we should try to understand and see insurgent groups differently. We should study particular situation and context even before their emergence to reveal the reasons why they emerged. Then, we should focus on these issues and try to solve them. Hard power and wrong security measures could only contribute to increase of violence and targeting civilians. The most stressing issue is therefore the mismanagement and misunderstanding of governments which are facing violent and radical groups. Important is also the main narrative which could influence us indeed deeply.