The end of 20-th Century saw a meteoric rise of a special kind of political actor in the global stage. These political actors can not be categorized under the traditional western term of “nation state”. These political actors themselves can not be categorized into a single category. Some of them call themselves “revolutionaries” e.g. the Maoists in Nepal or the FARC in Columbia, some of them call themselves Mujahids or “holy warriors” like Al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-toiba etc , some of them call themselves “national freedom fighters” like Hamas in Palestine , Hezbollah in Lebanon , ETA in Spain or the Niger Delta emancipation movement in Nigeria. Although all of these groups have different set of goals and all of them adopt different methods to achieve their goals but they have one thing in common. All of them pose a significant challenge to the existing global order and the existing political system of “nation state” in particular. We will discuss the reasons behind the birth of these groups and will also try to analyze and understand what could be the effect of these groups on 21-st century global politics. Although it is very difficult to categorize so diverse set of groups in a single name, I will call them “non state actors” for the benefit of the readers throughout this essay.
Goals and tactics of the non-state actors
------------------------------------------------
Now let us have a look at the goals of some of these non-state actors.
Maoists in Nepal have long fought for the abolition of the monarchy , authoritarian big landlords and what they perceive as colonial Indian interference in that country and replacing the prevailing system there with what they call a “People’s republic”. Similarly the FARC in Columbia has been fighting the Columbian government for quite sometime for replacing it with a government which they say will look after the rights of the peasants , workers and indigenous people in that country.
Groups like the Al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-toiba consider the existing pro-western governments in the Muslim world as apostates and they want to destroy these regimes and bring Islamic Jurisprudence rule or Sharia in the Muslim World. Some of them like Al-Qaeda want to go further and seek the overthrowal of the western governments and replacing them with states ruled under Islamic law.
The groups like Hamas, Hezbollah wants to end Israeli occupation from all parts of the Middle East. Apart from that Hamas wants to overthrow the existing rule of Palestinian authority in the West Bank and replace it with a state ruled by Islamic law. Hezbollah wants to ensure a gradual and peaceful end in Lebanon’s parliamentary voting system, a legacy for French colonial rule in Lebanon and replace it with a one-man, one-vote parliamentary system.
Other groups such as ETA in Spain have been fighting for a separate homeland for the Basque people in southern Spain against what they call “colonial Spanish rule”. Niger Delta emancipation movement in Nigeria wants to ensure an enhanced share for the local Niger delta people in the profits that come from Nigel Delta oil and gas.
So if we analyze the goals of these different non-state actors we can see a common trend.
All of these non-state actors seek to overthrow the existing order in which they operate and they also seek to replace it with something they believe will be better than the existing ones in which they operate.
Now if we analyze the background to these non-state actors we can see some other commonalities among them. In the case of Maoists or the Farc we can see that these movements came about as a result of authoritarian, oppressive regimes which have been backed by outside powers. For example the Monarchy and the various political parties like the Nepali congress and the Communist Party of Nepal have been backed by India.
In Columbia the United States of America (USA) backed the various right-wing dictatorships which ruled Columbia for much of the 20-th Century.
So in both these countries, a group of progressive minded people gradually took up arms against these regimes which they considered unjust and puppets used by foreign puppet masters.
These progressive minded people are the ones who have become the Maoists in Nepal as well as the FARC in Columbia.
Al-Qaeda has a different background to it. The concept of nation state has been a colonial legacy in much of modern Muslim world. Most of the modern Muslim majority states were created by the Western imperialists to further their political interests. Their goal was to create small states which are easier to control. These western powers for their benefit created a ruling class in these newly formed countries which continue to rule the people in these countries in a way alike their colonial masters. Access to modern technology as well as access the modern education has ensured that a lot of affluent people in the Muslim world are aware of their problems. They blame both their oppressive ruling elite as well as the West for their plight. Some of these people like Osama bin Laden or Ayman Al-Zawahiri went on to form groups like the Al-Qaeda. Ironically the USA used many of these people for it’s war on the Soviets in Afghanistan for quite considerable amount of time.
Hamas and Hezbollah were groups which came as a result of Israeli military policies in the nations of Palestine and Lebanon. Hamas was created in the late 1980-s as a response to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza following the six-day war in 1967. Hezbollah was created by the Shiites in Lebanon after the Israeli military invasion of that country in 1982 which was called “Operation Peace Galilee”. Both these groups started as Muslims resisting the brutal occupation of their countries. Apart from that both these two groups also wanted to reform their own societies in an Islamic way.
If we look at the use of tactics these groups have tried, we can see a common pattern. The Maoists in Nepal and the Farc in Columbia have tried to use guerrilla warfare based from the remote parts in their country. They have used the remoteness of their terrain to useful advantage like hiding from the more powerful government troops and ambushing them certainly whenever an opportunity arises. This tactics has given some successes to both the parties. The Maoists managed to control the countryside in Nepal and were able to build a virtual parallel administration in those areas. When it came to the negotiating table after the fall of the monarchy in 2006, it negotiated fro ma position of strength.
Although the Farc has faced a string of military setbacks in the more recent times but still it deserves the credit for holding up against the US-backed mighty Columbian government for quite a long amount of time.
The Al-Qaeda has taken the concept of asymmetric warfare into a completely different level. The Nepali Maoists have most of the times directed their attacks on the government structures like police stations or what they perceive corrupt capitalist outposts like soft drink manufacturing plants. They have seldom attacked the civilian population since they consider that they are the ones fighting on behalf the civilians. Al-Qaeda, on the contrary has used the technique of suicide bombings particularly on civilian targets and especially with a rather blunt and indiscriminate way.
Al-Qaeda has always looked to terrorize and sow the seeds of fear and despair among the populations it is working in. Whether it is in the US on 9/11 or whether it is in Pakistan or Iraq they have always been very eager to use suicide bombing as a tool. Their objective is to create a sense of despair and panic among the civilian population as well as proving to the civilian population that their governments are impotent to protect them. They believe this will lead to the downfall of the pro-US Arab regimes.
Another key difference between the Al-Qaeda and the Nepali Maoists is the difference in the kind of cadres these two groups are having with. The Maoist leadership as well as general cadre generally comes from the rural, peasant classes of Nepal. To these people rebelling against a government which is tyrannical is sometimes the only choice to do something meaningful in life.
In the case of Al-Qaeda, most of it’s leadership as well as individual cadres come from well-to-do upper or middle class families. The people like Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Adam Gadhan, John Walker Lindh or Khalid Sheikh Mohammad had proper skills as well as educational qualification to fit into a decent job and start a family of their own. But still they decided to choose the path of what they consider holy war because they did not like living like they have been doing in the early years of their lives. They can be categorized under the category of men who are never happy with what is happening all around him and wants to do something to change the world that he lives in.
However Al-Qaeda’s tactics of rampant suicide bombings has not endeared it to the global Muslim population. It is true that most Muslims do sympathize with Al-Qaeda’s ultimate aims like toppling the pro-US brutal dictatorships in the Muslim world as well as ensuring the end of all hegemonic American influence on the Muslim world. However they do disagree with the tactics of killing innocent civilians in such a huge number and in such a heartless and cruel manner.
Hamas and Hezbollah have taken a more traditional approach in fighting the forces of Israeli defense forces. Initially both the groups used suicide bombings but later they decided to create effective militias which are able to fight conventional battles. As a result since 2006, Hamas have not performed any suicide operations inside Israel. But it has tried to effectively create an organized military force instead. It has met some success in the process. The military wing of Hamas (Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades) successfully ousted the rival US and Israel backed Fatah militias from Gaza in 2006 as well as managing to survive against all the might of the Israeli Defense forces in 2006 as well as in 2008.
Hezbollah switched to conventional guerilla warfare well in the late 1980-s. It’s militia successfully managed to liberate South Lebanon from the Israeli defense forces as well as the Israeli-backed Southern Lebanese Army militia in the 2002. Hezbollah successfully managed to survive 34-days of Israeli assault on itself thus becoming the first ever Arab army not to lose a battle against the Israeli defense forces since the 1967 war.
Hezbollah also maintains a well-organized social welfare network in the Shiite dominated areas of Lebanon. Immediately after the devastation of the 2006 war against Israel, Hezbollah went into reconstructing the destroyed parts of Lebanon with a zeal which is similar to what they showed during the war. This has created a strong support base for Hezbollah in Lebanon which not many leaders in the Arab world can think about.
Effects of the “non-state” actors on modern nation state
---------------------------------------------------------------------
If we have a look at all these non-state actors we will see that all of them have a common theme about them. That is all of them want to uproot the nation state structure in which they operate but not all of them use the same sort of methods to achieve their goals. The performance of these different groups indicate that the success in achieving to bring down the nation state concept will vary depending of the tactics used by the respective non-state actor. For example Hezbollah has established very strong foundations in Lebanon thanks to their good work during both the war as well as peacetime. Hezbollah also has made a point to bring together a political consensus among all the different religious and sectarian factions in Lebanon so to bring up a unified Lebanon. As a result of all these good deeds, Hezbollah is well on it’s way to replace the old French-created divisive and sectarian Lebanese state with a new more unified and less sectarian and democratic state.
Al-Qaeda on the other hand due to it’s extreme brutal and indiscriminate killings has alienated large majority of people in key Muslim majority countries such as Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and Pakistan. Although it has been able to win many converts from a wide section of population from all over the world but still it has failed to appeal beyond the middle class loners who do tend romanticize about concepts like violence and rebellion.
One thing can easily be understood from the rise of all these non- state actors that the people all over the world are not happy with the traditional nation states. All these nation states particularly in the Muslim world are mostly a product of Western colonialism. Western colonial powers created these states for their political interest. The government in these states is in the hands of a few extremely rich individuals. These elite groups use extremely tyrannical methods to hold on to their possessions. Almost all these corrupt elite are backed by the West. Now when it comes to important issues such as the Israeli blockade in Gaza or the building of Israeli settlements in Israeli-occupied Jerusalem, these elites normally take a hands-off approach. This leads to a sense of despair and anger among the population in these countries. This causes the rise of non-state actors in the long term.
Although overwhelming population in the Muslim world is against the current system of these nation states but the diverging fortunes of Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda show us that one needs to take a patient and constructive approach towards the problem of nation states. The people in these states need to think and implement a detailed and well-planed program in not only removing the existing nation states but replacing them with more progressive and more representative states in future. Failure to do the above will only prolong the dysfunctional existing nation states thereby prolonging the agony of a huge amount of people in the world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment