The application of diplomacy is one of the
counter-terrorism strategies, if properly managed, can be a vital tool to end
the hostilities of the Boko Haram sect.
A well coordinated diplomatic approach
can bring permanent peaceful settlement hence the present strategy of military offensive
is becoming more controversial as I initially commented.
The video evidence
involving men with the Nigeria Army uniform engaged in an inhuman and degrading
treatment of suspected members of the sect does not show much difference from
the original perpetrators act.
Although, to non practitioners of terrorism, ‘the only good
terrorist is a dead terrorist’ however this saying is now overshadowed by the human
right Acts and rule of law.
Within
the context of diplomacy, is the notion of peace enforcement, an application of
force to further peacemaking. The use of force should not be
confused with war in this context; it generally takes the form of persuasive peacemaking.
The key difference between peacekeeping and peace enforcement is the intended
goals and the gravity of the forces applied.
The secret of applying diplomatic approach as
a counter-terrorism measure and its success is dependent on proper management
of the environment, which is the primary responsibility of the government.
The
purpose of our counter-terrorism strategies should be to mitigate and change
the emotional attitude of the Boko Haram members, supporters and sponsors. It should focus on preventing and persuading
the support structure of their organization to drop their arms.
For diplomacy
to succeed the government must balance its approach and use of differing forums;
prevent the overuse or under-use of any existing mechanism.
Peacekeepers should focus on preventing our
law enforcement agencies and the (BH) terrorist group from violently engaging
one another into further warfare.
Peace enforcement, under the over arching
premise of peacemaking, is the active engagement of the forces to implement and
achieve the provisions of diplomatic process. Within the context of terrorism
like we face from the dreaded Boko Haram sect, peace enforcement should be
synonymous with our counter-terrorism strategies.
Once
terrorist attacks has set in and bombs began to go off, irrespective of
whatever reasons, quarters and for how long, an effective and timely
counter-terrorism policy, expert agencies, experts and the resources becomes
indispensible.
If we continue to ignore the obvious strategies, invoke and
apply them legitimately with the help of a third party such as the United
Nations, ending BH threats any sooner may be impossible.
The
above discussed comprehensive strategic applications should also include
elements of pure democratic transition; such as counter-terrorism awareness
campaign at all levels. As well as cultural, geopolitical attitudes, domestic
ideas, and some of the core tools of diplomatic resolution.
The building blocks
of diplomatic resolution can effectively provide the short to mid-term process
of the strategy with the factors of democratic transition presenting the mid to
long-term benchmarks.
But for the short term plan to be effective, it must be
geared towards the long term agenda of counter-terrorism strategy.
The
bulk of every effective strategy in combating terrorism is non-violent. The use
of force is a very small element in the approach; however, it provides a
critical atmospheric condition.
The role of force in the strategy is the
implementation of peace enforcement. Peacekeeping is necessary in the initial
stages because it will allow a cooling off period before starting the rest of
the strategic processes.
The support of peace
enforcement helps implement the provisions of the process and contributes to
the overall strategic approaches.
Furthermore,
the perception of peacekeeping versus that of peace enforcement is very
different. Peace enforcement requires more than just the perception of
security, but also that of compassion and understanding. Peacekeeping operates
under a simple premise, it prevents violence. Peace enforcement must manoeuvre
itself and support restorative justice operations, contribute to the
reconciliation process, support and protect the true commission of diplomacy.
This
is not to say that peace enforcement is a passive use of force, quite the
contrary.
The operative word here is enforcement, which is why peace enforcement
operations are synonymous with that of counter-terrorism operations.
Both focus
on the need to gather intelligence, to provide security to the process, and to
attack those that threaten peace through the legal system. Neither one is
intended to be an independent solution to the conflict; rather their key
contribution is providing an atmosphere for the process to take place.
The
war on terror is more than just the prevention of terrorist operations. It is
the process of attacking the premise of terrorism itself.
Its focus needs to be
comprehensive in nature, addressing the root causes, the enablers, and the
operations; in general it is the culmination of goals and justifications of
terrorism itself reversed engineered.
Combating terrorism is as much about
promoting cooperation as it is countering extra-legal violent action. The
strategy has an obligation to provide not just security, but hope and progress.
Therefore,
any strategic development towards combating terrorism can examine the tools of
diplomatic resolution, for it is within this process that the war on terror,
and terrorism itself, can be won permanently.
On the other hand, it is
generally believed that there should be no bargaining with the
terrorists to avoid floodgate, what happens when it will really bring a lasting
peace like with the Irish Republican Army (IRA) or when all options have been
exhausted? How many counter-terrorism strategies
have we tried so far apart from the military offensive?
No comments:
Post a Comment