While it has been stressed for many years by international organizations and western countries that terrorism is a direct consequence of Islamic extremism, we cannot shake the guilt off of the West and assume that they are the good guys in the story without further analysis. According to one of John J. Mearsheimer’s recent article titled “How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis.”
“Elites in the United States and Europe have been blindsided by events only because they subscribe to a flawed view of international politics. They tend to believe that the logic of realism holds little relevance in the twenty-first century and that Europe can be kept whole and free on the basis of such liberal principles as the rule of law, economic interdependence, and democracy.”
Taking this view into account, is it possible that we have been blindsided by liberal principles, forgetting the relevance of realpolitik, especially in the case of the west’s responsibility on Islamic terrorism? The answer is an absolute YES!
Due to the anarchical way in which the international system is rooted, states try to seek advantage over other states, acting in self-interested and self-help manner. This has been the case of the West-East Asia dynamics; based on occasional acts of security cooperation for the benefit of the West, which is reputed to intervene in other countries with the excuse of humanity wellbeing, when it is clear that the reality is different and that decisions are based on personal gains.
This has been evident in many stages of history. For instance, during the Afghanistan War (which later on helped in the consolidation of Al Qaeda), it was US that supplied Osama Bin Laden with weapons to aid the resistant group fight the soviets and avoid communism in their territory. Did US do this to help Afghanistan win the war and take their sovereignty back or did they do this to avoid the spread of communism, which would have interfered with its capitalist ideals? We could pair this example with other cases such as Bangladesh, where in the midst of genocide, the UN (conformed by elite countries) refused to aid and intervene for the sake of humanity. In this specific case, the West simply asked the Pakistan government to stop the massacre, while US would continue selling the weapons the government was committing these crimes with.
This modus operandi has resulted in an anti-west sentiment from people in the area, which has generated more resentment from the Islamic terrorist groups, forcing them to set up a system of balance of power to be able to try to counteract the influence of the West in its territory. By no means am I trying to imply these acts are acceptable, but neither do I think the West’s history of interventions in East Asia is. We could accept as true what the West has made us believe and think these extremist groups are acting in an offensive way. On the other hand, we could also try to see beyond this explanation and accept the idea that realpolitik might be happening right in front of us, in the middle of the 21st century.
That these Islamic terrorist groups are extremists, hard to track, and represent a growing issue in the world it’s undeniable, what it’s debatable is how they got to the point they are right now and whether or not they are the only ones to blame.