Rethinking our approach to global security

In a 1993 Foreign Affairs article, Samuel Huntington, the late American political scientist, predicted a “clash of civilizations”. His thesis was that, with the end of the Cold War ideological contest between communism and capitalism, a new form of geopolitical competition was beginning to emerge that would pit states from one civilization against another for regional and, by implication, global supremacy. In this context, culture and religion, along with ethnic nationalism, would become the major axes of international political conflict. Back in the mid-1990s, Huntington’s critics often vehemently disagreed; civilizational conflict was simply not on the cards, they said. Only a short 20 years later, though, the state of world affairs gives reason to believe that Huntington was not so far off the mark. In Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Africa, rival faith groups, terrorist cells and other radical non-state actors are not only challenging the existing political systems, but also the territorial integrity of states. In particular, the rise of Islamic radicalism has far-reaching implications for global peace and security.

The impact of increasing religious radicalization can be seen today in places such as Turkey, long thought of as a stable, pro-Western Muslim democracy, but which now finds itself split between secularism and religion as never before. In Africa, the borderlands between the continent’s Muslim, Arab north and the black Christians of Sub-Saharan Africa have become an ungovernable, violent space. There is now even conflict between Buddhists and Muslims in South-East Asia, an area of the world not generally known for conflict of this type. Most worrisome, an old religious divide is helping to fuel a resurgence of conflicts in the Middle East. Struggles between Sunni and Shia forces have fed a Syrian civil war that threatens to transform the map of the entire Middle East, fracture Iraq and widen fissures in and between Gulf countries. Growing sectarian clashes have also sparked a revival of transnational jihadist networks that pose a threat far beyond the region.

It is important to understand that the current conflicts are not only about religious supremacy. Often religion can be a pretext rather than the source of conflict and a tool to motivate popular support in response to other grievances. Strategic drivers such as economic recession, resource scarcity, social change and political conflict have exacerbated the dynamics of sectarian conflicts and suggest inter-faith and intra-faith conflicts could increase in coming years, with profound implications for others. For example, growing Muslim populations in Europe have already begun to affect European security in a variety of ways: from changes in voting patterns and military recruitment, to the proliferation of Islamist groups espousing goals antithetical to Western values and interests, to the development of no-go zones in cities where traditional Islamic law is replacing Western law.

However, not only the role of radicalized Islam but of radicalized nationalism, too, will likely become more prominent in the future. In East Asia, nationalist sentiments have grown significantly stronger, resulting in territorial claims and political tensions between regional states. Another example is the Russian Federation, where the leadership has embarked on a “propagandistic patriotic surge”, claiming the right to protect Russian-speaking “compatriots” in former Soviet territories. Russian nationalism has already demonstrated its destabilizing influence on its immediate neighbours Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, all of which have large concentrations of ethnic Russians. In a growing number of European countries, radicalized nationalist parties have also come to the fore, openly targeting migrant communities as well as ethnic and religious minorities.

It is obvious that traditional law enforcement techniques are insufficient to deal with the origins of and evolving trends in religious and nationalistic radicalization. A broader approach is required to prevent and counter this trend. It should aim at developing a deeper understanding of the root causes of the emergence of radicalized groups in our societies and of their strategies and tactics. The millions of non-radicalized Muslims need to be encouraged through dialogue, practical cooperation and economic support, while avoiding the notion that we want to overturn their belief system.

Approaching the radicalization issue in a comprehensive manner can assist us as a global community in developing initiatives that help reduce the attractiveness of radicalized ideas and promote tolerance and integration. A comprehensive approach for responding to trends in radicalization must not only engage society. It must also engage national governments, international organizations and the civil and private sectors alike in a truly global and comprehensive way. NATO and the European Union, for example, have already begun jointly discussing the threats posed by militant Islamist groups in our countries, and they will continue to do so in the future. Likewise, the European Union, supports its Member States with counter-radicalization projects, for example in the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and Denmark, aimed at encouraging local Muslim communities in these countries to help prevent young people from joining radical groups. These, and many more opportunities we might consider, should be explored to generate multi-actor solutions for this multidimensional challenge.

This piece is one of a number of individual perspectives from the Global Strategic Foresight Community of the World Economic Forum for the Annual Meeting 2015. To read more access the full collection.

Author: Dr. Stefanie Babst has served NATO in different capacities in the past 16 years, including as NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy and since July 2012, as Head of NATO’s Strategic Analysis Capability for the Secretary General and Chairman of the Military Committee.