تروریزم دولتی، عامل بحران امنیتی در کشور یا ناکارایی حکومت؟!

State Terrorism: Cause of Instability and Inefficiency of Government

By: Mohammad Kasra

Terrorism was first recognized in Rome before the BC, but not in its modern shape, but rather as a situation in which the Roman Empire was threatened with terror by it.

Nevertheless, the internationalization of this political term, as it is used today— back to the 1970s. The purpose is not to present the history of terrorism unless to provide a brief introduction to define the issue clearly and wisely.

Likewise, in fact, terrorism is a term that many thinkers in politics and international relations do not define; there are those who, given the negative consequences and the semantic burden, it explains the term to intimidate and frighten communities to serve the interests of regional and global powers (supporters or state of terrorism), political groups and national and international institutions.

In addition, and have defined: In this regard, bombings, hijackings, massacres, and suicide attacks are all considered terror acts.

The definition of the term in one of the sources is as follows: “Illegal use or threatening use of force (power) or individual or group violence against people or their property with the intention of intimidating or forcing communities or governments are often for ideological or political reasons.

 

“Terrorism is, therefore; the threat of violence or the use of violence, often against citizens, to achieve political goals to intimidate the opposition or create public discontent.” With this in mind, the goal of terrorists is not to kill on purpose, but to create fear and panic among the communities to satisfy their desires, to provoke emotions, to benefit from the chaos in their favor, and eventually to force their opponents to kneel.

 

As long as, to build against their wishes. Terrorist victims are mostly part of the silent majority or the general public, which aims to intimidate the general public; In other words, in any terrorist incident, there are three parties involved, which include:

  1. a) The terrorist group,
  2. b) The victims, and C) The majority of the society in order to target a group or a minority of citizens, creating panic among the majority. The main thing is to intimidate to gain support and subjugate them.

In this sense, there are different types of terrorism, but the most dangerous type is the form of State terrorism or governments that support terrorism.

Those countries spend a lot of money to establish terrorist bases and even allocate part of their security and political budgets to the terrorist groups that they support it. Unfortunately, terrorism today has become the best tool for securing the interests of regional powers and beyond— even for political entities that consider themselves the founders of democracy and victims of terrorism— some neighboring countries have repeatedly accused supporting terrorist groups such as ISIS. And the Taliban; Russia has also indirectly patronaging— for the media.

Pakistan has also been repeatedly accused of terrorism by pushing the Taliban into Afghanistan and the region. Although, the paper assumes that Pakistan is one of the pro-terrorist states in the region because it has harbored various extremist groups by abusing political Islam and soft propaganda power through its own scholars and muftis.

 

By recruiting a silent and dissatisfied minority, it has turned them into a tough and effective force against its opponents—and this process continues, but what does Pakistan gain from supporting terrorists in Afghanistan?

Since the beginning of the interim government and the presence of the international community in Afghanistan, the country has openly expressed its opposition to the Afghan government through various organizations and groups operating in that country.

As in the previous article on the Durand Line, the country made demands of the Afghan government, the most vital of which were:

1) the withdrawal of foreign troops and the leadership of the Afghanistan government.

2) support for the presence of the Afghan opposition, including The Pakistani-based Taliban and terrorist groups in the country’s political system and beyond.

3) open hand in foreign policy, especially to prevent Indian influence in Afghanistan. But Kabul has refused all these demands. Thus, by changing its foreign policy strategy towards the country, Pakistan has repeatedly used the Taliban and many other terrorist groups under its control in political forums against the Afghan government and the forces of the international community-based in the country. As for looks like has incited jihad in Afghanistan with unauthorized fatwas, a case issued by them during the rule of latest Dr. Najib, ex-president of Afghanistan in support of the Mujahideen in civil war decades.

There are reports that Maulana Fazlur Rehman, leader of the Jami at-e-Ulema of Pakistan, and Hafiz Saeed, leader of Lashkar-e-Taiba— occasionally sending the Taliban to controlled religious schools in Afghanistan for jihad; In recent months, with warm weather and forced closures, the Taliban have mobilized such Madrassas with prisoners being released by Kabul’s government— to travel to different parts of Afghanistan for jihad and self-sufficiency. If the people of the country, after the release of more or less 5,000 prisoners of this group, witness the terrorist attacks in different parts of the country, which take victims from military installations to civilians and even to women and children.

However, if we look at from another angle, many may be right about Pakistan, given that it has been in a situation that has always been threatened by its two longtime rivals, India and Afghanistan.

On another hand, as our inefficient, provocative, and reactionary policies have motivated Islamabad, on the one hand, to see the instability of Afghanistan in its stability, and on the other hand, due to Kabul’s political and intelligence weaknesses and ethnic, religious, linguistic and dissatisfaction fragmentations—Some minorities have recruited from the marginalized majority, and beyond that, many believe that have been able to mobilize influential figures in the Afghan government cabinet to take an active part in decision-making and exploit it to their advantage.

Slowly the recent terrorist attacks which have taken in the safest parts of the country, which have killed dozens of our countrymen and injured hundreds of others—clearly show that such attacks without the collusion of intelligence and intelligence agents are very difficult and even far from possible.

Perhaps, will be the question may be asked why a regional and at the same time nuclear power (Pakistan) does not use other means of intimidation and pressure against the government and people of Afghanistan to fulfill its demands? In my opinion, the answer is clear, this country, despite its superior characteristics over the Afghan government— is still not able to face the warring people of this land in the current situation— the border clashes between the security forces of the two countries that sometimes happens— It is claimed that it subsides after the military action of the government and people of Afghan.

 

 

 

On the other hand, the Pakistanis are very smart and have always shown themselves to the world that the country is also a victim of terrorism and in principle, it has repeatedly supported the presence of the international community in Afghanistan and bringing peace to the country.

Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry condemns any bloody incident in Afghanistan and considers itself as a partner in the grief of the people of the country—As the Afghan government has occasionally stated, such attacks across the border are orchestrated by opposition groups, especially in coordinating with the Haqqani Network, a case that has always been rejected by Pakistan and in return, Islamabad has sacrificed Pakistan. As well as, going beyond that, Pakistan’s links to terrorist groups will be inevitable, if in recent months as Pakistani Foreign Minister said.  It becomes

Now the fundamental question is that what to do in such a situation? so that the situation changes and terrorism does not fall victim to the small majority from time to time. I think there are two ways, first: The Afghan government must respond to Pakistan’s demands and not let more to these innocent people of our country be unjustifiably victims of terror and assassinations—

Because we have not been able to win the game politically and intelligence against the Pakistani political elite and in the negotiations might be: and on the other hand, we have not been able to convince the international community and the regional consensus to isolate the country because of its support for terrorist groups.

Dealing with Pakistan can at least reduce the scale of the violence, but the pride of honorable Afghans will be diminished, as everyone has seen Afghanistan humiliated under previous regimes.

 

The second option, I believe—would be similar action against Pakistani bullying. Of course, adopting a policy of neutrality, it may work out when one side has no incentive to remove the other side, but many believe that the current situation is not so special—Pakistani officials in the media are very clear about the removal of the Kabul government in this regard.

 

Otherwise, silence in the face of such bullying, the perception of the Afghan people will be that its government is one of the three sides involved in the triangular attacks of terrorism.

which favors the current situation—Of course, I reveal above that Pakistan has been relatively more stable than Afghanistan— but we must not forget that the pages of Pakistan’s history confirm the fragility of its regimes from 1947 to the present. Therefore, the country’s political decision-makers can use these gaps and action moves in face-to-face negotiations to convince Pakistan that Afghanistan’s instability is not in the country’s interest and that Kabul has the ability to respond similarly to Islamabad.

More importantly, the Afghan government should refrain from adopting realistic policies and eliminate others in internal interactions to mobilize the people—and should act in connection with such issues instead of patriarchal pretense and advice, and use the crisis in collusion with the people.

Increasingly, restrain, I believe that the current approach of the government to manage the current situation, like termites, is drying up the popular roots of the government, and this method will be extremely critical, as the people see the government not managing the security crisis.

By adopting pluralistic policies—government leaders must prove in practice that they belong to all ethnic groups in the country— not just one ethnic group.

Until the crisis of mistrust between the government and the people is eliminated, because due to Kabul’s weak management, distrust also exacerbates the crisis. The current situation has helped and applied; Therefore, let the political leaders—especially the president, abandon their demagogic slogans and programs to mobilize the people, and do not allow the Afghan nation to become more small pieces and masses.

The Loya Jirga for consultations on the releasing of Taliban prisoners, which has no positive consequences for peace— is one of the programs that has been held from time to time to legitimize political and demagogic decisions by the government at various times.

In my opinion, the president can continue his efforts to bring about political stability by adopting realistic policies in which the presence of all ethnic groups is guaranteed— and not by exploiting a few money-making brokers, and against all walks of life against the enemies of Afghanistan.

Mobilize in a single line— In the last 40 years, everyone has witnessed the overthrow of regimes that have no popular roots, although they have slammed the claim of nationalism by chanting slogans of liberation or Islamism, from the one-party system of the people and the flag to the rule of the Mojahedin and— Or the Islamic Emirate of the Taliban.

Considering the above-mentioned cases, we conclude from the outcome of the above-mentioned issue that in both cases, the governments that support terrorism and the weakness of the government are considered as the main causes of the security crisis in the country.

At the core of this issue, we have seen the Pakistani government openly and covertly politically exploit terrorist groups to further its own interests and escalate the war in Afghanistan.

Moreover, there has been stability and insecurity in the country— On the other hand, the weaknesses of the government in managing the current security situation, such as sunshine— became clear: which paves the way for the proxy war of such political race.

Therefore, in my opinion, in addition to the dozens of sub-cases, the two foreign and domestic cases above can be considered as the main threats to the national security of the country, which in fact has caused a security crisis in the country.