Nationalism, Separatism, and Terrorism
Prompt:
This week’s lesson delved into the nature of nations and nationalism, and addressed the complex relationships between nationalism, separatism, and terrorism. Based on this week’s lecture notes and readings, how would you classify the Islamic State with regard to nationalism, separatism, and terrorism?
Is it purely a terrorist organization or is it something else (or something more)? Justify your response with evidence from the readings.
Need to Respond to the below two classmates:
Jessica Renner
In her article highlighting the use of the word ‘terrorism’ by states to suit their own agenda, Pokalova (2010) outlined some reasons why a state would want to define a separatist movement as a terrorist group. In some instances, redefining boundaries or territory may threaten the state’s authority, or some dominant groups may feel that it could even lead to the complete disintegration of the state (Pokalova, 2010). As she notes in her article, this may especially be true for the Russian government or the Turkish government which did go through significant state decline or collapse in the 20th century. In other cases, states may choose to define a separatist movement as a terrorist movement because they may fear that other ethno-nationalist groups will follow suit. Taking these arguments into consideration, I tried to re-evaluate how I defined and viewed the Islamic State; however, even after reconsidering the details, I did not change my opinion of the organization.
Although the Islamic State does seek to create a nation of Muslims with shared beliefs, it uses force and violence to coerce individuals to join the movement. I believe that Yosef Jabareen (2015), stated it best in his article when he argued that the Islamic State’s use of excessive violence is what has set it apart from other separatist movements. This use of force is what allows the international community to label the Islamic State as a terrorist group. In addition to its excessive brutality, the Islamic State does not have land that it limits itself to. Although multiple definitions were offered, this week’s lecture notes essentially defined the term ‘nation’ as a group of people with a shared identity and a territory with which they had a current or historical connection to (Sulewski, 2022). However, the Islamic State does not have land that they are specifically tied to. Instead, the Islamic State takes whatever land it can, usually from failed states, and seeks to build a caliphate there. The goal of the Islamic State is to eventually create an empire that controls the world, a desire that is similar to former empires such as Germany or the Soviet Union (Jabareen, 2015).
On the other hand, I would argue that the international community has something to gain from labeling the Islamic State as a terrorist organization. Even if the organization did not use violence or coercion, it still seeks to create and influence Muslims around the world. If it was able to create a caliphate, it would impact the world order. As Jabareen (2015) noted, there are millions of Muslims that live around the world. If these individuals began to feel a stronger connection to a Muslim empire, it would threaten the authority and power of a number of states around the world. If the Islamic State did exist as an empire, could it use its international standing to provide support to Chechnya? It is possible that Chechens would no longer accept Russia’s authority and be able to successfully succeed to form either their state or to combine with the Muslim caliphate? However, we will never know what could have happened. The Islamic State was labeled as a terrorist organization by the international community, and because of this, the international community was able to respond forcefully and was able to essentially neutralize the threat.
Agathe Olier
Based on Jabareen’s (2015) article from this week, the Islamic state would not be classified as a nationalist group. The Islamic State rejects nationalism as well as Arab nationalism and current modern nations, as it is in favor of a utopian “ummah” of Islam, as Jabareen (2015) refers to in his text. The Islamic State claims that this utopia is inclusive, but with religious criteria to be set forth prior. The ummah that is referred to transcends any concept of ethnicity, race, color, and all other socioeconomic factors, but the tactics of brutality and excessive violence is used primarily against Muslims. Jabareen (2015) indicates that the utopia and the Islamic Caliphate that the Islamic State would like to have is similar to past empires and expansionist regimes similar to world domination, such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
The Islamic State could be considered a separatist group, as it wants to reimagine the international borders that were formed. Their long-term goals of becoming a Caliphate and rule the world through Islam contains a functional governed society and believes that they should be the commander of the faithful for the entire Muslim world (Ahram, 2019). By doing so, the Islamic State threatens the global order using terrorist tactics.
Separatists hold on to any border, territory, and population that they can have, although the Islamic State has been defeated and its final territory has been lost. There still have been attacks in the years 2020-2021, as we saw while making our maps for the ArcGIS assignment, showing that the Islamic State is still fighting for its world order. Pokalova (2010) also gives the argument that allowing other nation states to view terrorist organizations together as a separatists groups can allow states to justify their harsh measures against these organizations, along with military interventions.
