Movements of & ripostes to Radicalism in the Greater Horn of Africa

Movements of & ripostes to Radicalism in the Greater Horn of Africa
Public Lecture (based on Gebre Sellasse, Mulu, IPSS, 2011)
Costantinos Berhutesfa Costantinos, PhD
Professor of Public Policy, School of Graduate Studies, College of Business & Economics, AAU

Background
Garissa University College attack in Kenya left close to 150 young students massacred by al Shabaab. Hundreds of people have been holding a candle-lit vigil in Kenya's capital, Nairobi, to remember the victims of last week's attack at Garissa University College by al-Shabab gunmen. A temporary shrine of crosses and candles has been set up and photos of the 148 victims of the group's deadliest attack in Kenya are on show. Earlier, about 2,500 people marched in Garissa against the Somali militants. Kenya has frozen the accounts of 86 people thought to be funding al-Shabaab. Thirteen hawalas - informal money transfer services - have also been closed down. Hawalas are widely used by Somalis who depend on relatives abroad as a cheap and quick means to receive money. Interior Minister Joseph Nkaiserry said the names of the individuals and hawalas had not yet been released. Separately Five Kenyans appeared in court in Nairobi on Tuesday for suspected links with the attackers (BBC, 2015:1).
Conflicts have always been part of human society, but today radicalism is one form of a conflict that is haunting nations globally. In addition, it has long been recognized as a serious foreign and domestic security threat to many countries throughout the world (Harmony Project, 2006). Such use of unmitigated violence against civilians has indeed been a source of much concern for centuries now. However, the events of September 11, 2001 have single-handedly changed the way the problem is looked at by literally all inhabitants of the world. Today more than ever, the world talks and writes about radicalism much regularly. International radical networks have caused untold destruction and loss of life around the world, and yet the response by and the reaction to these acts is largely uncoordinated (Harmony Project, 2006). While there is an almost universal agreement as to the dangers posed by radicalism, there is nonetheless lack of clarity as to its causes, nature as well as the most effective mechanisms to prevent, detect and face its challenges. This has to do with myriad of factors ranging from ideological to operational renditions. Nevertheless, it is widely acknowledged that anti-radicalism efforts can better achieve their desired results if the impediments to concerted actions are properly addressed through cooperation among various stakeholders at all levels.
Different sources have given different definitions to the concept of radicalism depending on the angle from which they look at the problem. While some of this definition is based on ideological grounds, still other definitions take into account the operational aspect of it focusing rather on what consequences it has. As the common saying goes, one’s radical could very well be another’s freedom fighter. Otherwise, the word radicalism does not seem to have any precise definition. For example, Webster’s dictionary defines radicalism in terms of the following three elements: The state of fear and submission produced; radical method of governing or of resisting a Government; and the systematic use of horror especially as a means of gaining some political end (Webster, 2003).
Radicalism in the Horn of Africa
There is as much confusion about the root causes of radicalism as there is about how to define the concept. But there is a more or less universal agreement that the major causes are ideological, socio-economic as well as religious (compare ICPAT, 2008, p.10) Ideological causes explain the carnage and destruction political groups perpetrate on civilians in the name of some ill-defined political objective such as secession of a certain group or groups of people. The engagement of certain groups in similarly destructive activities in the name of addressing some kind of social or economic injustice is yet another cause of radicalism. However, more importantly, the great deal of violence that is being visited upon civilians in almost all corners of the world in the name of promoting some religious idea or another is the most potent cause of radicalism today.
Depending on what one perceives to be the root cause of radicalism, the responses by governments has also been varying to a degree or another. The US and its allies have used tools at their disposal, including diplomacy, international cooperation, and constructive engagement to economic sanctions, covert action, physical security enhancement, and military force (Harmony Project, 2006). The efficacy of anti-radicalism campaigns depends on the extent to which the appropriate combination of approaches is followed. More often than not, the approaches employed by many governments leave a lot to be desired because they put undue emphasis on one or another aspect of these approaches.
A modern trend in radicalism is toward well-organized, self-financed, international networks of radicals. Another trend of radicalism is the emergence of religiously or ideologically motivated. Radical groups using religion as a pretext, pose radical threats of varying kinds to interests of various states. A third trend is the apparent growth of cross-national links of radical organizations, which may involve combinations of military training, funding, technology transfer, or political advice. As a global phenomenon, a major challenge facing policy makers is how to maximize international cooperation, without unduly compromising important national security interests (Perl, 2004).
Home-grown conflict management is a multidisciplinary field of action that seeks to address the question of how people can make better decisions together, particularly on difficult, contentious issues. Conflict management refers to a variety of collaborative approaches that seek to reach a mutually acceptable resolution of issues in a conflict through a voluntary process. Such approaches were developed as alternatives to adversarial or non-consensual strategies, such as judicial or legal recourse, unilaterally initiated public information campaigns, or partisan political action. Choosing the correct strategy through which to address a particular conflict is in itself a strategic choice. Parties to a dispute must first decide whether to seek resolution to a conflict through a non-consensual process or through a more collaborative means. The voluntary problem solving and decision-making methods most often employed in conflict management are conciliation, negotiation and mediation which involve the assistance of a neutral third party in a negotiation process. The processes are often combined with each other in practice. Thus, an effort originally focused on conciliation may develop into a negotiation, which may in turn be enhanced by mediation. Similarly, individuals may play more than one role in addressing a dispute, once the decision has been made to use conflict management processes, the parties must decide on which specific approach to employ.
See full lecture here or https://www.academia.edu/11973290/Movements_of_and_ripostes_to_Radicalism_in_the_Greater_Horn_of_Africa_Public_