Paris: An attack on one, an attack on all?

The complexity of the conflict between ISIL and the rest of the world cannot be underestimated. ISIL evolved out of a poorly-justified war in Iraq, which had no link to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers, a war which left Iraq a splintered state. Part of al-Qaeda from 2004 to 2014, ISIL declared itself a caliphate in June 2014, which allowed it to claim adherents throughout the Muslim world. It now controls large swaths of territory in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Nigeria, areas populated by 10 million people.

ISIL’s tactics demonstrate an inhumanity not previously witnessed in the contemporary era in its systematic application of ultra-conservative Salafi and Wahhabi jihadist ideology. As well as perfecting suicide bombing, a technique designed to target civilians, ISIL has massacred hundreds of prisoners of war, used mass rape and sexual slavery of prepubescent girls as weapons, employed torture and beheadings as media tools, and instituted the deliberate brutalisation of boys as young as six in order to transform them into next generation jihadists. 

Internationally, no states acknowledge the “Islamic Caliphate”. Yet, it has declared itself a caliphate for good reason: so it can claim the inheritance of the Rashidun period of Muslim unity and invoke global jihad, linked to a belief in the Judeo-Christian apocalypse. ISIL believes that after al-Baghdadi, whose ancestry they assert can be traced back to the Prophet Mohammed, there will be four more caliphs before Armageddon. ISIL propaganda thus advocates the destruction of Israel and the Middle Eastern states, together with the retaking of European territories previously part of the Islamic world, such as Spain. However, ISIL’s wider ambitions are nothing less than global conquest leading to Judgement Day. This is not an ideology which can be negotiated with.

Unfortunately, some Muslim states have not done all they can to isolate ISIL, especially Turkey – where Iraqi-Syrian oil and historical artefacts are illegally sold, and Qatar and Saudi Arabia, where individuals raise funds for ISIL disguised as humanitarian charity. These funding routes, as well as systematic looting and a special tax on non-Muslims, who are faced with conversion, extortion or death, have allowed ISIL to field armed forces of approximately 70,000 fighters, including over 20,000 foreign troops, with a sophisticated military and propaganda headquarters in Raqqa in northern Syria.

The forces ranged against ISIL include 59 national governments, operating as the Counter-ISIL Coalition (CIC), and include Nato countries, the European Union and the Arab League. In addition, Iran and Russia are cooperating with Hamas, Hezbollah and the ground troops of the Syrian Army in order to bolster the Assad regime in the Syrian Civil War, but are also now attacking ISIL targets. However, this has involved the key CIC actors in indirect conflict with Russia and Iran via Syrian proxies, as well as in a direct encounter in the downing of a Russian plane by Nato member Turkey, in a total war which until this month threatened to leave ISIL free to operate in parts of Syria. Nonetheless, the revelation that a Russian flight from Egypt to St Petersburg was downed by an ISIL bomb has brought the West, Russia and Iran, currently engaged in the Syria peace talks in Vienna, to the realisation that they face a common enemy and that resolving the Syrian civil war requires sophistication rather than an escalation of animosities.

France has declared war on ISIL, as is its right. While Nato is already engaged in Iraq and Syria, it is not technically at war with ISIL, nor has Chapter 7 of the UN Treaty Charter authorising military action been invoked. Nonetheless, there is considerable speculation that France will invoke Article 5 of the Nato treaty: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all”, which would require notifying the UN Security Council. It would also imply the mass mobilisation and deployment of Nato troops.

Such a move would be welcomed by ISIL, which yearns for an apocalyptic escalation from which it could benefit initially in terms of propaganda. Yet well-disciplined ground troops backed by close air support have recently shown to be highly effective, both in Syria under the Russian-led coalition and in Iraq, especially at Sinjar, the Yazidi homeland recently reclaimed by Kurdish Peshmerga forces backed by the CIC. Because of religious sectarianism, once the key military targets of Raqqa and Mosul, ISIL’s Iraqi headquarters, are taken – which Kurdish intelligence estimates would take months – the deployment of troops from Muslim states under the UN would be necessary to free the remaining territory and win the peace. The redrawing of borders in Iraq and Syria may also be necessary.

Such a full-scale offensive would cause hundreds if not thousands of civilian casualties. Yet hundreds of thousands have already died and thousands will continue to die without determined intervention. Moreover, the world is faced with an existential threat for the first time since the end of the Cold War. ISIL’s own propaganda outlines its aspirations to seize Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, and it has already used chemical weapons. Destroying its ability to hold territory and commit mass terrorism is a necessity. 

When this happens, Thailand’s own resolve will be tested as ISIL fighters flee to the diaspora of radical Islam. Yet there is a more pressing challenge to Thailand, with its Security Council seat aspirations – leading the G77’s response to the ongoing atrocities in a war not of civilisations but of civilisation against an affront to humanity.