Countering terrorism: When the battle within becomes the battle without

Sean Perera

Recent terror raids in Australia, for instance, calls for reflection on the possible motives behind this new form of terrorism that confronts global citizens.

A likely motivator is that a small number of people from migrant communities are unable or unwilling to cross cultural borders which prevail between the culture of their home country and that of their new country of residence. For these few, the drive to retain or even recreate an idealised version of their home culture could lead to violent consequences.

The connection between violence and terrorism is not new. In fact, there are numerous historic examples, some dating as far back to 3000BC Egypt. A classic example in the 5th Century AD was the terror attacks by the Visigoths on the Roman province that forms modern Spain. Some historians may even argue that India’s First War of Independence in 1857, known more popularly as the Indian Mutiny, was a series of terror attacks instrumented by Indian sepoys against the British Raj.

Contemporary examples of terrorist organisations include the IRA guerrillas of Northern Ireland, the United Liberation Front of Assam (or ULFA) in North East India; and the recently defeated Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) in our own country, Sri Lanka.

These terrorist movements have all used war and violence as a means of gaining advantages which are politically denied to them. Their acts of terror also exemplify malevolent retaliation against imperial oppression and foreign rule.

Today we have before us a new form of terrorism, one that is more politically and emotionally charged than the previous historic examples. These terrorists do not hesitate to use terrible acts of violence to send messages about fundamental political and religious beliefs. The recent would be attack against an Australian army base is one such example. These terror acts are not campaigns against a colonial master. Instead they are attempts by extremists to send clear messages to the rest of the world. They are instances when the battle within an individual takes monstrous proportions and emerges to terrorise the world outside.

There are several explanations for the emergence of this new form of terrorism. One main line of thought refers to the significantly high rate at which people migrate around the world, and specifically the difficulties faced by second-generation migrants. The concept of cultural border crossing can be used to explain this further.

More than ever before more people live in counties outside their birthplace. The cultural differences in the home country and the new country of residence create what migrants experience as cultural borders. Cultural borders do not have physical margins like military-maintained state borders. They are often represented by behavioural practices and communication.

An example that comes to mind is the sacrosanctity to punctuality in some cultures and the socially graceful “timelilessness” in others. A more serious cultural border is France’s non-acceptance of head-scarfs which are mandatory for women in some Islamic cultures. Cultural borders pose immense challenges for migrants who wish to become assimilated into a new country.

It is found that almost all first generation migrants are prepared to cross such cultural borders when they decide to leave their homelands. This does not seem to be the case for many second generation migrants, mainly for two reasons. Most second generation migrants do not have first-hand experiences of their parents’ home culture. Yet they are brought up to respect the values that are endemic to that culture. For example, their eating habits, dress and the language spoken at home relate strongly to their parents’ home country.

Then there is the issue of second generation migrants not developing a true sense of belonging to their new country of residence. It is common for second generation migrants to be confronted with conflicts of cultural identity. This is evidenced by non-conformist behavioural practices of many second generation migrants in an attempt to “fit-in”.

In some cases, particularly when there are too many differences between their home culture and the culture of the country in which they live, second generation migrants are faced with the challenge of making a choice. Unfortunately, in some of these cases the choices they make can be skewed mistakenly by religious and political ideologies.

A few second generation migrants may choose to recreate the culture of their parents’ home country, as they perceive would best exist. Such a choice easily results in a radical standpoint.

Many social scientists believe that such a desire to vent to inner turmoil is the root-cause of modern terrorism.

Unlike earlier terrorist organisations, modern terrorists are motivated by personal desires to terrorise people so that they may send messages which they believe (mistakenly) epitomise their ideal world. Perhaps the answer to tackling terrorism in countries like Australia then lies in helping migrants to transit smoothly across cultural borders.

Crossing cultural borders is not as simple as one culture learning more about another. Migrants should be made aware about the social and historic reasons behind the cultural practices in their new homeland. They need to be able to draw parallels between their own cultures and that of their new country of residence. They should be shown purpose and belonging with their new home. Most importantly, culture border crossings need to be bridges built on mutual trust.

(The witer is a researcher at the Centre for the Public Awareness of Science at the ANU. His research explores the importance of Western and non-Western cultural differences in the exchange of knowledge).