In early 2001, as I began exploring the role of religion in conflict, I came across a declaration by a then little-known leader, Osama bin Laden, and his fellows. That declaration was of the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders. Many analysts now see it as one of the founding documents of al Qaeda, the amorphous terrorist umbrella group. The purpose of the declaration was to issue a fatwa that, because United States troops were stationed in the holy Arabian peninsula and threatened Muslims, particularly in Iraq, it was every Muslim's duty 'to kill the Americans and their allies - civilians and military - ... in any country in which it is possible to do it'. Of course, the first thing that struck me, as an American, was that here was a group that wished to kill me solely because of my birthplace. They did not seem to care that I might not support specific actions of my government, even if I supported that government generally. Nor was there any discussion of whether methods other than violence might be more useful in persuading my fellow citizens as to the justice of their cause. I wondered, as a student of peace studies, what I could do in the face of such seemingly implacable hatred. The second thing that struck me about the declaration was its language. I noticed, in particular, a certain flourish that one does not often find in political analysis. The image that 'nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food' has always stayed in my mind because the simple image has such rhetorical power. I also noticed, in accordance with my research interests, the use of religious teachings as a justification for violence. Yet poetic rhetoric and religious dogma were not the only contents of that declaration. Bin Laden and his fellows made coherent political points. They cited as examples of the harm caused by the United States: the post-Gulf War presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, 'dictating to its rulers [and] humiliating its people;' the continued bombing of Iraq 'even though all [Saudi] rulers are against their territories being used to that end;' and, finally, the way that these actions contributed to the security of Israel by weakening Arab nations. Thus, beneath its religious expression the declaration contained political points with which I could engage. Now, as I categorically oppose the use of violence, I unreservedly reject the conclusion of the fatwa. Moreover, I do not assume that a single statement is evidence of this group's true intent. It may very well be the case, as analysts more versed in their politics than I have argued, that al Qaeda's real goal is the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. Its affiliation with Afghanistan's Taliban certainly supports this argument. In spite of these things, though, their use of political arguments meant they were trying to reach an audience that cared about such things. I could address that audience as well, and try to propose different courses of action that would address the same concerns. Thus, I could step outside of my original framework, in which I envisioned implacable hatred, and argue for nonviolent ways of addressing the issues. Yet the religious idiom of the declaration was also an important factor. Given that the declaration addressed Muslims as Muslims, by only trying to argue political points with them I might alienate people for whom the religious language meant a great deal. Already in my research I had come to the conclusion, drawing on R. Scott Appleby's The Ambivalence of the Sacred, that the people best placed to show the peaceful potential of a religion are believers in that religion. I am not, however, religious. Thus, this conclusion left me with no recourse in the face of the religious aspects of conflict. I began to wonder what role a nonreligious - or, as I came to think of myself, a secular - person could play in peacemaking when religion is an element of a conflict. Moreover, I saw that different seculars would have different reactions to bin Laden's arguments. Some would reject the message because of the religious medium. Some, like I first did, would perceive the sociopolitical elements but continue to ignore the religious language. Others, as I also briefly did, might consider the religious element but leave out the issue of their own secular nature. Yet no perspective provided a good model for what I, as a secular, might do. Thus, the goal of my thesis became to analyze the various models of secularity, find the most beneficial principles, and construct from these a model for secular best practice. That Osama bin Laden's words should catalyze this thesis brings me to two important points. First, this is not a thesis about Islam. If a disproportionate number of the examples that I use throughout the thesis focus on Islam, this should not indicate that Islam deserves special attention concerning conflict and violence. Rather, the focus here is always on secularity and secular responses to religion in situations of conflict. However, particularly after September 11th, the largely secular policy and scholarly establishments of Europe and North America have produced a great deal of material concerning Islam. Thus, while I sought out more diverse sources dealing with secularity, I often used the religion most commented on by secular sources as an exemplar. That leads to the second point, which is that this is not a thesis about terrorism. Given its scope and the place of religion in it, most obvious case study to use in this thesis is the 'war on terror' - which I call such for ease of use, as that is what the Western media generally call it, not because I think it is an adequate designation. I will cover this topic in the final chapter, but because the thesis is about peace and violence in conflict, and not about specific forms of violence, it will not figure elsewhere. Because this thesis is concerned with violence and, specifically, with the promotion of peace, it has an overt prescriptive element. This stems in large part from my Peace Studies background. Peace Studies entails a normative commitment to pursue peaceful situations through nonviolent means. Thus, at several points I actively enjoin readers to take or not take certain types of action because, by my analysis, that is the best way to promote peaceful relationships. More generally, by the title of this thesis, I ask readers to 'rethink secular and sacred' - both what these terms mean, and more importantly how they relate to one another. In particular, this goal leads me to avoid discussing the concept of tolerance. Tolerance is often held to be a virtue by those who seek to promote nonconfrontational religious interaction. However, as many other writers have pointed out, the word 'tolerance' itself stems from physiological and biological studies, where it means the ability to withstand negative factors, such as poisons or drugs. Thus I find that its social meaning is essentially negative, denoting forbearance of what one finds repugnant. While in a very limited sense I feel that tolerance is necessary, it is only as a first step to actively engaging with what one might at first find off-putting.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited / This thesis explains the military relationship between the United States and Pakistan in the context of their divergent national security interests. During the Cold War, U.S. concerns focused on the global contest between democracy and communism. In this competition, Pakistan was seen as an important ally. However, Pakistan viewed India as its primary threat and considered global ideological concerns as secondary in importance. At times, each country benefited from the other, but neither ever fully met the other's most important needs. The United States did not support Pakistan in its wars with India and Pakistan did not confront communism except to help oust Afghani governments non-compliant with Pakistan's interests. Pakistan's military held power for more than half of Pakistan's existence and became the U.S.' key ally in South Asia. Pakistan's pursuit of nuclear weapons distanced U.S. relations in the post-Cold War environment. The terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 catapulted Pakistan's importance as an ally but at the cost of supporting a military regime and the erosion of a democratic government in Pakistan. This thesis argues that Pakistan's military now shares a relationship with the United States that builds regional stability but which may also hold political consequences in the United States. / Major, United States Marine Corps

With the rise of global transnational terrorist networks (GTTNs), there has been an increase in scholarly output on the subject. While many scholars have focused on the ways in which these networks enable terrorist organizations to achieve their goals, few have studied the transformative impact that GTTNs have on group cohesion. In order to fill this gap, I seek to answer the question how, if at all, GTTNs affect the likelihood of armed groups experiencing fragmentation. In doing so, I propose three ways in which GTTNs can influence cohesion among their members and explore these in the cases of al-Shabaab and Boko Haram, while using the Taliban as a counterfactual. Although I find that both GTTN members and non-members experience fragmentation, the ways in which fragmentation manifests itself differs. Whereas the Taliban experienced fragmentation following key events, al-Shabaab and Boko Haram experienced splits as a result of long-term processes. Thus, GTTN membership ostensibly reinforces internal processes that may cause factions to split from the organization, thereby increasing the risk of fragmentation. However, more research is required on the different ways through which GTTNs exert influence over their members and the effect this has on the risk of fragmentation.

The war in Afghanistan has been a core component of the so called ‘War on Terror’ for over twenty years. These decades of hostilities have caused many people to flee and seek refuge in other countries. This study aims to explore and thereby gain a better understanding of the various forms of violence experienced by Afghan refugees living in Germany. The overarching research question to achieve that aim, was: ‘What role did, and do, different forms of violence play in the experiences of the participants?’The study used the framework introduced by Johan Galtung of direct, structural and cultural violence to analyze the data of qualitative in-depth interviews that were conducted. The interviews showed that participants to varying degrees were subjected to a complex combination of all three types of violence in Afghanistan, on their journey to Europe and in Germany. Most direct violence occurred in Afghanistan, on the hands of the Taliban as well as on the journey. Structural violence was omnipresent, and varied from context to context. Whilst in Afghanistan, it was mainly in the realms of poverty, education and water and electricity infrastructure, in Germany it shifted to adequate housing, language courses, prolonged bureaucratic procedures and access to health care. The study found clear signs of cultural violence which normalized other forms of violence.This study indicated that whilst the types of violence are complex and transform continuously; direct, structural and cultural violence are always to a certain degree present in the lives of the Afghan refugees.

The aim of this study was to find out how the war in Afghanistan is framed both in national and international context. This was conducted by comparing the national tv channel TOLOnews from Afghanistan with the international tv channel SVT Nyheter from Sweden. A qualitative text analysis as well as a semiotic photo analysis were implemented on four news articles and two photos from each channel respectively. Framing theory, agenda setting, and news values provided the theoretical background to be able to carry out the study. The significant findings of the study show that SVT Nyheter uses various secondary foreign sources for their articles in comparison to TOLOnews which uses only first-hand sources as can be expected of international and national tv channels. Furthermore, SVT Nyheter concentrates mostly on facts such as the number of people killed in attacks whereas TOLOnews concentrates more on the personal stories of the local people affected by the attacks. Finally, the study discusses what could be the underlying reasons of the findings of the study and thereby the differences of the framing of the war in Afghanistan by the two tv channels.

This thesis seeks to answer the question of why some rebel movements choose to take on a religious character, and why some do not, even in cases where they share many characteristics. This thesis argues that a religious or secular framing is a tool that can be tactically utilised by rebel groups in order to further their goals and strengthen their position.   Given the fact that rebel groups usually start out at an inherent resource disadvantage, securing external support is paramount for any rebel group to stand a fighting chance. External actors need to be talked into supporting these rebel groups, and are more likely to support rebel groups with whom they share certain characteristics. This thesis argues that one of the main ways in which insurgent groups can seek to lobby or appease external actors is through aligning its religiosity to fit that of the external actor. Through examining the lifespan of two separate ethnic insurgencies in Pakistan, that of the Baloch and of the Pashtun, and tracing that to the religiosity of the latest iterations of insurgent groups within these long-standing conflicts, the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and the Tehreek-e-Taliban (TTP), which have taken very different paths when it comes to religiosity despite their similar origins, and examining their potential external backers and the influence they may have had, this thesis found that foreign backer religiosity might be a powerful determinant in influencing insurgent religiosity.

American relations with Pakistan went through various ups and downs from being allied during the Cold war to imposing sanctions in last decade of the twentieth century. After 9/11 attack on World Trade Center and Pentagon Pakistan quickly joined the United States in the War on Terror. In my thesis I analyze positions and influence of Pakistan during invasion to Afghanistan. and seven next years of the Operation Enduging Freedom during George W. Bush administration. At first I concentrate on historical experience of Pakistan and development in the area before american invasion to Afghanistan. I also surveying terrorist movements on Pakistani soil, which are important for later development and are connected to Pakistani secret service ISI. ISI tried some years after 2001 to maintain friendly relations with Taliban and other terrorist groups along Afghan - Pakistan border, but terrorists, basically anti-system movements, wanted to establish in Pakistan and Afghanistan states constituted as Islamic emirates. President Musharraf under pressure of forthcoming events and the United States understood that supporting Taliban is no longer sustainable policy and decided to act against terrorist groups home in Pakistan. This move however triggered suicide bombings and massive uprising which hit in 2006/2007...

In early 2001, as I began exploring the role of religion in conflict, I came across a declaration by a then little-known leader, Osama bin Laden, and his fellows. That declaration was of the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders.1 Many analysts now see it as one of the founding documents of al Qaeda, the amorphous terrorist umbrella group. The purpose of the declaration was to issue a fatwa that, because United States troops were stationed in the holy Arabian peninsula and threatened Muslims, particularly in Iraq, it was every Muslim¿s duty ¿to kill the Americans and their allies ¿ civilians and military ¿ ... in any country in which it is possible to do it.¿ Of course, the first thing that struck me, as an American, was that here was a group that wished to kill me solely because of my birthplace. They did not seem to care that I might not support specific actions of my government, even if I supported that government generally. Nor was there any discussion of whether methods other than violence might be more useful in persuading my fellow citizens as to the justice of their cause. I wondered, as a student of peace studies, what I could do in the face of such seemingly implacable hatred. The second thing that struck me about the declaration was its language. I noticed, in particular, a certain flourish that one does not often find in political analysis. The image that ¿nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food¿ has always stayed in my mind because the simple image has such rhetorical power. I also noticed, in accordance with my research interests, the use of religious teachings as a justification for violence. Yet poetic rhetoric and religious dogma were not the only contents of that declaration. Bin Laden and his fellows made coherent political points. They cited as 1 bin Laden, Osama; al-Zawahiri, Ayman; Taha, Abu-Yasir Rifa¿i Ahmad; Hamzah, Mir; Rahman, Fazlul, 1998, ¿Nass Bayan al-Jabhah al-Islamiyah al-Alamiyah li-Jihad al-Yahud wa-al-Salibiyin¿ (¿Declaraton of the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders¿), al-Quds al-Arabi (UK) 9(2732), 23 Feb.: 3, <data.alquds.co.uk/Alquds/1998/02Feb/23%2520Feb% 2520Mon/QudsPage03.pdf>. Cornell University Library hosts an English translation and a photocopy of the original at <www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/wif.htm> and <./fatw2.htm>, respectively (all web addresses as at 27 Jan. 2005). examples of the harm caused by the United States: the post-Gulf War presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, ¿dictating to its rulers [and] humiliating its people;¿ the continued bombing of Iraq ¿even though all [Saudi] rulers are against their territories being used to that end;¿ and, finally, the way that these actions contributed to the security of Israel by weakening Arab nations. Thus, beneath its religious expression the declaration contained political points with which I could engage. Now, as I categorically oppose the use of violence, I unreservedly reject the conclusion of the fatwa. Moreover, I do not assume that a single statement is evidence of this group¿s true intent. It may very well be the case, as analysts more versed in their politics than I have argued, that al Qaeda¿s real goal is the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. Its affiliation with Afghanistan¿s Taliban certainly supports this argument. In spite of these things, though, their use of political arguments meant they were trying to reach an audience that cared about such things. I could address that audience as well, and try to propose different courses of action that would address the same concerns. Thus, I could step outside of my original framework, in which I envisioned implacable hatred, and argue for nonviolent ways of addressing the issues. Yet the religious idiom of the declaration was also an important factor. Given that the declaration addressed Muslims as Muslims, by only trying to argue political points with them I might alienate people for whom the religious language meant a great deal. Already in my research I had come to the conclusion, drawing on R. Scott Appleby¿s The Ambivalence of the Sacred,2 that the people best placed to show the peaceful potential of a religion are believers in that religion. I am not, however, religious. Thus, this conclusion left me with no recourse in the face of the religious aspects of conflict. I began to wonder what role a nonreligious ¿ or, as I came to think of myself, a secular ¿ person could play in peacemaking when religion is an element of a conflict. Moreover, 2 Appleby, R. Scott, 2000, The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield). I saw that different seculars would have different reactions to bin Laden¿s arguments. Some would reject the message because of the religious medium. Some, like I first did, would perceive the sociopolitical elements but continue to ignore the religious language. Others, as I also briefly did, might consider the religious element but leave out the issue of their own secular nature. Yet no perspective provided a good model for what I, as a secular, might do. Thus, the goal of my thesis became to analyze the various models of secularity, find the most beneficial principles, and construct from these a model for secular best practice. That Osama bin Laden¿s words should catalyze this thesis brings me to two important points. First, this is not a thesis about Islam. If a disproportionate number of the examples that I use throughout the thesis focus on Islam, this should not indicate that Islam deserves special attention concerning conflict and violence. Rather, the focus here is always on secularity and secular responses to religion in situations of conflict. However, particularly after September 11th, the largely secular policy and scholarly establishments of Europe and North America have produced a great deal of material concerning Islam. Thus, while I sought out more diverse sources dealing with secularity, I often used the religion most commented on by secular sources as an exemplar. That leads to the second point, which is that this is not a thesis about terrorism. Given its scope and the place of religion in it, most obvious case study to use in this thesis is the ¿war on terror¿ ¿ which I call such for ease of use, as that is what the Western media generally call it, not because I think it is an adequate designation. I will cover this topic in the final chapter, but because the thesis is about peace and violence in conflict, and not about specific forms of violence, it will not figure elsewhere. Because this thesis is concerned with violence and, specifically, with the promotion of peace, it has an overt prescriptive element. This stems in large part from my Peace Studies background. Peace Studies entails a normative commitment to pursue peaceful situations through nonviolent means. Thus, at several points I actively enjoin readers to take or not take certain types of action because, by my analysis, that is the best way to promote peaceful relationships. More generally, by the title of this thesis, I ask readers to ¿rethink secular and sacred¿ ¿ both what these terms mean, and more importantly how they relate to one another. In particular, this goal leads me to avoid discussing the concept of tolerance. Tolerance is often held to be a virtue by those who seek to promote nonconfrontational religious interaction. However, as many other writers have pointed out, the word ¿tolerance¿ itself stems from physiological and biological studies, where it means the ability to withstand negative factors, such as poisons or drugs.3 Thus I find that its social meaning is essentially negative, denoting forbearance of what one finds repugnant. While in a very limited sense I feel that tolerance is necessary, it is only as a first step to actively engaging with what one might at first find off-putting. By itself, tolerance does not encourage one to rethink one¿s relationship with something, and thus a nonconfrontational situation is not necessarily a peaceful one. As I researched the thesis, although I was aware of academic work concerning tolerance, I found that none of it contributed to my goals. Thus, the thesis took shape in such a way that a treatment of tolerance was unnecessary. As a final note I would like to mention another topic that did not fit into this thesis, which I regard as something of a loss ¿ gender. During my research, I was also aware of work in this field, and, again, the structure of this thesis is such that it was not necessary to mention it explicitly. However, if there is one single issue that cuts across religious and secular groups, as well as the conflicts I analyze, it is the effect of gender roles and issues. Yet the very breadth of the topic put me in a bind ¿ either I could thoroughly treat it and produce a much different thesis, or I could cursorily treat it, perhaps in the chapter on theory and methodology. I chose to do neither, because the first option would have obscured the value that this thesis does have, and the second would have been a paltry treatment of such a weighty topic. However, the theoretical schools I use 3 See, for example, the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (1st 1933), Simpson, J.A., and Weiner, E.S.C., co-eds., in. al. (Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1989), v. 18, pp. 199-200. in this thesis are amenable to a gendered interpretation. This is particularly the case with integral theory, the chief proponent of which, Ken Wilber, has addressed gender issues in a number of his primary works. One can easily discern what I define in this thesis as a strong-open analysis in his analysis of feminisms. He notes both the strength of the radical feminist perspective that champions female distinctiveness as well as the desire of liberal feminists to open social and political spheres traditionally closed to women, and seeks to bring them together.4 Thus, I am confident that this thesis can bolster future research that specifically addresses gender issues as they arise in conflicts with a religious element.

This paper represents the root causes of Hazaras persecution in Afghanistan through ethno-religious and psycho-cultural approaches, using Protracted Social Conflicts (PSC) and Relative Deprivation (RD) frameworks. The Hazara community has been subject to persecution in variety of ways including assassinations, physical torture, enslavement, forced displacement, kidnapping, and target attacks by both state and non-state actors. This study explored multifrontal causes consisting international connection, structural inequalities, communal cleavages, access to economy and power, and interpersonal and ingroup values contributed to Hazaras persecution in Afghanistan. This study argues that the excessive persecution and discrimination against Hazara community was founded, particularly by Abdul Rahman in 1890s which shaped the ethno-religious and psycho-cultural approaches of Hazaras afterward. The ethno-religious and psycho-cultural approaches led the common thinking against Hazaras in the form of wrong identification, wrong myths, false consciousness, and ill-definition of Hazaras as monolithic Shi’as who have consistently been labelled as “Kafirs,” unbeliever, and decedents of Genghis Khan. The persecution of Hazaras can be studied through the lens of PSC, manifests the longstanding inter-state and intra-state conflicts, and RD depicts comparison of disadvantagedness of an individual or a group with other individuals and groups.

No description available.