Genocide has been traditionally associated with the perpetration of state-directed and/or communally organised mass violence to physically exterminate a population or a group rationalised by a belief system in order to rescue, preserve and even restore a nation, ideology or religion. Yet the scale and scope of the terrorist events of 9/11 as a crime against humanity has gravely illustrated the potential genocidal character and threat of strategic terrorism that is underpinned by an exclusionary ideology that is disconnected from a particular nation or a state or a tribe. Like genocide, strategic terrorism is inextricably rooted in an ideology or belief system revolving around an insurmountable sense of exclusion, in an unbridgeable gap with the “other” and in a dogmatic perception of being in the sole possession of the truth. Like genocide, this Manichean belief system fuels the notion that compromise is not an option – that salvation can only to be found through terror alone in a nihilistic desire to cause disruption and exterminate the enemy. Devoted to a perpetual war to the very end, strategic terrorism feeds on confrontation itself as a mechanism of ideological self-perpetuation and on the notion that ultimate salvation can only be found through redemptive acts of mass casualty terrorism and other forms of genocidal violence. Unlike tactical terrorism, with limited and ultimately negotiable objectives, strategic terrorism is characterised by its genocidal impulses and motivations that frames the enemy and underpins the violence. Understanding and even battling this genocidal thinking produced by strategic terrorism is a daunting prospect as the enemy has acquired a global presence without a distinct territorial presence through the instruments of globalisation. Moreover in the 21^st century this enemy is more ideological and utopian than tangible; more a vapour than army; and more a lethal virus than overt frontal assault. 

For strategic terrorism, the bedrock of an exclusionary ideology underpinning genocidal violence is more important than the tactical political objectives. The ever-shifting nature of these political objectives is merely a façade – a clever toolbox to ensure that the confrontation goes on and the appeal of the confrontation never ends. 

For strategic terrorism, the desire for communal deliverance by violence alone is innately driven by an apocalyptic belief-system – a sacred narrative construct that ultimately believes in the inevitability of victory and the moral righteousness of the cause. Bridging the past with the present to ensure the religious and historical continuity of the struggle for ultimate liberation through the sword, this exclusionary ideology is defined and persecuted by a selfelected “vanguard” providing the motivation and justification for the employment of the scale and scope of genocidal violence. Veiling their sacred struggle in a self-defensive veneer around historical and religious motifs, this “vanguard” provides little or no distinction between combatants and civilians, between co-religionists or unbelievers. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, for example, invoke the principle of retaliation through reciprocity to the West for its alleged crimes against the faithful around the world and hold all Western citizens collectively responsible for the behaviour of their governments. Similarly, al-Qaeda advocates the total extermination of Islam’s enemies and asserts its religious entitlement to use chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons in their war against the United States, the West and ultimately against all infidels (unbelievers). As such, the indiscriminate nature of the genocidal thinking against an almost open-ended category of enemies without gradation of guilt or diminished responsibility points towards the transcendental quality of the violence itself. 

The notion of self-sacrifice through genocide in the service of the cause is part and parcel of this exclusionary ideology.A culture of violent redemption and martyrdom through engagement in acts of genocide is nurtured, sustained and passed on between militant generations. These acts of self-sacrifice serve as inspiration reinforcing the sanctity of the cause and create the perception that targeting civilians is an acceptable mode of “warfare.” This exclusionary ideology thrives not only on a complex matrix of varying pre-conditions and precipitant causes of terrorism but also on the interface between violence and psychological warfare against self-professed enemies. These real and virtual propaganda platforms sustain a virulent culture of hatred through the dehumanisation of the enemy in a broader effort to polarise communities and sow inter- and intra-civilisational discord and conflict. This in turn can fuel xenophobia and undermine the precarious balance between civil liberties and security, the very values and principles of liberal democracies. 

Strategic terrorism with genocidal characteristics is not a new phenomenon (dating back to the Zealots (Sicari) and the Assassins during the Roman period). But today it is global in reach and pervasive in scope and character. In many ways, its capacity to destroy through genocide is a function of the so-called “dark underside” of globalisation creating infinite constellations of cross-national networks that transcends ethnicity and nationalism and that enables asymmetric violence to be employed with an inevitable trajectory towards greater lethality. This exclusionary ideology revolves around the ability to confront through mass killings and genocide but transcends al-Qaeda as an organisation – rather it is as much a movement, a constantly mutating exclusionary ideology that forms a semi- “leaderless resistance” preying on the civilised and free world and our inherent collective vulnerabilities. It also represents for some communities and regimes a strategic existential threat as it has the propensity to ignite broader ideological “dry grass” to mobilise sympathetic followers into violent action with a view towards incubating and eventually capturing a state through a process akin to “Talibanisation.” 

The advent of strategic terrorism and its propensity for destruction on a genocidal scale in the information age requires developing new multilateral preventative initiatives that will need to address exclusionary mindsets at least as much as it is being fought practically on the ground or after the fact when a genocide has been committed. These initiatives must be constructed thoughtfully as to minimise divisiveness between and within societies and to foster peace, tolerance and moderation as guiding principles. 

Recommendations 

– The international community needs to create a basis for a differentiation of strategic and tactical terrorism. Strategic terrorism is an indication that genocide may be on its way. 

– New initiatives within the international community need to be considered to draft conventions that recognises that strategic terrorism (as opposed to all other forms of tactical terrorism and political violence) can lead to genocide or be based on an ideology that is ultimately genocidal. Conventions need to be able to be preventative before an act of genocide is committed not just as instruments of punishment. A real gap needs to be filled of genocide as an emerging phenomenon and as an accepted fact. 

– A new early warning mechanism by non-governmental organisations and international bodies needs to be collated and centralised by the UN, OSCE and other international bodies to identify strategic terrorism with genocidal thinking. 

– International collaborative research into the motivations and modalities of genocidal thinking needs to be supported and linked to the broader policymaking community. In particular this research ought to address practical response options as to preventative mechanisms once genocidal thinking has been identified. 

– Genocidal thinking can become institutionalised within a state. As such it is critical to ensure that media and education remains pluralistic and in supporting policies where there is a plurality of voices in civil society, in governance and in the media. 

– The international community needs to develop new initiatives of public space where conflict between adversaries can be discussed openly through third parties or on neutral territory to desensitise, defuse or even find common values and language with a view to delegitimate all forms of genocidal thinking. These forums can even be faith-based and inclusive between civilisations and different religious traditions to emphasise tolerance and unity rather than exclusion and discord. 

– It is imperative for the international community to continue reconstruction efforts in war-thorn countries and address early-on failing or failed states before they become the incubators of hatred and violence within and beyond their own societies. Equally the international community must be more innovative in the mechanisms of resolving regional or local conflicts. 

– The international community must intensify its efforts to understand and address the systemic causes of strategic terrorism and its genocidal thinking in conjunction with other facets of multilateral cooperation of conflict and genocide prevention.