Terrorism expert Dr. Walid Phares says the United Nations Security Council could play a critical role in confronting ISIS, but he says that is unlikely to happen as long as the Obama administration refuses to identify the threat to the U.S. and many other nations around the world.
The Obama administration took heat in September for insisting that the Islamic State is neither Islamic nor a state. Earlier this year, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest stated that the Taliban was not a terrorist organization. Over this past weekend, the White House statement to the attacks in Copenhagen never mentioned terrorism or radical Islam. In addition, the response to the ISIS beheading of 21 Coptic Christians in Libya failed to note the faith of those killed, calling them “Egyptian citizens.”
Phares is a longtime professor of Middle East studies and an adviser to the U.S. House of Representatives. His latest book is “The Lost Spring.” He says the administration’s verbal acrobatics don’t help the cause against ISIS.
“There is this general reluctance on behalf of the administration to engage in what we call the war of ideas or what we call the ideological confrontation. They don’t want to identify this as an ideological problem or crisis, so when it’s in Europe, these are extremists, without defining what that means. When it’s in Libya, these are Egyptian citizens though they were targeted for who they were,” said Phares.
He says there is a stark contrast in just the past week between how Obama reacted to acts of terrorism compared to the brutal murder of three Muslims in North Carolina.
“If you apply what the president has said with regard to the tragic killings of three citizens who are Muslim and the way he defined the slaughter of 21 Copts, there’s a big difference. In one case, it’s because of who they were and their identity. In the other case, with the Copts, it’s because they were Egyptian, so there is some correction to be done to our narrative,” said Phares.
Phares also says Obama’s reluctance to identify our enemies flies contrary to how presidents of both parties have approached threats to national security.
“What the administration and its advisers are doing is not a different description. It’s a different identification. They are describing what is not defined. They’re saying these are bad, these are criminals, these are extremists. But they never say who they are. During World War II or the Cold War, all the presidents, Republicans and Democrats, defined and designated what the ideology of the other side is. Then they built strategies,” said Phares.
Phares is making news in recent days over his call for the United Nations Security Council to get much more involved in confronting the threat ISIS poses to many of its member states.
“Remember that those jihadis have been attacking civil societies, not just in the United States but every single member of the permanent five nations on the UN Security Council (United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and the U.S.),” said Phares, who suggests a declaration against ISIS could be more effective than many might think.
“It is time, in my view, that the security council issue a resolution declaring not just ISIS and Al Qaeda but the entire network with its ideology as a threat to the international community and therefore authorize all these governments to conduct not just separate campaigns and activities but join an international campaign and well integrate it against that group,” said Phares.
United Nations critics see the body as effectively useless in these sorts of crises, citing ineffective action on Iraq, Syria, North Korea and many other bad actors on the world stage. Phares contends one critical factor is different than in controversies of the past.
“This situation is different. This is more so the situation that occurred in Korea, minus the Soviet Union, but this time even Russia would be on board. The reason is the international community needs to unify its resources. Besides, the United Nations is nothing more than its own membership, meaning if the big guys of the security council decide can take action and issue a resolution, they can finally have a joint strategy ,” said Phares.
He also thinks a security council resolution could solve other logistical headaches.
“More importantly, if there are any issues between the U.S. and Egypt, between the Russia and some other countries, if it’s done under the umbrella of the UN, it should be helpful,” said Phares.
But who among the permanent five members of the security council would take the lead on something like this? Russia is focused on it’s own foreign policy priorities in Ukraine and elsewhere. China has also demonstrated no leadership on the issue. Phares says it’s time for an American administration that is often reluctant to lead the pack to reassert itself at a time of crisis.
“The question now is really a question of leadership. Do we want to lead this from behind? If we take the lead to the UN Security Council, we would lead it from the front. While I agree this is the thing to do, I’m not sure what the administration in Washington wants to do. That’s a different discussion,” said Phares.
As for Middle Eastern allies in the battle against ISIS, Phares says Egypt and Jordan are clearly the leaders in that region. He says the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are on board but capable of only playing small roles. Phares says substantial numbers of Libyan troops are willing to fight under a general the west believes can be trusted. He also believes the emerging secular government in Tunisia could play a key role in undermining ISIS in North Africa and beyond.
