Islamic State as a Threat to Global Peace and Security: an of the Mechanisms Used by the International Community

Abstract

The greatest and gravest dangers to international security and peace is no longer military threats from rival great powers but transnational threats emanating from the world’s most poorly governed countries. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the emergence of a terrorist threat with global reach in the form of Al Qaeda, the first decade of the new millennium marked a low in the number and severity of armed conflicts worldwide. This situation has blossomed and become more threatening in comparison to the last decade. The purpose of the study was to investigate mechanisms employed by international community in managing Islamic states. It was guided by the following objectives: To investigate the evolution and continued growth of Islamic state and its effect to international peace and security, to investigate the strengths of Islamic states as a threat to global peace and security and to investigate challenges faced by international community in managing Islamic states. Owing to the nature of the research study, qualitative research design was employed. With reference to qualitative literature review, a number of existing literatures were used for this purpose, consisting mainly of reports and studies from the UN, research institutes and NGOs, articles, journals, internet, reports, theses, and archives among other sources and media accounts. Findings revealed the international community is pursuing a policy to reduce the financial resources available to the Islamic State focuses on disrupting IS revenue streams, limiting the group’s access to formal financial systems, and imposing sanctions on the group’s senior leadership and financial facilitators. The international community also has imposed sanctions against Islamic State officials and their external financial backers. The Department of the Treasury designated 12 individuals for their role in soliciting funds, procuring military equipment, and recruiting foreign fighters, two of whom are based in Syria and are associated with the Islamic State. The study concluded that U.S. military options should be evaluated in this broader context. Ultimately, U.S. military options should be deployed in the service of a broader political and diplomatic strategy. A more aggressive U.S. military posture in the absence of a deeper, coherent strategy is unlikely to bring Syria closer to resolution, improve humanitarian conditions, or minimize regional spillover. In fact, such involvement could exacerbate the situation. Moreover, greater U.S. military involvement in Syria must be assessed not only in terms of whether it would bring Syria closer to resolution. The impact of military engagement must also be measured on an Arab world that is fraught with tension and in the midst of destabilizing change. Across the region-from North Africa to Egypt to the Levant and the Gulf-U.S. engagement has been met with suspicion and at times, outright hostility. Policy makers and military planners therefore must also assess the impact of greater U.S. military engagement on this volatile region more broadly. The study recommended that the air strikes campaign should be complemented with the creation of a national guard in Iraq that includes representatives of the country’s Sunni as well as Shia communities, in order to prevent the Islamic State from playing on Sunni grievances, and with the strengthening of the only remaining moderate opposition coalition fighting the Islamic State in Syria, the Southern Front.