THE "JANUS" OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER: THE US FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS VIOLENT NON-STATE ACTORS: THE EXAMPLES OF HAMAS AND GAM

CHAPTER 1- METHOD AND THEORY

1.1. Method

1.2. The central question of this book is: "Why does the US adopt an active and conciliatory/inclusive approach towards GAM, but not towards HAMAS?"

In other words, how was GAM persuaded to lay down its arms in August 2005 and take its place as a legitimate political actor within the Indonesian political structure after 30 years of relentless struggle based on terror and violence? Conversely, why has the US failed to persuade Hamas to lay down its arms and transform into a peaceful political entity during the 40-year period between 1987 and 2023, and has even at times become an actor escalating conflicts in the region?

The book employs a combination of comparative case analysis and historical narrative as its methodology, aiming to contribute to the literature in this way. To add meaning, depth, and evidence to the findings presented in the book, relevant data collection sources have been critically analyzed. These sources include journals, texts published by universities, and books and articles by researchers on the subject.

Before delving into other details of the methodology, it is useful to briefly examine the US approach to DDAs. It can be said that the US approach throughout history has been influenced by two different theoretical currents (idealist and realist). Idealist narratives generally view DDAs as representatives of global civil society challenging state authority and as private actors building common networks and international solidarity across national borders. In contrast, realists view DDAs either as friendly elements serving state interests or as hostile elements seeking to undermine state authority and national solidarity. However, despite the strong difference between idealist and realist approaches, both acknowledge the increasing influence of DDAs on states and societies in the post-Cold War era. It can be said that the US foreign policy adopts an idealist approach towards BYDDAs based on the principles of liberal economics, freedom, and globalization, while adopting a tough, coercive realist approach towards CYDDAs, consistent with the fundamental principles of state foreign policy.

To understand this dilemma in US foreign policy, it is first useful to examine the US's relations with Israel and Indonesia, and the policies these two states pursued towards Hamas and GAM. A comparative analysis of these two examples is expected to shed light on the US's attitude towards CYDDAs in the 2000s. It is a generally accepted fact that both GAM and Hamas, as two violent actors in different geographies, share commonalities and similar political goals.

In the following chapters of the book, the “three circles” theory, which forms the basis of the comparative case analysis and belongs to Veronique Dudouet, is explained in detail. To better understand the methodological approach in the book, it is possible to summarize the basic predictions of the three circles theory at this stage as follows: Dudouet argues that certain conditions must arise for a PLO to transform into a peaceful political entity, and she expects this transformation to occur in three circles. In this process, it is vital that not only the PLO but also the state it is fighting against and the international actors show a positive approach. These conditions must exist in parallel and vertical lines of communication between the actors and must be kept alive at every stage of the peace process. The basic principle of this theory is mutual trust, political goodwill, democratic approach, and similar constructive characteristics among the actors. Researchers who have used the basic predictions of Dudouet's theory have so far focused on the internal structures of PLOs, the relationships between these actors and the states they are fighting against, and the relationship and dynamics between these actors and the USA. However, this book aims to contribute to understanding this ambivalent stance in US foreign policy and, consequently, to the relevant theory, by adding a fourth circle (the relationship between the State in conflict and the US).

In our opinion, the contradictory outcomes of US foreign policy regarding the Palestinian and Aceh issues are inherent in the nature of US relations with Israel and Indonesia. For example, the US administration has made strong efforts in every area to establish positive relations with Indonesia in the post-9/11 period, in order to prevent the spread of international terrorist organizations' activities in the vast Indonesian geography and its immediate surroundings. Similarly, as a positive response to these US foreign policy initiatives in Southeast Asia, especially after the end of the Suharto regime in 1998, a democratic approach towards GAM and This demonstrated political goodwill. Thus, GAM, which had extensively used terrorist acts for its own purposes in Aceh and other parts of Indonesia for years, ceased its terrorist activities and transformed into a peaceful actor within Indonesian political life in 2005.

One of the dominant factors revealing the paradoxical political approaches of the US in the two regional conflicts mentioned above is the tolerance shown by the American administration towards authoritarian Arab states in the Middle East that have engaged in military conflicts against the state of Israel since its founding in 1948. For over half a century, unlike other regions where American influence has prevailed, the Middle East has not been a target of democracy, human rights, and free markets, and has always remained in the shadow of American-Israeli relations and Arab-Israeli conflicts. Especially after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, the Soviet-centric US-Middle East policy was replaced by an Israeli-centric US-Middle East policy. This new American political approach prioritized the security and survival of Israel and aligned the Middle East with American national interests.

In the new millennium, MMORPGs/MMORPGs are not artificial, state-controlled entities used for security purposes in the style of the Cold War, but rather actors nurtured, grown, and supported by the local and regional societies in which they originated. These actors participate in both local and parliamentary elections and, compared to the Cold War years, tend to abandon violence and demonstrate a more peaceful character. In this context, the introduction to the book, following the conceptual framework, examines the approach of states directly or indirectly involved in the issue, primarily the US, towards these actors. Another point raised in this chapter is how MMORPGs attempt to adapt themselves to the conditions dictated by globalization and how they regulate their relations with the states they struggle against and with the US.

The book consists of seven chapters. The first chapter, following the introduction, contains the methodological and theoretical framework. The second chapter (Relevant Literature) examines five MMORPGs located in different geographies, excluding HAMAS and GAM, under three separate headings as envisioned by the three-circle formula. These are the local circle of the PLOs, the regional circle of the PLOs, the international circle of the PLOs, and their increasing influence in international politics. This section also discusses the PLOs' position in relation to international law, the double standards they face, and the public opinion and social factors that strengthen them against their rivals.

The third section explains the principles of American foreign policy. Understanding the background and common sense of American foreign policy discourse makes it difficult to grasp the spirit of the American foreign policy approach towards PLOs in the 2000s. In this context, the educational backgrounds and upbringings of American Presidents and their personal approaches, the principles shaping American foreign policy and their vital roles in foreign policy, the American public's view of the outside world, especially Jewish, Palestinian, Indonesian, and Acehnese communities, and influential forces such as lobbies and the media are examined. Furthermore, the lessons learned from history while navigating between different principles such as isolationism, continentalism, exceptionalism, and idealism, to which American foreign policy has adhered throughout history, are explored. This section also attempts to establish a framework for understanding the approach of regional powers and SDFs in the Middle East and Southeast Asia towards the US, focusing on how the US and SDFs influence each other. This section also summarizes the principles that shaped American common sense from the 2000s onwards, such as (i) the legitimacy of the unipolar world order, (ii) the administrative roles of the US as a unipolar state, and (iii) the strategic interests of a unipolar state, as well as the tasks of the United States in the post-Cold War era.

Chapters four and five focus on Hamas and GAM, which share similar characteristics and goals. The first circle of comparative analysis examines the structures and internal functions of Hamas and GAM. These internal functions include their statutes as political documents, their capacity for social movement, and their political, social, and military capabilities. The second circle focuses on the relationship between Hamas and GAM and Israel and Indonesia, and how their interactions with these states can transform into a peaceful political entity. This point is very important, as it is considered that a compromise cannot be reached unless the non-state actor and the state being fought against share a common understanding on issues of peace, stability, justice, human rights, and democracy. The third circle focuses on:

HAMAS and GAM's relationship with the US, their ability to adapt to international conditions and the peace process; the fourth circle focuses on the relationship between the US and Israel and Indonesia. Each analysis is extremely important in terms of its overall coherence. The likelihood of finding a peaceful solution to the conflict is linked to the degree to which US and Israeli/Indonesian interests overlap, the strength of political goodwill, and the extent to which the states involved demonstrate a democratic capacity for a peace agreement. Chapter six of the book contains the findings from the comparative case analysis and brief explanations of these findings. Chapter seven provides an assessment of the US's hypocritical policy and its global implications. The conclusion section presents the findings of the analysis in the book.

1.3. The Three Circles Theory

To date, numerous studies have been conducted on SPCs. However, most of these studies have focused primarily on the internal structure of SPCs. In this context, for example; “Why do they use violence?” “How do they fight?” “What is their military strength?” “How can they be forced into a peaceful transformation and/or disappearance?” “Who are their leading figures?” etc. Answers have been sought to these questions. Similarly, numerous studies have been conducted on HAMAS and the states it combats, generally focusing on conflict resolution and the origins of the problem and the stages of the conflict. Furthermore, especially after the rise of global terrorism, some studies have focused on the interactions between the hegemonic state (USA) and HAMAs. As explained in the literature review section, these studies focus on the dimensions of the threats posed by violent non-state actors to the USA and the military measures taken against them.

As mentioned above, this book exclusively uses Veronique Dudouet's "three circles" theory/formula to understand, explain, and make predictions about the future of American foreign policy's approach to Hamas and GAM. Dudouet argues that policymakers and academics have failed to provide an effective explanation of what shapes the radicalization and deradicalization processes of HAMAS. Dudouet also points out that another misconception regarding non-state actors is the belief that transforming them into peaceful entities can only be achieved by weakening or completely eliminating their military structures.

Essentially, Dudouet's findings are based on the results of a research project conducted in Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Nepal, Aceh, El Salvador, Colombia, and South Africa. The research reveals that armed opposition groups in these seven countries share a number of key characteristics that characterize them as "resistance or liberation movements," and that all have transitioned from violent formations to peaceful political parties. This process was carried out through negotiations in mutual goodwill, demobilizations, disarmament, and steps toward democratic institutionalization. Dudouet notes that these armed movements justified their violent actions for two reasons: (i) self-defense against human rights violations committed by the state they were fighting against, and (ii) a reaction to the denial of democracy and democratic rights by the state they were fighting against. Similarly, Sinn Féin, the political wing of the IRA (Irish Republican Army), defines armed struggle as "a legitimate part of a people's resistance against foreign oppression."

This question, raised by Dudouet, shares similarities with Math Noortmann's concern about establishing legal norms for armed groups seeking liberation. Noortmann argues that "if the issue is about resolving an armed conflict, states should not be considered more important than armed groups." According to him, insisting on the traditional approach can lead us to treat "states" and "non-state actors" within different legal frameworks. Dudouet believes that certain conditions must emerge for an armed group to transform into a peaceful political entity. Furthermore, for success, specific conditions must be prepared in advance at the local, regional, and international levels. It is vital that not only the armed group but also the state(s) it is fighting against, and international actors, demonstrate a positive approach towards a lasting solution. To reach a lasting agreement, these conditions must remain constantly active in parallel and vertical communication lines, and a good-faith and constructive approach must be maintained at every stage of the peace process.

In this book, the main reason for choosing Hamas and GAM as comparative case studies to reveal the differences in the US foreign policy's approach to PLOs is to understand, explain, and make predictions about the future regarding the reasons why these conflicts led to different outcomes, given the vital role the US, as the leading power of the post-World War II era, played in these two conflicts.

REFERENCES

Akkaya, S., & Uluçakar, M. (2023). The “Janus” of the new world order: US foreign policy toward violent non-state actors: Hamas and GAM examples (Part 1: Method and theory, pp. 15-27). Nobel Publishing.