The Threat of Neo JMB in Bangladesh Since the 2016 Holey Artisan Attack

Attacks spread panic and chaos among civilians and law enforcement agencies. Following the 2016 attack at the Holey Artisan Café, security forces in Bangladesh established various counterterrorism and peacekeeping measures. Although there was a decline in terrorist attacks, the current trends and analysis of interactions with ISIL indicate that the Neo Jama’ Atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (Neo JMB) can launch an unprecedented terrorist attack.

Terrorist groups such as Neo JMB are leveraging social media platforms including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to spread misinformation and recruit members through radicalization and spreading fear. JMB seeks to replace Bangladesh’s system of governance with Sharia law and the Islamic model. There is a significant increase in domestic extremism and radicalization in Bangladesh through modern advanced technologies and social networks that could result in attacks in the future.

Funding and support from various individuals and organizations have ensured that terrorist organizations thrive despite efforts to eradicate the groups. Terror attacks negatively impact the lives of civilians and peacekeepers in the country. This analysis focuses on terrorism, extremism, and counterterrorism measures. In addition, it focuses on bringing peace among different groups of people with respect to gender, race, and religion.

Threat Analysis on Bangladesh

The Neo JMB claimed responsibility for the Holey Artisan Café terrorist attack in July 2016 in Dhaka. In addition, the group has natured a network of female jihadists. Several members of the military wing of the Neo JMB group were arrested in 2021 by various anti-terror organizations in Bangladesh. Following the attack in 2016, Security Forces (SF) have combated over 47 terrorists, including prominent group leaders.

Many youths in Bangladesh continue to resonate with the Islamist ideologies that claim to continue the fight to establish Caliphate. Videos released by ISIL in August 2019 urged support from Bangladesh to carry on the war by targeting the enemies around them, including political leaders, non-Muslim communities, and law enforcement agencies. Numerous arrests were made in Dhaka for Neo JMB members who had explosive devices and other weapons for conducting terrorism.

Following the recapture of Afghanistan by the Taliban may encourage Neo JMB in Bangladesh, resulting in a surge of militancy attacks on civilians and peacekeeping forces. The return of Jihadists from Afghan and Syria is equally a critical challenge to the authorities. In addition, the radicalization of youths in Bangladesh could result in unprecedented extremism and a resurgence of violence.

During crackdown and operations in 2021, Bangladesh security forces were experiencing heavy exchanges and discovering advanced ammunitions in possession of members of the Neo JMB group. They have arrested some members of the terror group who are experts in bomb manufacturing and possess explosive materials, remote controls, and manuals to produce weapons that could be used for mass destruction. Therefore, there is a high possibility that the group could be preparing to launch an attack in the future.

Despite ongoing joint counterterrorism efforts, the residue members of the terrorist organizations and continued radicalization cannot be ignored. According to intelligence sources, the parent JMB group was founded in 1998 and conducted synchronized blasts in August 2005, which injured over 100 people and claimed the lives of three. Although the organization went quiet later, the members of the initial organization are now operatives and a crucial part of military planning and radicalization for Neo JMB. For instance, Mohamed Enayet, arrested in 2006 with explosives, spread radicalization inside the Kashimpur jail.

Although security forces are trying their best to break structures and terror organizations, the group is advancing its recruitment methodologies through radicalization and extremism, internal communications, and preparing for attacks. In addition, Neo JMB is recruiting highly trained youths who combine the knowledge from different educational disciplines with advanced technology to overwhelm security forces and evade counterterrorism measures.


Multiple factors result in the violent extremism and radicalization of Neo JMB recruits. These include economic, political, religious, and social reasonings. Bangladesh can employ several strategies to minimize violent extremism by incorporating economic development, tolerance, and peacebuilding strategies.

Effective economic development models can address challenges that youths face. There is a need to reduce economic issues, including corruption, unemployment, and poverty. Early intervention safeguards young people from recruitment into terrorist groups. Additionally, the government has a role in countering individuals and organizations that finance terrorist groups through the Financial Intelligence Unit.

Also, the government must provide equal rights to minimize conflicts among social and religious groups. The government should use an inclusive economic development model that promotes development, tolerance, and diversity. The Bangladesh government must focus on better methods for gathering intelligence and changes in criminal justice systems.

Crackdowns on group members can disrupt the recruitment process, the radicalization of youths, and attacks from the Neo JMB. The government must pass legislation that secures the borders of Bangladesh. It is significant to ensure that returning fighters from Afghanistan, Syria, and other nations affected by violent extremism do not become agents of terror groups by providing technical and strategical aid to other terrorist organizations.


Aru Rongchitim Tisso, Counter-Terrorism Research Fellow


Ukraine is Fearful of a Possible Attack: Emergency Call for Help

There is an urgent call for help in Ukraine as it has been under the constant threat of a possible attack.  Generally, too many unresolved issues have become highly complicated through the years. Currently, Russia is looming along the Ukrainian border, creating speculation of an imminent attack. Numerous terrorist threats have been made and, unfortunately, could not be dismantled or somehow settled. It appears terrorist threats are steadily increasing in Ukraine.

Ukraine’s Vulnerability Against Russia

Lately, Ukraine and its Western allies have watched Russia purposefully assemble forces in excess of 100,000 men on the border. In spite of the fact that he professes to have no expectation of attacking, President Vladimir Putin is tactically innovative.

Ultimately, President Putin is trying to prevent Ukraine from joining both NATO and the E.U. by displaying Russia’s power and strongarming the world to comply with his demands. One of President Putin’s strategies is to create tension between the U.S., its allies, and international organizations.  Also, Russia is attempting to undermine the U.S. and President Biden by highlighting the recent fallout of events in Afghanistan. Additionally, President Putin hopes to impress Chinese President Xi Jinping through his display of force.

Ultimately, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine did not begin overnight. Russia fears that Ukraine’s acceptance into NATO would undermine its political and cultural dominance in the region, and also belittle its power and authority in Ukraine.  Additionally, Russia fears that ethnic conflicts may arise once Ukraine joins NATO, resulting in harmful practices against the Russian-minority population in Ukraine.

The Upsurge of The Terrorist Excursion

Several attacks have aimed their sites on Ukrainian targets, resulting in the Ukrainian government’s recent announcement that it has impeded several premeditated assaults within its borders, such as a bombing in Kyiv. Currently, attacks have been focused against property, however, some fatalities have been reported.

While attacks have currently been aimed at Ukrainian targets, this could change in the future incidents focusing against differing targets.

In January, the Biden organization deduced that Russia was secretively planning assaults against its own rebel partners in eastern Ukraine. “The U.S. has information that indicates Russia prepositioned a group of operatives to conduct a false-flag operation in eastern Ukraine,” an authority told CNN. “The operatives are trained in urban warfare and in using explosives to carry out acts of sabotage against Russia’s own proxy forces,” an official told CNN.

Outcomes And Future Advice

In 2022, Russia has multiple types of attacks to choose from in which they have achieved success in the past.  One such tactic Russia could use is a raid, however this would require extensive manpower. Some experts predict that for Russia to conduct a successful raid, they would require at least 175,000 troops.

However, if Russia chooses to conduct a raid, they will need to consider the cost of other resources, besides just manpower. This attack style would require a significant number of guns, surface-to-surface missiles, and air strikes against both Ukrainian personnel and equipment, such as maritime vessels. For Ukraine to handle this mounting and tentative Russian threat, it is imperative they receive assistance from foreign allies to deter a potential ambush.

While Russia is well equipped for a physical confrontation with Ukraine, they may also be planning a cyberattack, similar to their attacks in 2014, possibly targeting Ukraine’s weapons, communications, and electric systems.

Ukraine is unquestionably the center of attention at the moment, as there is a strong possibility of an attack from Russia. There have been numerous terrorist threats and now more than ever lurks the danger for the entire country. The U.S. should be prepared to assist in the event that Russia does instigate an attack against Ukraine.


Katerina Rebecca Paraskeva, Counter-Terrorism Research Fellow


Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Persistent Challenges Facing Afghan Refugees

With the eyes of the world fixated on the crisis in Ukraine, the dire situation in Afghanistan and the plight of Afghan refugees grows ever more critical. An unstable Afghanistan has created one of the worst humanitarian disasters in the world today. Moreover, inaction on the part of policymakers contributes to this and the deterioration of regional instability. For the appropriate stakeholders to make informed policy on these issues, they must understand the present conditions befalling the Afghan people within their nation and abroad.

Searching for Solace

In the pursuit of safety for their families, a significant number of Afghans fleeing from the Taliban regime have made a perilous trek across Iran into Turkey. However, several geopolitical developments have weakened the human security of Afghan refugees escaping the turmoil of Afghanistan. A contributing factor is a tightening of border security within Turkey due to the strain migration has had on its resources.

Even with added security, the most perilous stage of their journey has been crossing from Iran into Turkey. This has been made evident with the discovery of migrants who froze along the Turkish-Iranian border.

Refugees who have made it inside of Turkey still face many considerable challenges toward the establishment of new lives. Many who fled to Turkey did so without documentation as they were in fear of a return to a Taliban-led Afghanistan. Due to this, many face deportation in Turkey as well as Iran.

The COVID-19 pandemic is also magnifying the problems of the refugees as they are having trouble receiving adequate access to vaccines which are desperately needed.

Afghans who have made it to safety in the U.S. are met with hindrances to their security. One such issue they face is finding a direct pathway to permanent legal residency within the country. This problem has worsened by the backlog of applications preventing them from doing so. Another such issue preventing the settlement of refugees has been the lack of affordable housing throughout the United States. They have also faced difficulty in receiving the critical health care needed while waiting for resettlement.

Winter is Coming

Many Afghans have escaped Taliban rule, and geopolitical developments in the region have magnified their plight. When the Taliban took control of Afghanistan in 2021, they were met with the freezing of their funds belonging to the previous Ghani administration. As of late, many of the financial resources of the Taliban regime remain frozen by the Biden administration.

With more countries in the region having their resources strained by the influx of migrants, they have made a conscious effort to send aid to keep Afghans there without trying to guarantee their rights. Such an environment has allowed the Taliban to target the LGBT community within the country, depriving them of their most basic human rights.

How Policymakers Can Respond

Given the severity of the Afghans’ situation, it has become clear that there needs to be an intervention by relevant stakeholders to ensure their safety and security. The opening of financial resources and legal aid from multilateral institutions would greatly reduce the burden placed upon refugees. Without such aid, many Afghans face deportation back to a state which will dramatically compromise their security.

Nations with the ability to do so must increase efforts to ensure the human rights of Afghan citizens. States trying to formalize ties to the new Taliban government have done so with caution, but there remains uncertainty due to their citizens’ treatment and ideological fervor. Such actions breed resentment against the Taliban and create the opportunity for the cycle of violence to begin anew.

Therefore, it is imperative for human rights to be preserved within Afghanistan to show the rest of the region that they may help rebuild the war-torn society.


Christopher Ynclan Jr., Counter-Terrorism Research Fellow



Insurgency within the United States: Absurd or Inevitable?

“No one wants to believe that their beloved democracy is in decline, or headed toward war,” says Barbara F. Walter, a professor of political science at the University of California. But “the United States, a democracy founded more than two centuries ago, has entered very dangerous territory.” Speculation of a second civil war within the United States was once an outlandish proposition, a fantasy confined to the eccentric fringes of political discourse. Today, the threat of an insurgency within the country has invaded mainstream culture and commentary.

“Headed for Civil War”

Since the start of 2022, headlines that were once unthinkable have been emblazoned across the pages of the U.S.’s most popular news publications. “Is a Civil War ahead?” enquires the New Yorker, “Are We Really Facing a Second Civil War?” reads a column in the New York Times, “Is America Headed to a New Civil War?” asks the Washington Post.

The publication of these stories follows the recent release of two books detailing the looming threat of widespread civil unrest and political violence breaking out within the United States. In “How Civil Wars Start: And How to Stop Them”, Barbara F. Walters describes how American democracy has already passed through phases of “pre-insurgency” and “incipient conflict,” and that the attack on the Capitol may signal its entry into “open conflict.” According to Walters, the U.S. is “closer to civil war than any of us would like to believe.”

Meanwhile, as described in his book “The Next Civil War: Dispatches From the American Future”, Stephen Marche writes “the United States today is, once again, headed for civil war, and, once again, it cannot bear to face it.”

Whilst nearly three-quarters of Americans think that ordinary people rejecting political hostility and divisiveness would be a good thing for their country, less than one in ten believe this will happen. Indeed, with 42% believing it will increase, it is little surprise that polling following the Capitol Hill riot found that 51% of Americans foresaw political violence increasing in the coming years.

Further, a 2021 national survey by pollster John Zogby concluded that 46% believe a civil war is likely, and a new report by NPR/Ipsos published early this year has revealed that 70% of Americans agree “America is in crisis and at risk of failing.”

Discussion of a violent insurrection within the United States has been dismissed as absurd, sensationalist, alarmist, and even irresponsible by some commentators. But, as the immense pressures of collapsing institutional trust, obscene economic inequality, intensifying racial tensions, climate-related crises, and technological disruption push American society to breaking point, ordinary citizens are increasingly vulnerable to radicalization, captured by the allure of extremist narratives that celebrate political violence.

As crisis and strife shake the country and as citizens come to see violence as their only means of political expression, the question must be asked: could an armed insurgency really emerge within the United States?

Democracy in Decline

“Civil wars ignite and escalate in ways that are predictable; they follow a script,” writes Walters, a member of the Political Instability Task Force (P.I.T.F), a C.I.A. advisory panel that predicts outbreaks of civil war.

By law, the task force cannot apply its evaluative models to the United States, but in her new book Walters applies the same predictive criteria used to assess the emergence of political conflict within countries such as Ukraine, Northern Ireland, or Rwanda to the United States. “I’ve seen how civil wars start, and I know the signs that people miss. And I can see those signs emerging here at a surprisingly fast rate” Walter says. She concludes that the U.S. is on the threshold of “open insurgency,” an outbreak of sustained political violence involving terrorism and guerrilla warfare.

In her book, Walters outlines the strongest predictors of civil conflict. The first is whether a country is moving toward or away from democracy. When a country becomes an “anocracy”–that is, a country that is not a full democracy or autocracy–its likelihood of descending into civil violence significantly increases.

Despite the powerful mythologies surrounding American democracy, a majority of its citizens express skepticism. According to a 2018 report by the Pew Research Center, 63% believe the U.S. government does not reflect the views of most Americans, 69% do not believe the government is open or transparent, and 72% believe that campaign contributions lead to greater political influence.

These views are supported by extensive research. In December 2021, a report by the Stockholm-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance designated the United States a “backsliding democracy.” Further, a widely reported 2014 study from two prominent U.S. political scientists, drawing data from over 1,700 policy initiatives across a two-decade period, concluded that “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interests have little or no independent influence.” According to the authors, the U.S. can now be described as a “civil oligarchy.”

Indeed, according to analyses cited by Walters from the Center for Systemic Peace’s “polity score” index, which rates countries on a scale from +10 (fully democratic) to -10 (fully authoritarian), the U.S.’ score of +10 in 1974 has steadily declined, reaching +5 in 2020. Any country between -5 and +5 on the polity scale can be considered an anocracy, says Walters. Here, countries are three times more likely to experience civil war than full democracies. According to Walters, “a country standing on this threshold–as America is now, at +5–can easily be pushed toward conflict.”

Ethnic Factionalism

The second major risk factor for civil conflict is what the P.I.T.F. calls “factionalism,” a specific form of political polarization wherein identity becomes the dominant feature of party affiliation. According to Walters, “countries that factionalize have political parties based on ethnic, religious, or racial identity rather than ideology, and these parties then seek to rule at the exclusion and expense of others.”

According to Walters, the United States is currently undergoing a process of ethnic factionalization. “As late as 2008, white Americans were equally likely to vote for Democrats as they were to vote for Republicans”, Walters says. “That changed when Obama was elected and the white working class began to gravitate towards the Republican party.”

“Today, the Republican party is 90% white”, says Walters. “That is, by the task force definition, a country with an ethnic faction.” These factions become particularly dangerous during a phenomenon known as “downgrading” wherein a dominant group loses social status and political influence. According to Walters, “the groups that tend to start civil wars are the groups that were once dominant politically but are in decline. They’ve either lost political power or they’re losing political power.”

Walters points to the downgrading status of white Americans as a powerful risk factor for civil conflict. For many, the election of President Obama represented the emergence of a multiracial democracy that threatened the long-standing political hegemony of white America. Indeed, based on their demographic trajectory, white Americans are destined to become a minority within the United States over the next 20 to 30 years.

“We know historically that these types of groups tend not to go down without a fight,” says Walters. Given her analysis, it is little surprise that the number of armed militia groups within the United States surged from just 42 prior to Obama’s election, to over 300 within his first two years in office.

“A Party That Doesn’t Benefit from Democracy”

As the social and political status of white America continues to downgrade, with the country on course to becoming majority non-white within the coming decades, the ethnic factionalization of the Republic party could represent a serious threat to American democracy.

“It’s going to get harder for [the Republicans] to win elections as long as they embrace only this one subset of the population,” says Walters. “Suddenly we have a party that doesn’t benefit from democracy anymore, that doesn’t want democracy, that’s doing everything they can to cement in advantages that will lead to minority rule.”

These efforts to retain political influence in spite of the huge demographic shifts reshaping the United States have led Republicans to embrace various policies that have been criticised as anti-majoritarian, and even anti-democratic, by some commentators, such as electoral reforms that disadvantage non-white citizens, the redrawing of voting districts, and the packing of federal courts.

However, perhaps most concerning is the Republican party’s growing distrust in the electoral system itself. Nearly three-quarters of Republicans doubt the legitimacy of President Biden’s election victory, with 57% saying they will not vote for any future candidate who even recognises his victory. Further, whilst 90% of Democrats say they have trust in the 2024 election, this is true for just one in three Republicans.

Claims of election fraud have become a feature of mainstream Republican rhetoric. Regarding election integrity, Republican Rep. Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina has said, “if our election systems continue to be rigged, then it’s going to lead to one place and that’s bloodshed.” Whilst other Republican lawmakers, such as Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, has called for a “national divorce” between Republican and Democratic states, providing an outline for a breakup of the United States.

With faith in American democracy in freefall amongst Republicans, political violence is becoming increasingly normalized. In describing the actions of the Capitol Hill rioters, 56% of Republicans said they were “defending freedom,” 46% said it was “patriotism,” over a quarter expressed direct approval. Indeed, Republicans (30%) are almost three times as likely as Democrats (11%) to agree that “true American patriots might have to resort to violence in order to save our country.”

“It’s Really Unlikely to Happen”

However, there are strong reasons to think that the U.S. may not be headed for widespread civil conflict. “One important thing to know about civil war is that it’s very rare,” says Jay Ulfelder, a former P.I.T.F. research director and a fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard Kennedy School.

“Onsets of new civil wars are quite rare, especially in the last several decades. We’re usually talking not more than a few around the world in any given year. And, very importantly, almost never in very wealthy countries, and certainly not in very wealthy democracies — that almost never happens. One of the rare exceptions is the conflict in Northern Ireland. But that kind of thing is virtually unheard of in wealthy, ostensible democracies in the last half-century. My knee-jerk reaction is that it’s really unlikely to happen [in the United States].”

Even if there were to be an outbreak of civil conflict within the U.S., it would bear little to no resemblance to the symmetrical, state-backed conflict of the 1860s. “One of the reasons most Americans can’t even conceive of a second civil war here is because they’re thinking of the first one,” says Walters. “They’re thinking about two large armies meeting each other on a giant battlefield, men in uniforms dragging cannons.”

According to Walters, “twenty-first century civil wars tend to be more like insurgencies, they tend to be decentralized, fought by lots of small groups, militias, paramilitary groups. Sometimes [they’re] working together, sometimes not, and they’re using unconventional tactics.” Indeed, a Northern Ireland-type insurgency appears the most plausible model for civil conflict within the United States.

These types of insurgencies are almost unseen in wealthy democracies. Indeed, whilst countries that fall into the anocracy zone are at heightened risk of civil conflict, Walter’s list of contemporary anocracies that have collapsed into full-scale civil war consists exclusively of countries shifting from authoritarianism to democracy. “It’s not clear, however, that the move from democracy toward authoritarianism would be destabilizing in the same way”, writes New York Times columnist, Michelle Goldberg. Indeed, as Walter concedes, “the decline of liberal democracies is a new phenomenon, and none have fallen into all-out civil war–yet.”

E Pluribus Unum

In sum, whilst there is reason to be concerned about civil conflict breaking out within the United States, commentators must remain measured and balanced. Inflammatory and hyperbolic language surrounding a potential insurgency can be dangerous.

“The belief that there was going to be a civil war in Ireland made everything worse. Once that idea takes hold, it has a force of its own,” writes Fintan O’Toole, drawing on his childhood experience of the Northern Ireland conflict. “The logic of the preemptive strike sets in: Do it to them before they do it to you…Premonitions of civil war served not as portents to be heeded, but as a warrant for carnage.”

However, whilst commentators must remain cognizant of their role in shaping public discourse, they should not ignore the risk of increasing political violence. The United States meets the two key predictive criteria for civil conflict, and as democracy backslides and racial polarization increases, the threat of insurgency only looms larger.

According to Walters, the multivariate modelling of the P.I.T.F. predicts that any country that meets these criteria is at around a 3.4% annual risk of civil war. Whilst this may seem small, this risk compounds over time; should a country consistently meet these criteria over a 20-to-30-year period, the threat of civil violence is enormous.

Fortunately, these trends can be reversed. The United States must work to protect its democracy, and to restore faith in elections. Further, efforts must be undertaken to prevent the ethnic factionalization of the political landscape. Government, the private sector, and civil society organizations all have an important part to play in this comprehensive effort at restoring trust in American democracy and rebuilding a sense of civic unity. The United States must remember that the reconciling of difference is at the core of its national ethos. Whether those differences be in ideology or identity, there is one truth that this country should never forget: e pluribus unum – out of many, one.


Oliver Alexander Crisp, Counter-Terrorism Research Fellow


Violence Overflows in Zacatecas: The War Between the CJNG and the Sinaloa Cartel

The Mexican state of Zacatecas is the battlefield between two criminal organizations and narco-terrorists. The Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) and the Sinaloa Cartel face a bloody war that has already left many dead in the region.

The security situation in Zacatecas presents an enormous challenge for local and national authorities. Furthermore, the clashes are likely to continue in the coming weeks.

The Actors: The CJNG and the Sinaloa Cartel

The CJNG and the Sinaloa Cartel are two of the most important and powerful criminal organizations in Mexico and worldwide. However, their stories and dynamics are distinct.

The CJNG emerged after the dispute between two factions of the Milenio Cartel: La Resistencia and Los Torcidos. Los Torcidos won the dispute, and its members founded The Jalisco New Generation Cartel. Specifically, Nemesio Oseguera Ramos, alias “El Mencho,” is considered the leader and founder of the CJNG.

The Jalisco New Generation Cartel is characterized by being an extremely violent organization. In states such as Jalisco, the homicide rate forced disappearances and the discovery of clandestine graves has significantly increased. Some of their criminal activities include the murder of police officers in Mexican municipalities, an attack in which Omar García Harfuch, Secretary of Security of Mexico City, was injured, massacres, beheadings, and they have also hanged corpses on bridges in various States.

Additionally, the CJNG has uploaded videos on the internet of its military capabilities, including armored vehicles, large caliber weapons, and military uniforms.

Furthermore, members of the CJNG bring food, toys, and clothing to vulnerable communities in Mexico to create propaganda videos and gain support from the local population. This is concerning for the Mexican government since the CJNG seeks to act as the State in these communities.

On the other hand, the Sinaloa Cartel emerged after the dissolution of the Guadalajara Cartel. The factions that made up the Guadalajara Cartel moved to areas such as Tijuana, Juárez, and Sinaloa and fought each other to establish geographical dominance.

After several years and confrontations, the Sinaloa Cartel, under the leadership of “El Chapo” Guzman and other drug traffickers, grew and became one of the largest criminal organizations in Mexico and globally. Eventually, after the breakdown of the Beltrán Leyva Organization (OBL) in 2008, “El Chapo” became the most visible leader of the organization; although, he was later joined by Ismael Zambada García, alias “El Mayo,” and Juan José Esparragoza Moreno, alias “El Azul.”

However, after the arrest of “El Chapo,” “El Mayo,” and El Chapo’s sons, Joaquín Guzmán López, Ovidio Guzmán López, Iván Archivaldo, and Jesús Alfredo, also known collectively as “Los Chapitos,” continued to run the Cartel’s operations.

In fact, without “El Chapo,” the Sinaloa Cartel remains one of Mexico’s leading criminal groups. El Chapo’s absence has hardly affected the Sinaloa Cartel, even though some of the group’s main leaders and other important members have been arrested. The Cartel continues to expand throughout Mexico and the world, making alliances with mafia groups such as the former FARC guerrillas.

The War in Zacatecas

Zacatecas is one of the 31 states of Mexico and is located in north-central Mexico. Zacatecas is the primary location where the two cartels have confronted one another.

The war zone developed in Zacatecas because its location is in the middle of the trafficking routes. However, Zacatecas is also the closest place to the Golden Triangle of drug trafficking, where the Durango mountains, Sinaloa, and Chihuahua converge. The Sinaloa Cartel has dominated this area for the past three decades. In other words, Zacatecas is an important center point and geographically favors the illicit activities of cartels.

Due to the wave of violence, the Mexican government sent 4,778 military and National Guard troops to priority municipalities such as Fresnillo, Lazaro Cardenas, Zacatecas, Calera, Guadalupe, Ojo Caliente, and Valparaiso.

In June 2021, a confrontation between the two organizations took place in Zacatecas, leaving 18 dead. Likewise, criminal cells associated with the Sinaloa Cartel have clashed with the CJNG in Zacatecas. Such as the case with Flechas MZ, an associated organization that has the strength, power, money, and firepower to defeat the CJNG in the region.  Flechas MZ has been active since late 2020, threatening CJNG leader Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, alias “El Mencho,” and warning him that his regions will be in direct dispute with Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada Garcia.

Also, in 2021, shootings were recorded with a large number of victims.  Sinaloa Cartel gunmen ambushed members of the CJNG in a scuffle that left 40 dead. In addition, since November 2021, numerous people have been murdered every week, many of them hanging from bridges throughout the state.

The horror continues in Zacatecas at the beginning of 2022.  On January 22, 2022, authorities in Zacatecas located a man hanging from a tree in Monte Escobedo, shot to death, and near his body was a poster with a “narco message.”

On January 6, 2022, a car with ten tortured bodies was abandoned in front of Zacatecas’ state governor’s office. Also, more raids were registered in Valparaiso, Loreto, Pinos, Calera and Guadalupe. Additionally, three police officers were murdered in Sombrerete, Zacatecas, in northern Mexico.

A few days later, three human heads, dismembered bodies in black bags, and a narco-message were abandoned by the CJNG near the municipal capital of Jerez, Zacatecas. Photographs circulated revealing the content of narco messages signed by the criminal organization commanded by Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, “El Mencho,” which warned of a “cleansing” in the municipality.

The situation of violence and horror has led national and state security reports to describe Zacatecas as a narco-state.

The Need for a Response

The wave of murders, torture, dismemberments, and shootings in Zacatecas reveal an insufficient response of the federal and state governments. The war between the two cartels will likely continue in the coming weeks, and homicide rates will increase.

Thus, Mexican authorities need to evaluate better security policies to confront the two cartels and reduce the rates of violence in the region. However, in addition to a military response against the narco-terrorist organizations, it is also necessary to examine the structural causes that lead to the unending phenomenon of drug trafficking. The civilian population of Zacatecas deserves an effective and swift government response to put an end to the horrors in the Zacatecas.


Daniel Felipe Ruiz Rozo, Counter-Terrorism Research Fellow


The Effects of Oil Production on the Niger Delta

Peaceful, full of life, resource-rich, and green are all features that were once attributes of the Niger Delta. The region, located in Nigeria, comprises a few states in its southern area. The region’s economic buoyance dates back to its pre-colonial days when it boasted of trade explorations extending beyond its borders. With such magnificent antecedents, expecting the Delta to attain far-reaching heights in infrastructural development at the least is not exactly out of place. Unfortunately, the rightful expectation is far from reality. Regardless of its several positive attributes and resources such as oil, the region remains underdeveloped; and continues to fall victim to challenges which worsen its state.

Why is the Region Important?

After almost half a century of exploration, the year was 1956, and oil was discovered in Oloibiri, Niger Delta. The discovery led Nigeria to join the ranks of oil-producing countries in 1958, with a production output of 5,100 barrels per day. Over the years, Nigeria continued to reach a significant record in its production output, recording up to 2.5 million barrels per day in 2004. With the discovery of oil in 1956, Nigeria, which had a vibrant agricultural sector, slowly began to overly focus on oil and gas at the cost of developing other potential industries.

According to the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, the body charged with covering the spectrum of all petroleum industry operations, the petroleum and gas industry accounts for about 90% of Nigeria’s gross earnings, though this figure has significantly reduced. Simply put, the oil industry is a significant player in Nigeria’s economy, and the Delta is home to this crucial resource.

Twenty-Six Years Ago

On November 10, 1995, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Saturday Dobee, Nordu Eawo, Daniel Gbooko, Paul Levera, Felix Nuate, Baribor Bera, Barinem Kiobel, and John Kpuine, commonly referred to as the Ogoni Nine, were hanged at a prison in Port-Harcourt under the military rule of Sani Abacha. These men were leaders of the Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People (MOSOP). The crimes of these men were that they demanded better environmental practices and oil revenue sharing for the region. The response was imprisonment and eventual execution.

The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta

In 2006, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) claimed responsibility for kidnapping four foreign workers in the region. MEND’s demands are very similar to those made by the Ogoni Nine, howbeit through a different means. The group expressed concern for environmental pollution, underdevelopment, and perceived unfair revenue sharing that belittles the oil-producing communities. The group’s continued attacks on oil facilities and oil workers impacted Nigeria’s economy significantly, reducing its oil outputs by one-third.

Overall, MEND has become a prominent militant organization posing significant challenges to oil production through its relentless efforts to undermine the oil industry in the Delta.

Truth or Imaginations

The continuing long-term struggle that has dominated the region for decades in various forms is not misplaced. Even though oil accounts for most of Nigeria’s earnings, making it the largest oil producer in Africa, the region bears significant environmental pollution.

In the last six years, the Nigerian Ministry of Environment has recorded an alarming 5,000 cases of oil spillages, with a record event occurring a few months ago. In November of last year, members of a community in the region where the devastating effect of a leaking wellhead had become unbearable held a protest. The leak, which began about a month before the demonstration, had continued to spread into nearby communities and extended into neighbouring states. Unfortunately, such cases are not uncommon and have left a lasting impact on the environment.

The environmental impact is multi-layered affecting lands, rivers, air quality, and income sources for residents. So devastating are these effects that accessing clean and safe water is nearly impossible. Unsurprisingly, the overall consequence is unequivocally visible in the significant difference in the life expectancy rate in the region, which is ten years lower in the Delta region in comparison to other parts of Nigeria.

Beyond the Obvious

Jonah Gembre, an activist from Iwhrekan, stated, “we were thinking the oil companies were coming to elevate us from poverty, but they only give us poverty, and the economy is dying.”

The statement above reveals the expectation of many others living in the region. Sadly, the reality is farther away from the desires of the Delta people. Another overwhelming disappointment that further makes their desires for change seem unrealistic is the rise and fall of emancipators, whose sole goal, it would seem, is self-enrichment. 

A Blink of Hope

In January 2021, a Dutch court indicted a famous oil giant for spills in the region, ordering it to pay $111 million to affected communities. With the long history of exhaustion, frustration, and exploitation of the advocacy journey, January 2021 remains noteworthy to the people of the Niger Delta. Perhaps, there may be left, a remnant of truly devoted patrons that would bring to an end the critical dilemma of the region.


Joan McDappa, Counter-Terrorism Research Fellow


The Use of Cryptocurrencies to Finance Terrorism in Latin America

In recent years, cryptocurrencies have become increasingly relevant in world financial markets. This digital means of exchange is a revolution in the economy, and it will likely continue to consolidate in the future.

However, cryptocurrencies have also been used for illegal purposes. Terrorist groups and drug traffickers are increasingly using them, especially to launder money. This represents an enormous challenge in the fight against the financing of terrorism and organized crime.

What are Cryptocurrencies and How Do They Work?

The European Central Bank defines cryptocurrencies as a digital representation of value, not issued by any central authority, credit institution, or recognized electronic money issuer that, on certain occasions, can be used as an alternative means of payment to money. Likewise, cryptocurrencies are issued outside of governments and central banks, and this function is transferred to anyone who wants to participate. The currency is generated through a “mining” process and the security of transactions is achieved through blockchain technology.

The use of cryptocurrencies is increasing worldwide, and this is due largely to the benefits of using them. Some analysts point out that some of the advantages of using cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin, are reducing costs in international transfers, as in the case of remittances, and it favors financial inclusion. Additionally, some of their attributes are more portable, divisible, imperishable, unfalsifiable, and have lower transaction costs.

However, other economists remain skeptical about the use of cryptocurrencies because of the numerous disadvantages. Crypto assets have limitations as means of payment, due to their high volatility of price, the risks associated with their possession and custody against cybercrime and financial fraud, the opacity of their issuance and verification protocols, the transactional costs in exchange for other assets, and the lack of a person in charge who accounts for any failure or fraud in these schemes. For this reason, the degree of acceptance and use of cryptocurrencies is still very low compared to the payment systems of legal tender currencies.

In Latin America, the disadvantages of the use of cryptocurrencies translate into facilities for terrorist groups and drug traffickers to operate. This represents an enormous challenge for financial and security authorities, given that criminal groups quickly adapt to changes in today’s world.

How Terrorist and Drug Trafficking Groups Use Cryptocurrencies

The nature of cryptocurrencies like bitcoin allows them to be used by illegal groups to finance their activities. Various investigations in recent years have shown that drug trafficking, fraud, ransomware, extortion, and the purchase of illicit goods and services on the dark web routinely use virtual currencies as a payment method.

Furthermore, extremist and terrorist groups use cryptocurrencies as a financial tool because it is anonymous and easily transferable from one country to another. There are groups that have campaigned offering cryptocurrency wallets for their followers to transfer virtual currencies to finance terrorist movements and activities.

As for drug traffickers, cryptocurrencies favor them to transfer money between continents. Since cash is converted into cryptocurrencies, it is easier to transfer it and the virtual currency, which becomes impossible to trace, greatly facilitates money laundering.

In Latin America, the use of cryptocurrencies by illegal groups is worrisome. According to authorities in the United States and Mexico, the use of cryptocurrencies to launder money is on the rise among drug gangs in Latin America. An investigation by Reuters reveals that the use of bitcoin to launder money is booming with cartels such as Jalisco Nueva Generación and Sinaloa, of the captured capo Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán.

Authorities have also found that drug traffickers and terrorists use bank accounts to buy small amounts of cryptocurrencies such as bitcoins online, obscuring the origin of the money and allowing them to pay collaborators in other parts of the world. This is because it is a system where the users are practically anonymous. As for money laundering figures, it has been estimated that 25 billion dollars a year is laundered in Mexico alone.

However, some arrests against criminals using cryptocurrencies have already been made. In April 2019, Ignacio Santoyo, alias “El Sony,” was captured for the crime of human trafficking. Santoyo intended to launder thousands of dollars in illicit profits through the use of bitcoin. In 2018, Santoyo and his sister, Ivy, acquired at least 440,800 pesos (about $22,260 USD) in bitcoin through Bitso, a platform for buying and selling cryptocurrencies with operations in Mexico and Argentina.

Other notable captures include Héctor Ortiz, who acquired bitcoins to launder thousands of dollars in illicit profits, 29 people in 2019 were accused of laundering and transferring profits to cartels in Mexico, and 23 people in 2018 in Colombia and Spain.

Agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) have declared that the situation in countries such as Mexico and Colombia is critical. In fact, Colombia is one of the countries where cryptocurrency transactions have increased significantly. According to LocalBitcoins, the trade between bitcoins and Colombian pesos grew by 45% in the last year, reaching 3.8 million dollars in the first week of November 2020. Trends indicate that virtual currencies, such as Bitcoin will increase in popularity, so its use by criminal organizations is likely to increase.

In addition, in 2021, drug traffickers who operated with bitcoin in Peru, Colombia and Bolivia were sentenced. They were accused of earning approximately 5 million dollars in bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Authorities said the men were selling Class A drugs that they bought in South America.

A Big Challenge

Without a doubt, the use of cryptocurrencies by criminal groups is one of the great challenges for Latin American authorities in the near future.

The difficulty in tracking the use of these cryptocurrencies influences the financing of terrorism and money laundering in the region. Thus, it is recommended that the state financial and security authorities implement regulations and technological innovations to reduce the negative impact of crypto assets. However, it is a difficult task, which costs a lot to carry out.


Daniel Felipe Ruiz Rozo, Counter-Terrorism Research Fellow

Rise to Peace