fbpx
https://www.wired.com/story/terror-industrial-complex-isis-munitions-supply-chain/

Weapons for Sale: How the U.S. Indirectly Supplies Terrorists and Organized Crime

While people many are aware that the United States supports partner forces across the Middle East, fewer realize the U.S. sells such partners billions of dollars in weapons. 

Tracing such support is a challenge. For instance, old, Soviet-style weapons are supplied through Eastern Europe intermediaries. So despite what might be good intentions, the organization Conflict Armament Research suggests as much as 90% of ISIL’s weapons are traceable to US sources. How and why this occurs is the focus of a probe on American gun supply. 

2018 09 08 Kristine Pic 300x197 - Weapons for Sale: How the U.S. Indirectly Supplies Terrorists and Organized Crime

At Iraqi military intelligence headquarters in Baghdad, weapons inspector Damien Spleeters (left) and his coworker, Haider al-Hakim, look through crates of ISIS ammunition. ANDREA DICENZO

It is not just the U.S. but also Russia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia who employ such tactics.  

Soviet-style weapons are easy to obtain and are familiar to, and highly sought-after by, Syrian fighters. Such weapons are not easily traceable, providing a separation between the U.S. and eventual recipients. One would that the government tightly regulates such arms sales. In fact, supply chains are complex, and procurement is complicated.

In the end, dealers move such weapons with insufficient oversight. Corruption and the use of private contractors further dilute regulatory stringency. And it is not just the U.S. Russia, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia employ such tactics. With dealings of this kind, it is inevitable that at least some weapons end up in hands other than those intended by the seller.

Nowhere has this been clearer than in Syria. There, as well as in spillover affecting its neighbors, the death toll continues to rise. Governments, private contractors, and INGOs must cooperate to ensure the legitimate and accurate movement of arms.

Shady deals and ever-shifting alliances must move the U.S. to reconsider its weapons export policies.

There is mounting evidence that the United States has even indirectly supplied weapons to groups like ISIL. Indirectly, the U.S. is enlarging the very conflicts it seeks to diminish. The U.S. was even recently cited as having supplied weapons used by gangs in Venezuela. Such evidence continues to mount. Yet, there has been little movement by the U.S. to increase the integrity and oversight of its arms sales.

Shady deals and ever-shifting alliances must move the U.S. to reconsider its arms export policies. If the U.S. wants to bring peace to this, or any region, it must improve arms sale transparency and oversight. Otherwise, guns will continue to end up in the hands of organized criminals, drug cartels, and terrorists.

Latin America: How Safe From Terror?

2018 Roberto Pic 300x187 - Latin America: How Safe From Terror?

Hall de Las Americas

Latin America has avoided the terrorist wave that has brutalized other parts of the world. That’s not to say that 7.5 million square mile swath of territories stretching from the northern border of Mexico to the southern tip of South America, including the Caribbean is immune to violence or that life there is a utopian paradise.

The region is rife with gun violence, murders, gang fights, drug traffickers, and civil wars. But, it has mostly avoided terror attacks and their brutal consequences.

This region has marginalized populations. It has poverty, and there are few opportunities to escape inequalities common in other regions such as the Middle East. But no corollary incidence of terror. The aforementioned characteristics – violence, marginalized populations, poverty, and injustice are the principal criteria that drive recruits to terror organizations.  However, the datasets diverge when you consider what the hostiles are fighting for. Usually, they are fighting what they perceive as the oppression of a foreign group invading their lands.

In the last century, terror groups have executed attacks against oppressive powers the world over. The Black Hand, which assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, initiating World War I, intended theirs to be a blow against the oppressive Austro-Hungarian Empire, and an advancement in the cause of a free Serbia.

Several Middle East groups arose from French and English occupation following the Treaty of Versailles. Across the Mediterranean, nationalist groups such as IRA and ETA were formed with the intent to gain statehood for their people, the Irish and Basques. Famously, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s saw terror groups spring up – in the context of the Cold War – sometimes with military support from a superpower like the United States. With the US invasion two decades later, this infrastructure was turned against what in some cases were those very groups.

Latin America has not gone through similar processes. Since its colonization in the 16th and 17th centuries, there have not been similar invasions or occupations. There was the Falklands War in 1982, but the island considered itself British and not Latin American. Most of the wars since have been between their European colonizers or didn’t lead to comparable military occupations. 

Latin America is more ethnically homogenous than the Middle East, or even the U.K., Spain, and the Balkans. This too keeps it away from the sectarian nature of terrorism. Foreign influence is indirect, unintrusive, it focuses on politicians. Civil wars in this region were contained to settling internal politics. Notable exceptions such as the FARC shifting from revolutionaries to narco-terrorists, and 1994’s AMIA bombing in Argentina, notwithstanding.

On the flip side, there are vulnerabilities that come from Latin America’s relative freedom from terror: it is in no way prepared to deal with an attack should one happen. The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean calls attention to how such extreme events are incredibly expensive, citing 9/11 as a case in point. More than $50 billion in damages occurred, necessitating, “…some degree of state intervention to secure the solvency of insurance market institutions in the wake of large contingencies.”

The countries comprising Latin America, coupled with the Organization of American States (OEA) must take steps to vouchsafe markets and continuity of day-to-day life should an attack occur on Latin American soil. Hezbollah has unmistakably established a foothold in the border region between Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay.

Besides, with globalization, terrorist organizations can plan attacks in one region while executing it in another. Latin America may be more exposed to harm than it realizes. If it doesn’t take steps to protect itself the consequences could be devastating.

Brexit and Northern Ireland, Troubles Afoot?

As the United Kingdom prepares to leave the European Union in March 2019 there remain many who are concerned about what this will mean for the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Twenty years after the end of the ethno-national Protestant and Catholic paramilitary conflict known as The Troubles, the British Isles once more fear the start of the terrorist violence. In 2016, when the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, one of the most pressing questions regarded what to do with Ireland and Northern Ireland border – and how to keep violence from reemerging there.

The Troubles were a 30 year (1968 – 1998) ethno-conflict over the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. The two sides to this territorial conflict had distinct visions for Northern Ireland: the majority Unionist Protestants fought to keep Northern Ireland a part of the United Kingdom.

While the minority Catholic Unionists fought to unite Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. 3,600 people were killed, thousands more were injured, and an intolerable unease lingered for three decades. 

Fears of Troubles-era violence and the paramilitary groups’ reemergence grow daily as Brexit negotiations continue. According to the United Kingdom’s domestic counterintelligence and security agency, MI5, Northern Ireland violence is now classified as severe, indicating the belief that chances of attacks in the region are high. In Britain the threat level is moderate.

Violence in Northern Ireland never ended completely. Despite the Good Friday Agreement, radical Protestants and IRA splinter groups (such as New IRA, formerly known as Real IRA) consistently, violently attack one other.

Examples of such attacks include early July attacks in Derry wherein a group of boys, some as young as eight, fired AK-47 rifles and threw IEDs at police officers. The attacks were claimed by New IRA. On the other side, an office at the Irish Republican party Sinn Fein was targeted in an arson attack. No one was harmed, and no one claimed the attack, but the party publicly stated that the attack was anti-democratic.

There is legitimate concern that Brexit negotiation tensions will exacerbate this unending Troubles Epilogue, provoking broader terror operations and ubiquitous violence. But what is it about these negotiations that they can re-ignite great contention in Ireland? 

The reintroduction of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, a border where citizens from both countries would have to go through customs to enter the other side. Among other things, The Good Friday Agreement stipulated that the Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland border remain open to the point of figurative invisibility. No stopping travelers and traders, in other words, at Customs to awkwardly hand-over paperwork.

Brexit negotiators have borne this in mind, but lately, news outlets, political analysts, and political leaders alike opine that there is a growing possibility of a “No Deal Brexit.” Such a thing would mean the UK and EU agreed to shrug off the unresolved nature of the border problem and proceed regardless, triggering the installation of a hard border – imagine what this will do to trade alone.

According to recently released technical papers, the British government’s publicly stated opinion on trade and travel hardships caused by a prospective hard border boils down to, “…ask Dublin.” The rhetoric exasperates leaders on both sides unsettled by a lack of deference for the seminal Good Friday Agreement.

The looming threat of a No Deal Brexit is not the only cause for concern. A bill passing through Parliament allows for stops and searches within a mile of the Irish border in Northern Ireland for purposes of combating terror. Unsurprisingly, there has been backlash over this bill in Northern Ireland and Ireland.

Fears are based on the growing perception that the British government isn’t even interested in putting a good face on violating the Good Friday Agreement’s spirit which seeks to defuse tension rather than fuel it with hard borders. London must redouble its investment in resolving the border question lest it reignites an old fire. With tensions on the rise and violence already occurring in the area, the scars of the past are opening. A No Deal Brexit could be a straight shot to terrorism’s reappearance on the British Isles.

2018 09 01 Keelin Pic 300x190 - Brexit and Northern Ireland, Troubles Afoot?

Picture by Margaret McLaughlin

 

Analyzing Election Violence in South Asia

nepallocalpolls759 - Analyzing Election Violence in South Asia

In this May 11, 2017 photo, supporters of Nepali Congress party march during an election campaign event in Bhaktapur, Nepal. (AP Photo/Niranjan Shrestha)

 

Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Nepal all held national elections between late 2017 and mid-2018. All three experience significant election security concerns due to political violence that targets campaign events, infrastructure, and political leaders themselves. While this violence focused on election disruption, the scope, targets, and attack methods varied from country to country.

Leading up to the election, the three regions were targeted differently. In Pakistan, terroristic violence targeted campaign events and candidates. These politically influenced attacks included a suicide bombing on July 13th in Mastung resulting in 149 people dead including Balochistan Awami Party leader and political candidate Siraj Raisani.

The attack, later claimed by ISIS, was the third deadliest in Pakistan’s history. Raisani was not the only candidate killed. Other murdered candidates included Haroon Bilour and Ikramullah Gandapur. Candidates Arkham Durrani and Dawood Khan Achakzai survived pre-election attempts on their lives. All of the attacks were organized and executed by skilled, experienced strategists.

Afghanistan’s parliamentary elections have been delayed since 2016, with voting set to take place on October 20th, 2018. Attacks in Afghanistan targeted electoral institutions, including the bombing of voter registration centers and the assassination of election officials. An attack claimed by ISKP killed 57 outside a Kabul voter registration center.

Like the Pakistan attacks, these, perpetrated by the Taliban and a few by ISIS, were well orchestrated and highly effective. Between April 1st and June 13th, more than 100 Afghans were killed in election violence. Afghanistan was also plagued by non-electoral violence, perhaps prompted by election-related instability, during this period.

This includes a June 20th attack wherein Taliban militants attacked a military base and killed 30 Afghan soldiers, followed by an attack on July 3rd wherein a car bomb, targeting a foreign military convoy, detonated. Another example is a July 7th attack which saw a police convoy ambushed by Taliban fighters in the Ghazni province, leaving four officers dead and six wounded.

For planned attacks such as these that are heavily reliant on timing, terrorist organizations require intelligence, location analysis for the strategic placement of IEDs, and experienced members to successfully execute the attacks.

Nepal held legislative elections in stages between May and December 2017, and presidential elections in March 2018. These elections transpired despite contention surrounding federalism and provincial-level voting within the rewrite of the Nepalese constitution.

While the campaign silence period and voting day for the legislative elections’ first phase were largely peaceful, the campaign period itself saw the use of IEDs targeting political leaders and campaign events. There were 72 instances of election violence in these elections and 161 in the three phases of local and provincial elections.

Compared to the attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, pre-election attacks in Nepal appear to lack planning and clear goals. Civilian locations such as a jewelry store, a hydropower project, and a cell tower, were targetted rather than locations or people connected with the opposition. No active Nepalese terrorist group formally claimed responsibility for the attacks.

In Nepal, the presidency is a ceremonial role. Consequently, there is less incentive to carry out election violence before a presidential vote. However, there was a significant uptick in overall political incidents prior to these elections. These included a number of attacks on civilian infrastructure and clashes involving politically-motivated, although not necessarily terrorist, groups.

Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Nepal all experienced terrorism that was intended to disrupt elections prior to their national votes. However, the threats faced by these countries diverged in terms of target type and tactics. ISKP and the Taliban carried out attacks on election infrastructure including voter registration centers and election officials, while Nepal suffered attacks against civilian infrastructure and clashes between opposing political parties. 

nepal election - Analyzing Election Violence in South Asia

A Nepalese policeman helps a woman to cast her vote during the legislative elections in Thimi, Bhaktapur, Nepal. (AP Photo/Niranjan Shrestha)

A Rallying Cry for ISIS Fighters

This week Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi put rumors of his death to rest when he released an audio recording urging the remaining ISIS followers to continue their fight in the name of Islam. The recording reminds followers and the rest of the world that ISIS is neither gone nor completely defeated. Its followers have dwindled since the peak of ISIS’s power and holding of territory the size of Britain in 2014. This week’s message is believed to be a last-ditch effort to rally followers to execute acts of terror and thus provide relevance to ISIS again. The message acknowledges losses over the past year and notes it is a test from God. In the last three years, the group lost 90% of its geographic holdings in Iraq and Syria.

The location and time of the recording are unknown, although Baghdadi mentions Eid al-Adha, which suggests the recording is recent. The message also congratulates those having led attacks in Canada and Europe and calls for followers to overthrow the governments of Arab nations like Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

The message is said to have sparked a few isolated incidents, but these could have been coincidental. In the message, al-Baghdadi says, “A bullet or a stab or a bomb would be worth a thousand operations. And don’t forget to drive into crowds in the streets.” The recent increase in vehicular terror acts, suggests the recording is new. There are rumored to be 20,000 to 30,000 ISIS true believers in Syria and Iraq. That the group has shrunk is undeniable, but it is premature to suppose they cannot regroup and trigger real harm.

Baghdadi rarely releases messages – the last one was a year ago – and so some analysts believe he’s desperate to re-create relevance for and re-build his army. He has only appeared in public once, which suggests he feels insecure about his security. The message is unlikely to advance large, orchestrated terror attacks. But it could prompt smaller attacks, and it could catalyze ISIS lone-wolf types. The recording is a reminder to the world that the fight against ISIS is not over.

2018 08 29 Kristine Pic - A Rallying Cry for ISIS Fighters

https://www.thesun.co.uk/who/abu-bakr-al-baghdadi/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-45277322

Malaysia Shutters Saudi-funded Anti-Terror Facility

863216 1041113280 - Malaysia Shutters Saudi-funded Anti-Terror Facility

Saudi Arabia’s King Salman speaks with Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Razak during a Memorandum of Understanding signing ceremony in Putrajaya, Malaysia on Monday. (Reuters)

Following the Malaysian general election in May of 2018, the newly elected government decided to permanently shut down the anti-terrorism center which had been set up by former Prime Minister Najib Razak. The center, known as King Solomon Center for International Peace (KSCIP), was financed and backed by Saudi Arabia. The new government called into question the validity of a Saudi-funded de-radicalization center.

Officially, the center was closed for safety issues. The new government expressed concern that its operations would generate unwanted attention from the Islamic State. The stated purpose of the center upon creation was to, “…combat terrorist threats and the spread of propaganda and ideologies bandied about by the extremists and the terrorists.”

Some suggest closing the center will offend the Saudi government and disrupt diplomatic, economic, and political ties between Saudi Arabia and Malaysia. Others believe it is a good break which comes at a good, natural time of change. So doing, those say, allows the new government to distance itself from the old government, and perhaps Saudi Arabia.

During the Obama administration, Saudi Arabia was a close, US counter-terrorism partner, yet there is also speculation that Saudis use government funds, filtered through NGOs, to contribute to radicalization and violent extremism. The previous Malaysian administration was known to be corrupt. The former Prime Minister was arrested on corruption charges twice, and one of the instances involved the Saudi royal family. The new regime’s move to distance itself from the old regime’s policies and practices is not altogether unwise.

Theoretically, it seems self-evident that an anti-terrorism facility should serve as an asset to the country and help bring about a more peaceful, stable environment. But corruption overshadows that message and the good work KSCIP promised to do. The War on Terror and Islamic extremism have featured squarely in Malaysian current events. The government has introduced several anti-terrorism bills.

If centers like the KSCIP operated beyond the reach of foreign influence, educating young people, and focusing on peaceful, global change, then that would be a palliative to countries actively combatting terror. Meanwhile, upon closing, the center’s responsibilities were absorbed by the Defense Ministry.

Imran Khan’s Five-Year Test

2018 08 23 Vincent Pic 2 300x169 - Imran Khan’s Five-Year Test

https://aaj.tv/2018/08/imran-khan-elected-22nd-pm-of-pakistan/

Earlier this summer Imran Khan of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Party was elected Pakistan’s new Prime Minister, ending the Pakistan Muslim League’s (PML-N) five-year reign. Imran Kahn’s PTI Party is forming a coalition government, promising to fight corruption and introducing austerity measures to manage government spending given the country’s dire economic crisis. Major challenges await the new government, including boosting the devalued currency and halting militant group financing. Besides security at home and foreign policy issues like Afghanistan and India, the government is expected to seek more than $10 billion from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to balance its budget, as well as from partners like Saudi Arabia and China. The loans come with conditions which will affect the majority of Pakistanis. The economy – including ensuring the affordability of everyday items like milk and sugar – will be the biggest challenge to the incoming prime minister. Young Pakistanis who supported the cricketer have high hopes for Pakistan.

Who is Imran Khan? Now 65, Khan was raised in Lahore by his ethnic Pashtun family and became one of Pakistan’s most famous cricketers. As captain of the national team, he led Pakistan to victory in the 1992 World Cup before retiring and devoting himself to social work. Khan later founded the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Party (PTI) to vouchsafe justice for all Pakistanis. In 2002, he won a National Assembly seat in the general election. He also led protests against election fraud in 2014 and demanded Nawaz Sharif’s government resign. Khan ran on domestic promises to rout corruption, create 10 million jobs, and construct 5 million low-cost homes. On foreign policy, Khan advocates resolving the Kashmir dispute, peace talks with the Taliban, and criticizes U.S adventurism in neighboring Afghanistan.

What’s significant about Imran Khan’s victory is how his justice banner connected with voters. His pleas on behalf of ordinary Pakistanis struggling for a living paid off, which recalls   Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s slogan Food, Shelter, and Clothing. One wouldn’t be remiss for pointing out that Khan’s team lacks the experience and chops of former Pakistani leaders like Bhutto and Sharif. Khan is a breath of fresh air for Pakistan, as well as a break from tradition, but will he transform sentiment into successful policy outcomes and give Pakistanis what they need?

Seen in a particular vantage point, Khan’s team’s naivete can be seen as net neutral. Pakistan’s experienced leaders like Nawaz Sharif, as often as not, brought the country piles of debt, rendering Pakistan on the brink of bankruptcy. New people and ideas could allow it to start afresh and hopefully, Khan’s team remains dedicated to improving ordinary Pakistanis’ lives, especially in his base at Punjab. There, folks would like nothing more than contribute meaningfully to the country’s development.

The European Union Election Observer Mission found no election day vote-rigging, a real departure in this region. It found a lack of opportunity equality and systematic attempts to undermine the ruling party. Nonetheless, the elections were well organized and result discrepancies were consequences of governmental and election commission flaws rather than malice. Pakistani elections were commended by EU observers as fair, despite pre-election procedure improvements suggested for the next term.

The opposition’s criticism took three forms: first, that PTI had nothing to do with election tampering, let alone rigging. Second, the Pakistani Electoral Commission owns aforementioned administrative flaws. Khan has been transparent about investigating administrative flaws. At the end of the day, he won 116 seats in the National Assembly. The real crucible for Khan will be running a country of 200 million people – it will prove more complicated than captaining a Cricket team of 12, to say nothing of Punjab Province. It is hoped that Khan’s peace-offerings to the opposition will yield a new government which works for the people.

If Khan’s anti-corruption campaign succeeds, billions of dollars outside Pakistan could return. Will the PTI apply those funds directly to the Pakistani people’s needs? Will the nation’s powerful military give Khan the political space he needs to lead without the military meddling in decision-making? Even more, PTI is not a Pakistani ideological monolith. Rather, it is divided between activists who’ve jumped ship from parties like the PML-N and PPP. 

As regards foreign policy, Khan has been critical of the U.S.’s war in Afghanistan, especially its use of drones inside Pakistan’s Waziristan and other tribal areas. Khan is calling for better ties with Washington at a time when the U.S. has suspended Pakistani aid. The post 9/11 skepticism that defines each side’s perception of the other must be cast off for the two to find common cause on regional and global issues. Each wants what might be impossible for the other to deliver: Washington wants Pakistan to stop the arming and funding militants like the Haqqani Network and Lashkar-e-Taiba. And Pakistan wants the U.S. to sit for peace talks with the Taliban. This is to say nothing of Pakistan’s relationship with its neighbors, and U.S. nemeses, China and Iran.

Imran Khan wants to put aside the long-simmering dispute over with India over Kashmir. As a popular figure in India, Khan has visited that country many times as a Cricket player and social worker. If anyone is popularly situated in both countries, it’s Khan. A dialogue between Islamabad and Delhi – among the least economically integrated regions in the world – is desperately needed to benefit both sides.

Rise to Peace