by Rise to Peace

Will the United Kingdom’s Online Harms White Paper Curb Extremism but Allow Expression?

On April 8, Theresa May turned to Twitter to make a bold statement. Upon the release of the United Kingdom’s Online Harms White Paper, a tweet noted, “The era of social media companies regulating themselves is over.” The 102-page policy document urges the establishment of new regulations which will hold all social media companies liable for harmful and extremist content. Is this a sensible way to deal with digital extremism?

Social media companies and platforms have a part to play in making the internet a safer place. In order to combat harmful content, the United Kingdom seeks to hold companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter responsible. Authorities in the United Kingdom plan to enforce penalties for harmful content, which would be a fine of 4% of global turnover or 20 million euro ($23 million), whichever is greater.

In addition to the fines, the United Kingdom aspires to create a regulatory body, and enact bans and restrictions on user content, limiting what citizens can view. Regulations on internet freedoms and bans will undoubtedly anger citizens. Countries such as Russia and China have similar authoritarian beliefs. Liberal democratic nations adopting parallel legislation potentially legitimizes such restrictions and can be viewed as a victory for extremists.

Overreaction by the government of the United Kingdom has extremely detrimental consequences. Changing online regulations and censoring citizens is a flawed legislative move. Passing this particular law encourages extremists because it shows their actions initiate socio-political change and cause legislative action. Further, it provokes pessimism in financial markets by causing a greater risk for tech startups.

Proactive responses to digital extremism and hoping to make the internet a safer place are at the core of the United Kingdom’s argument. The May government is correct in its mission, but its execution needs more work. Fining social media companies and censorship of user content seems more like a punishment rather than a solution.

The United Kingdom is faced with a few considerations should it proceed with the proposed White Paper. Public safety is of the utmost importance, as is the ability of free expression. Fining companies for the negligence of extreme content is justifiable. As extreme content lingers, it continues to spread. Thus, social media platforms are directly responsible for stopping hateful and extremist messaging.

Major social media companies — Facebook, Twitter, YouTube — must update their Terms of Service and ask all users to act as moderators. If content appears to be approaching an extreme or violent conclusion, it should be reported by the community. False reports regarding extreme content should have penalties as well, in order to ensure users are being responsible. This avenue permits millions to help protect cyberspace on their own terms. It would allow citizens to come together to combat online hate, which presents a powerful message against extremism.

If the UK plans on changing its online usage and how its users interact in online spaces, the people should have a say. The solutions in the United Kingdom’s Online Harms White Paper need to be more focused. The 12 weeks of consultation have begun and will end July 1st.

Currently, the resolutions to the proposed issues are very broad and seem severe. The best way to ensure a safer internet space is to create a unified community of users. Group accountability will help ensure the internet is a safer place as the people of the United Kingdom define it. This could be the beginning of a safer internet and a model for other countries.

in EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Ahmad Shah Mohibi

Can John Walker Lindh “American Taliban” Be De-radicalized?

FILE PHOTO: U.S.-born John Walker Lindh (L) is led away by a Northern Alliance soldier after he was captured among al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners following an uprising at the Fort Qali-i-Janghi prison near Mazar-i-Sharif December 1, 2001 REUTERS/STR/File Photo

The United States Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) is set to release the “American Taliban”, John Walker Lindh, after serving 17 years of a 20-year sentence.

US Special Operations Forces and the Northern Alliance arrested the “American Taliban” in November 2001 in Afghanistan. A plea bargain with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) led Lindh to accept guilt for “supporting militants who harbored al-Qaeda as it planned the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001” in exchange for two decades of incarceration.

Origins of the “American Taliban”

Lindh was raised in California and Maryland. He converted to Islam at age 16 (prior to 9/11) and travelled to study Arabic in Yemen in 1998. All this occurred two months before the establishment of Google.

After Lindh completed Arabic lessons, he moved to Pakistan where encounters with members of extremist groups (al-Qaeda, Taliban) compelled him to settle in Afghanistan. There he received training at an al-Qaeda training camp as a Taliban militant.

In the 1990s, Pakistan served as the birthplace for the Taliban and it acted as the center of further extremist development. Operational planning, recruitment, equipping soldiers and brainwashing of children that were brought from vulnerable communities in Afghanistan occurred there. Pakistan recognized the Taliban regime, harbored Osama Bin Laden and supported the Islamic Emirate legacy until the present day.

Impediments to Reintegration
The US federal prison system has a lack of de-radicalization programs thus it is difficult to predict how well Lindh will adapt to reintegration. Certainly, it will be challenging for a person with radical philosophies, such as Lindh, to let go of his grievances and circulation of the mandate of the Islamic Emirate of the Taliban.

Digital technology and communications, such as Google, complicates the scenario for Lindh too. Access to swift and boundless information provides another possible impediment to de-radicalization. Law enforcement and the intelligence community must monitor and regulate his actions. As part of his release, “Mr. Lindh will also be barred from traveling internationally and getting a passport or any other kind of travel document.”

A young American teenager who made his way to Osama Bin Laden and revealed information to al-Qaeda will not cease unless he is de-radicalized. It is foolish to simply trust a loyal member of a terrorist group to renounce those attitudes.

For instance, in 2002, he denounced the 9/11 attacks as “completely against Islam” and tearfully told the judge “I have never supported terrorism in any form, and I never will…I made a mistake by joining the Taliban.” He maintained, “Had I realized then what I know now, I would never have joined them.”

This is in direct opposition to recent statements. In a 2017 report, Lindh “continued to advocate for global jihad and to write and translate violent extremist texts.” Was he further radicalized in the prison system during the US Iraq War in 2003 and later the Arab Spring?

Sober Reality and Solutions

Lindh can be de-radicalized and re-enter society if he is provided with necessary mentoring from those of a similar background while under supervision. If not, two possible reasons foretell why he will not exit his previous life of the 1990s-2000 so easily. First, he accepted his own version of Islam and joined the Taliban movement in Afghanistan. The Taliban view of Islam is harsh, extreme and is not Islamic. So, religiously, he is not going to change unless he is sent to a Muslim scholar to teach him the true Islam.

Second, his loyalty to the Taliban and al-Qaeda may not easily end because one feature that unites membership of terrorist organizations (ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, and Taliban, etc.) is their dedication to the mission. They assert a lawful war “jihad” against the United States and allies is right.

Particularly, after 9/11 and the Iraq War, this concept became significant to justification of their actions. Simple operations such as detonating a bomb in a populated area or maneuvering a bus to kill innocent people contribute to a larger lawful war. To them, this is acceptable because their religion, Islam, is under threat by the “crusaders,” “capitalists,” and “infidels.”

There are 346 people convicted of terrorism since 2001 and 88 have since been released. For every convicted extremist facing release, the intelligence community and law enforcement agencies should devote significant attention to individual files and monitor the person 24/7 to prevent any attempt of violence.

Next, US government agencies should fund and support the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE, PVE) organizations so they can mentor and support Lindh as well as other related cases as part of the reintegration process.

The FBOP, DOJ, Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and local governments have not yet developed a reintegration strategy to help foreign fighter extremists to reunite with his/her society. There is a substantial need for a comprehensive strategy in the prison system to begin de-radicalization and following programs to aid their reentrance into society.

De-radicalization is the very first step in connecting former extremists to society by helping the individual change his/her ideas and attitudes. It’s a system where the individual receives the opportunity needed to begin a new life, whether it’s granting access to job platforms, libraries, and training, or even an interpersonal or personal relationship to help heal the person’s grievances, beliefs, and confusion. In the case of Lindh, it’s imperative that he gets the support he needs in order to leave behind the radical thoughts and support for groups like ISIS and the Taliban. An engagement as simple as a conversation with a Muslim living in his community can help make a difference in his life.

Jesse Morton, a former extremist, assisted the FBI to arrest more radicals while he was “de-rad”. Jess left his radical thoughts behind as he went through a series of transformations in his life. First, the FBI agents support and non-judgmental demeanor towards him. Later, his employment as a Research Fellow on Extremism at the George Washington University. An finally, today, his organization, Light Upon Light, to counter extremism. Jesse Morton is one of the best examples that de-radicalization is possible and successful. The two individuals share enough similarities and commonalities to suggest that the de-radicalization process for Jesse will work for Lindh.

Ultimately, Lindh needs to understand that the groups (Taliban, ISIS) he advocated and fought for are wrong. To do so, he needs outside help the same way Jesse Morton did. Lindh converted to Islam as a teenager and shortly after joined the Taliban. Soon after that, he was arrested and placed behind bars for 17 years. He doesn’t fully understand the true meaning of Islam or what it means to live in a society where Muslims can pray, protest and work alongside non-Muslim peers in peace, acceptance, and appreciation.

Ahmad Mohibi is Founder and Director of Counter-terrorism at Rise to Peace, a non-profit organization, and a national security expert. He is a published author, journalist and news commentator on TOLONews, and an alumnus of George Washington University and George Mason University. Follow him on Twitter at @ahmadsmohibi

in Asia / Rise to Peace blog / United States 0 comments
 by Ahmad Shah Mohibi

Advocates push for additional visas for the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) Program

Photos courtesy: GettyImages. Afghan local interpreter is interpreting for the US military in Afghanistan

The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2019, as enacted on February 15, 2019, authorized 4,000 additional SIVs for Afghan principal applicants, for a total of 18,500 visas allocated since December 19, 2014.

What is the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program? 

The current visa program for the Afghans who were Employed by/on Behalf of the U.S. Government is called Chief of Mission (COM). Iraqi and Afghan translators and interpreters who have worked directly (not as contractors) for U.S. Embassy Baghdad or U.S. Embassy Kabul are considered to have been under COM authority. Anyone (interpreters, chefs, contractors, guards who have worked directly for the U.S. government programs and projects in Afghanistan are eligible to apply for the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) under Chief of Mission (COM).

In the beginning, visas were only allocated to the Afghan and Iraqi translators who worked with the U.S. Armed Forces or under Chief of Mission authority as a translator or interpreter in Iraq or Afghanistan. In 2009, the program expanded to all Afghan nationals who provided faithful and valuable service to the U.S. government, while employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government in Afghanistan and continues until the present day.

Visas and Obstacles?

Visas are limited for the Afghans and it depends on Congress to continue or end the program. But this Fiscal Year (FY), the Congress authorized 4,000 additional SIVs for Afghan principal applicants, for a total of 18,500 visas allocated since December 19, 2014. There are thousands of cases pending to COM approval, waiting for interviews and hundreds waiting to receive visas. Although it seems a big figure, is not enough for thousands of Afghans who courageously supported the United Staes Global War on Terror in Afghanistan risking theirs and families lives.

Legislative History of SIV

FY 2006: Under section 1059 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), up to 50 Iraqi and Afghan translators/interpreters who worked for the U.S. Armed Forces to receive special immigrant visas (SIVs) each fiscal year (FY). This law was later amended and now provides SIV status for eligible Iraqi and Afghan translators/interpreters who have worked either directly with the U.S. Armed Forces or under Chief of Mission (COM) authority at U.S. Embassy Baghdad or U.S. Embassy Kabul.

FY 2007 and 2008: Public Law 110-36 and Public Law 110-242 in which then-President Bush signed on June 15, 2007, amended the law above by expanding the total number of SIVs issued to Iraqi and Afghan translators/interpreters working for the U.S. military to 500 a year for FY 2007 and FY 2008 only.

FY 2009: The Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009, Section 602(b) of Division F, Title VI, of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, (Public Law 111-8), This law allowed up to 1,500 Afghan nationals who provided faithful and valuable service to the U.S. government, while employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government in Afghanistan after October 7, 2001, for not less than one year, and who have experienced or are experiencing an ongoing serious threat as a consequence of that employment, to receive special immigrant visas (SIVs) annually through FY 2013, with the allocation of any unused visas from FY 2013 to FY 2014. The period of qualifying employment was later extended under subsequent legislation. See law above.

FY 2014: The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Section 7034(o) of Division K, Title VII of Public Law 113-76, This law, signed on January 17, 2014, extended the Afghan SIV Program. It authorized the issuance of 3,000 visas to principal applicants in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and allowed that any unissued visas from FY 2014 be allocated to FY 2015.

FY 2014: Emergency Afghan Allies Extension Act of 2014, Section 1 of Public Law 113-160, This law, signed on August 8, 2014, extended the Afghan SIV Program. It authorized the issuance of 1,000 visas to principal applicants by December 31, 2014.

FY 2015: National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2015, Section 1227 of Public Law 113-291, This law, signed on December 19, 2014, extended the Afghan SIV Program. It authorized the issuance of 4,000 visas to principal applicants by September 30, 2016.

FY 2016: National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2016, Section 1216 of Public Law 114-92, This law, signed on November 25, 2015, extends and amends the Afghan SIV Program. It authorizes the issuance of 3,000 additional visas to principal applicants with no end date by which they must be issued.

FY 2017: National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2017, Section 1214 of Public Law 114-326, This law, signed on December 23, 2016, extends and amends the Afghan SIV Program.  It authorizes the issuance of 1,500 additional visas to principal applicants with no end date by which they must be issued.  It also extends the date by which applicants must apply for Chief of Mission approval from December 31, 2016 to December 31, 2020.

FY 2017: Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2017, Section 7083 of Public Law 115-31, his law, signed on May 5, 2017, authorizes the issuance of 2,500 additional visas to Afghan principal applicants with no end date by which they must be issued.

FY 2018: National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2018, Section 1213 of Public Law 115-91, This law, signed on December 12, 2017, authorizes the issuance of 3,500 additional visas to Afghan principal applicants with no end date by which they must be issued.

FY 2019: The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2019, as enacted on February 15, 2019, authorized 4,000 additional SIVs for Afghan principal applicants, for a total of 18,500 visas allocated since December 19, 2014.

The Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program is a great way to appreciate those who have served faithfully alongside the brave American troops abroad to begin a new life in the United States and bring innovative ideas for growth and success.

in Ahmad Mohibi / Asia / Rise to Peace blog / United States 0 comments
 by Cameron Cassar

The New Arab Spring

Image courtesy of the Washington Post

Many remember where they were when they first experienced the Arab Spring in late 2010. The wave of revolutions which engulfed the Middle East/North Africa region was inspired by Mohammed Bouazizi’s self-immolation in Tunisia. Bouazizi’s suicide served as the flashpoint for the Tunisian revolution in which citizens of the country protested against the oppressive regime of then President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. The Tunisian Revolution became the Egyptian revolution which then led to the Libyan revolution, the Syrian Revolution also occurred around this same time. Bahrain, Morocco, and Yemen also saw demonstrations. The Arab Spring marked a cultural revolution within the MENA region and showed the power of civil resistance.

Fast forward nine years later and it seems as though a new wave of revolutions is occurring that shares similarities to the movements of the Arab Spring. Both Sudan and Algeria have both recently led revolutions that have removed dictators from power. In Sudan, citizens have been leading protests for weeks aimed at removing Omar Hassan al-Bashir from power. Their protests finally reaped their rewards when the military announced that al-Bashir had been removed from power after nearly four months of protests by the Sudanese citizens. The former dictator ruled the country with an iron fist for 30 years. During this time Sudan was plagued by famine and war, a war which led to the creation of South Sudan, the newest country in the world. However, to the people of Sudan the ousting of al-Bashir was not enough, they wanted all remnants of his regime removed. The Defense Minister and head of the Sudanese military Awad Ibn Auf announced he would be taking the place of al-Bashir. Many of the Sudanese people viewed this as a lateral move and believed that nothing would change if Ibn Auf took power. They continued their protests causing Ibn Auf to step down from power after just a few days as the head of the country. This act showed that they had learned from the previous failings of many of the participating countries in the first Arab Spring. The first Arab Spring was defined by successful attempts to remove oppressive leaders only to be followed by transitional governments that shared many of the same policies and rhetoric of the original dictator. The people of Sudan wanted to topple the entire regime of al-Bashir.

Algeria is another country where protests recently removed a long-time autocrat from power. The protests in Algeria helped to remove President Abdelaziz Bouteflika from office. Bouteflika had been in power for over 20 years and was in a declining state of health which included paralysis, he had not even addressed the country publicly since 2013. The mass demonstrations began after Bouteflika announced that he would be running for a fifth straight term. There was much resentment all over the country from all sectors, including the military whose chief of staff enlisted the help of the country’s Constitutional Council to declare Bouftelika unfit for office. However, to the Algerian citizens this only served as a front for a dying regime. Similar to the people of Sudan, the people of Algeria wanted institutional changes within the government. Smain Kouadria, an activist in the opposition Workers’ Party stated, “All the senators are children of the system. The announcement of his resignation is simply part of the rescue operation for a dying system” The problem facing the country now is who will lead the country moving forward. Many of the young people have only known the reign of Bouftelika and refuse to accept another member from his regime. The government has chosen to appoint Abdelkader Bensalah interim president in the meantime until the proper elections can be held which are scheduled for July 4th. However, these elections are scheduled to be held and be fair, but the opposition has not been able to unite around a candidate who would be able to challenge the remnants of the regime.

The revolutions in Algeria and Sudan that have toppled these long-time autocrats signal hope for these countries moving forward. However, these revolutions cannot be deemed successful until the government that succeeds them is put in place through democratic means or that has the approval of the citizens. The fact that these revolutions were successful and their demands were met through nonviolent means shows that nonviolent revolutions are possible. The aftermath of the Arab Spring has left an impression on the minds of those who are participating in the revolutions as we saw in Sudan and Algeria. Even after the ousting of the original dictator, the people continued their revolution to ensure that other members of his cabinet did not replace him and just continue with their policies. One can only hope that the success of these revolutions may inspire others in the Arab world to led successful revolutions against their government.

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Shannon Howley

U.S Increases Pressure on Iran, but at What Cost?

On April 8th the Trump Administration designated Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a terrorist organization. It marks the first time the U.S has taken this action against an entity of a foreign government.[1] Until now, terrorists were always considered “non-state actors.” Iran, however, has been labeled a state-sponsor of terrorism since 1984. The result of this designation is sweeping economic and travel sanctions on the IRGC, as well as sanctions on any individuals or companies associated with the organization[2] The IRGC will be added to a list with 67 other terrorist organizations, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Ashstar Brigades.

The U.S. intent in designating IRGC a terrorist organization remains unclear, but the decision appears to have been made with haste, as Mike Pompeo, the U.S Secretary of State, was pressured by State Department officials to delay the announcement. The exact plan for implementation also remains unclear, as according to the New York Times, American officials in Baghdad said they had “no guidance” on how to enforce the policy. In fact, it has been argued that the Administration’s decision was not made for strategic reasons, but instead at the request of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Last week was Israel’s elections, thus, the decision has been decried as an attempt to boost his popularity.[3]

Whether or not the decision was made at the behest of Prime Minister Netanyahu, it reflects the United States’ hawkish strategy to isolate and provoke the Iranian government. Last May, the Trump administration withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal that was negotiated by former President Barrack Obama. In November, the administration reinstated wide-ranging economic sanctions on Iran. In the State Department’s announcement the sanctions were deemed part of the U.S government’s “maximum pressure campaign” to counter Iran’s influence in funding terrorist groups and to counter their support for Assad’s regime in Syria.[4] Especially given the United States’ already existing sanctions on Iran, it is uncertain if the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization will achieve any strategic goals or meaningful reduction in terrorism.

However, it does seem certain that the designation will have unintended consequences. It may provoke anti-American sentiment in the region, encouraging local militia groups and terrorist organizations to retaliate to American presence. In particular, American forces in Iraq are endangered due to Iraqi Shiite militants that have been trained by Iranian military officials to fight American troops. This concern isn’t hypothetical, following the administration’s announcement, Iranian lawmakers dressed in military uniforms chanted “Death to America,” during their opening session of Parliament.[5] Days after the announcement, a car bomb attack in Afghanistan killed three U.S service members.

Instead of using methods that will provoke anti-American sentiments, the U.S should consider diplomatic channels. One of the purposes of the administration’s decision to label the IRGC as a terrorist organization is to force changes to their ballistic missile program and reduce their financing of militant groups in Iraq and Syria. However, the designation is antithetical to the administration’s strategy, as reliance on unilateral, hostile measures make it less likely that Iran will accede to American demands. Iran has already demonstrated their unwillingness to cooperate with U.S when it uses forceful measures; in fact, Iran’s response to the American designation was to retaliate by labeling the regional United States Central Command a terrorist organization.

A strategy focused on diplomatic engagement should include a renegotiation of the Iran nuclear deal. The nuclear agreement can be successful, especially because it has support from the international community including important U.S partners like the European Union. Unilateral pressure will be insufficient, therefore, the administration will need multilateral support and a willingness to open up spaces for negotiation. This won’t come easily, due to President Trump’s record of using force rather than diplomacy, it will be difficult to build trust amongst Iranian lawmakers that the United States is legitimately changing course. But if the Trump Administration wants to ensure reginal stability and protect American troops, it should reconsider its decision to label the IRGC as a terrorist organization and its decision to withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.

[1] Iran Warns US of ‘Dangerous Consequences’ As Saudi Arabia and Israel Back U.S Move. Accessed April 12th 2019. Received from https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/04/09/iran-designates-u-s-military-a-terrorist-organization-warns-of-dangerous-consequences/#2b888013ede2.

[2] Trump Designates Iran Revolutionary Guards a Foreign Terrorist Group. Accessed April 14th 2019. Received from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/world/middleeast/trump-iran-revolutionary-guard-corps.html.

[3] US labeling of IRGC meant to cater to Israel, experts say. Accessed April 14th 2019. Retrieved from https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/04/09/592958/US-IRGC-Israel.

[4] Sanctions Announcement on Iran. Accessed April 14th 2019. Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2018/11/287500.htm

[5] Designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terror group could jeopardize U.S troops. Accessed April 14th 2019. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/designating-iran-s-revolutionary-guard-terror-group-could-jeopardize-u-n992356.

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by John Wilson

George Rockwell: The Original American Nazi

Rockwell at a news conference in 1965. Image credit: Associated Press.

Within the American neo-Nazi movement, there is perhaps no single individual more significant than George Lincoln Rockwell. Rockwell, who founded the American Nazi Party, was an active politician, former military commander, and grandfather of the neo-Nazi movement. Channeling conspiratorial beliefs and a dedication to the ideals of Adolf Hitler, Rockwell sought to bring National Socialism to mainstream politics in the United States.

Prior to his assassination by a neo-Nazi protégé, Rockwell had even run for governor of Virginia, garnering one percent of the total vote. Standing around 6’4” and in sound shape, the former military man seemed on the surface to be a prime example of another hero in a generation of heroes, but something had gone terribly wrong.

Information on Rockwell’s upbringing does not reveal a nurturing of extremist beliefs by family or close friends. In fact, Rockwell grew up with family friends who were Jewish. He was highly intelligent and studied philosophy at Brown University. During his time at Brown, however, Rockwell developed the belief that a sub-culture of communism was being fostered by the university; thus, he dropped out. Shortly thereafter, Rockwell volunteered as a pilot in the United States Navy. Rockwell served in both World War II and the Korean War, finishing his career in the Navy as a Commander- a title he insisted on being addressed by even after completing his time in the service.

Near the end of his military career, a copy of Adolf Hitler’s manifesto Mein Kampf came into his possession and he became obsessed. Observing the civil rights movement and associated civil unrest, Rockwell came to the conclusion that fascism was the only cure for the direction he saw the United States taking.

Rockwell regularly wrote various types of literature, from basic Nazi propaganda to full-length books. Looking into his own past, he stated that his time spent fighting Nazism during the second world war was regrettable. He referred to the war as a battle between criminal gangs consisting of ‘Bolsheviks & Zionists’, and considered himself ignorant for partaking in it.

Rockwell went out of his way to defend a history marked with indicators that he had a mental health condition. In the 1930s, just prior to his volunteering for the United States Navy, Rockwell was committed to an insane asylum; however, he was released after just 10 days of his scheduled 30 day stay, and writes that this is because he proved his sanity. However, his writings indicate a narcissistic personality. Rockwell believed that he possessed a ‘superior mind’ which could truly grasp and understand the universe and all its grand ideas and concepts, unlike the general population whom he describes as idiots. So grandiose was Rockwell that he on multiple occasions stated that he would be elected the President of the United States by 1973.

The American Nazi Party still maintains several of Rockwell’s writings on their website and speak about their founder with great admiration. In a post about Rockwell, the party states that “he single-handedly lifted our banner from the ashes of Berlin into the skies of America”. Interestingly, while the party speaks about Rockwell’s physical, mental, and leadership qualities, they also acknowledge that his rise occurred at least in part due to the social and civil unrest of 1960s America.

Rockwell’s legacy in the neo-Nazi movement in the United States is far from just a distant historical existence. Martin Kerr of the New Order, an organization that descended from the internal factions that split the American Nazi Party at the time of Rockwell’s death, views Rockwell as important to the neo-Nazi movement today. Speaking on the protests in Charlottesville that left one dead and dozens injured, Kerr declared that Rockwell’s spirit was alive and well within the protest.

Rockwell may have not been raised to be a Nazi, but several factors likely led to his ideological outcome. First, despite his claims of sanity, there likely was a mental health condition that led to his time in an asylum. This alone does not lead to the start of the radicalization process, but combined with societal and personal pressures, can contribute to the process. As Rockwell demonstrated in college, he was vulnerable to conspiratorial claims and through his writings he speaks with overtly narcissistic language. However, he also maintained a natural leadership capability demonstrated through his military career and his ability to gather followers once radicalized.

Rockwell was likely victim to, and later beneficiary from, societal stressors. The evolution of the civil rights movement and its accompanying civil unrest would appear to support racial conspiratorial claims found in Nazism. This both reaffirmed Rockwell’s Nazi beliefs and allowed him to market the ideology to others prone to the radicalization process.

While Rockwell’s conception of Nazism was more accurate to actual Nazi teachings and beliefs than some modern neo-Nazi groups, the lessons that can be learned from how Rockwell came to power in the movement are still relevant today. Rockwell was the perfect storm, at the almost perfect time. The civil rights movement allowed Rockwell to capitalize on racist beliefs and fears to attract a following. If it the atrocities of Nazi Germany had not still been fresh in the minds of Americans, there is a real chance that Rockwell’s following would have been much stronger. In the heated political climate of today, we must remember that there will be ‘perfect storms’ who will seek to capitalize on the divides in society.

 

John Patrick Wilson is a law enforcement professional as well as Research Fellow at Rise to Peace.

in Rise to Peace blog / United States 0 comments
 by Meghan Rahill

Why The United States Needs to Reform Counter-Terrorism Efforts on the Home Front

Since the September 11th attacks on the United States, many believe that the biggest threat to the United States is from foreign jihadists.  Media outlets constantly associate terrorism with foreign jihadist organizations such as ISIL or Al-Qaeda; however, they fail to give adequate attention or coverage to extremist incidents that occur directly on our own soil.

Today, the largest threat facing the United States does not comes from foreign jihadist extremists.  Instead, the largest threat to the United States appears to be the rapidly growing threat of domestic violent extremism. Domestic extremism includes homegrown radical Islamist terrorism, right- and left-wing extremism, white supremacist and neo-Nazi extremism, and more.  The domestic extremism threat facing our nation today has essentially evolved over time into two major issues that have gone unaddressed by policy makers. First, overseas terrorist organizations have become increasingly adaptable and now use online platforms to recruit vulnerable individuals across the country in order to incite violence.  Second, the rise in hate crimes and right-wing extremist events over the past decade has occurred at an alarming rate, and has been disregarded by many public officials and policy makers.

The Recruitment of Jihadi-Motivated Extremists in the US

With the availability of new technologies, foreign terrorist organizations no longer need to infiltrate foreign states to attempt attacks of their own.  Now, organizations have the capability to recruit, motivate, and initiate attacks online with false messages and propaganda. The rise in Islamophobia has led many to believe that individuals who have conducted such lone-wolf attacks are Muslim or Arab. However, this has not always been the case.  According to a study by the RAND Corporation, “the historic stereotype that Muslim, Arab, immigrant males are most vulnerable to extremism is not true to today.  Today, recruits in the United States are more likely to be white, black, younger, uneducated, and born citizens.”  New America’s study on Terrorism After September 11th explains how since 2001, the number of domestic jihadist terrorism cases

has risen dramatically, from only two individuals being charged in 2001 to a record high of eighty being charged in 2015.  The study also reiterates the trend that the majority of the individuals being charged with a lethal extremist attack have been American-born citizens; in fact, according to the study, eighty-five percent of individuals charged with a lethal attack in the United States have been citizens or legal residents.  Of this percentage, a majority (two hundred and twenty nine) of terrorism cases have involved American-born citizens. Ninety-nine of the cases have involved naturalized citizens, and fifty-five of the cases have involved permanent residents.  Only five cases have involved illegal immigrants, nineteen cases involved refugees or asylum seekers, and twenty-five cases involved non-residents of unknown status. The majority of domestic terrorists are now everyday American citizens and residents who have been inspired by the jihadist movement abroad to take action against the secular West.  As Anwar Al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric who joined Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, famously stated, jihad today has become “American as Apple Pie.”

The Rise of Right-Wing Extremism

Jihadi-extremism, while mainly homegrown, now makes up only a small portion of the attacks occurring on American soil.  Throughout the last decade, right-wing extremist attacks have risen at an alarming rate.  Right-wing extremism includes white supremacy, anti-government extremism, and single-issue movements such as anti-abortion, anti-immigration, and anti-Muslim extremism. While the United States has remained focused on the danger posed by jihadi extremism, there has been a “glaring blind spot” towards the changing dynamic and magnitude of threats facing the United States.  According to statistics from the Anti-Defamation League, between 2009 and 2018, 73.3 percent of domestic extremism incidents in the United States were due to right-wing extremism, while only 23.4 percent of incidents were due to jihadist extremism and 3.2 percent were due to left-wing extremism.  Furthermore, the rate at which the incidents are increasing is dangerously rapid.  In 2018, of the 50 extremist-related murders that occurred, right-wing extremists caused almost all incidents.  In fact, right-wing extremists caused 98 percent of the incidents, while only 2 percent of the incidents were caused by domestic Islamic extremism.  According to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, individuals targeted for the recruitment of right-wing terrorism are often one of three categories: “frustrated and angry youth looking for solutions to their problems; individuals looking for intimate relationships outside of their families; and younger adolescents who typically lacked maturity and may have been unable to fully comprehend the ramifications of the groups radical ideology.”

Policy Recommendations

  1. Politicians and policy makers need to make reducing domestic extremism a national security priority.

Domestic extremism needs to be recognized as a major threat.  In the past decade, it has largely been ignored and pushed aside by policy makers and politicians, who have been putting a disproportionate amount of attention on the foreign threat of jihadi terrorism.  Domestic terrorism needs to be made a federal crime by Congress.

  1. Seek to increase community awareness about the dangers of all forms of terrorist recruitment, especially in the populations that are deemed to be most vulnerable.

Community awareness programs should partner with the Department of Education in order to educate children, teachers, parents, and guardians about the dangers of terrorist recruitment.  The programs should specify the different types of extremism in the United States, the way groups attempt to recruit individuals, and the risks and consequences associated with being involved with such organizations.

  1. Promote anti-bias intercultural education and after-school programs in elementary and secondary schools.

Education can be the most proactive measure to counter youth radicalization.  With the average profile of radicalized individuals being young and uneducated, it is most important to promote educational programs in schools to counter the radicalization and recruitment of young individuals who feel frustrated, angry, and alone.  After-school programs should especially be promoted as a way to offer a sense of belonging, community, family, and purpose for individuals who are particularly vulnerable.

  1. Reframe the Countering-Violent Extremism Program, and reassess how to properly distribute CVE resources.

The CVE program does not just need a new name, it needs to be completely reframed.  As of right now, the program has been largely targeted at countering jihadi extremism in the United States, and has cut funding for programs that counter other forms of extremism.  Muslim communities have been targeted by the current CVE programs while young black, white and uneducated individuals have become more and more vulnerable to being recruited by different forms of domestic extremism.  Funding for grants and research needs to be expanded in order to combat all the different forms of extremism in the United States.

  1. Make an honest and prioritized effort to countering the ideology of hate.

The United States government must make countering hateful ideologies and extremist groups a top-priority. Politicians have continuously failed to punish right-wing extremist groups for their actions, sending a confusing message about what is constituted as terrorism and when it is considered acceptable to use such violence in the United States.   Continuously cutting funding for research grants and for countering right-wing extremism programs has also enabled such issues to escalate in the United States. To stop such incidents from occurring again, changes must be made.

0 comments
 by Sakhi Naimzada

Gulf Rivalries and the Afghan Peace Talks

Major players in the Afghan peace talks. Image credit: Reuters/AP.

There are doubtless domestic factors behind the crisis in Afghanistan, from ethnic problems to low levels of education. Afghanistan’s geographic position is one of the main obstacles to a lasting peace. Surrounded by neighbors with different ideologies and regional interests, Afghanistan is seen as a geostrategic key to future power in the region. Afghanistan’s importance in the eye of rival countries has historically attracted the Soviet Union to the country, with American expertise and support offered through ISI to stand by the Afghans.

Nowadays, foreign intervention in Afghan internal affairs has become a usual part of almost every peace effort. Arab countries- particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, thanks to their shared ideology with the Taliban- are major players in Afghan peace. Saudi Arabia was certainly the most influential foreign actor in the Afghan war against the Soviet Union. It raised the idea of Jihad which has since recruited young fighters from North Africa to European city suburbs to the war in Afghanistan.

The ten year Soviet occupation ended in 1989, but the Arab influence still remains. Saudi Arabia continued financing radical Wahhabist ideology during the devastating civil war in Afghanistan until the Taliban took power in 1996. The Taliban regime called itself an Islamic Emirate and was recognized by Saudi Arabia. In recent years, however, things have changed. Now other countries have emerged as mediators in the Afghan peace talks. Qatar is on the top of this list.

Qatar, with a fast rising economy in the Gulf, already influences Muslim countries such as Sudan and Lebanon. Now its influence is extending to Afghanistan. Doha hosted a few intra-Afghan meetings on peace and currently is the city where the Taliban has a political office. Doha benefits from a privileged position to be a conflict resolution actor when it comes to the Afghan peace talks: it has a strategic security and economic partnership with Pakistan and enjoys a friendly relationship with Iran. Iran supplied Qatar with necessary food items and gave airspace access to Qatari air traffic during the Saudi-led Blockade. Iran also hosts the largest American military base in the region, Al Udeid, which is the main source of airpower and logistics for operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and other countries.

Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, does not benefit from Qatar’s international prestige but it is ready to pay billions of dollars to buy the loyalty of other countries. The crowned Saudi prince, King Salman, recently went on a tour of the region where he promised to invest more than $4 billion in Pakistan. Rumors are that King Salman is going to buy the Premier League football club, Manchester United, where Sheikh Mansour, an Emirati royal, owns the Manchester city football club.

The rivalry of these two oil exporters is going to shape a new bloc in the region. They both have sufficient resources to direct relations in their own national interests. Saudi Arabia, losing its influence over the Taliban, is being replaced by Qatar. According to a Taliban official, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are trying to block the Afghan peace talks in Doha while Taliban are happy with Qatari mediation in the process.

The fight between Gulf countries leaves Afghanistan with no saying on its future. With all said and done, would a peace deal brokered by Saudis and Qataris bring peace to Afghanistan? That is the real question, and Afghans do not have a solid answer.

in MENA / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by John Wilson

Plans for Still-Radicalized Members of the Islamic State

A man surrenders outside Baghouz. Image Credit: Al-Jazeera.

            Near-victory has been declared over the remnants of the Islamic State’s self-declared caliphate in Iraq and Syria. However, some fighting still remains, and the implications of continued conflict are beginning to be explored. Waves of often-reluctant Islamic State members coming to surrender exacerbate the daunting job that those participating in the fight against extremist ideologies are facing. As recently as last week, 3,000 suspected fighters and active Islamic State members have surrendered, overloading those tasked with analyzing the future threat these individuals pose. This writing intends to promote a conversation about the dilemma of those ‘hardcore’ believers in the Islamic State, examining how or if they can assimilate to Western society.

            Since December, roughly 60,000 people have fled from the area around Baghouz, Syria, the last populated stronghold of the crumbling caliphate. These individuals have been captured or placed into displaced persons camps. Estimates suggest that around 10% of these people are believed to be Islamic State fighters, with many others being family members of current or former fighters. Through various Islamic State propaganda outlets, as well as debriefing reports from people who have previously fled Islamic State-controlled territory, it is known that there has been a strong effort to indoctrinate children into the ideology spread by the group. For this reason, the children of Islamic State members should receive increased attention in the deradicalization process.

            The Islamic State has continued its propaganda campaign, which was once a driving factor behind the groups rapid expansion, from within Baghouz. In one video, a man going by the kunya of Abu Abdel Adheem states that “it is said that we have lost – but God’s judging standard is different”. In another, a man going by Abu Abd al-Azeem, is quoted as stating “Tomorrow, God willing, we will be in paradise and they will be burning in Hell”. This is hardly the language of repentant individuals or individuals, making it unlikely that they will be susceptible to many deradicalization programs.

            It is unclear how many foreign fighters of Western origin remain in Baghouz, but those that are there should be considered some of the most adherent followers to the group. Many existing deradicalization programs are targeted towards individuals who are psychologically open to leaving an ideology. Those individuals still clinging to the last remnants of the caliphate in Syria, and those who have reluctantly surrendered, do not generally fit into this profile. Numerous Westerners, including Americans, have been captured recently and are considered suspected members of the Islamic State. It is important to distinguish between individuals who were indeed captured and those who willingly surrendered due to a change in ideology and not due to the caliphate being on the losing side of the conflict. Those who have surrendered of their free will are likely good candidates for deradicalization programs. Those who have surrendered but remain loyal to the vision of the Islamic State represent a real problem for all Western nations.

Further complicating the situation, there are Westerners still engaged in the fighting. Zulfi Hoxha, an American who goes by the kunya of Abu Hamza al-Amriki, has risen through the ranks of the Islamic State and is now believed to be a Senior Commander. There have been no public declarations of his death or whereabouts. How exactly do we plan to deradicalize Hoxha? Is deradicalization even a possibility?

            Those Islamic State members still operating in Iraq and Syria have been displaced from their once-vast caliphate. Some have given up on the vision, but it appears that many still place their loyalty in the future of the proto-state. Numerous officials from the United States have suggested that they do not believe that there are any senior Islamic State members, including caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in Baghouz. The unknown location of these leaders represents the continued threat that the group will once again reform down the road, with lessons learned. Until then, it is imperative that we decide what to do with those who have left.

 

John Patrick Wilson is a Law Enforcement Professional and Research Fellow at Rise to Peace

0 comments
 by Habiba Ahmed

The Israel-Palestine Conflict and the Rise of Hamas

The Israeli and Palestinian conflict is one of the most intense disputes of the century. It is rooted in issues of land and sovereignty, national pride, religion, and governance. The dispute resulted in the existence of two competing governments in the Palestinian territories, one in the West Bank controlled by the Palestine Liberation Organization and one in the Gaza Strip controlled by the radical militant group Hamas. Many agreements have been brokered since 2007 to unify both governments, but all have failed. In January 2019, the Prime Minister of the Palestine Authority government, Rami Hamdallah, tendered his resignation, reflecting the rise of public displeasure over failed efforts to reunite the government. Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) have long rivaled each other for power over Palestinian territories. Hamas, refusing to renounce violence, is not just a radical Islamic group but a political faction with parliamentary seats. Their rise and growing popularity before the 2006 parliamentary elections reflected Palestinian sense of alienation from their government’s efforts to rebuke the Israeli occupation. Most significantly, it showed that Hamas’s embracement of radicalism and militancy resonated well with many Palestinians. But how and why did Hamas’ popularity grow?

The events surrounding the initial creation of Israel in 1948 and the Six Day War of 1967 may put the conflict and rise of Hamas in perspective. Even though they are 19 years apart, both events are emblematic of the complexity and fragility of peace prospects between Israel and Palestine, a process that the PA has been embracing and Hamas has been rejecting.

Towards the end of the 19th century, the so-called Jewish question was articulated as a predicament: could Jews ever find acceptance as Jews in a nation made up of non-Jews? Most Eastern European Jews did not believe they could assimilate or ever be accepted in any non-Jew nation. Zionism, an Eastern European phenomenon, quickly emerged as a response to that predicament and emphasized the need for a central Jewish home. That led to the settlement of Jews in Palestine, igniting issues of belonging and sovereignty. Pressured by the United States, the United Nations voted for a partition proposal that divided the land into seven parts, three for the Jews, three for the Arabs, leaving Jerusalem under UN control. As many as 700,000 Palestinians either fled the region or were driven out. As they failed to regain the territory, Palestinians refused to assimilate and demanded a return to their home land. Their efforts were futile and Arab states eventually signed separate armistice agreements with Israel in 1949.

The question of land has always been center stage in the struggle between Israel and Arab counties. It has greatly influenced the concept of Zionism and Arab nationalism. The question of land and sovereignty: who leaves and who stays? Who has the right? Who is stronger? That has become a central issue in Arab nationalist grievances, one that still controls both the foreign relations between the Israeli and Arab governments, and local relationship between Jews and Arabs.

The Six Day War of 1967 was a brief conflict between multiple Arab states and Israel which ended in the defeat of the Arab coalition led by Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.  Israel’s victory allowed it to capture Sinai, West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights.

It also led to the absolute humiliation and loss of legitimacy of Arab leaders, specifically signaled the end of Arab nationalism personified by President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt. It forced Syria, Jordan and Egypt to accept a cease-fire proposed by the UN Security Council after enduring very heavy losses. Finally, it created more political refugees and brought one million more Palestinians under Israeli rule.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, exacerbated by the Six Day War and the expansion of settlements in Palestinian territories increased existing hostilities and complicated peace prospects. Arab defeat in 1967 alone had significant territorial and demographic ramifications. Sinai and the Gaza Strip were captured from Egypt. Israeli control over the strip meant that 90 percent of the 360,000 Palestinians who lived there have become refugees. The West Bank was a more integral region. It is about one-quarter as large as pre-1967 Israel and it gave Israel control over territories that had been allocated for Palestine by the UN in 1947.  By the end of 1967, Israel controlled all of the land that had been previously allocated for a Palestinian state in 1948 and more than a million Palestinians were living under Israeli control. Furthermore, Israel separated East Jerusalem from the rest of the West bank and the government announced the unification of Jerusalem under Israeli control, thereby removing all barriers and military installations that divided the city in half. Israel also announced the application of Israeli law in all Palestinian area.

The 1967 war gave the international community new incentives to address the Arab-Israeli conflict. Various draft resolutions were proposed in the UN and many were rejected by both sides. Perhaps the most important resolution was UNSCR 2334. It called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories annexed as a result of the 1967 war, the termination of aspects of sovereignty for any state in the area, guarantee of civil freedoms for all citizens and a “just settlement of the refugee problem.” The vagueness of each demand lead to disagreements over how the resolution should be implemented. The Arab states expectantly wanted Israel to begin withdrawal from captured areas and the Israelis demanded the Arab states recognize Israel first. Extremely distrustful of one another, each side did not want to be first to surrender. This distrust continues to underline Arab and Israeli relations today as well.

Continuous defeat and failure to restore Palestinian land and rights gave Hamas an opportunity to influence the Palestinian people. It provided Hamas with a source of secure funding and recruitment as they exploited Palestinians’ frustration. Hamas was also uniquely effective at delivering and offering services to the people of Palestine which increased public content with the radical group.

Hamas’s primary objectives have been the complete destruction of the Israeli state and the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state on the 1967 borders. They have continuously rejected any two-state solution, refusing any negotiations with Israel. The PA’s goal is similar in that it wishes to create a Palestinian state on the1967, but they believe in negotiations with Israel and have renounced militancy. Hamas on the other hand embraced direct confrontation with Israel. Their tactics include suicide bombings, rocket attacks, military blockades, etc.

In 2006, they participated in national elections of the Palestinian Legislative Council, signaling their intention to become a represented political party. They won a slight majority of seats which put them in a commanding position for the Gaza Strip. This led to a brief unity with the PLO which soon disintegrated as Hamas refused to accept previous agreements the PLO negotiated with Israel. The Mideast Quartet, an ongoing diplomatic effort led by the United States, United Nations, European Union, and Russia, responded to Hamas’ electoral victory in 2006 by offering support only if Hamas renounced violence, recognized Israel and abided by past Mideast agreements. Hamas rejected all three pillars prompting foreign nations to freeze aid to Palestine. Tensions between both factions ultimately escalated into a civil war that divided Palestine even more: Gaza became independently governed by Hamas and the West Bank fell under the PLO’s governance. Peace talks have been initiated multiple times since then, but always disintegrated due to internal rifts and external pressures.

Hamas’s rejection of any agreement between Israel and Palestine is not only due to their ideological beliefs. Hamas is also fearful of losing its power if it embraces negotiations. Hamas came to power because they capitalized on the PA’s weakness and willingness to compromise with Israel. Even attempting negotiations would open the door to rivalries to challenge Hamas’s rule just like Hamas challenged the PA in 2006.

The question of sovereignty and land, mistrust that both Palestine and Israel will fulfill their promises, the divide between Hamas and the PA, and both of their eagerness to control the levers of power have always and will continue to put a dent in peace efforts. It will also continue to alienate Palestinians towards militancy as they attempt to restore their human rights and sovereignty from Israel.

0 comments