by Shannon Howley

India and Pakistan: Deescalating Border Disputes

Image Courtesty of NBC News

On February 14th, a suicide bomb killed over forty Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel. The group responsible, Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), claimed responsibility. JeM is a militant organization based in Pakistan, who are fighting for the Muslim-majority of Kashmir to be part of Pakistan. The bomb struck a convoy of vehicles carrying 2,500 Indian security personnel on the Jammu-Srinagar National High way in southern Kashmir. Indian officials allege there is direct evidence that Pakistan was involved in coordinating the attack. Indian military officials blame Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of coordinating the attack. According to CNN, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said that India would take “all possible diplomatic steps” to “ensue complete isolation from the international community of Pakistan.”[1] One of the Indian efforts to downgrade diplomatic efforts includes revoking Pakistan’s Most Favored Nation status. Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded, claiming that the government condemns acts of violence, denying any association with the attack.

This attack is part of the broader, historical conflict between India and Pakistan. Since Indian independence in 1947, Kashmir has remained disputed territory between both countries. Separatist violence in the region has killed over 47,000 people. The Indian accusation of Pakistani influence in the attack risks further escalating tensions along the border. Pakistan demands proof or evidence of the accusations, which have not been presented thus far by Indian officials.[2]

A diplomatic solution to the rising tensions between India and Pakistan is integral to mitigate spiraling tensions. Indian and Pakistan have previously fought two wars, and another limited conflict could risk nuclear conflict as both countries posses nuclear weapons. However, political relations between Pakistan and Indian have been stalled for over three years. Previous peace attempts have failed, as days after Mr. Modi, the Prime Minister of India, and Mr. Sharif, the previous Prime Minter of Pakistan, met to intimate peace agreements, six soldiers were killed in an attack on an Indian air force base on Pathankot.[3] Even under new leadership with Imran Khan, the new Prime Minister of Pakistan, peace initiatives remain gridlocked.

An important step in deescalating tensions is to improve bilateral relations and communications. Both countries should rely on diplomatic channels rather than military confrontation. So far India has relied solely on retaliation through economic and diplomatic means, including recalling their top diplomats. But these actions could further provoke Pakistan, especially following their promise to retaliate to any Indian attacks or confrontations. Additionally, further investigation into the JeM attack should be done by both countries to determine if there is any evidentiary basis for ISI’s role in the attack. Until evidence is presented on the support for and cause of the recent attack, claims by Indian authorities of Pakistani involvement risk ratcheting up hostilities.

 

 

 

[1] Kashmir attack: India says Pakistan had ‘direct hand’ in deadly convoy strike (2019, February 15th) Retrieved February 19th from https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/02/15/asia/kashmir-attack-india-pakistan-intl/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F.

[2] India demands Pakistan take ‘credible action’ over Kashmir attack (2019, February 19th). Retrieved February 19th from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/india-allegations-pakistan-evidence-khan-190219082756101.html.

[3] Pulwama attack: What are Modi’s options? (2019, February 19th). Retrieved February 19th from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-47278145.

 

0 comments
 by Sakhi Naimzada

Intra-Afghan Peace Talks in the Absence of Afghan Government

Members of each delegation in Moscow beside Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Image credit: Sergei Karpukhin/Reuters.

Afghanistan has a long history of participating in local and international conferences on peace. The Bonn Conference was the start of a series of other conferences on peace and stability hosted in Afghanistan. The Afghan government has put together or at least sent a delegation to myriad conferences to gain international support for their peace efforts with opposition groups in the country.

Despite this trend, the last Moscow Peace talks were held in Russia without the presence of an Afghan government delegation. Organized by an Afghan-Russian Association, the conference took place six days after successful talks between the US and the Taliban occurred in Doha, according to US Special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad. The Taliban refused any direct conversation with the Afghan government, but agreed to sit down with delegations from the United Sates, India, Pakistan, China, and prominent Afghan political figures including Hanif Attmar- a favorite to take over as president in the upcoming presidential elections- to talk peace. In the meantime, the Afghan government, the main absentee of the conference, called them traitors and urgently called for direct talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government.

After two days of negotiations in Moscow, an agreement was reached. The Taliban, accusing the Kabul government of being an “American puppet”, asked for a withdrawal of American forces from the country, the release of detainees, and the inclusion of the principle of Islamic Religion in the constitution. Former president Hamid Karzai, leading the Afghan delegation, declared the talks a “big achievement” that would bring peace and stability in an “Afghanistan free of foreign forces”. Current Afghan President Ashraf Ghani declared the Afghan delegation in Moscow illegitimate to represent Afghanistan in the conference.

Russia has been a low-key player in Afghan affairs since the beginning of the War on Terror. The Russian government, concerned about  security in the Central Asia, keeps a close eye on Afghanistan. The latest peace talk in Moscow was a step by Russia towards taking a major role in influencing Afghan governmental affairs, and sets precedent for future Russian involvement in Afghanistan.

Seeing the Taliban sitting at the table with decades-old political enemies to talk peace is the long-awaited desire of all Afghans, but it certainly poses risks. The Taliban went to Moscow demanding what seems to be the return of the Taliban regime of the 1990s, the withdrawal of foreign forces, Sharia Law, and no sign of womens’ appearance within the government. The Afghan delegation, on the other hand, was comprised mainly of political figures who fought on the front lines of the fight against the Taliban. Thanks to differences  between these two parties and the disparity in their motivations for negotiating, the fear is that an agreement between them would be more of a political move to grasp power in Kabul than a long-term solution for peace.

in EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA / MENA / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by John Wilson

Strategies for Countering Neo-Nazi Radicalization

American members of the National Socialist Movement. Source: Southern Poverty Law Center.

Decades after the end of World War II, Nazism continues to incite hatred and divide the globe. Thousands have been radicalized into what is now deemed neo-Nazi ideology from dozens of countries across the world. Although the phenomenon of neo-Nazism is well documented, research has yet to establish a common profile of those deemed vulnerable to its recruitment. Several have attempted to establish a potential profile; however, the American cases that have been studied stem from vastly different backgrounds, and their diversity is too difficult to account for with any one theory.

Though the threat of large-scale terrorist attacks stemming solely from neo-Nazi groups is relatively low, such groups present a unique threat. Neo-Nazi groups tend to be embedded with other racist extremist groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, and other anti-Semitic groups. Fringe members of these groups present an often-undetectable lone wolf threat which is extremely difficult for law enforcement to counter. Neo-Nazi groups are also often associated with the trafficking of narcotics and prostitution, potentially leading to a large indirect cost on society.

In discussing neo-Nazi radicalization, former neo-Nazi Christian Picciolini has a unique take on the process. Picciolini, who become radicalized into neo-Nazi ideology after attending a gathering of a skinhead group at 14 years old, has since deradicalized and now works to help others do the same. But Picciolini does not attribute neo-Nazi radicalization to an ideology at all. In an informative interview, Picciolini stated that “I can tell you that every single person that I recruited or that was recruited around the same time that I did, up to now, up to what we’re seeing today, is recruited through vulnerabilities and not through ideology”. The vulnerabilities mentioned in the interview stem from both real and perceived grievances, felt by some youths as they grow and learn about the world and their place in it. Like so many youths searching for answers to their anger and frustrations, Picciolini found answers amongst neo-Nazi propaganda. Unfortunately there was not a counter narrative strategy in place to address the statements presented to him.

Exploiting vulnerabilities is a normal gang recruitment strategy. Many neo-Nazis are recruited while in prison, and the process is similar to other gang recruitment methodologies. However, neo-Nazi gangs are distinct in their provision of a more thorough ideological base for those who they radicalize. Further, the agenda of neo-Nazism is the creation of a Fourth Reich, which obviously goes far beyond the belief system associated with a typical street gang. Because of the hybrid nature of the radicalization process between extremist group and street gang that is observed within neo-Nazism, a hybrid approach to deradicalization and a hybrid counter-narrative strategy is needed.

Law enforcement’s response to neo-Nazi groups has begun to change in recent years. Whereas for a long time neo-Nazi groups and skin heads were often associated with the punk rock scene and were considered kids acting out their frustrations, now they are being considered legitimate concerns for homeland security.

Though they may pose a significant security concern, simply addressing neo-Nazi radicalization as a law enforcement matter does not properly address the underlying issues that cause some to become radicalized. In discussion about freedom of speech when it comes to hate speech and propaganda, experts suggest that education is the likely best route for countering extremism. An effective solution will couple education with a strategy in which local governments and communities adapt partnerships with organizations who have experience in deradicalization. One such organization and program is the Anti-Defamation League’s “A World of Difference” campaign, which uses mass media and education in schools to address bias, racism, anti-Semitism, and a variety of radicalization and extremist behaviors. Policy encouraging local communities to embrace programs mentioned above could potentially hold the key to severely disrupting recruitment efforts of the dozens of neo-Nazi groups operating in the United States.

 

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

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

To Leave Or Not To Leave?

Image: (Spc. Anthony Vendejas/Army)

The Syrian Civil War has been raging ever since their attempted revolution during the Arab Spring in 2011. This conflict has devolved into all out chaos. The war has been going on for eight years. Over 500,000 Syrians have been killed, many of them civilians. Five million Syrians have had to flee, and over seven million have been internally displaced, all while having to deal with the emergence of ISIL in their country. All this chaos resulted from Bashar al-Assad refusing to step down from power, which has left his country in shambles. This crisis has gotten many other countries and political entities involved as well, whether it is through humanitarian aid or sending in troops to fight on behalf of or against the resistance. Some of these entities include: Turkey, Russia, Iran, ISIS, the Lebanese Hezbollah Party, the Kurds, Saudi Arabia and the US, just to name a few. Many believe In fact, a big reason that the civil war has gone on for so long is because it has served as a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran and the US and Russia.

America’s involvement in the Syrian civil war first started with the US sending humanitarian aid to citizens who had been displaced by the war. This later changed as the threat of ISIS began to emerge in Syria and Iraq. Former president Barack Obama decided to begin airstrikes on ISIS strongholds in Syria to help weaken the terror group in September of 2014. These airstrikes eventually evolved into the deployment of about 2,000 troops on the ground troops to collaborate with Syrian freedom fighters and Syrian Kurds to form the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which helped push ISIL out of some of their major strongholds.

Russia eventually got involved to help defeat terrorists in the region. However, this led the US to speculate that they were actually there to help prop up the Assad regime. Before Russia’s involvement in the civil war, Assad was beginning to lose to the rebel factions. However, ever since their arrival, Assad and his forces in conjunction with the Russian forces have begun to take back parts of the country. Assad has even gone on record stating that he is thankful for Russia’s help: “The Russian forces are important for balance in our region, at least in the Middle East until the political equilibrium changes…Russia is a great power and therefore it has a duty to the whole world.”

Current president Donald Trump believes that the threat of ISIS has been eliminated in Syria and that it is time for US troops to withdraw from the region. Many lawmakers and members of Congress strongly disagree with Trump’s decision to withdraw troops. They believe that the region is not stable yet and if the US were to leave it would create another power vacuum in the Middle East. The US’ original goal was simply to prevent the spread of ISIL in the country, but during that process they took on another responsibility: preventing a clash between the Kurds and Turkey. If the US were to withdraw from Syria, Turkey could eventually take over the US’ role as a peacekeeper seeing as though they already have taken in many Syrian refugees. While this would help resolve tensions between the US and Turkey, this action would also leave the Kurds at Turkey’s mercy, after they helped lead the operation to remove ISIL. However, the biggest problem is that this situation could be a repeat of the US pulling out of Iraq, which many argue led to the formation of ISIL. The pull out led to a power vacuum that many former Al Qaeda terrorists exploited to form the terror cell ISIL. When the US left the country with no legitimate infrastructure and with a surplus former soldiers who only knew war, Al-Qaeda seized the opportunity. The faction started in Iraq and eventually moved to Syria to fight against government forces there with hopes of possibly exploiting the power vacuum that would have been left in the event of Assad’s ouster.

There is no use in the US immediately withdrawing troops from Syria before the ISIL threat has been completely eradicated. Brett McGurk, a senior official in the Trump administration stated, “It would be reckless if we were to just say, the physical caliphate is defeated, we can just leave now, anyone who’s looked at a conflict like this would agree with that.” Even other Republicans such as Marco Rubio and Lindsay Graham have vehemently opposed the withdrawal. The withdrawal is a fluid situation and it leaves the President with the decision: to leave or not to leave?

0 comments
 by Shannon Howley

How Does the Media Determine Who Is a “Terrorist”?

Image courtesy of Modern Diplomacy

In an increasingly interconnected, digital world, access to news media is widespread, yet there are great disparities in how likely the media is to cover different terrorism attacks and how those attacks are portrayed. Since 9/11, ninety-nine people have been killed in 136 terror attacks within the United States, but the media coverage of these attacks has not treated each incident equally.

A recent study, published in Justice Quarterly, found that terrorist attacks orchestrated by Muslim extremists received 357% more coverage than those by non-Muslims.[1] The study brought to light important discussions within news media, including why people think of the Boston Marathon or Fort Hood when thinking of terrorism rather than attacks planned by white supremacists? The study was led by researchers from the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa and Georgia State University, and the researchers analyzed the discrepancies in media coverage of attacks between Muslim and domestic terrorists. They looked at U.S. news about terrorism between 2006 and 2015. While controlling for other factors like target type, number of deaths, and whether the person was arrested, they discovered that religion is a determining factor for predicting news coverage of terrorism attacks. Out of 136 terror attacks in the U.S, on average, Muslims committed only 12.5 percent of the attacks, but received more than half of the media coverage. [2] The coverage is not aligned with reality, as white terrorists organized nearly twice as many attacks than Muslims.[3]

Disparities in media coverage have adverse effects on public perceptions and treatment of Muslim Americans, as it further solidifies Islamophobic conceptualizations of “who is a terrorist.” The study helps explain why the public fears a “Muslim terrorist,” while ignoring other threats. It not only has damaging effects individual perceptions of Muslim Americans, but it can increase support for anti-Muslim policies, such as immigration bans or quotas.[4]

The study demonstrated the inherent discrimination of Muslim peoples within news media, which necessitates a solution from reporters and news organizations to provide coverage that is inclusive and truthful to terrorism within the United States. Changing the rate of coverage for attacks done by non-Muslims is essential to alter public biases about Muslim Americans.

[1] Why Do Some Terrorist Attacks Receive More Media Attention Than Others? (18th August 2017) Retrieved 23rd February 2019, from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2018.1524507.

[2] Great disparities exist in how media cover terror attacks (19th February 2019). Retrieved 23rd February 2019, from https://phys.org/news/2019-02-great-disparities-news-media-terror.html.

 

[3] Terror attacks by Muslims receive 357% more press attention, study finds (20th July 2017). Retrieved 24th February 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/20/muslim-terror-attacks-press-coverage-study.

[4] How news coverage of terrorism may shape support for anti-Muslim policies. (21st February 2019). Retrieved 23rd February 2019, from https://phys.org/news/2019-02-news-coverage-terrorism-anti-muslim-policies.html

0 comments