Blog left sidebar

http://www.humanosphere.org/world-politics/2015/06/sahel-drought-displacement-and-conflict-leave-20-million-food-insecure/

September 8, 2018October 1, 2018 by Kate Kleinle

Famine and Terror: A Warning from Africa’s Sahel Region

famine and climate change are making africa a terrorist tinderbox article body image 1406238786 - Famine and Terror: A Warning from Africa's Sahel Region

The village of Siédougou in Burkina Faso, at the forefront of the Sahel’s climate crisis.

They say the way to a person’s heart is through her (sic) stomach. That may be true because when food runs out hearts turn sour. With climate change’s breakneck pace, food supplies across the globe are in peril. If communities lose the ability to feed themselves then famine results, threatening social stability. We have seen how terrorism fights for a foothold in such cases, intent to capitalize on the discontent.

The Sahel region in Africa is an excellent example. The 3,300-mile swath of land in northern Africa is experiencing rapid desertification. This has plunged it into a state of extreme food insecurity. 20 million of the region’s residents – including 5 million malnourished children – face potential starvation due to the increasingly inhospitable climate. As people starve, conflict and tribalism emerge. Regional stability is destroyed and thousands of lives are lost.

As people starve, conflict and tribalism emerge. Terrorists exploit this state of affairs. Organizations like Al Shabab and Al Qaeda spill across borders from Mauritania to Sudan.

In the Sahel, where jobs are scarce and subsistence farming is becoming impossible, young people are unemployed. Starving, and desperate for something to do, terrorism offers purpose and income. Terrorists exploit this state of affairs, recruiting young people with the promise of food and wages for them and their families.

Massive numbers of young recruits have swollen the ranks of Al Shabab, Al Qaeda, and others across the Sahel. The organizations end up spilling across national borders from Mauritania to Sudan. The region has become a figurative tinderbox, ready to explode.

famine and climate change are making africa a terrorist tinderbox article body image 1406239044 - Famine and Terror: A Warning from Africa's Sahel Region

French troops on patrol during Operation Serval in Mali, 2013.

The Sahel is one example of the link between extreme climate and extremist ideology. As the Earth warms and our climate further destabilizes the correlation will surely become more conspicuous. Desertification is extremely difficult to reverse, inspiring the UN to call it the greatest environmental challenge of our time. One-third of the Earth’s population may be at risk, threatening food and social instability like we’ve seen in the Sahel.

One-third of the Earth’s population may be at risk. If even a fraction of those affected seeks shelter in the ranks of terrorist organizations, the world will face an epidemic.

If even a fraction of those affected seeks shelter from the instability in the ranks of terrorist organizations, then the world will face a legitimate epidemic within as well as beyond the borders of those regions initially affected.

It is too late to reverse climate change. It is unrealistic to advocate for policies extreme enough to reverse desertification (most countries don’t even meet emissions targets). However, we can avoid the extremism associated with climate change through developmental reform. By changing peoples’ reactions to warming climates we can mitigate their turning to terrorist organizations for survival.

Better jobs for the good of the community, microloans, and sustainable farming can help stem harm.

Development is the solution that will stem the tide of extremism. Paul Melly, an Associate Fellow at Chatham House, explains how causes of regional conflict in desertification zones like the Sahel can be boiled down to, “…poverty, lack of economic options, and resultant frustration.”

But the international community can help give these people options. Governments, NGOs and the private sector can ensure those who want it can get the education they need. This can lead to better jobs doing work people enjoy for the good of their community rather than tearing it asunder. Surely microloans, sharing means of sustainable farming, and helping develop irrigation systems can help stem harm. These are all alternative solutions to very real problems in rapidly desertifying regions, at least in the short-term.

Hearing locals when they explain how we can help them address the causes of their frustration is a surefire way to show them there are options other than joining terrorist groups. In so doing, the international community has the power to save lives, stop war, and make the world a safer place in the long run.

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

September 8, 2018October 1, 2018 by Kristine Olsen

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.

in MENA / Rise to Peace blog / United States 0 comments

September 5, 2018October 1, 2018 by Roberto Malta

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.

in Latin America / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments

September 3, 2018October 1, 2018 by Keelin Wolfe

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

in EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA / Rise to Peace blog 1 comments

August 31, 2018October 1, 2018 by Liam Timmons & Keelin Wolfe

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)

in Asia / MENA / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments