News

February 25, 2018February 25, 2018 by Maya Norman

Semantics Matter: ARSA and the Difference Between Insurgency and Terrorism

Independent Online/AFP

While tensions between the Rohingya Muslims and the Myanmar government have existed for decades, violent eruptions over the last year have catalyzed the growth of the Arakan Rohingya Solidarity Army (ARSA). The Myanmar government has since designated this group a terrorist organization, diminishing the legitimate political grievances of the Rohingya. An analysis of the distinction between insurgency and terrorism will demonstrate that the government’s categorization is inaccurate and that ARSA’s momentum, in addition to the government’s brutality, may lead to a successful insurgency.

Formed in 2013, ARSA started as a “small-scale effort to organize a Rohingya resistance.” The Rohingya have been systematically marginalized by the military and government for years. Stripped of their citizenship and living in extreme poverty, they remain a vulnerable, and largely displaced, population. Weary of the persecution against the Rohingya and their inability to seek political redress, ARSA planned and executed two attacks on military outposts. Last October, ARSA killed nine officers. In late August 2017, ARSA attacked another army base and 30 police posts, resulting in the death of 71 people, of which 12 were security officers. The government’s response to the attacks has been heavy-handed and disproportionate, often targeting civilians. In an attempt to flush out ARSA, the military set fire to villages, forcing hundreds of thousands of innocent Rohingya to flee, attacking some with bullets, machetes, and even landmines as they retreated. Following the first attack, the group’s leader, Ataullah abu Amar Junani, released a video in which he claimed responsibility and indicated that the decades of crimes against the Rohingya justified the attack and the right to defend themselves.

Contradicting ARSA’s narrative of self-defense stand instances of violence towards their own people. In the midst of the clashes between the military and the Rohingya, young men fleeing must not only escape the military but avoid ARSA, as many find themselves forced by their own to stay and fight.

Many Rohingya remain committed to joining the fight against the government, nevertheless, willing to risk their lives and those of their families in order to secure rights for the Rohingya. While ARSA participates in violence, the ensuing analysis will demonstrate that their designation as a terrorist group is inaccurate and the government’s response is unjustified.

The definition of terrorism varies between governments, agencies, and academics. This analysis will use International Affairs Professor Bard O’Neill’s definitions of both the terms terrorism and insurgency found in his book Insurgency and Terrorism. He defines terrorism as, “The threat or use of physical coercion, primarily against non-combatants, especially civilians, to create fear in order to achieve various political objectives,” whereas insurgency is “a struggle between a non-ruling group and the ruling authorities in which the non-ruling group consciously uses political resources and violence to destroy, reformulate, or sustain the basis of legitimacy of one or more aspects of politics.”

ARSA does not fall under the category of terrorism, as the violence is primarily employed against Myanmar militia and not civilians. Furthermore, ARSA repeatedly affirms that it wants the Rohingya to live in peace, to secure their rights and for “greater autonomy as Myanmar citizens.” Rather than hoping to achieve a political objective to bring them leverage over other groups, ARSA simply wants the Rohingya to be afforded equal rights. ARSA uses political resources, such as organizational expertise, to muster fighting forces in the struggle against the Myanmar government in the hope of gaining legitimacy for the Rohingya. Accordingly, ARSA is more appropriately labeled as an insurgency group.

Contrary to the Myanmar government’s intent, their “violence and abuses are likely to boost support for the armed group,” raising the question of whether ARSA could evolve into a successful insurgency. According to American University Professor Bill Belding, eight elements of a successful insurgency can be evaluated to better understand whether ARSA could maintain growth and eventually succeed in their quest for rights for the Rohingya. These eight elements are critical mass, better idea, effective leader, external support, resources, communication, safe haven, and intelligence. The government’s continued violence may push more sympathizers to join ARSA and gain a (1) critical mass. ARSA has “significantly influenced many Muslim religious leaders in northern Rahkine State to endorse [ARSA] despite earlier feelings [of the] violence to be counterproductive.” ARSA hopes to gain rights for the Rohingya people, effectively establishing a (2) better idea. It is difficult to measure the (3) efficacy of their leader, Ataullah abu Ammar Jununi, but his presence is known and he has released videos taking responsibility for the attacks. During ARSA’s attacks, members obtained arms from the Myanmar militia giving them (4) resources. ARSA gained (5) external support by urging Rohingya clerics to issue a “fatwa” stating the campaign against the security forces is legal in Islam. Analysts believe that ARSA receives funding from the Rohingya diaspora and private donors in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East. Around August 2016, two Saudi-based senior leaders spent a month in the Rakhine State assisting with training. ARSA members use encrypted messaging applications including Whatsapp and Viber to (6) communicate. Their leader effectively communicates because he speaks Peninsular Arabic and the Bengali dialect found in northern Rakhine. Because the Rohingya are displaced persons, since neither Myanmar nor neighboring Bangladesh considers them citizens, they lack a typical (7) safe haven. However, the large Rohingya diaspora, as well as its ability to communicate on texting applications, gives members some semblance of safety. While a typical safe haven provides physical security and the ability for members of a group to convene without fear of attack, the Rohingya still can reap some of the same benefits even as displaced persons. Communication through texting applications allows them to discuss and plan free of government intrusion, and a Rohingya diaspora that is not actively persecuted can assist with logistics. Lastly, ARSA gains important (8) intelligence through their texting applications, which allows quick dissemination of information, but it is noted that they do not appear to have any advanced intelligence operations. Unlike more organized groups which may have technology or spies that can actively gather information, ARSA relies on encrypted messaging applications to spread news and word-of-mouth information to its members. Almost every element of a successful insurgency is found in ARSA’s campaign against the Myanmar government, and if not explicitly present, the lacking elements remain on the cusp of fruition in the volatile and uncertain climate.

Accordingly, the Myanmar government’s labeling of ARSA as terrorists appears to be an attempt to capitalize on the global fear of Muslim extremism to provide cover for their disproportionate military assault. ARSA, while not irreproachable, are fighting for political legitimacy, and thus should be labeled insurgents. The widespread suffering and displacement the military has caused will likely fuel rather than extinguish an uprising. Although ARSA does not yet demonstrate every element of a successful insurgency, it would be in the Myanmar government’s best interest to rethink its counterproductive strategy if it hopes to stifle backlash.

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments

February 20, 2018October 3, 2018 by Ali Almullaali

Iraq after Daesh

After years of conventional, media, and cyber warfare, Daesh has lost most of the areas that it seized in Iraq and Syria in 2014. The post-Daesh phase will be filled with new priorities. [1]

Amir Hassan Fayyad, the Dean of the Political Science College at Iraq’s Al-Nahrain University, says that the defeat of Daesh, “…should not be understood [to mean] that the time of confrontation is over” [2]. Fayyad pointed out that Iraq will now be confronting the “…long-term battle,” to eradicate extremist ideologies.

Iraqi PM Declares Victory Over Daesh After Control of Border With Syria Restored

According to Abdul-Karim Ali al-Jubouri, a member of the Iraqi parliament, Iraq will have to deal with four priorities in the wake of the military elimination of Daesh. Al-Jubouri explained that Iraq’s top priority will be securing the border and, “…returning the situation to what it was before,” Daesh’s seizure of large swathes of Iraq in the summer of 2014. The other priorities, according to Al-Jubouri, will be the reconstruction of Iraq’s infrastructure, the organization of elections, and reconciliation of national entities. Al-Jubouri said that the Iraqi government should begin rebuilding the affected areas, returning the displaced people, and compensating those who have been physically and morally damaged” [2] Al-Jubouri stressed the importance of reconstruction and compensation of those affected by the war on Daesh, “to provide an environment suitable for [fair] elections” [2] The elections will take place in May 2018.

Kuwait hosted conferences from February 12th, 2018 to February 14th, 2108, in search of aid for rebuilding Iraq. Iraqi officials explained to international donors that the reconstruction of Iraq following its three-year war on Daesh will cost an estimated $88.2 billion Providing homes for the displaced will be the main priority [3].

Most importantly, internally, the Iraqi government must discourage sectarianism. It must ensure stability and security in the liberated areas, create a suitable environment for dialogue between sects and promote the spirit of patriotism. On a global scale, the Iraqi government must establish good relations with its neighbors based on common interests and arms-control, it must comply with the rule of international law, and it must fight corruption in all of its forms. It’s a tall order, but the key to keeping corruption at bay lies in restructuring, rebuilding, and reforming the country’s institutions.

Sources:
[1] http://www.post-gazette.com/news/world/2018/02/12/A-88-2B-price-tag-is-offered-at-the-Kuwait-conference-for-rebuilding-Iraq-after-the-Islamic-State-war/stories/201802120175
[2] https://www.alhurra.com/a/Iraq-what-after-defeat-of-Isis/403021.html
[3] https://www.arab48.com/أخبار-عربية-ودولية/أخبار–الوطن-العربي/2018/02/12/إعادة-إعمار-العراق-بعد-داعش-ستكلف-88-2-مليار-دولار

February 19, 2018October 3, 2018 by Austin Ludolph

The War in Afghanistan: Will It Ever End?

(The U.S. Army/Flickr) -American military personnel in Afghanistan

The War in Afghanistan has ground on for more than 16 years since its start on October 7th, 2001. Operation Enduring Freedom was part of the response to the September 11th attacks, but there does not appear to be a clear end in sight. [1] Over the years, the number of troops in Afghanistan has risen and fallen, but the war has ground on. At one point, in August of 2010, [1] there were as many as 100,000 troops. The budget for 2018 was just released and the sum will cost the American taxpayers $45 billion dollars. [4] 3,200 young American men and women have lost their lives fighting for our freedom. Mustn’t we acknowledge that from where things now stand, you’d be forgiven for asking if will this war never end?

Our main goals in 2001 were to dismantle the Taliban government in Afghanistan and end Osama Bin Laden’s reign as leader of Al-Qaeda. Although Osama Bin Laden was killed and the Taliban were disassembled, the latter have been regrouping. It seems we are in a Doom Loop.

(AP/BBC News)- “Defecting Taliban fighters drive through the front line in the village of Amirabad, northern Afghanistan”

Our leaders realize there is no end to this war. The cat and mouse game of killing and capturing Taliban has been going on for a decade and a half. Afghanistan does not have a stable government or infrastructure to rely on. There is a “combination of state collapse, civil conflict, ethnic disintegration and multi-sided intervention that has locked it in a cycle that may be simply beyond outside resolution.” [2] Afghanistan has been in disarray for a long time; any hope for a stable country may reside ten years down the road.

The main reason the U.S. stays in Afghanistan is to avoid creating a vacuum that would turn into a terrorist breeding ground. Roger Shanahan from Sydney’s Lowy West Asia Program said to achieve what we want, “You need to destroy that safe-haven element and as part of that strategic aim, you want to build Afghan governance so that it can control the areas it supposedly has sovereignty over” [1].

Much as we would like to leave, we simply can’t. During the past few weeks, we have seen how strong the Taliban remains. There was a “series of bold terror attacks in Kabul that kill[ed] more than 115 people” [3]. The Trump Administration has responded to these attacks by, “…deploying troops across rural Afghanistan to advise Afghan brigades and launching air strikes against opium labs to try to decimate the Taliban’s finances.” [3] President Trump has also ruled out the idea of directly negotiating with the Taliban. [5]

Training the local Afghan military has seen some progress, but not nearly enough for the Afghan military to take on the Taliban itself. The Army recently announced that six units of 1,000 soldiers from the 1st Security Force Assistance Brigade will deploy in the Spring “specially designed to ‘advise and assist’ foreign armies so that they can contain guerrilla movements on their own” [5]. The goal of creating these special units is that they will be able to advise the Afghanistan military rather than simply overseeing operations.

The harsh reality is that America’s longest running war will not end for some time unless the U.S.decides to pull its troops from the country precipitously. To the contrary, the U.S. presence will remain for the foreseeable future. That fact notwithstanding, the Washington Post recently noted our outlook, how we approach elements of the war may change. According to the Washington Post, “The expansion of the U.S. bombing campaign in Afghanistan to target a little-known Chinese terrorist group is an example of how the 16-year-old war has changed under President Trump” [6].

Targeting groups such as ETIM (East Turkestan Islamic Movement) and TAP (Turkistan Islamic Party) betrays just how many formerly independent terrorist organizations are beginning to consolidate in-country. The war, simply stated, is not simply about fighting the Taliban anymore. According to Air Force Brigadier General Lance R. Bunch – the director of future operations at U.S.-led military headquarters in Kabul – it’s about fighting, “anybody that is an enemy of Afghanistan” [6].

(U.S. Air Force)-A B52 Bomber dropping its payload on training camps of ETIM and TAP

Sources:

in Asia / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments

February 19, 2018October 3, 2018 by Maya Norman

The Terrorist Threat in France: A Look at Prison Radicalization

ANNE-CHRISTINE POUJOULAT/AFP/GETTY

French counter-terrorism policy rejects the soft measures carried out by many of its European counterparts. So then, why has France, despite its aggressive stance against terrorism, seen more high-profile terrorist incidents than any other Western European country in the last six years? An absence of terrorist attacks in France for more than a decade created a false sense of security. However, since 2012 France has been the victim of several jihadist attacks that have placed it on the frontline in the battle against terrorism. While some observers blame the attacks on France’s large Muslim prison population, citing prisons as a breeding ground of radicalization, others blame France’s delayed implementation of counter-radicalization programs. Other critics attribute the attacks to marginalized Muslim populations that find France’s secular policies stifling. None of these analyses, standing alone, provides an explanation sufficient to guide an effective strategy to end attacks. But this piece will focus on the prisons.

The notion of prison serving as a breeding ground for radicalization is not new. Khalen Kelkal, the main perpetrator of the 1995 Paris subway attacks that spurred counter-terrorism legislation, is believed to have been radicalized in prison. As of 2015, at least four men underwent radicalization while in a French prison and went on to attack locations in Europe. Furthermore, Cherif Kouachi, the Charlie Hebdo attacker, arrived at Fleury Merogis, a French prison, in January 2005. While imprisoned, Kouachi met Djamel Beghal – also known as Abu Hamza – who was serving 10 years for plotting to attack a US embassy in 2001. Kouachi also encountered Amedy Coulibaly, the man behind the 2015 Jewish supermarket attacks. In another instance still, Mehdi Nemouche, underwent radicalization in prison, traveled to Syria, and then traveled to Belgium where, in 2014, he attacked the Jewish Museum of Belgium. While these men represent only a small portion of the total prison population, their social ties to one another, as well as the magnitude of their crimes, demonstrates prison radicalization is an area worthy of counter-radicalization focus.

Radicalization can occur in prison for several reasons. It can stem from a confrontation with jail authorities, often worsened by the negative images Muslim inmates see on television and in other media regarding Islam. In addition, radicalization is molded, “by the conditions prevailing in prison, its organization and specific architecture.” Overcrowding can lead to sharing cells, restrictions on bathing, and unheard demands due to prison guards’ heavy workloads. This leads to exasperation, often exacerbated by the prison’s refusal to allow the practice of religion. Muslim prisoners believe Islamophobia runs rampant within their walls. Problems associated with prisons globally are vexing for many French Muslims and the disaffection they feel outside prison is only magnified behind bars.

Focusing counter-radicalization efforts in prisons would likely yield positive results if done astutely, and with advice from experts. As of 2015, according to authorities, French prisons held 238 inmates charged with terrorist offenses, with 152 of them classified as “dangerous Islamists.” There are approximately 67,500 imprisoned individuals in France. It is estimated that 70% of the prison population is Muslim, yet Muslims notably comprise only 8% of the French national population. Romain Quivooij, Associate Research Fellow with the Centre of Excellence for National Security at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University, acknowledges that the number of “dangerous Islamists” is a very low number in comparison to the total prison population, and argues that “radicalization in prison does not only involve people singled out as ‘radical Islamists.’ Cases of ordinary criminals who adopt violent extremist views in jail and engage in terrorist activities upon their release are common.” One French prison director implemented a trial run in which the radicalized individuals were segregated from the general population. While the director deemed the segregation successful, an ex-inmate of the French prison stated, “I don’t understand the idea at all of putting all the radicals together and hoping they will change.” Some believe putting radicalized inmates together strengthens bonds and facilitates jihadist ideology. Regardless, it does seem to limit their ability to attract new recruits.

Haras Rafiq of the Quilliam Foundation states neither segregating nor allowing radicalized inmates to mix with the general population is a good model, rather he advocates for an increase of professional imams. Prison guards do receive some training, however, due to the large population of inmates in prisons, in addition to the changing profile of a radicalized jihadist, guards find it difficult to detect radicalized individuals. According to one expert the, “…lack of Muslim chaplains is thought to have created a vacuum that leaves room for self-appointed and self-taught imams and their radical ideas.” In fact, Hassan el-Anoui Talibi, Chief Imam of French prisons issued a press release advocating for more financial support and resources for prison imams, as they currently receive no pay except reimbursement for basic expenses (Alexander). One offender stated that in the six years he was imprisoned, he did not see an Imam until year five (Alexander). With a surplus of resources going into hard counter-terrorism measures, it’s reasonable to assume that France could procure an appropriate number of imams.

While an augmentation in imams, in quality and quantity, may be sound policy akin to soft measures found in other European countries, one author asserts that the majority of radicalized inmates may actually go through the process of radicalization prior to their first sentence. This indicates that prison programs may need an emphasis on de-radicalization rather than solely counter-radicalization.

Does a promising policy exist that can incorporate the two? The same author argues that increasing the number of imams is urgently needed, however so is “the integration of additional services as part of a wider interdisciplinary approach.” Effective programs can be hard to implement in a favorable setting. Creating an effective program in French prisons to hinder radicalization and promote deradicalization remains an enormous challenge. However, in light of France’s high incidence of terrorist attacks, it is likely to continue augmenting its prison programs. It would be well-served by focusing on approaches that are multifaceted and by listening to suggestions from community members and academics.

in EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments

February 19, 2018July 2, 2019 by Josephine Neulen

Women and their Role in Violent Extremism

Recruitment of women by violent extremist organizations has increased in recent years due to their value as strategic, political, and social tools in service of the organization’s mission. They attract less suspicion, making them valuable in bombing missions, but they also are of deep symbolic importance in the organization’s daily progress.

Recruitment of women by al-Qaeda disturbs Iraq government

In 2016, Indonesian police arrested two women, Dian Yulia Novi and Ika Puspitasari, after they had planned a suicide bomb attack.[1] These occurrences are often puzzling to officials since it is usually assumed women are only indirectly involved in extremist organizations through supporting or hiding their husbands or other men. This is not necessarily true.

While the exact number of women in terror organizations is unclear, the recently collapsed IS caliphate sheds light on the tally, like the approximately 800 women who had joined Daesh that are now being detained in northern Syria[2]. Roughly 10% of radical Islamic groups’ members are women, a portion that is surprisingly large and inspires questions about why women join these organizations. [3]

Women join terror organizations for the same reasons men do, despite the disparity in numbers from each gender who join. While women are often portrayed as more “virtuous” and “passive” than violent, they are drawn to the community, the ideology, and the identity just like men are. The promise of liberation, empowerment, and a cause to live for draws men and women alike to extremist groups[4]. In recent years, both women and men have come from all over the world to join the cause they believe in.

The presence of women in violent extremist organizations is important due to the symbolic significance they carry. Women joining ISIS, for example, are vital to the ideological effort through social-media recruitment. They represent the future of the cause and perpetuation of the ideology as wives and mothers.[5] While research suggests that they are not involved in daily violence as much as men are, they are far from passive.

While there are some valuable accounts, more research is needed to shed light on the exact roles women play in these communities, and what potential impact they have. Terror organizations have long understood women’s significance to their cause. They are potentially even more dangerous due to the lack of suspicion they arouse, and the support they are able to inspire in young recruits.[6]

Sources:

[1] Ayuningtyas, Kusumasari. Indonesian Seminar Outlines Women’s Roles in Terror Prevention. (January 26, 2018).
[2] 800 female Daesh terrorists detained in northern Syria. (February 10, 2018).
[3] Moss, C. (2017, July 2). Why Do Women Become Terrorists? The Daily Beast.
[4] Attia, B. M.-E. and S. (2017, May 9). Female terrorists and their role in jihadi groups.
[5] Baker, Aryn (September 6, 2014). How ISIS Is Recruiting Women From Around the World.
[6] Says, A. E. (2016, October 28). Increasing number of women recruited by terrorists.

in Africa / Asia / MENA / Rise to Peace blog / women-in-extremism 0 comments

February 19, 2018October 3, 2018 by John Sims

Syrian Conflict: When Great Powers Do Not Play Well Together

Syria remains a disaster; for the people who remain there, for those who’ve fled but hope one day to return and for those who seek a sound, diplomatic solution. The catalog of actors operating in the theater, even at this late date, is increasingly alarming: Syrian pro-government forces, Syrian rebels, ISIL-terrorists, Russian armed forces, and U.S. coalition forces. International actors like Russia and the United States claim to have entered the conflict to subvert the threat of ISIL. Both sides dispute the other’s rationale. But when direct military contact occurs between the United States and Russia, that threatens not only the goal of reducing ISIL terror but the stability of the whole international order.

Graphic by Anastasia Beltyukova and Henrik Pettersson for CNN[1]

Innumerable horrors have emerged from the region since the Syrian Civil War’s start. Each is terribly important, but ISIL’s offenses engender a category of sadism and butchery that cannot be ignored. ISIL engages in genocidal campaigns against minority populations like Yazidis, Christians, and Shia Muslims. It has murdered internationally protected journalists in manners too barbaric for mass media consumption and advocates extremist violence the world over[2]. This only scratches the surface of ISIL’s crimes.

The United States committed to combating and reducing the ISIL threat in 2014. In concert with European and Middle Eastern allies, the U.S. supported regional friends with a crippling campaign of airstrikes directed against ISIL. The advent of Russian intervention, however, complicated things. In 2015, Bashar al-Assad’s regime requested Russian assistance in combating Islamic extremists and rebel factions alike. Though ISIL has been significantly reduced since 2014, the U.S. and Russia maintain daily military operations in Syria. Global concerns mounted in February 2018 when pro-government forces, backed by Russian mercenary squads, attacked U.S. forces and Syrian allies.

Another case in point, a U.S. drone destroyed a Russian made T-72 battle tank on February 10th, 2018. No U.S. or allied troops were killed, but reports indicate three Russian affiliates died in the tank [4]. The T-72 in question was reportedly moving, with coordinated indirect fire, on a position held by coalition advisors and Syrian Democratic Forces, the latter of which is a Syrian rebel group supported by the United States and its allies[5]. This incident followed another assault in which pro-Syrian forces attacked coalition troops on February 7th and 8th. U.S. coalition forces are reported to have killed 100 Syrian operatives following this unprovoked attack on coalition headquarters [6].

US Marines firing a howitzer in Syria © US Marine Corps

Questions persist regarding Russia’s motivation in the conflict. Since its intervention, it has consistently bombed rebel groups allied against Bashar al-Assad [7]. To justify its strikes, Russia labels as terrorists any group contending for power with Assad. Russian operations have helped the regime dramatically reduce the rebel threat while leaving the lion’s share of the ISIL fight to the American-led coalition. At this point in the conflict, with the threat of ISIL reduced, Russian and American backed proxies, to say nothing of national forces, are increasingly coming into conflict with each other, as February’s developments prove.

We may never know who was killed in the tank or how many Russians died in the February 8th coalition forces assault, but the escalating conflict between the world’s sole superpower and its former cold war adversary helps no one, especially not Syrians whose homeland has become an arena where international scores may be settled. US-Russian relations are at a low due to Syria, Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. Further conflict promises to exacerbate an already fraught bond.

ISIL should remain the focus of American and Russian military operations. The so-called caliphate has been diminished, but it has not been defeated. Its calls for extremist violence have been heard across the world. The U.S. has witnessed ISIL-inspired violence in San Bernardino, Orlando, and in the bombing and vehicular attacks in New York City. A Russia-bound commercial airliner over Egypt was bombed out of the sky by ISIL. Bombs claimed by ISIL have exploded in the metros of St. Petersburg. American and Russian nationals have traveled to Syria, fought for ISIL, and threaten to wage further conflict upon their return home. ISIL and its propaganda remain virulent threats to both nations.

The Syrian Civil War is rightfully viewed as one of the great geopolitical cataclysms of the young, 21st century. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead and millions have been displaced, yet peace remains elusive. These great powers should be working together, not at odds, to resolve global conflicts. Better US-Russian commitment to avoiding concentric operational areas mitigates the likelihood of further conflict. To be sure, awareness of one another’s airspace exists, however, each country must honor such arrangements. As long as the Syrian Civil War drags on, the possibility of even more destructive conflict remains. It seems self-evident that resolving the civil war should be everyone’s priority.

Disagreements between the U.S. and Russia would hardly disappear were the two to resolve their differences over Syria, but so doing would remove two adversaries from a kinetic combat zone and remove a critical issue that’s currently impeding bilateral relations. A resolution would allow each nation to fight international and regional terrorism directly rather than eliciting proxy warfare in the guise of fighting terror. For the Middle East’s sake and that of the rest of the world, the United States and Russia must do better.

Sources:

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/25/middleeast/syria-isis-whos-fighting-who-trnd/index.html
[2] http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/03/isil-committed-genocide-minority-groups-isis-160317132446363.html
[3] http://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104470/mq-9-reaper/
[4] http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/02/13/us-drone-destroys-russian-made-tank-in-syria-in-self-defense-officials-say.html
[5] http://www.businessinsider.com/video-of-us-destroying-russian-t-72-tank-in-syria-with-drone-strike-2018-2
[6] http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-killed-100-russian-syrian-backed-fighters-2018-2?r=UK&IR=T
[7] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/01/syria-airstrikes-everything-you-need-to-know

Click here to learn more about Ahmad Mohibi, Founder of Rise to Peace

in MENA / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments

February 11, 2018October 3, 2018 by Austin Ludolph

Bitcoin: How Terrorist Organizations are Using Cryptocurrency to Fund Operations

Bitcoin is the new talk on the streets these days. You may have heard about it on the news recently or in everyday talk and commotion. It is the new hot commodity that has features similar to Venmo and PayPal but is essentially its own unique type of currency. Bitcoin has been called a cryptocurrency, “that was created in 2009 by an unknown person using the alias Satoshi Nakamoto.” [1] Bitcoin is unique in the sense that there is no official bank of Bitcoin, so trading Bitcoin is as easy as sending it from you to me and vice versa. This means that “transactions are made with no middlemen” but can come at a cost as Bitcoin is not insured by the FDIC [1]. Altogether, Bitcoin’s “hype” has come this past year in multiple accounts of people investing in Bitcoin and over time, have turned into millionaires.

How does Bitcoin relate to terrorism?

Terrorist groups, especially and mainly ISIS, have caught on to the use of Bitcoin and now may be using it to fund their efforts. It seems to be the perfect avenue for channeling money as stated before how loose the regulations are on the cryptocurrency. Essentially, it can operate and function perfectly for what the terrorist organizations need. Anonymous wallet ID’s, no federal insurance, and no limits. A true terrorist organization’s dream has been presented.

Back in December of 2017 a, “resident of Long Island in New York, Zoobia Shahnaz, allegedly used Bitcoin and other virtual currencies to launder $85,000 and send it to ISIS.” [2] Although a large amount of money being donated such as this may raise eyebrows as it did in this case, smaller increments of money are not as easily detected. According to The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, the “ISIS-affiliated website Akbar al-Muslimin” has posted a link for acceptance of Bitcoins that “are allegedly for the website, but in the ITIC [The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center] assessment they may be used for ISIS broader goals, one of which is rehabilitating its propaganda machine and possibly also for funding terrorist attacks abroad.” [3]

What has been done?

Countries around the world have begun to implement and update their regulations on the cryptocurrency such as Japan, China, and Australia. [1] Malaysia has also begun to place tighter regulations in their country. The “Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM), its central bank, has required that conversions of cryptocurrencies into cash must be reported under the strict transactions under anti-money laundering laws.” [4] Measures such as these allow the country to fully oversee the operations of terrorism financing and tracking which is essential in the battle to slow and stop it. [4] The United States Congress has also followed similar measures. New York Democratic Representative Kathleen Rice has pushed for a bill deemed “House Resolution 2433, the Homeland Security Assessment of Terrorists’ Use of Virtual Currencies Act, would require the DHS to conduct a threat assessment on if, when, how, and why terrorist groups like ISIS are using cryptocurrencies to fund violence at home and abroad.” [5] Bills such as these are what will make up the core of the fight against illegal donations and funding to ISIS. The bill passed the House of Representatives and is currently in the Senate.

What can be done?

It’s simply a matter of understanding what is going on and how terrorist organizations are using Bitcoin to their advantage. Tighter regulations must be put into place and counterterrorism measures must be at the forefront of slowing down illicit donations and funding to ISIS through Bitcoin. As our society has been engulfed in the features and benefits of the technological age of the 21st century, here is a firsthand problem faced by intelligence and cyber analysts. The more measures and standards that are put into place, the harder it is for the trafficking of Bitcoin. There will always be loopholes and channels that terrorist organizations can move their funding, but tightening Bitcoin standards is a key to resolving this problem.

—————————————————————

Sources:

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments

February 11, 2018February 13, 2018 by Maya Norman

Bioterrorism: How Real is the Threat?

Image result for bioterror

https://dribbble.com/shots/1773940-GQ-Magazine-Bio-Terror

Much of the WMD threat today is focused on nuclear weapons and North Korea. However, bioterrorism is a threat worth analyzing. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention defines bioterrorism as biological agents (microbes or toxins) used as weapons to further personal or political agendas. Almost any pathogenic microorganism could be used in a bioterrorist attack, though anthrax and smallpox worry officials the most. The lethality [1] of an effective bioweapon is hard to conceive – one gram of anthrax can contain one trillion spores, which can result in a death toll of between 20 and 100 million people. Some say that the threat of bioterrorism is largely overblown [2], while others are adamant about not underestimating the risk [3]. Factors to consider when assessing the risk include the current global terror environment, the potential for terrorists to obtain pathogenic agents, the ability to weaponize said agents, and successful deployments thereof.

Many weapons of mass destruction require large facilities and highly suspicious components that call attention to nefarious actors. On the other hand, biological weapons can be assembled in a laboratory or home without raising suspicions and require technology that is dual-use [4] in nature. This heightens the threat of a bioweapon for two reasons. First, equipment like aerosolizers and recreational drones [5] can be purchased at easily accessible technology or home improvement stores and be used at home to create a bioweapon. Second, the dual-use dilemma also applies to research, as sanctioned and defense-related experimentation and studies can be conducted on biological weapons as a façade to gain insight into how to create them.

Though the means of purchasing the equipment necessary to create bioweapons, and the ability to create them in one’s home due to the small-scale nature of the agents are feasible, weaponizing the agent remains a significant challenge. The media often underestimate the obstacles involved in creating and effectively deploying a biological weapon, which allows some to misjudge their risk of being involved in an attack. For example, according to the late Dr. J.B. Tucker [6], a chemical and biological weapons expert, to develop an anthrax weapon, one would have to do the following:

“…obtain and cultivate a virulent strain of the bacterium, induce it to sporulate, process the spores into a liquid slurry or a dry powder, formulate the agent with stabilizing chemicals, fill It into a specialized sprayer that can disseminate the spores as a fine-particle aerosol, infecting those exposed through the lungs.”

It is evident that there are many hurdles to overcome in order to create an effective biological weapon. Many of these hurdles can be conquered if the person creating the weapon has real expertise, but there are also environmental elements [7] that can destabilize the agent and render it useless. These weapons are quite sensitive to heat, sunlight, wind, and humidity. Therefore, even if a weapon was created and the means for deployment were obtained, the unpredictability of Mother Nature still stands in the way.

The Biological Weapons Convention and Compliance

One issue that remains at the forefront of the biological weapons issue is that the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) does not have any enforcement mechanisms. The 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, which bans the “development, stockpiling, transfer, and use of biological weapons worldwide,” does not have any valid system to verify that the signatories to the BWC are complying with the established rules of the treaty. While treaties in the past have successfully mitigated disasters without a formal compliance mechanism, and the absence of any real biological weapon attack could be attributed to member states adhering to the convention, the current international political climate is not one in which trust and partnership are feasible options to ensure the safety of the global citizenry.

Reason abounds supporting the notion that a biological terrorist event is possible and likely – this includes the dual-use dilemma and lack of verification in the BWC protocols. One other piece of evidence that lends credibility to this assertion is that many terrorist groups are becoming increasingly apocalyptic and random in their killing. Rather than killing a targeted audience, groups such as ISIS [8] believe the enemy is any person who disagrees with their beliefs. Since biological weapons can kill more people than a nuclear war [9], the apocalyptic nature of some terrorist organizations has rightfully raised concerns about their potential interest in such a lethal and indiscriminate weapon.

While many hurdles exist that must be overcome in order to create a biological weapon, bioterrorism remains a credible threat. It would be a mistake to overestimate the threat and focus too much attention on bioterrorism to the detriment of other, potentially more probable hazards. However, though unlikely, a successful bioterror attack would be catastrophic to innocent human lives, as well as overwhelming to the healthcare industry, creating dramatic fear for the future.

Sources:

[1] https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/busting-anthrax-myth
[2] http://www.phcintelligencer.com/2015/10/12/bioterrorism-neither-likely-nor-practical/
[3]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/17/biological-terrorism-could-kill-people-nuclear-attacks-bill/
[4] https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=22233
[5]https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-11-10/homeland-security-warns-of-weaponized-drones-as-terror-threat
[6]http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9789400752726-c1.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1355019-p174548321
[7] https://adacounty.id.gov/Portals/Accem/Doc/PDF/terrorfaq.pdf
[8] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
[9]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/17/biological-terrorism-could-kill-people-nuclear-attacks-bill/

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments

February 10, 2018October 3, 2018 by John Sims

The United Kingdom and the Challenge of Far-Right Ideologies

Huge crowds: Hundreds gathered in a show of solidarity

Participants gather during a vigil near the Finsbury Park Mosque, the scene of Darren Osborne’s vehicular terrorist attack. [1]

On June 19, 2016, Darren Osborne, motivated by anger about the terror attacks in the United Kingdom, drove his vehicle into a group of Muslim worshipers outside the Finsbury Park Mosque. Osborne killed one, Makram Ali, and injured nine others. Ali had collapsed on the sidewalk prior to the attack and a group of Muslims had stopped to lend assistance. While the group was providing aid, Osborne struck with his vehicle. Ali died at the scene.

On February 1, 2018, a British court decided Osborne’s fate. He was found guilty. Osborne was convicted of murder and attempted murder. Evidence presented during the trial showed that Osborne had recently become radicalized from anti-Muslim extremism propaganda. Justice Bobbie Cheema-Grubb stated that “[Osborne’s action] was a terrorist attack. [He] intended to kill.” [2] Osborne was sentenced to life in prison with a minimum term of 43 years.

This attack represents another in an ongoing problem of radical right-wing attacks occurring in Great Britain. In June 2016, Helen Joanne (Jo) Cox, a Member of Parliament, was murdered by a far-right extremist. Cox was a member of the Labour Party, who, prior to the Brexit referendum, advocated for the United Kingdom remaining in the European Union. Her killer, Thomas Mair, claimed to be a political activist and witnesses claimed he had shouted, “This is for Britain,” when he attacked Cox [3]. Prior to the attack, Mair had reviewed white-nationalist websites and followed far-right political leaders.

These incidents were not the first acts of far-right extremism in the United Kingdom. They may very well not be the last.

The United Kingdom has witnessed the rise of far-right groups that promote nationalist and anti-Muslim ideologies. National Action, which celebrated Jo Cox’s murder, became the first far-right group to be described as a terrorist organization in the United Kingdom [4]. Far-right groups like the English Defense League and Britain First have staged anti-Muslim protests. Britain First’s leaders, Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen, were arrested and charged in Belfast, Northern Ireland for “using threatening, abusive, insulting words or behavior.” [5] The United Kingdom, unlike the United States, has very stringent laws governing hate speech and its promotion in public spaces.

A message and floral tributes for Jo Cox

Mourners pay respects and leave messages outside Parliament Square following the death of MP Jo Cox. [6]

Hate speech is strongly prohibited in the United Kingdom. In the United States, you can stand on a street corner and champion whatever ideology you believe is appropriate. An individual can advocate religious condemnations, shout racial epithets, or denigrate a particular nationality. The United Kingdom, however, prohibits this type of commentary in public spheres [7]. Individuals in the United Kingdom can still preach their ideologies, however, they risk a greater likelihood of being arrested for incitement. Leaders of far-right movements face possible arrest and imprisonment when they move their anti-immigrant and anti-Islam views into the public arena.

To be clear, being a far-right political group does not make an organization a terrorist group. Even advocating racial or religious prejudice does not necessarily make yours a terrorist group. However, the promotion of hateful ideologies can lead members to take matters into their own hands with violent consequences. Britain First may condemn the actions of individuals like Thomas Mair [8], but condemnation does not absolve them of previously advocating hate against a community or faith.

The internet provides a platform for spreading far-right extremist ideology. The United Kingdom’s far-right platforms are immediately recognizable alongside the writings and work of other far-right organizations across the globe such as American white-supremacist groups and neo-Nazi movements. The internet offers an extensive platform to incite individuals to perpetrate hate crimes and terrorist acts against different communities.

The United Kingdom has a long, violent past with terrorism. Northern Irish terrorism remained an ever-present danger from the 1970s until the 2000s. Terrorists perpetrated notable violent attacks in the 2000s including the London bombings. These attacks continue into the present with lone-wolf stabbings and vehicular assaults. Far-right extremism in the United Kingdom, however, persists, overlapping with these other periods of terrorist activity. Far-right organizations have not limited their violence to one faith or creed. The attacks on MP Jo Cox and Makrim Ali demonstrate that domestic politicians and members of other religious faiths are both viable targets.

Terrorism is a tactic used in pursuit of a political goal: to generate fear and intimidation in a specific population. Far-right terrorist actors engage in these attacks to promote their brand of politics. Osborne perpetrated his vehicular attack in pursuit of an anti-Muslim agenda. Mair shot and stabbed a Member of Parliament in pursuit of a nationalist agenda. Far-right movements are growing in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Europe. Governments need to assess where all types of terrorists, foreign or domestic, come from and combat the environments in which their extremist ideologies arise.

————————————————————————————————————-

Sources:

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-40324590
[2] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42920929
[3] https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/europe/british-mp-jo-cox-attacked/index.html
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/12/neo-nazi-group-national-action-banned-by-uk-home-secretary
[5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/14/britain-first-leader-paul-golding-arrested-in-belfast
[6] https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/europe/british-mp-jo-cox-attacked/index.html
[7] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/pdfs/ukpga_20080004_en.pdf
[8] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/16/labour-mp-jo-cox-shot-in-leeds-witnesses-report/

in EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments

February 10, 2018October 3, 2018 by Josephine Neulen

Education Has Become A Casualty of War

Last week, USA Today published an article about a boy named Said in Kenya who had been unable to attend school for more than three years because of the presence of the violent extremist group al-Shabab in his town. According to the article, dozens of schools in the area had been closed for as long as four years since al-Shabab began to use the region as a staging ground for its attacks, leaving thousands of children across the region without proper education.

Unfortunately, this story is not unique. All across areas plagued by violent extremism, education for children is one of the first institutions to suffer. In eastern Ghouta, Syria, almost one in three school-age children, approximately 1.75 million, are out of school due to threats of violence and destruction. According to a Human Rights Watch report, an estimated 25 million children are out of school due to the disruption of violence in Pakistan.

Afghan school children walk home after classes near an open classroom in the outskirts of Jalalabad. Afghanistan has had only rare moments of peace over the past 30 years, its education system being undermined by the Soviet invasion of 1979, a civil war in the 1990s and five years of Taliban rule. (Noorullah Shirzada/Getty Images)

While violence, loss of life, and destruction are some of the immediate effects of terrorism, the long-term impacts are much more complex and, perhaps, more harmful.

Terrorism leaves an economy crippled as local businesses and infrastructure are decimated by violence and it can leave deep psychological scars in its population. But the long-term effects of the loss of education are dangerous and heartbreaking.

Children walk home from school in a Nairobi slum. Darrin Zammit Lupi/Reuters

A lack of education leaves an entire generation disadvantaged and seriously stagnates the development of a country, especially after years of destruction. It leaves millions of bright, gifted children without a way to fulfill their potential.

Without education and the opportunities and knowledge it brings, populations tend to be more vulnerable to extremist rhetoric and radicalization, leading to a perpetuation of the problem. Protecting and continuing to encourage educational programs could prevent future conflicts from emerging and improve the quality of life for millions of people.

Scarred: Hamida Lasseko, Unicef’s deputy representative in Syria’s capital Damascus, said: ‘When one says that it is the worst place to be as a child, in Syria, for now, I would agree. Children are missing from education, they are out of school. Children have the hidden wounds, and these wounds form scars’

Education is immeasurably important, and while countless studies have tried to fully grasp the scope of its impact, it reaches much further than one can imagine. This issue is not about one Kenyan boy named Said, but millions of children who are bright and deserve a future without fear.

——————————————————————————————————-

Sources:

^[1]Kenya: Terrorism by al-Shabab is so bad, kids can’t go to school. (2018, February 2).

^[2] Section, U. N. N. S. (2017, December 11). UN News – Violence shuts schools, deprives children of medical care in Syria’s East Ghouta, warns UNICEF.

^[3]Human Rights Watch | 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor | New York, NY 10118-3299 USA | t 1.212.290.4700. (2017, March 27). Dreams Turned into Nightmares | Attacks on Students, Teachers, and Schools in Pakistan.

in Africa / Asia / MENA / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments

« Previous