Blog

This is where we share our experience
MENA
 by Sakhi Naimzada

Gulf Rivalries and the Afghan Peace Talks

11 300x213 - Gulf Rivalries and the Afghan Peace Talks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who are Warren Christopher Clark and Zaid Abed al-Hamid?

returning extremists - Who are Warren Christopher Clark and Zaid Abed al-Hamid?

Warren Christopher Clark (left) and Zaid Abed  al-Hamid (right) in SDF Custody.

In January 2019, Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) captured a group of men who they state were seeking to launch attacks against civilians fleeing the small pockets of territory still under Islamic State control. The group consisted of men from around the globe, including Pakistan, Ireland, and the United States. Warren Christopher Clark and Zaid Abed al-Hamid, two of the men captured by SDF forces, were named and identified as American citizens by their captors on social media based on forms of identification on their persons. Clark, who goes by the kunya of Abu Mohammad al-Ameriki, has since been positively identified as an American from Texas. Al-Hamid, who now goes by Abu Zaid al-Ameriki, has a much less clear background.

Clark’s background has been explored and significant insight has been gained from Clark himself in videotaped interviews he participated in while in SDF custody. Clark is a former substitute teacher from the Houston metropolitan area. It is believed that Clark is 34 years of age. It has been confirmed that he graduated from University of Houston, where he majored in political science and minored in global business. After several years of being a substitute teacher, Clark began to watch videos of the Islamic State online. Curious, Clark was able to make contact with an Islamic State representative, sending them a resume and cover letter explaining his desire to teach English to children in the caliphate. Clark states that he is a convert to Islam, though it is unclear when he converted. After traveling to Syria via Turkey, Clark states that he never picked up arms for the caliphate. In interviews after he was captured, Clark stated that he did not regret joining the group, and even justified beheadings conducted by the group, comparing them to executions in the United States criminal justice system.

While questions remain about al-Hamid and his background, it is known that he is originally from Trinidad, where he was detained in 2011 for plotting to kill their prime minister. Beyond this, al-Hamid was featured in numerous Islamic State propaganda videos where he discusses converting to Islam and the struggles he faced practicing his religion there. Rumors have circulated that al-Hamid is a dual-US citizen. This has not been confirmed, but his use of al-Ameriki in his kunya suggests some background in the United States. When al-Hamid made his journey to the caliphate, he brought along his wife and multiple children. It is unclear if they are still alive.

Clark, who has been transferred to US custody and brought back to Texas, has since been indicted and charged with providing material support to the Islamic State. The indictment covers a period from 2011, when he first drew the attention of federal law enforcement officials for online activities pertaining to jihadists social media entities.

Early investigation into both Clark and al-Hamid has not resulted in substantial findings in terms of potential solutions for further countering violent extremist ideology. Both Clark and al-Hamid were converts to Islam. In both of their lives, it appears that there was or may have been a feeling of marginalization within society. Clark, despite having a formal education, could not find a full-time position teaching. Al-Hamid, in Islamic State propaganda videos, stated that he struggled practicing his faith in Trinidad and felt like an outsider. Both men appeared to have been at least partially influenced by online extremist sites.

The lessons learned thus far in both Clark and al-Hamid’s cases is limited. However, perceived or real marginalization appears to be an underlying factor in both cases respectfully. Time will dictate policy recommendations to prevent radicalization, but one cannot ignore the continuous appearance of marginalization in case studies of those who have become radicalized towards extremist ideologies.

in MENA / Rise to Peace blog / United States 0 comments
 by Sakhi Naimzada

Intra-Afghan Peace Talks in the Absence of Afghan Government

peace talks 300x169 - 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 Caleb Septoff

Terror’s New Form

maxresdefault - Terror’s New Form

Source: The East African (2014)

Author: Caleb Septoff

Perhaps one of the greatest scientific achievements in human history is the invention of the internet, which landmarked the beginning of the digital age in the modern era. Its uses span multiple fields and in large part is responsible for the high levels of rapid globalization we have become accustomed to today. Although it has improved humanity in many facets, it has also led to the increase in the susceptibility of nations’ and individuals to cyber-attacks. The internet has evolved over the last decade with the inception of social media and cyber currency, but with this evolution comes a new wave of terrorism in the form of cyber-attacks, propaganda, hacking, and online recruitment. The threat has grown substantially – enough for even university institutions, namely New York University (NYU), to offer cyber security majors and courses solely to deter these types of attacks.

Before venturing into the subject of digital terrorism, it is important to explore something less widely known to the average internet user; this being the deep web and dark net. The internet is composed of two main points of access; the surface web and the dark web. The surface web is most common to everyday users and comprises mainly of search engines, like Google and Bing, and the information found is unrestricted. Comparatively, the deep web differs mainly in size, estimated at four to five hundred times bigger than the surface web, accounting for 90% of the internet. In comparison to the surface web, the wealth of information stored on the deep web is gigantic. Most of the deep web is restricted by applications, which grant access to databases or password protected sites. Anything from social media, such as Facebook or Instagram, to online banking are considered part of the deep web. In addition to its size, the dark web differs  in its accessibility. Despite popular beliefs, the deep web and dark net are not synonymous. Rather, the dark net exists hidden below the surface web. The dark net is almost entirely unregulated and is even harder to access than the deep web. To date, the dark net hosts an unknown number of websites, but the content ranges from people sending messages who wish to maintain anonymity to underground drug dealing, sex trafficking, weapons dealing, and the focus of this article, terrorists and extremists’ sites.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) or Daesh, was the first terrorist organization to truly maximize their outreach using the internet. When Abu Bakar al-Baghdadi declared the caliphate, a wave of propaganda and recruitment media took social media by storm. While destructive, authorities and the companies themselves were able to mitigate much of the content since it took place on the more accessible surface web. However, the organization consistently found new ways to respond to authorities’ crackdowns. First, they began attracting people through social media and other corners of the surface web and then slowly moved them towards more difficult protected places like domains and chat rooms on the dark net. In addition, the use of messaging applications that offered heavy encryption, like Telegram, were core ways for them to communicate. The use of these cyber tools aided in attracting over 20,000 foreign fighters from more than 10 different countries to flock to Syria to fight on ISIL’s behalf, and even more followers aided the organization from remote positions around the globe. In early 2018, New York Times’ reporter, Rukimini Callimachi, released a podcast by the name of “Caliphate.” The podcast goes into detail about one Canadian man’s experience of being recruited through multiple steps, starting on social media and eventually moving into private chat rooms. Callimachi’s reporting highlights how effective ISIL’s extensive reach was, not only technologically, but by simply creating effective connections with people, especially the youth.

Thus far, terrorists’ groups have not been able to do much more than the defacement of webpages and execution of minor cases of hacking. For example, a series of attacks in 2015, all claiming ties to Daesh, were executed in various countries. Most notably, a self-titled group called Cyber Caliphate managed to hack Malaysia Airlines’ main website, deface the French TV5 broadcast station, and hack the US military Central Command’s YouTube and Twitter accounts. Technology is continuously growing and it gets more sophisticated every year. As greater attention turns to digital recruitment and terrorism, these “small” attacks will grow larger in scope and harm. The possibility of cutting electric to hospitals or inciting mass riots through the spread of false media is very real and dangerous. The need to find adequate responses to the rising dangers of cyber terrorism is crucial to the future of counter terrorism. Perhaps most conspicuously, the important question becomes how to best be proactive in thwarting attacks and rather than simply being reactive.

The international community has a plethora of different third-party watch dogs when it comes to war and terrorism, whether they come in the form of global entities like the United Nations (UN) or International Non-Profit Organizations (INGO). In addition, a multitude of international treaties and agreements exist to set standards for war and outline what is not acceptable. The Geneva Convention, one of the most important and widely known, is comprised of four treaties and three protocols that establish standards for humanitarian rights and treatment during times of war. Yet, something these organizations don’t cover adequately is how to respond to cyber warfare and digital terrorism. One of the greatest challenges in dealing with these online threats is attribution, or ascribing blame to those who have committed the crime and proving it. According to a RAND Corporation video on the subject, they identify three main types of attribution: political (dealing with diplomatic knowledge and political actors’ objectives), technical (IP addresses, log file analysis, etc.), and clandestine (classified information and political insights).

Categorizing makes it easier to decide how to interpret the crime and, thus, how to assign punishment. However, it is not simple to prove digital crimes without access to data that, for the most part, is private, anonymous and not easily tracked. Citizens’ right to privacy and the level of privacy that is entitled has become a topic of high contention in the debate for higher cyber security. Although these are difficult issues to deal with, the international community needs to step up and begin to take action before cyber warfare reaches a level with much higher stakes. Like the UN, there needs to be a large international organization that can specialize in cyber security and cyber terrorism. It would require the nonexistence of any political affiliation to be effective and act on behalf of any country that requires its services to increase its credibility. Perhaps, most important, would be its role in providing international laws on cyber warfare and attacks to clearly and concisely build a foundation or framework for security agencies to work from. It would also be responsible for developing the mechanisms for freedom of expression and privacy; although this would most likely fall to the specific countries rather than the independent watch dog organization.

Social media platforms have done relatively well at combing through their users and content to locate possible terrorist activities, but this is not enough. Further action needs to be taken regarding regulation. Systems need to be devised to adequately monitor both the surface web content and the deep and dark web to locate, deter and respond to these threats before they can implement harm to critical infrastructures, governments, businesses, and even the psyches of viewers. Creating measures to regulate data and prevent data mining for terrorist activities is crucial to preventing the attacks in the future. There is no easy answer to the rising threat of cyber terrorism and warfare, but it’s imperative that solutions and international cooperation begins sooner than later.

in MENA / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Caleb Septoff

ISIS Threat

Since ISIS’, or Daesh’s, ascension to power, following the chaos of the Syrian uprisings in 2011, the world has watched as these Islamists used increasingly brutal tactics to secure huge swaths of land in both Syria and Iraq. They targeted fragile, war-torn countries with low state capacity and worked to push their own agenda. The religious fundamentalists quickly gained international fame as they exploited the realm of social media to a new level, posting videos and creating multiple accounts on different platforms to attract followers from across the globe. However, the magnitude of their global attention eventually worked against the organization as the United States and other nations showed support and entered Syria for the sole purpose of extinguishing ISIS.

Over 30,000 airstrikes later and aggressive military policies by the United States, backed by around sixty-eight other countries, ISIS has lost most of its territory it formerly held in Iraq and Syria. Despite this, the group has managed to keep a small piece of land near the Syrian-Iraqi border for more than a year now. The plot of land is tucked around a quaint Syrian town known as Hajin in the Deir al-Zour province. Occasionally, militants still attempt to stage an attack outside of the small parcel of land they control, but even these attacks appear feeble and unorganized, like the last breath before they cease to exist any longer, unlike their prior attacks. Especially the attacks that took Europe by surprise in 2014 and 2015. However, it has been more than four years since Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Daesh, declared the caliphate and those attacks seem to be a distant memory to many. Today it appears to most of the world that ISIS is not only no longer a threat but has been eradicated from existence.

Maxwell B. Markusen, associate fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in D.C., spoke to the New York Timesand stated that this rhetoric commonly being used is destructive as it insinuates that ISIS is no longer a threat. Although the area they control has seriously diminished, this is not the case. ISIS’ lightning fast rise to the forefront of the world’s most feared organizations is mainly the result of the propaganda and recruitment arm that remains active. ISIS is currently broadcasting their videos and messages at a similar pace as they were when at the height of their power. There were more attacks in 2017 than in 2016 and although the numbers of successful attacks have gone down significantly, attempted attacks continue at a pace similar to that in 2015. Although their territory has diminished it is thought that they still retain around 30,000 members in total throughout Syria and Iraq, though these numbers cannot be confirmed. The American led fight to take Hajin, the last place ISIS officially operates from, is proving harder than anticipated, even with the help of the Syrian Democratic Forces. ISIS is pushed back against a corner and has no problem fighting like there is nothing to lose. They have been reported to use the civilians which has only slowed fighting further.

Recently, President Donald Trump tweeted a video statement where he declared, “we have beaten them, and we have beaten them badly. It’s time to bring our troops home…We won.” While many families will be rejoicing as their sons and daughters are sent home, one must wonder if pulling the estimated two thousand American troops out of Syria is the correct move. Not only is ISIS’ presence and influence still widely felt, it leaves only Russia, Iran and Hezbollah as the major players in the geopolitical center of the Middle East. Bordering Syria are five of the U.S. allies: Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, and Lebanon. None of these allies will appreciate the abrupt removal by the U.S. Once the U.S. leaves they give up their position of diplomatic leverage and forfeit it to the aforementioned countries still involved. The announcement came as a surprise, but will no doubt be greeted warmly by both Russia and Bashar al-Assad, president of Syria. Russia has long fought for sole influence over Syria and has long desired it as a military base for their naval and air forces. The Trump administrations own team seems to have been taken by surprise as well. Brett McGurk, the State Department’s Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, said at a briefingon December 11th, “if we’ve learned one thing over the years, enduring defeat of a group like this means you can’t just defeat their physical space and then leave. You have to make sure the internal security forces are in place to ensure that those gains, security gains, are enduring.”

Haphazardly pulling troops out may seem like a good move after years of being stationed in a war zone, but McGurk is accurate in his assessment. The U.S. has on more than one occasion, think Afghanistan and Iraq, acted against unfit regimes or terrorist organizations and then quickly left soon after the fighting slowed. ISIS is not obliterated; they still exist and are actively recruiting new followers. Leaving a country without infrastructure or institutions to maintain peace will only result in the resurfacing of the movement. The age old saying, ‘history repeats itself’ will ring true if the U.S. chooses not to learn from its past. In this situation, the U.S. should not pull out all troops and leave the region void of its influence. Instead, the U.S. should focus on rebuilding what they have aided in destroying and use their influence to not only keep ISIS at bay but also to work with other nations, including Syria to rebuild the country and its institutions. This in the long run will leave less space for terrorists’ organizations such as ISIS to flourish as many of the capabilities to protect against extremism are found within strong infrastructure and institutions.

in MENA / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Caleb Septoff

When Will the Bloodshed in Syria End?

Late last year, most of the world let out a sigh of relief as it began to appear as though the almost decade-long, brutal Syrian civil war had ended. Bashar al-Assad’s men erected their flag in the town of Daraa. Although more violence did ensue, it was obvious what the flag represented. Daraa was the town where the uprising on March 6, 2011, first began. The flag was a statement.

Syria had essentially won the war after receiving considerable support from Russia. The rebels and their allies had lost. The United States had prioritized the fight against the Islamic State and did not pay too much heed, except for words of consolation and a small amount of funding for refugees and the retraining of “well-vetted” rebels. As they entered the fray in the summer of 2017, the war was winding down and the Islamic State’s “caliphate” was hanging loosely by a thread.

After reports of chemical warfare, the U.S., along with other western nations, executed airstrikes targeting facilities in which chemical weaponry was thought to be manufactured. As the months dragged on, the Syrian government and its forces captured more and more of the last few areas held by rebels.

Finally, on October 15, 2018, Turkey, advocating on behalf of the rebels, and Russia, advocating on behalf of Assad’s regime, reached a ceasefire agreement in the Idlib region of Syria. This agreement was fabricated to establish Idlib as a buffer zone and essentially de-escalate any further perceived violence by the Syrian forces, focusing on the last of the remaining rebel forces.

As of November 26, 2018, this agreement is now being threatened given that Russia has accused the rebels of launching chemical attacks on the city of Aleppo, injuring at least 100 people. Although the rebels refused to take responsibility for the attack, the accusations were nevertheless met with immediate airstrikes by Russian forces.

The ceasefire that had managed to stand for a few months is now in danger of collapse. The chemicals in question have not yet officially been verified, although the Syrian government has claimed they are chlorine-based gas attacks. However, this has not yet been confirmed and could just as well have been a less harmful gas such as tear gas. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, a third-party watchdog, is set to investigate further to find out what exactly was used.

Opposition forces, including the rebel forces, claim that Assad’s regime is simply fabricating the accusations to give them an excuse to wipe out the last remaining rebels once and for all. Both sides have reason to avoid conflict. All parties should be routing for a peaceful conclusion in which the dispute can be solved, otherwise innocent blood will inevitably be spilled again. As in most conflicts, it is the people of the country who have suffered the most, and they will again pay the price if this cannot be solved non-violently.

If violence cannot be avoided, a new surge of refugees will flow from the violence, most likely to Turkey. This is one of Turkey’s key reasons for desiring to keep the buffer zone intact. Wars often produce fragile states, which in turn often provide hotbeds for extremism to operate, as we saw with the Islamic State not long ago.

The United States has yet to issue a statement on the incident but seeing as thwarting international terrorism is one of their chief goals in the Middle East, they should exert their influence to help mediate the conflict between Turkey and Russia. Finally, Russia wishes to show the international community that conflict in Syria has died down and that countries should look to aid in stabilizing the country once again by paying for reconstruction projects.

This will never happen if war breaks out again and more lives are lost. The rebels numbers are low, there is no hope of beating Russia and Assad’s forces if peace is not reached the country of Syria will continue to bleed.

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

Defining the Problem and Reaching a Solution: A Reflection on How to Counter Violent Extremism

IMG 0630 - Defining the Problem and Reaching a Solution: A Reflection on How to Counter Violent Extremism

“Violent extremism knows no boundaries.” That was the message that Rise to Peace founder Ahmad Mohibi used to open “How to Counter Violent Extremism,” the latest Rise to Peace panel discussion, which took place this Tuesday at the Elliott School of International Affairs. With that in mind, the panelists – Leanne Erdberg, U.S. Institute of Peace; Jesse Morton, Parallel Networks; and Edward Burkhalter, U.S. Department of State – offered their perspectives on the best ways to counter violent extremism.

The panel’s first challenge was defining extremism and terrorism. Leanne Erdberg offered a legal definition: terrorism is limited to action, while extremism also includes violent thoughts. Jesse Morton focused on the definition’s practical implications. Terrorists, he poses, are cemented in their action, and thus countering terrorism is necessarily catching and punishing those who commit violent acts. An extremist is undergoing a cognitive radicalization process and can pulled away from extremist movements. Counterterrorism, he says, is the realm of law enforcement, but CVE is more complicated, and requires the engagement of more stakeholders.

Conversation then moved to how the problem of extremism has grown. Jesse Morton observed that mainstream media informs social media radicalization. For example, Islamophobic narratives in news media fuels polarization narratives used by radicalizers online. In a similar vein, Edward Burkhalter noted that A 24-hour news cycle can make problems seem more severe than they really are, and it is important to focus discussion on proven research.

Panelists then discussed the shortcomings of past efforts to curtail violent extremism. Jesse Morton provided historical background by discussing the roots of the “hearts and minds” in marketing campaigns and advertising.

Leanne Erdberg built on this theme by questioning the framing of programs and success in general. She argues that CVE that operates within an advertising scheme, which treats the communities they serve as an audience rather than giving them agency over the process. Programs that abandon that approach and instead emphasize people taking their future into their own hands are more empowering and more successful.

Ahmad Mohibi discussed CVE shortcomings in the context of Afghanistan. He said that CVE is impossible without trust, and in Afghanistan the trust between the Afghan and American government and the Afghan people is lacking. As long as people feel disconnected and distrustful of their leaders, extremism will continue. Edward Burkhalter provided a U.S. government perspective, acknowledging the futility of trying to improve a community without consulting its members. He elaborated, saying that the U.S. tries to follow a “do no harm” approach, and be sure that CVE or development efforts do not have unintended consequences. The only way to accomplish that is by relying on local partners.

in Africa / Ahmad Mohibi / Asia / EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA / Latin America / MENA / Rise to Peace blog / United States 0 comments
 by Kristine Olsen

My Best Weapon: A story of Dignity and Courage

“I tell my story because it is the best weapon I have” Nadia Murad, 2018 winner of Nobel Peace Prize

Courage, dignity, and peace. These are tenets that the Nobel Peace Prize seeks to reward and encourage, and this year’s winners have both demonstrated the importance of these tenets in their life and work.  This October, the Oslo-based committee chose two recipients who have been vocal proponents of ending gender-based crimes: Denis Mukwege, a Congolese surgeon who has spent his life treating women who are victims of rape, and Nadia Mura, a Yazidi woman captured and held as a sex slave by the ISIS.  The winners and their joint cause is particularly fitting in that this is the tenth anniversary of UN Resolution 1820, which condemns the use sexual violence as a tool of war and denotes such acts of violence as “crimes against humanity.” Murad joins a small group of only 17 other women who have won the prize and is the only Iraqi to win.  

Nadia Murad is 25 year old Yazidi human rights advocate whose horrific story of courage, resilience, and deep belief in peace has inspired many.  After years of local fighting, ISIS rose to power in Iraq and began their reign of terror, with a particularly brutal response to the Yazidis, murdering thousands and taking thousands more as sex slaves.

In 2013, Nadia was captured in her small village of Kocho where after witnessing ISIS kill her mother and six of her brothers, she was taken to Mosul where she was sold in a slave market.

She was enslaved and beaten by ISIS military, and eventually sold to an ISIS judge, Hajji Salman, who continued to rape and beat her. After fifteen months in captivity, Nadia escaped when her captor left the front door open and she courageously ran away. Not knowing how to escape Mosul, she knocked on a door and was luckily met with kindness; a Muslim family helped her obtain fake Islamic identification, and then at great risk smuggled her to a refugee camp in Kurdish controlled territory where she was reconnected with one of her surviving brothers. She was then granted asylum in Germany where she continues to reside.

In November 2015, Murad told her story before the United Nations. She wanted the world to know what had happened to her and she wanted to be the last girl that would have to suffer as she did. She also wanted ISIS held accountable for their war crimes. As part of her speech, she implored the UN to work harder to protect vulnerable populations in conflict zones.

Since her escape, Murad has won numerous awards, such as the Vaclav Human Rights Prize, Sakharov Prize, the Clinton Global Citizen Award, and the Peace Prize.

She also published a book, The Last Girl: My Story of Captivity and My Fight Against the Islamic State. She has also been named the United Nations first Goodwill Ambassador for the Dignity of Survivors of Human Trafficking. Despite all of her notoriety and awards, she continues to work tirelessly for the Yazidi people and women and girls around the world who are war victims of gender-based violence. Her work aims to hold terrorists accountable for their actions; something many say is impossible. She is also committed to stopping the use of rape and sex slavery as weapons of war and terrorism. Her focus is forward-looking, hoping to help victims move on with their lives and help them recover the dignity that was stolen from them.  

Terrorism has far-reaching impacts on victims all over the world, but all too often we only hear of the large bombings in major western cities and forget about the thousands who suffer every day at the hands of terrorists. Women and girls continue to bear the brunt of the daily suffering as groups like ISIS, Boko Haram, and others continue to exploit women, raping, beating and selling them, and aiming to take their dignity.  But women like Murad, hope to shine the light so bright, that people will begin to hold these groups accountable for their crimes. Murad says, “I tell my story because it is the best weapon I have.” She hopes her words can educate others, build empathy, help to end the suffering that women endure, and perhaps most importantly, find justice for all the women who have suffered by bringing these cases to trial.

2018 11 07 Kristine Pic 300x169 - My Best Weapon: A story of Dignity and Courage

Nadia Murad (Credit AP)

 

in MENA / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Kristine Olsen

A look at Saudi Arabia in light of recent events and moving forward

5ac69e33146e7126008b46b8 750 375 - A look at Saudi Arabia in light of recent events and moving forward

President Donald Trump shakes hands with Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan during a meeting with leaders at the Gulf Cooperation Council Summit, at the King Abdulaziz Conference Center, Sunday, May 21, 2017, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Trump will use the nation that is home to Islam’s holiest site as a backdrop to call for Muslim unity in the fight against terrorism Sunday, as he works to build relationships with Arab leaders.AP Photo/Evan Vucci

Last Monday I attended the Inaugural Annual Gulf International Conference in Washington D.C. where Saudi-American journalist Jamal Khashoggi was scheduled to speak on the importance of a free press.

However, over the weekend, Khashoggi disappeared while visiting the Saudi Embassy in Istanbul. On Monday while at the conference, the official word was that the Saudi government had no knowledge of the situation but would examine it closely.

At the conference, Khashoggi’s presence and spirit were palpable, but most participants believed Khashoggi was murdered for speaking out against the regime’s reign of terror in Yemen. Since the conference, the Saudi government’s position has shifted from denial to assertions that the journalist died in a fist-fight during interrogation.

It is no coincidence that the President of the United States took his inaugural international trip to Saudi Arabia, while predecessors chose neighboring countries like Canada or Mexico.

President Trump voiced his friendship with the Kingdom while still on the campaign trail, and continued his support from the beginning of his presidency, making it clear that he wanted a strong diplomatic and economic relationship with the Saudi government.

Although President Trump espoused the importance of a strategic partnership with the Saudis as a way to stabilize the region, many have questioned his motivation. In 2001, he sold the entire 45th floor of Trump World Tower to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for $4.5 million. It is this relationship that many believe has, at least partly, clouded his judgment. Trump spent the week supporting the Crown Prince and King, claiming they denied involvement and pledged to investigate and hold accountable those who killed
Jamal Khashoggi.

The U.S. has a complicated relationship with Saudi Arabia and the death of Jamal Khashoggi makes it even more complex.

The Saudis invest heavily in the U.S. economy and have traded in excess of $23 billion per year. However, the Saudi government is also said to have economic ties to terrorist organizations, not to mention an abysmal human rights record. The U.S. government has repeatedly overlooked both the terror funding and human rights violations.

The current administration is said to have even greater motivation to overlook human rights issues. The president’s son-in-law and Senior Policy Advisor to the Middle East, Jared Kushner has close relations with the Crown Prince. Additionally, the U.S. has secured a multi-million dollar arms deal, which the President touts as a boom for defense jobs (this remains to confirmed).

Complicating the relationship and U.S. response is the fact that Khashoggi was a U.S. resident who wrote for the Washington Post, but not a U.S. citizen, justifying a more hands-off approach from the President.

At the conference, congressmen, journalists, and retired ambassadors resoundingly supported punitive action by the U.S. against the Saudi regime. Many speakers shamed President Trump and called for the United States to cut diplomatic ties with the Saudis, enact sanctions, and put human rights ahead of arms deals. The consensus was that continuing to support the Saudi regime after such a blatant act of violence designed to silence a critic called into question not just the ethics of Saudi Arabia, but also the ethics and values of the U.S.

Would the U.S. put an arms deal ahead of human rights, knowing that the arms would be used in the Saudi’s campaign against the people of Yemen? One week after the conference, the truth regarding Khashoggi’s disappearance is beginning to emerge, and a clearer picture of the Saudi regime is coming into focus.

One week ago, the Saudi government denied any involvement in Khashoggi’s death, and today they reiterate their denial of their role in attacks on civilian targets in Yemen. There is undisputed evidence
that the Saudis were involved in Khashoggi’s death and that of many civilians in Yemen, yet the regime continues to stall, deflect, lie, and justify their actions, while the U.S. and international community look the other way.

It is time to shine the light clearly on the Saudi government’s actions and stop their terroristic activities and human right abuses.

It is time to hold them accountable for their military campaign in Yemen, the financial support of terror groups such as the Taliban and Hamas, and the death of Jamal Khashoggi. No doubt, a sustainable solution that puts human rights ahead of violence is going to be a difficult solution to implement. But if we put an arms deal first, worsening the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, disrespecting basic freedoms, then we are complicit.

in MENA / Rise to Peace blog / United States 0 comments
 by Unzila Qureshi

Muslim Democracy

iranian anti regime protests. afp 0 - Muslim Democracy

London – Hoda al-Husseini

While the term contains the word Muslim, Muslim democracy seeks neither to reform or build theocracies, but rather to incorporate Islamic ideals into democracies in Muslim majority countries.

Muslim democracy as a concept is being practiced by Islamist groups which aspire to political relevance without revolutionary goals. Violence is an issue that determines whether a group is relevant to the Muslim democracy discussion, in that groups must have an attitude of deterrence as regards violence.

While an unfavorable position on violence is a vital aspect of Muslim democratic status, it is not the only aspect.

Other characteristics that determine how an Islamist group would fair in a democratic setting include its attitude toward minorities, political pluralism, and whether they believe religious authorities should have veto power in the political processes.

While all these elements are germane to determining a Muslim democracy’s potential, gauging how successful Muslim democracies are is less clear-cut.

Muslim leaders can claim an affinity for democracy while behaving in ways that tell a different story. The best way then, to gauge a Muslim democracy’s status is to determine how internally democratic a given group is. Until political freedom exists in a community, none of the aforementioned amounts to much. If there is no political freedom, then there is no incentive for political parties or leaders to explain themselves and their views on issues. A democratic process wherein any group can engage is essential in determining a group’s legitimacy. The case studies in Muslim Democracy are Turkey’s AKP party and the IAF in Jordan.

The AKP, Turkey’s Justice and Development Party, has been in power since 2001 and has seen three free and fair elections. The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire midwifed the Turkish Republic, which was founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. The “Kemalist Ideology” was a secularist ideology based on rapid modernization. This ideology was based on the glorification of pre-Islamic Turkey, and it endeavored to eliminate the Islamic traditionalism that had been a part of Ottoman rule. However, the Kemalist Ideology never gained traction with the rural masses, yielding many Islamic and Kurdish rebellions.

The AKP was created by the reformist wing of the Islamist Refah Party, after recognizing no openly Islamist party would gain momentum in Turkey.

AKP succeeded in a landslide in 2002 with 34% of the vote and 2/3 of the seats. The success can be attributed to the rise of the new conservative provincial classes, as well as the AKP being labeled as a conservative democracy. AKP embraced minority and human rights, democracy and demilitarization instead of orientation to the Muslim world. The adoption of a neoliberal fiscal policy brought about a Turkish economic boom, and a focus on issues like health care, housing credits, student grants, and infrastructure.

While AKP rose to power espousing a secular ideology, it later used its popular mandate to implement more Islamist policies, such as banning adultery in 2004 and reintroducing headscarves in universities. In 2008, the government launched investigations of the military based on secret deep state paranoia.

In 2010, alleged coup plans were revealed resulting in the arrest of army officers. The Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, had gained newfound confidence at this point which resulting in more Islamist reforms like upgrading flight attendant uniforms to ones in accord with Islamic teachings. The regime also took a more authoritarian tone: censoring the internet, issuing new press laws, and shutting down anti-AKP protests. While the AKP initially inspired optimism as a democratic model and seemed to be moving in the right direction, the absence of a significant, effective opposition has allowed it to veer closer to authoritarianism.

The Islamic Action Front (IAF), established in 1945, started as a charitable organization advocating religious awareness and practice.

It had built and maintained a close and cooperative relationship with the government before entering politics in 1989. Later known as the IAF, the Islamist bloc emerged as the single largest political fraction in the 1989 elections. In the 1990s when there was nothing uniting the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists with the regime after the secularists and nationalists had been sidelined, they looked to curb the political influence of the Islamists.

By this point, the Islamists were more vocal in their opposition to the regime, and the regime had become wary of pro-Palestinian youths groups emerging from the Muslim Brotherhood. The electoral reforms of 1993 were seen as driven to disadvantage Islamists and the Islamic Action Front was created by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Islamists were shut out of the political system after opposing the 1995 peace deal with Israel and boycotting the 1997 election. The IAF contested the parliamentary elections in 2003 after King Abdullah postponed elections in 2001 to gerrymander. The IAF participated in the 2016 elections, winning 16 out of 130 seats after boycotting elections in 2010 and 2013.

Within the IAF, the question now is how to participate and attain its goals, not whether to participate or not. Islamism, as used by the IAF, can be seen as loyal opposition to the liberal autocracy of Jordan, and the potential for greater tension between the Islamists and the state has been predicted.

While both of these case studies fulfill requirements about opposing violence, they prove that a political environment that allows for open competition and free political processes is prerequisite for Islamist ideals to thrive in a democratic environment.

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