by Cameron Cassar

The New Arab Spring

Image courtesy of the Washington Post

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

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

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

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

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Shannon Howley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by John Wilson

George Rockwell: The Original American Nazi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

The Recruitment of Jihadi-Motivated Extremists in the US

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

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

The Rise of Right-Wing Extremism

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

Policy Recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 comments
 by Sakhi Naimzada

Gulf Rivalries and the Afghan Peace Talks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in MENA / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments