by Kate Kleinle

No-Deal Brexit: Implications for Transnational Security

Anti-Brexit demonstrators wave EU and Union flags opposite the Houses of Parliament, in London, Britain, June 19, 2018. REUTERS/Henry Nicholls

 As the threat of a no-deal Brexit looms closer, it is becoming increasingly clear that such a scenario would significantly hamper counterterrorism efforts in both the United Kingdom and Europe.

As an EU member, the UK is party to European institutions such as the European Arrest Warrant, a system of warrants valid throughout the European Union, and Europol, the EU-wide law-enforcement body that combats terror and organized crime. The UK also receives additional European data including fingerprints, DNA, and passenger flight information. Should it leave the EU without a deal establishing a continued partnership on such initiatives, it will lose access to European intelligence and risk becoming unaware of potential terrorist threats within their own borders.

This will adversely impact Europe as well. For every suspect arrested on a European Arrest Warrant, British authorities arrest eight EAW suspects from other states, so the benefit to European countries from British forces is huge. Given the extensive travel between Europe and the UK, it is critical that the two cooperate on intelligence so that no criminal may slip through borders unnoticed. Should this cooperation end, it is likely dangerous individuals will cross between Britain and Europe without notice.

If no deal codifies the partnership between British and European law enforcement, then both the EU and the UK are in an extremely risky position. To avoid the possibility of turning the UK into a de facto safe haven for European criminals, a no-deal Brexit must be avoided, and the UK must negotiate a continued partnership with the European Union.

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

Voting in Syria: Elections Signal an End to ISIL

On September 16th Syria held its first local elections in government-controlled areas since anti-government protests and protracted civil conflict broke out in 2011. Polling booths were open from 7 am to midnight, having been extended five hours to accommodate the throngs who wished to participate. 

Though the EU, US, and Gulf Cooperation Council dismissed the election as illegitimate, it is meant to signal to the world that the country is on the path to recovery. And that its people are actively involved. There were televised events showing voters casting ballots in Damascus, Tartus, and Latakia. Surprisingly, elections were also held in Deir ez-Zor, a city recently recaptured by Syrian troops. Deir ez-Zor had been occupied by the Islamic State for years. Within a year the city was able to drive ISIS out, regroup, and function well enough to host elections.

Four years ago, when the country was in its most violent convulsions, an election would have been unthinkable.

There has been speculation that the election serves the sitting regime’s purposes. That it helps unite citizens against ISIL and it alerts terror groups that the ruling party has regained control. Four years ago, when the country was in its most violent convulsions, this was unthinkable. Roads were impassable, and people were afraid to leave their houses. Thus, for some, the act of casting a ballot is a message to ISIL and other terrorists that the people have taken their control back.

More than 5 million refugees and 6 million internally displaced people will not be able to vote. Syrian law prohibits voters from casting ballots outside of their municipality. However, given the progress in Deir ez-Zor, Syrians hope the entire country can be free of violence and people can return home and cast their votes with time. The election has encouraged people. Perhaps the seemingly interminable chaos can end. And perhaps Syrians can vote for leaders to rebuild their country. In addition to demonstrating to the terrorists that they have no place in Syria, the election is a way for the regime to rebuild hope with a people who have lost it over seven years of conflict. 

More than 5 million refugees and 6 million internally displaced people will not be able to vote

While the election represents a bit of progress, state oppression remains a reality for most Syrians. Some see the vote as a ploy by the regime to demonstrate its power. Not an opportunity for the people to use their voices. Such people argue that election results are predetermined. To be sure, Syria is a long way from open elections. Ones where candidates and parties truly represent the people’s will. But ISIL will be excluded from elections, and we can all say good riddance.

A woman casts her vote at a polling station in Damascus, Syria. chinadaily.com

in MENA / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Keelin Wolfe

Dividing The Union: How Terrorism Has Changed European Unity

Since the refugee crisis’ start in 2015 Europe has been under considerable strain. Tension and anger commingle as Europeans grapple before the world with their humanitarian duty and concern over their increased risk at the hands of Islamic terrorism. There were only two reported terrorist attacks linked to Islamic extremism in 2014. That number has multiplied many times since the refugee crisis’ start. There were 17 attacks in 2015, 13 in 2016, and 33 in 2017.

The EU’s Approach to Migration
The European Union’s grand migration strategy states that, “…rising to the migration and refugee challenge — and doing so in full respect of human rights and international law — is a vital interest at the core of the EU’s values.” But the statement has been challenged within the EU itself.

The grand strategy attempts to address concerns about terror’s growing threat in Europe, but it does imply that it is the EU’s duty to welcome those in need. Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland, however, have actively resisted accepting large numbers of refugees. The Czech Republic and Poland may soften their stance. But Hungary continues to resist EU migrant norms. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has been accused — in a conspicuous breach of EU core values — of anti-immigration policies, attacking the rule of law, and minorities in the media. While unlikely to lead to real punitive action, the accusations lead to Hungary’s losing its vote.

The EU is known for implementing the Schengen Agreement among 26 countries to abolish borders within the Union. The agreement is a cornerstone of European unity. But six EU countries including France, Austria, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway have agreed, in light of increased terrorism, to temporarily reinstating internal border controls.

The agreement is surprising and the rationale, startling. “Persistent terrorist threats,” “security situations,” ”threats resulting from continuous significant secondary movements,” and, “continuous serious threats to public policy and internal security,” represent some of the verbiage being bandied about. The most significant citation, “…significant secondary movement” relates to the Schengen Agreement’s position regarding free movement between states.

Populism in Europe and the Anti-Immigration Argument
Italy, Sweden, and Germany are now pushing back against EU immigration policies. The four nations have seen their politics become more nationalistic and anti-immigration. While not every country is experiencing a populist turn like Italy, right-wing populist groups are ascendant elsewhere. One of Europe’s most notable changes in the past decade is the disintegration of support for established, left-wing parties. There has been a commensurate increase in right-wing, populist affiliation. And such groups traditionally hold anti-immigration stances. In 2018, Pew research found that social democratic parties are hitting all-time lows over most of Europe.

Circumstances have put Italy’s no-boat policy to the test repeatedly

Italy’s new populist government took power over the summer and has made moves to boldly enforce anti-migration policies. Interior Minister Matteo Salvini said on record, “Not one more person arrives in Italy by boat.” In a more nuanced pronouncement later Salvini said he doesn’t oppose helping refugees, and he has pledged to allow refugees, especially pregnant women, and children stay in Italy. But he added that he continues to see migrants traveling by boat as a serious threat to Europe.

Circumstances have put Italy’s no-boat policy to the test repeatedly. In June, before Salvini’s statement, the Italian government refused disembarkment to a ship carrying 600 migrants. This led to a standoff between Rome and the EU. The tension abated when Spain volunteered to receive the ship. While that represented a win for Salvini, two months later, in August, Rome caved to EU pressure and allowed a ship with 150 migrants to dock.

Germany and Sweden too have seen increases in populism and anti-immigration rhetoric. The Sweden Democrats, an anti-immigrant, pro-welfare-state party, won 18% of the vote. Comparatively, political powerhouse, the Social Democrats suffered 11% losses in union support. This saw them drop to the third most popular party in Sweden. It is noteworthy that the Social Democrats received few youth votes. These developments suggest a long-term political shift in Sweden.

Germany experienced similar political seismic shifts in 2017. The success of the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) makes it the first far-right group to hold seats in the Bundestag in 50 years. AfD mirrors other right-wing groups throughout Europe: each embraces a platform of anti-immigration and emphatic German nationalism. A striking aspect of AfD’s success is that since 2013, the party gained 7.9% growth in support. It draws from all German regions, while the country’s traditional parties such as Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (Christian Democratic Union of Germany, CDU) and the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (Social Democratic Party of Germany, SPD), suffered substantial losses all over the country.

EU policy should protect European citizens without turning its back on a humanitarian crisis.

Looking Forward
In light of immigration trends, increasing terror attack rates, and populist waves plaguing Europe, the EU must unify behind the values, and goals its member states share. It must continue counteracting growing populism movements. And it must reassess how it can address the refugee crisis. Recently, President Jean-Claude announced that the EU would deploy 10,000 armed border police — with the freedom to use force — on the EU’s external borders to tackle unlawful immigration. While this is a step in the right direction for European security, it is imperative that the EU listens to all member states. It must not deny the real dangers caused by unchecked immigration. But fear should never outweigh the moral responsibility to help fellow humans in need. EU policy should protect European citizens without turning its back on a humanitarian crisis.

This cartoon by Patrick Chappatte appeared in the April 25, 2015 International New York Times. He titled the cartoon “Migrants and the European Union,” and added the caption, “Europe looks for an answer to the migrants reaching for its shores.”Credit Patrick Chappatte

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

An Invisible Problem in Plain Sight

Riot police patrol Zhanaozen in December.

Within the realm of counter-terror, governments focus on preventing attacks at the source as well as at the target. Often, western governments define the target as their own backyard.

Likewise, they define the source as some far-off region at war. That point of view is not illegitimate. However, experts recognize extremist ideology is on the march across north and west Africa, southeast Asia, and Eurasia. And attacks tend to be on government or religious targets within the attacker’s own region.

Before an ISIS-linked cell in Tajikistan killed four cyclists from Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United States there was scant information about the rise of extremism there.

Are we noticing? Well, western media has vested interests in Nigeria and Mali thanks to French and British influence. Similarly, western media have vested interests in the Philippines thanks to former US dependency. But what about Eurasia? Despite emerging from under the Soviet shroud it remains poorly understood. Before an ISIS-linked cell in Tajikistan killed four cyclists from Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United States there was scant information about the rise of extremism there. And yet, when it comes to extremism, Central Asia is now firmly caught between Europe and Asia.

States like Kazakhstan, for example, are experiencing a problem. But not one not for which they can scapegoat immigrants — one from their own backyard. Autocratic Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev has kept his state isolated from everything except foreign investment in technology and oil. He has turned Kazakhstan into a regional powerhouse, one in which other Central Asian countries see hope. But Kazakhstan may be on the verge of self-implosion given the rise in extremist ideology and a lackluster response to it. Recent attacks on national guard bases, police stations, and public transportation in oil-rich cities such as Aktobe in the northwest or the cosmopolitan Almaty have revealed socioeconomic and religious fissures that should have been addressed years ago.

We are where we are because the government turned its back on Kazakhstan’s youth.

Central Asia, particularly Kazakhstan, is in the midst of a religious revival. After years of Soviet suppression, 70% of Kazakhs identify as Muslim now and there has been a steep rise in ultra-conservative extremist ideology coming from Syria and Iraq. Central Asians feature prominently in infamous attacks in Stockholm, Saint Petersburg, Istanbul, and Boston. They target public events and public transport with methods akin to Al-Qaeda and ISIS. It would be disastrous if small cells like the former connect online with large groups like the latter.

Extremists have hit Kazakhstan’s Central Asian neighbor Uzbekistan the hardest. But Uzbekistan’s security services have been able to repel them outward to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Kazakhstan has proven itself capable of no such strategy.

We are where we are, however, because the government turned its back on Kazakhstan’s youth. Watching their leaders inveigle foreign investment has left young Kazakhs feeling disaffected. Extremism always brings government corruption and poverty and Kazakhstan is no exception.

Extremists have hit Kazakhstan’s Central Asian neighbor Uzbekistan the hardest. But Uzbekistan’s security services have been able to repel them outward to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Kazakhstan has proven itself capable of no such strategy. Experts are questioning its counterterror preparedness and methods. The government’s mission to engage the religious community with proper Islamic literacy may help. But President Nazarbayev’s vast surveillance and his calls to ban the wearing of all black will likely be seen for what they are. They are an encroachment on religion and it could alienate more of the populace. Kazakhstan’s comparably superior quality of life and moderate lifestyle have not immunized it against terror attacks. It is the reaction of its own disaffected people, not someone from a far-off, war-torn land, that reverberates ominously now.

in EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA / Rise to Peace blog / United States 0 comments
 by Kate Kleinle

Lone Wolf Terror

Europe, the US, and the Middle East exist in a moment of unprecedented global tension. In the face of collapsing, budding, and rapidly changing alliances, they share one common enemy: lone-wolf terrorists.

Lone-wolf terrorists are those who operate on their own, without the constraints imposed by an organisation with a structured hierarchy and chain of command. They are “self-radicalized individuals who commit violent acts to promote a cause or support a belief system… they appear to be isolated and avoid many of the traditional organizational characteristics used to identify and track traditional terrorist groups”. They pose an increasing threat to the United States and much of Europe, where most terrorist groups lack a structured presence but still possess the ability to radicalise individual members of society through media and the Internet. Though they may not be “official” members of any terrorist organisations, they often draw their inspiration from such groups, mimicking their tactics and claiming them as inspiration for the attacks.

Because they are isolated individuals, lone-wolf terrorists often lack access to the weapons, funding, and infrastructure possessed by larger terrorist groups. Instead, they use whatever they can find- knives, guns, homemade bombs- to orchestrate small-scale attacks which incite large-scale panic. As explained by Rodger Bates of Clayton State University, “the power of the lone wolf terrorist is not necessarily the actual level of harm potentially experienced, but the level of intimidation that the threat of such random acts of violence can exert on a community”- and that’s exactly what their intention is. Lone-wolf tactics are so effective that ISIS and others have directly encouraged followers worldwide to “pick up a knife, gun or any weapon and become personal warriors for the cause,” shrouding potential victims worldwide in a blanket of constant worry.

A critical factor in creating the large-scale panic these terrorists desire is the media. By focusing in extreme detail on attacks which only affect a small number of people, reporters unwittingly magnify the threat and introduce widespread panic into the public psyche. Knowing that civilians in the Western world are living in constant, subconscious worry of an attack is exactly what radical groups desire, and thus intense media coverage plays right into their hands.

Perhaps even more dangerously, extensive coverage of lone-wolf attacks may encourage more individuals to propagate attacks in the future. Individuals disenfranchised from society, particularly isolated young men, witness how much fame and notoriety lone-wolf attackers receive in the wake of the attack. This encourages them to follow the lead of those who have gone before them, creating a knock-on effect which exponentially increases the threat of terrorism in the long run.

In their quest to prevent these attacks from happening, the challenge to law enforcement lies in their apparent randomness. Because lone-wolf terrorists have few concrete ties to extremist organisations, it is very difficult to preemptively track them down and predict when the attacks will occur. Instead of placing their main focus on individuals who may be radicalised, it may therefore be more productive for law enforcement to target the factor which is most rapidly radicalising them: the media.

In this case, “the media” encompasses a variety of sources. It is important to note that, because lone wolves have little direct access to members of terrorist organisations, most of their radicalisation occurs digitally. This happens through message boards, radicalising videos, and even traditional forms of social media such as Twitter. Policing these more heavily will efficiently cut off a major terrorist recruitment tool, decreasing their reach, exposure, and membership in the long run. Most private social media companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, have stringent rules of use which ban any content encouraging terrorism or violence, but they rely upon a relatively small team of moderators to enforce this, who mainly respond to reports they receive from members and rely upon self-policing among the social media community. Perhaps establishing federal legislation requiring that each social media outlet establishes a team of moderators proportionate to the size of their user body would solve some of this problem, and ensure that posts by radicalising users are more quickly taken down.

But social media is not the only issue, and traditional media exposure is a huge issue as well. As I outlined earlier, extensive media coverage and the 24-hour news cycle can embolden those who view it to join the terrorist organisations being reported on, so networks would be wise to reduce the extensive profiles they often do of lone-wolf terrorists and perhaps even avoid mentioning them by name. As individuals, we can refrain from sharing or clicking on articles about such people, reducing their reach and the chances that their actions could inspire other disillusioned individuals to radicalise in the future.

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/136866/

in Rise to Peace blog / United States 0 comments