Terrorism

 by Vasileia Kioutsouki

Drone Technology and Its Malicious Use by Terrorists

Emerging technologies may offer recognised benefits, but they pose threats to national security also. A case in point are unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) — one of the most common examples of dual-use technology.

Drone technology refers to a pilotless aircraft whose operation is based on a combination of technologies, such as artificial intelligence and computer vision. Although initially developed for military purposes, drones now receive wider attention and use.

Over the past few years, UAVs have been used by various businesses, including refining companies, online marketplaces, broadcasting services, airlines, construction and logistic companies in addition to governmental and defense organisations. Therefore, from timely delivery at peak time and geographical mapping of inaccessible regions to border control surveillance and supervision of unreachable military bases, drones are proving to be highly beneficial for a broad range of sectors.

However, alongside the aforementioned businesses and governmental organizations, drone technology has had a beneficial effect on terrorism as well. More specifically, newly affordable prices and growth in popularity have attracted the attention of a number of terrorist organisations, including Hezbollah and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

Hezbollah has paved the way for the extensive use of drones by non-state groups. Indeed, the Lebanese militant group is reported to have the longest-standing and most advanced drone program of any non-state actor. It is believed that most of its drone fleet was supplied by Iran which has been developing its drone program since its war with Iraq.

Over the past decade, Hezbollah has made a great deal of progress in the acquisition of highly sophisticated UAVs. They have exploited them to gain useful intelligence and to intercept poorly encrypted Israeli drone feeds. Consequently, the Hezbollah drone program poses a constantly growing threat not only to Israeli security, but also to other non-state combatants.

Similarly, the Islamic State’s use of drones is developed to the extent that it can be described as a ‘drone program’. However, ISIL differs from other terrorist groups in that it has exploited drone technology in a more creative manner. Focusing more on acquiring simple, cost-effective and replaceable devices, they managed to build their own drone fleet.

Another point that sets apart the Islamic State’s drone program is the emphasis put on drone imagery. Rather than just weaponizing drones to conduct an attack, ISIL has strategically used the ability to capture aerial photos that later become central components of its propaganda machine.

In the light of the significant and rising threat posed by the possession and malicious use of drones by non-state actors, several companies were prompted to come up with technologies able to bring them down. These include electronic fences which block drone signals and drones equipped with nets which can capture enemy drones. However, additional measures should be implemented in order to prevent terrorist groups from having access to such technologies.

It is clear that alongside the tremendous benefits, drone technology also involves a direct threat to national security. Although they were first developed for military purposes, the ever-increasing commercial use of drones has also enabled terrorist groups, such as ISIL and Hezbollah, to acquire or even to manufacture their own drone fleets.

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Ondrej Palicak

Possible Consequences of the Israeli Unity Government’s Annexation Plan

On May 18, Israel swore in a new unity government in which Benjamin Netanyahu will continue as Prime Minister until he is succeeded by Benny Gantz in 18 months. The power-sharing deal resolved a political deadlock that lasted for more than 500 days.

While the stated goal of the new government is to fight the coronavirus pandemic, the two politicians also agreed to press ahead with a plan to annex parts of the occupied West Bank as early as July 1 — a move that could have serious consequences.

It is likely that the annexation would deal a serious blow to the already stalled peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. In January, President Trump presented his Middle East peace plan which proposed an independent Palestinian state and recognition of Israeli sovereignty over its settlements in the West Bank area. This was perceived by Netanyahu as a green light for annexation of these territories.

The plan was immediately dismissed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, stating that Jerusalem and Palestinian rights are not for sale. Subsequently, the Palestinian Authority cut all ties, including security, with Israel and the United States.

Palestinian leaders reject the legitimacy of the Israeli move to annex the settlements, which are seen as illegal by most of the international community. Abbas promised to take measures against Israel and the US in response to the annexation, including cancelling all agreements signed with Israel. Therefore, it would be fair to assume that the annexation would further deteriorate Israeli-Palestinian relations, diminishing prospects for peace. In addition, this move could lead to an escalation in violence.

Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and other groups could carry out more attacks in response. In a reaction to the Trump peace plan, Hamas stepped up its rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip and hailed ‘acts of resistance’ throughout the West Bank, including a car-ramming attack in Jerusalem.

Both Hamas and the PIJ called on President Abbas to cut all ties with Israel and for an increase in resistance activities. President Abbas even invited Hamas and PIJ officials to a meeting to discuss possible reaction to the Israeli plan. Azzam al-Ahmed, a senior Fatah official, stated that the Palestinian leadership devised a plan, noting that Israel and the US would bear the full consequences in the aftermath of any moves towards annexation. These developments suggest that a rise in violence could be one of the responses.

Calls for resistance activities could motivate lone actors to carry out attacks. Recently, as the swear in of the unity government neared, an increased number of violent attacks were carried out by Palestinians. On 12 May, an Israeli soldier was killed by a rock thrown from a rooftop and, only a few hours later, a Palestinian tried to stab an Israeli security official at Qalandiya checkpoint. On 14 May, the day when the new government was supposed to be sworn in before Netanyahu asked for a three day postponement, a Palestinian deliberately drove his car into Israeli troops, injuring one. These attacks suggest that because of the annexation, more individuals could resort to violence either in a response to calls from Hamas and others or out of grievance. However, the annexation could also lead to a more organized form of resistance.

The annexation could mobilise enough people to start a third Intifada (popular uprising). In the case of the first Intifada, an Israeli vehicle struck two vans carrying Palestinians, killing four of them. A second Intifada followed Ariel Sharon’s visit of the Temple Mount, together with 1, 000 riot police, and the subsequent killing of six Palestinian demonstrators the following day. Although there were arguably more causes for the two Intifadas, the situation escalated for an extended period and the described events were merely triggers, it might be argued that the annexation would be of such significance, compared to the previous two, that it could start a third uprising. Moreover, Palestinians could be supported or even called upon to do so by the Palestinian authorities as a response to the annexation.

All in all, it seems likely that the new Israeli unity government will face serious consequences and a possible rise in violence if it proceeds with its annexation plan. The peace process would not only arguably experience a major setback, but annexation could have security implications for the region as a whole.

Furthermore, difficulties stemming from the coronavirus pandemic could be significantly aggravated by any potential uprising. The government should thoroughly assess the possible costs and benefits of the annexation and try to keep the peace process alive in order to avoid unnecessary crisis and violence.

Moreover, as the settlements are perceived as illegal by many, the international community should step in and pressure both parties to refrain from actions that might be destabilizing for both Israel and the region. Otherwise, the long-lasting conflict might experience yet another escalation which could in turn affect the already unstable Middle East.

in MENA / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Cameron Hoffman

Do Terrorist Attacks Directly Impact GDP and Income?

Editor’s Note: Rise to Peace Research Fellows are dedicated to studying all matters of violent extremism and productive ways to contribute to the wider counter-terrorism conversation. Not only do they contribute to the organization, but at their educational institutions as well. Research Fellow Cameron Hoffman alongside his peers Heather Solomon, Daniel Pieratt and Gabriel Cirio at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh (GSPIA) created a data set to study the relationship between GDP and terrorism. Cameron further expounded upon the collectively created data set to reach his own conclusions of the question at hand. The following is a short explanation of the regression tables compiled by the team and the related, independent analysis of our Research Fellow.

Few analysts disagree on the implementation of measures to reduce international terrorism, but there are multiple opinions on how to properly address the issue. For years, countries relied on counter-terrorism strategies reliant on military operations, such as airstrikes and troop deployments. Accordingly, the efficacy of decapitation strikes came into question as well.

In another area of study, academics continue to investigate the connection between poverty and economic inequality in regard to recruitment tactics of terrorist organizations. Findings have already influenced policy as governments, like the United States, include the stabilization of economies impacted by terrorism in their national security strategies.

Studies that have changed national policies indicate that the relative deprivation of individuals is a crucial factor in their recruitment to terrorist organizations. Those with social mobility and economic welfare that is frustrated — or eliminated — are at a greater risk of radicalization as terrorist organizations provide social and economic roles the status-quo does not. As a result, countries with highly educated populations that are largely unemployed or underemployed are breeding grounds for extremist ideologies and terrorist organization recruitment. Therefore, building the economies of at-risk states must play a larger part in counter-terrorism strategies.

Additionally, the impact that terrorist organizations and their attacks have on the economies of affected nations has not been extensively studied. These organizations provide economic incentives and escapes from struggling economies, but do their attacks create more economic downturn? If so, it would suggest a circular self-supporting relationship and an additional benefit to the political goals of terrorist attacks.

Using a specifically created formula, this relationship was tested. A data set — including the statistics from over 175 countries within a a 20-year period (1995-2014) — was sourced with inputs from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the World Bank for income, and the Global Terrorism Database for for terrorist attacks and their descriptive characteristics.

Data was based on seven variables: netincomeusd2010 (net income per capita in 2010 USD, gdp (gross domestic product per capita in 2010 USD), count (number of terrorist attacks in a country in a given year), success (the number of attacks that were successful in their aim)(1), nkill (number of people killed by terrorist attacks in a given year), nwound (the number of individuals wounded by terrorist attacks in a given year), property (value denoting the amount of property damage in 2010 USD), year (year of observation), and countryname (the name of the country from which observations are taken).

The research concluded that terrorist attacks do not statistically impact the earnings of citizens of the affected country, but they do impact the GDP of the country at the 10% level. Additionally, when testing successful terrorist attacks independently, the attacks made a larger impact on GDP at the 5% significance level. The research model, findings, and regression tables are below.

As the above table indicates, the first regression(2) output indicates no statistically significant relationships between count, nkill, nwound, property, and in relation to netincomeusd2010. The only statistically significant relationship is between gdp and netincomeusd2010. Replacing success for count did not affect the data significantly.

The second regression table(3) testing the impact on gdp produced more interesting findings. While gdp is greatly impacted by netincomeusd2010 and is significant at the 1% level, like the earlier test, the count variable impacts gdp at the 10% level(4) and success impacts gdp at the 5% level. The variables nkill and property were not significant. The results of those tests are below.

This research supports that counter-terrorism strategies must include plans to develop regions economically in a way that positively impacts the incomes of citizens. Strategies focused on the prevention of attacks by weakening terrorist organizations militarily will not affect the economic and political environments that they thrive in. A reduction of terrorist attacks may safeguard GDP, but it has no effect on the earnings of vulnerable civilians.

More research is needed to test the relationship between increased rates of terrorism and GDP. As the relationship between GDP and income is very connected, it is interesting that terrorist attacks impact GDP, but not income. Does the GDP decline because of public funds devoted to counter-terrorism, the destruction of government facilities? Does international trade to countries decline when terrorist organizations are present, such as investor fears, and other factors?

Is it possible that terrorist attacks impact the income of the populace when they decline the GDP by significant amounts? If the second is true, then military responses that limit attacks are more beneficial than previously credited. The answers to these questions will impact economic counter-terrorism strategies.

It should also be noted that because terrorism is expressly political, terrorist motives are not simply to destroy, but to achieve specific political objectives. Influence over the GDP and average income of states where they operate are not within the goals of terrorist organizations. This is important to note as efforts to build economies of targeted regions are unlikely to be thwarted by terrorist organizations. All the same, the results of this research can aid policymakers in crafting international counter-terrorism plans.

(1) Both variables cannot be included in the same regression as count includes the observations in success, which skews the data.

(2) Regression code: areg netincomepercapitausd2010 count gdp nkill nwound property i.year, a(countryname)

(3) “areg gdp success netincomepercapitausd2010 nkill nwound property i.year, a(countryname)” and “areg gdp count netincomepercapitausd2010 nkill nwound property i.year, a(countryname)”

(4) It should also be noted that as the p-value is .054 that it is nearly significant at the 5% level.

– Cameron Hoffman

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Vasileia Kioutsouki

The Continued Impact of Technology on Terrorism

Technology has greatly evolved in the past decades to the point that it is fair to speak of a technological revolution. Mobile phones, personal computers, and the Internet are commonplace in everyday life. More specifically, the evolution of information and communication technology has radically changed not only the way people communicate, but also ways of thinking and understanding complex matters.

Notwithstanding the recognized benefits of new technologies, there are concerns regarding their dual use. Recent events demonstrate that technological developments have been misused by non-state actors, such as terrorist groups. In fact, many terrorist organizations have been quick to exploit rapid technological advances to aid in the manufacture of weapons, ammunition and explosives. The use of military technology by such groups is one of the most severe threats currently faced worldwide.

However, developments in the information and communications technology (ICT) sector are even more alarming. Indeed, the use of digital and Internet platforms and their possible misuse by terrorists requires significant attention in any discussion focused on the topic. Social media platforms, Internet forums and online messaging applications have undoubtedly become terrorist propaganda mechanisms.

The use of information and communication technologies as tools for radicalization and recruitment is now common. Many terrorist organizations have managed to build a vast, sophisticated network of supporters from all over the world. Moreover, such technologies provide a major source of inspiration for lone actor terrorists who either have attempted or successfully carried out attacks after watching live-streamed attacks or speeches by leading members of terrorist groups inciting people to commit violence.

Planning an attack is now much easier as there are websites that provide all the necessary information about means and methods. These sites are easily accessed by the public thus permitting would-be terrorists to download instructions, such as those related to bomb-making, from the Internet.

In addition, digital technology has influenced the media. Changes in media technology have enabled terrorists to easily disseminate their message to wider audiences. Violence may instill fear, but live images attract the attention needed to cause widespread reaction, influence public opinion and mobilize moderates around the world. For years now, terrorists avail themselves of the ability to broadcast live on television.

Real-time TV coverage of an attack helps terrorist organizations to achieve their objectives: promotion of their cause to the widest possible audience, incite fear in the intended target audience and recruitment of new members. In some cases, the over-coverage of such events may unwittingly exacerbate the problem, instead of simply providing information to the public. It is therefore important that journalists avoid the further incitement of already present public fear and the over-emphasis of the motives behind an attack while reporting on terrorism.

In their attempt to prevent terrorists from exploiting digital platforms, leading tech companies cooperate with law enforcement for counter-terrorism purposes. In this sense, working closely with counter terrorism officers and security experts, social media companies improved their ‘takedown’ policies, weeding out an enormous number of accounts with the aim to reduce or even eliminate terrorists’ presence on technology platforms.

Furthermore, law enforcement authorities have also intensified monitoring of the contents disseminated online in order to detect and remove terrorist propaganda. In fact, a new technology able to automatically detect terrorist content on any online platforms and stop it before it ever reaches the internet has recently been developed.

To sum up, while technology continues to evolve rapidly, technology and media companies should work together with the competent authorities to combat terrorism and to prevent terrorist groups from recruiting new members. Although the public has the right to be informed on matters of public concern, media professionals should be particularly vigilant when it comes to the coverage of terrorism issues. They should aim at keeping the public informed without offering terrorists the publicity they seek.

In addition, as long as terrorists exploit new technological developments and online technologies, counter-terrorism authorities must detect and delete any online material that promotes terrorism or encourages violence. It is therefore essential that everyone collaborate in order to address this global challenge.

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Vasileia Kioutsouki

Attacks on Education and Their Impact on Syrian Children

Education is a key pillar of development and an efficient investment in human capital of a state. As a result of ongoing civil wars in different hotspots, education systems have suffered a great deal. Schools in Syria are targeted by state forces or armed non-state actors alike. Now in its tenth year, the Syrian conflict has resulted in the death of approximately 22,075 children.

In stable countries, schools act as a safe space where children are educated and socialized. However, there is an alternate reality in Syria since schools and universities are constantly hit during air strikes. A large number of students and education personnel have also been killed while going to school or on their way back.

Some of the attacks against educational facilities may have been accidental, but most of them are deliberate attacks by the aforementioned groups: government forces, armed opposition groups or terrorist organizations. They intend to use them as detention centers, military operational bases, or sniper postings.

As a result, schools and universities have become military targets, leaving both students and teaching staff susceptible. Thousands of deaths have been reported under such circumstances. Many students stopped attending classes just as teachers refused to work for fear of being killed. This a clear violation of children’s rights to education.

In addition, public education systems have been affected in other ways. Attacks on schools are aimed at recruiting children as soldiers. Child soldiers in Syria are manipulated into active involvement in conflict where they are used as human shields, suicide bombers, or foot soldiers. This is a common trend as children are generally easier to recruit since they can be convinced or coerced to join.

Furthermore, there is another type of attack on education, conducted largely by terrorist groups, such as ISIL, who seek to control educational facilities in order to implement curriculum according to their extreme values and beliefs. In such cases, children are essentially indoctrinated into joining an armed group and fight for its cause. And while boys are brainwashed to take part in violent activities in the name of ISIL, adolescent girls are often sexually abused or used as brides.

Damage inflicted on the Syrian education system is severe and it is of utmost importance to resolve this problem. The conflict itself continues to have a dramatic impact on the Syrian population, especially on children, who show severe forms of stress and trauma. Both the physical and mental development of children have already been and will continue to be affected for a long time.

Consequently, deradicalization and social integration of children is a challenging task, especially when the education system is falling apart. In addition to programs aimed to provide psycho-social counseling focused on children, properly designed and targeted education and training projects can be effective in helping children to overcome the traumas experienced and hope for a better future.

– Vasileia Kioutsouki

in MENA / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments