Tag: ISIS
Exploiting disorder
The International Crisis Group (ICG) takes appropriate transnational aim in its latest report at Al Qaeda (AQ) and the Islamic State (IS), introduced Monday at Brookings by ICG President, Jean-Marie Guehenno. The main thesis is that success of the terrorist dual threat is the result of instability. No surprise there. Few of their supposed enemies in the Middle East and North Africa regard either Al Qaeda or the Islamic State as their top priority. Again no surprise. Neither is invincible, though AQ in Guehenno’s view is underrated at present. It is learning to apply a lighter, more gradual touch that has greater prospects of success than IS’s draconian approach.
It is when we get to the policy prescriptions that I start to part company, as usual with ICG reports. Guehenno and the report argue for containment, or perhaps marginalization, rather than outright victory, because we would not in any event know what to do if we win. It is already apparent in Iraq that the government lacks the means to govern effectively and inclusively in all the territory recaptured from IS. But nowhere does ICG advocate that we acquire the state-building capacities needed to eliminate the disorder in which the terrorists thrive or to repair the societies that they have broken. This is not only short-sighted; it is a formula for unending warfare. The very least ICG should have done is to point out the incapacity and put forward some sort of idea how it can be repaired.
The report argues for keeping open lines of communication, by talking with whomever will talk with us, apparently including the Islamic State and Al Qaeda provided they meet that condition. This includes “unofficial, discreet lines of communication, through community leaders, non-state mediators or others.” I like that, since official talking lends an air of legitimacy that many groups don’t merit. But the argument offered in favor is the US rejection of Taliban offers in 2001 as well as similar reluctance in Somalia, Mali, Libya and Nigeria. None of those examples pertain to the Islamic State or Al Qaeda per se, both of which are arguably an order of magnitude or two less acceptable than the people and groups specifically mentioned. My guess is that we are in communication, directly or indirectly, with many of the groups mentioned, if only to try to free American hostages. It is hard to see how to do that with either Al Qaeda or the Islamic State.
Other recommendations get stronger grounding. Their suggestion for narrowing the countering violent extremism (CVE) agenda seems to me intellectually correct, even if the bureaucratic temptation to tie the development and peacebuilding agendas to the latest well-funded pet rock is irresistible. Respecting international humanitarian law, curbing targeted killings and investing in conflict prevention also make good sense to me. Neither the drone wars nor coddling of autocrats in the Middle East has served our strategic purposes well. Both have done more to spread the terrorist problem than defeat it.
In the end I thought Guehenno was correct in his talk at Brookings when he admired President Obama’s effort to keep the terrorist threat in perspective by noting its limited capacity to affect American national security. That effort Guehenno suggested was intellectually correct even if politically damaging. Unfortunately, the ICG report is less prudent:
World leaders’ concern is well-founded: IS’s attacks kill their citizens and threaten their societies’ cohesion.
It then urges us not to make mistakes that risk aggravating the situation, but it nowhere says what Guehenno did: the jihadists are not a threat on the order of the Soviet Union and should not arouse us politically in the way the nuclear threat once did.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks March 14-18
- Director’s Forum: A Conversation with H.E. Moshe Ya’alon, Minister of Defense of the State of Israel | Monday, March 14th | 9:00-10:00 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Israel sits in a turbulent and chaotic region. Never has the Middle East been as unstable and challenging: a rising Iran; meltdown in Syria; an impasse in the Palestinian issue; Russian intervention and the rise of ISIS. How does Israel prioritize these challenges? And more importantly, what is Israel’s strategy for dealing with them? Join us for what promises to be a fascinating conversation and discussion of these and other issues with Israel’s Minister of Defense.
- Legal Restrictions on Thought and Expression in Pakistan, Egypt, Thailand, and Bahrain | Monday, March 14th | 12:00-2:00 | National Endowment for Democracy | REGISTER TO ATTEND | In a number of countries, counter-terrorism, blasphemy, sedition and similar laws are increasingly used to restrict free inquiry and expression, resulting in a shrinking academic and societal space for dialogue. Wrongful prosecutions under these laws not only threaten the well-being of targeted individuals, but undermine the quality of academic work and public discourse and deny everyone in society the benefits of expert knowledge, scientific and creative progress, and free expression. These laws are often defended as reasonable restrictions on violent or anti-social conduct or as appropriate expressions of national or cultural prerogatives. In practice they are used to restrict thought, punish expression, and intimidate individuals and society generally. Panelists from Pakistan, Egypt, Bahrain, and Thailand will discuss how these laws affect their work and research.
- Autocracies Failed and Unfailed: Limited Strategies for State Building | Tuesday, March 15th | 8:30-10:00 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The paper, written by the Graham H. Stuart Professor of International Relations Stephen D. Krasner, and featuring a foreword by Ambassador James B. Cunningham, argues that successful democratization attempts depend mostly on the interests of local elites. To address this “fundamental challenge” Krasner outlines the three elements of “good enough governance” that contribute to a relatively successful democratization effort: 1) security; 2) better service provision; and 3) economic growth.The Atlantic Council Strategy Papers series is designed to enrich the public debate and build consensus on the great strategic challenges of our time, as well as to help shape strategic thinking in US and allied governments, the private and nonprofit sectors, and the global media. The event will feature opening remarks from Dr. Peter Ackerman, Managing Director of Rockport Capital.
- From Homs to Hamburg: Refugee movements from Syria to Europe and beyond | Tuesday, March 15th | 10:15-11:15 | Brookings | REGISTER TO ATTEND | As the Syrian civil war enters its sixth year, the associated massive flow of refugees into neighboring countries and onward into Europe continues to overwhelm the international refugee system. As the UNHCR prepares to host a ministerial-level meeting on mechanisms for admitting refugees, the international community urgently needs to coordinate assistance to major host countries, as well as generate creative options for legal channels of migration. On Tuesday March 15, the Foreign Policy program at Brookings will host U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi to discuss recent developments in the refugee crisis and ways for the international community to equitably share responsibilities in addressing the crisis. Bruce Jones, vice president and director of the Foreign Policy program at Brookings, will provide introductory remarks, and Robert McKenzie, visiting fellow for the Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World, will moderate the conversation. Following the conversation, Grandi will take questions from the audience. This event is the latest in a series of Brookings events focusing on the Syrian refugee crisis and the U.S. and international community’s responses to it.
- The Inner Workings of ISIS | Tuesday, March 15th | 12:30-2:00 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Please join the Atlantic Council’s Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security for a public discussion with a panel of experts focusing on the inner workings of the Islamic State (ISIS) and how the US-led anti-ISIS coalition can translate this understanding into military success against the group. The Islamic State (ISIS) initially seized the international spotlight by capturing territory spanning western Iraq and eastern Syria, instilling fear in its opponents and administering brutal rule over civilian populations under its control. Over time, ISIS has inspired and carried out attacks from San Bernardino to Paris to the Maghreb and Sinai, becoming a challenge of global proportions. ISIS continues to hold territory, carry out attacks in Iraq and Syria, and brutalize the people living under its rule even as the group faces increasing pressure from the US-led international coalition formed to degrade and destroy it. As the Iraqi government gears up for a US-supported campaign to retake the city of Mosul, how can states translate their understanding of ISIS and its ideology into military successes? How can the US and its partners disrupt the image the group presents online through social media and lessen its appeal to potential recruits? The event will feature Michael Weiss, co-author of the book ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror, as well as Martin Chulov of The Guardian and ISIS cyber researcher Jade Parker of TAPSTRI.
- A Conversation with South American Chiefs of Mission | Wednesday, March 16th | 8:45-10:00 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Join us as we discuss President Obama’s upcoming trip to Latin America as well as key political and economic developments in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay and what they mean for U.S. policy in the hemisphere. Our expert panel includes: Alex Lee Deputy Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State, the Honorable Liliana Ayalde, U.S. Ambassador to Brazil, the Honorable Mike Hammer, U.S. Ambassador to Chile, and Bradley Freden, Chargé d’Affaires, Montevideo, Uruguay. The event will be moderated by Cynthia J. Arnson, Director, Latin American Program at the Wilson Center and Paulo Sotero, Director, Brazil Institute at the Wilson Center.
- Divided They Fall: Social Atomization in Putin’s Russia | Wednesday, March 16th | 10:00-11:00 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The marginalization of NGOs and political groups is a feature of many authoritarian regimes. In Russia, this is compounded by atomized social bonds and civil society dysfunction even absent government interference. Drawing on her research within Russian communities, Anna Arutunyan will look at how these patterns of interaction impact agency and politics in modern civil society. Anna Arutunyan, a Moscow-based journalist and writer will speak.
- U.S.-Colombia Relations: A Conversation with U.S. Ambassador to Colombia, Kevin Whitaker | Wednesday, March 16th | 11:15-12:15 | REGISTER TO ATTEND | On March 16, Foreign Policy at Brookings’ Latin America Initiative will host U.S. Ambassador to Colombia Kevin Whitaker who will offer an assessment of the state of U.S.-Colombia relations and the prospects for a successful peace accord between the Colombian government and the FARC. Vice president and director of Foreign Policy Bruce Jones will provide introductory remarks. Senior Fellow Harold Trinkunas will moderate the discussion. Kevin Whitaker was confirmed as Ambassador to Colombia in April 2014. He has previously served as deputy assistant secretary of state for South America, as well as deputy chief of mission in Venezuela and diplomatic posts in Jamaica, Honduras, and Nicaragua. Following initial remarks and the opening discussion, Ambassador Whitaker will take audience questions.
- The Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2015? Implications for Egypt and the Region | Thursday, March 17th | 12:00-2:00 | Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Amb. Ibrahim Rasool (former Amb. of South Africa), Prof. Nader Hashemi (Univ. of Denver) and Dr. Radwan Masmoudi, President of CSID, will make three short presentations, followed by Q&A, on the dangers and implications of this bill on the democratization process in Egypt and in the region. As you know, this bill is moving forward very quietly, but quickly, in congress, and has already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee (in a 17-10 vote along partisan lines). The Congressional hearing was extraordinarily brief. As two members of the committee pointed out, it completely ignored the usual process of expert testimony from the State Department, intelligence agencies and Middle East and terrorism experts. We, as scholars and strong believers and activists for democracy in the region, think that this bill – if adopted – will have extremely bad repercussions on stability and democracy in the region, on relations between the US and the Muslim World, and will further radicalize millions of young Muslims, in Egypt and in the region, who are seeking to have a role and a voice in shaping the future of their country.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Better than expected, but not good
Two weeks into the cessation of hostilities in Syria and just a weekend before proximity talks are scheduled to reconvene in Geneva, UN envoy Stefano De Mistura is saying that the chances for peace have never been better. There is, he says, “momentum” behind both humanitarian assistance and de-escalation. His hopes for a political settlement come from the newfound agreement of Moscow and Washington as well as the backing of others in the international community.
All of that is true, but it is a low bar. The prospects for a political agreement in Syria have long been dim to negligible. The current momentum comes from putting aside the central issue: whether Bashar al Assad will continue in power. Moscow and Tehran show no sign of dropping their support for him, even if both say repeatedly that they are not wedded to him. Washington might like to abandon the opposition entirely, but even if it does some of them will continue fighting as long as Assad is in power.
The cessation of hostilities has however held better than I and many others anticipated. The question is why. It seems to me that the Iranians and Russians had achieved most of their objectives and needed to consolidate their gains. In recent weeks, they and the Syrian armed forces were responsible for the vast majority of the attacks. If they had continued much longer they’d have ended up laying siege to the opposition-held part of Aleppo, where several hundred thousand people remain. That would have made them responsible for either starving them or feeding them. Better to stop when they did and let the international community do the heavy lifting required and pay the bills.
The United States has spent upwards of $5 billion on humanitarian relief in Syria, much of it through international organizations. Russia and Iran to my knowledge have spent nothing through the international community, though the Russians have dropped a few pallets of food in a feeble effort to get some credit. Many sieges continue in Syria. I’ve seen no comprehensive account of where humanitarian aid has been delivered and where not, but the relief provided so far will have been marginal and temporary at best. Nor have tens of thousands of political prisoners been released.
The Syrian government and their Russian allies continue to pummel some rebel-held areas from the air. They do not target only the Islamic State and Jabhat al Nusra, extremists not covered by the ceasefire. They have also attacked civilians in areas close to Damascus and in other parts of Syria. The Syrian Network for Human Rights reports 435 ceasefire violations, as of yesterday. That’s an average of about 30 per day.
People in opposition-held areas are appreciating the respite from war, which has engulfed civilian areas of central and northern Syria since the Russians started bombing in September. It should be no surprise that they have taken advantage of the opportunity to go out in the streets to demonstrate against Bashar al Assad. Syrians are not lacking in courage and conviction.
Bashar al Assad isn’t either. He has announced parliamentary elections for April 13, in an effort to preempt talk of a political transition. I see no sign that he is headed out the door.
So yes, things are better than expected, but they are not good. Or as Fadl AbdulGhani, Director of the Syrian Network for Human Rights, puts it:
I would say that on a scale between terrible and bad, the truce has been a marginal success—but this is only based on the limited options facing Syrians.
Odds are still against a political settlement that will lead to transition.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Leaving no one behind in fragile states
SAIS second year student Alexandra Martin reports from the World Bank’s Fragility Forum meeting this week in Washington:
The world appears to be particularly volatile these days, facing challenges that threaten and undermine development progress that has been achieved in the last decade. With an unstable MENA region and a disastrous war in Syria, the most alarming refugee crisis since the end of the World War II, and an increasingly fragile environment across the globe, the ambitious agendas of various international organizations are at risk.
From 1 to 3 March the World Bank is hosting the Fragility Forum 2016 under the theme “Take Action for Peaceful and Inclusive Societies.” Development, humanitarian, security and diplomatic actors are looking for ways forward in collaboration, in order to identify important new steps in reducing the underlying causes of fragility, conflict and violence. The World Bank Group has committed to achieve its own twin goals: to end extreme poverty by 2030 and to promote shared responsibility in a sustainable manner.
The opening panel of the Fragility Forum featured high level global personalities who discussed how to push forward the sustainable development agenda, including in particular the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16: peace, justice and strong institutions. Here are a few of the highlights:
Sri Mulyani Indrawati (COO, The World Bank) emphasized the twin goals of the Bank and reiterated that the current and emerging threats such as extremism and inequality jeopardize efforts at ending poverty. She also called for collective institutional action that would enable closer cooperation between humanitarian, development, government and peace-building communities.
Jim Yong Kim (CEO, The World Bank) reminded the participants that “we put at risk our collective hope” to achieve our goals. Inequality has substantially increased and instability has become “normal.” The current situation in the Middle East and North Africa, especially the ongoing war in Syria, creates spill-over not only in the region but also beyond. Violence against civilians, forced displacement and terrorism are now part of a new paradigm in which peace and development must go hand in hand and not sequentially.
Kim asked the participants at the forum to respond to six questions relevant for work in the fragile environments:
- Fragility is not limited anymore to low income countries. How do we cope with this phenomenon in middle income countries?
- How do we improve service delivery and technical capacity in low income countries?
- How can the humanitarian and development people work better together: one humanity, shared responsibility?
- Most of the refugees around the world don’t live in camps anymore, creating pressure on the local communities. How can we ensure that both refugee and local communities are well served and their needs met?
- There is not enough ODA to satisfy current needs. What are the innovative financial instruments which can be implemented? For example, the newly created MENA Financing Facility ($1 billlion).
- We don’t know enough about refugees, who they are, what they want, what are their skills and capabilities, whom they left behind. How can we better adjust our programs to meet their needs?
In conclusion, he highlighted the risk of paying attention only when there is an acute crisis, like the refugee situation in Europe now. Intervention without follow-on efforts creates instability. The World Bank is committed to work together with its partners and join efforts to find new ways forward.
UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson brought to participants’ attention the new “5P agenda”: people, planet, prosperity, peace and partnership. He cited the latest achievements at the global level, such as the SDGs and the Paris Agreement. “There is no peace without development, no development without peace and neither peace nor development without respect for human rights,” the UN DSG said while emphasizing that finding a settlement for protracted conflicts is increasingly difficult. There are several factors that trigger conflict: political rivalry, international interference, human rights violations, extremism or weak governance, but it is in everyone’s interest to find peaceful solutions to conflicts.
Eliasson conveyed three key messages:
- Preventing conflicts should become a top priority. This implies a better understanding of the early trends, before there is escalation. Much more pre- and post-conflict work is needed, from the first signs of instability to full recovery. Reducing the risks and building resilience remain an important objectives.
- The humanitarian needs must be reduced. Demands are overwhelming supply. 125 million people need humanitarian assistance today. The $16.4 billion UN response is falling short. The lack of funds affects peoples’ lives
- We must work together. To achieve sustainable peace, more targeted resources that reduce the sources of conflict must be put together. National ownership, national capacities and national leadership need to be supported with international technical assistance.
Last, but not least, Eliasson asked the participants to think about the shared humanity and responsibility that drive our actions and the importance to us all of responding to the expectations of impoverished people. Multilateral cooperation, combined with more credible institutions, are a way forward. Fragmentation of efforts is costly and ineffective. There are no quick and easy fixes to address the disillusion and grievances of the people worldwide.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
ISIS recruitment
On Thursday, the Middle East Institute and the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies hosted ‘Recruiting for Jihad: The Allure of ISIS.’ Charles Lister, Resident Fellow at the Middle East Institute, Ahmet Sait Yayla, Terrorism and Radicalization Specialist and Chair of the Sociology Department at Harran University, Turkey, and Anne Speckhard, Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Georgetown University and Director of the International Canter for the Study of Violent Extremism, all presented their thoughts on who ISIS attracts. Daniel Serwer, Professor of Conflict Management at Johns Hopkins SAIS and Scholar at the Middle East Institute, moderated.
Lister believes that every case is unique when it comes to who is recruited into ISIS. It recruits from all over. There is no single profile of a person most likely to join.Its strategies have been effective to the point where it is no longer only a regional terrorist organization, but a global one. In the past few years, ISIS has recruited about 50,000 people. The group now has a presence in countries in and around North Africa and the Middle East. ISIS has an unofficial presence in many other countries.
Lister attributes ISIS success in recruitment to five factors:
- Exploitation of chaos in Syria
- Military success
- Undermining of its rivals and adversaries
- Creation of a clear, alternative way of life
- Exploitation of media and social media
Though ISIS uses all these methods for radicalization, recruitment is most successful with personal contact, both over the Internet and in the privacy of homes. This makes forming effective counter-recruitment difficult.
Lister suggested several counters to ISIS recruitment. Fighting ISIS directly on the battlefield, targeting its leadership and finance, working more with rebel groups on the ground, and enhancing border surveillance are all ways to combat ISIS. Lister added that encouraging a safe space for a healthy, dynamic debate on sensitive issues will help in the fight against the Islamic State.
Yayla spoke mainly on the ISIS presence in Turkey and Turkish fighters that joined ISIS. Out of the 5,000 people from Turkey currently fighting with various groups within Syria, around 1,200 to 1,400 are working with ISIS. These people keep passing the Turkish-Syrian border. On the border, villages are close together, and many of the people directly across the border are friends and family. Villagers and the ISIS Turkish fighters know each other well and do what needs to be done for one another. Many of the people passing these borders are smuggling weapons and supplies.
For ISIS recruitment in Turkey, social media has a large impact. Facebook videos of Turkish ISIS and Jahbat al-Nusra fighters convince some to join the groups. They subtitle these videos in Turkish to appeal to the Turkish audience. Many Turkish recruits worked previously with al-Qaeda previously. They reach out to their close circles of friends in order to recruit. Criminals from Istanbul and Ankara are attracted to ISIS as they need money. ISIS provides $200/month stipends. Living on the streets in Turkey is much worse to these people than living a better life with ISIS in Syria.
Speckhard has interviewed terrorists, defectors, and family members of terrorists. She believes ISIS has been successful in recruitment because of four factors:
- Representation of an alternative world order
- Promotion of its ideology
- Some level of social support
- Individual vulnerability
Speckhard focused on the individual vulnerability to recruitment. Desires for revenge and prior trauma make people vulnerable. Those not in conflict zones watch videos of places like Iraq and want to be a part of something. Unemployment is a big factor in recruitment. Sexual rewards, as an ISIS fighter is given a wife, are also a motivation in joining. ISIS provides immediate satisfaction and relief. People are drawn to this.
ISIS provides an alternative to marginalization. Speckhard pressed for a civil rights movement and more effective integration, especially in Europe. The solution to marginalization will have to be legally enforced. She added that it is important to work with Turkey and support Greece going forward, in order to lessen the number of vulnerable people.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A cessation of hostilities unlikely to last
It took a week or two, but the US and Russia have finally come up with a joint statement whose Annex specifies the terms for the cessation of hostilities in Syria.
Basically it says to the government and opposition fighters (other than those belonging to the Islamic State, Jabhat al Nusra and other terrorist groups) that they need to accept the terms by noon Thursday or risk attack from midnight Friday onwards. The terms include a commitment to participate in the UN-facilitated political process convened under Security Council resolution 2254, to cease attacks, to allow humanitarian access, to refrain from acquiring territory and to proportionate use of force in response to violations.
The US and Russia are to delineate territories the adherents control and provide the capacity to prevent attacks against those who adhere to the agreement, including a working group and communications facilities to investigate noncompliance. No neutral observers are to be deployed. The UN’s special envoy (Stefano De Mistura) is to provide the secretariat for the effort.
The Syrian regime responded quickly. It announced parliamentary elections for April 13, in an obvious effort to short-circuit the UN political process and present the international community with a fait accompli in the form of yet another fraudulent election outcome. No serious opposition will be prepared to participate in an election occurring that quickly under the disastrous conditions existing in Syria today.
I imagine many of the opposition fighting forces will accept the cessation of hostilities. They are on the ropes after weeks of ferocious and indiscriminate Russian bombing. The civilians in areas they control are desperate. The Americans will do their best to twist arms and deliver their friends, including by threatening to cut off support.
The Russians swear up and down they will do everything necessary to deliver the Syrian government. That is hard to believe after their mendacious behavior of the last few months, when they used the cover of international negotiations to mount their offensive. More likely, the Russians as well as the Iranians will use any lull in the fighting to reinforce the Syrian army, Hizbollah and Shia militia fighters from Iraq for the resumption of the war.
Unless someone comes up with a way of getting Bashar al Assad to commit to give up power on a date certain, I expect any cessation of hostilities to be a hiatus, possibly a very short one, not the beginning of a serious political process. Assad’s calling of elections is a clear signal of his disdain for the Geneva 1, Vienna 2 and other internationally negotiated agreements intended to end the war with a political transition.
The Russians aren’t going to force him out after doubling down on their bet last fall and winning back strategically important territory from the opposition. From Moscow’s perspective, this cessation of hostilities is an opportunity for its allies on the ground to consolidate control and get ready for the next round.
There is no indication that Washington is prepared to do likewise for the opposition, who not only lost important territory to the Russian-backed offensive but also find themselves without the anti-aircraft and other weapons they require if they are to perform any better next time around.
Russia is winning a war in Syria the United States refuses to fight, or let others fight. But in doing so, Moscow has alienated most of the Syrian population and guaranteed it will lose the peace.
RSS - Posts
