Search

Begin New Search Topic Counter-terrorism Publication Year within 25 Years

331. Strategy Education Across the Professional Military Education Enterprise

Author:
Colonel John C. Valledor
Publication Date:
05-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Abstract:
Since the horrific attacks against the U.S. homeland on September 11, 2001 (9/11), the U.S. has been engaged in two very long and costly wars, with the war in Afghanistan formally ending on December 2014. At the heart of the grand strategy supporting these conflicts was the desire to deny failing and failed states from becoming the launch pad for future attacks. The closest the nation came to a grand strategy—known for years by its now familiar alias—“The Global War on Terror”2—served to focus U.S. military efforts and galvanize popular support for a common strategic cause. The use of U.S. military force against certain countries in the greater Middle East has done much to eliminate terror-training camps and prevent al-Qaeda from launching large-scale follow-on attacks against the homeland. Nevertheless, U.S. military engagements overseas have unleashed many unforeseen consequences that have complicated the ability to achieve policy objectives.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Military Affairs, Counter-terrorism, and Homeland Security
Political Geography:
United States of America

332. How to Counter Terrorism by Supporting Civil Society in the United Arab Emirates

Author:
Brian Dooley
Publication Date:
05-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Human Rights First
Abstract:
President Obama recently made a series of commendable declarations supporting civil society and affirming its importance to securing stability and fighting extremism. At the White House’s Summit on Countering Violent Extremism in February 2015 he announced, “When people are oppressed, and human rights are denied—particularly along sectarian lines or ethnic lines—when dissent is silenced, it feeds violent extremism. It creates an environment that is ripe for terrorists to exploit. When peaceful, democratic change is impossible, it feeds into the terrorist propaganda that violence is the only answer available.” The President added, “[W]e must recognize that lasting stability and real security require democracy. That means free elections where people can choose their own future, and independent judiciaries that uphold the rule of law, and police and security forces that respect human rights, and free speech and freedom for civil society groups.” That same month he said, “My argument to any partner that we have is that you are better off if you've got a strong civil society and you've got democratic legitimacy and you are respectful of human rights.” In April 2015, speaking specifically about the six U.S. allies that comprise the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)—Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE)—he noted, “The biggest threats that they face may not be coming from Iran invading,” and warned of “populations that, in some cases, are alienated, youth that are underemployed, an ideology that is destructive and nihilistic, and in some cases, just a belief that there are no legitimate political outlets for grievances.” A lack of peaceful outlets for political grievances does indeed drive extremism and instability, but the Obama Administration continues to provide seemingly unconditional political and military support for GCC countries that have actually increased their repression against civil society in recent years. This contradiction at the heart of U.S. policy must be confronted and resolved, especially because it has a direct bearing on counterterrorism cooperation and U.S. national security interests. The president promised to have a “tough conversation” with the GCC leaders about their destructive policies. The \ White House and Camp David meetings with GCC leaders on May 13-14, 2015 provides the perfect opportunity to develop that conversation. Human Rights First produced blueprints in 2015 for how the United States can support civil society in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia to encourage reform and respect for human rights—advances that would help bring stability to a volatile region and align with the administration’s stated policy goals. This report extends that series to an analysis of the repression of another U.S. security partner in the Gulf: the United Arab Emirates. It examines the UAE’s relations with the United States and what Washington can do to support a besieged Emirati civil society. Strong, functioning civil societies across the world—including in the UAE—are, as President Obama rightly identified, “a matter of national security” for the United States. This report is based on research conducted during a Human Rights First fact-finding trip to the UAE in April 2015, including dozens of discussions with human rights defenders, civil society activists, journalists, academics, lawyers, independent experts, officials from the United States and other governments, and others. Local human rights activists spoke to Human Rights First on condition of anonymity out of fear for their safety. Human Rights First thanks all those who provided information for this report.
Topic:
Civil Society, Human Rights, Terrorism, and Counter-terrorism
Political Geography:
Middle East, Abu Dhabi, and UAE

333. How the United States Can Help Counter Violent Extremism and Support Civil Society in Kenya

Author:
Human Rights First
Publication Date:
07-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Human Rights First
Abstract:
“First, for civil society to continue to succeed it must have open, free, democratic space. I have followed closely the ongoing debate in Kenya around civil society and its regulation…. [A]ccountability and transparency are important for civil society organizations, just as they are for all others. But there are ways to achieve accountability and transparency that do not restrict or impede the vital work of civil society.… Regulation should embrace diversity. Regulation must not be used to silence opinions or stifle views that the powerful do not share…. We carry out extensive due diligence on all the organizations we partner with, to ensure that they are not being used for illicit purposes, such as terrorist financing. We have not seen any evidence to suggest Haki Africa’s activities pose a threat to national security or jeopardize Kenya’s efforts at combating terrorism.” –U.S. Ambassador to Kenya, Robert F. Godec, June 5, 2015 The visit of President Obama to Kenya in July 2015—the first by a sitting U.S. president—is much anticipated in the country, which faces serious challenges, including poverty, terrorism, corruption, and abuses by state security forces. Kenya has yet to fully recover from large-scale violence following the 2008 election, when around 1,300 people were killed—including hundreds by the police—and half a million were displaced during a six-week period. Kenya also hosts around half a million refugees fleeing war in Somalia. The U.S. government has sought to help Kenya address its human rights problem with humanitarian, good governance, and security initiatives. Kenya is routinely among the top seven recipients of U.S. aid, getting hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Yet the United States should strengthen and sharpen its efforts to support Kenya. A reinvigorated approach, initiated by the President’s visit, would both improve the lives of Kenyans and serve U.S. interests by combating violent extremism. This report recommends actions the U.S. government should take to promote greater stability in Kenya and the region, and outlines in particular how the U.S. government should support Kenyan civil society. In 2010 Kenyan voters approved a new constitution, which contains strong human rights safeguards, protections for civil society, and judicial reforms. And it is in many ways a model of legal protection for human rights. It provides for the creation of several important bodies, including the National Gender Equality Commission—which is pushing for the implementation of article 81b of the constitution: “not more than two thirds of the members of elective public bodies shall be of the same gender”—and the Kenyan National Commission on Human Rights. Unfortunately, these and other official entities set up under the constitution to protect rights are insufficiently resourced and politically weak. The government’s implementation of the constitution has generally not matched the promise of its text. It has attacked civil society groups and attempted to muzzle dissent, often in the name of counterterrorism. The 2013 Public Benefit Organizations (PBO) Act, a law designed to regulate and protect civil society, has yet to be implemented. On the positive side, parts of the Kenyan judiciary remain defiantly independent of government interference, something President Obama should praise during his trip. The Kenya section in the U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2014 states: “The most serious human rights problems were security force abuses, including alleged unlawful killings, forced disappearances, torture, and use of excessive force; interethnic violence; and widespread corruption and impunity throughout the government…. Widespread impunity at all levels of government was a serious problem, despite public statements by the president and deputy president and police and judicial reforms. The government took only limited steps to address cases of unlawful killings by security force members.” That crackdown runs counter to President Obama’s insistence that stability and security require “freedom for civil society groups.” During his visit, President Obama should discuss the crackdown on civil society along with other pressing and sensitive issues: security cooperation, corruption, refugee protection, and the human rights of LGBT people.
Topic:
Civil Society, Human Rights, Violent Extremism, Counter-terrorism, and Transparency
Political Geography:
Kenya, Africa, United States, Nairobi, and East Africa

334. The Role of Human Rights in Countering Violent Extremism

Author:
Human Rights First
Publication Date:
09-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Human Rights First
Abstract:
On the sidelines of the annual United Nations General Assembly meeting, the United States is sponsoring briefings and meetings with allies to develop strategies to counter the spread of violent extremism. These activities will build on the February 2015 White House Summit to Counter Violent Extremism (CVE). The CVE initiative is designed to advance a more preventive and proactive approach to countering violent extremism. It takes into account the lesson of the past decade that addressing the threat of violent extremism requires a truly comprehensive strategy that goes beyond military intelligence and law-enforcement tools. The United States government has played a leading role in moving forward a global conversation on countering violent extremism since convening the White House Summit. If this process is to yield results, the United States will have to continue to provide leadership in close coordination with the efforts of the United Nations and other multilateral organizations, notably the U.N. Secretary General’s Plan of Action on Preventing Violent Extremism to be presented to the U.N. General Assembly later this year. While sustained U.S. engagement with this multilateral process will be essential, just as important will be a clear demonstration from the United States that it is putting the principles of its CVE approach into practice. The United States must show its commitment to the principles it has been championing through its more comprehensive, preventive CVE strategy in each of its bilateral relationships, particularly those with states facing challenges from the threat of terrorism, which also engage in systematic violations of human rights. It is no accident that these two conditions often coincide. This blueprint brings together examples of existing bilateral relationships with some U.S. allies that fit this category. The material collected here illustrates the vital importance for the United States to encourage its allies to implement security policies rooted in the reality that good governance, the rule of law, and respect for human rights are essential tools in countering violent extremism. This blueprint compiles and summarizes previous Human Rights First blueprints. For more information on a specific topic or country, please refer to the following documents: How to Conduct Effective Counterterrorism that Reinforces Human Rights (December 2014); How to Bring Stability to Bahrain (December 2014); How to Prevent Egypt Slipping into a Deepening Crisis (December 2014); How to Build a More Sustainable and Mutually Beneficial Relationship with Saudi Arabia (March 2015); How to Counter Terrorism by Supporting Civil Society in the United Arab Emirates (May 2015); How the United States Can Help Counter Violent Extremism and Support Civil Society in Kenya (July 2015).
Topic:
Human Rights, Terrorism, United Nations, Violent Extremism, and Counter-terrorism
Political Geography:
United States and Global Focus

335. EU home affairs diplomacy: why, what, where – and how

Author:
Hugo Brady and Roderick Parkes
Publication Date:
09-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
Home affairs matters such as border control, crime-fighting and counter-terrorism are all increasingly subject to international rule-setting and cooperation. The European Union is facing up to this challenge, under pressure of events but also thanks to a high degree of coordination between home affairs officials and diplomats. With its near abroad now host to mass movements of migrants, radical Islamist groups and transnational organised crime networks, the Union is investing in making the relationship between internal and external security processes more substantive. But enhanced coordination can only work if Europeans adopt the right geographical focus, toolkit and strategy. This Chaillot Paper explores the genesis of ‘home affairs diplomacy’ and how it has taken shape, and highlights the challenges as well as the opportunities that bringing together different policy communities (at both national and EU level) generates for a more confident and more ‘strategic’ European approach to an outside world that has become more connected and more complex than ever before.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Migration, International Security, European Union, and Counter-terrorism

336. The Basque Conflict and ETA: The Difficulties of an Ending

Author:
Teresa Whitfield
Publication Date:
12-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
United States Institute of Peace
Abstract:
Violence at the hands of the Basque separatist organization ETA was for many years an anomalous feature of Spain’s transition to democracy. This report, which draws on the author’s book Endgame for ETA: Elusive Peace in the Basque Country (Hurst and Oxford University Press, 2014), explains why this was the case, examines both the factors that contributed to ETA’s October 2011 announcement of an end to violence and the obstacles encountered in moving forward from that announcement to disarmament and dissolution, and extracts lessons relevant for other contexts.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Political Violence, Armed Struggle, Territorial Disputes, and Counter-terrorism
Political Geography:
Europe and Spain

337. Launch of CTED Global Research Network

Author:
The Soufan Group
Publication Date:
04-2015
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Soufan Group
Abstract:
With a view to enhancing its analytical capacity and its engagement with the research community, the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) launched a global research network at United Nations Headquarters, New York, on 19 February 2015
Topic:
International Security and Counter-terrorism
Political Geography:
Global Focus

338. European Narratives on the "Arab Spring" – From Democracy to Security

Author:
Peter Seeberg and Musa Shteiwi
Publication Date:
02-2014
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic Studies (CSS)
Abstract:
Peter Seeberg & Musa Shteiwi wrote an article on the "European Narratives on the "Arab Spring" – From Democracy to Security". The article discusses the EU’s reaction to the developments in the MENA-region in the period 2011-14. Initially relatively optimistic metaphors like ‘the Arab Spring’ or ‘the Democratic Tsunami’ were part of the media-comments from Western leaders, but three years. later the situation in the region seems to have changed significantly and consequently the narrative in the EU has switched from a predominantly pro-‘Arab Spring’ discourse to a focus on security aspects in a broad sense and, especially concerning the situation in Syria (to some degree also Lebanon and Libya), a focus on counter-terrorism. The article are concluding remarks by Peter Seeberg and Musa Shteiwi from a workshop on EU-Middle Eastern relations held at the Center for Strategic Studies in Amman in May 2013. Dr. Musa Shteiwi is the director of the Center for Strategic Studies, University of Jordan. Peter Seeberg is the director of the Center for Contemporary Middle East Studies in the University of Southern Denmark.
Topic:
Security, European Union, Counter-terrorism, Democracy, and Arab Spring
Political Geography:
Europe, Middle East, Libya, North Africa, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan

339. Managing a Transnational Insurgency: The Islamic State of Iraqʹs “Paper Trail,” 2005‐2010

Author:
Jon Wallace, Jacob N. Shapiro, Pat Ryan, and Danielle F. Jung
Publication Date:
12-2014
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Empirical Studies of Conflict Project (ESOC)
Abstract:
A cornerstone of strategic thinking is a clear understanding of one’s opponent. Developing such an understanding in dealing with the Islamic State (IS) is challenging. Constraints on access to the frontlines in Iraq and Syria make it unusually hard for researchers to ground assessments in evidence‐based approaches. This occasional paper contributes to the development of an empirically grounded understanding of the IS by analyzing the finances and management of the group’s predecessor, the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), which changed its name to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in April 2013 and then the Islamic State in June 2014. There is a direct line of descent from Al‐Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI) through the Islamic State of Iraq to today’s Islamic State, despite changes in the group’s territorial holdings and the announced scale of its ambitions. Using historical documents to understand how AQI and the ISI were run can therefore help us better understand the current incarnation of the group, as well as the strengths and weaknesses it may have inherited.
Topic:
Terrorism, Counterinsurgency, Violent Extremism, Counter-terrorism, Islamic State, and War on Terror
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Middle East, and Syria

340. Vers un « multiculturalisme policier » ? La lutte contre la radicalisation en France, aux Pays-Bas et au Royaume-Uni (Towards “Policed Multiculturalism”? Counter-radicalization in France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom)

Author:
Francesco Ragazzi
Publication Date:
12-2014
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches Internationales (CERI)
Abstract:
The French government recently announced a plan to “combat radicalization” and a series of measures to prevent recourse to violence. Although the term is not entirely new in the French political parlance, it marks a departure from a counterterrorism policy justified mainly by a judicial approach and enforced in great part through administrative measures. France is thus moving closer to the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, which both began to develop such policies in the mid-2000s. Yet what exactly does it mean to “combat radicalization”? What explains the French government’s change of approach? And what can be learned from a decade of experience in these two European countries? This study shows that the concept of radicalization serves as an effective discourse to legitimize the extension of police action beyond its usual purview, by becoming involved in areas of diversity management such as education, religion, and social policy. The study traces the dissemination of the discourse through European institutions and, using the notion of “policed multiculturalism,” analyzes the effects of its legal, administrative and preventive forms.
Topic:
Security, Corruption, Crime, Terrorism, Multiculturalism, and Counter-terrorism
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, France, Netherlands, Western Europe, and European Union