counterterrorism

Does Malaysia have concrete counterterrorism strategies to mitigate potential terrorist attacks?

April 29, 2016 by Munira Mustaffa

By: Munira Mustaffa

Unit_Tindak_Khas_of_PGK_on_CT's_drill — The Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) Special Operations Command unit undergoing a tactical counterterrorism training. Source: Wikimedia

While Indonesia successfully demonstrated remarkable resilience with her defiant cry of “Kami tidak takut” (“We are not intimidated”) on social media after the January 2016 attack,[1] there are some uncertainties that the same level of fortitude can be witnessed in Malaysia should a Daesh-inspired attack happen.[2] This raises some pressing debates about Malaysia’s existing counterterrorism policies and resilience strategies.

It is already known that Daesh has issued warnings that they had planned attacks on Westerners in Kuala Lumpur.[3] To date, there has been one attempt by local Daesh’s sympathisers which was successfully disrupted by members of the Royal Malaysia Police (RMP) in January.[4] Last month, in the latest government crackdown on local terror cells, over 100 individuals were detained for suspected involvement with the core Daesh militancy.[5] In previous arrests since 2013, many of them were reportedly first-time offenders who were radicalised online.[6]

However, capturing ringleaders or copycats do not guarantee our safety or guarantees against terrorist attacks. If anything, as demonstrated by open source media, the fact that Daesh as an organisation is weakening does not mean that it will not influence groups abroad.[7] Daesh supporters may be even more determined to intensify their overseas strategies.[8]

The probability that Kuala Lumpur could be the next target is rather sobering.[9] Filled with complex and multi-ethnic communities, along with abundant international visitors, countless international corporates and multi-national companies centred around an urban hub, one could argue that these factors make Kuala Lumpur a high-value target. Moreover, Putrajaya is currently being encumbered by grand corruption controversies involving the country’s sovereign wealth that could erode its “moderate Islam” image and status as the custodian of Malaysia Muslims’ religious interests.[10] The fact that Kuala Lumpur is highly populated by a large percentage of Muslims who Daesh sympathisers might consider as takfiri could be a potential concern.[11]

The Malaysia experience

Malaysia is no stranger to asymmetric warfare. Much of Malaysia’s experience and formation of current antiterrorism laws and legislation are legacies of the days of Malayan insurgencies. Post-insurgency, homegrown radical militant groups began to surface in the late 1960s, slowly evolving into today’s mujahideen extremists who are enjoying a revival and enthusiastically responding to the rallying call for global Muslim solidarity.[12] Although not all of them agree with Daesh’s brand of violence, one thing is clear: Daesh does make a convenient vehicle for them to realise their Daulah Islamiyah (Islamic State) ambitions in this region that imposes stricter Islamic interpretation of the law and way of life.[13]

Malaysia’s current counterterrorism (CT) measures

On the morning of November 26, 2014, Prime Minister Najib Razak tabled a white paper in Parliament entitled, “Towards countering threats posed by Islamic State Militant Group”.[14] Delivered entirely in Malay, Najib condemned the violence propagated by Daesh, encouraged support from the public to reject extremist ideas, and promised to increase efforts in reducing the threat of terrorism.[15]

It has been a little over a year since the submission of the white paper, which is available only in scanned copy online (and difficult to find).[16] Upon review, what was striking about the concluding remarks in the document was that the only solution proposed was to further stiffen existing anti-terror laws. These included the Security Offences (Special Measures Act) (SOSMA), Prevention of Crime Act (POCA) and the Penal Code. No other policy recommendations were provided to substantially elevate the current threat. This is worrying, considering the questionable way Malaysia’s anti-terror laws and legislation could be enforced and regulated.

For instance, in the past, opposition activists of the incumbent government have been arrested under the Internal Security Act (ISA) that was originally intended as a preventive measure against communist threats that no longer exist.[17] When the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) 2015 was introduced as a response to the emerging Daesh threats, there were serious and justifiable concerns that it was just “a reincarnation of the ISA”.[18] Furthermore, the Communications and Multimedia Ministry recently submitted a proposal to the Attorney General for legal amendments to be made on the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. If passed, this new law will require the registration of political blogs and online news portals with the government as an effort to counter “defamatory news” and “inflammatory opinions”.[19] Antithetical to the current administration’s previous pledge in 2012 to repeal the Sedition Act for more freedom of expression,[20] this proposal is a grim reminder how freedom of speech and Internet freedom in the country are being tightly scrutinised and regulated.[21]

Absence of robust policy framework and lack of public engagement

If we are to believe that the Najib administration is serious about mitigating terror threats at domestic level, then some further research, serious reassessments and critical revisions should be carried out to improve current policies. Information should be available in an efficiently accessible form that can be promptly found and used to maintain public interest, and keep them in the loop. As it stands, apart from the crackdowns, arrests and promises to tighten the law, it is difficult for the rakyat to gauge if other preventive measures have been implemented.[22] This lack of transparency and accountability in leadership creates unnecessary political vulnerabilities and heightens anxiety.

Dissidents would argue that the current administration benefits from the rakyat’s ignorance because the dynamics of the power play here allows more room for manipulation of the general public. In reality, the inadequate effort in engaging the public signifies how much the Malaysian government undervalues public contribution. Key security strategies should always include engaging the public as part of a concerted state effort to mitigate terrorism. Support from the public is crucial in assisting local law enforcement agencies, be it for crime prevention or counterterrorism. Everyone should be encouraged to feel like they are part of the nation-building narrative and meaningful governing process. The desired outcome could motivate people to step up to be part of the solution. Increasing community capabilities in acknowledging legitimate social problems, dispelling disruptive views and identifying suspicious behaviour would be productive, as opposed to citizens relying on false assumptions on what terrorism is or looks like.[23]

At present, there is no document or policy paper that is readily available online (or otherwise) that could comprehensively explain to the Malaysian public the nature of threat we are currently facing and how the government plans to react to terrorist threats or emergencies. Officially-released notices bear no semblance of even a formal presentation that could help distinguish them easily from rumours, which further exacerbate fear-mongering. One such instance is the Federal Territories Minister Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor (aka Ku Nan) who decided to “notify” the public of the “list of targets” in possession of the captured Daesh members. It was not even within his jurisdiction to release such statement, of which even the PDRM themselves were mystified as to where and how did he receive his intelligence.[24] Regardless of the motive behind the public disclosure of the list of targets, Ku Nan’s action was not viewed favourably by the public at all – in fact he was slammed for being an alarmist.[25]

This is why many Malaysians feel excluded, mishandled and abandoned by top-level officials. Unless they are full of praise (such as the recent PR disaster of the #RespectMyPM Twitter campaign) or they carry certain myopic viewpoints that are supported from within the government, critical debates and discussions are actively discouraged.[26] For example, a popular Malaysian news portal, The Malaysian Insider, which has been blocked several times for allegedly publishing “inflammatory content” finally shuttered to a close after persistently reporting on the PM’s alleged misuse of sovereign funds.[27] More significantly, foreign journalists were recently deported for asking uncomfortable questions about the corruption allegations directed at the PM.[28] So when it was revealed last month that there was a terror plot to kidnap PM Najib Razak, of course it was greeted with a great collective disbelief.[29]

Counterproductive Outcomes

These latest episodes serve as a stark reminder that the Malaysian public’s value, trust and well-being are not a priority for the incumbent government. If anything, their reluctance to acknowledge their hand in the growing problem at the domestic level, and their stubbornness to adopt a more sensible policy-building approach is greatly impacting the situation. Considering that the ruling party has shown a lack of accountability and failed at fulfilling their political pledges on more than just one occasion, it is no wonder that the public is becoming exceedingly distrustful of it.

Meanwhile, despite assertions in news reports of the “success” of Malaysia’s de-radicalisation programmes which have been boasted as “the best in the world”, there is no official indication how these government programmes were planned or assessed for implementation.[30] Additionally, there is no clear definition for what “success” means in the programme’s introduction either.[31] Even more worrying, one of the agencies involved in the process is the controversial Islamic Development Department (JAKIM), well-known for their invasive and boundary-violating “moral-policing” activities which aimed to “preserve the chastity of Muslims” everywhere in the country.[32] In short, the question whether or not Malaysia is capable of coping with the growing terrorist threat remains unanswered.

Conclusion: rethinking security policies

It is true that Daesh’s brand of extremism has limited appeal in the Southeast Asia.[33] The Jakarta attack itself was poorly executed and, at best, amateurish. The probability of a Daesh attack to occur in Kuala Lumpur is still considerably low and and its threats should not be overestimated. However, the growing indoctrination, radicalisation and rising extremist views amongst Malay-Muslims continue to be worrying security conundrums and should be seen as a major counterterrorism challenge.[34]

There is also a disconcerting number of high-level people who are only too quick to shift the blame to external factors such as liberal values and pluralism, Jewish conspiracies, and Wahhabism/Salafism, of which local religious authorities are only too eager to distance themselves from.[35] Compound these all together, they build a grave picture that shows how far removed and complacent the Malaysian government can be from the reality of the current global threat.

While there is no doubt that the PDRM have been successful in their anti-terror sting operations, nevertheless tactical operations alone are not sufficient without robust counterterrorism policies and resilience strategies in place. More conscious efforts should also be made to improve cohesiveness amongst the diverse communities in Malaysia as part of a nation-wide strategy of building resilience against terrorism. The government would significantly benefit from public confidence in their capabilities. In turn, a mutually rewarding collaborative relationship could be forged.

Nonetheless, with the Prime Minister’s loss of legitimacy in the storm of his corruption scandal, fractured inter-community relations, and growing demands from the conservatives for a more Islamic and divisive Malaysia, one thing is certain, however: the country’s security landscape will become increasingly turbulent should things stay the way they are.

Munira Mustaffa is a strategic intelligence analyst and due diligence consultant for a private London-based firm. She earned her Master’s degree in Countering Organised Crime and Terrorism from the University College of London. She tweets at @FleetStGir1.

Notes:

[1][1] Rishi Iyengar, ‘Indonesians display defiance toward Jakarta attackers through rallies and social media’, Time, January 15, 2016, http://time.com/4182106/jakarta-rally-attacks-kami-tidak-takut/

[2] Zachary Abuza, ‘Terror attack could rip apart Malaysian society’, Southeast Asia Globe, March 7, 2016, http://sea-globe.com/terrorism-in-malaysia-zachary-abuza/

[3] Tom Batchelor, ‘ISIS targets Malaysia: terror group ‘very real’ threat after jihadis warn of reprisals’, Express, January 26, 2016, http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/638163/Islamic-State-Malaysia-terror-attacks-Jakarta-bombing

[4] Eileen Ng, ‘Malaysian police foil suicide blast hours before planned attack in Kuala Lumpur’, Stuff, January 17, 2016, http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/75970763/Malaysian-police-foil-suicide-blast-hours-before-planned-attack-in-Kuala-Lumpur

[5] Victoria Ho, ‘Malaysia detains 13 suspected ISIS militants’, Mashable, March 24, 2016, http://mashable.com/2016/03/24/13-arrests-isis-malaysia/

[6] Elina Noor, ‘Identifying the root causes of terrorism’, New Straits Times, March 22, 2016, http://www.nst.com.my/news/2016/03/134311/identifying-root-causes-terrorism

[7] Henry Johnson, ‘Mapped: the Islamic State is losing its territory – and fast’, Foreign Policy, 16 March, 2016, http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/16/mapped-the-islamic-state-is-losing-its-territory-and-fast/

[8] Joshua Holland, ‘Here’s what a man who studied every suicide attack in the world says about ISIS’ motives’, The Nation, December 2, 2015, http://www.thenation.com/article/heres-what-a-man-who-studied-every-suicide-attack-in-the-world-says-about-isiss-motives/

[9] James Chin, ‘Malaysia: clear and present danger from the Islamic State’, Brookings, 16 December, 2015, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/12/16-malaysia-danger-from-islamic-state-chin

[10] Daniel Woker, ‘In Malaysia and Turkey, are we witnessing the end of moderate Islam?’, The Interpreter, 5 August, 2015, http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2015/08/05/In-Malaysia-and-Turkey-the-end-of-moderate-Islam.aspx

[11] Hayat Alvi, 2014, ‘The diffusion of intra-Islamic violence and terrorism’, Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 18, No. 2, p. 38-50.

[12] Mohd. Mizan Aslam, 2009, ‘The thirteen radical groups: Preliminary research in understanding the evolution of militancy in Malaysia’, Jati, 14, p.145-161

[13] Joseph Chinyong Liow, ‘Counterterrorism conundrum: rethinking security policy in Australia and Southeast Asia’, Foreign Affairs, 17 December, 2014, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/southeast-asia/2014-12-17/counterterrorism-conundrum

[14] NajibRazak.com, ‘Ucapan pembentangan kertas putih ke arah menangani ancaman kumpulan Islamic State’, 26 November, 2014, https://najibrazak.com/bm/blog/ucapanpembentangan-kertas-putih-ke-arah-menangani-ancaman-kumpulan-islamic-state/

[15] Razak is the patronymic and refers to the Prime Minister’s father’s administration. In this essay, we will use Najib to denote this current administration.

[16] Malaysia, ‘Ke Arah Menanangani Ancaman Kumpulan Islamic State’, Dewan Rakyat/Dewan Negara, 2014, http://www.airforce.gov.my/images/PENERBITAN/kertasputihislamicstate.compressed.pdf

[17] Human Rights Watch, https://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/asia/malaysia-bck-0513.htm

[18] Munira Mustaffa, 2015, ‘Can POTA counter the ISIL threat in Malaysia?’, Strife, 9 May, 2015, https://strifeblog.org/2015/05/09/can-pota-counter-the-isil-threat-in-malaysia/

[19] Shazwan Mustafa Kamal, ‘Putrajaya weighing new leash for news portals, blogs’, The Malay Mail Online 16 March, 2016, http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/putrajaya-weighing-new-leash-for-news-portals-blogs

[20] Centre for Independent Journalism – CIJ Malaysia, ‘[Malaysia] Disappointments and promises in freedom of expression’, Southeast Asian Press Alliance, 6 May, 2015, https://www.seapa.org/disappointments-and-promises-in-freedom-of-expression/

[21] Mong Palatino, ‘Malaysia will likely force “political blogs” and news websites to register with the government,’ Global Voices, 23 April, 2016, https://globalvoices.org/2016/04/23/malaysia-will-likely-force-political-blogs-and-news-websites-to-register-with-the-government/

[22] Malay word for “ordinary citizens”.

[23] Munira Mustaffa, ‘Dismantling terrorism myths’, The Malay Mail Online, 22 February, 2016, http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/dismantling-terrorism-myths-munira-mustaffa

[24] Eunice Au, ‘Top KL tourist areas cited as possible terror targets’, The Straits Times, 17 January, 2016, http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/top-kl-tourist-areas-cited-as-possible-terror-targets

[25] Sebastian Loh, ‘Malaysian minister under fire for naming IS targets in Kuala Lumpur’, Asian Correspondent, 18 January, 2016, https://asiancorrespondent.com/2016/01/malaysian-minister-under-fire-after-naming-is-targets-in-kuala-lumpur/

[26] BBC, ‘#RespectMyPM: Online war breaks out in Malaysia’, March 7, 2016, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35742118

[27] Jahabar Sadiq, ‘Eight proud years of being “The Malaysian Insider”’, The Bangkok Post, 22 March, 2016, http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/906004/eight-proud-years-of-being-the-malaysian-insider

[28] BBC, ‘Australian journalists leave Malaysia after avoiding charges’, March 15, 2016, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-35800172

[29] Amy Chew, ‘ISIS, Malaysia, and the risks of lost moral authority’, The Diplomat, March 22, 2016, http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/isis-malaysia-and-the-risks-of-lost-moral-authority/

[30] The Star, ‘Zahid Hamidi: Malaysia’s deradicalisation programme “best in the world”’, 20 February, 2016, http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/02/20/zahid-hamidi-malaysia-deradicalisation-programme-best-in-the-world/

[31] New Straits Times Online, ‘Malaysia’s deradicalisation process a success’, 22 January, 2016, http://www.nst.com.my/news/2016/01/123407/malaysias-deradicalisation-process-success

[32] Kamles Kumar, ‘Moral policing driving youths away from Islam, Ku Li tells Jakim’, Malay Mail Online, 5 December, 2015, http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/moral-policing-driving-youths-away-from-islam-ku-li-tells-jakim

[33] Joseph Chinyong Liow, ‘ISIS reaches Indonesia’, Foreign Affairs, 8 February, 2016, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/southeast-asia/2014-12-17/counterterrorism-conundrum

[34] Joseph Chinyong Liow, ‘Malaysia’s ISIS Conundrum’, Brookings, 21 April, 2015, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/04/21-malaysia-isis-conundrum-liow

[35] The Malay Mail Online, ‘Putrajaya in espionage, psychological warfare against “liberal” Islamic groups, minister says’, 18 March, 2016, http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/putrajaya-in-espionage-psychological-warfare-against-liberal-islamic-groups;

Robert Fulford, ‘Malaysia: a hotbed of anti-Semitism’, National Post, 2 January, 2016, http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/robert-fulford-malaysia-a-hotbed-of-anti-semitism;

The Malay Mail Online, ‘No place for Wahhabism in Malaysia, fatwa council says’, 1 March, 2016, http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/no-place-for-wahhabism-in-malaysia-fatwa-council-says

The limits of US security cooperation in Jordan

April 22, 2016 by Peter Kirechu

By: Peter Kirechu

Barack_Obama_and_Abdullah_II — President Barack Obama Meets with King Abdullah II of Jordan in the Oval Office on 26 April, 2013. Source: Wikimedia.

The most notable feature of President Barack Obama’s partnership-based counterterrorism doctrine–roughly defined–is its central focus on training and arming local security services to independently deal with emerging terrorism threats. The President’s doctrine is unfortunately fraught with inconsistent performance of US-trained security services, especially among fragile states in the Middle East and beyond. Whether in Iraq, Yemen, or Afghanistan, singular focus on capacity building within the security sector has failed to remedy the governance failures that fuel instability within the region.

In Jordan, the United States (US) enjoys a long history of sustained political, economic and military cooperation which dates back to 1951. However, since the self-styled Islamic State established a cross-border presence in Syria, concerns with the contagion of trained militants across Jordan’s borders have led to substantial increases in US security assistance. In February 2015, the United States expanded its annual aid to Jordan from $660 million to $1 billion. The funds were directed towards core counterterrorism priorities (border protection, C4ISR, quick-reaction airlift capabilities) and also the immediate humanitarian demands incurred by the Syrian refugee crisis.

Though the US-Jordanian security relationship is less fraught with discord when compared with other states in the region, this assessment slightly deceives a growing angst within the Jordanian public. Since the brutal loss of Jordanian pilot, Muath al-Kasaesbeh, to the Islamic State in 2014, the public is increasingly apprehensive of its government’s support of US policy prerogatives. The pilot’s death stood as a stark reminder of the costs paid by the Jordanian military–and the public writ large–in small part due to the government’s role within the US-led anti-Islamic State coalition.

Despite this fomenting anxiety, the United States appears squarely focused on the more proximate security threats borne by the Syrian conflict. But as the Salafi-Jihadist landscape evolves throughout the region, Jordan will remain an attractive target due to the available reservoir of disenchanted locals eager for a brighter economic future and resentful of the government’s stunted reforms. Unless the United States adopts a more balanced security assistance approach, one that emphasizes comprehensive governance reforms, the current policy will remain inadequate to the underlying causes of domestic instability.

Jihadist entreaties on a vulnerable public

Since 2013, Jordan has served as the training and staging ground for Syrian rebels battling the Islamic State in Southern Syria. This training effort has slowly expanded and now includes the provision of Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGM) to various US-supported rebel factions. This covert effort proceeded under limited public scrutiny until the Islamic State’s capture and subsequent beheadings of several western journalists and aid workers. These gruesome executions ultimately triggered the US-led aerial bombing campaign against the jihadist group in both Iraq and Syria.

The Jordanian government joined the US effort, viewing its participation as a necessary measure aimed at shoring up Jordan’s national security. At the outset, the public’s response was initially quite supportive but subsequent research polls conducted by the Arab Center for Research and Studies revealed that a majority of respondents viewed the campaign as more beneficial to the United States, Israel and Iran, rather than to Jordan’s security and stability. Though Jordanians expressed early support for their government’s role within the coalition, many did not consider the country’s security interests under direct threat.

But once Lt. Muath al-Kasasbeh was captured and gruesomely executed, his death elevated formerly muted discontent with Jordan’s role within the coalition. Those who not normally involve themselves with the ebbs and flows of foreign affairs found themselves participants in a growing conversation on the merits of their government’s continued involvement in the US-led coalition.

Nonetheless, the participation of roughly 2,200 Jordanian citizens in active battlefronts in Syria and Iraq underscores the government’s concerns with the return of trained militants who may seek to undermine the current governing order. As such, the government’s participation in the US-led coalition appears to be a reasonable response to the rising threat of both domestic and foreign militancy.

On the domestic front, Jordanian authorities have banned cleric that are sympathetic to the Islamic State from delivering public sermons. Other measures include the release of some prominent Salafist clerics with the intent of enlisting their assistance in combatting jihadist rhetoric within the public domain. The government has also adopted a more repressive approach to public dissent, detaining Muslim Brotherhood members and introducing new amendments to the Anti-Terrorism Law. These changes have criminalized the criticism of foreign countries and their leaders while permitting the prosecution of journalists and activists for speech-related crimes–as widely interpreted by the State Security Court.

The crackdown on public speech under the cover of combatting terrorism weighed heavily on Jordan’s decline from a ‘Partially Free’ to a ‘Not Free’ State according to the Freedom’s House Freedom in the World rankings. This ranking has endured since 2010 and is not likely to improve under current conditions. Unfortunately, the government’s embrace of these policy prerogatives harms the state’s long-term security by ignoring legitimate public grievances and broadening public apathy with stagnated reforms that were once viewed as a bulwark against domestic instability.

Crises of Socio-Economic Patronage

The Hashemite Kingdom’s most urgent economic ails are grounded in the patronage and subsidy system which secures the monarchy’s rule. Regime loyalty underscores the long-running history of generous welfare benefits accorded to East Banker tribes and the pervasive use of personal friendships and tribal relationships to secure professional positions throughout the government. The patronage system is particularly acute within some sectors of the security services, where political and personal relationships often supersede professional conduct and competency.

The unprecedented nine to ten percent increase of the overall Jordanian population as a result of Syrian refugees has pushed the import-heavy Jordanian government into further reliance on foreign financial aid. Through IMF, EU, and US financial support, the country’s budget deficits have narrowed though public debt remains at 90 percent and unemployment increased from 14 percent to 22 percent in 2014. Due to the government’s overdependence on a politically motivated patronage system, systemic reforms are anathema to those who have historically thrived under public benefits. Thus efforts to curb this reliance ultimately undermine the Monarchy’s ability to institute meaningful economic changes. Nonetheless, progress towards this difficult objective remains a worthwhile goal for Jordan’s overall security.

The international community’s traditional responses to Jordan’s precarious economic position often focus on broadening the country’s financial reserves through infusions of foreign aid. But as long as foreign direct investments serve as the preferred model of external financial support, the government should channel these funds towards economic activities that utilize the immense labor reserves offered by the refugee population and Jordan’s unemployed youth.

By adopting economic policies that target this readily available labor pool, the government can provide opportunities for a highly vulnerable population in the low-skill manufacturing, agriculture, and construction sectors. Due to the widespread destruction of Syria’s manufacturing output, and the slow disappearance of formerly productive commercial centers and trade routes, the Jordanian government has the opportunity to develop these lost capabilities within its borders. Such an approach similarly coopts the potential diversion of marginalized youths and refugees into criminality or radicalization.

This approach not only addresses the socio-economic grievances that threaten the government’s long-term stability, but also changes public perceptions of the government’s commitment to meaningful reforms.

Due to the inflamed crises that characterize the Jordan’s neighborhood, the opposition movement has so far restrained itself from overt agitation for regime change. This patient resolve is perhaps rooted in the hopes that meaningful change might emerge through cooperation with the monarchy, rather than the revolutionary violence that has resulted in widespread human suffering elsewhere in the region. Unlike other places in the region, the government has the unlikely benefit of a relatively subdued opposition movement. It should capitalize on this level of calm agitation for change and dedicate more of its foreign assistance toward addressing the full breadth of opposition grievances.

The Limits of Narrow Counterterrorism Approaches

It is likely that the more visible results of effective counterterrorism support occur on the operational theater. Local security services elevate their targeting, surveillance, and response capabilities and gain an operational edge against insurgents and terrorist networks through US training and equipment support. However, when partner states accept US assistance, these transactions are also de facto political decisions with immense implications on the governed.

Recipient governments that focus their enhanced counterterrorism capabilities on regime survival or personal enrichment, as seen in Iraq, are unlikely to survive in the long-term. For others, security assistance and cooperation becomes a publically poisonous symbol of US encroachment on state sovereignty as seen in Yemen and Pakistan. In these environments, security-centered assistance is commonly squandered and US national interests harmed in the long-term.

The United States must therefore balance its security-dominant engagement with the Jordanian government and dedicate more resources to the socio-political and economic factors addressed herein. Placing governance and economic reform conditions on US security assistance, is the first step towards changing the United States’ reception within the Jordanian public. These conditions also incentivize the Jordanian government to balance security-based expenditures with the socio-economic investments that target the governance roots of instability. Over time, it is these investments that build economic, political, and social resilience throughout the Jordanian public and prevent radicalization among the most vulnerable sectors of the general public.

Peter Kirechu is a graduate student at the Mercyhurst Institute for Intelligence Studies where he focuses on civil strife, insurgencies and counterterrorism. Mr. Kirechu was also a 2013 Boren Scholar to Jordan where he studied the security and humanitarian effects of Syria’s civil conflict. Twitter: @PeterKirechu

Neither Churchill nor Chamberlain: Time to Ditch the Munich Analogy

November 23, 2015 by Thomas Colley

By Thomas Colley

820px-Sir_Winston_S_Churchill

An article in yesterday’s Sunday Times set out British Prime Minister David Cameron’s plan to ‘bomb ISIS in a fortnight’.[1] The article, as is so common in today’s age of spin, premediates what Cameron is likely to say in the hope of controlling the debate on extending airstrikes into Syria before it formally begins; that MP’s should ‘start behaving like Churchill, not Chamberlain’. Leaving aside the frustration many feel with being told what a politician is going to say rather than evaluating what they actually say (and do), a greater concern is that the government’s rhetoric potentially belies major flaws in its strategic thinking.

The major strategic concern is, once more, the tired allusion to the Munich analogy to impel MP’s to support extending airstrikes into Syria. As seems to be the case in almost any foreign policy situation, it seems that policymakers think that the only rhetorical device available to them during a debate on military action the comparison with Hitler in 1938. The choice to be offered to Britain’s parliamentarians is essentially to be associated with Britain’s most heroic leader or its most apparently naïve. Simplistic and readily understandable as the comparison is, it grossly underestimates the complexity of the strategic situation in the Middle East at present. Extolling the need to act like Churchill not Chamberlain says little more than ‘it is time for decisive action or the enemy will get stronger’. If this is the level of the British government’s strategic thinking, then British citizens should be extremely concerned. If not, then it is merely the crudest propaganda that grossly underestimates the British public’s (and hopefully their ministers’) understanding of the nuances of contemporary military interventions.

In rhetorical terms, the ‘Churchill not Chamberlain’ analogy is likely to be effective; it presents the illusion of choice, but in fact it is no choice at all. Just as US President Bush insisted on countries having to choose between being with or against America following 9/11, it constrains actors into taking only one option. It removes grey areas and complexity and looks to rhetorically trap politicians into only one realistic choice, if they would like their credibility to be intact. Predictably, at a time when politicians are routinely lambasted for lacking the statesmanlike qualities of their predecessors, being associated with Churchill is evidently preferable given that the only alternative is to be associated with pacifism and naïve inactivity. It can be left to others to debate whether the real alliterative comparison is actually between Churchill and Corbyn.

The apparently timeless lesson Munich provides of not appeasing tyrants is actually a terrible guide to strategy. As Europe’s analogy of choice when Putin annexed Crimea, it said as little about the actual strategic situation there as it does about the fight against ISIS today. This matters because Britain and the West’s strategy against ISIL is currently flawed, and attention to its actual flaws would be far more useful in working out the best step forward. As will be shown, the strategic basis of the comparison is so thin that in fact it would be rather depressing if the level of strategic thinking by policymakers does not go beyond the Munich analogy. With the important Strategic Defence and Security Review upon us, it would be good to see sound strategic thinking elevated above rudimentary rhetoric.

The first flaw is that apart from being demonstrably barbaric, the enemy was markedly different. Hitler, with the benefit of post-Munich hindsight, represented an existential threat to the British state; ISIL does not. ISIL can of course inflict significant damage through terrorism as it is increasingly showing. But to compare the decision to extending limited airstrikes against the organisation – an asymmetric foe – is nothing like failing to foresee an existential total war with a conventional military foe intent on dominating Europe. The costs of failure to act against an ‘existential foe’ are, quite obviously, existential. It is less clear, for example, whether extended airstrikes will result in more British casualties from domestic terrorism or less.

The second and perhaps more understandable flaw is the continuation of thinking of ISIL in terms of the sovereign states in which it holds territory. On the ground, differentiating between ISIL in Iraq and Syria makes little sense; it controls a shifting territory within those states, including the border between them. If it is to be attacked, the group’s territory, not the old lines on the map, should be what matters. As Britain’s thousands of armchair strategists are doubtless aware, if you only attack the group in one territory, and they know that, they can simply position much of what they want to protect into the other. If one insists that a tenuous, laboured World War Two analogy must be made, then the equivalent would be attacking Hitler’s forces only when they were outside German territory, but never when they are inside, and miraculously expect them to be defeated. Airpower alone will not come close to destroying ISIL, but limiting airpower to only part of its territory has always been operationally flawed.

The most disappointing aspect of the Churchill-Chamberlain analogy is that it typifies a longstanding feature of debates on British defence policy: the simplification of Britain’s options into a crude binary between military action and benign inactivity.[2] Rather than a genuine debate about Britain’s strategic ends, ways and means, the debate is reduced to the choice between interventionism or isolationism, heroism or pacifism, leadership or irrelevance, security or insecurity. The complexity of conflict in the Middle East requires far more nuanced and flexible thinking. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the government is looking to act more out of conviction in the efficacy of its strategy or merely the desire to avoid the loss of credibility that would result from Russia and France proceeding without it. As a source in the Times article suggests, it would be ‘embarrassing’ if Britain could not play its role as a reliable ally. But surely what is truly embarrassing is the idea that embarrassment might drive strategy.[3]

To conclude, the British government is poised to call for a vote on furthering an existing military intervention into an immensely complex conflict, while setting out a Strategic Defence and Security Review that is a vital element of British strategy in the coming years. If it should be drawing any lessons from history (and it should do cautiously), it should be to focus on the intricacies of an individual conflict rather than vague notions of ‘credibility’, ‘influence’ and ‘status’. It should also stop trying to persuade people by telling them they are facing Hitler again. The British public understand war reasonably well, having witnessed their military participate in so many different conflicts in recent decades. They also currently appear to reluctantly recognise the need to destroy ISIL, but have learnt that a clear, detailed political plan is needed to prevent further problems in the long run. Reducing the level of strategic debate to Churchill versus Chamberlain is woefully inadequate and will do little to resolve a complex strategic situation or generate public support. Let us hope that the government’s actual strategy is more convincing than what they tell us it is going to be.

Thomas Colley is a doctoral candidate in War Studies at King’s College London. A former senior editor of Strife’s blog and journal, his research specialises in propaganda, strategic communication and British public attitudes to war and conflict. You can follow him on Twitter @ThomasColley

[1] Tim Shipman, “PM’s push to bomb Isis ‘in fortnight’”,

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/Terrorism/article1636187.ece, 22 November 2015.

[2] Ritchie, Nick. “Trident and British Identity: Letting Go of Nuclear Weapons.” Bradford Disarmament Research Centre, September 2008.

[3] Tim Shipman, “PM’s push to bomb Isis ‘in fortnight’”.

Responding to terrorism: the views from Beirut and Paris

November 15, 2015 by Strife Staff

By Strife

Beirut Paris

On November 13, three teams linked to ISIS carried out seven seemingly coordinated attacks across Paris, killing 139 people and bringing the city to its knees. Sadly, this was not the only attack this past week. On November 12, 43 people were also killed in a double suicide blast carried out by ISIS in Beirut targeting Shia’s. Also on November 13, ISIS carried out a dual attack targeting Shia’s in Baghdad, killing 26, while several people were killed in a suicide attack targeting a mosque in Shibam, Yemen.

While Paris continues to reel, it also appears to dominate the media and there has been a growing sense that not all victims of terrorism are viewed the same. A rising chorus of voices are asking, ‘what about us?’

Today, Strife talked to recent War Studies graduates Talar Demirdjian and Helene Trehin, who were in Beirut and Paris (respectively) at the time of the attacks to discuss their experience and perceptions of responses to the attacks.

Can you describe where you were and what the situation was like at the time of the attack in Beirut or Paris?

Talar Demirdjian in Beirut: I was at home when the bombings occurred. Ironically, Beirut hadn’t seen a bombing of this sort in a while, so we were stunned at first, and absolutely livid next. It’s one thing when our internal struggles get in the way of our everyday lives (political turmoil, corruption, garbage crisis etc.), it’s another thing when a ruthless insurgent terrorist group brutally murders our innocent people.

Helene Trehin in Paris: Two of my friends and I were in a bar further South West when the first attacks erupted in Central Paris outside the Stade de France and in the 10^th district. The football game was being broadcast in the pub but (surprisingly) we didn’t hear immediately about the explosions and shootings and when I left the bar around 21:45, the French and German football teams were still playing, while the first tweets reacting to the attacks started to appear on my phone! Rapidly, more and more channels and people started commenting on this unprecedented episode, and by the time I arrived home the Bataclan attack, first described as a hostage crisis, had begun.

What kind of response to the attack did you observe from your fellow citizens?

Beirut: The anomaly that is Lebanon, is that, we, the people, live a life with a gaping hole in our chest that we cover up with Band-Aids. We’ve been hurt so many times, by so many different entities, that in a way we have become desensitized. We grieve and mourn, get angry, curse this country, curse the Middle East for being so volatile, curse the West for always interfering in the wrong place and the wrong time, and curse the fact that we have to live in a place that offers no safety. Then we become oddly patriotic, praying for all the lives lost, vowing that we’ll make a change, and then we forget and carry on with our lives. It is a vicious cycle that we must commit to, or else we’d lose our minds.

Paris: Everything happened very quickly. I spent hours on my phone calling my friends and on my computer watching the dozens of graphic images and scenes of terror coming out of Facebook and Twitter

For the first 30 minutes, news about the Paris attacks trended as the death toll reached to 128, shortly before midnight. However, rapidly, Parisians living in the targeted places started to use the social media to share messages of support and show their solidarity. On Twitter, the #PorteOuverte (#OpenDoor) hashtag started being used by Parisians to offer shelter and safety to visitors and those stranded. Also, the Facebook safety check enabled us to notify friends and family members that we were unharmed and quickly know loved ones were OK.

What kind of response did you observe from the international community?

Beirut: Another reason for our anger, is the ignorance that we are faced with by the international community, making us feel like second rate citizens, which was emphasized even more by the attacks that occurred in Paris, a day after the Burj al-Barajneh suicide bombings in Beirut. We also mourn the losses that they faced and empathize with them, as we are able to.

However, we’re aggravated by how we are discriminated against by even the simplest of things, like how Facebook’s “Safe Check” didn’t activate for us, or how we don’t get an app to add our Flag on our profile pictures – these small things emphasize how the world does not regard us with as much concern as it does the people of first world countries.

In addition to that, the way the western media portrayed the bombings, as “attacks on a Hezbollah stronghold.” It was as if it were some type of military attack, instead of outright terrorism, when in fact, it was just an attack against innocent civilians at a shopping mall. It proves that to the rest of the world, we are just pawns in game of powers in the Middle East, and our lives have no real value.

Paris: Surprisingly, the first messages I got asking if I was safe were coming from my friends in the United States and Canada. Actually, President Obama was one of the first to comment and condemn the violence. This morning, when I checked Facebook, friends from all over the world had used the hashtag #PrayForParis to show support, some of them even using French words and hashtags such as #JeSuisParis or #NousSommesUnis.

What implications will the attack have on your life and in your community?

Beirut: Sadly, this attack will hardly have any real impact on our community, because attacks have been carried out by other actors so many times before. However, perhaps since this has been a publicly identified attack by ISIS, the Lebanese government might take future precautions, but I won’t get my hopes too high.

In a country where our basic human rights and needs are rarely met, how can we trust our leader to do their most important job, which is keeping the Lebanese people safe? These leaders have illegally extended their own mandate, have not fulfilled their jobs by electing a new a president, instated a proper law for the garbage crisis, or allowed Lebanese women to pass on their nationality to their children.

Paris: “If we are facing in the right direction all we have to do is to keep on walking.” Today, Parisians, fellow French citizens, and the international community are united and showing solidarity in the wake of the disaster. Yes we are shocked by what happened but we cannot be afraid of the future because of an attack and more importantly we must not become a monster while trying to defeat a monster. “Darkness cannot drive out darkness” Martin Luther King Junior said, and when it’s dark we need light. Last January the same kind of terror attacks happened with Charlie Hebdo, but despite the fear of terrorist incidents we stayed together and united. We have to keep on walking.

What kind of distinct pressures have you noticed in your community in relation to these types of attacks?

Beirut: The biggest issues that usually result from these types of attacks are finger pointing and blaming of one party to another for being the perpetrator. However, since ISIS took credit for this attack, the real result might be actual unnerving fear by the Lebanese public, who for now, have been faced with many hardships. Historically though, most bombings were very political and calculated, whereas when dealing with a terrorist group like ISIS, who has known allies in Lebanon in the form of Jebhat al Nusra as well as expansionist ideals, things might actually get messy.

Paris: After the Charlie Hebdo attack last January, I was particularly afraid that it would increase anti-Muslim sentiments but, surprisingly, many reports suggested that those incidents did not contribute to a rise in racism. Today, the situation is different. The economic situation has changed, but the refugees’ crisis and the growing divisions between EU members about the Syrian conflict and ISIS have led the countries to turn inward. As a matter of fact, the French President announced that France would reinstate border controls for several weeks, during COP21.

Terrorism is a phenomenon and its success depends on how a targeted nation will react. Yes, terrorist attacks are politically loaded and emotionally charged but we must not become a monster to defeat a monster.

In your opinion, what positive steps can be taken both domestically and internationally to prevent/respond to such attacks?

Beirut: The unfortunate situation is that the bombing in Paris (not in Beirut), will likely result in Islamophobic rhetoric being spread. This has already started, which will in turn cause a ripple effect into governments who will restart their “crackdown” on the Middle East, likely sending in drones, potentially taking innocent lives, and furthering the notion perpetuated by ISIS that the west is evil and hates the people of Middle East. Such actions give ISIS fuel to spread their ideologies even further, thus a never ending cycle is is born. To contradict that, the international community must find other, more strategic ways to combat organizations like ISIS. Infiltrating and attacking the Middle East has proven, as seen under George W. Bush for example, to be a failure of epic proportions.

Paris: Unfortunately, there is a lot of media misinformation allowing rash judgements about the terrorist identities, for example. As soon as ISIS claimed responsibility for these attacks, anti-Muslim virulent messages started trending on Twitter and Facebook. What we need is to stop using religion for political purposes. People fail to grasp the meaning of words, to understand the purpose of religion, to see the polarization that attends religious issues, and this has overshadowed any nuanced discussion of the matter. “Our faith must go to music, kissing, life, champagne and joy” Johan Sfar happily said!

Talar Demirdjian has recently obtained her Masters degree in Terrorism, Security, & Society from King’s College London, after completing a BA in International affairs & Diplomacy from Notre Dame University-Louaize, and has recently returned to Beirut, Lebanon, her hometown. Her previous work experience include a long stint as a Social Media Manager and copywriter, she was even the former webmaster and editor for Strife. However, she is still in pursuit of finding her role in making the world a better place. You can follow her on Twitter @AcidBurn_TD.

Helene Trehin has recently obtained her Masters degree in Conflict, Security and Development from King’s College London. After completing a BSc. in International Studies at the University of Montreal in Canada, she moved back to France where she worked for the French Ministry of Defence as an analyst. She is currently account manager for The French Polar Cluster, and Coordinator of the Arctic Encounter Paris 2015 Symposium on Arctic Business, Economics and Policy.

North Africa – between security and democracy

September 3, 2015 by Strife Staff

By: Umberto Profazio

Photo: Flickr under creative commons license.

Recent security developments in North Africa show how terrorism is gradually spreading in the region. On 20^th August one police officer was killed in a terrorist attack in Sousse, Tunisia, and the very same day a car-bomb exploded near a courthouse and a national security building in Cairo, injuring 29 people. The attack in Egypt was claimed by Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, also known as Wilayat al-Sinai (province of Sinai), the local branch of the Islamic State (IS) terrorist organisation. Despite that its roots can be tracked to al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), the group of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi succeeded to expand even on the shores of Mediterranean Sea, taking advantage of the faltering security conditions and of the political instability that emerged after the Arab Spring.

IS expanded in particular in Libya, where the political transition after the fall of Gaddafi régime resulted in a stubborn stalemate between the internationally recognised House of Representatives (HoR) in Tobruk and the General National Congress (GNC) in Tripoli. As a consequence, chaos and instability are the dominant factors in the country today, mainly due to the overwhelming role of different militias and the ongoing struggle between the two governments. The expansion of IS in Libya was a natural consequence: despite the ouster from the stronghold of Derna, where strained relations with the Abu Salim Martyrs Brigade led to clashes between these two groups and the subsequent IS evacuation of the city at the beginning of July, the group was able to make further gains. In August IS took control of Sirte, where it gained a foothold in late 2014 and where it enjoys considerable support from Ansar al-Sharia. Sirte, hometown of Gaddafi, also offers IS the opportunity of a collusion with the former régime officers, as much as in Iraq where the strategic alliance between IS and the Ba’athists created a lethal blend.

Failing or failed states like Libya are clearly the main targets of the jihadists. The ongoing clashes between HoR and GNC gave IS the opportunity to expand its control on the territory and to apply the classic rule of divide et impera among different tribes and militias. Furthermore, the complete lack of a national security force in Libya is easing IS operations in the country. Previous governments’ policies to enlist different Libyan militias in the national army resulted counterproductive, making several tribal leaders and paramilitary groups more powerful and less accountable in front of domestic and international justice. As a result, the government in Beida, which is supported by HoR, is asking the help of the international community, in terms of an easing to the arms embargo and a foreign intervention by the Arab League to carry out air attacks against IS positions in the country.

The Libyan case shows the importance of proper security sector reform as a decisive step in the political transition after the Arab Spring. To a less extent, these conditions apply also to other states in the region, where national security forces are already in place. This is the case of Tunisia, where the difficult transition from the dictatorship to a democratic government is currently threatened by security issues. The terrorist attacks at the Bardo museum on 18 March 2015 (19 victims and more than 40 injured) and at the Marhaba Imperial Beach Hotel in Sousse on 26 June (39 victims, mainly British tourists) were apparently lone-wolf operations aimed at affecting Tunisian economy, heavily dependent on the tourism sector. More important are the consequences on a political level: on 25^th July the Tunisian parliament approved a new counter-terrorism law. While the bill includes new and important provisions against the money laundering, human rights groups criticized the law’s broad definition of terrorism and the increasing power of police in suspects’ surveillance and custody, considering them as possible signs of a return to an authoritarian state. Moreover, the extension of the state of emergency for two months from the 3^rd August risks altering the delicate balance of the Tunisian transition. For example, emergency powers have been used to jail thirteen activists for two weeks protesting against unemployment in Gafsa region.

Similar developments occurred in Egypt where President Abdel Fatah el-Sisi signed a controversial counter-terrorism law, which was criticized by journalists and media workers for the limits imposed on the freedom of information. Moreover, on 29^th August three al-Jazeera journalists accused of collusion with the banned Muslim Brotherhood were given a 3-year sentence for spreading false news. While these laws are gradually restricting the political freedom and civil liberties in both countries, it is unlikely that they will seriously affect IS activities, as shown by the attacks on 20^th August. Furthermore, they lay a radicalization risk in both societies, in particular among those already emarginated by the current political developments.

More generally, government decisions in Tunisia and Egypt are reinforcing the simplistic narrative that discriminates between Secularists, often associated with the ancient régime apparatus, and Islamists, frequently equated to terrorists. A more comprehensive solution to this fake dilemma should be to reform and strengthen the security sector and its intelligence apparatus, while respecting human rights and enhancing inclusiveness.[1] This is particularly true for Tunisia, where investigations on terrorist attacks in Bardo and Sousse can be considered controversial. Despite the initial claiming by IS, the Tunisian government blamed the attack in Bardo on the al-Qaeda affiliated Okba Ibn Naafa Brigade.[2] After the attack in Sousse and the enquiries by Metropolitan British police, Tunisian authorities acknowledged that the perpetrators of both attacks were presumably trained in the same camp run by Ansar al-Sharia in Sabratha, Libya, and released 8 people that had been detained since March. These men were part of a cell belonging to the Okba Ibn Nafaa Brigade, which also claimed the 20^th August killing of the police officer in Sousse.

The reform of the security sector in transitioning societies is a delicate operation, but it should be preferable than curtailing civil freedom and fundamental rights. This solution is adoptable in Egypt and Tunisia, where effective governments are in place. For Libya options are more restricted: the presence of two rival governments and several militias created the opportunities for the expansion of the IS. While a comprehensive peace deal between the two main Libyan factions is still far from being reached, the possibility of a foreign intervention in the country is gradually increasing.

Umberto Profazio is a PhD researcher in History of International Relations at the University of Rome “Sapienza”, where his thesis focuses on Libya after independence. He is currently an analyst for the NATO Defence College Foundation and author of its Maghreb Strategic Trends. You can follow him on Twitter @profazio.

[1] Réforme and stratégie sécuritaire en Tunisie (International Crisis Group, Rapport Moyen-Orient/Afrique du Nord, N.161, 23 juillet 2015).

[2] Maghreb Strategic Trends (NATO Defense College Foundation, March 2015).

counterterrorism

Footer

Contact

Recent Posts

Tags