RSIS presents the following commentary Russia’s Role in EAS: Promoting inter-regional cooperation by Alica Kizekova . It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries , at RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg
No. 157/2011 dated 31 October 2011
Russia’s Role in EAS:
Promoting inter-regional cooperation
By Alica Kizekova
Synopsis
Russia’s membership of the East Asia Summit and its hosting of the 2012 APEC Leaders Meeting provide an opportunity to define Moscow ’s role in the Asia-Pacific and in promoting inter-regional cooperation.
Commentary
THE ASIA-PACIFIC region has been identified as the world’s new centre of gravity. The emerging new architecture revolving around Asian powers has given rise to questions about Russia ’s role in the region, given that the Eurasian giant has an Asian presence in the Far East .
The mutual threat perceptions between Russia and other Asian nations have altered over the course of 20 years since the collapse of communism. Russia is now recognised as a non-threatening great power with global significance. However, regional analysts still voice scepticism over the degree to which Russia ’s vested interests lie in Asia and whether these interests are compatible with those of other regional players.
Residence in the Far East
Earlier Russian assessments from 1997 implied that China , rather than the United States , posed the greatest threat to Russia ’s interests and allies. Leading Russian scholars of international relations such as Alexei Arbatov predicted that in the next five to 20 years, Russia should carefully watch China ’s expansionism towards Siberia and the Russian Far East as well as Central Asia . Such anxieties have, however, dissipated in light of increased confidence-building efforts which led to the creation of a formal regional body, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in 2001. However, a notable exception to the usually non-threatening views of China emerged in 2009, when Russia ’s Army General Nikolai Makarov suggested that China and NATO “are the most dangerous of our geopolitical rivals”.
After a period of decline, Russia has been fighting back to prove that it does not lack the capacity to change its foreign policy focus from the West to the East. Vladivostok , the former capital of Russia ’s Pacific Ocean Fleet, is hosting the 2012 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders Meeting. Vladivostok had previously experienced protests triggered by collapsing sea-faring and fishing companies, unemployment, poverty and population decline. In addition, Moscow has extended the federal programme for developing the Far East until 2013, raising Vladivostok ’s development funds from 7.5 billion rubles (US$241.2 million) to 426 billion rubles (US$13.7 billion).
The intensive economic and social development of Siberia and Russia ’s Far East are part of Russia ’s main strategic priorities in the region. Speaking at the Singapore Global Dialogue in September, another prominent Russian scholar, Sergei Karaganov, presented Siberia as the new source to quench Asia’s thirst for resources; Siberia could attract foreign capital from investors as diverse as the US, China, Indonesia and Singapore.
Building Effective Multilateralism
Commentators from around the world have expressed misgivings about the return of Vladimir Putin as presidential candidate next year, with The Economist going so far as to label Putin “Russia’s humiliator-in-chief” (26 September 2011). Others, however, do not find Putin’s comeback surprising. They note that Russia ’s foreign policy under President Putin was marked by a policy of “Asianisation” from the very beginning. Putin’s Russia increasingly saw NATO’s eastward enlargement as detrimental to its interests in the former USSR ’s sphere of influence. The Kremlin thus engaged in a multidirectional foreign policy in order to create partnerships and integrate Russia within various multilateral structures, such as the leading emerging economies in BRICS ( Brazil , Russia , India , China and South Africa ), the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the SCO.
In an effort to provide ideas to Russia’s leadership, the Russian Council for Security Cooperation Organisation in the Asia-Pacific (CSCAP) presented to President Dmitry Medvedev a report entitled “Going East: Russia’s Asia-Pacific Strategy” in 2010. The council introduced the slogan “Lean on the West, stabilise the South and go East”, describing Russia as a “Euro-Pacific” country.
It suggested that Russia be a flexible player in setting up a new regional architecture, distinguishing itself from countries proposing specific mechanisms such as Japan ’s East Asian Community and Australia ’s Asia Pacific Community. However, Russia risked being sidelined if it were not active enough in the region. Another Russian CSCAP paper entitled “ Russia in Asia and the Pacific” painted the country as a potential “bridge” between Europe and the Asia-Pacific and spoke of the prominence of the G20 within the new Asia-Pacific regional model.
Asia does not need a Bridge to Europe
Asian nations, particularly ASEAN as a diplomatic player, have a history of directly dealing with Europe and other extra-regional players. Speakers at the recent Singapore Global Dialogue referred to the centrality of ASEAN in facilitating dialogues and linkages among all key players in the region. In the words of a prominent Singapore scholar, ASEAN is the “silent hero”. Because it is weak and does not pose a threat to anyone; it is a trustworthy player and can facilitate the transition to a new architecture that would balance the competing forces in the region.
These circumstances therefore necessitate the creation of an effective “intra-Asian Dialogue”, because Russia ’s view of Asia appears significantly different from that of China or Southeast Asia . Russia needs to show that its interests are in line with those of other Asian nations. Russia has already called for the intensification of cooperation between the SCO and ASEAN, both of which signed a formal Memorandum of Understanding in 2005. They share a similar understanding of non-traditional threats. The SCO does not pose a threat to ASEAN’s prominent role in Asia . On the contrary, it could be argued that China ’s learning process towards multilateralism took place within ASEAN-led frameworks, and was further advanced within the SCO.
A full-fledged participation by Russia in the East Asia Summit (EAS) should bring a more balanced and stable regional architecture and elevate the EAS as the main forum for discussing security issues in the region. Additionally, it is expected that Russia will use its EAS membership to actively support measures to boost free trade in Asia .
Russia can cater to the increasing demand for energy by offering policies which are beneficial to both suppliers and recipients. It can also make a valuable contribution in preventing and managing conflicts and natural disasters in the region. Thus, in defining a role for itself in the EAS, Russia can not only promote inter-regional cooperation but also make a positive contribution to the security architecture of the Asia-Pacific region.
Alica Kizekova is a Visiting Associate Fellow at the Centre for Multilateralism Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University . She was previously a teaching fellow and a senior tutor fellow at Bond University in Australia and has also worked as a ministerial adviser in the Slovak government.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Israel and Hamas: A new equation for Mid-East peace?
RSIS presents the following commentary Israel and Hamas: A new equation for Mid-East peace? by James M. Dorsey. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg
No. 156/2011 dated 27 October 2011
Israel and Hamas:
A new equation for Mid-East peace?
By James M. Dorsey
Synopsis
Israeli and Palestinian hardliners rather than moderates are serving each other's purpose in the Middle East conflict. That is the underlying dynamic of the political calculations of both Israel and Hamas in the recent lop-sided swap of an Israeli soldier for over a thousand Palestinian prisoners.
Commentary
THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN peace process remains frozen with little, if any, prospect of it gaining momentum. President Mahmoud Abbas' effort to achieve United Nations recognition of Palestinian statehood in a bid to break the logjam is mired in diplomatic red tape and likely to be foiled by a United States veto if it comes up for a vote in the Security Council.
True to form, hardliners on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide are finding common ground where moderates are grasping for straws. In doing so, they are reaffirming a long-standing fact of life of the Israeli-Palestinian equation: hardliners can serve each other’s needs to mutual benefit without making the kind of wrenching concessions that thwart the ambitions of peacemakers and moderates on both sides.
The prisoner swap in which Israel bought freedom for now Staff Sergeant Gilad Shalit after five years in Palestinian captivity in exchange for the release of 1,027 prisoners - many of whom were responsible for deadly attacks on Israelis - is the latest example of sworn enemies finding it easier to do business than those who advocate compromise and living in peace and harmony side by side.
No peace works for all
Underlying, the swap is a belief on the part of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas that there is no realistic chance for an agreement on peace terms that would be acceptable to both Palestinians and Israelis. Given the nature of his coalition government, Netanyahu has so far been unwilling or unable to give Abbas the bare minimum he would need to push forward with peace without at least the tacit backing of Hamas.
While Netanyahu officially refuses to negotiate with Hamas, for its part, Hamas refuses Israeli conditions for its inclusion in a peace process. These are that it recognises Israel's right to exist, abandons its armed struggle and accepts past Israeli-Palestinian agreements. If anything, the fact that it has achieved a tangible victory with the release of prisoners belonging to both Hamas as well as Abbas' Fatah movement has reinforced the Islamist movement’s conviction that its hard line is paying off.
Netanyahu has strengthened Hamas in its conviction not only by excluding Abbas from the prisoner swap. He has also done so by undermining the Palestinian president with his decision to build a new Jewish settlement on the southern edge of Jerusalem and granting legal status to settlements established without his government’s approval. Abbas has made an Israeli freeze on settlements his core pre-condition for revival of peace talks with the Israelis, to no avail.
Temporary arrangements suit all but Abbas
Unlike Abbas, Netanyahu has made his most hardline critics part of his coalition. Netanyahu and Israel’s right-wing moreover agree on fundamentals: a rejection of an Israeli return to the borders prior to the 1967 conquest of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem and a perception of a nuclear-armed Iran as the foremost threat to the existence of the Jewish state. Hamas rather than Abbas offers Netanyahu the space to build Israeli policy on those two principles. Hamas’ refusal to meet Israeli conditions for peace negotiations proves the Israeli prime minister’s assertion that Israel has no Palestinian partner with which it can do business.
At the same time, Hamas has proven that it can and will make temporary arrangements with Israel like the prisoner swap or a ceasefire that safeguards Israeli towns from Palestinian rocket attacks. Hamas has moreover, contributed its bit to weakening Abbas by effectively thwarting the Palestinian leader’s efforts at reconciliation so that Palestinians can confront Israel with a unified front.
The possibility of Hamas’ external wing moving its headquarters from Syria, Iran’s closest ally in the Arab world, to post-Mubarak Egypt, which facilitated the prisoner swap, further serves Netanyahu’s purpose of clearing the deck for possible pre-emptive military action against Iran. Lingering in the background is uncertainty of what Israel’s immediate neighbourhood may look like. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is battling for his survival with no sign of the eight months of mass anti-government protests subsiding despite a brutal crackdown. Jordan’s King Abdullah has so far been able to contain demands for political reform and greater economic opportunity.
Israeli military: the joker in the pack
Ironically, Israel’s military and former senior Israeli military commanders constitute the greatest threat to Netanyahu’s policy designs and may offer Hamas its best chance yet of becoming a player in peace talks with Israel as well as the dominant force in Palestinian politics. While Israel’s military appears split on the prospect of a pre-emptive strike against Iran, at least half of the retired leaders of Israel’s military and intelligence services have publicly rejected Netanyahu’s strategic thinking.
Perhaps, most vocal among them is Meir Dagan, a former head of Mossad, who has not only criticised Netanyahu’s hard line toward Iran but also called for Israeli acceptance of a nine-year old Saudi peace plan endorsed by all Arab states. That peace plan offers Israel full diplomatic relations in exchange for a complete withdrawal from Palestinian lands occupied in 1967.
No doubt Dagan, Hamas’ nemesis who is credited with the death of hundreds of its operatives, has political ambitions as well as the military credentials that Netanyahu lacks. His willingness to entertain the Saudi proposal would open the door to Hamas to take its seat at the table. That could well lead to a new chapter in Israeli-Palestinian relations.
James M. Dorsey is a Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. He has been a journalist covering the Middle East for over 30 years.
No. 156/2011 dated 27 October 2011
Israel and Hamas:
A new equation for Mid-East peace?
By James M. Dorsey
Synopsis
Israeli and Palestinian hardliners rather than moderates are serving each other's purpose in the Middle East conflict. That is the underlying dynamic of the political calculations of both Israel and Hamas in the recent lop-sided swap of an Israeli soldier for over a thousand Palestinian prisoners.
Commentary
THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN peace process remains frozen with little, if any, prospect of it gaining momentum. President Mahmoud Abbas' effort to achieve United Nations recognition of Palestinian statehood in a bid to break the logjam is mired in diplomatic red tape and likely to be foiled by a United States veto if it comes up for a vote in the Security Council.
True to form, hardliners on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide are finding common ground where moderates are grasping for straws. In doing so, they are reaffirming a long-standing fact of life of the Israeli-Palestinian equation: hardliners can serve each other’s needs to mutual benefit without making the kind of wrenching concessions that thwart the ambitions of peacemakers and moderates on both sides.
The prisoner swap in which Israel bought freedom for now Staff Sergeant Gilad Shalit after five years in Palestinian captivity in exchange for the release of 1,027 prisoners - many of whom were responsible for deadly attacks on Israelis - is the latest example of sworn enemies finding it easier to do business than those who advocate compromise and living in peace and harmony side by side.
No peace works for all
Underlying, the swap is a belief on the part of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas that there is no realistic chance for an agreement on peace terms that would be acceptable to both Palestinians and Israelis. Given the nature of his coalition government, Netanyahu has so far been unwilling or unable to give Abbas the bare minimum he would need to push forward with peace without at least the tacit backing of Hamas.
While Netanyahu officially refuses to negotiate with Hamas, for its part, Hamas refuses Israeli conditions for its inclusion in a peace process. These are that it recognises Israel's right to exist, abandons its armed struggle and accepts past Israeli-Palestinian agreements. If anything, the fact that it has achieved a tangible victory with the release of prisoners belonging to both Hamas as well as Abbas' Fatah movement has reinforced the Islamist movement’s conviction that its hard line is paying off.
Netanyahu has strengthened Hamas in its conviction not only by excluding Abbas from the prisoner swap. He has also done so by undermining the Palestinian president with his decision to build a new Jewish settlement on the southern edge of Jerusalem and granting legal status to settlements established without his government’s approval. Abbas has made an Israeli freeze on settlements his core pre-condition for revival of peace talks with the Israelis, to no avail.
Temporary arrangements suit all but Abbas
Unlike Abbas, Netanyahu has made his most hardline critics part of his coalition. Netanyahu and Israel’s right-wing moreover agree on fundamentals: a rejection of an Israeli return to the borders prior to the 1967 conquest of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem and a perception of a nuclear-armed Iran as the foremost threat to the existence of the Jewish state. Hamas rather than Abbas offers Netanyahu the space to build Israeli policy on those two principles. Hamas’ refusal to meet Israeli conditions for peace negotiations proves the Israeli prime minister’s assertion that Israel has no Palestinian partner with which it can do business.
At the same time, Hamas has proven that it can and will make temporary arrangements with Israel like the prisoner swap or a ceasefire that safeguards Israeli towns from Palestinian rocket attacks. Hamas has moreover, contributed its bit to weakening Abbas by effectively thwarting the Palestinian leader’s efforts at reconciliation so that Palestinians can confront Israel with a unified front.
The possibility of Hamas’ external wing moving its headquarters from Syria, Iran’s closest ally in the Arab world, to post-Mubarak Egypt, which facilitated the prisoner swap, further serves Netanyahu’s purpose of clearing the deck for possible pre-emptive military action against Iran. Lingering in the background is uncertainty of what Israel’s immediate neighbourhood may look like. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is battling for his survival with no sign of the eight months of mass anti-government protests subsiding despite a brutal crackdown. Jordan’s King Abdullah has so far been able to contain demands for political reform and greater economic opportunity.
Israeli military: the joker in the pack
Ironically, Israel’s military and former senior Israeli military commanders constitute the greatest threat to Netanyahu’s policy designs and may offer Hamas its best chance yet of becoming a player in peace talks with Israel as well as the dominant force in Palestinian politics. While Israel’s military appears split on the prospect of a pre-emptive strike against Iran, at least half of the retired leaders of Israel’s military and intelligence services have publicly rejected Netanyahu’s strategic thinking.
Perhaps, most vocal among them is Meir Dagan, a former head of Mossad, who has not only criticised Netanyahu’s hard line toward Iran but also called for Israeli acceptance of a nine-year old Saudi peace plan endorsed by all Arab states. That peace plan offers Israel full diplomatic relations in exchange for a complete withdrawal from Palestinian lands occupied in 1967.
No doubt Dagan, Hamas’ nemesis who is credited with the death of hundreds of its operatives, has political ambitions as well as the military credentials that Netanyahu lacks. His willingness to entertain the Saudi proposal would open the door to Hamas to take its seat at the table. That could well lead to a new chapter in Israeli-Palestinian relations.
James M. Dorsey is a Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. He has been a journalist covering the Middle East for over 30 years.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Israel and Hamas: A new equation for Mid-East peace?
RSIS presents the following commentary Israel and Hamas: A new equation for Mid-East peace? by James M. Dorsey. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg
No. 156/2011 dated 27 October 2011
Israel and Hamas:
A new equation for Mid-East peace?
By James M. Dorsey
Synopsis
Israeli and Palestinian hardliners rather than moderates are serving each other's purpose in the Middle East conflict. That is the underlying dynamic of the political calculations of both Israel and Hamas in the recent lop-sided swap of an Israeli soldier for over a thousand Palestinian prisoners.
Commentary
THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN peace process remains frozen with little, if any, prospect of it gaining momentum. President Mahmoud Abbas' effort to achieve United Nations recognition of Palestinian statehood in a bid to break the logjam is mired in diplomatic red tape and likely to be foiled by a United States veto if it comes up for a vote in the Security Council.
True to form, hardliners on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide are finding common ground where moderates are grasping for straws. In doing so, they are reaffirming a long-standing fact of life of the Israeli-Palestinian equation: hardliners can serve each other’s needs to mutual benefit without making the kind of wrenching concessions that thwart the ambitions of peacemakers and moderates on both sides.
The prisoner swap in which Israel bought freedom for now Staff Sergeant Gilad Shalit after five years in Palestinian captivity in exchange for the release of 1,027 prisoners - many of whom were responsible for deadly attacks on Israelis - is the latest example of sworn enemies finding it easier to do business than those who advocate compromise and living in peace and harmony side by side.
No peace works for all
Underlying, the swap is a belief on the part of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas that there is no realistic chance for an agreement on peace terms that would be acceptable to both Palestinians and Israelis. Given the nature of his coalition government, Netanyahu has so far been unwilling or unable to give Abbas the bare minimum he would need to push forward with peace without at least the tacit backing of Hamas.
While Netanyahu officially refuses to negotiate with Hamas, for its part, Hamas refuses Israeli conditions for its inclusion in a peace process. These are that it recognises Israel's right to exist, abandons its armed struggle and accepts past Israeli-Palestinian agreements. If anything, the fact that it has achieved a tangible victory with the release of prisoners belonging to both Hamas as well as Abbas' Fatah movement has reinforced the Islamist movement’s conviction that its hard line is paying off.
Netanyahu has strengthened Hamas in its conviction not only by excluding Abbas from the prisoner swap. He has also done so by undermining the Palestinian president with his decision to build a new Jewish settlement on the southern edge of Jerusalem and granting legal status to settlements established without his government’s approval. Abbas has made an Israeli freeze on settlements his core pre-condition for revival of peace talks with the Israelis, to no avail.
Temporary arrangements suit all but Abbas
Unlike Abbas, Netanyahu has made his most hardline critics part of his coalition. Netanyahu and Israel’s right-wing moreover agree on fundamentals: a rejection of an Israeli return to the borders prior to the 1967 conquest of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem and a perception of a nuclear-armed Iran as the foremost threat to the existence of the Jewish state. Hamas rather than Abbas offers Netanyahu the space to build Israeli policy on those two principles. Hamas’ refusal to meet Israeli conditions for peace negotiations proves the Israeli prime minister’s assertion that Israel has no Palestinian partner with which it can do business.
At the same time, Hamas has proven that it can and will make temporary arrangements with Israel like the prisoner swap or a ceasefire that safeguards Israeli towns from Palestinian rocket attacks. Hamas has moreover, contributed its bit to weakening Abbas by effectively thwarting the Palestinian leader’s efforts at reconciliation so that Palestinians can confront Israel with a unified front.
The possibility of Hamas’ external wing moving its headquarters from Syria, Iran’s closest ally in the Arab world, to post-Mubarak Egypt, which facilitated the prisoner swap, further serves Netanyahu’s purpose of clearing the deck for possible pre-emptive military action against Iran. Lingering in the background is uncertainty of what Israel’s immediate neighbourhood may look like. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is battling for his survival with no sign of the eight months of mass anti-government protests subsiding despite a brutal crackdown. Jordan’s King Abdullah has so far been able to contain demands for political reform and greater economic opportunity.
Israeli military: the joker in the pack
Ironically, Israel’s military and former senior Israeli military commanders constitute the greatest threat to Netanyahu’s policy designs and may offer Hamas its best chance yet of becoming a player in peace talks with Israel as well as the dominant force in Palestinian politics. While Israel’s military appears split on the prospect of a pre-emptive strike against Iran, at least half of the retired leaders of Israel’s military and intelligence services have publicly rejected Netanyahu’s strategic thinking.
Perhaps, most vocal among them is Meir Dagan, a former head of Mossad, who has not only criticised Netanyahu’s hard line toward Iran but also called for Israeli acceptance of a nine-year old Saudi peace plan endorsed by all Arab states. That peace plan offers Israel full diplomatic relations in exchange for a complete withdrawal from Palestinian lands occupied in 1967.
No doubt Dagan, Hamas’ nemesis who is credited with the death of hundreds of its operatives, has political ambitions as well as the military credentials that Netanyahu lacks. His willingness to entertain the Saudi proposal would open the door to Hamas to take its seat at the table. That could well lead to a new chapter in Israeli-Palestinian relations.
James M. Dorsey is a Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. He has been a journalist covering the Middle East for over 30 years.
No. 156/2011 dated 27 October 2011
Israel and Hamas:
A new equation for Mid-East peace?
By James M. Dorsey
Synopsis
Israeli and Palestinian hardliners rather than moderates are serving each other's purpose in the Middle East conflict. That is the underlying dynamic of the political calculations of both Israel and Hamas in the recent lop-sided swap of an Israeli soldier for over a thousand Palestinian prisoners.
Commentary
THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN peace process remains frozen with little, if any, prospect of it gaining momentum. President Mahmoud Abbas' effort to achieve United Nations recognition of Palestinian statehood in a bid to break the logjam is mired in diplomatic red tape and likely to be foiled by a United States veto if it comes up for a vote in the Security Council.
True to form, hardliners on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide are finding common ground where moderates are grasping for straws. In doing so, they are reaffirming a long-standing fact of life of the Israeli-Palestinian equation: hardliners can serve each other’s needs to mutual benefit without making the kind of wrenching concessions that thwart the ambitions of peacemakers and moderates on both sides.
The prisoner swap in which Israel bought freedom for now Staff Sergeant Gilad Shalit after five years in Palestinian captivity in exchange for the release of 1,027 prisoners - many of whom were responsible for deadly attacks on Israelis - is the latest example of sworn enemies finding it easier to do business than those who advocate compromise and living in peace and harmony side by side.
No peace works for all
Underlying, the swap is a belief on the part of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas that there is no realistic chance for an agreement on peace terms that would be acceptable to both Palestinians and Israelis. Given the nature of his coalition government, Netanyahu has so far been unwilling or unable to give Abbas the bare minimum he would need to push forward with peace without at least the tacit backing of Hamas.
While Netanyahu officially refuses to negotiate with Hamas, for its part, Hamas refuses Israeli conditions for its inclusion in a peace process. These are that it recognises Israel's right to exist, abandons its armed struggle and accepts past Israeli-Palestinian agreements. If anything, the fact that it has achieved a tangible victory with the release of prisoners belonging to both Hamas as well as Abbas' Fatah movement has reinforced the Islamist movement’s conviction that its hard line is paying off.
Netanyahu has strengthened Hamas in its conviction not only by excluding Abbas from the prisoner swap. He has also done so by undermining the Palestinian president with his decision to build a new Jewish settlement on the southern edge of Jerusalem and granting legal status to settlements established without his government’s approval. Abbas has made an Israeli freeze on settlements his core pre-condition for revival of peace talks with the Israelis, to no avail.
Temporary arrangements suit all but Abbas
Unlike Abbas, Netanyahu has made his most hardline critics part of his coalition. Netanyahu and Israel’s right-wing moreover agree on fundamentals: a rejection of an Israeli return to the borders prior to the 1967 conquest of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem and a perception of a nuclear-armed Iran as the foremost threat to the existence of the Jewish state. Hamas rather than Abbas offers Netanyahu the space to build Israeli policy on those two principles. Hamas’ refusal to meet Israeli conditions for peace negotiations proves the Israeli prime minister’s assertion that Israel has no Palestinian partner with which it can do business.
At the same time, Hamas has proven that it can and will make temporary arrangements with Israel like the prisoner swap or a ceasefire that safeguards Israeli towns from Palestinian rocket attacks. Hamas has moreover, contributed its bit to weakening Abbas by effectively thwarting the Palestinian leader’s efforts at reconciliation so that Palestinians can confront Israel with a unified front.
The possibility of Hamas’ external wing moving its headquarters from Syria, Iran’s closest ally in the Arab world, to post-Mubarak Egypt, which facilitated the prisoner swap, further serves Netanyahu’s purpose of clearing the deck for possible pre-emptive military action against Iran. Lingering in the background is uncertainty of what Israel’s immediate neighbourhood may look like. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is battling for his survival with no sign of the eight months of mass anti-government protests subsiding despite a brutal crackdown. Jordan’s King Abdullah has so far been able to contain demands for political reform and greater economic opportunity.
Israeli military: the joker in the pack
Ironically, Israel’s military and former senior Israeli military commanders constitute the greatest threat to Netanyahu’s policy designs and may offer Hamas its best chance yet of becoming a player in peace talks with Israel as well as the dominant force in Palestinian politics. While Israel’s military appears split on the prospect of a pre-emptive strike against Iran, at least half of the retired leaders of Israel’s military and intelligence services have publicly rejected Netanyahu’s strategic thinking.
Perhaps, most vocal among them is Meir Dagan, a former head of Mossad, who has not only criticised Netanyahu’s hard line toward Iran but also called for Israeli acceptance of a nine-year old Saudi peace plan endorsed by all Arab states. That peace plan offers Israel full diplomatic relations in exchange for a complete withdrawal from Palestinian lands occupied in 1967.
No doubt Dagan, Hamas’ nemesis who is credited with the death of hundreds of its operatives, has political ambitions as well as the military credentials that Netanyahu lacks. His willingness to entertain the Saudi proposal would open the door to Hamas to take its seat at the table. That could well lead to a new chapter in Israeli-Palestinian relations.
James M. Dorsey is a Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. He has been a journalist covering the Middle East for over 30 years.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Libya and Iraq: The Price of Success
from STRATFOR
Libya and Iraq: The Price of Success
October 25, 2011 | 0856 GMT
PRINTPRINT Text Resize:
604 114ShareThis838
Libya and Iraq: The Price of Success
Related Video
Agenda: With George Friedman on Middle East Uncertainty
Dispatch: Post-Gadhafi Libya
By George Friedman
In a week when the European crisis continued building, the White House chose publicly to focus on announcements about the end of wars. The death of Moammar Gadhafi was said to mark the end of the war in Libya, and excitement about a new democratic Libya abounded. Regarding Iraq, the White House transformed the refusal of the Iraqi government to permit U.S. troops to remain into a decision by Washington instead of an Iraqi rebuff.
Though in both cases there was an identical sense of “mission accomplished,” the matter was not nearly as clear-cut. The withdrawal from Iraq creates enormous strategic complexities rather than closure. While the complexities in Libya are real but hardly strategic, the two events share certain characteristics and are instructive.
Libya After Gadhafi
Let us begin with the lesser event, Gadhafi’s death. After seven months of NATO intervention, Gadhafi was killed. That it took so long for this to happen stands out, given that the intervention involved far more than airstrikes, including special operations forces on the ground targeting for airstrikes, training Libyan troops, managing logistics, overseeing communications and both planning and at times organizing and leading the Libyan insurgents in battle.
Perhaps this length of time resulted from a strategy designed to minimize casualties at the cost of prolonging the war. Alternatively, that it took seven months to achieve this goal might reflect the extent of the insurgents’ division, poor training and incompetence. Whatever the reason, the more important question is what NATO thinks it has accomplished with Gadhafi’s death, as satisfying as that death might be.
The National Transitional Council (NTC), the umbrella organization crafted to contain the insurgents, is in no position to govern Libya by any ideology, let alone through constitutional democracy. Gadhafi and his supporters ruled Libya for 42 years; the only people in the NTC with any experience with government gained that experience as ministers or lesser officials in Gadhafi’s government. Some may have switched sides out of principle, but I suspect that most defected to save themselves. While the media has portrayed many of these ex-ministers as opponents of Gadhafi, anyone who served him was complicit in his crimes.
These individuals are the least likely to bring reform to Libya and the most likely to constitute the core of a new state, as they are the only Libyans who know what it means to govern. Around them is an array of tribes living in varying degrees of tension and hostility with each other and radical Islamists whose number and capabilities are unknown, but whose access to weapons can be assumed. It also is safe to assume that many of those weapons, of various types of lethality, will be on the black market in the region in short order, as they may already be.
Gadhafi did not rule for 42 years without substantial support, as the tenacity of those who fought on his behalf suggests. (The defense of Sirte could well be described as fanatical.) Gadhafi is dead, but not all of his supporters are. And there are other elements within the country who may not be Gadhafi supporters but are no less interested in resisting those who are now trying to take charge — and resisting anyone perceived to be backed by Western powers. As with the conquest of Baghdad in 2003, what was unanticipated — but should not have been — was that a variety of groups would resist the new leaders and wage guerrilla war.
Baghdad taught that overwhelming force must be brought to bear in any invasion such that all opposition is eliminated. Otherwise, opponents of foreign occupation — along with native elements with a grudge against other natives — are quite capable of creating chaos. When we look at the list of NTC members and try to imagine them cooperating with each other and when we consider the number of Gadhafi supporters who are now desperadoes with little to lose, the path to stable constitutional democracy runs either through NATO occupation (unofficial, of course) or through a period of intense chaos. The most likely course ahead is a NATO presence sufficient to enrage the Libyan people but insufficient to intimidate them.
And Libya is not a strategic country. It is neither large in population nor geographically pivotal. It does have oil, as everyone likes to point out, and that makes it appealing. But it is not clear that the presence of oil increases the tendency toward stability. When we look back on Iraq, an oil-rich country, oil simply became another contentious issue in a galaxy of contentious issues.
The Lesson of Baghdad
Regarding Libya, I have a sense of Baghdad in April 2003. U.S. President Barack Obama’s announcement of a complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq gives us a sense of what lies at the end of the tunnel of the counterinsurgency. It must be understood that Obama did not want a total withdrawal. Until just a few weeks before the announcement, he was looking for ways to keep some troops in Iraq’s Kurdish region. U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta went to Iraq wanting an agreement providing for a substantial number of U.S. troops in Iraq past the Dec. 31 deadline for withdrawal.
While the idea did appeal to some in Iraq, it ultimately failed. This is because the decision-making structure of the Iraqi government that emerged from U.S. occupation and the war is so fragmented it has failed even to craft a law on hydrocarbons, something critical to the future of Iraq. It was therefore in no position to reach consensus, or even a simple majority, over the question of a continued presence of foreign troops. Many Iraqis did want a U.S. presence, particularly those concerned about their fate once the United States leaves, such as the Kurds and Sunnis. The most important point is not that the Iraqis decided they did not want troops; it is that the Iraqi government was in the end too incoherent to reach any decision.
The strategic dimension to this is enormous. The Iranians have been developing their influence in Iraq since before 2003. They have not developed enough power to control Iraq outright. There are too many in Iraq, even among the Shia, who distrust Iranian power. Nevertheless, the Iranians have substantial influence — not enough to impose policies but enough to block any they strongly object to. The Iranians have a fundamental national security interest in a weak Iraq and in the withdrawal of American forces, and they had sufficient influence in Baghdad to ensure American requests to stay were turned down.
Measuring Iranian influence in Iraq is not easy to do. Much of it consists of influence and relationships that are not visible or are not used except in urgent matters. The United States, too, has developed a network of relationships in Iraq, as have the Saudis. But the United States is not particularly good at developing reliable grassroots supporters. The Iranians have done better because they are more familiar with the terrain and because the price for double-crossing the Iranians is much higher than that imposed by the United States. This gives the Iranians a more stable platform from which to operate. While the Saudis have tried to have it both ways by seeking to maintain influence without generating anti-Saudi feeling, the Iranian position has been more straightforward, albeit in a complex and devious way.
Let us consider what is at stake here: Iran has enough influence to shape some Iraqi policies. With the U.S. withdrawal, U.S. allies will have to accommodate themselves both to Iran and Iran’s supporters in the government because there is little other choice. The withdrawal thus does not create a stable balance of power; it creates a dynamic in which Iranian influence increases if the Iranians want it to — and they certainly want it to. Over time, the likelihood of Iraq needing to accommodate Iranian strategic interests is most likely. The possibility of Iraq becoming a puppet of Iran cannot be ruled out. And this has especially wide regional consequences given Syria.
The Role of Syria
Consider the Libyan contrast with Syria. Over the past months, the Syrian opposition has completely failed in bringing down the regime of Presiden Bashar al Assad. Many of the reports received about Syria originate from anti-Assad elements outside of Syria who draw a picture of the impending collapse of the regime. This simply hasn’t happened, in large part because al Assad’s military is loyal and well organized and the opposition is poorly organized and weak. The opposition might have widespread support, but sentiment does not defeat tanks. Just as Gadhafi was on the verge of victory when NATO intervened, the Syrian regime does not appear close to collapse. It is hard to imagine NATO intervening in a country bordering Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Israel and Lebanon given the substantial risk of creating regional chaos. In contrast, Gadhafi was isolated politically and geographically.
Syria was close to Iran before the uprising. Iran has been the most supportive of the Syrian regime. If al Assad survives this crisis, his willingness to collaborate with Iran will only intensify. In Lebanon, Hezbollah — a group the Iranians have supported for decades — is a major force. Therefore, if the U.S. withdrawal in Iraq results in substantial Iranian influence in Iraq, and al Assad doesn’t fall, then the balance of power in the region completely shifts.
This will give rise to a contiguous arc of Iranian influence stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea running along Saudi Arabia’s northern border and along the length of Turkey’s southern border. Iranian influence also will impact Israel’s northern border directly for the first time. What the Saudis, Turks and Israelis will do about this is unclear. How the Iranians would exploit their position is equally unclear. Contrary to their reputation, they are very cautious in their overt operations, even if they take risks in their covert operations. Full military deployment through this region is unlikely for logistical reasons if nothing else. Still, the potential for such a deployment, and the reality of increasingly effective political influence regardless of military movement, is strategically significant. The fall of al Assad would create a firebreak for Iranian influence, though it could give rise to a Sunni Islamist regime.
The point here, of course, is that the decision to withdraw from Iraq and the inability to persuade the Iraqi government to let U.S. forces remain has the potential to change the balance of power in the region. Rather than closing the book on Iraq, it simply opens a new chapter in what was always the subtext of Iraq, namely Iranian power. The civil war in Iraq that followed the fall of Saddam Hussein had many dimensions, but its most strategically important one was the duel between the United States and Iran. The Obama administration hopes it can maintain U.S. influence in Iraq without the presence of U.S. troops. Given that U.S. influence with the presence of troops was always constrained, this is a comforting, though doubtful, theory for Washington to consume.
The Libyan crisis is not in such a high-stakes region, but the lesson of Iraq is useful. The NATO intervention has set the stage for a battle among groups that are not easily reconciled and who were held together by hostility to Gadhafi and then by NATO resources. If NATO simply leaves, chaos will ensue. If NATO gives aid, someone will have to protect the aid workers. If NATO sends troops, someone will attack them, and when they defend themselves, they will kill innocents. This is the nature of war. The idea of an immaculate war is fantasy. It is not that war is not at times necessary, but a war that is delusional is always harmful. The war in Iraq was delusional in many ways, and perhaps nowhere more than in the manner in which the United States left. That is being repeated in Libya, although with smaller stakes.
In the meantime, the influence of Iran will grow in Iraq, and now the question is Syria. Another NATO war in Syria is unlikely and would have unpredictable consequences. The survival of al Assad would create an unprecedented Iranian sphere of influence, while the fall of al Assad would open the door to regimes that could trigger an Israeli intervention.
World War II was nice in that it offered a clean end — unless, of course, you consider that the Cold War and the fear of impending nuclear war immediately succeeded it. Wars rarely end cleanly, but rather fester or set the stage for the next war. We can see that clearly in Iraq. The universal congratulations on the death of Moammar Gadhafi are as ominous as all victory celebrations are, because they ignore the critical question: Now what?
Read more: Libya and Iraq: The Price of Success | STRATFOR
Libya and Iraq: The Price of Success
October 25, 2011 | 0856 GMT
PRINTPRINT Text Resize:
604 114ShareThis838
Libya and Iraq: The Price of Success
Related Video
Agenda: With George Friedman on Middle East Uncertainty
Dispatch: Post-Gadhafi Libya
By George Friedman
In a week when the European crisis continued building, the White House chose publicly to focus on announcements about the end of wars. The death of Moammar Gadhafi was said to mark the end of the war in Libya, and excitement about a new democratic Libya abounded. Regarding Iraq, the White House transformed the refusal of the Iraqi government to permit U.S. troops to remain into a decision by Washington instead of an Iraqi rebuff.
Though in both cases there was an identical sense of “mission accomplished,” the matter was not nearly as clear-cut. The withdrawal from Iraq creates enormous strategic complexities rather than closure. While the complexities in Libya are real but hardly strategic, the two events share certain characteristics and are instructive.
Libya After Gadhafi
Let us begin with the lesser event, Gadhafi’s death. After seven months of NATO intervention, Gadhafi was killed. That it took so long for this to happen stands out, given that the intervention involved far more than airstrikes, including special operations forces on the ground targeting for airstrikes, training Libyan troops, managing logistics, overseeing communications and both planning and at times organizing and leading the Libyan insurgents in battle.
Perhaps this length of time resulted from a strategy designed to minimize casualties at the cost of prolonging the war. Alternatively, that it took seven months to achieve this goal might reflect the extent of the insurgents’ division, poor training and incompetence. Whatever the reason, the more important question is what NATO thinks it has accomplished with Gadhafi’s death, as satisfying as that death might be.
The National Transitional Council (NTC), the umbrella organization crafted to contain the insurgents, is in no position to govern Libya by any ideology, let alone through constitutional democracy. Gadhafi and his supporters ruled Libya for 42 years; the only people in the NTC with any experience with government gained that experience as ministers or lesser officials in Gadhafi’s government. Some may have switched sides out of principle, but I suspect that most defected to save themselves. While the media has portrayed many of these ex-ministers as opponents of Gadhafi, anyone who served him was complicit in his crimes.
These individuals are the least likely to bring reform to Libya and the most likely to constitute the core of a new state, as they are the only Libyans who know what it means to govern. Around them is an array of tribes living in varying degrees of tension and hostility with each other and radical Islamists whose number and capabilities are unknown, but whose access to weapons can be assumed. It also is safe to assume that many of those weapons, of various types of lethality, will be on the black market in the region in short order, as they may already be.
Gadhafi did not rule for 42 years without substantial support, as the tenacity of those who fought on his behalf suggests. (The defense of Sirte could well be described as fanatical.) Gadhafi is dead, but not all of his supporters are. And there are other elements within the country who may not be Gadhafi supporters but are no less interested in resisting those who are now trying to take charge — and resisting anyone perceived to be backed by Western powers. As with the conquest of Baghdad in 2003, what was unanticipated — but should not have been — was that a variety of groups would resist the new leaders and wage guerrilla war.
Baghdad taught that overwhelming force must be brought to bear in any invasion such that all opposition is eliminated. Otherwise, opponents of foreign occupation — along with native elements with a grudge against other natives — are quite capable of creating chaos. When we look at the list of NTC members and try to imagine them cooperating with each other and when we consider the number of Gadhafi supporters who are now desperadoes with little to lose, the path to stable constitutional democracy runs either through NATO occupation (unofficial, of course) or through a period of intense chaos. The most likely course ahead is a NATO presence sufficient to enrage the Libyan people but insufficient to intimidate them.
And Libya is not a strategic country. It is neither large in population nor geographically pivotal. It does have oil, as everyone likes to point out, and that makes it appealing. But it is not clear that the presence of oil increases the tendency toward stability. When we look back on Iraq, an oil-rich country, oil simply became another contentious issue in a galaxy of contentious issues.
The Lesson of Baghdad
Regarding Libya, I have a sense of Baghdad in April 2003. U.S. President Barack Obama’s announcement of a complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq gives us a sense of what lies at the end of the tunnel of the counterinsurgency. It must be understood that Obama did not want a total withdrawal. Until just a few weeks before the announcement, he was looking for ways to keep some troops in Iraq’s Kurdish region. U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta went to Iraq wanting an agreement providing for a substantial number of U.S. troops in Iraq past the Dec. 31 deadline for withdrawal.
While the idea did appeal to some in Iraq, it ultimately failed. This is because the decision-making structure of the Iraqi government that emerged from U.S. occupation and the war is so fragmented it has failed even to craft a law on hydrocarbons, something critical to the future of Iraq. It was therefore in no position to reach consensus, or even a simple majority, over the question of a continued presence of foreign troops. Many Iraqis did want a U.S. presence, particularly those concerned about their fate once the United States leaves, such as the Kurds and Sunnis. The most important point is not that the Iraqis decided they did not want troops; it is that the Iraqi government was in the end too incoherent to reach any decision.
The strategic dimension to this is enormous. The Iranians have been developing their influence in Iraq since before 2003. They have not developed enough power to control Iraq outright. There are too many in Iraq, even among the Shia, who distrust Iranian power. Nevertheless, the Iranians have substantial influence — not enough to impose policies but enough to block any they strongly object to. The Iranians have a fundamental national security interest in a weak Iraq and in the withdrawal of American forces, and they had sufficient influence in Baghdad to ensure American requests to stay were turned down.
Measuring Iranian influence in Iraq is not easy to do. Much of it consists of influence and relationships that are not visible or are not used except in urgent matters. The United States, too, has developed a network of relationships in Iraq, as have the Saudis. But the United States is not particularly good at developing reliable grassroots supporters. The Iranians have done better because they are more familiar with the terrain and because the price for double-crossing the Iranians is much higher than that imposed by the United States. This gives the Iranians a more stable platform from which to operate. While the Saudis have tried to have it both ways by seeking to maintain influence without generating anti-Saudi feeling, the Iranian position has been more straightforward, albeit in a complex and devious way.
Let us consider what is at stake here: Iran has enough influence to shape some Iraqi policies. With the U.S. withdrawal, U.S. allies will have to accommodate themselves both to Iran and Iran’s supporters in the government because there is little other choice. The withdrawal thus does not create a stable balance of power; it creates a dynamic in which Iranian influence increases if the Iranians want it to — and they certainly want it to. Over time, the likelihood of Iraq needing to accommodate Iranian strategic interests is most likely. The possibility of Iraq becoming a puppet of Iran cannot be ruled out. And this has especially wide regional consequences given Syria.
The Role of Syria
Consider the Libyan contrast with Syria. Over the past months, the Syrian opposition has completely failed in bringing down the regime of Presiden Bashar al Assad. Many of the reports received about Syria originate from anti-Assad elements outside of Syria who draw a picture of the impending collapse of the regime. This simply hasn’t happened, in large part because al Assad’s military is loyal and well organized and the opposition is poorly organized and weak. The opposition might have widespread support, but sentiment does not defeat tanks. Just as Gadhafi was on the verge of victory when NATO intervened, the Syrian regime does not appear close to collapse. It is hard to imagine NATO intervening in a country bordering Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Israel and Lebanon given the substantial risk of creating regional chaos. In contrast, Gadhafi was isolated politically and geographically.
Syria was close to Iran before the uprising. Iran has been the most supportive of the Syrian regime. If al Assad survives this crisis, his willingness to collaborate with Iran will only intensify. In Lebanon, Hezbollah — a group the Iranians have supported for decades — is a major force. Therefore, if the U.S. withdrawal in Iraq results in substantial Iranian influence in Iraq, and al Assad doesn’t fall, then the balance of power in the region completely shifts.
This will give rise to a contiguous arc of Iranian influence stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea running along Saudi Arabia’s northern border and along the length of Turkey’s southern border. Iranian influence also will impact Israel’s northern border directly for the first time. What the Saudis, Turks and Israelis will do about this is unclear. How the Iranians would exploit their position is equally unclear. Contrary to their reputation, they are very cautious in their overt operations, even if they take risks in their covert operations. Full military deployment through this region is unlikely for logistical reasons if nothing else. Still, the potential for such a deployment, and the reality of increasingly effective political influence regardless of military movement, is strategically significant. The fall of al Assad would create a firebreak for Iranian influence, though it could give rise to a Sunni Islamist regime.
The point here, of course, is that the decision to withdraw from Iraq and the inability to persuade the Iraqi government to let U.S. forces remain has the potential to change the balance of power in the region. Rather than closing the book on Iraq, it simply opens a new chapter in what was always the subtext of Iraq, namely Iranian power. The civil war in Iraq that followed the fall of Saddam Hussein had many dimensions, but its most strategically important one was the duel between the United States and Iran. The Obama administration hopes it can maintain U.S. influence in Iraq without the presence of U.S. troops. Given that U.S. influence with the presence of troops was always constrained, this is a comforting, though doubtful, theory for Washington to consume.
The Libyan crisis is not in such a high-stakes region, but the lesson of Iraq is useful. The NATO intervention has set the stage for a battle among groups that are not easily reconciled and who were held together by hostility to Gadhafi and then by NATO resources. If NATO simply leaves, chaos will ensue. If NATO gives aid, someone will have to protect the aid workers. If NATO sends troops, someone will attack them, and when they defend themselves, they will kill innocents. This is the nature of war. The idea of an immaculate war is fantasy. It is not that war is not at times necessary, but a war that is delusional is always harmful. The war in Iraq was delusional in many ways, and perhaps nowhere more than in the manner in which the United States left. That is being repeated in Libya, although with smaller stakes.
In the meantime, the influence of Iran will grow in Iraq, and now the question is Syria. Another NATO war in Syria is unlikely and would have unpredictable consequences. The survival of al Assad would create an unprecedented Iranian sphere of influence, while the fall of al Assad would open the door to regimes that could trigger an Israeli intervention.
World War II was nice in that it offered a clean end — unless, of course, you consider that the Cold War and the fear of impending nuclear war immediately succeeded it. Wars rarely end cleanly, but rather fester or set the stage for the next war. We can see that clearly in Iraq. The universal congratulations on the death of Moammar Gadhafi are as ominous as all victory celebrations are, because they ignore the critical question: Now what?
Read more: Libya and Iraq: The Price of Success | STRATFOR
China’s Marine Economy: Opportunities for International Cooperation?
RSIS presents the following commentary China’s Marine Economy: Opportunities for International Cooperation? by Liu Shuguang. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg
No. 154/2011 dated 25 October 2011
China’s Marine Economy:
Opportunities for International Cooperation?
By Liu Shuguang
Synopsis
China is upgrading more coastal provinces to be national-level marine economic development zones. What impact will Beijing’s expanded marine economic strategy have on the neighbouring countries?
Commentary
ON 20 JULY 2011, the State Council -- China’s central government -- approved Guangdong’s plan to build a national-level marine economic development zone. This is the third plan approved so far this year, following those for Shandong and Zhejiang earlier. This trend is a clear indication of China’s marine economic strategies as part of its 12th Five-Year Plan.
With the increasing competition for marine spaces and shipping lanes, there is bound to be some potential impact of China’s marine economic strategies on the international community, especially the littoral states of the regional seas.
Drivers of Marine Economies
China’s marine economy initiativesis an important part of its strategic reorientation from a traditional export-driven economy depending more on hinterland resources. The 2008 global financial crisis actually quickened this change in strategy.
The driving force has been China’s stimulus packages to dampen the impact of the financial crisis. The sharp decrease in international demand for Chinese goods has been cushioned by the central government’s rescue funding for the manufacturing sectors which have been affected most. Also, the rising inter-provincial competition for more coastal development spaces and preferential policies act as strong local forces driving the strategic upgrading.
In its 2,000-year history, China has seen gravitational centres of economic activity shift from the hinterland to coastal regions. Coastal economies also attained considerable prosperity, such as during the early Tang and Ming dynasties. The opening of the maritime silk route as well as the frequent maritime trade with Northeast and Southeast Asian countries over the centuries had brought about steady developments around the coastal regions.
The Tumen River Area Development Project (TRADP) is a typical example of multi-national cross-border and cross-sea cooperation centered round the Tumen River triangle in Northeast Asia since early 1990s. It involves three countries linked by the Tumen River - Russia, China and North Korea - as well as South Korea and Mongolia. The experiences of TRADP are of great value for similar international cooperation, though it did not fully realise the initial goal conceived by UNDP.
The Guangxi Beibu Bay Economic Zone Development Plan is another on-going case of cooperation with South East Asian countries since late 1990s, namely Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines. Under the jurisdiction of the local government of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, this project is designed to create a regional hub for trade, logistics, processing and manufacturing activities aimed at promoting economic cooperation with surrounding areas.
Establishment of Partnerships
As China’s first national-level marine economic development strategy, the Shandong Peninsula Blue Economic Zone has improved the cross-sea cooperation with the western coastal region of the Republic of Korea (ROK). The plan for the first phase of the project comprises the construction of the pilot region of China-ROK Free Trade Area and the train ferry programme.
Zhejiang Province, as the second-national level marine economic zone, takes pride in its worldwide human capital endowments and enjoys the privileges of its first national level oceanic economy district of Zhoushan Archipelago New Area too. With its competitive location adjacent to the Yangtze River Delta, Zhoushan has established steady relations with many overseas partners. For example, in early 2011, Singapore ranks as its second-largest investor with 17 projects in Zhoushan valued at US$215 million. These projects involve marine engineering, ship repairs, ship industrial services, information consultation and tourism development.
With the implementation of the China-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), Guangdong gains an edge in facilitating cross-sea cooperation with ASEAN, and is expected to achieve far greater success than Shandong and Zhejiang. Guangdong has prepared to set up a trade and economic office in Singapore to help its companies expand their businesses in Southeast Asia. The significance of Guangdong’s marine economic strategy to ASEAN lies in bigger business opportunities ranging from processing industries, marine tourism to maritime logistics services.
Blue economy
China needs to revamp its traditional model which is characterised by extensive utilisation of marine resources and spaces; irrational competition among coastal provinces on developing traditional marine industries; and rampant establishment of container terminals. This demands a shift to a blue economy that values the management and conservation of marine resources: environment hospitality, resource sustainability and high-tech orientation.
The practice of attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) by means of extensive land reclamation in the coastal zones should be rectified. Marine and coastal projects should be carefully appraised on the basis of the capacity of the related ecosystem before being introduced to overseas investors. Greater international cooperation is needed among marine and maritime organisations or clusters, marine research parks, and the overseas coastal regions to employ marine economic strategies more effectively.
More attention should be paid to the harmful impact of offshore activities on the environment. Some experts from the neighbouring countries like ROK have expressed their worries regarding increasing contamination and deterioration in the Yellow Sea as a result of off-shore activities. Therefore, efforts in monitoring and tackling the potential threats in the regional seas should be reinforced.
Liu Shuguang is Professor of Marine Development at the Ocean University of China and a Visiting Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.
No. 154/2011 dated 25 October 2011
China’s Marine Economy:
Opportunities for International Cooperation?
By Liu Shuguang
Synopsis
China is upgrading more coastal provinces to be national-level marine economic development zones. What impact will Beijing’s expanded marine economic strategy have on the neighbouring countries?
Commentary
ON 20 JULY 2011, the State Council -- China’s central government -- approved Guangdong’s plan to build a national-level marine economic development zone. This is the third plan approved so far this year, following those for Shandong and Zhejiang earlier. This trend is a clear indication of China’s marine economic strategies as part of its 12th Five-Year Plan.
With the increasing competition for marine spaces and shipping lanes, there is bound to be some potential impact of China’s marine economic strategies on the international community, especially the littoral states of the regional seas.
Drivers of Marine Economies
China’s marine economy initiativesis an important part of its strategic reorientation from a traditional export-driven economy depending more on hinterland resources. The 2008 global financial crisis actually quickened this change in strategy.
The driving force has been China’s stimulus packages to dampen the impact of the financial crisis. The sharp decrease in international demand for Chinese goods has been cushioned by the central government’s rescue funding for the manufacturing sectors which have been affected most. Also, the rising inter-provincial competition for more coastal development spaces and preferential policies act as strong local forces driving the strategic upgrading.
In its 2,000-year history, China has seen gravitational centres of economic activity shift from the hinterland to coastal regions. Coastal economies also attained considerable prosperity, such as during the early Tang and Ming dynasties. The opening of the maritime silk route as well as the frequent maritime trade with Northeast and Southeast Asian countries over the centuries had brought about steady developments around the coastal regions.
The Tumen River Area Development Project (TRADP) is a typical example of multi-national cross-border and cross-sea cooperation centered round the Tumen River triangle in Northeast Asia since early 1990s. It involves three countries linked by the Tumen River - Russia, China and North Korea - as well as South Korea and Mongolia. The experiences of TRADP are of great value for similar international cooperation, though it did not fully realise the initial goal conceived by UNDP.
The Guangxi Beibu Bay Economic Zone Development Plan is another on-going case of cooperation with South East Asian countries since late 1990s, namely Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines. Under the jurisdiction of the local government of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, this project is designed to create a regional hub for trade, logistics, processing and manufacturing activities aimed at promoting economic cooperation with surrounding areas.
Establishment of Partnerships
As China’s first national-level marine economic development strategy, the Shandong Peninsula Blue Economic Zone has improved the cross-sea cooperation with the western coastal region of the Republic of Korea (ROK). The plan for the first phase of the project comprises the construction of the pilot region of China-ROK Free Trade Area and the train ferry programme.
Zhejiang Province, as the second-national level marine economic zone, takes pride in its worldwide human capital endowments and enjoys the privileges of its first national level oceanic economy district of Zhoushan Archipelago New Area too. With its competitive location adjacent to the Yangtze River Delta, Zhoushan has established steady relations with many overseas partners. For example, in early 2011, Singapore ranks as its second-largest investor with 17 projects in Zhoushan valued at US$215 million. These projects involve marine engineering, ship repairs, ship industrial services, information consultation and tourism development.
With the implementation of the China-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), Guangdong gains an edge in facilitating cross-sea cooperation with ASEAN, and is expected to achieve far greater success than Shandong and Zhejiang. Guangdong has prepared to set up a trade and economic office in Singapore to help its companies expand their businesses in Southeast Asia. The significance of Guangdong’s marine economic strategy to ASEAN lies in bigger business opportunities ranging from processing industries, marine tourism to maritime logistics services.
Blue economy
China needs to revamp its traditional model which is characterised by extensive utilisation of marine resources and spaces; irrational competition among coastal provinces on developing traditional marine industries; and rampant establishment of container terminals. This demands a shift to a blue economy that values the management and conservation of marine resources: environment hospitality, resource sustainability and high-tech orientation.
The practice of attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) by means of extensive land reclamation in the coastal zones should be rectified. Marine and coastal projects should be carefully appraised on the basis of the capacity of the related ecosystem before being introduced to overseas investors. Greater international cooperation is needed among marine and maritime organisations or clusters, marine research parks, and the overseas coastal regions to employ marine economic strategies more effectively.
More attention should be paid to the harmful impact of offshore activities on the environment. Some experts from the neighbouring countries like ROK have expressed their worries regarding increasing contamination and deterioration in the Yellow Sea as a result of off-shore activities. Therefore, efforts in monitoring and tackling the potential threats in the regional seas should be reinforced.
Liu Shuguang is Professor of Marine Development at the Ocean University of China and a Visiting Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.
CTTA: Counter Terrorist Trends and Analysis Special Issue
The International Conference on Commu-nity Engagement (ICCE) was organized by the International Centre for Political Vio-lence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR), a specialist centre of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at the Nan-yang Technological University in Singa-pore. The conference was held in Singa-pore on the 21st and 22nd of September
Insights on Community Engagement
Muhammad Haniff Hassan and Zulkifli Mohamed Sultan
This article provides insights from the International Conference on Community Engagement (ICCE) held in Singapore on 21-22 September 2011. The ICCE is Singapore’s signature event to mark the 10th anniversary of the 11 September 2001 attacks. The full report on the conference will be released in December 2011.
Inside this issue:
Insights on Community Engagement
1
Community Fights Terrorism
4
Tackling Online Extremism through Counter Ideology and Community Engagement
7
About Us
10
Events and Publications
10
October 2011
Cont. to Page 2
Volume 3 Special Issue 1
2011 and was attended by more than 200 delegates from all over the world with more than 20 internationally renowned speakers on the issue of community engagement.
The conference is meant to be a platform to discuss the key points of effec-tive community engagement. The ICCE has the following objectives: (1) Draw from global best practices on community en-
Singapore Deputy Prime Minister, Teo Chee Hean, who gave the opening remarks at the ICCE 2011 is given a token of appreciation by RSIS Dean Barry Desker. (Inset) 250 delegates from more than a dozen countries participated in this landmark conference. Photo Credits: ICPVTR
Insights on Community Engagement
(Continued from Page 1)
Page 2
Volume 3 Special Issue 1
Cont. to Page 3
gagement practices to create a working model, (2) Pro-vide a better understanding of the processes and the necessity for community engagement, (3) Create guide-lines that will assist governments to put in place commu-nity engagement efforts in their home countries, (4) Pro-vide a crucial network for governments and institutions that are presently involved in the process of community engagement.
Insights
Countering ideological radicalism has been the main focus of global counterterrorism efforts and has yielded some success in recent years. Leaders need to create more initiatives that will mobilize communities against extremism and forge national resilience. Com-munity engagement is an important part of counter-extremism strategy. There is a need for more platforms to heighten the awareness on community engagement initiatives, exchange views and increase knowledge and understanding to enhance the effectiveness of such ini-tiatives.
Based on views from the ICCE, there are two levels of community engagement. The first level is en-gagement on issues related to extremism and terrorism with the understanding that it should involve three im-portant parties- the government, the intelligentsia/academia, and the community. The government, as the party primarily responsible for national security, plays an important role in promoting understanding and aware-ness of the problem through briefings and public educa-tion. The academic community’s role is to research on the problem, help to educate the public and offer sound policy recommendations to the government. The com-munity needs to be informed of the issues and be con-sulted for any engagement program to be successful.
The second level is to get the community in-volved as an important partner to counter extremism and terrorism at all levels. To achieve this, diverse and multi-faceted approaches are required to have an in-depth understanding of the different segments and tar-get groups in a community and have a calibrated com-munity engagement program. The Singapore cluster
model, which involves the grassroots, education institu-tions, businesses and other sectors, is an example of effective community engagement. In Singapore, com-munity engagement is geared more towards community-based initiatives and the role of the government is more on facilitation and support. To put it directly, community engagement initiatives should be “community-focused” and not “community-targeted.”
There are social and ideological aspects of community engagement in the context of countering extremist beliefs. The social aspect requires the building of trust between communities as that will contribute to national resilience. On the ideological aspect, the radical and extremist beliefs, which promote division and hostil-ity between Muslims and non-Muslims, needs to be ad-dressed. It should be noted that radical/extremist ideol-ogy thrives when there is antagonism and mistrust be-tween Muslims and non-Muslims.
Community engagement initiatives can be car-ried out in two domains- the real world and the virtual world or the Internet. While the value of direct and face-to-face interactions cannot be discounted, the impor-tance of the virtual world for community engagement is now widely recognized. The use of virtual platforms to counter radical/extremist ideologies is gaining ground. An example would be the Al-Sakinah program of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The program involves a group of Islamic scholars who use the Internet to spread mod-erate Islamic ideology and refute suspicious matters offered by extremists who adopt deviant ideologies. The success of this program provides insight on the impor-tance of active engagement with the radicals who use online platforms.
Community engagement programs to counter extremist ideology should be focused on three groups. First, engagement programs should reach out to the Muslim community. Engagement on the topic of radicali-zation and religious extremism in the community is an essential part of conveying Islam with utmost clarity and preserving the rights of Muslim and their organizations. They must be empowered with knowledge that will im-
Insights on Community Engagement
(Continued from Page 2)
Page 3
Volume 3 Special Issue 1
munize them from any extremists’ ideologies. Commu-nity engagement will also equip them with skills and tools to enable them to play part against extremist ideol-ogy. Second are the non-violent extremists that are ex-posed to violence and the violent ones that are out there but who remain unknown. It is equally important to look at those who did not join radical movements but still re-tain extremist beliefs. We need to persuade and bring them back to the right path. Third are the non-Muslims. It is important for community engagement programs to ensure that non-Muslims do not have a wrong under-standing and perception of Islam. Mainstream non-Muslims must also be called upon to speak up against extremists and radicals to prevent them from jeopardiz-ing relations amongst all community members.
Conclusion
It is important for communities, whether they are public or private, to work together and create a synergy that will address extremism in the long run. Terrorism may occur in the most cohesive society, but extremist messages are less likely to gain support in this environ-ment. Similarly, a society in which extremism is likely to be reduced is where people have the confidence to build relationships with each other and enhance social cohe-sion.
Effective community engagement requires a commitment to develop and mobilize organizational re-sources necessary to support such initiatives. Among other considerations, hard and strenuous work on this issue should be taken into account the diversity that ex-ists in community involvement. Regardless, it is hoped that the observations and insights based on practicality will be tested, refined and that would eventually lead to a better understanding of how one should prepare for the optimal involvement of community engagement in combating radical and extremist ideologies.
GLOBAL PATHFINDER II
The ICPVTR Terrorism Database – Global Pathfinder - is a one-stop repository for information on the current and emerging terrorist threat. The database focuses on terror-ism and political violence in the Asia-Pacific region – com-prising of Southeast Asia, North Asia, South Asia, Central Asia and Oceania.
Global Pathfinder is an integrated database containing comprehensive profiles of terrorist groups, key terrorist personalities, terrorist and counterterrorist incidents as well as terrorist training camps . It also contains specific details and analyses of significant terrorist attacks in the form of terrorist attack profiles.
In addition to providing the latest information on terrorist attacks and pronouncements, Global Pathfinder also in-cludes over a hundred terrorist training manuals, counter-terrorism legislations and conventions, analytical papers on terrorist ideologies, commentaries on terrorist trends and patterns, transcripts of landmark cases, interviews with terrorists as well as photographs from different con-flict zones across the world. Further, Global Pathfinder also has a huge collection of jihadi websites, the contents of which are routinely translated and analyzed by our ana-lysts. This analysis helps develop an understanding of the developments in the ideological spectrum and trajectory of the terrorist threat, in both in tactical as well as strategic space.
For further inquiries please email Ms. Elena Ho Wei Ling at iselwho@ntu.edu.sg
Page 4
Community Fights Terrorism
Professor Rohan Gunaratna
It is important that governments work with the community to raise awareness on the threat of terrorism and radicalization. Robust community engagement efforts help build an environment where extremist ideologies are less likely to thrive and makes for a more resilient society.
Cont. to Page 5
capability of terrorist and extremist groups to reach out to vulnerable seg-ments of communities. In the absence of a counter narrative, communities are increasingly vulnerable to terrorist and extremist ideologies. It spreads like a virus which enables terrorists to recruit sympathizers, supporters and members. There are also reports that terrorist groups have infiltrated legal organiza-tions. In the guise of operating under the cover of human rights, humanitarian, social, cultural, political, and community organizations, terrorists are able to reach out to the public and impart their ideology.
It is paramount for a government to work together with community leaders to raise awareness on the threat of ter-rorism and radicalization. More often than not, governments do not under-stand the importance of community en-gagement or they lack the will to invest resources in such initiatives. Govern-ment leaders must realize that it is im-portant for them to work with grassroots and local organizations to protect the community from harm which can come from ideological extremism taking root and manifesting into violence, including terrorism. The support of the community is essential to proactively counter ex-tremist ideologies and detect signs of radicalization. It is also necessary to ori-ent the community to proactively detect indicators of a terrorist attack. These indicators are activities pertaining to propaganda, recruitment, funding, pro-
With the spread of extremist ideology and terrorist methodology through the internet and other platforms of communi-cation, community engagement and ter-rorist rehabilitation have emerged as vital pillars in counterterrorism. It is criti-cal to explore a population-centric coun-terterrorism strategy as opposed to tradi-tional strategies. Governments must take into consideration the individual, the family, the community, and the society it seeks to win over. By preventing, rather than reacting to extremism, government has much more to gain. Through prob-lem-solving, engaging and building part-nerships with the community, law en-forcement and intelligence agencies can share the responsibility of fighting terror-ism with the public.
The Context
The community is the most criti-cal resource base for a terrorist organi-zation. To prevent terrorists from exploit-ing the community, governments would need to create platforms and strategies to identify and engage a community’s vulnerable segments. Community en-gagement is a community-centered ap-proach that aims to preserve, protect and advance the collective interests and vision of all stakeholders and partners. A collective vision that benefits communi-ties and government can be achieved by raising awareness on each others’ inter-ests and concerns.
The advent of the Internet has exponentially increased the capacity and
Community Fights Terrorism
(Continued from Page 4)
Volume 3 Special Issue 1
5
curement, safe house, transport, communication, travel, training, multiple identities, surveillance, reconnais-sance, rehearsal, and attack. These indicators are best detected by members of the community and frontline officers. However, threat detection is contingent on ori-entation to the threat, focused alertness and vigilance. The probability of detecting a terrorist attack is in-creased if both the government and the community work together on looking out for the pre-attack indicators.
Background
Current community engagement initiatives should go beyond crime and terrorism prevention. Such efforts should move a step further and also promote moderation, toleration, and coexistence. Because terror-ism was not considered a significant threat until after the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States, many countries did not rely on community support as part of counterterrorism efforts. Community engagement pro-grams have slowly emerged in the post 9/11 environ-ment to counter terrorism, especially the threat of home-grown terrorism and self-radicalization. In many coun-tries, community engagement strategies to counter ex-tremism are significantly drawn from police-community
relations, especially those related to mobilizing the com-munity against crime. In the United Kingdom, the Muslim Contact Unit (MCU) at New Scotland Yard was the in-spiration for most programs in the West. Singapore’s Community Engagement Program (CEP), is widely re-garded as influential and a “trend-setter” for other coun-tries to emulate. The New York Police Department (NYPD) has a Community Affairs Division but it was poorly funded and there was little success in engaging the Muslim community.
Countering Extremism and Building Social Resil-ience
There is a need to explain to both the govern-ment and the community why community engagement is central to counter extremism. To raise public aware-ness, there is a need to explain the impact of terrorism and its support mechanisms. Law enforcement should play a direct role in educating the public and must work directly with the government and other stakeholders. For example, the NYPD and the Internal Security Depart-ment (ISD) in Singapore were involved in informing the public about the process of radicalization. These are all integral to building social resilience. Awareness of an
Cont. to Page 6
At the ICCE 2011 (From L-R) Singapore DPM Teo Chee Hean, ICPVTR Head Professor Rohan Gunaratna, and Mr. Pranev Gupte, listening to Mr. Sadruddin Hashwani talk about the devastating attacks on the Islamabad Marriot Hotel in Pakistan. Mr. Hashwani is the Head of the Hashoo Group, which owns the Marriot franchise in Pakistan. As a response to the bombings, the Hashoo Group set up a fund that catered to the needs of the families of the victims.
The response of the Hashoo Group is targeted towards building and reinforcing social resilience. Through community engagement activities such as this, the business sector helps build an environment where extremist ideologies are less likely to thrive. Photo Credit: ICPVTR
Community Fights Terrorism
(Continued from Page 5)
Volume 3 Special Issue 1
6
issue empowers people not to be susceptible to the message espoused by terrorist groups even if the mes-sage has ethnic or religious undertones.
Many law enforcement authorities, academics, scholars, including Muslim clerics, are now reaching out to the public to educate them about the ideological threat we are faced with today. They seek to explain the difference between extremist and mainstream ideology as well as draw the line between political and religious ideology and hate-filled extremist narrative. Such initia-tives have enabled the general public, especially the vulnerable youth population, to know the difference be-tween deviant and heretical thinking versus mainstream discourse.
Aside from religion, terrorist ideologues also exploit issues on ethnicity so they could harness ethnic sentiments to recruit or raise funds for their cause. In cases where ethno-political ideology was the driver, it is necessary to promote values of moderation, tolerance, and coexistence. Leaders and the elite of ethnic com-munities should work with others to resolve differences that are likely to emerge from time to time. In the spirit of amicable resolution of disputes and building bridges of friendship through reconciliation, harmony centers can be created and managed at local, metropolitan, provin-cial and federal level.
It is necessary to make use multiple platforms for public awareness and education programs. This can be achieved with the use of mass media to educate and train media personnel, revamp school curricula and train teachers, deliver talks at workplaces, youth organiza-tions, grassroots organizations and other venues. As vote driven politicians are also susceptible to playing the ethnic and religious card, it is important for them to be aware and account for their actions and statements.
In countries where community engagement ef-forts have seen success, members of the community themselves have realized the need for them to partici-pate and have an active role. They began to report sus-picious activities to the authorities. Anyone who sought
to divide communities and disrupt harmony by dissemi-nating hate-filled propaganda, recruit, raise fund, pro-cure supplies, organize safe houses, or train were brought to the attention of the authorities. Some mem-bers of the community went out of their way to organize meetings with members of other communities to build greater understanding. Such meetings reduced and re-moved suspicion of each other and paved the way for friendships. In the event of a terrorist attack, they did not perceive a community responsible for the attack but blamed a few individuals who were obviously misguided. While ethnic and religious sympathies will remain, those enlightened were driven to protect and take care of the community at risk. The terrorist intent was not merely to attack and destroy a target but trigger ethnic and reli-gious riots. The members of the community are aware of this. If members of the community were not educated, the resultant rioting would gravely hurt the social fabric of any society. The community members who were aware of terrorist attempts to disrupt ethnic and religious harmony prevented such incidents by demonstrating national unity.
EDITORIAL STAFF
Editor
Dr. Arabinda Acharya
Associate Editor
Diane Russel Junio
For inclusion in the mailing list please email your name and the name of your organization with the subject “CTTA subscription” to Miss Diane Russel Junio at the following address: isdiane@ntu.edu.sg
Page 7
Tackling Online Extremism through Counter Ideology and Community Engagement
Nur Azlin Mohamed Yasin
Online extremism is the terrorists’ use of the synthetic world of cyber space to expand on their activities and dissemination of ideology that have already existed offline, in reality. It represents a gold mine of information that should be used to our advantage especially in our online and offline counter ideology and community engagement communication strategy in this protracted battle of the hearts and minds.
Cont. to Page 8
commentaries and videos framed to up-hold the terrorist agenda. Pictures with short and powerful slogans that speak directly to its audience are also shown. Further, the terrorist communication strategy is complemented with a product naturally endowed with characteristics that call for action – real grievances and international issues that are manipulated to present a state of repression inflicted upon a particular group by another par-ticular group of people deemed as the enemy. Such an ideology presents a threatened group survival that calls for defense and action from members of the perceived repressed group. This is one of the many accumulative factors that have allowed the LTTE to garner funds from Tamils away from Sri Lanka, and the Al Qaeda to gather Muslim recruits from non-conflict areas such as Singa-pore and the United Kingdom.
Individuals trapped into believing the terrorist ideology have been reported to contribute greatly to terrorist groups. While some sympathizers and support-ers as proclaimed by the media, become self-radicalized and victims of online radicalization such as in the cases of American Major Abu Nidal and Singa-porean Abdul Basheer Abdul Kader, some stayed away from direct terrorist activities and expanded on the indoctri-nation efforts instead. The latter activity is equally perilous and is observed in the effective, improved and expanded dis-
Online incitation of hatred and intoler-ance for different groups in the society, and online promotion of the use of vio-lence and terrorism to complement one’s ill sentiments on the “other” group is a cause for concern for governments and the security sector. This is especially so with the presence of terrorist groups be-hind these cyber activities and the sprouting of online radicalization cases across the globe. Terrorist ideologies are spreading beyond geographical bounda-ries, allowing a global expansion of the terrorist network. This allows for the per-petuation of the terrorist struggle and continuation of fundraising activities de-spite the weakening of the terrorist groups’ physical capacity caused by the hard approach implemented in several countries. Examples of terrorist groups and individuals who have used or are using the internet to reap these benefits are the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Al Qaeda (AQ), Jemaah Islami-yah (JI), Hutaree, Aryan Nations and Anders Behring Breivik.
Terrorists’ Use of the Internet
The terrorist ideology and propa-ganda disseminated online are driven by powerful advertising tactics that have the potential to lure supporters and sympa-thizers both intellectually and emotion-ally. These tactics include the portrayal of the terrorist ideology and teachings of operational terrorism tactics in several different forms such as in news updates,
Tackling Online Extremism through Counter Ideology and Community Engagement
(Continued from Page 7)
Volume 3 Special Issue 1
8
semination of the terrorist ideology and propaganda in a myriad of online facilities namely in individual blogs, fo-rums and social networking systems. Such observation suggests an unyielding spread of the venomous terrorist ideology, increasing possibility of future radicalization cases.
Taking Advantage of the Gold Mine of Information
However, despite the threats posed by online extremism, banning or restricting it remains futile and counter-productive. The immense space in the World Wide Web allows blocked online sites to maintain and improve its presence in new URLs. Blocking a website would be used against the authorities and interpreted as evidence of the repression of the particular group that terrorists claim to represent by the authorities. Also, ob-servations show online platform as a reflection of offline reality which provides authorities with a gold mine of information on real ideological and operational develop-ments of terrorist groups and the perception and support of the public for them.
First, content of offline extremist propaganda materials are similar to that posted online. For instance, in Indonesia and Pakistan, content of terrorist propa-ganda seen online are also effectively spread through sale of terrorist publications and gatherings on the ground. Second, offline terrorist activities such as fund-raising and new operational tactics used are revealed online. Fundraising results and updates of Jemaah Islamiyah are religiously updated in the Bahasa Indone-sia Islamist extremist online sites. Developments and tactics of LTTE recruitment and training were posted on Tamil extremist sites. Last but not least, ideological clashes and debates among terrorists and its supporters can be detected online, giving analysts insights on the weaknesses within the terrorist group and its structure. Such debates can especially be found in the Arabic and the Bahasa Indonesia Islamist extremist sites. These observations suggest that rather than eliminating the terrorists’ and their supporters’ presence from the inter-net and risk pushing them into operating underground in
Cont. to Page 9
Screenshots from extremist websites showing how the Internet is being used to support terrorist ideologies and for propaganda and fund-raising activities. Image Source: Terrorism Informatics Team, ICPVTR
Tackling Online Extremism through Counter Ideology and Community Engagement
(Continued from Page 8)
Volume 3 Special Issue 1
9
real life setting, the online platform should be used intel-ligently to our advantage. One way is to gather informa-tion for better intelligence and counter ideological ef-forts. The latter should then be exposed and dissemi-nated through engagement with the society as a whole through both extremist and mainstream online and off-line mediums.
Counter Ideology and Community Engagement as Communication Package
Looming threats of online and offline extremism and the dissemination of the terrorist ideology present us with the clear understanding that apart from physical violence and fear, terrorism also poses us with yet an-other long term challenge – the battle of the hearts and minds. The importance of counter ideology and correct-ing the terrorists’ worldview as tactics to triumph in this battle is undeniable. However, such assiduous efforts would be in vain if it was not communicated and pack-aged to reach out to the public at large. This signifies the importance of both counter ideology and community engagement as a communication package or strategy in this battle we are in. This strategy like any other good advertising or communication strategy needs to use all communication mediums used by the target audience. In this case, whether or not our target audience is online or offline, mediums from these two entities should be used. Ultimately, individuals who dwell in cyber space exist in reality too.
Counter ideological works which contain up-dates on addressing both real and perceived grievances have to be exposed in both online sites and offline com-munication mediums. This is the first step that would create awareness of such perspectives and understand-ing in the target audience. The next complementary step is community engagement. The aim of this step is to persuade and convince the target audience to reject the terrorist ideology. This requires a two-way communica-tion and interactive way of engaging with the target audi-ence. Online, this could be done through social media such as Facebook and in Islamist extremist sites. An example of such efforts is seen in the works of Saudi Arabia through its program, Al-Sakinah which involves
clerics debating and counseling extremist individuals in forums. Offline, such engagements should include semi-nars, public discussions, conferences and workshops catered to the different levels of the society, from stu-dents to the working adults, employed individuals to ones who are less educated. The purpose of community engagement is to provide an open platform for discus-sion between the public and experts in this area. Clash of views such as that on international policies should not be frowned upon and should be anticipated. However, one message should be made to resonate in all – that violence and hatred is not a solution and is hypocritical to our quest for peace and harmony. Actions that should precipitate from this message are the proactive role that every individual would have to play in his or her own private and public spheres – the rejection of the terrorist ideology; vigilance in the reporting of suspicious behav-iors; the continuous spread of the message of peace.
CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS
The CTTA: Counter Terrorist Trends and Analysis is now open for contributions from researchers and practitioners in the field of terrorism research, secu-rity, and other related fields.
Topical areas of interest are terrorism and political violence, terrorism and organized crime, homeland security, religion and violence, internal conflicts and terrorism, and all other areas of security broadly de-fined.
Article length could be anywhere between 800 to 1500 words. Submissions must be made before the 15th of every month for editing purposes and for inclusion in the next month’s edition.
Electronic copies of the articles (MS Word format) may be submitted to the editors at the following address: isdiane@ntu.edu.sg
Nanyang Technological University
Block S4, Level B4, Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798
Phone: +65 6316 8925
Fax: +65 6791 1941
Website: www.pvtr.org
The International Centre for Political Violence and
Terrorism Research (ICPVTR) is a specialist centre
within the S. Rajaratnam School of International
Studies (RSIS) at Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore.
ICPVTR conducts research, training, and outreach
programs aimed at reducing the threat of politically
motivated violence and at mitigating its effects on the
international system. The Centre seeks to integrate
academic theory with practical knowledge, which is
essential for a complete and comprehensive
understanding of threats from politically-motivated
groups.
The Centre is staffed by academic specialists, religious
scholars, as well as personnel from the law
enforcement, military and intelligence agencies, among
others. The Centre is culturally and linguistically
diverse, comprising of functional and regional analysts
as well as Muslim religious scholars from Asia, the
Middle East, Africa, Europe and North America.
Events and Publications
Ethnic Identity and National
Conflict in China
(Palgrave Macmillan 22 June
2010) by Dr. Rohan Gunaratna,
Dr. Arabinda Acharya
and Mr. Wang Pengxin
Targeting Terrorist Financing:
International Cooperation
and New Regimes
(Routledge 2009) by Dr.
Arabinda Acharya
Watch this space for upcoming events at
ICPVTR
Terrorist Rehabilitation:
The US Experience in Iraq
(CRC Press Taylor and
Francis Group, 2011) by
Dr. Ami Angell and
Dr. Rohan Gunaratna
Pakistan: Terrorism Ground
Zero (Reaktion Books, 2011)
by Dr. Rohan Gunaratna and
Mr. Khuram Iqbal
International Aviation and
Terrorism: Evolving Threats,
Evolving Security
(Routledge 2009)
by Dr. John Harrison
Insights on Community Engagement
Muhammad Haniff Hassan and Zulkifli Mohamed Sultan
This article provides insights from the International Conference on Community Engagement (ICCE) held in Singapore on 21-22 September 2011. The ICCE is Singapore’s signature event to mark the 10th anniversary of the 11 September 2001 attacks. The full report on the conference will be released in December 2011.
Inside this issue:
Insights on Community Engagement
1
Community Fights Terrorism
4
Tackling Online Extremism through Counter Ideology and Community Engagement
7
About Us
10
Events and Publications
10
October 2011
Cont. to Page 2
Volume 3 Special Issue 1
2011 and was attended by more than 200 delegates from all over the world with more than 20 internationally renowned speakers on the issue of community engagement.
The conference is meant to be a platform to discuss the key points of effec-tive community engagement. The ICCE has the following objectives: (1) Draw from global best practices on community en-
Singapore Deputy Prime Minister, Teo Chee Hean, who gave the opening remarks at the ICCE 2011 is given a token of appreciation by RSIS Dean Barry Desker. (Inset) 250 delegates from more than a dozen countries participated in this landmark conference. Photo Credits: ICPVTR
Insights on Community Engagement
(Continued from Page 1)
Page 2
Volume 3 Special Issue 1
Cont. to Page 3
gagement practices to create a working model, (2) Pro-vide a better understanding of the processes and the necessity for community engagement, (3) Create guide-lines that will assist governments to put in place commu-nity engagement efforts in their home countries, (4) Pro-vide a crucial network for governments and institutions that are presently involved in the process of community engagement.
Insights
Countering ideological radicalism has been the main focus of global counterterrorism efforts and has yielded some success in recent years. Leaders need to create more initiatives that will mobilize communities against extremism and forge national resilience. Com-munity engagement is an important part of counter-extremism strategy. There is a need for more platforms to heighten the awareness on community engagement initiatives, exchange views and increase knowledge and understanding to enhance the effectiveness of such ini-tiatives.
Based on views from the ICCE, there are two levels of community engagement. The first level is en-gagement on issues related to extremism and terrorism with the understanding that it should involve three im-portant parties- the government, the intelligentsia/academia, and the community. The government, as the party primarily responsible for national security, plays an important role in promoting understanding and aware-ness of the problem through briefings and public educa-tion. The academic community’s role is to research on the problem, help to educate the public and offer sound policy recommendations to the government. The com-munity needs to be informed of the issues and be con-sulted for any engagement program to be successful.
The second level is to get the community in-volved as an important partner to counter extremism and terrorism at all levels. To achieve this, diverse and multi-faceted approaches are required to have an in-depth understanding of the different segments and tar-get groups in a community and have a calibrated com-munity engagement program. The Singapore cluster
model, which involves the grassroots, education institu-tions, businesses and other sectors, is an example of effective community engagement. In Singapore, com-munity engagement is geared more towards community-based initiatives and the role of the government is more on facilitation and support. To put it directly, community engagement initiatives should be “community-focused” and not “community-targeted.”
There are social and ideological aspects of community engagement in the context of countering extremist beliefs. The social aspect requires the building of trust between communities as that will contribute to national resilience. On the ideological aspect, the radical and extremist beliefs, which promote division and hostil-ity between Muslims and non-Muslims, needs to be ad-dressed. It should be noted that radical/extremist ideol-ogy thrives when there is antagonism and mistrust be-tween Muslims and non-Muslims.
Community engagement initiatives can be car-ried out in two domains- the real world and the virtual world or the Internet. While the value of direct and face-to-face interactions cannot be discounted, the impor-tance of the virtual world for community engagement is now widely recognized. The use of virtual platforms to counter radical/extremist ideologies is gaining ground. An example would be the Al-Sakinah program of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The program involves a group of Islamic scholars who use the Internet to spread mod-erate Islamic ideology and refute suspicious matters offered by extremists who adopt deviant ideologies. The success of this program provides insight on the impor-tance of active engagement with the radicals who use online platforms.
Community engagement programs to counter extremist ideology should be focused on three groups. First, engagement programs should reach out to the Muslim community. Engagement on the topic of radicali-zation and religious extremism in the community is an essential part of conveying Islam with utmost clarity and preserving the rights of Muslim and their organizations. They must be empowered with knowledge that will im-
Insights on Community Engagement
(Continued from Page 2)
Page 3
Volume 3 Special Issue 1
munize them from any extremists’ ideologies. Commu-nity engagement will also equip them with skills and tools to enable them to play part against extremist ideol-ogy. Second are the non-violent extremists that are ex-posed to violence and the violent ones that are out there but who remain unknown. It is equally important to look at those who did not join radical movements but still re-tain extremist beliefs. We need to persuade and bring them back to the right path. Third are the non-Muslims. It is important for community engagement programs to ensure that non-Muslims do not have a wrong under-standing and perception of Islam. Mainstream non-Muslims must also be called upon to speak up against extremists and radicals to prevent them from jeopardiz-ing relations amongst all community members.
Conclusion
It is important for communities, whether they are public or private, to work together and create a synergy that will address extremism in the long run. Terrorism may occur in the most cohesive society, but extremist messages are less likely to gain support in this environ-ment. Similarly, a society in which extremism is likely to be reduced is where people have the confidence to build relationships with each other and enhance social cohe-sion.
Effective community engagement requires a commitment to develop and mobilize organizational re-sources necessary to support such initiatives. Among other considerations, hard and strenuous work on this issue should be taken into account the diversity that ex-ists in community involvement. Regardless, it is hoped that the observations and insights based on practicality will be tested, refined and that would eventually lead to a better understanding of how one should prepare for the optimal involvement of community engagement in combating radical and extremist ideologies.
GLOBAL PATHFINDER II
The ICPVTR Terrorism Database – Global Pathfinder - is a one-stop repository for information on the current and emerging terrorist threat. The database focuses on terror-ism and political violence in the Asia-Pacific region – com-prising of Southeast Asia, North Asia, South Asia, Central Asia and Oceania.
Global Pathfinder is an integrated database containing comprehensive profiles of terrorist groups, key terrorist personalities, terrorist and counterterrorist incidents as well as terrorist training camps . It also contains specific details and analyses of significant terrorist attacks in the form of terrorist attack profiles.
In addition to providing the latest information on terrorist attacks and pronouncements, Global Pathfinder also in-cludes over a hundred terrorist training manuals, counter-terrorism legislations and conventions, analytical papers on terrorist ideologies, commentaries on terrorist trends and patterns, transcripts of landmark cases, interviews with terrorists as well as photographs from different con-flict zones across the world. Further, Global Pathfinder also has a huge collection of jihadi websites, the contents of which are routinely translated and analyzed by our ana-lysts. This analysis helps develop an understanding of the developments in the ideological spectrum and trajectory of the terrorist threat, in both in tactical as well as strategic space.
For further inquiries please email Ms. Elena Ho Wei Ling at iselwho@ntu.edu.sg
Page 4
Community Fights Terrorism
Professor Rohan Gunaratna
It is important that governments work with the community to raise awareness on the threat of terrorism and radicalization. Robust community engagement efforts help build an environment where extremist ideologies are less likely to thrive and makes for a more resilient society.
Cont. to Page 5
capability of terrorist and extremist groups to reach out to vulnerable seg-ments of communities. In the absence of a counter narrative, communities are increasingly vulnerable to terrorist and extremist ideologies. It spreads like a virus which enables terrorists to recruit sympathizers, supporters and members. There are also reports that terrorist groups have infiltrated legal organiza-tions. In the guise of operating under the cover of human rights, humanitarian, social, cultural, political, and community organizations, terrorists are able to reach out to the public and impart their ideology.
It is paramount for a government to work together with community leaders to raise awareness on the threat of ter-rorism and radicalization. More often than not, governments do not under-stand the importance of community en-gagement or they lack the will to invest resources in such initiatives. Govern-ment leaders must realize that it is im-portant for them to work with grassroots and local organizations to protect the community from harm which can come from ideological extremism taking root and manifesting into violence, including terrorism. The support of the community is essential to proactively counter ex-tremist ideologies and detect signs of radicalization. It is also necessary to ori-ent the community to proactively detect indicators of a terrorist attack. These indicators are activities pertaining to propaganda, recruitment, funding, pro-
With the spread of extremist ideology and terrorist methodology through the internet and other platforms of communi-cation, community engagement and ter-rorist rehabilitation have emerged as vital pillars in counterterrorism. It is criti-cal to explore a population-centric coun-terterrorism strategy as opposed to tradi-tional strategies. Governments must take into consideration the individual, the family, the community, and the society it seeks to win over. By preventing, rather than reacting to extremism, government has much more to gain. Through prob-lem-solving, engaging and building part-nerships with the community, law en-forcement and intelligence agencies can share the responsibility of fighting terror-ism with the public.
The Context
The community is the most criti-cal resource base for a terrorist organi-zation. To prevent terrorists from exploit-ing the community, governments would need to create platforms and strategies to identify and engage a community’s vulnerable segments. Community en-gagement is a community-centered ap-proach that aims to preserve, protect and advance the collective interests and vision of all stakeholders and partners. A collective vision that benefits communi-ties and government can be achieved by raising awareness on each others’ inter-ests and concerns.
The advent of the Internet has exponentially increased the capacity and
Community Fights Terrorism
(Continued from Page 4)
Volume 3 Special Issue 1
5
curement, safe house, transport, communication, travel, training, multiple identities, surveillance, reconnais-sance, rehearsal, and attack. These indicators are best detected by members of the community and frontline officers. However, threat detection is contingent on ori-entation to the threat, focused alertness and vigilance. The probability of detecting a terrorist attack is in-creased if both the government and the community work together on looking out for the pre-attack indicators.
Background
Current community engagement initiatives should go beyond crime and terrorism prevention. Such efforts should move a step further and also promote moderation, toleration, and coexistence. Because terror-ism was not considered a significant threat until after the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States, many countries did not rely on community support as part of counterterrorism efforts. Community engagement pro-grams have slowly emerged in the post 9/11 environ-ment to counter terrorism, especially the threat of home-grown terrorism and self-radicalization. In many coun-tries, community engagement strategies to counter ex-tremism are significantly drawn from police-community
relations, especially those related to mobilizing the com-munity against crime. In the United Kingdom, the Muslim Contact Unit (MCU) at New Scotland Yard was the in-spiration for most programs in the West. Singapore’s Community Engagement Program (CEP), is widely re-garded as influential and a “trend-setter” for other coun-tries to emulate. The New York Police Department (NYPD) has a Community Affairs Division but it was poorly funded and there was little success in engaging the Muslim community.
Countering Extremism and Building Social Resil-ience
There is a need to explain to both the govern-ment and the community why community engagement is central to counter extremism. To raise public aware-ness, there is a need to explain the impact of terrorism and its support mechanisms. Law enforcement should play a direct role in educating the public and must work directly with the government and other stakeholders. For example, the NYPD and the Internal Security Depart-ment (ISD) in Singapore were involved in informing the public about the process of radicalization. These are all integral to building social resilience. Awareness of an
Cont. to Page 6
At the ICCE 2011 (From L-R) Singapore DPM Teo Chee Hean, ICPVTR Head Professor Rohan Gunaratna, and Mr. Pranev Gupte, listening to Mr. Sadruddin Hashwani talk about the devastating attacks on the Islamabad Marriot Hotel in Pakistan. Mr. Hashwani is the Head of the Hashoo Group, which owns the Marriot franchise in Pakistan. As a response to the bombings, the Hashoo Group set up a fund that catered to the needs of the families of the victims.
The response of the Hashoo Group is targeted towards building and reinforcing social resilience. Through community engagement activities such as this, the business sector helps build an environment where extremist ideologies are less likely to thrive. Photo Credit: ICPVTR
Community Fights Terrorism
(Continued from Page 5)
Volume 3 Special Issue 1
6
issue empowers people not to be susceptible to the message espoused by terrorist groups even if the mes-sage has ethnic or religious undertones.
Many law enforcement authorities, academics, scholars, including Muslim clerics, are now reaching out to the public to educate them about the ideological threat we are faced with today. They seek to explain the difference between extremist and mainstream ideology as well as draw the line between political and religious ideology and hate-filled extremist narrative. Such initia-tives have enabled the general public, especially the vulnerable youth population, to know the difference be-tween deviant and heretical thinking versus mainstream discourse.
Aside from religion, terrorist ideologues also exploit issues on ethnicity so they could harness ethnic sentiments to recruit or raise funds for their cause. In cases where ethno-political ideology was the driver, it is necessary to promote values of moderation, tolerance, and coexistence. Leaders and the elite of ethnic com-munities should work with others to resolve differences that are likely to emerge from time to time. In the spirit of amicable resolution of disputes and building bridges of friendship through reconciliation, harmony centers can be created and managed at local, metropolitan, provin-cial and federal level.
It is necessary to make use multiple platforms for public awareness and education programs. This can be achieved with the use of mass media to educate and train media personnel, revamp school curricula and train teachers, deliver talks at workplaces, youth organiza-tions, grassroots organizations and other venues. As vote driven politicians are also susceptible to playing the ethnic and religious card, it is important for them to be aware and account for their actions and statements.
In countries where community engagement ef-forts have seen success, members of the community themselves have realized the need for them to partici-pate and have an active role. They began to report sus-picious activities to the authorities. Anyone who sought
to divide communities and disrupt harmony by dissemi-nating hate-filled propaganda, recruit, raise fund, pro-cure supplies, organize safe houses, or train were brought to the attention of the authorities. Some mem-bers of the community went out of their way to organize meetings with members of other communities to build greater understanding. Such meetings reduced and re-moved suspicion of each other and paved the way for friendships. In the event of a terrorist attack, they did not perceive a community responsible for the attack but blamed a few individuals who were obviously misguided. While ethnic and religious sympathies will remain, those enlightened were driven to protect and take care of the community at risk. The terrorist intent was not merely to attack and destroy a target but trigger ethnic and reli-gious riots. The members of the community are aware of this. If members of the community were not educated, the resultant rioting would gravely hurt the social fabric of any society. The community members who were aware of terrorist attempts to disrupt ethnic and religious harmony prevented such incidents by demonstrating national unity.
EDITORIAL STAFF
Editor
Dr. Arabinda Acharya
Associate Editor
Diane Russel Junio
For inclusion in the mailing list please email your name and the name of your organization with the subject “CTTA subscription” to Miss Diane Russel Junio at the following address: isdiane@ntu.edu.sg
Page 7
Tackling Online Extremism through Counter Ideology and Community Engagement
Nur Azlin Mohamed Yasin
Online extremism is the terrorists’ use of the synthetic world of cyber space to expand on their activities and dissemination of ideology that have already existed offline, in reality. It represents a gold mine of information that should be used to our advantage especially in our online and offline counter ideology and community engagement communication strategy in this protracted battle of the hearts and minds.
Cont. to Page 8
commentaries and videos framed to up-hold the terrorist agenda. Pictures with short and powerful slogans that speak directly to its audience are also shown. Further, the terrorist communication strategy is complemented with a product naturally endowed with characteristics that call for action – real grievances and international issues that are manipulated to present a state of repression inflicted upon a particular group by another par-ticular group of people deemed as the enemy. Such an ideology presents a threatened group survival that calls for defense and action from members of the perceived repressed group. This is one of the many accumulative factors that have allowed the LTTE to garner funds from Tamils away from Sri Lanka, and the Al Qaeda to gather Muslim recruits from non-conflict areas such as Singa-pore and the United Kingdom.
Individuals trapped into believing the terrorist ideology have been reported to contribute greatly to terrorist groups. While some sympathizers and support-ers as proclaimed by the media, become self-radicalized and victims of online radicalization such as in the cases of American Major Abu Nidal and Singa-porean Abdul Basheer Abdul Kader, some stayed away from direct terrorist activities and expanded on the indoctri-nation efforts instead. The latter activity is equally perilous and is observed in the effective, improved and expanded dis-
Online incitation of hatred and intoler-ance for different groups in the society, and online promotion of the use of vio-lence and terrorism to complement one’s ill sentiments on the “other” group is a cause for concern for governments and the security sector. This is especially so with the presence of terrorist groups be-hind these cyber activities and the sprouting of online radicalization cases across the globe. Terrorist ideologies are spreading beyond geographical bounda-ries, allowing a global expansion of the terrorist network. This allows for the per-petuation of the terrorist struggle and continuation of fundraising activities de-spite the weakening of the terrorist groups’ physical capacity caused by the hard approach implemented in several countries. Examples of terrorist groups and individuals who have used or are using the internet to reap these benefits are the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Al Qaeda (AQ), Jemaah Islami-yah (JI), Hutaree, Aryan Nations and Anders Behring Breivik.
Terrorists’ Use of the Internet
The terrorist ideology and propa-ganda disseminated online are driven by powerful advertising tactics that have the potential to lure supporters and sympa-thizers both intellectually and emotion-ally. These tactics include the portrayal of the terrorist ideology and teachings of operational terrorism tactics in several different forms such as in news updates,
Tackling Online Extremism through Counter Ideology and Community Engagement
(Continued from Page 7)
Volume 3 Special Issue 1
8
semination of the terrorist ideology and propaganda in a myriad of online facilities namely in individual blogs, fo-rums and social networking systems. Such observation suggests an unyielding spread of the venomous terrorist ideology, increasing possibility of future radicalization cases.
Taking Advantage of the Gold Mine of Information
However, despite the threats posed by online extremism, banning or restricting it remains futile and counter-productive. The immense space in the World Wide Web allows blocked online sites to maintain and improve its presence in new URLs. Blocking a website would be used against the authorities and interpreted as evidence of the repression of the particular group that terrorists claim to represent by the authorities. Also, ob-servations show online platform as a reflection of offline reality which provides authorities with a gold mine of information on real ideological and operational develop-ments of terrorist groups and the perception and support of the public for them.
First, content of offline extremist propaganda materials are similar to that posted online. For instance, in Indonesia and Pakistan, content of terrorist propa-ganda seen online are also effectively spread through sale of terrorist publications and gatherings on the ground. Second, offline terrorist activities such as fund-raising and new operational tactics used are revealed online. Fundraising results and updates of Jemaah Islamiyah are religiously updated in the Bahasa Indone-sia Islamist extremist online sites. Developments and tactics of LTTE recruitment and training were posted on Tamil extremist sites. Last but not least, ideological clashes and debates among terrorists and its supporters can be detected online, giving analysts insights on the weaknesses within the terrorist group and its structure. Such debates can especially be found in the Arabic and the Bahasa Indonesia Islamist extremist sites. These observations suggest that rather than eliminating the terrorists’ and their supporters’ presence from the inter-net and risk pushing them into operating underground in
Cont. to Page 9
Screenshots from extremist websites showing how the Internet is being used to support terrorist ideologies and for propaganda and fund-raising activities. Image Source: Terrorism Informatics Team, ICPVTR
Tackling Online Extremism through Counter Ideology and Community Engagement
(Continued from Page 8)
Volume 3 Special Issue 1
9
real life setting, the online platform should be used intel-ligently to our advantage. One way is to gather informa-tion for better intelligence and counter ideological ef-forts. The latter should then be exposed and dissemi-nated through engagement with the society as a whole through both extremist and mainstream online and off-line mediums.
Counter Ideology and Community Engagement as Communication Package
Looming threats of online and offline extremism and the dissemination of the terrorist ideology present us with the clear understanding that apart from physical violence and fear, terrorism also poses us with yet an-other long term challenge – the battle of the hearts and minds. The importance of counter ideology and correct-ing the terrorists’ worldview as tactics to triumph in this battle is undeniable. However, such assiduous efforts would be in vain if it was not communicated and pack-aged to reach out to the public at large. This signifies the importance of both counter ideology and community engagement as a communication package or strategy in this battle we are in. This strategy like any other good advertising or communication strategy needs to use all communication mediums used by the target audience. In this case, whether or not our target audience is online or offline, mediums from these two entities should be used. Ultimately, individuals who dwell in cyber space exist in reality too.
Counter ideological works which contain up-dates on addressing both real and perceived grievances have to be exposed in both online sites and offline com-munication mediums. This is the first step that would create awareness of such perspectives and understand-ing in the target audience. The next complementary step is community engagement. The aim of this step is to persuade and convince the target audience to reject the terrorist ideology. This requires a two-way communica-tion and interactive way of engaging with the target audi-ence. Online, this could be done through social media such as Facebook and in Islamist extremist sites. An example of such efforts is seen in the works of Saudi Arabia through its program, Al-Sakinah which involves
clerics debating and counseling extremist individuals in forums. Offline, such engagements should include semi-nars, public discussions, conferences and workshops catered to the different levels of the society, from stu-dents to the working adults, employed individuals to ones who are less educated. The purpose of community engagement is to provide an open platform for discus-sion between the public and experts in this area. Clash of views such as that on international policies should not be frowned upon and should be anticipated. However, one message should be made to resonate in all – that violence and hatred is not a solution and is hypocritical to our quest for peace and harmony. Actions that should precipitate from this message are the proactive role that every individual would have to play in his or her own private and public spheres – the rejection of the terrorist ideology; vigilance in the reporting of suspicious behav-iors; the continuous spread of the message of peace.
CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS
The CTTA: Counter Terrorist Trends and Analysis is now open for contributions from researchers and practitioners in the field of terrorism research, secu-rity, and other related fields.
Topical areas of interest are terrorism and political violence, terrorism and organized crime, homeland security, religion and violence, internal conflicts and terrorism, and all other areas of security broadly de-fined.
Article length could be anywhere between 800 to 1500 words. Submissions must be made before the 15th of every month for editing purposes and for inclusion in the next month’s edition.
Electronic copies of the articles (MS Word format) may be submitted to the editors at the following address: isdiane@ntu.edu.sg
Nanyang Technological University
Block S4, Level B4, Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798
Phone: +65 6316 8925
Fax: +65 6791 1941
Website: www.pvtr.org
The International Centre for Political Violence and
Terrorism Research (ICPVTR) is a specialist centre
within the S. Rajaratnam School of International
Studies (RSIS) at Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore.
ICPVTR conducts research, training, and outreach
programs aimed at reducing the threat of politically
motivated violence and at mitigating its effects on the
international system. The Centre seeks to integrate
academic theory with practical knowledge, which is
essential for a complete and comprehensive
understanding of threats from politically-motivated
groups.
The Centre is staffed by academic specialists, religious
scholars, as well as personnel from the law
enforcement, military and intelligence agencies, among
others. The Centre is culturally and linguistically
diverse, comprising of functional and regional analysts
as well as Muslim religious scholars from Asia, the
Middle East, Africa, Europe and North America.
Events and Publications
Ethnic Identity and National
Conflict in China
(Palgrave Macmillan 22 June
2010) by Dr. Rohan Gunaratna,
Dr. Arabinda Acharya
and Mr. Wang Pengxin
Targeting Terrorist Financing:
International Cooperation
and New Regimes
(Routledge 2009) by Dr.
Arabinda Acharya
Watch this space for upcoming events at
ICPVTR
Terrorist Rehabilitation:
The US Experience in Iraq
(CRC Press Taylor and
Francis Group, 2011) by
Dr. Ami Angell and
Dr. Rohan Gunaratna
Pakistan: Terrorism Ground
Zero (Reaktion Books, 2011)
by Dr. Rohan Gunaratna and
Mr. Khuram Iqbal
International Aviation and
Terrorism: Evolving Threats,
Evolving Security
(Routledge 2009)
by Dr. John Harrison
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Economic Rant Home Current Article Back Issues
Subject: Fw: Emailing: Economic Rant
Economic Rant
Home Current Article Back Issues
Current Article
October 17, 2011
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. –W. Churchill
There is only one party in America- the Sheeple Party!!! The nation of sheep and MORONS.
Please go watch this three minute video on the interest payments YOU as a taxpayer are paying. It is incomprehensible. Facts like this prove The Much Greater Depression started years ago. It is only three minutes and most informative.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/VtVbUmcQSuk
Look at this one year chart of Bank of America. This is typical of not only American banks, but most all European banks as well. $15 to $5 in less than a year with no end in sight. When the banks fail, the country fails. The very biggest banks, J.P. Morgan, Citibank, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs are all, in fact, “bankrupt”!!! What an irony. Bankrupt banks.
Did you know George Bush made his famous New World Order speech on 9/11/90? This is obviously the exact same day and month of 9/11 eleven years later. You can Google this to prove it to yourself if you want. No accidents here. No coincidences. Eleven years ago to the very day, George bragged to the world the neocons were going to institute a New World Order, a One World Government. He bragged about it folks.
Unsubscribe from the National Inflation Association (NIA) videos if you are getting them. They have degenerated into a pitiful pumpanddump operation. Their videos are no good and they have nothing of value to say anymore. Go to www.downsizedc.org and get on their mailing list. Donate if you can. These are good people doing good things. There are really very few good websites to go to. Most all of them are pseudo-conservative sites that will not tell you Ft. Knox is empty, 9/11 was an inside job, silver is the best investment, the Federal Reserve is 100% Zionist owned, our evil wars of aggression in the Mideast are a disgrace, the real national debt is over $100 trillion, or even that the real unemployment figure is 23%.
Take one minute to Google “real national debt”. You will see overwhelming proof the REAL national debt is $100 to $200 trillion dollars. It doesn’t matter! It is unpayable. Run the numbers…even at a “mere” $100 trillion that is $330,000 for every man, woman, child, and baby in America. A family of four owes $1.32 million. If the real national debt is $200 trillion that family would owe $2.64 million. What difference does it make? The total GNP (gross national product) is only $14 trillion. All debts get paid all the time every time, either by the buyer or the seller. The American people will pay this incomprehensible debt in the form of the greatest depression the world has ever seen. We are told by the media the National Debt is only $30 trillion, or some ridiculous figure. Remember the media is just an arm of the government, whose purpose is to misinform you. The only truth you are going to find anymore is on the Internet. Soon that will be censored like it was in China and Australia . Congress is busy trying to censor the Internet already. This is the last bastion of freedom.
Operation Twist will just further ruin the economy. You let the free market set interest rates. The free market always tells you what is real. By raising short term interest rates and lowering long term interest rates this just further destroys the economy. The new “millionaire tax” is obviously a fraud. There are only a tiny handful of people making $200,000+, or couples making $250,000+ a year. You could never get a half trillion dollars in taxes from them with a 5% surcharge. That’s preposterous. THIS IS GOING TO BE A TAX ON EVERYONE WITH A JOB! A tax to support the 50% in this country who pay no taxes at all. A tax to support the 50% who get some kind of government check every month. A perfect Marxist plan from a president who is proud of being a Marxist, and brags about being one. The American sheeple elected a man knowing he was an avowed Marxist. You think this isn’t End Times?
The pseudo-conservatives are pushing Herman Cain as a True Conservative. What a load of crap! Cain is just another worthless neocon who wants to kill everyone in the Mideast , voted for TARP, was a Federal Reserve chairman, endorsed Romney in 2008, and refused to audit the Fed. What a piece of crap. Ron Paul doesn't exist, unless someone wants to criticize him or claim he came in last in some fake poll. Right now it is probably Romney versus Obama in 2012. It doesn't matter folks. The media will decide the election like they always do. The media will decide the president. The media is just the government disinformation agency. It does not matter which puppet is in office, as the same puppet masters remain behind the curtain. There is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans. There is only one party in America- the Republicrat Party, aka the Sheeple/moron Party. Ron Paul is technically running as a Republican because it is the practical thing to do. Many states have simply taken the Libertarian party off the ballot. Please support Ron Paul as much as you can. Do the right thing. Never vote for the “lesser of two evils”, because that means you are voting for evil.
The Senate is going to pass bill S1619, which will raise taxes on all products shipped from China to “punish” them. It will, in fact, punish all Americans. All taxes are bad taxes! The Chinese won’t pay a penny in taxes here. Americans will pay every bit of it. This especially hurts the poor and retired. We all know how many products we get from China . This insane bill will just raise prices on countless products we buy every day. This will just lower our standard of living. Go to www.downsizedc.org if you want to oppose this bill. They make it easy and idiot proof. Support Downsize DC if you can. They are sincere, honest people who work for freedom. Another good organization is Citizens for Health at www.citizens.org. You can learn about the NDI proposal to stop supplements and what you can do about it. That’s right, the FDA is going to enact new “dietary guidelines” which will end all your vitamins and supplements. Go there, learn about this, and write and email Margaret Hamburg at the FDA.
This is why you hear all this anti-vitamin propaganda. Vitamin supplements are “dangerous” and “harmful”. Fake studies are used to promote this stupidity. This week it was “vitamin E causes more prostate cancer.” Write and email Margaret if you want to keep taking them.
As goes California , so goes the nation. This has been true for over 150 years now. Governor Moonbeam just signed a bill allowing all school children over 12 to get Gardasil vaccines without parental permission or knowledge. Remember that bringing an aspirin tablet to school (Zero Drug Tolerance Policy) results in expulsion. Any 12 year old boy or girl can get a dangerous, toxic Garasil vaccination and never tell their parents. How much did Merck pay Moonbeam to do this? More than they paid Rick Perry in Texas to mandate Gardasil for all school girls over 12? Now the teachers will have sex education classes and tell the girls (and boys) they must get Gardasil vaccinations to be “safe”. Why not just allow 12 year old children to drive cars, buy guns, drink alcohol, and have sex with adults? This is criminal folks. California is hopelessly bankrupt because the voters chose open immigration and socialism. What happens in California always predicts what will happen in America , and history proves this. America has open immigration, rampant socialism, growing Marxism, and bigger government every day. California is the most bankrupt state in America because of Big Government. It has been legitimately compared to Greece . Watch California go totally down the toilet, and then watch the other 49 states follow. It’s just a matter of time, and not much more time.
We haven't discussed the derivatives nuclear bomb in a while. There are $600 trillion in worldwide derivatives. Remember the entire U.S. Gross National Product is only $14 trillion. This is totally insane of course. We can't even define exactly what a derivative is, and they have never existed on the face of this earth before. Four banks own 96% of the American derivatives- J.P. Morgan, Citibank, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs. They are going to go under when these derivatives implode. This may take the rest of the banks down with them. It is just a matter of time; when, not if. Even government shill Warren Buffett warned the $600 trillion derivative time bomb was going to destroy the world economy.
The asinine fairy tale about Iran hiring Mexicans to execute a Saudi official in New York was so ridiculous, so silly, that Fox News (Faux News: we decide what to report) even laughed at it. Alex Jones is a disinformation agent, but still has good things to say. The problem with him is deciding what is true and what is disinformation. He swears America will attack Iran by the end of this month!!!! Israel will get their way as always. This entire anti-Iran insanity is because of Israel . Iran poses no threat to us whatsoever. Iran is a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and has no nuclear weapons. They get regular inspections. They have every right to have nuclear energy plants. Israel , on the other hand, refuses to sign the treaty, has never been inspected, and is known to have at least 400 nuclear weapons. Why is this “all right”? The war drums keep beating for Iran . For years now we have warned you this is a very real threat and will result in retaliation that will devastate this country. Our evil wars of aggression are insane, and the American public is so stupid they support them. We will soon run out of money to support them and we will have to stop. American spends 50% of the entire world military budget with only 5% of the world population. We need to close every military base not on U.S. soil, bring home every solider, and cut our military budget a full 80%. Yes, we can and should spend 10% of the entire world military budget, but not 50%. (But those evil muslims might get us.)
It is vital to understand 9/11 was an inside job. You must understand that. If you don’t want to believe it please Google “9/11 fraud”, “9/11 hoax”, or “9/11 inside job”. It has been more than 10 years now, and another fake attack is overdue. This will be blamed on Iran . This will be a suitcase nuke taking out an entire city, or something equally drastic. No more lousy buildings and airplanes. Be prepared in every way you can for something terrible like this to happen. Move out of the city. Have food, water, fuel, firearms, ammunition, a small generator, and all daily needs like soap, toilet paper, paper towels, etc. This is not a “survivalist” or “doomsday” mentality at all. It is simply common sense to be prepared. This has been the Boy Scout motto for over 100 years. Just be prepared for what is coming. If you take a close look at today you CAN basically see what is going to happen tomorrow. Great events do cast their shadows before them. Just pay attention and you can see what is down the road.
Silver is currently $32. Buy all you can at this price. Silver might fall further from the 17th to the 28th. Buy it now and don’t wait. You must buy bullion and hold it yourself. No paper silver. No storage programs. You must hold the bullion yourself. The best deal is bags of pre-1965 “junk” coins $1,000 face (715 actual ounces) for about $24,000. Many dealers are simply out of silver. Many major dealers like APMEX will take your order and promise delivery next month. That is not a good thing to depend on. Find a dealer who has junk bags in stock. Remember silver is four times better than gold. The silver to gold ratio will fall from 53 to 1 down to the historical, tradition 16 to 1, or even down to 10 to 1. France and Austria have already severely restricted sales of silver and gold for cash. You must use a check, wire transfer, or other means of purchase the government can trace. This will soon increase to other countries. Louisiana has banned all sales of used items for cash. Seriously, you cannot legally have a yard sale anymore. No, I didn’t make that up late at night high on cheap drugs. You have to use a credit card, debit card, or other traceable means of payment. Someone down there lost their mind.
Go to www.revolutionpac.com and look at PAC Blasts Obama for Militarism. This is another short three minute video that shows you how insane our wars of aggression in the Mideast are. The actual video is titled Armed Chinese Troops in Texas. This is only three minutes and very well worth watching. Support these people if you can. This is a great Ron Paul website. They now have a TV ad called Plastic Men. A recent Harris Poll revealed Ron Paul would get 51% of the general vote versus 49% to Obama if the election was held today between the two. Yes, the problem is the media wants you to vote for Romney or Perry. The media will decide the candidates and then decide the president. The media elected Obama, not the sheeple. The sheeple don’t thin, they do as they are told without question.
"The Feds want us to be hamsters on a treadmill," says Paul, "working hard, all day long, to pay high taxes, but otherwise entirely docile and controlled. The huge, expensive, and out-of-control leviathan that we call the Federal Government wants to run every single aspect of our lives. I'm in Congress to cut the government: its taxes, its bureaucrats, its spending, and every single unconstitutional action it takes."
See you in November everyone. Buy all the silver you can at $32. Be prepared for what is down the road. Yes, this is End Times. That means America is done, through, finished, kaput, over. The entire earth is now one big Prison Planet for the first time in history. There is no freedom anywhere on earth now. None anywhere. The American standard of living will be cut in half. After 235 year the greatest country in the world will just be another socialist, welfare Big Government backwater- like Canada , Australia , New Zealand , and all of Europe . Pay attention and you can see what tomorrow will bring.
Copyright © 2008 Economic Rant. All Rights Reserved.
Economic Rant
Home Current Article Back Issues
Current Article
October 17, 2011
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. –W. Churchill
There is only one party in America- the Sheeple Party!!! The nation of sheep and MORONS.
Please go watch this three minute video on the interest payments YOU as a taxpayer are paying. It is incomprehensible. Facts like this prove The Much Greater Depression started years ago. It is only three minutes and most informative.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/VtVbUmcQSuk
Look at this one year chart of Bank of America. This is typical of not only American banks, but most all European banks as well. $15 to $5 in less than a year with no end in sight. When the banks fail, the country fails. The very biggest banks, J.P. Morgan, Citibank, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs are all, in fact, “bankrupt”!!! What an irony. Bankrupt banks.
Did you know George Bush made his famous New World Order speech on 9/11/90? This is obviously the exact same day and month of 9/11 eleven years later. You can Google this to prove it to yourself if you want. No accidents here. No coincidences. Eleven years ago to the very day, George bragged to the world the neocons were going to institute a New World Order, a One World Government. He bragged about it folks.
Unsubscribe from the National Inflation Association (NIA) videos if you are getting them. They have degenerated into a pitiful pumpanddump operation. Their videos are no good and they have nothing of value to say anymore. Go to www.downsizedc.org and get on their mailing list. Donate if you can. These are good people doing good things. There are really very few good websites to go to. Most all of them are pseudo-conservative sites that will not tell you Ft. Knox is empty, 9/11 was an inside job, silver is the best investment, the Federal Reserve is 100% Zionist owned, our evil wars of aggression in the Mideast are a disgrace, the real national debt is over $100 trillion, or even that the real unemployment figure is 23%.
Take one minute to Google “real national debt”. You will see overwhelming proof the REAL national debt is $100 to $200 trillion dollars. It doesn’t matter! It is unpayable. Run the numbers…even at a “mere” $100 trillion that is $330,000 for every man, woman, child, and baby in America. A family of four owes $1.32 million. If the real national debt is $200 trillion that family would owe $2.64 million. What difference does it make? The total GNP (gross national product) is only $14 trillion. All debts get paid all the time every time, either by the buyer or the seller. The American people will pay this incomprehensible debt in the form of the greatest depression the world has ever seen. We are told by the media the National Debt is only $30 trillion, or some ridiculous figure. Remember the media is just an arm of the government, whose purpose is to misinform you. The only truth you are going to find anymore is on the Internet. Soon that will be censored like it was in China and Australia . Congress is busy trying to censor the Internet already. This is the last bastion of freedom.
Operation Twist will just further ruin the economy. You let the free market set interest rates. The free market always tells you what is real. By raising short term interest rates and lowering long term interest rates this just further destroys the economy. The new “millionaire tax” is obviously a fraud. There are only a tiny handful of people making $200,000+, or couples making $250,000+ a year. You could never get a half trillion dollars in taxes from them with a 5% surcharge. That’s preposterous. THIS IS GOING TO BE A TAX ON EVERYONE WITH A JOB! A tax to support the 50% in this country who pay no taxes at all. A tax to support the 50% who get some kind of government check every month. A perfect Marxist plan from a president who is proud of being a Marxist, and brags about being one. The American sheeple elected a man knowing he was an avowed Marxist. You think this isn’t End Times?
The pseudo-conservatives are pushing Herman Cain as a True Conservative. What a load of crap! Cain is just another worthless neocon who wants to kill everyone in the Mideast , voted for TARP, was a Federal Reserve chairman, endorsed Romney in 2008, and refused to audit the Fed. What a piece of crap. Ron Paul doesn't exist, unless someone wants to criticize him or claim he came in last in some fake poll. Right now it is probably Romney versus Obama in 2012. It doesn't matter folks. The media will decide the election like they always do. The media will decide the president. The media is just the government disinformation agency. It does not matter which puppet is in office, as the same puppet masters remain behind the curtain. There is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans. There is only one party in America- the Republicrat Party, aka the Sheeple/moron Party. Ron Paul is technically running as a Republican because it is the practical thing to do. Many states have simply taken the Libertarian party off the ballot. Please support Ron Paul as much as you can. Do the right thing. Never vote for the “lesser of two evils”, because that means you are voting for evil.
The Senate is going to pass bill S1619, which will raise taxes on all products shipped from China to “punish” them. It will, in fact, punish all Americans. All taxes are bad taxes! The Chinese won’t pay a penny in taxes here. Americans will pay every bit of it. This especially hurts the poor and retired. We all know how many products we get from China . This insane bill will just raise prices on countless products we buy every day. This will just lower our standard of living. Go to www.downsizedc.org if you want to oppose this bill. They make it easy and idiot proof. Support Downsize DC if you can. They are sincere, honest people who work for freedom. Another good organization is Citizens for Health at www.citizens.org. You can learn about the NDI proposal to stop supplements and what you can do about it. That’s right, the FDA is going to enact new “dietary guidelines” which will end all your vitamins and supplements. Go there, learn about this, and write and email Margaret Hamburg at the FDA.
This is why you hear all this anti-vitamin propaganda. Vitamin supplements are “dangerous” and “harmful”. Fake studies are used to promote this stupidity. This week it was “vitamin E causes more prostate cancer.” Write and email Margaret if you want to keep taking them.
As goes California , so goes the nation. This has been true for over 150 years now. Governor Moonbeam just signed a bill allowing all school children over 12 to get Gardasil vaccines without parental permission or knowledge. Remember that bringing an aspirin tablet to school (Zero Drug Tolerance Policy) results in expulsion. Any 12 year old boy or girl can get a dangerous, toxic Garasil vaccination and never tell their parents. How much did Merck pay Moonbeam to do this? More than they paid Rick Perry in Texas to mandate Gardasil for all school girls over 12? Now the teachers will have sex education classes and tell the girls (and boys) they must get Gardasil vaccinations to be “safe”. Why not just allow 12 year old children to drive cars, buy guns, drink alcohol, and have sex with adults? This is criminal folks. California is hopelessly bankrupt because the voters chose open immigration and socialism. What happens in California always predicts what will happen in America , and history proves this. America has open immigration, rampant socialism, growing Marxism, and bigger government every day. California is the most bankrupt state in America because of Big Government. It has been legitimately compared to Greece . Watch California go totally down the toilet, and then watch the other 49 states follow. It’s just a matter of time, and not much more time.
We haven't discussed the derivatives nuclear bomb in a while. There are $600 trillion in worldwide derivatives. Remember the entire U.S. Gross National Product is only $14 trillion. This is totally insane of course. We can't even define exactly what a derivative is, and they have never existed on the face of this earth before. Four banks own 96% of the American derivatives- J.P. Morgan, Citibank, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs. They are going to go under when these derivatives implode. This may take the rest of the banks down with them. It is just a matter of time; when, not if. Even government shill Warren Buffett warned the $600 trillion derivative time bomb was going to destroy the world economy.
The asinine fairy tale about Iran hiring Mexicans to execute a Saudi official in New York was so ridiculous, so silly, that Fox News (Faux News: we decide what to report) even laughed at it. Alex Jones is a disinformation agent, but still has good things to say. The problem with him is deciding what is true and what is disinformation. He swears America will attack Iran by the end of this month!!!! Israel will get their way as always. This entire anti-Iran insanity is because of Israel . Iran poses no threat to us whatsoever. Iran is a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and has no nuclear weapons. They get regular inspections. They have every right to have nuclear energy plants. Israel , on the other hand, refuses to sign the treaty, has never been inspected, and is known to have at least 400 nuclear weapons. Why is this “all right”? The war drums keep beating for Iran . For years now we have warned you this is a very real threat and will result in retaliation that will devastate this country. Our evil wars of aggression are insane, and the American public is so stupid they support them. We will soon run out of money to support them and we will have to stop. American spends 50% of the entire world military budget with only 5% of the world population. We need to close every military base not on U.S. soil, bring home every solider, and cut our military budget a full 80%. Yes, we can and should spend 10% of the entire world military budget, but not 50%. (But those evil muslims might get us.)
It is vital to understand 9/11 was an inside job. You must understand that. If you don’t want to believe it please Google “9/11 fraud”, “9/11 hoax”, or “9/11 inside job”. It has been more than 10 years now, and another fake attack is overdue. This will be blamed on Iran . This will be a suitcase nuke taking out an entire city, or something equally drastic. No more lousy buildings and airplanes. Be prepared in every way you can for something terrible like this to happen. Move out of the city. Have food, water, fuel, firearms, ammunition, a small generator, and all daily needs like soap, toilet paper, paper towels, etc. This is not a “survivalist” or “doomsday” mentality at all. It is simply common sense to be prepared. This has been the Boy Scout motto for over 100 years. Just be prepared for what is coming. If you take a close look at today you CAN basically see what is going to happen tomorrow. Great events do cast their shadows before them. Just pay attention and you can see what is down the road.
Silver is currently $32. Buy all you can at this price. Silver might fall further from the 17th to the 28th. Buy it now and don’t wait. You must buy bullion and hold it yourself. No paper silver. No storage programs. You must hold the bullion yourself. The best deal is bags of pre-1965 “junk” coins $1,000 face (715 actual ounces) for about $24,000. Many dealers are simply out of silver. Many major dealers like APMEX will take your order and promise delivery next month. That is not a good thing to depend on. Find a dealer who has junk bags in stock. Remember silver is four times better than gold. The silver to gold ratio will fall from 53 to 1 down to the historical, tradition 16 to 1, or even down to 10 to 1. France and Austria have already severely restricted sales of silver and gold for cash. You must use a check, wire transfer, or other means of purchase the government can trace. This will soon increase to other countries. Louisiana has banned all sales of used items for cash. Seriously, you cannot legally have a yard sale anymore. No, I didn’t make that up late at night high on cheap drugs. You have to use a credit card, debit card, or other traceable means of payment. Someone down there lost their mind.
Go to www.revolutionpac.com and look at PAC Blasts Obama for Militarism. This is another short three minute video that shows you how insane our wars of aggression in the Mideast are. The actual video is titled Armed Chinese Troops in Texas. This is only three minutes and very well worth watching. Support these people if you can. This is a great Ron Paul website. They now have a TV ad called Plastic Men. A recent Harris Poll revealed Ron Paul would get 51% of the general vote versus 49% to Obama if the election was held today between the two. Yes, the problem is the media wants you to vote for Romney or Perry. The media will decide the candidates and then decide the president. The media elected Obama, not the sheeple. The sheeple don’t thin, they do as they are told without question.
"The Feds want us to be hamsters on a treadmill," says Paul, "working hard, all day long, to pay high taxes, but otherwise entirely docile and controlled. The huge, expensive, and out-of-control leviathan that we call the Federal Government wants to run every single aspect of our lives. I'm in Congress to cut the government: its taxes, its bureaucrats, its spending, and every single unconstitutional action it takes."
See you in November everyone. Buy all the silver you can at $32. Be prepared for what is down the road. Yes, this is End Times. That means America is done, through, finished, kaput, over. The entire earth is now one big Prison Planet for the first time in history. There is no freedom anywhere on earth now. None anywhere. The American standard of living will be cut in half. After 235 year the greatest country in the world will just be another socialist, welfare Big Government backwater- like Canada , Australia , New Zealand , and all of Europe . Pay attention and you can see what tomorrow will bring.
Copyright © 2008 Economic Rant. All Rights Reserved.
US forces 'massing on Afghanistan-Pakistan border'
This latest insanity, and the coming attack on Iran, are probably the final moves in the overall plan to destroy the U.S. military..... And there is no doubt that the Chinese will get involved. But on the positive side, just think of all those muslim terrorists that will be killed......
Subject: US forces 'massing on Afghanistan-Pakistan border'
US forces are massing on the Pakistan border in eastern Afghanistan amid reports of an imminent drone missile offensive against fighters from the feared Haqqani Network, a Taliban faction which operates from safe havens in Pakistan's North Waziristan Agency, Pakistan Army sources have confirmed. Any large scale incursion into Pakistan will bring a Chinese military response.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8834040/US-forces-massing-on-Afghanistan-Pakistan-border.html
US forces 'massing on Afghanistan-Pakistan border'
US forces are massing on the Pakistan border in eastern Afghanistan amid reports of an imminent drone missile offensive against fighters from the feared Haqqani Network, a Taliban faction which operates from safe havens in Pakistan's North Waziristan Agency, Pakistan Army sources have confirmed.
US forces 'massing on Afghanistan-Pakistan border'
A US soldier stands guard in the Turkham Nangarhar region of Afghanistan, which borders Pakistan Photo: AFP/GETTY
Dean Nelson
By Dean Nelson, South Asia Editor and Javed Siddiq in Islamabad
2:19PM BST 18 Oct 2011
The scale of the American build-up, including helicopter gunships, heavy artillery and hundreds of American and Afghan troops, caused panic in north Waziristan where tribal militias who feared they could be targeted gathered in the capital Miranshah to coordinate their response. (This should make the flag waiving nitwits real happy).
Local officials in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) warned that Pakistan's armed forces would repel any incursion across the border by American forces, but military sources in Islamabad and Afghan officials suggested the build-up was part of a coordinated operation.
Relations between Washington and Islamabad have deteriorated dramatically in recent months as American officials increased pressure on Pakistan to launch an offensive against the Haqqani Network, which mounts attacks on Nato forces in Afghanistan from bases in North Waziristan.
Islamabad has fiercely resisted American pressure, claiming its forces are overstretched and stating its priority is to fight Taliban factions which have declared war on Pakistan, rather than those, like the Haqqanis, who focus on cross-border attacks on Nato forces.
Last month Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the U.S Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently accused Pakistan's ISI intelligence service of plotting the attack on the US embassy in Kabul with Haqqani network fighters and claimed the militant group was a "veritable arm" of the ISI.
Islamabad and Washington have traded accusations since then, but the massing of American troops on the Afghan border appears to suggest some understanding may have been reached.
According to Pakistan Army sources, the U.S had informed Islamabad about the planned build-up and described it as part of a "cordon and search operation" in which Haqqani Network fighters will be pushed over the Afghan border from North Waziristan and then "encircled, arrested or killed" by American forces lying in wait.
A spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul declined to comment on the build-up. A spokesman for the Pakistan Army said it had not been informed about the number of American troops on the border but it was reported that American and Afghan troops had established curfews in eastern Khost province, conducted house to house searches, established checkpoints and occupied hilltops close to Ghulam Khan on the Pakistan side of the border.
The Haqqani Network and militant allies have increased in strength on both sides of the border over the last two years and have been blamed for a summer increase in cross-border raids on Nato positions in eastern Afghanistan.
Subject: US forces 'massing on Afghanistan-Pakistan border'
US forces are massing on the Pakistan border in eastern Afghanistan amid reports of an imminent drone missile offensive against fighters from the feared Haqqani Network, a Taliban faction which operates from safe havens in Pakistan's North Waziristan Agency, Pakistan Army sources have confirmed. Any large scale incursion into Pakistan will bring a Chinese military response.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8834040/US-forces-massing-on-Afghanistan-Pakistan-border.html
US forces 'massing on Afghanistan-Pakistan border'
US forces are massing on the Pakistan border in eastern Afghanistan amid reports of an imminent drone missile offensive against fighters from the feared Haqqani Network, a Taliban faction which operates from safe havens in Pakistan's North Waziristan Agency, Pakistan Army sources have confirmed.
US forces 'massing on Afghanistan-Pakistan border'
A US soldier stands guard in the Turkham Nangarhar region of Afghanistan, which borders Pakistan Photo: AFP/GETTY
Dean Nelson
By Dean Nelson, South Asia Editor and Javed Siddiq in Islamabad
2:19PM BST 18 Oct 2011
The scale of the American build-up, including helicopter gunships, heavy artillery and hundreds of American and Afghan troops, caused panic in north Waziristan where tribal militias who feared they could be targeted gathered in the capital Miranshah to coordinate their response. (This should make the flag waiving nitwits real happy).
Local officials in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) warned that Pakistan's armed forces would repel any incursion across the border by American forces, but military sources in Islamabad and Afghan officials suggested the build-up was part of a coordinated operation.
Relations between Washington and Islamabad have deteriorated dramatically in recent months as American officials increased pressure on Pakistan to launch an offensive against the Haqqani Network, which mounts attacks on Nato forces in Afghanistan from bases in North Waziristan.
Islamabad has fiercely resisted American pressure, claiming its forces are overstretched and stating its priority is to fight Taliban factions which have declared war on Pakistan, rather than those, like the Haqqanis, who focus on cross-border attacks on Nato forces.
Last month Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the U.S Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently accused Pakistan's ISI intelligence service of plotting the attack on the US embassy in Kabul with Haqqani network fighters and claimed the militant group was a "veritable arm" of the ISI.
Islamabad and Washington have traded accusations since then, but the massing of American troops on the Afghan border appears to suggest some understanding may have been reached.
According to Pakistan Army sources, the U.S had informed Islamabad about the planned build-up and described it as part of a "cordon and search operation" in which Haqqani Network fighters will be pushed over the Afghan border from North Waziristan and then "encircled, arrested or killed" by American forces lying in wait.
A spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul declined to comment on the build-up. A spokesman for the Pakistan Army said it had not been informed about the number of American troops on the border but it was reported that American and Afghan troops had established curfews in eastern Khost province, conducted house to house searches, established checkpoints and occupied hilltops close to Ghulam Khan on the Pakistan side of the border.
The Haqqani Network and militant allies have increased in strength on both sides of the border over the last two years and have been blamed for a summer increase in cross-border raids on Nato positions in eastern Afghanistan.
Gadhafi's Death in Perspective
from STRATFOR
Gadhafi's Death in Perspective
October 20, 2011
Related Content
Gadhafi Coverage
Rebel fighters killed former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi on Oct. 20 outside the town of Sirte. His body was then brought back to Misurata, where it was filmed being dragged through the streets. Several close aides, including family members, have been reported killed or captured as well.
Gadhafi’s death is symbolically important for the rebels, but the fall of Sirte is even more significant for the effect it will have on the future stability of Libya. With the final holdout of the pro-Gadhafi resistance overtaken, the National Transitional Council (NTC) can now move to form a transitional government. But multiple armed groups across the country will demand a significant stake in that government, which will have serious implications for the future unity of the people who heretofore were referred as the Libyan opposition.
Though the Benghazi-based NTC has been widely recognized in the international community as the sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people, this has long since ceased to be the case in the eyes of many Libyans. The NTC is one of several political forces in the country. Since the rebel forces entered Tripoli on Aug. 21, there has been a steady increase of armed groups hailing from places such as Misurata, Zentan, Tripoli and even eastern Libya itself that have questioned the authority of leading NTC members.
These groups have been occupying different parts of the capital for two months now, despite calls by the NTC (and some of the groups themselves) to vacate. They also have been participating in the sieges of cities in which pro-Gadhafi remnants continued to hold out after the fall of Tripoli. Throughout this period, the NTC has repeatedly delayed the formation of a transitional government, in recent weeks citing the ongoing fight against Gadhafi as the reason. NTC leaders said that once the war was finally over, the official “liberation” of Libya would be declared and a transitional government would be formed. The fall of Sirte means this moment is at hand.
With so many armed groups operating in Tripoli and elsewhere in Libya, a peaceful resolution to the question of who should take power is unlikely. The main groupings come from Benghazi, Misurata, Zentan and Tripoli, but there are other, smaller militias as well that will want to ensure they are represented in the new Libya. The divide is not simply geographic but also exists between Islamists and secularists as well as between Berbers and Arabs.
The shape of the new Libya is highly uncertain, but what is clear is that the NTC is not going to simply take control where Gadhafi left off. Certain members of its leadership may play a key role in any transitional government, but not without serious compromises or, even more likely, violence occurring in the process. Pro-Gadhafi tribal elements in the last region to fall to rebel fighters also will be a potential source of violence in the coming months, as they will fight to make sure they are not left out of the future power structure.
Gadhafi's Death in Perspective
October 20, 2011
Related Content
Gadhafi Coverage
Rebel fighters killed former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi on Oct. 20 outside the town of Sirte. His body was then brought back to Misurata, where it was filmed being dragged through the streets. Several close aides, including family members, have been reported killed or captured as well.
Gadhafi’s death is symbolically important for the rebels, but the fall of Sirte is even more significant for the effect it will have on the future stability of Libya. With the final holdout of the pro-Gadhafi resistance overtaken, the National Transitional Council (NTC) can now move to form a transitional government. But multiple armed groups across the country will demand a significant stake in that government, which will have serious implications for the future unity of the people who heretofore were referred as the Libyan opposition.
Though the Benghazi-based NTC has been widely recognized in the international community as the sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people, this has long since ceased to be the case in the eyes of many Libyans. The NTC is one of several political forces in the country. Since the rebel forces entered Tripoli on Aug. 21, there has been a steady increase of armed groups hailing from places such as Misurata, Zentan, Tripoli and even eastern Libya itself that have questioned the authority of leading NTC members.
These groups have been occupying different parts of the capital for two months now, despite calls by the NTC (and some of the groups themselves) to vacate. They also have been participating in the sieges of cities in which pro-Gadhafi remnants continued to hold out after the fall of Tripoli. Throughout this period, the NTC has repeatedly delayed the formation of a transitional government, in recent weeks citing the ongoing fight against Gadhafi as the reason. NTC leaders said that once the war was finally over, the official “liberation” of Libya would be declared and a transitional government would be formed. The fall of Sirte means this moment is at hand.
With so many armed groups operating in Tripoli and elsewhere in Libya, a peaceful resolution to the question of who should take power is unlikely. The main groupings come from Benghazi, Misurata, Zentan and Tripoli, but there are other, smaller militias as well that will want to ensure they are represented in the new Libya. The divide is not simply geographic but also exists between Islamists and secularists as well as between Berbers and Arabs.
The shape of the new Libya is highly uncertain, but what is clear is that the NTC is not going to simply take control where Gadhafi left off. Certain members of its leadership may play a key role in any transitional government, but not without serious compromises or, even more likely, violence occurring in the process. Pro-Gadhafi tribal elements in the last region to fall to rebel fighters also will be a potential source of violence in the coming months, as they will fight to make sure they are not left out of the future power structure.
History Repeating Itself: U.S. Hawks Hover Over Iran
http://hamsayeh.net/society/1268-history-repeating-itself-us-hawks-hover-over-iran.html
Sunday, 23 October 2011 06:17:12
History Repeating Itself: U.S. Hawks Hover Over Iran
Wednesday, 19 October 2011 08:03
by William Echols RT October 18, 2011
Whether calls for war against Iran are meant to placate American allies in the Middle East who cannot stomach its supposed nuclear ambitions, are an attempt to reassert US dominance in the oil rich region, or are the last signs of a flagging empire lashing out in self-denial, those who are longing for it to be morning again in America might very well expedite its imperial twilight.
History seems to be repeating itself as the hawks who called for the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein are now rattling their sabers for war against Iran. But why are those who once called for a new American Century hopelessly stuck in a bygone era?
In a bellicose diatribe published in the latest edition of the Weekly Standard, senior editor William Kristol accuses Iran of having the blood of American soldiers on its hands. Claiming that “force” is the only language the regime understands, he proceeds to call on the US Congress to “consider authorizing the use of force against Iranian entities that facilitate attacks on our troops, against IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) and other regime elements that sponsor terror, and against the regime’s nuclear weapons program.”
In an October 17 Foreign Policy initiative (FPI) Bulletin, executive director Jamie Fly toes the same line, proclaiming:
“Until now, the president has chosen to be the hapless victim of Iran’s machinations. It is time for President Obama to follow in the footsteps of his predecessors and stand up to tyrants who kill Americans and threaten our interests.
"It is time to take military action against the Iranian government elements that support terrorism and its nuclear program. More diplomacy is not an adequate response.”
Speaking to Fox News on Monday, former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said it was “unfortunate” that Iran did not fear a possible military response in light of recent allegations of an Iranian assassination plot on US soil. Somewhat ironically, Bolton also described President Barack Obama’s recent decision to send 100 troops to stem off a humanitarian crisis in Central Africa as “damaging to our efforts to preserve our military budget.”
It is little wonder that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asserts the latest accusations that Iran sought to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US was eerily reminiscent of the weapons of mass destruction claims which provided the casus belli for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"In the past the US administration claimed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They said it so strongly, they offered and presented documentation and everyone said 'yes, we believe in you, we buy it'," Ahmadinejad said in a live interview on Al Jazeera television.
Ahmadinejad’s cause for alarm might seem justified under the circumstances. Ever since George W. Bush’s January 29, 2002 State of the Union Address, wherein Iran (along with Iraq and North Korea) were labeled as the “Axis of Evil”, neo-conservative policy wonks and senior-level government officials have had the country in their sights. And much like Iraq, the case for war is as mercurial and adaptive as the public opinion it caters to.
Kristol for his part was one of the key proponents for regime change in Iraq, outlining the case in a 2003 book he co-authored entitled The War Over Iraq: Saddam's Tyranny and America's Mission. But his desire to effect regime change in the Middle East has earlier roots.
In a 1996 Foreign Affairs article, William Kristol, challenging what he believed was “a tepid consensus that accepts decline of US power in the world as inevitable,” called for a neo-Reaganite foreign policy which would pursue “benevolent hegemony” and “wield its authority unabashedly.”
By June 1997, William Kristol, along with several other prominent neo-conservatives who would have high-level administrative positions in the Bush administration (including Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and Elliot Abrams), not to mention his brother Jeb Bush, signed off on a statement of principles intended to usher in this halcyon era of American military strength and moral clarity. This statement of principles would come to define the Project for a New American Century.
The four key principles called for increased defense spending and force modernization, the strengthening of ties with democratic allies and the willingness to confront regimes hostile to American interests, the promotion of political and economic freedom abroad, and the “need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.”
Subsequently, on January 26, 1998, the group sent a letter to then-President Bill Clinton urging his administration to implement “a strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power.”
The history of what happened when a sympathetic Bush administration coupled with the tragic events of 9/11 provided the pretext for implementing this neo-Reaganite foreign policy is well-trodden territory. The question is, why are they doing it again?
On most counts, the allegations against Iran seem to defy logic. Writing for Time Magazine, former CIA field officer Robert Baer claimed that the plot as described by FBI Director Robert Muller was something one might find in “a truly awful Hollywood script.” He went on to say that “none of it measures up to Iran’s unsurpassed skill in conducting assassinations.”
But while the idea of an Iranian-American used-car salesman attempting to organize a hit on the Saudi Arabian ambassador via the proxy of a Mexican drug cartel seems out of character for the fiercely professional Quds Force – a special unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard responsible for extraterritorial operations – the far-fetched tale seems a perfect match for the American imagination. Such a flourish for the theatrical has been on display before, most notably, when then US Secretary of State Colin Powell held up a vial he said could contain anthrax while speaking to the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003.
However, with US national debt at some 15 trillion dollars, a potential $1 trillion in defense spending cuts on the table, and a recent report carried out by the Eisenhower Research Project at Brown University predicting that the cost of war in Afghanistan and Iraq could reach some $4 trillion, does the American public have the stomach or the means to prosecute another war?
When taking all of those factors into account, the murky world of realpolitik and multilateralism that many neo-conservatives helped bring about by aggressively pushing America towards the brink of imperial overstretch during the Bush years does not sit well with an ideology that views the world within a good vs. evil binary. Kristol for his part saw America sinking into the abyss during an era when the United States economic and military dominance ushered the term hyperpower into the collective consciousness.
But as an entrenched economic crisis limits the United States' ability to project its military dominance and a decade of war has evaporated its moral currency around the world, it has become clear that many of the neo-conservatives pushing for war against Iran now ultimately have their own chief ideologues to blame for America’s precipitous decline. Whether calls for war against Iran are meant to placate American allies in the Middle East who cannot stomach its supposed nuclear ambitions, are an attempt to reassert US dominance in the oil rich region, or are the last signs of a flagging empire lashing out in self-denial, those who are longing for it to be morning again in America might very well expedite its imperial twilight.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 08:14
Sunday, 23 October 2011 06:17:12
History Repeating Itself: U.S. Hawks Hover Over Iran
Wednesday, 19 October 2011 08:03
by William Echols RT October 18, 2011
Whether calls for war against Iran are meant to placate American allies in the Middle East who cannot stomach its supposed nuclear ambitions, are an attempt to reassert US dominance in the oil rich region, or are the last signs of a flagging empire lashing out in self-denial, those who are longing for it to be morning again in America might very well expedite its imperial twilight.
History seems to be repeating itself as the hawks who called for the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein are now rattling their sabers for war against Iran. But why are those who once called for a new American Century hopelessly stuck in a bygone era?
In a bellicose diatribe published in the latest edition of the Weekly Standard, senior editor William Kristol accuses Iran of having the blood of American soldiers on its hands. Claiming that “force” is the only language the regime understands, he proceeds to call on the US Congress to “consider authorizing the use of force against Iranian entities that facilitate attacks on our troops, against IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) and other regime elements that sponsor terror, and against the regime’s nuclear weapons program.”
In an October 17 Foreign Policy initiative (FPI) Bulletin, executive director Jamie Fly toes the same line, proclaiming:
“Until now, the president has chosen to be the hapless victim of Iran’s machinations. It is time for President Obama to follow in the footsteps of his predecessors and stand up to tyrants who kill Americans and threaten our interests.
"It is time to take military action against the Iranian government elements that support terrorism and its nuclear program. More diplomacy is not an adequate response.”
Speaking to Fox News on Monday, former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said it was “unfortunate” that Iran did not fear a possible military response in light of recent allegations of an Iranian assassination plot on US soil. Somewhat ironically, Bolton also described President Barack Obama’s recent decision to send 100 troops to stem off a humanitarian crisis in Central Africa as “damaging to our efforts to preserve our military budget.”
It is little wonder that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asserts the latest accusations that Iran sought to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US was eerily reminiscent of the weapons of mass destruction claims which provided the casus belli for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"In the past the US administration claimed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They said it so strongly, they offered and presented documentation and everyone said 'yes, we believe in you, we buy it'," Ahmadinejad said in a live interview on Al Jazeera television.
Ahmadinejad’s cause for alarm might seem justified under the circumstances. Ever since George W. Bush’s January 29, 2002 State of the Union Address, wherein Iran (along with Iraq and North Korea) were labeled as the “Axis of Evil”, neo-conservative policy wonks and senior-level government officials have had the country in their sights. And much like Iraq, the case for war is as mercurial and adaptive as the public opinion it caters to.
Kristol for his part was one of the key proponents for regime change in Iraq, outlining the case in a 2003 book he co-authored entitled The War Over Iraq: Saddam's Tyranny and America's Mission. But his desire to effect regime change in the Middle East has earlier roots.
In a 1996 Foreign Affairs article, William Kristol, challenging what he believed was “a tepid consensus that accepts decline of US power in the world as inevitable,” called for a neo-Reaganite foreign policy which would pursue “benevolent hegemony” and “wield its authority unabashedly.”
By June 1997, William Kristol, along with several other prominent neo-conservatives who would have high-level administrative positions in the Bush administration (including Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and Elliot Abrams), not to mention his brother Jeb Bush, signed off on a statement of principles intended to usher in this halcyon era of American military strength and moral clarity. This statement of principles would come to define the Project for a New American Century.
The four key principles called for increased defense spending and force modernization, the strengthening of ties with democratic allies and the willingness to confront regimes hostile to American interests, the promotion of political and economic freedom abroad, and the “need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.”
Subsequently, on January 26, 1998, the group sent a letter to then-President Bill Clinton urging his administration to implement “a strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power.”
The history of what happened when a sympathetic Bush administration coupled with the tragic events of 9/11 provided the pretext for implementing this neo-Reaganite foreign policy is well-trodden territory. The question is, why are they doing it again?
On most counts, the allegations against Iran seem to defy logic. Writing for Time Magazine, former CIA field officer Robert Baer claimed that the plot as described by FBI Director Robert Muller was something one might find in “a truly awful Hollywood script.” He went on to say that “none of it measures up to Iran’s unsurpassed skill in conducting assassinations.”
But while the idea of an Iranian-American used-car salesman attempting to organize a hit on the Saudi Arabian ambassador via the proxy of a Mexican drug cartel seems out of character for the fiercely professional Quds Force – a special unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard responsible for extraterritorial operations – the far-fetched tale seems a perfect match for the American imagination. Such a flourish for the theatrical has been on display before, most notably, when then US Secretary of State Colin Powell held up a vial he said could contain anthrax while speaking to the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003.
However, with US national debt at some 15 trillion dollars, a potential $1 trillion in defense spending cuts on the table, and a recent report carried out by the Eisenhower Research Project at Brown University predicting that the cost of war in Afghanistan and Iraq could reach some $4 trillion, does the American public have the stomach or the means to prosecute another war?
When taking all of those factors into account, the murky world of realpolitik and multilateralism that many neo-conservatives helped bring about by aggressively pushing America towards the brink of imperial overstretch during the Bush years does not sit well with an ideology that views the world within a good vs. evil binary. Kristol for his part saw America sinking into the abyss during an era when the United States economic and military dominance ushered the term hyperpower into the collective consciousness.
But as an entrenched economic crisis limits the United States' ability to project its military dominance and a decade of war has evaporated its moral currency around the world, it has become clear that many of the neo-conservatives pushing for war against Iran now ultimately have their own chief ideologues to blame for America’s precipitous decline. Whether calls for war against Iran are meant to placate American allies in the Middle East who cannot stomach its supposed nuclear ambitions, are an attempt to reassert US dominance in the oil rich region, or are the last signs of a flagging empire lashing out in self-denial, those who are longing for it to be morning again in America might very well expedite its imperial twilight.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 08:14
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)