U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry delivers remarks at the Strong Cities Network International Visitors Leadership Program for Municipal Leaders and Countering Violence Extremism Experts event at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., on March 1, 2016. [State Department photo/ Public Domain]

Participants at a conference on Somali Role in Countering Extremism held in Djibouti, on December 15, 2015. this was conducted by the AMISOM Human Rights and Gender Unit. AMISOM Photo

The Kyrgyz Republic representative participates in the third session of the White House Summit to Combat Violent Extremism -- Building Secure and Resilient Communities that Reject and Condemn Violent Extremism: Effective Policies, Programs, and Challenges -- at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., on February 19, 2015. [State Department photo/ Public Domain]

May 19, 2011 State Department, Washington, DC .-

"I want to begin by thanking Hillary Clinton, who has traveled so much these last six months that she is approaching a new landmark -- one million frequent flyer miles.I count on Hillary every single day, and I believe that she will go down as one of the finest Secretaries of State in our nation’s history.

The State Department is a fitting venue to mark a new chapter in American diplomacy. For six months, we have witnessed an extraordinary change taking place in the Middle East and North Africa. Square by square, town by town, country by country, the people have risen up to demand their basic human rights. Two leaders have stepped aside. More may follow. And though these countries may be a great distance from our shores, we know that our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security, by history and by faith. Today, I want to talk about this change -- the forces that are driving it and how we can respond in a way that advances our values and strengthens our security.

Now, already, we’ve done much to shift our foreign policy following a decade defined by two costly conflicts. After years of war in Iraq, we’ve removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there. In Afghanistan, we’ve broken the Taliban’s momentum, and this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue a transition to Afghan lead. And after years of war against al Qaeda and its affiliates, we have dealt al Qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader, Osama bin Laden.

Bin Laden was no martyr. He was a mass murderer who offered a message of hate –- an insistence that Muslims had to take up arms against the West, and that violence against men, women and children was the only path to change. He rejected democracy and individual rights for Muslims in favor of violent extremism; his agenda focused on what he could destroy -– not what he could build.

Bin Laden and his murderous vision won some adherents. But even before his death, al Qaeda was losing its struggle for relevance, as the overwhelming majority of people saw that the slaughter of innocents did not answer their cries for a better life. By the time we found bin Laden, al Qaeda’s agenda had come to be seen by the vast majority of the region as a dead end, and the people of the Middle East and North Africa had taken their future into their own hands.

That story of self-determination began six months ago in Tunisia. On December 17th, a young vendor named Mohammed Bouazizi was devastated when a police officer confiscated his cart. This was not unique. It’s the same kind of humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world -– the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity. Only this time, something different happened. After local officials refused to hear his complaints, this young man, who had never been particularly active in politics, went to the headquarters of the provincial government, doused himself in fuel, and lit himself on fire.

There are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat. So it was in Tunisia, as that vendor’s act of desperation tapped into the frustration felt throughout the country. Hundreds of protesters took to the streets, then thousands. And in the face of batons and sometimes bullets, they refused to go home –- day after day, week after week -- until a dictator of more than two decades finally left power.

The story of this revolution, and the ones that followed, should not have come as a surprise. The nations of the Middle East and North Africa won their independence long ago, but in too many places their people did not. In too many countries, power has been concentrated in the hands of a few. In too many countries, a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn -– no honest judiciary to hear his case; no independent media to give him voice; no credible political party to represent his views; no free and fair election where he could choose his leader.

And this lack of self-determination –- the chance to make your life what you will –- has applied to the region’s economy as well. Yes, some nations are blessed with wealth in oil and gas, and that has led to pockets of prosperity. But in a global economy based on knowledge, based on innovation, no development strategy can be based solely upon what comes out of the ground. Nor can people reach their potential when you cannot start a business without paying a bribe.

In the face of these challenges, too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people’s grievances elsewhere. The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half-century after the end of colonialism. Antagonism toward Israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression. Divisions of tribe, ethnicity and religious sect were manipulated as a means of holding on to power, or taking it away from somebody else.

But the events of the past six months show us that strategies of repression and strategies of diversion will not work anymore. Satellite television and the Internet provide a window into the wider world -– a world of astonishing progress in places like India and Indonesia and Brazil. Cell phones and social networks allow young people to connect and organize like never before. And so a new generation has emerged. And their voices tell us that change cannot be denied.

In Cairo, we heard the voice of the young mother who said, “It’s like I can finally breathe fresh air for the first time.” In Sanaa, we heard the students who chanted, “The night must come to an end.” In Benghazi, we heard the engineer who said, “Our words are free now. It’s a feeling you can’t explain.” In Damascus, we heard the young man who said, “After the first yelling, the first shout, you feel dignity.” Those shouts of human dignity are being heard across the region. And through the moral force of nonviolence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades.

Of course, change of this magnitude does not come easily. In our day and age -– a time of 24-hour news cycles and constant communication –- people expect the transformation of the region to be resolved in a matter of weeks. But it will be years before this story reaches its end. Along the way, there will be good days and there will bad days. In some places, change will be swift; in others, gradual. And as we’ve already seen, calls for change may give way, in some cases, to fierce contests for power.

The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds. For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.

We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America’s interests are not hostile to people’s hopes; they’re essential to them. We believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al Qaeda’s brutal attacks. We believe people everywhere would see their economies crippled by a cut-off in energy supplies. As we did in the Gulf War, we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.

Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind. Moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our interests at their expense. Given that this mistrust runs both ways –- as Americans have been seared by hostage-taking and violent rhetoric and terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of our citizens -– a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and the Arab world.

And that’s why, two years ago in Cairo, I began to broaden our engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. I believed then -– and I believe now -– that we have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals. The status quo is not sustainable. Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder.

So we face a historic opportunity. We have the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator. There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity. Yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise. But after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.

Of course, as we do, we must proceed with a sense of humility. It’s not America that put people into the streets of Tunis or Cairo -– it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and it’s the people themselves that must ultimately determine their outcome. Not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short-term interests don’t align perfectly with our long-term vision for the region. But we can, and we will, speak out for a set of core principles –- principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months: The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region. The United States supports a set of universal rights. And these rights include free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own leaders -– whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus, Sanaa or Tehran. And we support political and economic reform in the Middle East and North Africa that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region. Our support for these principles is not a secondary interest. Today I want to make it clear that it is a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions, and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal.

Let me be specific. First, it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy. That effort begins in Egypt and Tunisia, where the stakes are high -– as Tunisia was at the vanguard of this democratic wave, and Egypt is both a longstanding partner and the Arab world’s largest nation. Both nations can set a strong example through free and fair elections, a vibrant civil society, accountable and effective democratic institutions, and responsible regional leadership. But our support must also extend to nations where transitions have yet to take place.

Unfortunately, in too many countries, calls for change have thus far been answered by violence. The most extreme example is Libya, where Muammar Qaddafi launched a war against his own people, promising to hunt them down like rats. As I said when the United States joined an international coalition to intervene, we cannot prevent every injustice perpetrated by a regime against its people, and we have learned from our experience in Iraq just how costly and difficult it is to try to impose regime change by force -– no matter how well-intentioned it may be.

But in Libya, we saw the prospect of imminent massacre, we had a mandate for action, and heard the Libyan people’s call for help. Had we not acted along with our NATO allies and regional coalition partners, thousands would have been killed. The message would have been clear: Keep power by killing as many people as it takes. Now, time is working against Qaddafi. He does not have control over his country. The opposition has organized a legitimate and credible Interim Council. And when Qaddafi inevitably leaves or is forced from power, decades of provocation will come to an end, and the transition to a democratic Libya can proceed.

While Libya has faced violence on the greatest scale, it’s not the only place where leaders have turned to repression to remain in power. Most recently, the Syrian regime has chosen the path of murder and the mass arrests of its citizens. The United States has condemned these actions, and working with the international community we have stepped up our sanctions on the Syrian regime –- including sanctions announced yesterday on President Assad and those around him.

The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy. President Assad now has a choice: He can lead that transition, or get out of the way. The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests. It must release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests. It must allow human rights monitors to have access to cities like Dara’a; and start a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition. Otherwise, President Assad and his regime will continue to be challenged from within and will continue to be isolated abroad.

So far, Syria has followed its Iranian ally, seeking assistance from Tehran in the tactics of suppression. And this speaks to the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime, which says it stand for the rights of protesters abroad, yet represses its own people at home. Let’s remember that the first peaceful protests in the region were in the streets of Tehran, where the government brutalized women and men, and threw innocent people into jail. We still hear the chants echo from the rooftops of Tehran. The image of a young woman dying in the streets is still seared in our memory. And we will continue to insist that the Iranian people deserve their universal rights, and a government that does not smother their aspirations.

Now, our opposition to Iran’s intolerance and Iran’s repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known. But if America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that at times our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for consistent change -- with change that’s consistent with the principles that I’ve outlined today. That’s true in Yemen, where President Saleh needs to follow through on his commitment to transfer power. And that’s true today in Bahrain. Bahrain is a longstanding partner, and we are committed to its security. We recognize that Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and that the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law.

Nevertheless, we have insisted both publicly and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain’s citizens, and we will -- and such steps will not make legitimate calls for reform go away. The only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can’t have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail. The government must create the conditions for dialogue, and the opposition must participate to forge a just future for all Bahrainis.

Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. The Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence in favor of a democratic process, even as they’ve taken full responsibility for their own security. Of course, like all new democracies, they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. And as they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner.

So in the months ahead, America must use all our influence to encourage reform in the region. Even as we acknowledge that each country is different, we need to speak honestly about the principles that we believe in, with friend and foe alike. Our message is simple: If you take the risks that reform entails, you will have the full support of the United States.

We must also build on our efforts to broaden our engagement beyond elites, so that we reach the people who will shape the future -– particularly young people. We will continue to make good on the commitments that I made in Cairo -– to build networks of entrepreneurs and expand exchanges in education, to foster cooperation in science and technology, and combat disease. Across the region, we intend to provide assistance to civil society, including those that may not be officially sanctioned, and who speak uncomfortable truths. And we will use the technology to connect with -– and listen to –- the voices of the people.

For the fact is, real reform does not come at the ballot box alone. Through our efforts we must support those basic rights to speak your mind and access information. We will support open access to the Internet, and the right of journalists to be heard -– whether it’s a big news organization or a lone blogger. In the 21st century, information is power, the truth cannot be hidden, and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens.

Such open discourse is important even if what is said does not square with our worldview. Let me be clear, America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard, even if we disagree with them. And sometimes we profoundly disagree with them.

We look forward to working with all who embrace genuine and inclusive democracy. What we will oppose is an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others, and to hold power through coercion and not consent. Because democracy depends not only on elections, but also strong and accountable institutions, and the respect for the rights of minorities.

Such tolerance is particularly important when it comes to religion. In Tahrir Square, we heard Egyptians from all walks of life chant, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” America will work to see that this spirit prevails -– that all faiths are respected, and that bridges are built among them. In a region that was the birthplace of three world religions, intolerance can lead only to suffering and stagnation. And for this season of change to succeed, Coptic Christians must have the right to worship freely in Cairo, just as Shia must never have their mosques destroyed in Bahrain.

What is true for religious minorities is also true when it comes to the rights of women. History shows that countries are more prosperous and more peaceful when women are empowered. And that’s why we will continue to insist that universal rights apply to women as well as men -– by focusing assistance on child and maternal health; by helping women to teach, or start a business; by standing up for the right of women to have their voices heard, and to run for office. The region will never reach its full potential when more than half of its population is prevented from achieving their full potential.

Now, even as we promote political reform, even as we promote human rights in the region, our efforts can’t stop there. So the second way that we must support positive change in the region is through our efforts to advance economic development for nations that are transitioning to democracy.

After all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets. The tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the table and providing for a family. Too many people in the region wake up with few expectations other than making it through the day, perhaps hoping that their luck will change. Throughout the region, many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job. Entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from those ideas.

The greatest untapped resource in the Middle East and North Africa is the talent of its people. In the recent protests, we see that talent on display, as people harness technology to move the world. It’s no coincidence that one of the leaders of Tahrir Square was an executive for Google. That energy now needs to be channeled, in country after country, so that economic growth can solidify the accomplishments of the street. For just as democratic revolutions can be triggered by a lack of individual opportunity, successful democratic transitions depend upon an expansion of growth and broad-based prosperity.

So, drawing from what we’ve learned around the world, we think it’s important to focus on trade, not just aid; on investment, not just assistance. The goal must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness, the reigns of commerce pass from the few to the many, and the economy generates jobs for the young. America’s support for democracy will therefore be based on ensuring financial stability, promoting reform, and integrating competitive markets with each other and the global economy. And we’re going to start with Tunisia and Egypt.

First, we’ve asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week’s G8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt. Together, we must help them recover from the disruptions of their democratic upheaval, and support the governments that will be elected later this year. And we are urging other countries to help Egypt and Tunisia meet its near-term financial needs.

 

Second, we do not want a democratic Egypt to be saddled by the debts of its past. So we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship. We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation. And we will help newly democratic governments recover assets that were stolen.

 

Third, we’re working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt. And these will be modeled on funds that supported the transitions in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. OPIC will soon launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment across the region. And we will work with the allies to refocus the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development so that it provides the same support for democratic transitions and economic modernization in the Middle East and North Africa as it has in Europe.

 

Fourth, the United States will launch a comprehensive Trade and Investment Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa. If you take out oil exports, this entire region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same amount as Switzerland. So we will work with the EU to facilitate more trade within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with U.S. and European markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional trade arrangement. And just as EU membership served as an incentive for reform in Europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa.

 

Prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress -– the corruption of elites who steal from their people; the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business; the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect. We will help governments meet international obligations, and invest efforts at anti-corruption -- by working with parliamentarians who are developing reforms, and activists who use technology to increase transparency and hold government accountable. Politics and human rights; economic reform.

 

Let me conclude by talking about another cornerstone of our approach to the region, and that relates to the pursuit of peace.

 

For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could be blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost to the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security and prosperity and empowerment to ordinary people.

 

For over two years, my administration has worked with the parties and the international community to end this conflict, building on decades of work by previous administrations. Yet expectations have gone unmet. Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks. The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on and on and on, and sees nothing but stalemate. Indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward now.

 

I disagree. At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever. That’s certainly true for the two parties involved.

 

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

 

As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it’s important that we tell the truth: The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

 

The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people -– not just one or two leaders -- must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

 

Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them -- not by the United States; not by anybody else. But endless delay won’t make the problem go away. What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows -- a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

 

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

 

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself -– by itself -– against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

 

These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.

 

Now, let me say this: Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.

 

I recognize how hard this will be. Suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I’m convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past. We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones. That father said, “I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict.” We see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. “I have the right to feel angry,” he said. “So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate. Let us hope,” he said, “for tomorrow.”

 

That is the choice that must be made -– not simply in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but across the entire region -– a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past and the promise of the future. It’s a choice that must be made by leaders and by the people, and it’s a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife.

 

For all the challenges that lie ahead, we see many reasons to be hopeful. In Egypt, we see it in the efforts of young people who led protests. In Syria, we see it in the courage of those who brave bullets while chanting, “peaceful, peaceful.” In Benghazi, a city threatened with destruction, we see it in the courthouse square where people gather to celebrate the freedoms that they had never known. Across the region, those rights that we take for granted are being claimed with joy by those who are prying loose the grip of an iron fist.

 

For the American people, the scenes of upheaval in the region may be unsettling, but the forces driving it are not unfamiliar. Our own nation was founded through a rebellion against an empire. Our people fought a painful Civil War that extended freedom and dignity to those who were enslaved. And I would not be standing here today unless past generations turned to the moral force of nonviolence as a way to perfect our union –- organizing, marching, protesting peacefully together to make real those words that declared our nation: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

 

Those words must guide our response to the change that is transforming the Middle East and North Africa -– words which tell us that repression will fail, and that tyrants will fall, and that every man and woman is endowed with certain inalienable rights.

 

It will not be easy. There’s no straight line to progress, and hardship always accompanies a season of hope. But the United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves. And now we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just.

 

Thank you very much, everybody.Thank you.

 

END 1:00 P.M. EDT

 

Source: The White House Press Office

Religious Traditions of the Tamils

Prof. A. Veluppillai

1. Introduction.

 

The Tamils can be defined as people, having Tamil as their mother tongue. Tamil language is a member of the Dravidian/ South Indian family of languages. The four southernmost states of India- tamiz Nadu, kERaLa, karNAdaka, and Andra Pradesh- are predominantly linguistically Dravidian, each state carved out on the basis of predominance of the four major Dravidian languages. The Dravidian languages are mother tongues of about a quarter of the Indian population. Though about 80% of the speakers are found within the borders of these four South Indian states, a number of Dravidian languages have been identified in other parts of South Asia. Among the tribal languages of Central India, almost extending to the borders of Bengal, distinct from the Austro-Asiatic family of languages, many Dravidian languages have been identified. The northern reaches of this family have been located in isolated settlements in Nepal and Pakistan. The Brahui speakers are found in the hills of Baluchistan, almost on the borders of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. So, the Dravidian family of languages is a South Asian family of languages in one sense. About 22 languages are classified as belonging to the Dravidian family and on linguisic criteria, sub-division as North, Central and South Dravidian are made. Tamils alone number about 60 million people.

 

South India and Sri Lanka have been homelands of the Tamils, from the beginning of recorded history. The region, roughly covered by the modern states of tamiz NAdu and Kerala are identified as ancient tamizakam up to about 10th century AD. Even though some evidence exists for Tamil influence , and Tamil presence in Sri Lanka is noticeable from very early times, strong Tamil presence and influence in Sri Lanka, from about the 10th century. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, Tamils migrated to some British colonies in search of employment and thus there are substantial Tamil populations in Malaysia, Singapore, Mauritius, Fiji and South Africa. After the World War II, a movement of Tamil professionals to UK, USA, Australia and New Zealand is proceeding continuously. Due to the recent civil war type situation in Sri Lanka, many thousands of Tamils in about 20 countries, with large numbers in Canada, Germany, France, and Switzerland. Within the Nordic countries, Norway and Denmark have more Tamils than Sweden.

 

2. Present Situation regarding religious affiliations of the Tamils.

Hinduism, Christianity and Islam are the major religions among the Tamils in that order: Hindus are counted as forming more than 80% of the population and the other religions are reckoned to be less than 20% of the population. Some of the other religions like Jainism, Buddhism have relatively few adherents. The Tamil Christians include both Roman Catholics as well as the Protestants. The Muslims are mainly Sunni. The situation is fairly stable, only Christian missions, said to be marginally successful in making new converts. The general atmosphere is religious toleration and harmony.

 

The official policy of India is secularism,,,. Overall, Hinduism is neither a missionary nor an exclusive religion. To put it in a negative way, the Hindus withdraw into themselves and don't react except when they feel threatened. Many scholars have commented on the tolerant attitude of the Hindus. Some recent developments in India challenges this view. But tamiz Nadu and the Tamils, generally keep up the Tamil tradition of tolerance, There is no Hindu extremism worth mentioning among the Tamils. No serious claim is put forward that Hinduism should have special privileges, compared to other religions.

 

3. The Dravidian Hypothesis about the people of the Indus valley Civilization.

 

The Tamils have legends that their ancient history extends up to about ten thousand years, sea swallowing up their lands twice and kings establishing new capitals and fostering Tamil in three successive academies. The legend is first mentioned in the commentary of kaLavijal, which is assigned to about 8th century AD. This legend is one of the reasons- one of the excuses- for connecting up the Tamil civilization with some prehistoric ancient civilizations, whose identity and continuity poses special problems.

 

The records of the Indus Valley Civilization have not been satisfactorily deciphered. Material remains have been interpreted by archeologists. There cannot be finality, till a satisfactory reading of the records. Material remains are generally interpreted in the light of elements in the later Hinduism. Siva worship in the form of pacupati and NadaRajA, Sakti worship and some other deductions are made. In the 1950s, Father Heras argued for the Dravidian identity of the Indus Valley people. In the 1960s, the Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies issued many announcements, trying to establish this identity. This hypothesis is still defended seriously by Japanese Professor Noboru Karashima, President of the International Association for Tamil Research in 1994.

 

4. The Dravidian Identity of the Sumerians.

 

This is another hypothesis that is strongly advocated by certain scholars. The Sumerian records have been deciphered and material remains have been interpreted satisfactorily. Linguistic and cultural affinities between the Sumerians and the Tamils, separated by much more than a millennia, are pointed out. The late Professor A. catAcivam (A.Sathasivam) from Sri Lanka and Dr. ulakaNAtan muttarAjan (Loganathan Muttarayan) from Malaysia are examples. Eminent historians of the caliber of K.A. Nilakanda cAttiri (Nilakantta Sastri), have pointed out similarities in temple worship. A hypothesis, connecting the ancestors of the Dravidians, if not the Tamils. to the Mediterranean area, is still advocated by certain scholars.

 

5. A study based on the historical times.

 

Literary, epigraphical and archeological sources existt for the study of religious traditions of the Tamils for about 2000 years. As materials exist for such a long period of time, it is only fitting that we pay just passing attention to doubtful prehistoric connections and concentrate on the historical period. Tamil is one of the two classical languages of India, along with Sanskrit. There are Tamil literary texts and Tamil inscriptions, dated roughly, round about the beginning of the Christian era. As in most of ancient and medieval Indian texts, controversies exist on the exact dates of early Tamil records and documents. We have to be dependent on rough calculations and the most probable dates. Some distinct historical periods: (1) 100 B.C to 300 A.D.; (2) 300 A.D. to 600 A.D.; (3) 600 A.D. to 1200 A.D.; (4) 1200 A.D. to 1800 A.D.; and (5) 1800 A.D. to today.

 

5.1 cangkam (Academy) period.

 

The general designation for the early period is cangkam period, because of the strong tradition that three academies existed in the remote past and that what we get as early literary texts were those approved by those academies. The main source for the early period is literary evidence. From a study of the literary evidence, some scholars argue that the Tamil society was secular then. It is only a relative term in the sense that when compared to early North Indian literature and later Tamil literature, a distinctiveness of relative secularism can be pointed out.

 

Some indigenous elements of religion, peculiar to the Tamils, have been noticed in the earliest available stratum of Tamil literature. A portion of this early Tamil poetry is identified as Heroic poetry. There were three Tamil Kingdoms - cEra, cOLa and pAnhdija - and many independent chieftaincies in the early period and there were intermittent and internecine wars and battles for violent state formation. maRam (valour) was the celebrated theme.

 

5.1.1. Nadukal (planted stone).

 

The worship for the fallen brave warriors is one of the popular forms of worship in early Tamil poetry. tolkAppijam gives an elaborate description in six stages in the planting of stone, beginning with looking for a suitable stone and ending in the institution of formal worship. The portrait of the hero is often decorated with peacock feathers. Some poems refer to spears and shields erected around the planted stones. Offering of Naravam (toddy = alcohol) to the spirit of the fallen hero, represented in the planted stone, is mentioned in some verses.

 

5.1.2. veRijAdal (dance in ecstasy).

 

The dance in ecstasy is found mainly in the worship of murukan/muruku (youth, beauty, god-head). He was the god of the hilly region. The name of god or archetype was different in each landscape among the five different landscapes of the Tamil land. mAjOn (dark male)/ mAl (great one) was the god of the forest or pastoral landscape. koRRavy (lady of victory) was the goddess of ferocious appearance for the arid or waste land. vEl (spear) was the main weapon of murukan. He is a warrior-hero par excellence, but is often mentioned in akam (love) poetry, the other main theme of the earliest stratum of Tamil literature. Love-sickness of young girls in separation from their lovers seem to be generally interpreted as caused by murukan who needs propitiation in worship. The organizer and chief priest of the worship was vElan (man with spear). A number of verses refer to the sacrifice of the blood of ram and offering of toddy in the ritual. The veRijAdal occurred in koRRavy worship also, Later, murukan was considered son of koRRavy. A group dance of girls, known as kuravyjAdal, is also associated with murukan worship. Some elements of ecstasy were also involved in this dance. This dance occurred in mAjOn worship also. murukan has continued to be very popular among the Tamils and he is frequently hailed as the Tamil god. Kamil Zvelebil had chosen to name his first volume on Tamil literature, as The smile of murukan.

5.1.3. cinyc cuRAvin kOdu (pregnant Shark bone).

 

A solitary verse mentions this worship in the littoral region. On full moon day, fishermen and families get drunk and worship. This may be the peculiar worship of Nejtal, (littoral) landscape.

 

5.1.4. kanhdu (post, stone.)

 

This worship is often mentioned in connection with manRu (public meeting place). Lighting of lamps by women is specifically referred to in some verses. Floor of the manRu was smeared with cow-dung.

 

5.1.5. Influence of North Indian religious traditions.

 

Jaina monks lived in hills around maturai, the capittal of the pAnhdijAs and in a few other places. Early Tamil Brahmi inscriptions of round about the beginning of the Christian era, testify to this. Some kings and chieftains were responsive to Brahmins and Vedic sacrifices. Many instances can be quoted to show that beliefs in the existence of the ujir (soul), maRu piRappu (rebirth) and vAnOr ulaku (world of celestial beings) existed among the Tamils even in that early period.

 

5.2. Post-cangkam Period 300 A.D. to 600 A.D.

 

Politically in this period, the Tamils were under foreign kalabhra domination. Their political history is characterized by many historians as a dark period. Buddhism and Jainism appear to have prospered during this period. Some notable literary works are assigned to this period. The early Tamil kAppijangkaL, (epics) are assigned to this age, as for examples, cilappatikAram, a Jaina epic and manhimEkaly, a Buddhist epic. aRam, the equivalent of Sanskrit dharma , becomes the main theme of literary works. Eleven didactic works were written in this period. Their main purpose seems to be reformation of the society - bringing back values which were reversed during the Heroic Age.

 

tirukkuRaL the most outstanding work in Tamil, belongs to this period. This sets the tone of didactic works. According to Albert Schweitzer's evaluation in his book, Indian Thoughts and its Development, tirukkuRaL represents a synthesis of much of the best in Indian thought up to that time with a positive approach to life. The positive approach to life , also called life-affirmation, seems to owe its influence to the literary traditions of the Academy period. varnAcirama dharma, the central concept of the Brahminical religion, prescribing different rules for the four-fold castes and for the four stages of human life, has not even been mentioned in this work. This work is of universal appeal. The Tamil society never had the varnha system. There was no cattiryjAs, and the vycijAs. The ruling kings and their ancestors, were sometimes eulogized and flattered as the cattirijAs, but there was no consequent development from this position. The non-Brahmin high caste Tamils resented the term - cUttirAs, the name of the fourth caste. So, what we get in the Tamil works, equivalent to the Sanskrit dharmasastras, is sAmAnija dharma applicable to every human being. Religious affiliation of the author is not known.

 

ThiruvaLLuvar, the author, has kept himself clear of external trappings of different religions. The Hindus, the Jains, and the Buddhists have claimed this work as their own. Many Christian missionaries and British administrators have praised this work, even tracing Christian influence in the work. This work, consisting of 1330 verses, has been translated into many languages. Other didactic works, follow the lead by tirukkuRaL. The authors are identified as Jaina or Brahminical, mainly by their invocation verses. Otherwise, there are no deep differences in the contents of these works. NAladijAr the second most important work with 400 verses, ascribed to Jaina authorship and with a noticeable slant to life-negation, had been translated into English by G.U. Pope almost a century ago. tirukkuRaL and NAladijAr can be said to constitute the ethical core of the religious traditions of the Tamils. It is important to note here that varnAcirama dharma had not been brought into Tamil literature. Though the Tamils also developed an evil and pernicious caste system, in certain respects, quite distinct from the varnha system, in subsequent periods, that system had no sanction either in Tamil or in Sanskrit texts.

 

5.3. Bhakti Period 600 A.D. to 1200 A. D.

 

The Tamils were under the Pallava and the pAnhdija kingdoms during the earlier half of this period and under the cOLa Empire during the latter half of the same. The Tamil power reached its zenith under the cOLa Empire, which also ruled many non- Tamil communities in South India and Sri Lanka. In the history of religion and literature, this period is referred to as the bhakti period. Bhakti is a Sanskrit word, meaning devotion. This Sanskrit word and the Tamilicised form patti became popular quite late. The bhaktti poetry seems to be a curious transformation of literary traditions of the Academy period. Both akam tradition, dealing with love between man and woman and puRam tradition, dealing with heroism and generosity of warriors are combined in a strange manner and the position of man as well as hero goes to god, while the position of woman and hero-worshipper go to the devotee.

A. K. Ramanujan has recently brought out a good translation into English of some of these early poems. Though the origins of the concept of bhakti are traceable in Sanskrit sources, bhakti movement as such originated in the Tamil land. Personal relationship between the devotee and the god was its main characteristic, and worship became a fervent personal experience in response to divine grace. Religion for the devotees is no longer a matter of contemplation of a transcendent, impersonal absolute, but of ecstatic response to an intensely personal experience. This leads to a profound sense of the devotees own shortcomings and to a trustful recourse to the gods forgiveness, with the whole personality being surrendered to the deity. It is this position which inspired the scholar - missionary G. U. Pope's evaluation - which seems to be somewhat superficial - of this religion as the religion, closest to Christianity, among Indian religions. Norman Cutler has worked on the poetics of Tamil devotion.

 

The vedic religion - the Brahminical religion - becomes a popular religion of the Tamils, through the bhakti movement. The Sanskrit sources contributed another important element for this religion. This religion owes a massive debt to the Sanskrit purAnhAs and epics. The temple rituals, prescribed in the Sanskrit AkamAs, became very important. From the very beginning, sectarian differences are noticeable, may be because of the influence of purAnhAs. Saiva and Vaishnava movements were presented to the Tamil people as Tamil religions This was made possible by religious synchronism. murukan becomes identified with Skanda and kArttikEja and related to Siva as a son, koRRavy becomes identified with umA, Siva's consort and as murukans mother, and mAjOn becomes identified with Vishnu. Saivism is the form of Hinduism, very popular among the Tamils.

 

The Saiva movement was relatively more involved in religious conflicts and controversies. Saint Appar, a convert from Jainism to Saivism, converted the Pallava ruler from Jainism to Saivism. His poetry seems to be a strange mixture of Jaina world-view and Siva bhakti. Even though he expresses his regret for having wasted much of his life as a Jaina monk, his poetry seems to be a form of synchronism between Jainism and Saivism. The Jaina world-view and Jaina didactic works become acceptable to the Saivites. Saint Campanthar, a younger contemporary of saint Appar, converted the pAnhdija ruler from Jainism to Saivism.. He defeated the Buddhists in another controversy. As a Brahmin, he was a champion of Vedic religion against the Jains and the Buddhists. There are plenty of polemical references about the Jains and the Buddhists in his bhakti poetry. Saint Manikkavasagar was also said to have defeated the Lankan Buddhists in a controversy, but there is no trace of polemics in his compositions.

 

For about a millennium, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism were the three important religions among the Tamils. The triangular contest for the loyalty of the Tamils led to the growth of polemical literature to which adherents of all religions contributed. The Buddhist contribution is seen in the manhimEkaly and the kunhdalakEci, the Jaina contribution in the NIlakEci and the Saiva contribution in the civagnAnacittijAr. But overall, conflicts are rare, especially after Hinduism consolidated its position. The Saiva or Vaishnava rulers, were generally generous to all the Hindus, irrespective of their personal inclinations and also patronized the Jaina and Buddhist religious establishments of their subjects.

 

A very important text for Tamil Saivism is the periya purAnham, the Saiva hagiology of 63 NajanmAr, (saint lords), all of whom lived in South India and attained heaven through their bhakti to Siva. This work influenced vIra Saivism of Karnataka. Saint Manikkavasagar's devotional poems are acknowledged as the most moving in Tamil literature. G. U. Pope brought a translation of the tiruvAcakam into English. almost a century ago. Glenn Yocum has published a study of tiruvAcakam recently. The devotional poems of Saint cuNtarar, numbering about a tthousand verses, had been translated by David Shulman recently. The Twelve Sacred Books of the Tamil Saivas were complete in the 12th century A.D. For the vast majority of the Tamil Saivites, the basic works of their religion are these Twelve Sacred Books. They don't look to any Sanskrit work for guidance.

 

The Vaishnava bhakti movement was dominated by twelve AzvArs - those who contemplate deeply on Vishnu. They were authors of tivvijapirapaNtam (sacred composition) of four thousand verses. Compared to the saiva devotional poems, the Vaishnava devotional poems make greater use of akam tradition and less of puRam tradition of the classical period. Friedhelm Hardy had brought out a fine publication recently on the history of this movement. Some important saints are AdAL, kulacEkarar, tirumangky and NammAzvAr. The works of the last one are very important and are sometimes referred to as Tamil Vedas. Though less influential in Tamil land, the Vaishnavite bhakti movement exerted great influence throughout India, during the later periods.

 

The temple worship seems to be a prominent feature from the beginning of the bhakti movement. Temples, built of durable material, first rock-cut and then made of stone, made their appearance from the 8th century. Huge stone temples were built by the cOLa Emperors and their successors throughout tamizNAdu. The temples became the centres, around which many aspects of life of the people were organized. Architects and sculptors were needed in the construction activities. Music, dance, and drama were patronized by the Hindu temples. These temples were generally rich, having been owners of land other forms of wealthy. They employed people and helped them in times of distress. The big temples are still great pilgrim centres to which the Tamil Hindus from all over the world yearn to visit. Most of the big temples in tamiz Nadu have myths of their own. David Shulman has made an interpretation of these myths recently. The big temples are the main attraction for the modern tourists in tamiz NAdu.

 

5.4. Age of Religious Philosophy. 1200-1800 AD.

 

The beginnings of philosophical speculations in India are traced to the Upanishads, which originated in North India and which are in Sanskrit. Buddhism dominated the philosophical field for many centuries and South India began to make significant contributions. The definitely identifiable contribution from tamizNAdu can be said to start from the 8th century A.D. Many religious philosophical doctrines of South Indian origin have been written in Sanskrit, may be because that language was the lingua-franca throughout the South Asian sub-continent in that age. In the eighth century, Sanskrit the propounder of Advita (monoism) hailed from Kerala, a part of ancient Tamil land. His Vedanta philosophy assimilated much of the world-view of the Buddhists and gave it a new twist. He is said to have toured throughout the sub-continent and engaged in debates with the Buddhists. What he had taken over from Buddhism is said to have helped him to win over large number of adherents of Buddhism which was already in decay in India at that time.

 

In the eleventh-twelfth centuries, Ramanuja, the propounder of (Visistadvita-qalified monoism) hailed from the present tamizNAdu. He was strongly influenced by the Vaishnava bhakti literature, based on the Puranic religion. He was better received in Karnataka than in tamiz Nadu. Ramanuja wrote in Sanskrit, so his impact among the Tamils is relatively limited. The history of Vaishnavism in tamizNAdu becomes a little complicated as the later Vijayanagar Emperors and the Nayak kings who were mainly Telugu origin gave it sustenance. They patronized Sanskrit and gave importance to Sanskrit sources. Soon, there was a schism in tamizNAdu Vaishnavism into vadakaly, (northern school) and tenkaly, (southern school) sects. The southern school, looks mainly to the Tamil Vaishnava texts for inspiration.

 

The thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries saw the appearance of the fourteen works of Saiva Siddhanta philosophy in Tamil.The basic Tamil work is civagnanapOtam. There is still a big controversy on whether this work is a translation of twelve aphorisms from an obscure or unattested portion of (Rauravagama). Saiva Siddhanta is a South Indian religion, found among the Tamils only. Besides the canonical fourteen works, there are subsidiary works and commentaries in Tamil only. Agamas are accorded a special status while the Vedas only a general status as basic works to the philosophy. The importance given to the Agamas makes South Indian Saivism, a distinctive form of Hinduism, in some respects. The Tamils try to derive the basic framework of the system from their own Twelve Sacred Books.

 

The development of many philosophical schools led to development of sectarian conflicts and later attempts to patch them up, especially by mystic poets like Saint tAjumAnavar in the 18th century and Saint IrAmalingkar in the 19th century. camaracam, (harmony) becomes the main theme. The former praises the CLEVER cittar, (poets of powers) who found harmony between Vedanta and Siddhanta. The latter founded cutta camaraca canmArkka cangkam, a Society for Religious Wisdom of Pure Harmony.

 

5.5. Modern Period.

 

Islam and Christianity are important minority religions in this period. Islam came to Tamils in two ways. Arab traders intermarried with local people and built up a community, who now speak Tamil or Malayalam. Muslim invaders from the North had temporary success in the South and their descendants speak Urdu. As in Vaishnavism, there is some split in the attitude of the Muslims towards Tamil. Many of them are proud to claim Tamil as their language and they have made substantial contributions to the development of Tamil for more than six hundred years.

 

The Syrian Christian community, in the West coast, claims that they were the descendants of native converts of the Apostle Saint Thomas, from the first century A.D. They have preserved some copper plates, which according to them, were received by Saint Thomas from native rulers of his time. Modern epigraphists have dated the these plates in the ninth and the thirteenth centuries. It is now clear that this community is enjoying certain privileges in Kerala at least from the 9th century. Like the Christian trading community, a small Jewish trading community also in the West coast, gained privileges from the native Hindu rulers in the 10th century, as testified by a copper plate in the possession of their descendants. Roman Catholicism was introduced by the Portuguese in the 16th century. Protestantism was introduced by the Dutch in the 17th century. The British ruled over the entire Tamil homeland for 11/2 centuries - roughly from 1800 to 1950. Westernization and Modernization are going on, especially from the beginning of British rule and they are powerful forces even now. Christian missionaries have been very active and have considerable success in proselytisation. There was again Tamil polemical literature, reflecting a triangular contest among the Hindus, the Roman Catholics and the Protestants, especially between 1850 and 1925.

 

As for Jainism and Buddhism, the former continues to flicker, while the latter disappeared completely and has taken a new birth recently. Its rebirth is as a religion of protest, as a religion of the down-trodden. The people who became underprivileged and untouchable in the Hindu society felt that even Islam and Christianity could not bring them salvation and chose to accept Buddhism, on the advice of the late Dr. Ambedkar, their leader. Only a section of the underprivileged community called Dalits in India became converts. Their problem of integration into the rest of the population cries for solution.

 

The appeals to fundamentals of Brahminical Hinduism, as it is understood in North India, do not seem to have its echo among Tamils, because of the character of Hinduism in tamizNAdu. A few months ago, Prof. Saraswathy Vijayavenugopal, a folklorist from Madurai University in South India, in a lecture in Uppsala, made the observation that there seem to be many folk religions among the Hindu Tamils. Synchronization - continuing synchronism of different religions - seems to be a living process within what is called Hinduism among Tamils. The influence of political Hinduism, exemplified by Bharatiya Janata Party and Vishva Hindu Parishad, which champion Brahminical values, is negligible among Tamils.

The last half century in tamizNAdu is dominated by a powerful socio-political Dravidian movement, against North Indian influences, including Sanskrit and Hindi domination, but particularly Brahmin domination and oppression. among the Tamils in South India. Though the movement is split into many political groups. of which two are the two dominant political parties of tamizNAdu, there are still no indications that parties which don't subscribe to the ideology of the Dravidian movement can make headway in tamizNAdu. A small Brahmin community at the top is very vulnerable. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Jains find comfort in identifying themselves with the vast majority of the Hindus in the Dravidian movement. A kind of secularism is fostered as the ideology of the movement. tirukkuRaL is held up as the embodiment of Tamil Culture. The classical Cangkam period literature is idealised as the literature of the Golden Age of the Tamils.

 

article kind courtesy

 

www.geocities.com/Athens/5180/tamil.html

Kurds protest against Turkish military agression - 11.09.2015

 

Kurds in London protested outside Downing Street on Sept 11th 2015 following the cynical, opportunistic bombing by the Turkish government of Kurdish positions in Northern Iraq from where Kurdish fighters from Turkey had been making great progress defeating ISIL, and also against the harsh curfew imposed on the Kurdish city of Cizre on the Turkish-Syrian border.

 

All photos © Pete Riches

Do not reproduce, alter, re-transmit or blog my images without my written permission. I remain at all times the copyright owner of this image.

 

Hi-Res, un-watermarked versions of these files are available on application solely at my discretion

If you want to use any image found in my Flickr Photostream, please Email me directly.

 

about.me/peteriches

Norway and UNW: Global Leadership - Local Partnerships Women's Leadership and Gender Perspectives on Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism – UNHQ, CR4

 

Moderator: Nicholas Kristof, Journalist;

Panelists: H.E. Ms. Erna Solberg, Prime Minister of Norway; Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, UN Women Executive Director; Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini, International Civil Society Network; Fatima Al-Bahadly, Al Firdaws Society, Iraq; Hamsatu Allamin, Nigeria Stability and Reconciliation Program; Deeyah Khan, Fuuse UK and Norway; Shafqat, PAIMAN Alumni Trust, Pakistan.

 

20 September 2016.

 

Photo: UN Women/Ryan Brown

REMARKS TO U.S.-ISLAMIC WORLD FORUM. WASHINGTON, DC.

APRIL 12, 2011.

 

Thank you, Strobe. It is a pleasure to join this first U.S.-Islamic World Forum held in America . His Highness the Amir and the people of Qatar have generously hosted the Forum for years. I was honored to be a guest in Doha last year. And now I am delighted to welcome you to Washington . I want to thank Martin Indyk, Ken Pollack and the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution for keeping this event going and growing. And I want to acknowledge all my colleagues in the diplomatic corps here tonight, including the Foreign Ministers of Qatar and Jordan and the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

   

Over the years, the U.S.-Islamic World Forum has offered a chance to celebrate the diverse achievements of Muslims around the world. From Qatar -- which is pioneering innovative energy solutions and preparing to host the World Cup -- to countries as varied as Turkey , Senegal , Indonesia and Malaysia , each offering its own model for prosperity and progress.

   

This Forum also offers a chance to discuss the equally diverse set of challenges we face together around the world – the need to confront violent extremism, the urgency of achieving a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, the importance of embracing tolerance and universal human rights in all our communities.

   

I am proud that this year we are recognizing the contributions of the millions of American Muslims who do so much to make this country strong. As President Obama said in Cairo , “Islam has always been a part of America ’s story,” and every day Americans Muslims are helping write our story.

   

We are meeting at a historic time for one region in particular: the Middle East and North Africa . Today, the long Arab winter has begun to thaw. For the first time in decades, there is a real opportunity for change. A real opportunity for people to have their voices heard and their priorities addressed.

   

This raises significant questions for us all:

   

Will the people and leaders of the Middle East and North Africa pursue a new, more inclusive approach to solving the region’s persistent political, economic and social challenges? Will they consolidate the progress of recent weeks and address long-denied aspirations for dignity and opportunity? Or, when we meet at this Forum in five years, will we have seen the prospects for reform fade and remember this moment as just a mirage in the desert?

   

These questions can only be answered by the people and leaders of the Middle East and North Africa themselves. The United States certainly does not have all the answers. In fact, here in Washington we’re struggling to thrash out answers to our own difficult political and economic questions. But America is committed to working as partners to help unlock the region’s potential and realize its hopes for change.

   

Much has been accomplished already. Uprisings across the region have exposed myths that for too long were used to justify a stagnant status quo: That governments can hold on to power without responding to their people’s aspirations or respecting their rights. That the only way to produce change in the region is through violence and conflict. And, most pernicious of all, that Arabs do not share universal human aspirations for freedom, dignity and opportunity.

   

Today’s new generation of young people rejects these false narratives. They will not accept the status quo. Despite the best efforts of the censors, they are connecting to the wider world in ways their parents and grandparents could never imagine. They see alternatives. On satellite news, on Twitter and Facebook, and now in places like Cairo and Tunis . They know a better life is within reach – and they are willing to reach for it.

   

But these young people have inherited a region that in many ways is unprepared to meet their growing expectations. Its challenges have been well documented in a series of landmark Arab Human Development Reports. Independently authored and published by the United Nations Development Program, they represent the cumulative knowledge of leading Arab scholars and intellectuals. Answering these challenges will help determine if this historic moment lives up to its promise. That is why this January in Doha , just weeks after a desperate Tunisian street vendor set fire to himself in public protest, I talked with the leaders of the region about the need to move faster to meet their people’s needs and aspirations.

   

In the 21st century, the material conditions of people’s lives have greater impact on national stability and security than ever before. The balance of power is no longer measured by counting tanks and missiles alone. Now strategists must factor in the growing influence of citizens themselves -- connected, organized and frustrated.

   

There was a time when those of us who championed civil society, worked with marginalized minorities and women, and focused on young people and technology, were told our concerns were noble but not urgent. That is another false narrative that has been washed away. These issues – among others – are also at the heart of smart power – and they must be at the center of any discussion attempting to answer the region’s most pressing questions.

   

First, can the leaders and citizens of the region reform economies that are overly dependent on oil exports and stunted by corruption? Overall, Arab countries were less industrialized in 2007 than in 1970. Unemployment often runs more than double the world-wide average, and even worse for women and young people. While a growing number of Arabs live in poverty, crowded into slums without sanitation, safe water, or reliable electricity, a small elite has increasingly concentrated control of the region’s land and wealth. The 2009 Arab Development Report found that these trends – and I quote -- “result in the ominous dynamics of marginalization.”

   

Reversing this dynamic means grappling with a second question: How to match economic reform with political and social change? According to the 2009 Global Integrity Report, Arab countries, almost without exception, have some of the weakest anti-corruption systems in the world. Citizens have spent decades under martial law or emergency rule. Political parties and civil society groups are subject to repression and restriction. Judicial systems are far from free or independent. Elections, when they are held, are often rigged.

   

This leads to a third and often-overlooked question: Will the door to full citizenship and participation finally open to women and minorities? The first Arab Human Development Report in 2002 found that Arab women’s political and economic participation was the lowest in the world. Successive reports have shown little progress. The 2005 report called women’s empowerment – and I quote – a “prerequisite for an Arab renaissance, inseparably and causally linked to the fate of the Arab world.”

   

This is not a matter of the role of religion in women’s lives. Muslim women have long enjoyed greater rights and opportunities in places like Bangladesh and Indonesia . Or consider the family law in Morocco or the personal status code in Tunisia . Communities from Egypt to Jordan to Senegal are beginning to take on entrenched practices like child marriage, honor crimes and female cutting. All over the world we see living proof that Islam and women’s rights are compatible. Unfortunately, some are actually working to undermine this progress and export a virulently anti-woman ideology to other Muslim communities.

   

All of these challenges -- from deep unemployment to widespread corruption to the lack of respect and opportunities for women – have fueled frustration among the region’s young people. And changing leaders won’t be enough to satisfy them. Not if cronyism and closed economies continue to choke off opportunity and participation. Or if citizens can’t rely on police and the courts to protect their rights. The region’s powerbrokers, inside and outside government, need to step up and work with the people to craft a positive vision for the future. Generals and imams, business leaders and bureaucrats, everyone who has benefited from and reinforced the status quo has a role to play. They also have a lot to lose if the vision vacuum is filled by extremists and rejectionists.

   

So a fourth crucial question is how Egypt and Tunisia should consolidate the progress that has been achieved in recent months.

   

Former protesters are asking: How can we stay organized and involved? It will take forming political parties and advocacy coalitions. It will take focusing on working together to solve the big challenges. In Cairo last month, I met with young activists who were passionate about their principles but still sorting out how to be practical about their politics. One veteran Egyptian journalist and dissident, Hisham Kassim, expressed concerns this week that a reluctance to move from protests to politics would, in his words, “endanger the revolution’s gains.” He urged his young comrades to translate their passion into a positive agenda and political participation.

   

And as the people of Egypt and Tunisia embrace the full responsibilities of citizenship, we will look to transitional authorities to guarantee fundamental rights such as free assembly and expression, to provide basic security on the streets, and to be transparent and inclusive.

   

Unfortunately, this year we have seen violent attacks in Egypt and elsewhere that have killed dozens of religious and ethnic minorities, part of a troubling world-wide trend documented in the State Department’s annual human rights report released on Friday. Communities around the world, including my own, have struggled to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and tolerance of unpopular views. But each of us has a responsibility to defend the universal human rights of people of all faiths and creeds. And I want to applaud the Organization of the Islamic Conference for its leadership in securing the recent resolution by the UN Human Rights Council that takes a strong stand against discrimination and violence based upon religion or belief, but does not limit freedom of expression or worship.

   

In both Egypt and Tunisia , we have also seen troubling signs regarding the rights and opportunities of women. So far women have been excluded from key transitional decision-making processes. When women marched through Tahrir Square to celebrate International Women’s Day in their new democracy, they were met by harassment and abuse. You can’t claim to have a democracy if half the population is silenced.

   

We know from long experience that building a successful democracy is a never-ending task. More than 200 years after our own revolution, America is still working on it. Real change takes time, it takes hard work and patience – but it is possible. As one Egyptian women’s rights activist said recently, “We will have to fight for our rights… It will be tough, and require lobbying, but that’s what democracy is all about.”

   

We also know that democracy cannot be transplanted wholesale from one society to another. People have the right and responsibility to devise their own government. But there are universal rights that apply to everyone and universal values that undergird vibrant democracies everywhere.

   

And one lesson learned by transitions to democracy around the world is that it can be tempting to refight old battles rather than focus on ensuring justice and accountability in the future. I will always remember watching Nelson Mandela welcome three of his former jailors to his inauguration. He never looked back in anger, always forward in hope.

   

The United States is committed to standing with the people of Egypt and Tunisia as they work to build sustainable democracies that deliver real results for all their citizens, and to supporting the aspirations of people across the region. On this our values and interests converge. History has shown that democracies tend to be more stable, more peaceful, and ultimately, more prosperous. The trick is how we get there.

   

So this is a fifth question: How can America be an effective partner to the people of the region? How can we work together to build not just short-term stability, but long-term sustainability?

   

With this goal in mind, the Obama administration began to reorient U.S. foreign policy in the region and around the world from our first days in office. We put partnerships with people, not just governments, at the center of our efforts.

   

We start from the understanding that America ’s core interests and values have not changed, including our commitment to promote human rights, resolve long-standing conflicts, counter Iran ’s threats and defeat al Qaida and its extremist allies. We believe those concerns are shared by the people of the region. And we will continue working closely with our trusted partners – including many in this room tonight -- to advance these mutual interests.

   

We know that a one-sized fits all approach doesn’t make sense in such a diverse region at such a fluid time.

   

As I have said before, the United States has a decades-long friendship with Bahrain that we expect to continue long into the future. We have made clear that security alone cannot resolve the challenges facing Bahrain . Violence is not and cannot be the answer. A political process is. We have raised our concerns about the current measures directly with Bahraini officials and will continue to do so.

   

The United States also strongly supports the Yemeni people in their quest for greater opportunity and their pursuit of political and economic reform that will fulfill their aspirations. President Saleh needs to resolve the political impasse with the opposition so that meaningful political change can take place in the near term in an orderly and peaceful manner.

   

And as President Obama has said, we strongly condemn the abhorrent violence committed against peaceful protesters by the Syrian government over the past few weeks. President Assad and the Syrian government must respect the universal rights of the Syrian people, who are rightly demanding the basic freedoms that they have been denied.

   

So going forward, the United States will be guided by careful consideration of all the circumstances on the ground and by our consistent values and interests.

   

Wherever we can, we will accelerate our work to develop stronger bonds with the people themselves – with civil society, business leaders, religious communities, women and minorities. We are rethinking the way we do business on the ground, with citizens themselves helping set the priorities. For example, as we invest in Egypt ’s new democracy and promote sustainable development, we are soliciting grant proposals from a much wider range of local organizations. We want to find new partners and invest in new ideas. And we are exploring ways to use connection technologies to expand our dialogue and open new lines of communication.

   

As we map out a strategy for supporting the transitions already under way, we know that the people of the region have not put their lives on the line just to vote in an election. They expect democracy to deliver jobs, sweep out corruption, and extend opportunities that will help them prosper and take full advantage of the global economy. So the United States will work with people and leaders across the region to create more open, dynamic, and diverse economies where all citizens can share in the prosperity.

   

In the short term, the United States will provide immediate economic assistance to help transitional democracies overcome their early challenges -- including $150 million for Egypt alone.

   

In the medium term, as Egypt and Tunisia continue building their democracies, we will work with our partners to support an ambitious blueprint for sustainable growth, job creation, investment and trade. The U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation will provide up to $2 billion to encourage private sector investments across the Middle East and North Africa —especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. We are working with Congress to establish Enterprise funds for Egypt and Tunisia that will support competitive markets and provide small and medium-sized businesses with access to critical low-cost capital. Our Global Entrepreneurship Program is seeking out new partners and opportunities. And we are exploring other ideas, such as improving and expanding the Qualified Investment Zones, which allow Egyptian companies to send exports to the United States duty-free.

   

To spur private sector investment, we are working with Partners for a New Beginning, an organization led by former Secretary Madeleine Albright , Muhtar Kent of Coca-Cola and Walter Isaacson of the Aspen Institute. It was formed after the President’s Cairo speech and includes the CEOs of companies like Intel, Cisco, and Morgan Stanley. These leaders will convene a summit at the end of May to connect American investors with new partners in the region’s transitional democracies, with an eye toward creating jobs and boosting trade.

   

Under the auspices of Partners for a New Beginning, the U.S.-North Africa Partnership for Economic Opportunity is already building a network of public and private partners and programs that deepen economic integration among the countries in North Africa . This past December in Algiers , the Partnership convened more than 400 young entrepreneurs, business leaders, venture capitalists and Diaspora leaders from the United States and North Africa . These people-to-people contacts have helped lay the groundwork for cross-border initiatives to create jobs, train youth, and support start-ups.

   

For the long term, we are discussing ways to encourage closer economic integration across the region, with the United States and Europe , and around the world. The Middle East and North Africa are home to rich nations with excess capital and poorer countries hungry for investments. Forging deeper trade and economic relationships between neighbors could create new industries and new jobs. And across the Mediterranean, Europe also represents enormous potential for new economic partnerships and greater shared prosperity. Reducing trade barriers in North Africa alone could boost GDP levels by as much as 7 or 8 percent in countries such as Tunisia and Morocco , and could lead to hundreds of millions of dollars in new wealth across the region every year.

   

The people of the Middle East and North Africa have the talent and drive to build vibrant economies and sustainable democracies – just as citizens have done in other regions long held back by closed political and economic systems, from Southeast Asia to Eastern Europe to Latin America .

   

It won’t be easy. Iran provides a powerful cautionary tale for the transitions under way across the region. The democratic aspirations of 1979 were subverted by a new and brutal dictatorship. Iran ’s leaders have consistently pursued policies of violence abroad and tyranny at home. In Tehran , security forces have beaten, detained, and in several recent cases killed peaceful protesters, even as Iran ’s president has made a show of denouncing the violence against civilians in Libya and other places. And he is not alone in his hypocrisy. Al Qaida’s propagandists have tried to yoke the region’s peaceful popular movements to their murderous ideology. Their claims to speak for the dispossessed and downtrodden have never rung so hollow. Their arguments for violent change have never been so fully discredited.

   

Last month we witnessed a development that stood out, even in this extraordinary season.

   

Colonel Qadhafi’s troops had turned their guns on civilians. His military jets and helicopter gunships had been unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air. Benghazi ’s hundreds of thousands of citizens were in the crosshairs.

   

In the past, when confronted with such a crisis, all too often the leaders of the Middle East and North Africa have averted their eyes or closed ranks. But not this time. Not in this new era. The OIC and GCC issued strong statements. The Arab League convened in Cairo , in the midst of all the commotion of Egypt ’s democratic transition. They condemned the violence and suspended Libya from their organization, even though Qadhafi held the League’s rotating presidency. They went on to call for a no-fly zone. I want to thank Qatar , the UAE and Jordan for contributing planes to help enforce it.

   

But that’s not all. The Arab League affirmed – and I quote – “the right of the Libyan people to fulfill their demands and build their own future and institutions in a democratic framework.”

   

That is a remarkable statement. This is reason to hope.

   

But all the signs of progress we have seen in recent months will only be meaningful if more leaders in more places move faster and further to embrace this spirit of reform… if they work with their people to answer the region’s most pressing challenges: How to diversify their economies, open their political systems, crack down on corruption, and respect the rights of women and minorities.

   

Those are the questions that will determine whether the people of the region make the most of this historic moment or fall back into stagnation.

   

The United States will be there as a partner, working for progress. We are committed to the future of this region and we believe in the potential of its people. And we look forward to the day when all the citizens of the Middle East and North Africa and around the world have the freedom to pursue their God-given potential.

 

Thank you.

  

AMISOM Gender Officer, Mane Ahmed, speaks at a meeting with Waaberi district women on countering extremism. The meeting was held at the district heaqaurters in Mogadishu, Somalia on January 28, 2016. AMISOM Photo/ Fanah Mohamed

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, watched by Sultan Muhammadu Sa’ad Abubakar and Governor of Sokoto Aminu Waziri Tambuwai, delivers a speech about countering violent extremism and promoting good governance following a meeting with the officials and religious leaders at the Sultan’s Palace in Sokoto, Nigeria, on August 23, 2016. [State Department photo/ Public Domain]

A tribute to those who lost their lives in extremist attacks in Paris. A tribute to those who must live with the damage done in the name of their religion. Peace be upon them. A tribute to freedom of expression.

In anticipation of the fourth of July, here is a real live nephew of my Uncle Sam. Yes, I am nothing if not patriotic, but to be completely honest, I should point out that my eyes are not really quite this blue.

 

And finally: I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Mehrere tausend Menschen sind dem Ruf der rechtsradikalen Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) zu einer Großdemonstration in Berlin gefolgt.

Die Demo startet in der Nähe des Roten Rathauses und führt durch die Innenstadt bis vor den Hauptbahnhof. Unter den Teilnehmern befinden sich auch NPD-Führungskader Uwe Meenen, sowie Hooligans aus dem Bärgida-Umfeld. sowie Personen die deutlich dem rechtsextremen Spektrum angehören.

In Sprechchören fordern die Teilnehmer "Merkel muss weg" und "Wer Deutschland nicht liebt, soll Deutschland verlassen".

Bereits mehrere Stunden vor dem AfD-Aufmarsch startete die erste Gegendemonstration von Personen aus dem linken Spektrum von der Kochstraße aus bis zum Bebelplatz, welcher an der AfD-Strecke liegt. Rund 1000 Menschen nahmen daran teil und machten ihre Ablehnung der AfD und ihre Unterstützung von Refugees deutlich.

Schon während der Auftaktkundgebung der AfD unweit des Roten Rathauses ist diese von Antifaschisten umzingelt, die lautstark ihren Unmut ausdrücken. Dabei kommt es auch zu einem versuchten Angriff von Hooligans und rechtsextremen Teilnehmern der AfD-Kundgebung auf die Gegendemonstranten. Anwesende LKA-Beamten schreiten nur zögerlich ein. Festnahmen gibt es nur auf Seiten der Gegendemonstranten.

Zum Start der AfD-Demonstration, die vom Führungspersonal Frauke Petry, ihrem Partner und NRW-Chef der AfD Marcus Pretzell, dem Brandenburger AfD-chef Alexander Gauland, sowie Beatrix von Storch, MdEP angeführt wird, kommt es zu einer kurzen Blockade-Aktion, teilweise älterer Menschen, die durch die Polizei geräumt wird.

Während der ganzen Strecke sehen sich die Teilnehmer der AfD-Demo zudem mit heftigen und lautstarken Gegenkundgebungen konfrontiert. Dabei kommt es immer wieder zu versuchten Übergriffen von AfD-Teilnehmern auf die Gegendemonstranten.

Kritisch wird es, als eine Spontandemonstration von rund 200 linken Personen, teilweise aus dem autonomen Spektrum, offenkundig ihr Ende direkt am AfD-Aufzug finden soll. Dies wird von der Polizei mit körperlicher Gewalt und Pfefferspray abgewehrt.

Die AfD-Demonstration erreicht den Hauptbahnhof, wo eine Abschlusskundgebung stattfindet, welche wiederum von antifaschistischen Protesten umzingelt ist und lautstark gestört wird.

Deputy Secretary of State Antony "Tony" Blinken participates in a countering violent extremism panel with Djiboutian youth and Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI) Network alumni in Djibouti City, Djibouti, on February 8, 2016. [State Department photo/ Public Domain]

REMARKS OF UNDER SECRETARY FOR TERRORISM AND FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE DAVID S. COHEN AT THE CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE, “ATTACKING ISIL’S FINANCIAL FOUNDATION”

 

As prepared for delivery

 

WASHINGTON - Good morning. Thank you, Dr. Muasher and thank you to the Carnegie Endowment for hosting me here today. It’s truly an honor to have the opportunity to lend my voice to the ongoing dialogue fostered by Carnegie and its Middle East Studies program.

   

I come this morning to discuss an especially pernicious expression of the endemic problem of violent extremism, the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). In particular, I will describe the U.S. and international effort my team at the Treasury Department is leading to undermine ISIL’s financial strength, as part of the comprehensive strategy to disrupt, degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL.

   

Let me begin by briefly reviewing why we are so focused on ISIL. ISIL terrorists have slaughtered thousands of innocent people who did not subscribe to their warped ideology. They have persecuted religious minorities and threatened genocide. They enslave and rape women and girls. They have brutally murdered aid workers and journalists who had traveled to Syria just to bring a small measure of relief to the Syrian people or to tell their story. And the vast majority of their victims are Muslims, Sunni and Shia alike.

   

As it sows chaos in communities across Iraq and Syria, ISIL threatens core U.S. interests. It threatens American personnel and facilities in Iraq. It threatens our regional allies, including Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon, who are already strained by the ripple effects of the crisis in Syria.

   

And because it is attracting so many foreign fighters, destabilizing an entire region, and securing a safe haven, ISIL, if left unchecked, could ultimately pose a direct threat to citizens of the United States and our allies outside of the Middle East. Put simply, a terrorist organization with territorial ambitions and a stated desire to kill innocent people abroad must be confronted.

   

That is why, under the leadership of President Obama, the international community has come together to stop this threat. The President has tapped General John Allen as Special Envoy to spearhead the establishment of a broad coalition – now some 60 partners strong, ranging from the Middle East to Europe and beyond – behind a strategy to degrade ISIL’s capabilities, roll back its recent gains, and ultimately defeat it.

   

ISIL has grabbed the world’s attention for its outlandish ambitions and astounding brutality, but also for another reason: its substantial wealth. ISIL’s primary funding tactics enable it today to generate tens of millions of dollars per month. Those tactics include the sale of stolen oil, the ransoming of kidnap victims, theft and extortion from the people it currently dominates, and, to a lesser extent, donations from supporters outside of Syria and Iraq.

 

So as part of the United States’ broader strategy to degrade and defeat ISIL – a plan that includes a systemic campaign of air strikes; providing additional support for the Iraqi military and the moderate Syrian opposition; delivering desperately needed humanitarian assistance; taking measures to stem the flow of foreign fighters into and out Syria and Iraq; and contesting ISIL’s twisted narrative – we at the Treasury Department are intensifying our focus on undermining ISIL’s finances.

   

This is a whole-of-government effort, and while we take the lead on the financial component of the strategy, we are working closely with our counterparts in the State Department, the Department of Defense, law enforcement, and the intelligence community. And we are also linked up with international counterparts. Indeed, just last Friday, we hosted a meeting with the State Department that brought together over 20 countries and organizations to identify measures to financially isolate and undermine ISIL, as well as al-Nusrah Front and the illegitimate Asad regime.

   

As with the rest of the campaign against ISIL, our efforts to combat its financing will take time. We have no silver bullet, no secret weapon to empty ISIL’s coffers overnight. This will be a sustained fight, and we are in the early stages. But one thing is certain: so long as ISIL terrorizes the people of Iraq and Syria, imperils the broader Middle East, and threatens U.S. interests overseas and at home, we will remain committed to degrading its financial strength.

     

The State of ISIL’s Finances

   

In 2004, the office I lead in the Treasury Department was created and charged with developing and deploying financial tools to combat terrorist financing, reflecting the recognition that one way to forestall terrorist attacks is to deprive terrorist organizations of money.

   

Through the application of powerful national and international sanctions, close cooperation with foreign partners and the private sector, and enhancements to international financial transparency, we have made it harder than ever for terrorist groups to raise, move, store, and use funds.

   

In many respects, our campaign against ISIL’s financial foundation will build on our work over the past ten years, and closely resemble our previous campaigns.

   

But to some extent, ISIL poses a different terrorist financing challenge. It has amassed wealth at an unprecedented pace, and its revenue sources have a different composition from those of many other terrorist organizations. Unlike, for instance, core al-Qa’ida, ISIL derives a relatively small share of its funds from deep-pocket donors, and thus does not, today, depend principally on moving money across international borders. Instead, ISIL obtains the vast majority of its revenues through local criminal and terrorist activities.

   

So, just as ISIL relies in part on new models to fund itself, we too are adapting our tools and techniques to combat ISIL’s financial activities. Before turning to the specific steps we are taking, let me take a moment to detail these sources of revenue.

   

First, ISIL has raised a significant amount of its money – many millions of dollars – from selling oil it extracts from fields in Syria and Iraq.

   

Our best understanding is that ISIL has tapped into a long-standing and deeply rooted black market connecting traders in and around the area. After extracting the oil, ISIL sells it to smugglers who, in turn, transport the oil outside of ISIL’s strongholds. These smugglers move oil in a variety of ways, from relatively sizeable tankers to smaller containers.

   

We also understand that ISIL controls oil refineries of various sizes and output capacities, and earns some revenue from the sale of refined petroleum products.

   

So who, ultimately, is buying this oil? According to our information, as of last month, ISIL was selling oil at substantially discounted prices to a variety of middlemen, including some from Turkey, who then transported the oil to be resold. It also appears that some of the oil emanating from territory where ISIL operates has been sold to Kurds in Iraq, and then resold into Turkey. And in a further indication of the Asad regime’s depravity, it seems the Syrian government has made an arrangement to purchase oil from ISIL.

   

It is difficult to get precise revenue estimates on the value to ISIL of these transactions in light of the murky nature of the market, but we estimate that beginning in mid-June, ISIL has earned approximately $1 million a day from oil sales.

   

There are good indications, however, that recent coalition military efforts have begun to impair ISIL’s ability to generate revenue from oil smuggling. Airstrikes on ISIL oil refineries are threatening ISIL’s supply networks and depriving it of fuel to sell or use itself. Moreover, our partners in the region, including Turkey and the Kurdistan Regional Government, are committed to preventing ISIL-derived oil from crossing their borders. Last week, the International Energy Agency reported that ISIL’s ability to produce, refine and smuggle oil had been significantly hampered.

   

Second, ISIL also kidnaps innocent civilians to profit from ransoms paid to obtain their release.

   

ISIL did not pioneer kidnapping for ransom – it has been around for thousands of years. And other terrorist organizations, including al Qa’ida’s affiliates in Yemen and north Africa, also rely on ransom payments as a key revenue source. As I have said before, kidnapping for ransom is one of the most significant terrorist financing threats today. For ISIL, these ransom payments are irregular, but each one can be a significant boon. This spring, ISIL released captured journalists and other hostages from several European countries. In return, according to press reports, ISIL received several multi-million dollar payments. All in all, ISIL has taken at least $20 million in ransoms this year.

   

Third, like its predecessor, al Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI), ISIL raises money – up to several million dollars per month – through a sophisticated extortion racket. In Iraq and Syria, ISIL extracts payments from those who pass through, conduct business in, or simply seek to live in the territory where it operates.

   

In the Iraqi city of Mosul, for instance, accounts have surfaced of ISIL terrorists going home-to-home, business-to-business, demanding cash at gunpoint. A grocery store owner who refused to pay was warned with a bomb outside his shop. Others who have not paid have seen their relatives kidnapped. Religious minorities have been forced to pay special tributes. We’ve also seen reports that when customers make cash withdrawals from local banks where ISIL operates, ISIL has demanded as much as ten percent of the value.

   

Make no mistake: This is not taxation in return for services or even for real protection. It is theft, pure and simple. The money ISIL pilfers is being exchanged not for a guarantee of safety but for the temporary absence of harm.

   

Fourth, ISIL also profits from a range of other criminal activities. They rob banks. They lay waste to thousands of years of civilization in Iraq and Syria by looting and selling antiquities. They steal livestock and crops from farmers. And despicably, they sell abducted girls and women as sex slaves.

   

Finally, as I mentioned earlier, ISIL derives some funding from wealthy donors. Even though ISIL currently does not rely heavily on external donor networks, it maintains important links to financiers in the Gulf, as a spate of Treasury designations last month made clear.

   

Degrading ISIL’s Financial Strength

   

ISIL’s revenue streams are, to be sure, diverse and deep. With the important exception of some state-sponsored terrorist organizations, ISIL is probably the best-funded terrorist organization we have confronted. Nonetheless, understanding that this effort will take time, dedication, and broad collaboration, we are well-positioned to degrade ISIL’s financial strength.

   

Our strategy involves three mutually supportive elements. First, we are working to disrupt ISIL’s revenue streams in order to deny it money in the first place. Second, we aim to limit what ISIL can do with the funds it collects by restricting its access to the international financial system. And finally, we will continue to impose sanctions on ISIL’s senior leadership and financial facilitators to disrupt their ability to operate. Let me elaborate.

   

Cutting off ISIL’s Access to Revenue

   

The first element of our strategy is working to cut off ISIL’s main sources of funding, in particular its revenue from oil sales, ransom payments, extortion and crime, and support from foreign donors.

   

Oil Sales

   

To disrupt the market in oil derived from ISIL-controlled fields, we will target for financial sanctions anyone who trades in ISIL’s stolen oil.

   

It is true, of course, that ISIL’s oil moves in illicit networks that are largely outside the formal economy, where individuals are less vulnerable to financial pressure. But at some point, that oil is acquired by someone who operates in the legitimate economy and who makes use of the financial system. He has a bank account. His business may be financed, his trucks may be insured, his facilities may be licensed. All that makes ISIL oil facilitators vulnerable.

   

The middlemen, traders, refiners, transport companies, and anyone else that handles ISIL’s oil should know that we are hard at work identifying them, and that we have tools at hand to stop them. We not only can cut them off from the U.S. financial system and freeze their assets, but we can also make it very difficult for them to find a bank anywhere that will touch their money or process their transactions. In combating ISIL’s fundraising through oil sales, we will leverage the well-established reluctance of banks around the world to facilitate the financing of terrorism.

   

Beyond financial sanctions, we are working closely with others in the U.S. government to enhance the ability of our partners in the region to choke off cross-border oil smuggling routes and to identify those involved in the smuggling networks. The Turkish and Iraqi Kurdish authorities have both made commitments to combat whatever oil smuggling occurs in their territory.

   

And, of course, as I mentioned earlier, our military colleagues are playing a significant role in degrading this source of funding through airstrikes on oil-related targets.

   

Kidnapping for Ransom

   

Next, to prevent ISIL from raising funds through ransoms, we are redoubling our efforts to translate the emerging international consensus against the payment of ransoms to terrorist groups into a more widely adopted practice.

   

It has been U.S. policy for many years to refuse the payment of ransoms or make other concessions to hostage-takers. This policy rests on the sound premise – confirmed by experience – that an explicit and consistently applied no-concessions policy reduces the frequency of kidnappings by eliminating the underlying incentive to take hostages in the first place.

   

In the context of hostage-taking by terrorists, this policy has even greater force. We know that terrorist organizations – ISIL included – use ransom money to fund the full range of their violent activities. Refusing to pay ransoms to terrorists, therefore, not only makes it less likely that Americans will be taken hostage, but it also deprives terrorists of funding critical to their deadly aspirations and operations.

   

We maintain this policy not because we are cold-hearted. To the contrary, at the President’s direction, we use all of our military, intelligence, law enforcement, and diplomatic capabilities to secure the release of American hostages. The attempt made this summer by U.S. forces to rescue hostages being held by ISIL reflects this commitment.

   

But, very simply, if we are to protect our citizens and avoid bankrolling our adversary, every country must adopt and implement a no-ransoms policy.

   

This norm is beginning to take shape. Last year, the G-8 unequivocally rejected the payment of ransoms to terrorists, and this year, members of the UN Security Council have twice adopted resolutions reaffirming their shared commitment to seek the safe release of hostages without making monetary or political concessions.

   

Going forward, as we seek to prevent kidnappings from occurring and remain dedicated to freeing those taken, we will continue to urge partner nations to subscribe to a no-ransoms policy. At the same time, we will look to use our counter-terrorism sanctions authorities against those who demand or receive ransoms on behalf of terrorist organizations.

   

External Donor Networks

   

We are also concerned about external donor networks. To prevent ISIL from raising funds from donors abroad, we will continue to identify its financial supporters and target them for sanctions.

   

We have long focused on disrupting the funding networks of ISIL and its predecessor AQI. In fact, we have applied sanctions against more than two dozen individuals associated with AQI or ISIL over the past 10 or so years. And we will continue to target those who would exploit the suffering of innocent people in Syria and Iraq to raise money for their extremist agendas, whether in support of ISIL or any other terrorist group.

   

In the months ahead, we plan to accelerate our efforts to identify targets for sanctions and take actions against them through our counter-terrorism authorities. In September, President Obama led the United Nations Security Council in unanimously passing a binding resolution to stem the flow of foreign terrorist fighters into – and out of – Iraq and Syria. Security Council Resolution 2178 aims specifically to prevent and suppress the flow of foreign fighters and money to ISIL and al-Nusrah Front, and we are working with others to implement it swiftly.

   

And we are working especially closely with our friends in the Gulf – who are stalwart partners in the anti-ISIL coalition – to ensure that they all have the tools in place to combat terrorist financing and that they all use those tools effectively. We appreciate the close collaboration and strong steps taken by the Emiratis and the Saudis to combat ISIL financing.

   

Even though ISIL does not currently rely heavily on the traditional donor model for terrorist financing, that is no reason to relax our efforts in this area. Particularly as we make progress in disrupting ISIL’s current sources of income, and as ISIL gains additional prominence in the global terrorist movement, we must be prepared for the possibility that wealthy extremists will increasingly seek to fund it.

   

Extortion and crime

   

As for disrupting the revenue that ISIL generates from extortion and other local criminal activities, we recognize that Treasury’s tools are not particularly well-suited to the task. We can and we will identify and designate the individuals who oversee ISIL’s extortion networks, calling attention to those who are brutalizing the people of Iraq and Syria. But our experience combating AQI’s extortion networks, which ISIL mimics, drives home the point that shutting down the revenue flow from ISIL’s extortion networks ultimately will require breaking its hold on territory. Other lines of effort in the anti-ISIL coalition are focused on this crucial objective.

   

Nonetheless, even where Treasury’s financial tools cannot cut off certain revenue streams, we still have a crucial role to play, and that brings me to the second key element of our strategy.

   

Restricting ISIL’s Access to the International Financial System

   

As we work to disrupt ISIL’s sources of income, we are focused on restricting ISIL’s access to the international financial system in order to impair its ability to collect funds from abroad, and to move, store, and use the funds it acquires locally.

   

ISIL’s ability to make the most effective use of money that it raises depends on its access to the banking system in Syria, Iraq, and internationally. Operating entirely in cash is both cumbersome and risky – cash is bulky, vulnerable to theft, and requires complicated logistics to transport. Moreover, ISIL will have a hard time funding external operations, including facilitating the movement of foreign fighters, without access to the international financial system.

   

To that end, we are working to limit ISIL’s ability to transact through the Iraqi, Syrian, and international banking systems. Scores of bank branches are located in territories where ISIL operates. Through cooperation with the Iraqi authorities, bank headquarters, and the international financial community, we aim to prevent ISIL from using those bank branches.

   

The private sector is also playing a key role in this element of our strategy. Bank Secrecy Act reports filed with the Treasury by financial institutions provide the U.S. Government with valuable insight into financial activity in areas where ISIL operates. We carefully review these reports for indications of ISIL financing and quickly disseminate information to the appropriate authorities.

   

Targeted Sanctions Against ISIL’s Leadership and Facilitators

   

The third element of our strategy draws on our time-tested approach to countering the financing of terrorism – that is, we will continue to dismantle ISIL’s financial foundation through targeting for designations its leadership, supporters, and financial facilitators.

   

Running a terrorist organization – especially one that, like ISIL, spans hundreds of miles – is both costly and bureaucratically challenging. In order to keep track of all its revenues and costs, ISIL depends on complex management networks, with CFO-like figures at the top. As we identify the individuals that make up those networks, we will expose and designate them.

 

We’ve seen from our fight against al-Qa’ida and other terrorist organizations that sanctioning top officials hampers their ability to raise and handle funds. Doing so against ISIL will make it harder for ISIL to conduct commercial and financial activity, and also clearly identifies for the international community who stands behind this evil organization.

   

We have already stepped up our designations of ISIL officials, both those based in Iraq and Syria and their financial supporters outside the area. Most recently, on September 24, Treasury sanctioned two high-profile individuals associated with ISIL – a financial facilitator who arranged for a $2 million donation from the Gulf, and a senior military commander. Both were based in Syria, soliciting donations, procuring military equipment, and recruiting foreign fighters to ISIL’s areas. These designations will not, on their own, stop these individuals from operating, but they – and the designations to come – will frustrate ISIL’s ability to attract money and fighters.

   

Before concluding, I’d like to make one final point about our campaign against ISIL’s financial foundation.

   

We should not confuse funding with financial strength. While ISIL today is well-funded, a terrorist group’s overall financial strength turns not just on its income, but also on its expenses and, importantly, the degree to which it can dedicate its resources to violent purposes. And in that regard, ISIL operates within certain real constraints.

   

ISIL’s territorial ambitions are a financial burden. Attempting to govern the cities, towns and sprawling territory in Iraq and Syria where it currently operates, much less delivering some modicum of services to the millions of people it seeks to subjugate, is expensive. By way of comparison only – since no one expects ISIL to deliver the same level of services as the legitimate Iraqi government – the official Iraqi budget this year for the provinces where ISIL currently operates is well over $2 billion. That far outstrips ISIL’s revenue, and does not include the price-tag for the territory it seeks to dominate in Syria.

   

What this means is that ISIL cannot possibly meet the most basic needs of the people it seeks to rule. In fact, we are already seeing reports of water and electricity shortages in Mosul as ISIL fails to deliver. As we make progress in diminishing ISIL’s revenues and its freedom to use them, we will further exploit this vulnerability. The consequences of ISIL’s inability to meet the cost of governing, by the way, were articulated very well in a recent report by Mona Alami in Sada, Carnegie’s online journal for its Middle East program.

   

Conclusion

   

With time, patience, and close international cooperation, the steps I have outlined today will help undermine ISIL’s financial foundation. I must stress again, however, that the campaign against ISIL’s finances will require more than just financial tools.

   

This is primarily because, given that ISIL is enriching itself locally, cutting off one key source of funds will require dislodging it from territory in which it operates. But more broadly, even as this vital military campaign progresses, we recognize that the only solutions to the conflicts in Iraq and Syria are political in nature. The hateful ideology propagated by ISIL must be countered by tolerant, economically vibrant societies and governments that rule in an inclusive manner. These are long term goals that the United States is deeply committed to fostering.

   

So while we work toward lasting solutions, Treasury will continue to deploy innovative strategies to disrupt ISIL’s financing. Together with our partners in the U.S. government and across the globe, we will degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL.

   

Thank you.

   

###

From left to right: Mi-Ai Parrish, Sue Clark-Johnson Professor in Media Innovation and Leadership, ASU;

 

Monika Bickert, Vice President of Global Policy Management, Facebook

Norway and UNW: Global Leadership - Local Partnerships Women's Leadership and Gender Perspectives on Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism – UNHQ, CR4

 

Moderator: Nicholas Kristof, Journalist;

Panelists: H.E. Ms. Erna Solberg, Prime Minister of Norway; Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, UN Women Executive Director; Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini, International Civil Society Network; Fatima Al-Bahadly, Al Firdaws Society, Iraq; Hamsatu Allamin, Nigeria Stability and Reconciliation Program; Deeyah Khan, Fuuse UK and Norway; Shafqat, PAIMAN Alumni Trust, Pakistan.

 

20 September 2016.

 

Photo: UN Women/Ryan Brown

مندوبا عن جلالة الملك عبدالله الثاني، القائد الأعلى للقوات المسلحة، سمو الأمير الحسين بن عبدالله الثاني ولي العهد، يرعى حفل تخريج دورة الدفاع الوطني 19، للحاصلين على ماجستير الإدارة والدراسات الاستراتيجية، وماجستير استراتيجيات مواجهة التطرف والإرهاب 5

Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Sarah Sewall introduces U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to deliver remarks at the Strong Cities Network International Visitors Leadership Program for Municipal Leaders and Countering Violence Extremism Experts event at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., on March 1, 2016. [State Department photo/ Public Domain]

www.usaraf.army.mil

 

Civil affairs leaves impression with senior Reserve officer visiting Horn of Africa

 

By Petty Officer 1st Class Larry Foos, CJTF-HOA Public Affairs

 

CAMP LEMONNIER, Djibouti – The U.S. Army Reserve commander and command sergeant major traveled through four countries in the Horn of Africa to see firsthand how small contingents of Army Reserve Soldiers accomplish civil affairs missions.

 

Lt. Gen. Jack C. Stultz, commanding general, U.S. Army Reserve Command trekked thousands of miles to visit roughly 130 civil affairs Soldiers from his command. His five-day tour, which includes stops in Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and Djibouti ended Feb. 20 at Camp Lemonnier — home of Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa.

 

Stultz next visits U.S. Army Africa headquarters in Vicenza, Italy, where he will meet with Maj. Gen. William B. Garrett, commander of U.S. Army Africa, to discuss Reserve support of upcoming missions on the continent.

 

In East Africa, Reserve teams displayed their effectiveness in applying unique, non-kinetic approaches to countering violent extremism, Stultz said.

 

“What you see here is special, truly the value of joint operations,” said Stultz. “In the full spectrum of military operations, stability operations are key in post-conflict as in Iraq and Afghanistan, or pre-conflict as you see here.”

 

Stultz and Command Sgt. Maj. Michael D. Schultz, who was making his first overseas trip as the Army Reserve’s senior enlisted leader, visited reserve Soldiers working on civil affairs teams in Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and Djibouti. They saw Americans and Africans working together to improve schools and during military-to-military training. Army Brig. Gen. James Owens, deputy commander of CJTF-HOA, joined the visiting leadership team.

 

Stultz shared the importance of schooling to young African students and offered advice to Ugandan leaders. The trip left a lasting impression, Stultz said.

 

“The thing that impresses me with these civil affairs teams, you have these young captains and sergeants out there on their own just doing great stuff for the local (African) community, whether it is building schools, or digging wells…just a lot of good things improving lives of citizens,” Stultz said.

 

Schultz agreed, U.S. Soldiers are making a difference, he said.

 

“Every place we’ve gone to, every organization that they are touching whether it’s a school or any organization, you can see that there is true appreciation for what these civil affairs Reserve units are doing for the community,” Schultz said.

 

The U.S. Army represents roughly a third of CJTF-HOA’s total numbers. Around 650 National Guardsmen provide security at Camp Lemonnier. Reserve Soldiers on civil affairs teams, plus some 50 active duty Soldiers, focus on CJTF-HOA’s indirect approach to combating violent extremism in East Africa - helping build Africa’s security and military forces to enable them to improve stability and security in the region.

 

Reserve Soldiers are able to mentor Africans with more than just military experience, Schultz said.

 

“They bring their civilian background,” Schultz said. “Many civil affairs NCOs and officers are in law enforcement or they teach. That is important.”

 

Citizen Soldiers are an important part each branch of service’s reserve component, Schultz said.

 

“We see it over and over again, the real value that’s added with the Reserve Soldier, whether it is Army, Navy, Marine Corps or Air Force Reserve,” Shultz said. “The added value is the civilian skills. You’ll find out your radioman or civil affairs Soldier back home is a lawyer, or they may be some kind of information technology guru,” he said.

 

During the last day of their visit, Stultz and Schultz visited Djiboutian community leaders and the secretary general for the National Union of Djiboutian Women. The U.S. Army’s 418th Civil Affairs Battalion, which provides the civil affairs teams for the Horn of Africa, arranged the meetings. The teams also offered locals books to teach English as a second language.

 

They wrapped up with a town hall meeting with the CJTF-HOA Army members. Stultz shared his perspective of what his all-volunteer reserve force means to our defenses and to the United States. To accomplish Army mission, Reserve Soldiers often sacrifice time away from their family, income and civilian promotions, he said.

 

“I tell Army Reserve Soldiers that they are part of our greatest national treasure,” Stultz said. “That’s our citizen Soldiers. And what a treasure we’ve got.”

 

CUTLINE: 100220-A-8502B-043

(Eldoret, Kenya) February 17, 2010 – Lt. Gen. Jack Stultz, U.S. Army Reserve Commanding Officer, enjoys a walk around the Rukini Primary School during a visit with the Army’s 411th Civil Affairs Team Feb. 17. The Rukini Primary and Secondary schools were burned down during the post election violence in 2007. The Civil Affairs team reconstructed the entire school and it now provides a place of education for more than 1,000 students. Based in Danbury, Conn., the 411th Civil Affairs is currently assigned to Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa and supports the command’s mission to avert violent extremism by helping build Africa’s security and stability. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Amanda Boersma/released)

   

To learn more about U.S. Army Africa visit our official website at www.usaraf.army.mil

 

Official Twitter Feed: www.twitter.com/usarmyafrica

 

Official YouTube video channel: www.youtube.com/usarmyafrica

  

On October 21, 2014, CSIS and USAID/DCHA's Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) will host a major event, Advances and Challenges in Political Transitions. In honor of OTI's 20th anniversary, this conference will feature more than 40 experts and senior officials focusing on the challenges and opportunities of working in conflicts, crises, and political transitions. What will new conflicts look like, region by region? What role will extremism, organized crime, and chaotic violence play? What contributions will youth, women, the private sector, and technology make to prevention, mitigation, and recovery? And what tools, approaches, resources, and support will be needed to build more resilient societies in the coming years?

Agenda

Welcome and Opening Remarks

John Hamre, President, CEO, and Pritzker, CSIS

Nancy Lindborg, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, USAID

Keynote Address

Ambassador Alfonso E. Lenhardt, Deputy Administrator, USAID

Opening Presentation

Robert Lamb, Visiting Research Professor, U.S. Army War College, and Director and Senior Fellow (on leave), Program on Crisis, Conflict, and Cooperation, CSIS

Morning Plenary: Conflict Response and Recovery in Complex Environments

Moderator: Stephen Del Rosso, Program Director, International Peace and Security Program, Carnegie Corporation of New York

Panelists:

Stephen Lennon, Acting Director, OTI, USAID

Ambassador William Swing, Director General, International Organization for Migration

David Yang, Deputy Assistant Administrator, DCHA Bureau, USAID

Morning Breakout Panels

Track 1: Violent Extremism in MENA

Moderator: Tom Sanderson, Codirector, Transnational Threats Project, CSIS

Panelists:

Robbie Harris, Senior Transition Advisor, USAID/OTI

David Hunsicker, Senior Conflict Advisor, USAID/CMM

Hunter Keith, Development Specialist, DAI

Mona Yacoubian, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Middle East Bureau, USAID

Track 2: Geography, Technology, and Data

Moderator: Amy Noreuil, Data Analysis Support, USAID/OTI

Panelists:

Noel Dickover, Senior Program Officer, PeaceTech Initiative, USIP

Ian Schuler, CEO and President, Development Seed

Jessica Heinzelman, Manager, ICT Strategic Initiatives, DAI

Ivan Sigal, Executive Director, Global Voices

Track 3: Urban Violence and Organized Crime

Moderator: Lt. Col. (Retired) Scott Mann, CEO and Founder, Stability Institute

Panelists:

Miguel Reabold, Honduras Country Representative, USAID/OTI

Scott Aughenbaugh, Fellow, International Security Program and Deputy Director, Strategic Futures, CSIS

Enrique Roig, Coordinator, Central America Regional Security Initiative, USAID

Lunchtime Plenary: Looking Back and Looking Ahead

Moderator: Jim Kunder, Senior Transatlantic Fellow, German Marshall Fund of the United States

Panelists:

Robert Jenkins, Deputy Assistant Administrator, DCHA Bureau, USAID

Rick Barton, Former Assistant Secretary, Bureau for Conflict and Stabilization Operations, Department of State

Johanna Mendelson Forman, Scholar in Residence, American University, and Senior Associate, CSIS

Steve Morrison, Senior Vice President and Director, Global Health Policy Center, CSIS

Afternoon Breakout Panels

Track 1: Future of Conflict in Africa

Moderator: Jennifer Cooke, Director, Africa Program, CSIS

Panelists:

John Langlois, Africa Advisor, USAID/OTI

Pauline Baker, President Emeritus, Fund for Peace

Track 2: Future of Conflict in Eurasia/Pacific

Moderator: Susan Kosinski Fritz, Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator, Europe and Eurasia Bureau, USAID

Panelists:

Oren Murphy, Ukraine Country Representative, USAID/OTI

John R. Deni, Research Professor of Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational Security Studies, Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College

Track 3: Future of Conflict in Latin America

Moderator: Katie Prud'homme, Latin America and Caribbean Team Leader, USAID/OTI

Panelists:

Beth Hogan, Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator LAC, USAID

Steven Dudley, Codirector, InSight Crime

Douglas Farah, President, IBI Counsultants, and Senior Fellow, International Assessment and Strategy Center

Afternoon Plenary: Evolution of Agencies and Resources

Moderator: Kathleen Hicks, Senior Vice President; Henry A. Kissinger Chair; Director, International Security Program, CSIS

Panelists:

William Brownfield, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Department of State

Tom Perriello, Special Representative for the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, Department of State

Melissa Brown, Director, Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation, USAID

OTI in Transition: A Brief Oral History (film)

Programs

PROGRAM ON CRISIS, CONFLICT, AND COOPERATION (C3)

Topics

DEFENSE AND SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND RECONSTRUCTION, GOVERNANCE, DEVELOPMENT POLICY

Opening Remarks at the Global Counterterrorism Forum.

Thank you very much, Ahmet, and once again, thank you for hosting us in this beautiful city and for being a steadfast champion of this forum. I want to recognize all of our colleagues around the table. It is often easier to focus on the concerns and crises of the moment, but the long-term partnership we are building through this forum, we believe, will pay off for years to come.

 

In recent years, the international community has made important strides in the fight against violent extremism in all its forms. We’ve worked together to disrupt terrorist financing; pass new and more effective counterterrorism laws; tighten border, aviation and maritime security; and improve international coordination. Over the past decade, more than 120,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested around the world, and more than 35,000 have been convicted. Usama bin Ladin is dead, al-Qaida’s core leadership ranks have been devastated, and many of its affiliates have lost key operatives. Our citizens are safer because of the work we have done together.

 

But despite this progress, the danger from terrorism remains urgent and undeniable. The core of al-Qaida that carried out the 9/11 attacks and other attacks in countries represented here today may be on the path to defeat, but the threat has spread, becoming more geographically diverse as groups associated with al-Qaida expand their operations. Terrorists now hold territory in Mali, Somalia, and Yemen. They are carrying out frequent and destabilizing attacks in Nigeria and the Maghreb. Here in Turkey, the PKK continues its long campaign of terror and violence, which has claimed tens of thousands of lives. The United States stands strongly with Turkey in its fight against the PKK. And groups are now actively encouraging lone wolf terrorists like those responsible for recent killing sprees in Europe.

 

That’s why this forum and the international cooperation it represents are so vital. Just as the threat we face crosses borders and oceans, so must our response. We need a strategic, comprehensive approach to counterterrorism that integrates both military and civilian power that uses intelligence, law enforcement, diplomacy, development, humanitarian assistance, and every possible partner and asset.

 

Because we have learned that to defeat a terrorist network, we need to do more than remove terrorists from the battlefield. We need to attack finances, recruitment, and safe havens. We need to take on ideology and diminish its appeal, particularly to young people. We need to improve conditions for women, because their security is a bellwether for societies’ security, and we need to help build the capacities of nations that have the political will to take on this fight.

 

The Global Counterterrorism Forum emphasizes strengthening civilian institutions as a critical part of our strategy. And we’re already taking important steps to put this into practice, building new partnerships with the United Nations and other multilateral bodies, and knitting together far-flung counterterrorism efforts that need better focus and organization.

 

Let me just highlight two areas where it is essential we continue to make progress.

 

First, we have to continue working together to defeat extremist ideology, blunt the spread of radicalization, and slow the flow of recruits to terrorist networks. Last summer, the UAE took an important step when it announced it would host the first-ever international center developed to combat extremism and develop those best practices that will do so. I am pleased to announce that the United States will support this effort with both funding and expertise, and that the center, I’m told, will open its doors in Abu Dhabi later this fall, although it already has its own brochure, which is a good step to demonstrate the concreteness of the work that will be done at the center.

 

Think of what the center can do: Bring together experts on communications who understand how to undermine terrorist propaganda; the smartest minds on law enforcement, who can help governments and communities learn to ward off extremism and expose intruders; scholars of education, who can devise curricula free of hatred and give teachers the tools to protect at-risk children from recruitment by extremists.

 

The second area I want to mention is the rule of law. Experience tells us that democracies are better equipped than autocracies to stand up against terrorism. They offer constructive outlets for political grievances, they create opportunities for mobility and prosperity that provide alternatives to violent extremism, and they tend to have more effective governing institutions.

 

The protests of the Arab Awakening struck a devastating blow to the extremists’ ideology. Citizens in the Middle East and North Africa claiming their universal rights, demanding more accountable governments, seeking broader economic opportunities, all without the rhetoric of hate and destruction that al-Qaida claimed was the only way to achieve change. Now the transitions underway have the potential to transform and improve counterterrorism efforts across the region. This forum is helping make that happen.

 

Last year as a group, we pledged more than $90 million to provide rule of law training for police, prosecutors, judges, and prison officials in countries seeking to turn their backs on more repressive approaches to counterterrorism. I am pleased that today this forum will adopt two sets of sound practices – one for the criminal justice sector, the other on rehabilitation and reintegration of violent extremist offenders in prison. These will advance our work, and I am proud to announce the United States is contributing $15 million to support training initiatives in these areas, and to launch new partnerships with the UN and others to make sure our assistance gets to those officials on the front lines who need it most.

 

And I am here today also to underscore that the United States will work with all of you to combat terrorists within the framework of the rule of law. Now some believe that when it comes to counterterrorism, the end always justifies the means; that torture, abuse, the suspension of civil liberties – no measure is too extreme in the name of keeping our citizens safe.

 

But unfortunately, this view is short-sighted and wrong. When nations violate human rights and undermine the rule of law, even in the pursuit of terrorists, it feeds radicalization, gives propaganda tools to the extremists, and ultimately undermines our efforts. The international community cannot turn our eyes away from the effects of these tactics because they are part of the problem.

 

I know that the United States has not always had a perfect record, and we can and must do a better job of addressing the mistaken belief that these tactics are ever permissible. That is why President Obama has made our standards very clear. We will always maintain our right to use force against groups such as al-Qaida that have attacked us and still threaten us with imminent attack. And in doing so, we will comply with the applicable law, including the laws of war, and go to extraordinary lengths to ensure precision and avoid the loss of innocent life.

 

We view this forum as a key vehicle for galvanizing action on these fronts and for driving a comprehensive, strategic approach to counterterrorism. And I’m very pleased that in this short period of time, as Ahmet said, the forum is already living up to its promise to emphasize results, not rhetoric, and to spark the innovation that is essential for keeping up with an ever-changing, dynamic threat.

 

And so I thank the members of the forum for taking on the changing methods that terrorists use to fund their efforts. For example, because of our coordinated pressure, terrorists are increasingly abandoning the formal financial system and funding their operations through criminal activities. Kidnapping for ransom has emerged as a favored tactic; it’s most acute in the Sahel, has long been a concern in Latin America, and is now spreading worldwide. We need to intensify our international cooperation to deal with this issue by finalizing this fall the guidelines discussed at the meeting in Algiers earlier this spring so countries have the best tools available for dealing with hostage-taking and extortion.

 

The work we need to do, whether on stopping kidnapping for ransom, countering violent extremism, or strengthening rule of law, require focus and tenacity. Now those of us around the table are here for a few hours, but the experts who are working with us work day in and day out. And it is a true honor to have this venue for policymakers and practitioners, because after all, we’re here because we face implacable foes who are determined to kill civilians, disrupt societies, and spread their ideology of hate. And we cannot afford to work at cross-purposes or to pursue policies that obstruct cooperation or fuel radicalization. All of us share a commitment to take on this challenge, and the United States is very proud to continue working with you to further our common efforts.

 

Thank you very much.

------------------

Remarks

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State - Conrad Hotel - Istanbul, Turkey

June 7, 2012. PRN: 2012/ T65-14

==============================

 

06/07/2012 10:58 AM EDT

Background Briefing: Senior State Department Official on Global Counterterrorism Forum in Istanbul.

Special Briefing

Senior Department Official

 

Istanbul, Turkey

 

June 7, 2012

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MODERATOR: We are in Istanbul for the Global Counterterrorism Forum. We have with us [Senior State Department Official], hereafter Senior State Department Official, to walk you through the events for tomorrow. Take it away, [Senior State Department Official].

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Okay. I’m sure you’re all exhausted, so I’ll try to be brief. A little background first on the Global Counterterrorism Forum and a little bit about tomorrow. I think you’ve seen the fact sheets.

 

It’s important to remember that Secretary Clinton came into office with a strong conviction that we needed a more comprehensive counterterrorism policy and that there was an important diplomatic role to be played. She believed strongly that it was not just a question of taking out the terrorists who were threatening us at any given moment, but that over the long term, we also needed to diminish recruitment, which the terrorists of course rely upon, and help others to do a better job defending themselves against the threats within their borders and in their regions.

 

You’ve heard her speak at great length about smart power. She – we very much consider this to be a smart power approach. We could call it strategic counterterrorism. And its core elements involve countering violent extremism, undermining the ideology of al-Qaida and other extremist groups, and capacity building. Those are really the two pillars.

 

And to advance that agenda, she led the effort to create the Global Counterterrorism Forum, a multilateral informal body that is established to focus on those two areas and to really concentrate on strengthening civilian institutions in frontline states around the world. The GCTF was established last September in New York. The United States co-chairs this group with Turkey. She and Foreign Minister Davutoglu presided over the launch, and there are 30 members of the GCTF – 29 countries and the EU.

 

The GCTF sought from the outset to bridge old and deep divides in the international community between Western donor nations and Muslim majority nations. And it has, I think, done that quite effectively. You have, I know, the lists of the members, so I won’t go through all those. I also wanted – I also sought to bring in the other great powers – China, India, Russia – as well as geographic representation from all continents. So that sort of explains the composition.

 

At the outset, the group sort of exceeded expectations from the beginning with the announcement of two important deliverables: One was roughly $90 million to support rule of law programming in primarily transition states – those of the Arab Awakening – and there was a great deal of support for that --

 

QUESTION: In the forum, or United --

 

MODERATOR: Ninety million --

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Ninety million from donors within the Forum --

 

QUESTION: Okay.

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: -- to that end. And also the United Arab Emirates stepped forward and announced its intention to create the first Global Center of Excellence for Countering Violent Extremism.

 

To bring you up to date, that project is going forward and we expect that the center, with support from the United States and many other GCTF countries, will open its doors in October. And the rule of law work has also gone forward in very important ways --

 

QUESTION: What is the Center of Excellence? Is that like a hall of fame or something?

 

MODERATOR: Guys, why don’t we let him finish, and then we’ll go to questions. Go ahead, please.

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: The Center of Excellence just – since it does deserve some elaboration – is going to be focused on training, research, and dialogue. And it is going to be a center that provides best practices to a whole array of different kinds of groups, government officials, so that they can help make the policies that will result in a diminution of radicalization. It will also deal with NGOs, communities, religious leaders, and the like.

 

So the – just to come back for one second to the organization of the GCTF, it consists of a coordinating committee, and that is the sort of superstructure, and beneath that there are five working groups, two functional ones. Countering Violent Extremism is one, and that is co-chaired by the UAE and the UK. Another one is the Rule of Law and Criminal Justice. We co-chair that with the Egyptians. There are also three regional working groups: one in the Sahel, one in the Horn of Africa, one in Southeast Asia. The --

 

QUESTION: Southeast Asia, you said? Sorry.

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yes, Southeast Asia.

 

Tomorrow we will have the first plenary at the ministerial level since the group was created last September. In the interim, all the working groups have help meetings, some of them multiple meetings. The key initiatives that will be rolled out are as follows. There will be a set of good practices in the criminal justice sector. The document is called the Rabat Memorandum on Good Practices for Effective Counterterrorism Practice in the Criminal Justice Sector. And that is essentially a blueprint for further programs in this area so that countries will have – I’m sorry, let me back up – so that there will be essentially an agreed-upon plan that members of the GCTF will work off of as they provide assistance to different countries so that they can improve the quality of their police, their investigators, their prosecutors, their judiciary, and even their legislators so that they can write better laws for dealing with terrorism.

 

So the Rabat Memorandum is one blueprint for that. Another blueprint that’s going to be rolled out is called the Rome Memorandum. This has to do with practices for prisons for rehabilitating violent extremists, for essentially disengaging them from groups that they may be involved with and radical ideologies that they may be attracted to. This too is going to be a blueprint for technical assistance. We have worked closely with the UN on this one, and a number of countries will be supporting the work in this area. And we’ve already been getting requests for technical assistance. As many of you know, prisons have become really one of the primary incubators of terrorists, and this is an effort to roll that back.

 

A number of countries will announce a range of deliverables, support for these different programs as well as some programs of their own that they will be rolling out. There will be an update on the progress in terms of opening the center in the UAE. And finally, there will be the announcement of the intention to establish an international training center dedicated to carrying out the kinds of trainings that I talked about in the Rabat – with the Rabat Memorandum. There’s going to be an actual center of excellence, if you will, another institution focused on delivering those trainings for criminal justice institutions and other rule of law institutions. That – the location of that will be announced shortly, but I’m not prepared to say where it’s going to be just yet.

 

So that’s – those are the outlines, and if you have questions, I’m happy to answer them.

 

QUESTION: You have – the Egyptians are a co-chairing rule of law working group?

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yep.

 

QUESTION: I mean, do you think that, given the kind of questions about the military, the SCAF that has had serious questions about their rule of law, and now you have a new government that’s completely untested, are you – how can you say that the Egyptians should be co-chairing a group that they’re providing – they’re helping to create best practices? They’re the ones that – I would think they’re the ones that need these type of best practices.

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: The best practices are being drawn up by the entire group. Okay?

 

QUESTION: But how can they provide leadership on this issue right now?

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, in fact, we’ve found our collaboration with the Egyptians to be quite positive. The Egyptians have said from the outset that it was a sort of a central tenet of the Egyptian revolution that they wanted to have a decent government, a government ruled by transparent legal institutions. We’ve found that the Ministry of Justice and other interlocutors have been quite serious and quite constructive about this effort. Obviously, it’s a period of great change in Egypt, but we believe it’s exactly this kind of partnership that will help change go in the right – change proceed in the right direction.

 

MODERATOR: Brad?

 

QUESTION: So – sorry, I didn’t – the $90 million – (telephone rings). Sorry.

 

MODERATOR: Guess not. Anybody else? Jim, no? Nicole?

 

QUESTION: Not right now.

 

MODERATOR: Any other questions for [Senior State Department Official]?

 

QUESTION: I mean – I just have one last question. I mean, it’s always the kind of thing with these type of groups that it’s great that you have these confabs of like-minded countries that have similar ways of looking at these best practices of terrorism or democracy or anything like that but, I mean, it’s the countries that are not in this group, right, that are the ones that need the actual guidance? And how do you – you don’t want to impose yourself on them, and you can’t. So how do you come strike that balance between spreading your gospel of best practices and --

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, I think – I’m glad you asked the question. The important thing about the GCTF is that while there are – there’s this core membership in all the working groups, there is an openness to having others participate in the regional working groups. In fact, it’s expected that meetings will invite all the neighbors in.

 

So when – for example, the Sahel Working Group had its meeting last November in Algiers, Libya was there – Libya’s not a member. Libya obviously has a lot to benefit from the GCTF. I believe Tunisia was there at the time, certainly Cote d’Ivoire, Chad – we had a really big turnout.

 

And the idea is that the GCTF is going to be providing instruction, providing training, providing best practices, to a whole array of countries far beyond the membership. In the rule of law group, we expect other countries to participate. And in fact, the organization itself is very much focused on bringing others in. It would be unwieldy to just have an organization in which – we had 191 members right now – but as a way of focusing the process and ensuring that we get a good outcome. And then being able to deliver that to others, we think this is a good size.

 

The CVE center is absolutely intending to provide trainings to any kind of country.

 

QUESTION: And these three regional working groups for the Sahel, the Horn of Africa, and Southeast Asia, these presumably are the kind of target where you think that that’s the three areas where you need to --

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, we’re not --

 

QUESTION: -- most important or vulnerable areas of countering violent extremists?

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No, I think we decided on those based on the consensus of those involved, that those were areas that both had significant problems, but also had a sort of constellation of actors who were prepared to work together most effectively.

 

For example, in Southeast Asia, we have the Australians and the Indonesians co-chairing the working group. And there are quite good relationships between most of the countries in that region. So it’s a good idea to have it there.

 

Obviously, there are a lot of other places in the world where there could be working groups. We felt that it was important for the group to be established in a way that it could demonstrate its capabilities, really put points on the board, and then consider expansion elsewhere.

 

QUESTION: I have a question. The Rabat and Rome document’s going to be available publicly or are they sort of members-only blueprints?

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No, they’re going to be available.

 

QUESTION: So from that perspective, they can benefit countries that aren’t currently in the forum, so – and provide transparency for those who might want to participate in the future, right?

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Absolutely.

 

QUESTION: Can I ask a little more about the Rome Memorandum? My name’s Nicole. I’m with Bloomberg News. So the document will come out at this meeting tomorrow?

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah.

 

QUESTION: Okay. Can you tell us a little more about who worked on it and what kind of conclusions they came to, if possible?

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah. And I’ll ask [staff] to jump in when I falter. So the Rome document grew out of an original set of principles that was introduced, that was published at the launch last September. And that was called, amazingly, the Cairo Declaration. And from that, there were months of negotiations between – negotiations, maybe consultations, between experts from different countries culminating in a meeting in Rabat earlier this year.

 

QUESTION: He was in Rome or Rabat?

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Oh, I’m sorry. You wanted Rome?

 

QUESTION: Yeah.

 

MODERATOR: Yes.

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I was on Rabat. I apologize.

 

QUESTION: Well, do both. Do both.

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Okay. Rome.

 

MODERATOR: So but why don’t you finish with Rabat if that’s what --

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah, Rabat began with Cairo. I’m sorry. The Rs are running together, it’s been a week. (Laughter.)

 

QUESTION: So this is called the Rabat Memorandum?

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah. Okay. So there was a --

 

QUESTION: This is the one on the criminal justice sector?

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yes, exactly, and I apologize about that. So that was done from Cairo, lots of sort of intercessional consultations on areas that we want to focus on, what the best practices were, how to get the wording right. And then after Rabat, in fact, we’ve had one more meeting in The Hague where the members use this really as a blueprint for thinking up the programs that they wanted to do, and some of those will be announced tomorrow.

 

Now, as for the Rome Memorandum, this began as a collaboration with a UN body called UNICRI, United Nations International Crime Research Institute.

 

STAFF: Interregional Crime Research Institute.

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Interregional Crime Research Institute. And there was a lot of work done on developing best practices at a series of meetings that culminated in a meeting in Rome in April.

 

STAFF: In May.

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: May, okay. A lot of meetings. And again, that’s a case where lots of different countries with relevant experience came to the table, laid out their best practices, exchanged ideas on what would be a useful set of guidelines for the future. And that memorandum was agreed upon, and it is now, again, sort of the guidelines for different programs.

 

QUESTION: Okay. Is Egypt one of those countries that was involved in the Rome Memorandum?

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yes, the Egyptians did participate.

 

QUESTION: Okay.

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: So I should also note that there is a website now for the GCTF, and all these documents will be posted. I believe it’s www.thegctf.org, right? And all those texts will be available for your reading interest.

 

MODERATOR: Tomorrow at the --

 

QUESTION: One more question: Who is chairing the – could you say one more time who’s chairing – the Criminal Justice is Egypt and whom?

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: U.S.

 

QUESTION: And then --

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: And let me --

 

MODERATOR: We have some fact sheets that you should have had if you don’t have them.

 

QUESTION: Oh, I don’t have them.

 

MODERATOR: Okay. We’ll give them to you to have.

 

QUESTION: (Off mike.)

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, let me – actually, let me just elaborate on that for one second. One of the goals of the GCTF has been to go beyond the historic debates that have come – bedeviled counterterrorism for a long time to get away from the question of who is a terrorist, for example, and to really let the experts in these various areas come together and work in a very pragmatic way to really get things done. As the Secretary said at the launch, we don’t need another talk shop. We need to be action-oriented. And we very much have tried to realize her vision in that regard.

 

And so the interesting thing is that the Rule of Law Working Group – the folks who are doing it for our side, it’s the Department of Justice. It’s not the State Department doing this. So it’s the real practitioners rolling up their sleeves and working on very, very practical issues and thinking about what kind of programs they can institute so that others will benefit from the insights that the group brings to bear.

 

MODERATOR: Any other questions?

 

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No. We’re not doing anything on WMD right now.

 

QUESTION: Okay. But did you say that that was one of the (inaudible)?

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No.

 

QUESTION: Oh, okay. CVE?

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: CVE, countering violent extremism, not CVRS. Yeah.

 

QUESTION: The CVE, is that related to the center which – the new center?

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Okay. So there are two centers that are under discussion.

 

QUESTION: I’m not talking about – I’m talking about your --

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: You’re talking about --

 

QUESTION: -- the one that Roberto was – Alberto – Alberto was --

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Alberto. Yeah.

 

QUESTION: I’m a little tired myself.

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: So one of the sort of subgroups, the work streams in countering violent extremism, has to do with communications and how you push back against extremist propaganda and ideology on the web, on the airwaves, and the like. And in fact, Alberto Fernandez, who is the coordinator at the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, is leading that effort for us.

 

MODERATOR: All right, everybody. Thank you very much.

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: You want me to repeat something? You look pained.

 

QUESTION: Yeah – no, because I – you said Alberto’s last name, and I just --

 

QUESTION: Fernandez.

 

MODERATOR: Fernandez.

 

QUESTION: Thank you.

 

QUESTION: Fernandez?

 

MODERATOR: Fernandez.

 

QUESTION: I’m tired.

 

MODERATOR: All right. And we will, as we said, have these fact sheets for you – shortly, [staff]? Okay.

 

QUESTION: And we chair the CVE group with who?

 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No, we don’t. The UK and the UAE.

 

QUESTION: Oh, okay.

 

MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you.

    

PRN: 2012/T65-16

Robert McKenzie, Director and Senior Fellow, New America;

 

J.M. Berger, Fellow, the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, The Hague;

 

Ben Dubow, COO, Omelas;

 

Muhammad Fraser-Rahim @mfraserrahim

Executive Director North America, Quilliam International;

 

Jonathon Morgan, CEO, New Knowledge Founder, Data for Democracy

On October 21, 2014, CSIS and USAID/DCHA's Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) will host a major event, Advances and Challenges in Political Transitions. In honor of OTI's 20th anniversary, this conference will feature more than 40 experts and senior officials focusing on the challenges and opportunities of working in conflicts, crises, and political transitions. What will new conflicts look like, region by region? What role will extremism, organized crime, and chaotic violence play? What contributions will youth, women, the private sector, and technology make to prevention, mitigation, and recovery? And what tools, approaches, resources, and support will be needed to build more resilient societies in the coming years?

Agenda

Welcome and Opening Remarks

John Hamre, President, CEO, and Pritzker, CSIS

Nancy Lindborg, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, USAID

Keynote Address

Ambassador Alfonso E. Lenhardt, Deputy Administrator, USAID

Opening Presentation

Robert Lamb, Visiting Research Professor, U.S. Army War College, and Director and Senior Fellow (on leave), Program on Crisis, Conflict, and Cooperation, CSIS

Morning Plenary: Conflict Response and Recovery in Complex Environments

Moderator: Stephen Del Rosso, Program Director, International Peace and Security Program, Carnegie Corporation of New York

Panelists:

Stephen Lennon, Acting Director, OTI, USAID

Ambassador William Swing, Director General, International Organization for Migration

David Yang, Deputy Assistant Administrator, DCHA Bureau, USAID

Morning Breakout Panels

Track 1: Violent Extremism in MENA

Moderator: Tom Sanderson, Codirector, Transnational Threats Project, CSIS

Panelists:

Robbie Harris, Senior Transition Advisor, USAID/OTI

David Hunsicker, Senior Conflict Advisor, USAID/CMM

Hunter Keith, Development Specialist, DAI

Mona Yacoubian, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Middle East Bureau, USAID

Track 2: Geography, Technology, and Data

Moderator: Amy Noreuil, Data Analysis Support, USAID/OTI

Panelists:

Noel Dickover, Senior Program Officer, PeaceTech Initiative, USIP

Ian Schuler, CEO and President, Development Seed

Jessica Heinzelman, Manager, ICT Strategic Initiatives, DAI

Ivan Sigal, Executive Director, Global Voices

Track 3: Urban Violence and Organized Crime

Moderator: Lt. Col. (Retired) Scott Mann, CEO and Founder, Stability Institute

Panelists:

Miguel Reabold, Honduras Country Representative, USAID/OTI

Scott Aughenbaugh, Fellow, International Security Program and Deputy Director, Strategic Futures, CSIS

Enrique Roig, Coordinator, Central America Regional Security Initiative, USAID

Lunchtime Plenary: Looking Back and Looking Ahead

Moderator: Jim Kunder, Senior Transatlantic Fellow, German Marshall Fund of the United States

Panelists:

Robert Jenkins, Deputy Assistant Administrator, DCHA Bureau, USAID

Rick Barton, Former Assistant Secretary, Bureau for Conflict and Stabilization Operations, Department of State

Johanna Mendelson Forman, Scholar in Residence, American University, and Senior Associate, CSIS

Steve Morrison, Senior Vice President and Director, Global Health Policy Center, CSIS

Afternoon Breakout Panels

Track 1: Future of Conflict in Africa

Moderator: Jennifer Cooke, Director, Africa Program, CSIS

Panelists:

John Langlois, Africa Advisor, USAID/OTI

Pauline Baker, President Emeritus, Fund for Peace

Track 2: Future of Conflict in Eurasia/Pacific

Moderator: Susan Kosinski Fritz, Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator, Europe and Eurasia Bureau, USAID

Panelists:

Oren Murphy, Ukraine Country Representative, USAID/OTI

John R. Deni, Research Professor of Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational Security Studies, Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College

Track 3: Future of Conflict in Latin America

Moderator: Katie Prud'homme, Latin America and Caribbean Team Leader, USAID/OTI

Panelists:

Beth Hogan, Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator LAC, USAID

Steven Dudley, Codirector, InSight Crime

Douglas Farah, President, IBI Counsultants, and Senior Fellow, International Assessment and Strategy Center

Afternoon Plenary: Evolution of Agencies and Resources

Moderator: Kathleen Hicks, Senior Vice President; Henry A. Kissinger Chair; Director, International Security Program, CSIS

Panelists:

William Brownfield, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Department of State

Tom Perriello, Special Representative for the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, Department of State

Melissa Brown, Director, Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation, USAID

OTI in Transition: A Brief Oral History (film)

Programs

PROGRAM ON CRISIS, CONFLICT, AND COOPERATION (C3)

Topics

DEFENSE AND SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND RECONSTRUCTION, GOVERNANCE, DEVELOPMENT POLICY

Anlässlich eines geplanten Aufmarsches von Rechtsradikalen und Neonazis in Berlin Mitte hat die Evangelische Kirche Berlin-Brandenburg Oberlausitz zu einer Demonstration unter dem Motto "Posaunen statt Parolen" vom Brandenburger TOr zum Gendarmenmarkt aufgerufen.

Beginnend mit einer Kundgebung am Brandenburger Tor, an der rund 500 Menschen teilnahmen und ein Posaunenchor spielte, wollten sich die Christen so für ein weltoffenes und tolerantes Berlin einsetzen. Mit Beginn der Demonstration wuchs die Zahl der Teilnehmer auf rund 1500 an. An dem Protest, dessen Aufruf sich diverse Organisationen, darunter auch Gewerkschaften und Parteien, anschlossen, nahmen neben Bischof Dr. Markus Dröge, auch die DGB-Vorsitzende von Berlin/Brandenburg Doro Zinke und der Präsident des Berliner Abgeordnetenhauses Ralf Wieland, sowie die Linken Politiker Petra Pau und Klaus Lederer teil.

Diese hielten auf der Abschlusskundgebung am Gendarmenmarkt auch Reden. Zudem sprach auch Dr. Margot Käßmann und Alper Soytürk von der Islamischen Föderation, sowie Levi Salomon vom Jüdischen Forum für Demokratie.

On October 21, 2014, CSIS and USAID/DCHA's Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) will host a major event, Advances and Challenges in Political Transitions. In honor of OTI's 20th anniversary, this conference will feature more than 40 experts and senior officials focusing on the challenges and opportunities of working in conflicts, crises, and political transitions. What will new conflicts look like, region by region? What role will extremism, organized crime, and chaotic violence play? What contributions will youth, women, the private sector, and technology make to prevention, mitigation, and recovery? And what tools, approaches, resources, and support will be needed to build more resilient societies in the coming years?

Agenda

Welcome and Opening Remarks

John Hamre, President, CEO, and Pritzker, CSIS

Nancy Lindborg, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, USAID

Keynote Address

Ambassador Alfonso E. Lenhardt, Deputy Administrator, USAID

Opening Presentation

Robert Lamb, Visiting Research Professor, U.S. Army War College, and Director and Senior Fellow (on leave), Program on Crisis, Conflict, and Cooperation, CSIS

Morning Plenary: Conflict Response and Recovery in Complex Environments

Moderator: Stephen Del Rosso, Program Director, International Peace and Security Program, Carnegie Corporation of New York

Panelists:

Stephen Lennon, Acting Director, OTI, USAID

Ambassador William Swing, Director General, International Organization for Migration

David Yang, Deputy Assistant Administrator, DCHA Bureau, USAID

Morning Breakout Panels

Track 1: Violent Extremism in MENA

Moderator: Tom Sanderson, Codirector, Transnational Threats Project, CSIS

Panelists:

Robbie Harris, Senior Transition Advisor, USAID/OTI

David Hunsicker, Senior Conflict Advisor, USAID/CMM

Hunter Keith, Development Specialist, DAI

Mona Yacoubian, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Middle East Bureau, USAID

Track 2: Geography, Technology, and Data

Moderator: Amy Noreuil, Data Analysis Support, USAID/OTI

Panelists:

Noel Dickover, Senior Program Officer, PeaceTech Initiative, USIP

Ian Schuler, CEO and President, Development Seed

Jessica Heinzelman, Manager, ICT Strategic Initiatives, DAI

Ivan Sigal, Executive Director, Global Voices

Track 3: Urban Violence and Organized Crime

Moderator: Lt. Col. (Retired) Scott Mann, CEO and Founder, Stability Institute

Panelists:

Miguel Reabold, Honduras Country Representative, USAID/OTI

Scott Aughenbaugh, Fellow, International Security Program and Deputy Director, Strategic Futures, CSIS

Enrique Roig, Coordinator, Central America Regional Security Initiative, USAID

Lunchtime Plenary: Looking Back and Looking Ahead

Moderator: Jim Kunder, Senior Transatlantic Fellow, German Marshall Fund of the United States

Panelists:

Robert Jenkins, Deputy Assistant Administrator, DCHA Bureau, USAID

Rick Barton, Former Assistant Secretary, Bureau for Conflict and Stabilization Operations, Department of State

Johanna Mendelson Forman, Scholar in Residence, American University, and Senior Associate, CSIS

Steve Morrison, Senior Vice President and Director, Global Health Policy Center, CSIS

Afternoon Breakout Panels

Track 1: Future of Conflict in Africa

Moderator: Jennifer Cooke, Director, Africa Program, CSIS

Panelists:

John Langlois, Africa Advisor, USAID/OTI

Pauline Baker, President Emeritus, Fund for Peace

Track 2: Future of Conflict in Eurasia/Pacific

Moderator: Susan Kosinski Fritz, Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator, Europe and Eurasia Bureau, USAID

Panelists:

Oren Murphy, Ukraine Country Representative, USAID/OTI

John R. Deni, Research Professor of Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational Security Studies, Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College

Track 3: Future of Conflict in Latin America

Moderator: Katie Prud'homme, Latin America and Caribbean Team Leader, USAID/OTI

Panelists:

Beth Hogan, Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator LAC, USAID

Steven Dudley, Codirector, InSight Crime

Douglas Farah, President, IBI Counsultants, and Senior Fellow, International Assessment and Strategy Center

Afternoon Plenary: Evolution of Agencies and Resources

Moderator: Kathleen Hicks, Senior Vice President; Henry A. Kissinger Chair; Director, International Security Program, CSIS

Panelists:

William Brownfield, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Department of State

Tom Perriello, Special Representative for the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, Department of State

Melissa Brown, Director, Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation, USAID

OTI in Transition: A Brief Oral History (film)

Programs

PROGRAM ON CRISIS, CONFLICT, AND COOPERATION (C3)

Topics

DEFENSE AND SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND RECONSTRUCTION, GOVERNANCE, DEVELOPMENT POLICY

BRIEFING WITH ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS DANIEL RUSSEL

  

Good morning, and welcome to the Foreign Press Center. We’re honored to welcome today Assistant Secretary for East Asian Pacific Daniel Russel. After the assistant secretary’s remarks, we’ll have a time for some Q&A. We do request that you state your name and media affiliation, and we’ll also be taking questions from Washington, D.C. by a digital video conference. Thank you very much.

  

ASSISTANT SECRETARY RUSSEL: Thanks. Well, hello, everybody. It’s great to be back in New York, as always; I’m a New Yorker. And hello to our friends and colleagues in Washington, D.C.We’ve had a very busy and I think a very productive week here at the UN with the opening of theGeneral Assembly. It’s been a productive series of days with respect to our diplomacy in the Asia Pacific region. The President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, top State Department officials, myself, have all been working here with our partners in Asia and the Pacific on the issues that are of greatest concern to the American people. And this reflects the continued evolution and vitality of the rebalance.

  

We’re addressing challenges and concerns thatmatter, frankly, to all of us. Let me give you, if I can, a quick snapshot of some of the work that we’ve engaged in. In terms of addressing global challenges, the President participated in several important leader summits and multilateral summits on peacekeeping, on countering ISIL and violent extremism. And theseare meetings that included the active participation and the significant contribution of a number ofcountries from the Asia-Pacific region. The peacekeeping summit, for example, included quite a few countries from East Asia and the Pacific who I think in aggregate pledged in excess of 10,000 peacekeepers and made very significant financial contributions.In the summit of the counter-ISIL and counter violent extremism members, countries from the East Asia and the Pacific region renewed their commitment to make progress, including and importantly, by engaging civil society, engaging religious leaders throughout the region and in undertaking projects. One that’s under active consideration is the stationing of a messaging center in Malaysia, for example.

  

And the goal is to try to give voice to those voices of moderation who need to be heard in the face of a flawed and dangerous ideology.On the regional front, the Secretary had a very productive meeting with the 10 foreign ministers from the ASEAN countries. This is a regular feature of what the Secretary of State does during UNGA, and it’s valuable in a number of respects. The Secretary and the foreign ministers were able to dig down on important issues like maritime security, particularly the situation in the South China Sea. They were able to discuss in some depth issues regarding the oceans and the challenges that will be taken up next week in Santiago at the Oceans Conference – things like illegal and unreported, unregulated fishing; things like, of course, the big project that we’re all engaged in in the run-up to the Paris Climate Conference addressing global warming. And they also were able to consult on the recurring problem of irregular migration – the problem of migrants from Bangladesh and from Myanmar – from Burma – which the region dealt with earlier in the year in May, and which, unfortunately, it appears we may have to deal with yet again when the rainy season ends.We also held a meeting that I attended with Todd Stern, our special envoy on climate, and Ambassador Samantha Power, UN perm rep, with the foreign ministers and representatives of the Pacific Island states.

  

These are nations with whom the United States has very close partnerships, but nations also that are most directly and grievously affected by the consequences of global warming. They’re also important stakeholders in the global effort to preserve our oceans and to deal with the problems really regarding – that I’ve mentioned regarding illegal andunregulated fishing.There were a large number of trilateral meetings this year, and I think that reflects America’s support for a kind of flexible geometry of collaboration among countries that share important goals and common values. First and foremost is another session of the trilateral that the Secretary chaired with the Japanese and the Korean foreign ministers. This is one of the regular trilaterals. It’s also one of the most important and one of the most productive. It allows for very close coordination among our closest allies in Northeast Asia.

  

And it enabled the three ministers to compare notes and to consult closely on the issues regardingNorth Korea, particularly North Korea’s continued violation of the UN Security Council resolutions, its ongoing efforts to develop nuclear and missile capabilities in defiance of those regulations1, and also the problematic human rights situation in North Korea as well. There wereother regional and global issues that the three ministers were able to touch upon. They’re in regular touch, and I know that the two foreign ministers from Japan and Korea followed up with – the next day with their own bilateral meeting. For the very first time, Secretary Kerry participated in a trilateral with both the Japanese and the Indian foreign minister. That focused, among other things, on the convergence among three of the world’s largest democracies, particularly in the Asia Pacific region. The vehicle for our closepolitical and security coordination on matters pertaining to East Asia is, of course, the East Asia Summit. And they were able to exchange views both about what the professionals call architecture – the structure of interaction with ASEAN at the center, but also some of the issues that are high on the agenda of the East Asia Summit.

  

At a slightly less exalted level, we held the trilateral meeting among Australia, Japan, and the United States – what we call the Trilateral Security Dialogue or TSD – which sometimes meets at the secretarial level, sometimes meets at my level, and on occasion meets at leaders level as well. This meeting included the participation of Ambassador Tom Shannon, the counselor of the State Department, who President Obama has nominated to succeed Wendy Sherman as our new under secretary of state for political affairs. So in this meeting and elsewhere, Tom, who’s not

  

(1 The Assistant Secretary intended to say “resolutions,” “not regulations.” ).

  

only a dear friend of mine but one of America’s most distinguished diplomats, was able to participate, and that’s something that we value a great deal.I co-chaired a meeting with my Japanese counterpart and with the foreign minister of Mongolia, a U.S.-Japan-Mongolia trilateral. Here again, three important democracies and what I call Mongolia’s two best second neighbors – third neighbors, I guess I should say. We were able to have a very, very fruitful and productive exchange on a range of issues there. And then lastly on the bilateral front, I joined Vice President Biden and others, including our Trade Representative Mike Froman, earlier in the week for a very valuable consultation with the Japanese prime minister, Prime Minister Abe, that allowed for a full discussion across a range of political and trade issues. And I joined, of course, Secretary Kerry’s meetings. He had bilateral meetings with the Sultan of Brunei, an important TPP partner, a member of ASEAN, of course, and a good friend of the United States.

  

He met bilaterally this morning with the foreign minister of Myanmar, Wunna Maung Lwin, and was able to get an update on preparations for the Burmese elections as well as consult on important issues like the irregular migration problem andhuman rights.Other U.S. officials – Deputy Secretary Tony Blinken and a variety of others, including myself – separately had bilateral meetings with the foreign ministers or the vice foreign ministers or, in some cases, the presidents of a number of countries in the region – Vietnam, Thailand, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Australia, Laos, Malaysia, Palau, Republic of Marshall Islands –and in addition, I certainly had opportunities for contact, as I know did the Secretary and, for thatmatter, President Obama, with a number of other representatives from Asia.

  

Now, there’s a lot going on. We had a very productive week, as I said. This week comes directlyon the heels of the important, in-depth conversations that President Obama and other top officialshad with the Chinese President, Xi Jinping, in Washington late last week. And we’re not slowingdown. Our Deputy Secretary, Tony Blinken, is leaving this weekend for consultations in Northeast Asia – first in Tokyo, then in Seoul, then in Beijing. I will be leaving myself next week to go out to Malaysia for the senior officials meeting organized by ASEAN, in which I’ll have a chance to meet not only with my counterparts from the 10 Southeast Asian nations but also counterparts from China, from Japan, from India, from Australia, New Zealand, the ROK – the countries that are represented in the East Asia Summit.

  

And one of the important things we will be doing is preparing for November, when our leaders, after having attended APEC in Manila, go to Kuala Lumpur for the EAS. We in October are alsopreparing in Washington for – and elsewhere for visits: the visit of the Korean president, the visitof the Indonesian president. We’re expecting consultations with our Australian counterparts at the secretaries level. There’s a lot on the agenda as pertains to Asia, and with that, let me open the floor for questions.

  

QUESTION: Thank you for briefing. I am Moeko from Tokyo Broadcasting System. I have a question on the trilateral meeting with Japan and Mongolia. Was there DPRK on the table to be discussed, and if so, could you give us a little bit more detail on what has been talked?

  

ASSISTANT SECRETARY RUSSEL: Let me dip down into my memory bank, because we had quite a few – we had quite a few meetings. I was recently in Mongolia, and I had bilateral consultations there and was able to discuss with Foreign Minister Purevsuren and other senior officials a number of regional issues, including the challenge that is presented by North Korea. If my memory serves me right, we may have touched on North Korea as a regional matter, but I wouldn’t describe it as the focus.

  

We talked about the challenges that Mongolia faces both strategically and economically. We hadan extensive discussion about how as major investors and economies, the United States and Japan can support reforms, can support the improved investment climate in Mongolia. We commended Mongolia’s just unremitting fidelity to democracy and discussed what the Mongolians do and how valuable we see it in democracy promotion around the world. Now, it’llbe a long time before we see democracy promotion in North Korea, but – unfortunately – but we are seeing an important contribution made by the Mongolians, who stand as a great model of political reform with countries like Myanmar who are approaching their own elections and have a lot to learn from the Mongolians.

  

QUESTION: Thank you.

  

QUESTION: Sorry, just one thing. Thanks. Reportedly, United States and Japan, they are seeking Mongolia to be kind of mitigator in the North Korean issues. Is that true?

  

ASSISTANT SECRETARY RUSSEL: No. The United States and Japan each have our own respective channels for communicating with the DPRK. The problem isn’t that we lack a vehiclefor communicating with the North Koreans. The problem is that the North Koreans refuse either to negotiate on the nuclear issue or to honor the commitments that they have already made in previous rounds of negotiations.

  

Now that’s not to say that there isn’t a constructive role for Mongolia as a democracy, as a neighbor, and as hopefully a role model for the DPRK. But it’s not as – it’s not as a mediator. Now, I know that President Elbegdorj visited North Korea some time ago, and I think there’s great value in the direct – if not blunt – message that he conveyed, speaking as someone who knows, after an extended period of communist dictatorship, that reform – both political and economic reform brings immense benefits and brings greater security. I hope the North Koreans were listening.

  

QUESTION: Hi. Thank you. Thanks for coming to New York. Jane with China Sina News. First of all, yesterday in UN, Russia has trying to clear all the error from the U.S. on the accusation of the airstrike. How do you answer that people are saying that Putin’s military actionis a diversionary strategy to take attention away from Ukraine and could it expect any sort of cooperation between U.S. and Russians on – in Syria? And I have to ask about President Xi’s visit. Chinese ambassador noticed that each stop will have some surprises. Did you see the surprises from his visit, and – or it’s all go under your predicted? Thank you.

  

ASSISTANT SECRETARY RUSSEL: Well, on the first question, I will respectfully defer to my esteemed colleague, Admiral John Kirby, the spokesman of the State Department. I’m not the official responsible for either Russia or Syria, so I don’t have any light to shed on that.I’ll also ask Ambassador Cui Tiankai to speak for himself as to what he had in mind in terms of surprises at each juncture.As someone who was actively involved in the preparations for the visit by President Xi, I can attest to the fact that we worked very hard to avoid surprises. And for that purpose, as did other officials, I traveled to China at the very beginning of this month, and I spent considerable time inBeijing meeting with the foreign ministry officials, various counterparts, talking through the agenda and working on the substance of what it is that we thought that the two leaders should be discussing in which meeting; what sorts of messages we thought it would be desirable for President Xi to articulate in his various public engagements; and the outcomes and deliverables, the results, the accomplishments that our respective agencies and bureaucracies had been working on that could be brought to conclusion and ratified by our two presidents.We got a lot done.

  

In my view, the most important aspect of the consultations that our leaders held in Washington last Thursday and Friday was the opportunity for the two presidents to speak directly, candidly, constructively on the problem areas. The two sides worked hard on our differences, because we are not reconciled with simply agreeing to disagree. There are significant friction points in the interaction between China and the United States. Whether they are bilateral issues or whether they are global issues, those friction points need to be addressed forthrightly by both sides. On the issue of cyber, as you saw, the Chinese leader made very important commitments, and wehave now an expanded mechanism whereby we can pursue those issues and help to ensure by working together that those commitments are fulfilled. The Chinese president took home, I know, new and clearer awareness of the deep concerns on the part of not only the U.S. Government but also of the U.S. business community and the NGO, think tank, journalistic, and academic community about the possible impact that some draft legislation, like the NGO management law or other draft laws and policies, would have on our citizens, on our organizations, on our companies, and frankly, on the U.S.-China relationship. And as a result, it is certainly my hope that we will see our concerns taken into account in the way that the Chinese authorities treat U.S. companies and their proprietary information and technology and the way that journalists and academics and others are treated inside China.A third really important area of difference and concern has been the behavior of China in the South China Sea.

  

And while we have made very clear consistently that the U.S. takes no position on the underlying sovereignty of claims – in other words, we don’t say that land feature X belongs to China or belongs to Vietnam or Philippines, because we don’t make judgments about the merits of a country’s claims – that mustn’t be confused with not having any position onthe behavior of the countries in a sensitive region like the South China Sea. We have very strongviews. That shouldn’t be confused with not having a position on international law and universal rights such as freedom of navigation and overflight. That is a right that’s inherent to every state, not a right that is granted, and certainly not something that should be denied by any one country – similarly, the right of unimpeded lawful commerce.

  

It also shouldn’t be confused with the fact that we do take a position that all claims by all claimants should be made in ways that are fully consistent with international law, including and particularly the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Now, President Xi Jinping made what I consider to be important statements in his press availability with President Obama on Friday in the Rose Garden. He affirmed China’s commitment to peaceful and diplomatic resolution of problems. That’s an important commitment. The issue of the nine-dash line, for example, is a matter of consideration by the tribunal under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and there will be a decision forthcoming on jurisdiction. Should that decision affirm that the tribunal has jurisdiction over the case brought by the Philippines then the parties will be heading towards an arbitral decision. That decision under the treaty is equally binding on China and on the Philippines, and as a matter of international law the United States and the international community expects both countries to honor their treaty obligations.

  

The last point I would make is that we, of course, heard an important statement by President Xi Jinping when he said that China has no intention of militarizing islands or outposts in the South China Sea, in the Spratlys. That, I believe, offered reassurance and encouragement to China’s neighbors, none of whom want to see a continuation of Chinese large-scale construction on theseoutposts, let alone the deployment of military assets.

  

If in fact, as President Xi has said, China’s committed to a peaceful resolution of any dispute and has no intention of militarizing its outposts, I believe that the room for settlement and for the conclusion of agreements, whether they’re bilateral agreements or wherever they’re a code of conduct, will rapidly expand. And naturally, we will, as others will, be discussing in detail with the Chinese the steps that they are taking and will take to ensure that they are in no way militarizing the land features that they are – that they have built by dredging sand from the SouthChina Sea.

  

MODERATOR: Let’s take a question from Washington. Go ahead, Washington.

  

QUESTION: Hi. Thank you very much for having this briefing. My name is Alicia Rose with NHK. The U.S. and China, as you mention, recently came to an agreement that neither government will conduct cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property. My question is on what ledto this agreement. In particular, there have been reports that Ambassador Rice met with Chinese counterparts in Beijing, where she warned that approximately 25 Chinese state-owned enterprises were under threat of U.S. sanctions for conducting cyber theft against U.S. companies. Is that correct?

  

ASSISTANT SECRETARY RUSSEL: Well, I’m not the right person to brief on the confidential discussions that our national security advisor had in Beijing. But I myself have discussed the problem of state-sponsored, cyber-enabled theft by China of proprietary corporate information from U.S. companies that is then transferred and in some cases marketized. That is aproblem that the President and the Secretary of State and other senior officials have been very direct in flagging for the Chinese as unacceptable behavior.

  

In response to the strong concerns that we have conveyed consistently about that behavior, and inadvance of the visit to Washington by the President Xi, the Chinese Government proposed to send to Washington a very senior official, their secretary that – who oversees their law enforcement and intelligence activities, Meng Jianzhu, and the U.S. side agreed. Secretary Mengled a high-level delegation with a broad spectrum of senior representatives from relevant agencies to Washington, and over the course of two-plus days had in-depth conversations with a U.S. team led by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, but that – meetings that also included conversations with Secretary Kerry and with Susan Rice.

  

I think you can see from the agreements that were announced during President Xi’s visit that the Chinese side took American concerns seriously. They had heard in Seattle as well from high-tech business leaders, from industry representatives, and from the Secretary of Commerce, PennyPritzker, more concerns about the negative impact that cyber intrusions and particularly cyber-enabled economic threat – theft was having on our bilateral relationship.

  

I can’t top what President Obama himself said on this issue, so I won’t try. But I flag for you the fact that he stated very clearly to President Xi as they stood together at the podium that the United States is watching closely to see that, in fact, China is honoring the obligations that they have undertaken in this new agreement.

  

QUESTION: Thank you.

  

QUESTION: My name is Manik Mehta. I’m syndicated in Asia, also in Malaysia, India, et cetera. You are headed for Malaysia next week. Could you give some details of what you intenddoing there, and whom are you meeting? Also, could you clarify what this messaging center is about in Kuala Lumpur?If I may also add another question – this is in regard to the trilateral meeting between U.S., Japan, and India. Is this a precursor to the formation of an alliance in the future? Thank you.

  

ASSISTANT SECRETARY RUSSEL: Great. Thank you. I am going to Kuala Lumpur to attend the ASEAN and East Asia Summit senior officials meetings. This is part of the regular preparatory process that we’re engaged in year-in and year-out in preparing for the annual leaders summit. So in the multilateral meetings we will discuss the agenda for the U.S.-ASEAN Leaders Meeting. We’ll discuss the agenda for the East Asia Summit meeting. And we’ll also talk more about the substance and how – for example, on the issue of the South China Sea, how the member states of the EAS – which, of course, importantly include all of the claimants and particularly China, but also include important security partners such as the United States – how collectively we can help to ensure that the tensions are resolved expeditiously and that the disputes also are managed in a way that’s fully compliant with international law and with good diplomatic and good neighborly principles.

  

I will also have the opportunity to hold bilateral meetings with many of the partner and ASEAN countries. The – I was able to meet with a number of the vice foreign ministers or senior official counterparts in New York, but I’ll pick up on meetings with the others. Now, when I’m in Malaysia, ordinarily I will meet with a range of senior government officials as well as representatives of civil society, consult with our outstanding embassy in KL, and meet with political leaders from the opposition and try to get in contact with a broad section of Malaysia society.

  

Now, as it happens, I have had the opportunity to be in meetings and to speak at considerable length in Washington and now in New York with Foreign Minister Anifah and with Prime Minister Najib as well. And so I don’t think I necessarily need to repeat those meetings, but I will certainly meet with civil society and with representative members of the political spectrum in Malaysia.

  

There is no decision, no final decision on a messaging center, but Malaysia is a leading candidateto serve as the host2. There already is a messaging center in the UAE, and what it offers I think is a hub for the regions in which likeminded countries – and particularly civil society leaders andreligious leaders – can ensure that via traditional and social media means, a moderate and more credible set of messages is delivered to the broad public that counter the distorted messaging being broadcast by ISIL.

  

On your last question, the United States and Japan already have an alliance, and the consultation among these three great countries and three great democracies – India, Japan, and the United States – do include discussions of some security issues. But those issues are those that are fully appropriate for countries that have common interests as we do in addressing disaster relief, humanitarian assistance, and otherwise enhancing our ability to respond to disasters. That’s one of the reasons that, although the U.S. and India don’t have a military alliance, we do have an important annual exercise, the Malabar Exercise – hence we invited Japan to participate in that.

  

But this represents only one fraction of the breadth and the depth of our collective interests, and the discussions touched on a wide range of issues pertaining to good governance, promotion of universal rights and law, the broader trends in the Indo-Asia Pacific region, the economy, regional connectivity, and multiple ways in which we can support Prime Minister Modi’s Act East policies and work to the common interest. Thank you.

  

MODERATOR: Okay, I think this will have to be our last question. Do you want to give it to Rong?

  

QUESTION: Rong Shi from Voice of America. We don’t see a joint statement issued after the Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit, after the summit with President Obama, only see a achievement list. Is that because of lack of a positive result or cannot solve the difference between the two country?

  

ASSISTANT SECRETARY RUSSEL: No, to the contrary. The United States issued a fact sheet. The Chinese, via their official press, gave a full readout. We issued a joint statement on climate. We signed a memorandum of understanding on coordinating humanitarian assistance. No, there was without a doubt a very rich menu of accomplishments on the issues that I just mentioned, as well as on the economic front, where again there was yet another statement; on ourmilitary-to-military relations, which included out of this visit a further step forward in the form of an annex covering air-to-air encounters to the MOU that was previously signed. We announced significant progress in our people-to-people relationship, both in terms of tourism promotion and in terms of language training. So without a doubt, this was a very rich and fruitful set of meetings.

  

( 2 The Assistant Secretary intended to add that Malaysia is a leading candidate to host a hub for the region.).

  

If there’s a non-China question, I think we will take one last one.

  

MODERATOR: Do we have any non-China questions? (Laughter.) Washington? China-related?

  

ASSISTANT SECRETARY RUSSEL: No? No. All right. Well, in that case, let’s declare victory.

  

MODERATOR: All right. Thank you for attending.

  

ASSISTANT SECRETARY RUSSEL: Thank you. Thank you all. Glad you could come.

  

# # #

  

U.S. PRIORITIES IN EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC FOR UNGA 70

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2015, 11:00 A.M. EDT

NEW YORK

FOREIGN PRESS CENTER, 799 UNITED NATIONS PLAZA, 10TH FLOOR

photo courtesy

d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20070614/2007_06_13t184429_45...

  

Firkabandi ? Who is a dumb Muslim ?

 

I am here at Flickr since 10June 2007.

10287 photos posted till date.

I was a photo blogger but here at Flickr I regressed into a photographer and before I had completed 3 months I was

metamorphosed into a poet blog.

What gets to me and almost kills me at Flickr a porn site a site for sick demented depraved Muslims is the quality of comments that the Flick member defecates on my posts , and if I hit this mother fuckers profile

Flickr with a pimp like attitude hints that I buy this sick sister fucker a Pro membership..Now don’t blame me for being scorchingly abusive..I am at Flickr like some of you I have paid US$47 but I don’t make too many demands or throw a tantrum like the white man, I get upset when my sets disappear or when I cant upload and Flick staff sits plumb without informing me about the probem at their end

Than again I have to let a Muezzins call Think Flickr Think..

Anyway back to the Muslims who come and shit comments.Yesterday a 32 year old Shithead Muslim halfbaked knowledge of Islam pompous preacher comes and comments that hedoes not like my Shia pictures and that it would be harmful for me ,and that it is Fikabandi a word that even Google Search is searching for..I went and wrote a stinker on his photo stream, realized that this Muslim mother fucker is here on Flickr to find himself a suitable wife, I think with his fucked attitude he wont even find one at the red light area of Muslim Cages. And his pictures of candles that he can shove up his grandmothers ass…

Now who is a dumb Muslim.?

Hasibaullah the Taliban rabid motherfucking Afghan Hound or this Gulz guy Killer who talks about Firkabandi both have one thing a common thread they hate Shias.And I shall always remain a Shia.

Now as a Shia I post pictures according to my priority my picture

prerogatives, but yes if you see my photo stream it is not Rogue Mullahs abode nor is it a sectarian promoting Lal Masjid site.

I a Shia by birth but I am an Indian Muslim which even God above and Arch Angel Gabrie will not deny. But I in most of my poems question why Muslims kill Muslims..?The present birth of a new breed of Metro sexual Terrorists without skullcaps and goatees the Kafeel Ahmed s of Glasgow, its shocking to say the least, yes the Islam that they distort and promote is the worlds most hated Killing Machine..

Here I wont talk about the seeds of Terrorism sown at Karbala, Yazidiyat, Misplaced Martyrdom, or again I will be reprimanded as a

Firkabandi promoter.

I who post pictures of all Faith, naked Naga Sadhus, Sufis Shias Sunnis too and Christians too.

So just see the pictures and move on, why give me importance..why defecate your cybernetic hate on me, if you mother fucker have balls go and rid sectarianism in Iraq , Afghanistan and the rest of the Muslim World ,why flog me for the mistakes and error in judgement of your forefathers. I am indeed happy living as a Shia a much better alternative than being fatwa fucked radical Muslim, a Wahhabi a Deobandi a Jammati or a Salafi or even a Sunni for that matter.Though my fight is not with them, I am at home at the Holy Shrine of Khwajah Moinuddin Chishti as I am at an Imambara cutting my forehead in Moharam.

Another thing why do you get upset if I shed my blood, it is my body not yours..Why don’t you raise your eunuch voice when people the Muslims kill their own, or place bombs in Masjids , in trains , but than it has always been a tradition promoted by vested interests in Islam to killa person with his head bowed in Namaz, or kill a Muslim and his family for following Allah and his grandfathers teachings.

I am not a Koranic interpreting Mullah, I am a modern Muslim but fuck you I am not as dumb as you are with your so called bigotry and hate.

So stay off my photo stream..all you Shia baters and haters..and even you Shia Wahhabis ..I am a Shia Pandit and shall remain one loving the saffron in my soul through which reflects Truth as Karbala and Faith that is Ashura,,,

Firkabandi Kiss my Ass.

  

Trade winds from the East

Blowing away the glory of Islam

With cybernetic Hate

Wahabbi backed money powered Puritanism

That divides one Muslim from another

And a vicious bigotry reinstate

Allah ho Akbar the call of the Muezzin

With a webmasters wickedness replaced

This is not Islam of Peace and Brotherhood

A depravity of Firkabandi sectarian hate

Retraced

Talibanisation of Truth morphed doctored scriptured

Soliloquy the best of Islam by a few disgruntled elements disgraced.

Todays Muslim youth the Kafeel Ahmeds Martyrs in a Fools Paradise

Inhabitate ..

Abdul Aziz Osama and his ilk…waiting in a line

To surrender their necks at Allahs Gate

The End so called Terrorist Tyranny blackmailing of Islam

A thought replace

Shah ast Hussain Badshah ast Hussain

In my heart and the iron in my soul retrace

   

AIR CDRE (RETD) ISHFAQ ILAHI CHOUDHURY

As we say goodbye to the year 2012, we might take time out to reflect on our achievements and failures in the year gone by, examine our prospects for the future and the challenges that lie ahead. Religious extremism leading to terrorist activities is one such area that needs to be reviewed. While many South Asian countries are deeply embroiled in the fight against terrorism, Bangladesh had generally been free from terrorist attacks since 2005. As we tended to relax, two incidents in 2012 brought our focus back to the terrorism issue. The first was the burning and looting of the houses and temples of the Buddhist communities in Cox’s Bazar area on 29-30 September. The second was the arrest on 17 October of a young Bangladeshi man caught while planning to bomb the Federal Reserve Building in New York, USA. As the year was coming to a close, the violence unleashed across the country by the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), a right-wing Islamist party, sent us a clear signal of the growing strength of Islamist politics.

s we say goodbye to the year 2012, we might take time out to reflect on our achievements and failures in the year gone by, examine our prospects for the future and the challenges that lie ahead. Religious extremism leading to terrorist activities is one such area that needs to be reviewed. While many South Asian countries are deeply embroiled in the fight against terrorism, Bangladesh had generally been free from terrorist attacks since 2005. As we tended to relax, two incidents in 2012 brought our focus back to the terrorism issue. The first was the burning and looting of the houses and temples of the Buddhist communities in Cox’s Bazar area on 29-30 September. The second was the arrest on 17 October of a young Bangladeshi man caught while planning to bomb the Federal Reserve Building in New York, USA. As the year was coming to a close, the violence unleashed across the country by the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), a right-wing Islamist party, sent us a clear signal of the growing strength of Islamist politics.

These are happening at a time when an avowed secular party, the Awami League (AL), is in power. AL won the 2008 election with a commitment to amend the constitution to restore its secular character. It also promised stern action against all forms of religious extremism and terrorism. Four years down the line, much of those promises remain unfulfilled. Constitutional reform was half-done; Islam remained a state religion. Religious parties are more organised today than ever before. Their student fronts are active in most educational institutions. While Islamists are active on political fronts, more radical amongst them are organising themselves for terrorist activities as and when opportunities appear.

Rise of Islamic extremism in Bangladesh

On 16 December 1971, we hoped that Bangladesh would emerge as a modern democratic state. The spirit of the nation was epitomised in the Constitution (1972) that adopted secularism as a state principle and prohibited the political use of religion. The Constitution barred the state from declaring any religion as state religion. However, it all changed after the killing of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and many top-ranking political leaders in 1975. Those who seized power at the time found the Islamists as their political ally and started islamising the society and the state. Islamist political parties, such as JI, started building their party structures. The power elites established thousands of madrassas that produced religiously indoctrinated youths who would be the front-line activists of the Islamist parties. Poor, jobless students from the madrassas became easy target of the recruiters of militant Islamist organisations. By late 1990s we had militant organisations such as Jamiatul Mujahedin Bangladesh (JMB) and Harkatul Jihad Al-Islami (HUJI) that took roots in Bangladesh.

Starting from 1999 to 2005, the militants bombed temples, churches, political rallies, cultural functions, cinema halls etc. The government and the opposition kept on blaming each other for those attacks. Even when grenades attack was made on the AL rally in Dhaka on 22 August 2004 killing 22 people and injuring the AL Chief Sheikh Hasina, the government blamed it on the opposition. The series bombing on 17 August 2005 finally compelled the government to come out of the denial mode and stand up to the terrorist threat. In 2006-07, we saw a series of arrests, prosecution and handing down of sentences, including death sentences, on some of the terror leaders. Since then there has been no major terror attack in Bangladesh, but that the terrorists are active is evident from the frequent arrests of activists and seizure of large cache of arms and explosives from their hideouts.

Bulk of the Islamic militants arrested so far had come from poor rural communities. Many were from the Quomi Madrassa background. However, recent years saw a new breed of extremists called the Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HuT). HuT members are drawn from children of urban, upper income parentage, educated in the mainstream or English medium schools and colleges. HuT is targeting the cream of our youth, the nation’s future, and therefore, poses a clear danger. It is feared that HuT has penetrated among schools and universities, professionals – engineers, doctors, government officials and even among the security apparatus. Although the party was banned in 2009, its clandestine activities continue in the country. On the political front, JI continued to grow in strength in Bangladesh. The party is small in size, but highly disciplined, well-organised and has a well-defined hierarchy. Jamaat’s aim is to establish a pure Islamic state based on Sharia. The party had opposed the Liberation War of Bangladesh in 1971 and actively collaborated in the genocide. Some of the top leaderships are now facing war-crime trial. The party, therefore, is on a back foot now, but given the fact that a new election is around the corner, its rank and file might align with the major opposition party to make a bid for power. JI’s student wing, Islami Chattra Shibir (Islamic Students Front), is now a potent student organisation, from schools to universities. The other Islamist party of importance is Islami Oikyo Jote (Islamic Unity Front), a collection of small Islamic parties. Like JI, IOJ also wants to establish an Islamic state in Bangladesh, but there are differences in outlook. IOJ members are exclusively from Quomi madrassa background and more traditional. IOJ has been in the forefront, along with JI, in the movement to declare Ahmedia community as non-Muslims. Present government’s attempt to register Quomi Madrassas and reform their curriculum was thwarted by IOJ’s agitation. None of the Islamist political parties gave open support to the militant activities, however, many of the JMB and HUJI activists had previously been members of Islamist political parties. The Islamist parties have multifarious social, economic and financial investments. Some of the largest banks, insurance, hospitals, diagnostic centres, schools, universities, coaching centres, and travel agencies are operated undercover by the Islamist parties. The Islamist parties have been gaining in strength in Bangladesh at the expense of the two major political parties – BNP and AL. Both parties at one time or other have been courting these parties in order to gain short term advantage over the other.

Countering the extremists

Bangladesh government has taken a number steps to check extremism and militancy. Notable among those are: Anti-Terrorism Act 2009 and Money Laundering Prevention Act 2009 as amended in 2011. The two acts provide for deterrent punishment to offenders in case they engage in acts of terror or launder money to support terrorism. Based on a series of dialogues, workshops and seminars, participated by academics, researchers, politicians, parliamentarians, civil and military officials, a national strategy to combat terrorism in the country has been proposed.Bangladesh has banned a total of six terrorist organizations, including JMB, HUJI and HuT. A number of Islamic NGOs have been banned who had terror links, including Revival of Islamic Heritage Society (Kuwait), Rabita Al Alam Al Islami (Saudi Arabia), and International Islamic relief Organization (Saudi Arabia), Muslim Aid (UK). More than 1,300 militants were arrested; most of them belonging to JMB, HUJI-B or HuT. 29 terrorist kingpins have been sentenced to death and many more sentenced to long imprisonment or are awaiting trial.While our police action has been commendable, we did not do enough on the social front. We need to address urgently the problem of poverty, ignorance, and backwardness. Democratisation of the society is an insurance against extremist ideology. We need to improve governance and provide access to justice for the poor and downtrodden. We need to impart modern education to our youth that prepare them to face the challenges of a fast changing world. A thorough overhaul of madrassa education in our country is long overdue. We need an education system that produce people with high ethical and technical standards, a system that encourages freethinking rather than rote learning. Emergence of HuT points out a lack of pride and a sense of disillusionment among the children of affluent class. This is because English medium schools, where most of the rich parents send their children, follow a curriculum that has no relevance to our culture, history or traditions. Therefore, English medium school syllabus too needs a thorough review.Government must legislate not to allow use of religion to gain political mileage. We need to check creeping ‘Sudiaization’ of Islam. Along with the money from the ME donors, comes the ideological package of Wahhabi Islam which is alien to South Asia. One of the prices we pay for the remittance from our labour force in the ME is the influx of Saudi brand of Islam. How do we de-radicalise these migrant workers is a big challenge for us. Meanwhile, hundreds of extremists who are arrested or under trial must be segregated from other prisoners. At present, these extremists are finding a captive audience 24 hours at their disposal, busy recruiting new ones from among the prisoners. We need to isolate the extremists and start a de-radicalisation program so that when they return to the society they become useful citizen.Our effort to counter religious extremism must be supplemented by regional and global effort. We need to have close cooperation and coordination between the governments of the region. Border monitoring, passport control, anti-money laundering measures, exchange of information on the movement of suspects, arrest and deportation of fugitives are some of the areas where regional countries could cooperate. Checking of arms smuggling across the porous border is another area where regional cooperation is the answer. In short, a total, comprehensive strategy has to be adopted for fighting religious extremism. If Bangladesh is to emerge as a modern, democratic state, the menace of extremism must be eliminated.

  

Cineaste365 (December 22, 2013 - DAY 072) - Today's Cineaste365 goes to Michael Haneke's "The White Ribbon".

 

“The White Ribbon” is a film that has the touch of a classic film and also probably in director Michael Haneke’s oeuvre, a true masterpiece. Haneke knows how to make the audience feel uncomfortable and its the point of the film to open the viewer’s eyes of idealism shattered and radicalism, extremism breeding and eventually planting the seeds to terrorism.

 

The film is literally a look at society within a small village during the early 20th century. Old customs, old idealism and a time where leadership revolved around an employer, its pastor and a doctor. But as these three characters are a big part of “The White Ribbon”, the film is about the oppression and idealism that children must follow and there is no one wanting to rise against the main leadership in the village.

 

In the Baron’s case, we get to see the children wanting to act on impulse against the Baron. As he represents the rich who is oppressing the poor, none of the adults are willing to stand up. There is no union representing employees, there is no voice amongst the villagers and the children can’t understand why things are the way they are. They just see this rich family, a selfish Baron and his wife and their many employees and young son who gets everything he wants and is nothing like them.

 

The Baron and his family are the most privileged people in the village. They are rich and aren’t afraid to flaunt their riches and the adults respect that position in power and no matter how much work they have to do, it’s the way of the village. But for the children, some are growing tired of it and you have a sense that they have had enough of seeing their parents literally having to be bend over backwards for them.

 

The pastor is ultra-conservative and it’s one thing to have unruly children, but at his home, the pastor is incredibly strict and can easily be seen as the religious fanatic. His eldest daughter and son have a hint of trouble making personalities who don’t understand why certain things in life, they get punished for it. From being late, to one reaching puberty and discovering themselves, it’s all a sin according to their father and for them not displaying their innocence and purity, they are punished and forced to wear a white ribbon to remind them at all times that they must be pure and innocent.

 

The doctor who is well-respected in the village is obviously the person that is well-educated and as much as he is seen as a caring individual, in truth, he is demeaning and all that he has in his mind is sex. He uses his employee, the mid-wife as his sexual toy (even though he detests her) and his parenting as a father of a teenage daughter and young son is not so close. If anything, his preoccupation of sex is disturbing as we see him showing interest in his daughter.

 

The narrator, the teacher, is possibly the main shining light of the film. The narrator tells his story of when he was a 31-year-old man who has fallen for the Baroness’ nanny who tries to be there for the children and the viewer literally sees the story through his eyes.

 

Through this character, we see that he is just a normal man who enjoys teaching children and has no true connection to the village other than living there and teaching the children. The narration takes us out of those tense moments as he is focused on wanting to marry a young woman.

 

But the character is instrumental as giving the viewer information on what has taken place at the village but also his scenes is that breather to take us away from those tense moments that happen throughout the film. The story is told to us via his viewpoint and for the most part, a man who tries to see the good in people and has blinded him of what has been happening in the village.

 

And with these characters, one is left thinking…is this breakdown of idealism is what leads to radical thoughts. Ignorance, apathy, pessimism… Have the children of this village became amoral to anyone’s suffering? Is this their form of rebelling? There is no doubt that “The White Ribbon” is one of those films that will make one think.

 

The ensemble cast performances is what I found most impressive of “The White Ribbon”. Burghart Klaußner as the pastor is another well-done performance (since I last seen him on “The Edukators”) by the actor, Christian Friedel does a good job at playing the teacher and making us feel that maybe not all people in the village are messed up and the more I think about the film, I can literally list several names that caught my attention but I have to admit that the performances by the pastor’s elder children Klara (Maria-Victoria Dragus) and Martin (Leonard Proxauf) literally haunt you.

 

Klara definitely embodies mischief while Martin is a boy who is at his breaking point, always being punished and doesn’t know if he wants to be part of this life and wonders if God hates him and wants him to die. Again, there are so many well-done performances in this film, it’s well-cast and each character from the adults and the children really make us feel the pain that lingers around the village.

 

I’ve read how people perceived the film about fascism. Some viewers who felt that this was a film that is about how children became insensitive towards humanity and thus led to their roles in Nazi Germany. Director Michael Haneke said it best when he described the film as children following the idealism of their parent’s generation but followed it blindly. That when you follow idealism blindly, they become inhuman and that this is the root of every form of terrorism. Haneke wanted to show the breakdown of idealism and that this film could be shot in the UK, US or anywhere around the world and that blind idealism gone astray can happen anywhere and its happening now.

 

But there is no doubt that with the film shot in Germany, at the way their time period exists around the time Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo which eventually would lead to World War I in 1914 and that possibly, how these children were raised made them quite amoral in attitudes towards the death of others and their support for the Nazi regime. But I do understand Haneke’s explanation that the breakdown of idealism is not limited to Germany, this is something that can happen anywhere around the world.

 

There is no doubt about it. This is a chilling film but it is also a well-written, well-shot and well-performed, for the most part, “The White Ribbon” is definitely a Michael Haneke masterpiece.

Old Nick's Pub hosted a Drag Queen Story Hour.

 

Apparently an eleven year old dressed in drag and read a story.

 

So, this happened.

مندوباً عن جلالة الملك عبدالله الثاني، القائد الأعلى للقوات المسلحة، سمو الأمير الحسين بن عبدالله الثاني، ولي العهد يرعى حفل تخريج دورتي الدفاع الوطني 15 والحرب 24 وبرنامج ماجستير مواجهة التطرف والإرهاب 1

Deputising for His Majesty King Abdullah II, the Supreme Commander of Jordan Armed Forces-Arab Army, HRH Crown Prince Al Hussien bin Abdullah II attends the graduation of the 15th National Defence Program, the 24th War Programme, and the first Master’s Programme to Confront Extremism and Terrorism

AIR CDRE (RETD) ISHFAQ ILAHI CHOUDHURY

As we say goodbye to the year 2012, we might take time out to reflect on our achievements and failures in the year gone by, examine our prospects for the future and the challenges that lie ahead. Religious extremism leading to terrorist activities is one such area that needs to be reviewed. While many South Asian countries are deeply embroiled in the fight against terrorism, Bangladesh had generally been free from terrorist attacks since 2005. As we tended to relax, two incidents in 2012 brought our focus back to the terrorism issue. The first was the burning and looting of the houses and temples of the Buddhist communities in Cox’s Bazar area on 29-30 September. The second was the arrest on 17 October of a young Bangladeshi man caught while planning to bomb the Federal Reserve Building in New York, USA. As the year was coming to a close, the violence unleashed across the country by the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), a right-wing Islamist party, sent us a clear signal of the growing strength of Islamist politics.

s we say goodbye to the year 2012, we might take time out to reflect on our achievements and failures in the year gone by, examine our prospects for the future and the challenges that lie ahead. Religious extremism leading to terrorist activities is one such area that needs to be reviewed. While many South Asian countries are deeply embroiled in the fight against terrorism, Bangladesh had generally been free from terrorist attacks since 2005. As we tended to relax, two incidents in 2012 brought our focus back to the terrorism issue. The first was the burning and looting of the houses and temples of the Buddhist communities in Cox’s Bazar area on 29-30 September. The second was the arrest on 17 October of a young Bangladeshi man caught while planning to bomb the Federal Reserve Building in New York, USA. As the year was coming to a close, the violence unleashed across the country by the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), a right-wing Islamist party, sent us a clear signal of the growing strength of Islamist politics.

These are happening at a time when an avowed secular party, the Awami League (AL), is in power. AL won the 2008 election with a commitment to amend the constitution to restore its secular character. It also promised stern action against all forms of religious extremism and terrorism. Four years down the line, much of those promises remain unfulfilled. Constitutional reform was half-done; Islam remained a state religion. Religious parties are more organised today than ever before. Their student fronts are active in most educational institutions. While Islamists are active on political fronts, more radical amongst them are organising themselves for terrorist activities as and when opportunities appear.

Rise of Islamic extremism in Bangladesh

On 16 December 1971, we hoped that Bangladesh would emerge as a modern democratic state. The spirit of the nation was epitomised in the Constitution (1972) that adopted secularism as a state principle and prohibited the political use of religion. The Constitution barred the state from declaring any religion as state religion. However, it all changed after the killing of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and many top-ranking political leaders in 1975. Those who seized power at the time found the Islamists as their political ally and started islamising the society and the state. Islamist political parties, such as JI, started building their party structures. The power elites established thousands of madrassas that produced religiously indoctrinated youths who would be the front-line activists of the Islamist parties. Poor, jobless students from the madrassas became easy target of the recruiters of militant Islamist organisations. By late 1990s we had militant organisations such as Jamiatul Mujahedin Bangladesh (JMB) and Harkatul Jihad Al-Islami (HUJI) that took roots in Bangladesh.

Starting from 1999 to 2005, the militants bombed temples, churches, political rallies, cultural functions, cinema halls etc. The government and the opposition kept on blaming each other for those attacks. Even when grenades attack was made on the AL rally in Dhaka on 22 August 2004 killing 22 people and injuring the AL Chief Sheikh Hasina, the government blamed it on the opposition. The series bombing on 17 August 2005 finally compelled the government to come out of the denial mode and stand up to the terrorist threat. In 2006-07, we saw a series of arrests, prosecution and handing down of sentences, including death sentences, on some of the terror leaders. Since then there has been no major terror attack in Bangladesh, but that the terrorists are active is evident from the frequent arrests of activists and seizure of large cache of arms and explosives from their hideouts.

Bulk of the Islamic militants arrested so far had come from poor rural communities. Many were from the Quomi Madrassa background. However, recent years saw a new breed of extremists called the Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HuT). HuT members are drawn from children of urban, upper income parentage, educated in the mainstream or English medium schools and colleges. HuT is targeting the cream of our youth, the nation’s future, and therefore, poses a clear danger. It is feared that HuT has penetrated among schools and universities, professionals – engineers, doctors, government officials and even among the security apparatus. Although the party was banned in 2009, its clandestine activities continue in the country. On the political front, JI continued to grow in strength in Bangladesh. The party is small in size, but highly disciplined, well-organised and has a well-defined hierarchy. Jamaat’s aim is to establish a pure Islamic state based on Sharia. The party had opposed the Liberation War of Bangladesh in 1971 and actively collaborated in the genocide. Some of the top leaderships are now facing war-crime trial. The party, therefore, is on a back foot now, but given the fact that a new election is around the corner, its rank and file might align with the major opposition party to make a bid for power. JI’s student wing, Islami Chattra Shibir (Islamic Students Front), is now a potent student organisation, from schools to universities. The other Islamist party of importance is Islami Oikyo Jote (Islamic Unity Front), a collection of small Islamic parties. Like JI, IOJ also wants to establish an Islamic state in Bangladesh, but there are differences in outlook. IOJ members are exclusively from Quomi madrassa background and more traditional. IOJ has been in the forefront, along with JI, in the movement to declare Ahmedia community as non-Muslims. Present government’s attempt to register Quomi Madrassas and reform their curriculum was thwarted by IOJ’s agitation. None of the Islamist political parties gave open support to the militant activities, however, many of the JMB and HUJI activists had previously been members of Islamist political parties. The Islamist parties have multifarious social, economic and financial investments. Some of the largest banks, insurance, hospitals, diagnostic centres, schools, universities, coaching centres, and travel agencies are operated undercover by the Islamist parties. The Islamist parties have been gaining in strength in Bangladesh at the expense of the two major political parties – BNP and AL. Both parties at one time or other have been courting these parties in order to gain short term advantage over the other.

Countering the extremists

Bangladesh government has taken a number steps to check extremism and militancy. Notable among those are: Anti-Terrorism Act 2009 and Money Laundering Prevention Act 2009 as amended in 2011. The two acts provide for deterrent punishment to offenders in case they engage in acts of terror or launder money to support terrorism. Based on a series of dialogues, workshops and seminars, participated by academics, researchers, politicians, parliamentarians, civil and military officials, a national strategy to combat terrorism in the country has been proposed.Bangladesh has banned a total of six terrorist organizations, including JMB, HUJI and HuT. A number of Islamic NGOs have been banned who had terror links, including Revival of Islamic Heritage Society (Kuwait), Rabita Al Alam Al Islami (Saudi Arabia), and International Islamic relief Organization (Saudi Arabia), Muslim Aid (UK). More than 1,300 militants were arrested; most of them belonging to JMB, HUJI-B or HuT. 29 terrorist kingpins have been sentenced to death and many more sentenced to long imprisonment or are awaiting trial.While our police action has been commendable, we did not do enough on the social front. We need to address urgently the problem of poverty, ignorance, and backwardness. Democratisation of the society is an insurance against extremist ideology. We need to improve governance and provide access to justice for the poor and downtrodden. We need to impart modern education to our youth that prepare them to face the challenges of a fast changing world. A thorough overhaul of madrassa education in our country is long overdue. We need an education system that produce people with high ethical and technical standards, a system that encourages freethinking rather than rote learning. Emergence of HuT points out a lack of pride and a sense of disillusionment among the children of affluent class. This is because English medium schools, where most of the rich parents send their children, follow a curriculum that has no relevance to our culture, history or traditions. Therefore, English medium school syllabus too needs a thorough review.Government must legislate not to allow use of religion to gain political mileage. We need to check creeping ‘Sudiaization’ of Islam. Along with the money from the ME donors, comes the ideological package of Wahhabi Islam which is alien to South Asia. One of the prices we pay for the remittance from our labour force in the ME is the influx of Saudi brand of Islam. How do we de-radicalise these migrant workers is a big challenge for us. Meanwhile, hundreds of extremists who are arrested or under trial must be segregated from other prisoners. At present, these extremists are finding a captive audience 24 hours at their disposal, busy recruiting new ones from among the prisoners. We need to isolate the extremists and start a de-radicalisation program so that when they return to the society they become useful citizen.Our effort to counter religious extremism must be supplemented by regional and global effort. We need to have close cooperation and coordination between the governments of the region. Border monitoring, passport control, anti-money laundering measures, exchange of information on the movement of suspects, arrest and deportation of fugitives are some of the areas where regional countries could cooperate. Checking of arms smuggling across the porous border is another area where regional cooperation is the answer. In short, a total, comprehensive strategy has to be adopted for fighting religious extremism. If Bangladesh is to emerge as a modern, democratic state, the menace of extremism must be eliminated.

  

Wed. 13 September2017, NYC - Opening day of UNDP's exhibition "Survivors" at Photoville in NYC under the Brooklyn Bridge. STORIES OF SURVIVORS OF VIOLENT EXTREMISM IN AFRICA is a UNDP project featuring photographs and stories documented in 2016 across six African countries that have been directly affected by violent extremism – Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Nigeria, Somalia and Uganda.The photo essay was shot by the renowned female photographer, Malin Fezehai.

To see more: survivors-of-extremism.undp.org/en?_ga=2.201035052.340749...

 

Between 2011 and 2016, more than 33,300 Africans lost their lives to violent extremism. The growth of violent extremism has set in motion a dramatic reversal of development gains in Africa, and is also threatening to stunt prospects of development for years to come. Africa bears the brunt of the impact of terrorism in lives lost, economies ruined and relationships fractured. Extremists target public spaces such as markets and bus stations, forcing people to make a choice between risking death by going to work, or risking the very survival of their families.

 

In response, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Africa has developed a strategy to prevent and respond to violent extremism through a development lens.

 

In the photo exhibition, “Stories of Survivors,” the UNDP and photographer Malin Fezehai seek to shed light on and amplify the voices of those who often suffer in silence. Theirs are stories of resilience, perseverance and the triumph of humanity, as they rebuild their lives again. The survivors’ diverse religious, ethnic and national backgrounds highlight that violent extremism is a shared burden, and one that humanity, as a whole, must respond to.

 

To read about the report and the findings: journey-to-extremism.undp.org

 

© UNDP / Freya Morales

 

On October 21, 2014, CSIS and USAID/DCHA's Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) will host a major event, Advances and Challenges in Political Transitions. In honor of OTI's 20th anniversary, this conference will feature more than 40 experts and senior officials focusing on the challenges and opportunities of working in conflicts, crises, and political transitions. What will new conflicts look like, region by region? What role will extremism, organized crime, and chaotic violence play? What contributions will youth, women, the private sector, and technology make to prevention, mitigation, and recovery? And what tools, approaches, resources, and support will be needed to build more resilient societies in the coming years?

Agenda

Welcome and Opening Remarks

John Hamre, President, CEO, and Pritzker, CSIS

Nancy Lindborg, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, USAID

Keynote Address

Ambassador Alfonso E. Lenhardt, Deputy Administrator, USAID

Opening Presentation

Robert Lamb, Visiting Research Professor, U.S. Army War College, and Director and Senior Fellow (on leave), Program on Crisis, Conflict, and Cooperation, CSIS

Morning Plenary: Conflict Response and Recovery in Complex Environments

Moderator: Stephen Del Rosso, Program Director, International Peace and Security Program, Carnegie Corporation of New York

Panelists:

Stephen Lennon, Acting Director, OTI, USAID

Ambassador William Swing, Director General, International Organization for Migration

David Yang, Deputy Assistant Administrator, DCHA Bureau, USAID

Morning Breakout Panels

Track 1: Violent Extremism in MENA

Moderator: Tom Sanderson, Codirector, Transnational Threats Project, CSIS

Panelists:

Robbie Harris, Senior Transition Advisor, USAID/OTI

David Hunsicker, Senior Conflict Advisor, USAID/CMM

Hunter Keith, Development Specialist, DAI

Mona Yacoubian, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Middle East Bureau, USAID

Track 2: Geography, Technology, and Data

Moderator: Amy Noreuil, Data Analysis Support, USAID/OTI

Panelists:

Noel Dickover, Senior Program Officer, PeaceTech Initiative, USIP

Ian Schuler, CEO and President, Development Seed

Jessica Heinzelman, Manager, ICT Strategic Initiatives, DAI

Ivan Sigal, Executive Director, Global Voices

Track 3: Urban Violence and Organized Crime

Moderator: Lt. Col. (Retired) Scott Mann, CEO and Founder, Stability Institute

Panelists:

Miguel Reabold, Honduras Country Representative, USAID/OTI

Scott Aughenbaugh, Fellow, International Security Program and Deputy Director, Strategic Futures, CSIS

Enrique Roig, Coordinator, Central America Regional Security Initiative, USAID

Lunchtime Plenary: Looking Back and Looking Ahead

Moderator: Jim Kunder, Senior Transatlantic Fellow, German Marshall Fund of the United States

Panelists:

Robert Jenkins, Deputy Assistant Administrator, DCHA Bureau, USAID

Rick Barton, Former Assistant Secretary, Bureau for Conflict and Stabilization Operations, Department of State

Johanna Mendelson Forman, Scholar in Residence, American University, and Senior Associate, CSIS

Steve Morrison, Senior Vice President and Director, Global Health Policy Center, CSIS

Afternoon Breakout Panels

Track 1: Future of Conflict in Africa

Moderator: Jennifer Cooke, Director, Africa Program, CSIS

Panelists:

John Langlois, Africa Advisor, USAID/OTI

Pauline Baker, President Emeritus, Fund for Peace

Track 2: Future of Conflict in Eurasia/Pacific

Moderator: Susan Kosinski Fritz, Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator, Europe and Eurasia Bureau, USAID

Panelists:

Oren Murphy, Ukraine Country Representative, USAID/OTI

John R. Deni, Research Professor of Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational Security Studies, Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College

Track 3: Future of Conflict in Latin America

Moderator: Katie Prud'homme, Latin America and Caribbean Team Leader, USAID/OTI

Panelists:

Beth Hogan, Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator LAC, USAID

Steven Dudley, Codirector, InSight Crime

Douglas Farah, President, IBI Counsultants, and Senior Fellow, International Assessment and Strategy Center

Afternoon Plenary: Evolution of Agencies and Resources

Moderator: Kathleen Hicks, Senior Vice President; Henry A. Kissinger Chair; Director, International Security Program, CSIS

Panelists:

William Brownfield, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Department of State

Tom Perriello, Special Representative for the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, Department of State

Melissa Brown, Director, Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation, USAID

OTI in Transition: A Brief Oral History (film)

Programs

PROGRAM ON CRISIS, CONFLICT, AND COOPERATION (C3)

Topics

DEFENSE AND SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND RECONSTRUCTION, GOVERNANCE, DEVELOPMENT POLICY

Flickr ✔ If you would like to use this photo, contact

www.sebastien-duhamel.com/contact/

___________________________________________________

 

Reportage du Forum “La République face aux Extrémismes” www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/sets/7215763676867...

 

Expo. HAJJ & Manifestations en soutien aux Palestiniens www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/albums/72157645844...

 

Reportages Éducation et Politiques www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/collections/721576...

___________________________________________________

 

Clip : La République, ce qui nous unit est plus fort que ceux qui la divisent www.dailymotion.com/video/x155h97

___________________________________________________

 

Photographie de Sébastien Duhamel, professionnel de l’image

www.sebastien-duhamel.com/présentation-références/

 

Derniers reportages photos www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/collections/721576...

 

Classeurs photos www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/collections

 

Albums photos www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/sets/

 

Tournages vimeo.com/137495739

 

www.dailymotion.com/user/Sebastien_Duhamel/1

___________________________________________________

 

[NB] Les photos HD sont de 5610x3740

_☆_dans la base Flickr 700x467. Pour une visualisation optimale d’un album, placez la souris sur le bouton du centre en haut à droite de la fenêtre Flickr, puis cliquez sur le bouton.

 

Pour une visualisation pleine écran cliquez sur la photo et flèches de direction du clavier.

 

Retour à la navigation :

 

Classeurs www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/collections

 

Albums www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/sets/

 

Galerie www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/

___________________________________________________

 

Tous droits réservés sans la permission de l’auteur

 

All Right reserved without permission from the author

 

www.sebastien-duhamel.com/contact/

Special Briefing. Daniel Benjamin

Coordinator, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism.

  

MS. NULAND: Good afternoon, everybody. Before we do the daily briefing, we have a special briefing today on the next stage of implementation of Secretary Clinton’s Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, the establishment in the State Department of a Bureau of Counterterrorism. As you know, we’ve had an office under Ambassador Dan Benjamin. It is now about to become a full-up bureau. So to tell you more about that, Ambassador Daniel Benjamin.

   

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: Well, thank you very much, and thanks for coming today. Today the State Department is pleased to announce the establishment of the Bureau of Counterterrorism, fulfilling one of the key recommendations of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, which was concluded in December of 2010. We believe that this change will strengthen the State Department’s ability to carry out its counterterrorism mission around the world. My office and the Department have been taking on a growing role in counterterrorism in recent years, moving well beyond coordination. And the creation of this new bureau is another important step to ensure that we can accomplish the mission that the President and the Secretary have set out for us.

The mission of the new bureau will be to lead the Department in the U.S. Government’s effort to counter terrorism abroad and to secure the United States against foreign terrorist threats. The bureau will have a number of concrete responsibilities. In coordination with Department leadership, the National Security Staff, and U.S. Government agencies, other U.S. Government agencies, it will develop and implement counterterrorism strategies, policies, operations, and programs to disrupt and defeat the networks that support terrorism. The bureau will lead in supporting U.S. counterterrorism diplomacy and seek to strengthen homeland security, countering violent extremism, and build the capacity of partner nations to deal effectively with terrorism.

 

There are many examples of the growing importance of civilian counterterrorism work, what we here call strategic counterterrorism, which the Secretary discussed in her September 9th speech on the issue. The Administration puts a strong emphasis on increasing counterterrorism diplomacy, both multilaterally and bilaterally. And just last September, you may recall in a major initiative we established the Global Counterterrorism Forum with the goal of building an international architecture for dealing with 21st century terrorist threats. The GCTF offers CT policy makers and experts an opportunity to exchange best practices and to improve programming around the world. The new bureau will work with partners in the GCTF on a wide range of challenges, such as strengthening the rule of law in countries where terrorism poses the greatest threat.

 

Our ability to oversee and implement CT programs, which cover, by the way, everything from police training to countering the al-Qaida narrative, will be strengthened by the establishment of the bureau. The new bureau will lead the Department in U.S. Government efforts to reduce radicalization and mobilization abroad. It will work with the recently established Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications to de-legitimate the violent extremist narrative, to develop positive alternatives for populations that are vulnerable to recruitment, and it will work to partner with governments and civil society in building capacity to counter violent extremism.

 

As part of the standup, we are reorganizing and taking steps to make the new bureau effective across a wide range of policy and program activities. For example, we’re creating a new Strategic Plans and Policy Unit to improve our ability to do strategic planning and to develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of our programs. We’re also making changes that will tighten coordination between counterterrorism policy and programs, and we’re doing more to improve program implementation.

 

Finally, I want to emphasize that in these tight budget times, we’re doing our part to be good stewards of public funds by standing up the bureau with existing resources. PA will have a Fact Sheet that outlines the bureau’s mission and its priorities, and will provide you with some additional detail. And I’d be happy to take a few questions now.

 

MS. NULAND: Arshad.

 

QUESTION: Not about the creation of the new bureau itself per se, but can you give us an update on where things stand on your ongoing review of the MEK’s status as a Foreign Terrorist Organization?

 

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: Well, obviously, designations of Foreign Terrorist Organizations is one of the core activities of the office and of the new bureau, and it will continue to be so. And what will also continue is the policy of saying that we continue, pursuant to the U.S. District Court’s order, we continue to do the review. And obviously, it’s a very exhaustive effort, and we’ve been exchanging material with counsel for the other side. And it – I – there’s – we don’t have a date set for any decision, but you will certainly know it when it’s done.

 

QUESTION: And one other one, if I may, on Pakistan. As you well know, there’s been a significant deterioration in the U.S.-Pakistani relationship over the last year, going back certainly to the case of Raymond Davis, but other – lots of other events. From your vantage point, to what extent has or has not U.S.-Pakistani cooperation on counterterrorism deteriorated over the last 12 months or so?

 

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: Well, metrics are important, but I don’t think we have metrics for assessing exactly that. There’s no question we’re going through a difficult time in the wake of the cross-border incident and a number of other incidents that have occurred in the last year. But let me go back to basics. We think that it is essential that we have a good counterterrorism relationship with Pakistan. We believe it’s in both of our nations’ interests. No country has suffered more at the hands of militancy than Pakistan.

 

And I would add that this bureau, when we’re doing our job right, is also going to be working closely with Pakistan. We hope to continue building civilian capacity for countering terrorism, which is an essential need there and which was one of the working groups of the Strategic Dialogue that the Secretary created with the Pakistanis and which I am sure is something that we will continue doing. And it’s in everyone’s clearest interest.

 

So I can’t – I’m not going to give you a meter – a needle reading on the meter. We obviously have issues that are being worked out. The Pakistanis are doing their own review within their parliament. But we look forward to resuming some of our collaborative efforts.

 

QUESTION: You say, “When we are doing our job right, the bureau will be working with the Pakistanis.” Is it fair to say then that you’re not really doing anything now with the Pakistanis?

 

MR. BENJAMIN: No, it’s not.

 

QUESTION: Your bureau?

 

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: We do have these long-term processes going on. We are deeply engaged with our post in Islamabad on countering violent extremism, on disability and capacity building, on what we’ve done in the anti-terrorism assistance program. So we’re not going to make any blanket statements that we’re not cooperating by any means. Absolutely, we’re still working together.

 

QUESTION: Can I ask you a question about Iran? In the last couple of days there’s been a lot of bellicose talk from Iranian military leaders. And I’m just wondering, are you worried that as the sting of sanctions grows over this year and as Iran finds itself feeling more isolated, that the threat of Iranian terrorist activity is going to rise or destabilizing activity abroad?

 

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: Well, another issue that we’ve dealt with extensively as an office and we’ll continue to deal with extensively as a bureau. Obviously, Iran was and remains the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world. The recent discovery of plotting to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington and the arrests in that connection have certainly given us a great deal to think about and to wonder about exactly the same question you posed.

 

I don’t want to engage in hypotheticals and suggest that the Iranians are going to amp up their support for terrorism, but we know that they do believe that it is a legitimate tool of policy, something we vehemently disagree with. And we’re, of course, going to be as vigilant as we can to ensure that no one is resorting to terror to strike at us or our partners.

 

QUESTION: I’m not asking you, obviously, where, when, or how, but do you see it as a rising threat based on the tendencies that we’re seeing right now?

 

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: I see it as an existing threat and one that has been there for quite some time. And we’ll have to see how the Iranians respond to the fact that this plot in our hemisphere, in our country, was disrupted.

 

QUESTION: Related to that, you just referenced –

 

MS. NULAND: Can I?

 

QUESTION: Oh, sorry.

 

QUESTION: Yeah. Last year top – several top terrorist leaders were killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan region. Can you give us a sense where do you stand in terms of achieving your goal of defeating these terrorist organizations, terrorist outfits in that region?

 

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: There’s no question that 2010 – I’m sorry, 2011; I have to get my calendar straight – 2011 was a very successful year in terms of taking some bad actors off the street. And as Administration spokesmen have said on many occasions, we will continue to do what we need to to safeguard our national security against the groups that carried out the 9/11 attacks. But as – I want to underscore we all know that there is no way to shoot our way out of this problem conclusively and forever, and that’s why strengthening our engagement with others to support their civilian institutions so that they can actually hold that territory, police that territory, try people who want to carry out violent attacks either against people who live there or abroad, is an absolutely vital undertaking.

 

Al-Qaida, core al-Qaida, as we’ve called it, is certainly under greater pressure than it has been at any time since 9/11. But as the President has said and as others have said, the job’s not over and the work goes on.

 

QUESTION: And secondly, in November Secretary Clinton has said that the sanctions against Haqqani Network is on its way – they are – U.S. is very close to declaring this as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Where do we stand now on that front? When is it going to become –

 

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: Well, much as we discussed a moment ago, we don’t set timelines or dates as to when we’re going to put out particular decisions on designations. So we are looking at that very closely and we’ll continue to do so. And obviously, we have a huge concern in reducing the ability of the Haqqani Network to carry out terrorist attacks.

 

MS. NULAND: Can you identify yourself?

 

QUESTION: Mike Ledeen with Fox News. In terms of the bureau, can you talk about what the bureau will be doing that the office before it didn’t do, and also what the bureau will be doing that other parts of government aren’t already doing?

 

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: The establishment of the bureau in many ways is a confirmation or ratification of the things that we have been doing increasingly in recent years. So the fundamental tasks remain the same, but what we have now is an infrastructure to continue doing them more effectively and building on those successes in the future.

 

So we now are in a position where we can continue to innovate our programming to counter violent extremism, to enhance partner capacity around the world, to do the bilateral diplomacy that we do with other countries to discuss the threats, to underscore where there are gains to be made against particular terrorist groups in particular regions. We have a better platform for doing the work we undertake with, for example, the Department of Homeland Security to work jointly to stop terrorist travel, to improve aviation security, to do all those things we need to do to make for a safer United States at home and to protect our interests abroad.

 

So the fundamental mission doesn’t change, but we now have a much better organization for building on that and for moving beyond this outdated organization that we had that was really to support coordination, which is something that we’ve long since left behind.

 

QUESTION: And in terms of what the bureau will be doing that other entities in government don’t do?

 

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: Well, we’re the State Department; we have a set of tools and a set of activities that others don’t do. No one else does the bilateral kind of diplomacy that we do with others on a number of different issues, whether it has to do with how we reduce the space that terrorist groups have to fundraise, to operate. We provide a lot of training. We fund other agencies of the U.S. Government to send their experts out to do it in countries around the world, whether it’s anti-money laundering, counterterrorism finance, border security, rule of law with regional resident-led legal advisors – a whole range of different things that are really in the diplomatic toolkit and that we work with our partners in the government to do. So these things couldn’t be done without a strong State platform for carrying them through.

 

I hope that answers your question. There are just different things that are in different agencies’ lanes, and the State Department remains at the forefront in terms of those foreign engagements.

 

MS. NULAND: Karen.

 

QUESTION: I’m wondering how important the cooperation of certain governments will be in your effort and how much you can achieve. If the – if Iran is the number one sponsor of terrorism and it won’t cooperate with you, and Pakistan – let’s say they choose not to cooperate with you, and other countries where terrorism is a problem, how effective can you really be?

 

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: Well, I would say that in terms of the international cooperation assessment, the glass is 98 percent full, and you’ve got, at least on Iran, the 1 percent that isn’t and the one or two other countries that we have grave concerns about. But international cooperation and the partnerships that have been built have really been one of the great unsung successes of the last decade. There’s extraordinary cooperation in intelligence around the world, in military affairs, and in the diplomatic work to constrain the ability of terrorists to operate and to cooperate, to arrest them, to ensure that they can’t carry out attacks.

 

Yes, there are problems, and we have countries that we have serious challenges working with, and there are a small number of countries that still view terrorism as a legitimate instrument of policy. But I think the remarkable thing about the post 9/11 period is how much countries have cooperated against al-Qaida, the core al-Qaida, against al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and their – the governments of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, Qatar, on and on, against AQ in the Islamic Maghreb, as they call themself, and there we see much greater cooperation among regional partners, for example, in Southeast Asia.

 

There have just been tremendous strides, and frankly, we’re hoping that this Global Counterterrorism Forum will build on those strides and that terrorist – counterterrorism experts will be able to exchange best practices and identify problems and design solutions in a way that we haven’t been able to before on a multilateral basis.

 

MS. NULAND: Samir.

 

QUESTION: Yes. The Syrian Government, after two bombings happened in Damascus two weeks ago, accused elements of al-Qaida behind the bombings and they said they came from Lebanon. Do you know if al-Qaida have a presence in Lebanon?

 

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: Well, let me just say we’ve seen the reports, and I don’t have any further comment on them. We certainly know that there have been sympathetic groups to al-Qaida in Lebanon for many years. You may recall that the Lebanese forces went into one of the refugee camps some years ago to deal with a group that had an al-Qaida-like ideology. So it is certainly true that there have been elements like that in Lebanon over the years. Whether that had anything to do with what’s going on in Syria is another matter entirely.

 

QUESTION: A follow-up --

 

MS. NULAND: I understand that the Fact Sheet on the bureau has just been released, so that should be available to you all.

 

QUESTION: And do you think that al-Qaida was behind the explosions in Damascus?

 

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: I don't know. We don’t have anything conclusive on that.

 

MS. NULAND: Said.

 

QUESTION: Thank you. Yes, sir. Do you ever reexamine your classification of Hamas, the entity that governs the Gaza Strip, as a terrorist organization in view of steps taken in the last few months, sort of distancing themselves from Syria and Iran and inching their way towards a unity government with the Palestinian Authority that is a partner with the United States in the peace process?

 

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: I think we’ve been very clear about what Hamas needs to do if it wants to get out from under the FTO designation, and that has to do with renouncing violence and accepting the Quartet principles. I think that the groundwork is there. The step – the footprints are on the ground. They need to go through them, and we would certainly welcome that, and it’s long overdue.

 

QUESTION: A couple questions on --

 

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: Arshad.

 

QUESTION: -- that I think are addressed in the – I don't think they’re addressed in the Fact Sheet. How many people are there in the bureau? Do you know?

 

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: Yes. I believe that we have 70 FTE government employees and then detailees, contractors, and the like, I think we get to 120, roughly that.

 

QUESTION: Okay. And it’s no – when you said in being a good steward of the public money, you’re not getting any more money or any more people than in becoming a bureau, correct?

 

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: That’s correct.

 

QUESTION: And then will the bureau continue to produce the Country Reports on Terrorism? And will the intel community continue to separately – as has been the case for years – produce the underlying data based on number of terrorist incidents?

 

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: Let me just say that we – it’s a congressionally-mandated report, the Country Reports on Terrorism. We’re already gathering information for this year. Rhonda Shore sitting over there has this task, and we’ll be putting out the report again.

 

QUESTION: And last one from me. And admittedly, unabashedly, it is hypothetical, but I think it’s of sort of topical interest. Brad talked about the threats that Iran has made and obviously the threats towards the Straits of Hormuz. The question I have is whether an attack on shipping in the Straits of Hormuz would be regarded as an act of war or an act of terrorism, and what is the key determinant? Is it whether it is a non-state actor and therefore it’s terrorism, but if it’s by a state military then it’s an act of war? How do you determine those things?

 

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: I think that that’s – falls into the – square in the category of hypotheticals, and if there is such an attack we’ll make that determination at that time. As you know, the whole issue of what is an act of state-sponsored terrorism, what isn’t, it’s one we get into frequently. We did with the North Korea issue, for example. So rather than lay out lines that will immediately be overtaken by events, I’ll just leave it at that.

 

And I think that I would remiss if I didn’t save some time for your reliable spokesperson.

 

MS. NULAND: Excellent. Thank you all.

 

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: (Laughter.) Okay. Thank you.

 

PRN: 2012/012

        

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   

This email was sent to vascopress@yahoo.com.br using GovDelivery, on behalf of: U.S. Department of State

----------------------------------

  

FOREIGN PRESS CENTER BRIEFING WITH JOHN P. CARLIN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NATIONAL SECURITY

  

MODERATOR: Good afternoon. Welcome to the New York Foreign Press Center. This is an on-the-record briefing on Department of Justice measures to combat violent extremism with Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin. We’re very pleased to host him today. I would like to ask, after his initial remarks we’ll go to Q&A, and please wait for the microphone and please identify yourself.

  

Thank you. Mr. Carlin.

  

MR CARLIN: Thank you. Good afternoon. At the Department of Justice, the National Security Division was the first new litigating division created in about 50 years. And we were created in 2006 as one of the post-9/11 reforms. And our number one mission, simply, is to prevent terrorist attacks here inside the United States. And our mission, first and foremost, when it comes to ISIL is to prevent attacks against U.S. citizens here in the United States and abroad. And we work in coordination with our law enforcement intelligence community partners and with countries around the world to ensure that we can disrupt terrorist actors before they commit those acts.

  

This is a good week with UNGA in town and the Global Counterterrorist Forum to take a step back and talk a little bit less about our efforts to protect U.S. citizens and more about our responsibilities as global partners to prevent terrorist attacks elsewhere in the world. We have a fundamental responsibility to prevent ISIL from having U.S. citizens join ISIL in its campaign to rape, to commit sexual slavery, and to murder innocent civilians, including children, as tactics. And so together last year, when I was here in New York for these same events, we worked on the UN Security Council Resolution 2178, which was an unprecedented mandatory resolution for every country around the world to work to put laws on the books to prevent foreign terrorist fighters from their country from going to join the fight and also to make – take steps to keep them from returning to commit terrorist attacks once they left the battleground in Iraq or Syria.

  

Since that resolution last year, we commend the over 20 nations that since last year have put new laws on the books that are specifically designed to combat the support for these foreign terrorist organizations either through actual citizens from their countries or from providing material or financial support. And among those since last year, over three dozen nations have taken law enforcement actions, have arrested individuals before they could go join these foreign terrorist organizations.

  

At the Justice Department we’ve provided assistance both in the legislation and as some countries try using these statutes for the first time. And we’ve sent our prosecutors over the last year on countless trips to work hand-in-hand with foreign partners all over the world as they draft these new laws.

  

We also house and support Interpol. And since last year, when there was a commitment by countries at this very event – and in conjunction with 2178 and also with the Global Counterterrorism Forum that consists of over 30 countries, there was a new commitment to provide information to Interpol, which we house and support. And since last year, that has resulted in six times the amount of information being shared, approximately 4,000 new profiles on foreign terrorist fighters, from over 45 countries.

  

And we recognize, to talk a little bit about what we face in the United States versus other countries as they face this foreign terrorist fighter threat, although the overall number some put at 25,000 or 30,000 individuals – and that’s higher than what we saw even at the height of the conflict in Afghanistan and the FATA – that when it comes to the numbers that are from the United States, our numbers are lower, particularly even compared to our Western partners. And we have about – we estimate around 250 U.S. citizens who have either attempted to or gone over to fight or who have gone over and returned. That number also includes those we’ve arrested.

  

Since about last year, we’ve brought criminal cases against 70 individuals. Sixty of those individuals, it was for conduct related to either supporting foreign terrorist fighters or attempting to join the group. The other 10 is a trend that we’ve started to see here in the United States since ISIL changed its tactics and called on individuals to commit terrorist attacks where they live, particularly in Western countries. We have over 10 criminal cases brought to date of individuals inspired by ISIL or other terrorist groups to commit attacks here in the United States. So between the 60 who wanted to join the foreign terrorist fighter groups and the 10 who wanted to commit attacks here in the United States, that’s how we have over 70 cases.

  

In terms of trends inside the United States, in almost every case social media is involved. Unlike some other countries, we’re not seeing it in any particular geographic part of the United States nor confined to any ethnic group. The FBI currently has open investigations in all 50 states, and we have brought criminal cases in 25 different jurisdictions to date across the United States, so places that have not traditionally confronted a foreign terrorist threat.

  

Consistent with the fact that this is a social media-driven threat here, in over 50 percent of the cases the defendants are 25 years or younger, and in over a third of the cases they are 21 years or younger. And for us in confronting the terrorist threat, that is different than the demographic we saw who went to support core al-Qaida in the Afghanistan FATA region.

  

I think what you’ll hear tomorrow under the President of the United States leadership is the summit that he’s convening of countries throughout the world – over 60 countries – dedicated to combating this terrorist threat. And what you’ll see is a focus – in addition to the efforts that I’ve talked about to date, the law enforcement criminal justice efforts – is a focus on efforts to prevent it from ever reaching the law enforcement system in the first place. And that means working on countering the message and propaganda that ISIL uses to draw recruits from our communities, and it means exposing ISIL for what it really is and not what it pretends to be.

  

They put out images of child soldiers handing out candy to children, but in reality they’re a group that beheads and kills Muslims and non-Muslims alike with equal impunity, that rapes and sells women and children into sexual slavery, and that deliberately looks to destroy the cultural heritage of the countries in which it resides. So a law enforcement response is essential, and we need to continue the progress that we’ve made since last year’s resolution. But it also can only be part of the answer, and others need to dissuade would-be foreign fighters from joining ISIL in the first place.

  

You’ll see the attorney general of the United States convene a first-of-its-kind Safe Cities Forum tomorrow as well that will consist of mayors across the United States but also from other countries across the world, because fundamentally to dissuade individuals in the first instance from joining these types of groups is going to require local-level, community-driven engagement. And so I think tomorrow’s forum, the Safe Cities Forum, is going to work and introduce mayors to each other so they can talk about best practices at keeping these individuals from ever going down the path of radicalization.

  

I will stop there and open it up for questions.

  

QUESTION: Hajime Matsuura, Japan, Sankei's columnist here based in New York. A question about the most – the breakdown of the social media ISIL is using. Do you have the breakdown of which social media is popular and how you’re working with the host of or owners of the social medias?

 

MR CARLIN: So when it comes to social media, I think you see ISIL use pretty much every available service that they can find, and they target people according to who uses the service. So – and it’s different depending on which country that you’re in, although it is a global problem. So here in the United States, we’re seeing it with those who are using sites that are frequented by English-language speakers or are popular in the United States. And that really ranges through the most familiar names, be it Twitter to Facebook to YouTube videos.

  

And what they do is they blast out these often slickly produced propagandistic messages using the same type of techniques that Madison Avenue advertisers use to put out images like handing out candy to children, or they’ll have an ISIL soldier in the caliphate with a kitten in one hand and a gun in the other and they’ll say, “Come join the caliphate.” They bombard the internet with thousands and thousands of these messages a day, and the number of people who respond to them is a tiny, tiny percentage of those who they reach with that message, but it only takes a very small number from each country to either prevent – present a terrorist threat our home country, but also to reach the numbers that they’re reaching of getting people to join the fight when you’re talking about having that message reach 100 different countries.

  

So to the extent they’re able to get people who are language or cultural experts, then they will use those individuals who have joined ISIL already to target a particular country or audience.

  

QUESTION: Hi, thank you. Diego Senior from Caracol Radio in Colombia. I know you’re focusing on ISIL, but this is a question that I have to ask, and it’s about a terrorist organization – deemed terrorist organization by the U.S. Government in Colombia. And they just reached this peace accord – not a complete peace accord, but one regarding transitional justice in our country. I’m wondering what the strategy from your department or from wherever within the Justice Department is capable of doing. What are you guys doing or thinking to do facing terrorism – that terrorism threat which it might stop be or at some point – when will you stop calling them terrorists since they’re going to give in their weapons?

  

MR CARLIN: So I’ll describe generally. In the American legal system, the model that we’ve used to confront the international terrorist threat is using a statute called the material support to terrorism statute. As we’ve discussed, as countries around the world are putting new statutes on their books, this is one model that they’ve – that some countries have elected to follow. And what it hinges upon is there’s a formal process for the designation of a group or an individual as an international terrorist organization, and then the criminal consequences of that designation follow. So to the extent that there is an armistice, what would be the key for those of us in the prosecution and law enforcement community would be whether or not they remove the FARC as a designated terrorist organization as part of the reconciliation process, and so we’ll wait and see what occurs in that regard.

  

And obviously, long-term, and this includes ISIL, the endgame – we need to use law enforcement and prosecution as a tool to prevent these terrorist attacks from occurring, but we recognize that the long-term solution is one that requires the participation of states and local governments to prevent these groups from existing in the first place, and that’s what success looks like. And that’s why I think you’ll see the President tomorrow emphasize the need to combat violent extremism and the attorney general at the Safe Cities event talk to mayors about getting rid of those root causes to that these groups don’t exist in the first instance.

  

MODERATOR: We have a question from Washington. Washington, please go ahead.

  

QUESTION: Thank you. My name is Anatoly Bochinin, TASS News Agency, Russia. Sir, as you said today, this ISIL problem affects many countries – also Russia. So my question is: Do you cooperate with Russian security services? And are you going to work with this new informational center in Baghdad which will be established these days? Thank you.

  

MR CARLIN: So I’ll say that generally, that the FBI has partnerships with law enforcement agencies throughout the world, and some countries have made a real dedicated push to share intelligence or law enforcement information regarding the terrorist threat. Some countries have work to do in that regard, but it’s going to take a partnership when it comes to combating these foreign terrorist organizations. And we’ve seen improvements, like I discussed in terms of INTERPOL and sharing information about terrorist identities, or since last year, with a dedicated focus on this, the number of terrorist identities has increased six times. We have 4,000 identities into that system.

  

It needs to improve further, and we hope it will.

  

QUESTION: Thank you. Harriet Alexander from The Telegraph. You spoke about the 250 estimated citizens who’ve gone or attempted to go, and those against which you’ve got criminal cases. I wondered if you’d talk a little bit more about the backgrounds of those people, just generally, because – I ask because in Europe, we find that an awful lot of people who are going to join these organizations have already got criminal records and have previously spent time specifically in prison. That was very much the case in France with the Paris attacks and with the Toulouse attacks. And I just wondered if you could talk a little bit about any de-radicalization programs that you may have in prisons.

  

MR CARLIN: That’s a good question, Harriet. So I’d say in terms of the trends that what we’ve seen is there isn’t a particular profile other than the common factors that I discussed, which is, one, in almost every case there’s some connection to social media; and two, the general demographic trending young. And as you can imagine, as it trends younger and younger, these are not people with long criminal histories inside the United States. And although we remain very much vigilant and concerned about the issue of prison radicalization and what occurs to individuals when they are released, that has not comprised currently the majority of the cases that we’ve seen.

  

What we are seeing is with this new focus on targeting the young or the unstable, that you’ll – they’ll attract individuals who you would not necessarily think of as being ISIL adherents but end up getting – going down the process of radicalization after being exposed through one of these general social media sites. And then what they do often is once they have someone on the hook, if you will, they end up in direct communication in some of these cases – so the terrorist overseas is in direct communication with the young person or troubled person here, personally walking them down the path towards radicalization using social media. And this is new, I know, for the United Kingdom, having talked to counterparts there, and for the United States. In terms of a trend, I think both our countries together are struggling on new approaches to combat what is a new strategy or tactic by the terrorist group.

  

It is different than – although we still remain concerned, and al-Qaida still has the intent to commit the large-scale spectacular attack against a Western target, as does al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and al-Nusrah, the al-Qaida franchise in the Syria region. So we remain concerned and need to disrupt that large-scale spectacular attack, but this new tactic of urging people to commit the attack, even small-scale, immediately – we use the expression sometimes “the short flash to bang,” which is social media-driven, which means if you think about a fuse of dynamite, the time between when you light the fuse and when the dynamite explodes is very, very short. That’s a hard problem for the intelligence community and law enforcement to crack and really is going to rely on partnerships.

  

QUESTION: Hi there. Justin Fishel with ABC. I have two quick questions. The first is about the migration issue and the refugee crisis. As you know, the U.S. wants to bring in 85,000 refugees from Syria next year, and there are some sort of opposing views about whether this – there’s risks associated with this and risks of ISIL infiltration. So what’s your assessment of that risk and plan to combat it? Then I have one more other question.

  

MR CARLIN: Look, our job in the law enforcement/intelligence community is to see what the decision is by policymakers to try to accommodate those who are in a terrible situation and who are facing unbelievable brutality, both by the regime and by ISIL. And whatever decision is made, then we need to work and apply the resources to make sure that the terrorist groups don’t try to take advantage of a humanitarian gesture to get individuals predisposed to commit terrorist attacks either into Europe or the United States. And we’ve faced that sort of challenge before and we’ll apply the resources necessary to combat it.

  

QUESTION: Okay. My last question, more a domestic politics issue. Your division of the Justice Department is overseeing the email review, and the one piece of clarification I think – and one of the things that got really confused throughout this whole thing was why this is not a criminal probe but the – there are federal – there are people like yourselves involved in it, so how is it that it is not criminal? That’s something that I think a lot of people are confused about, and I apologize to my colleagues for the domestic nature of this question.

  

MR CARLIN: Well, I’m going to stick to the foreign press questions for this event.

  

QUESTION: I’m Sajidu Haque from Bangladeshi television channel. Do you think Bangladesh fall in high risk in near future? Because some existing terrorist group like ISIL and al-Qaida, they are all in Pakistan, and Bangladesh, Pakistan, India fall in high risk.

  

MR CARLIN: I’m sorry, I didn’t fully catch the question.

  

QUESTION: Do you think near future, Bangladesh fall in high risk for terrorism – in terrorism?

  

MR CARLIN: Oh, do I – do I think that there’s a high risk of terrorism occurring in Bangladesh?

  

QUESTION: Yeah.

  

MR CARLIN: I confess to not being an expert in terms of what the risks are of terrorist attacks occurring inside Bangladesh. I’d say more generally, as we' we’ve seen, this is a phenomenon that has already crossed in an unprecedented way. It has foreign terrorist fighters from over 100 countries. I believe Bangladesh is one of those 100 countries. And there is a concern, certainly, if any citizen goes over to fight with one of those foreign terrorist groups, what happens when they return armed, trained on how to commit attacks, and spending a long time being steeped in this ideology? So in that sense there’s a concern that cuts across all of these countries.

  

And the other issue would be the same social media phenomenon of individuals who stay at home and are contacted by this terrorist group and are encouraged to commit, if they can’t travel, terrorist acts where they live.

  

QUESTION: Vasco Jesus, VascoPress Communications, Brazil. (Inaudible.) Is there any sharing of information, collaboration, between the Government of Brazil and United States, your department, concerning the threat of international terrorism? I ask you this because next year – well, Brazil doesn’t have a history of international terrorism on its borders, but next year Brazil is hosting the Summer Games, and our neighbor Argentina in the ‘90s had two huge cases – the AMIA case and the bombing of the Israeli consulate. I would like you to comment on those, thank you.

  

MR CARLIN: I’d say prior to each of the last Olympics – and this is the world in which we live now – I know that we have offered assistance, including the sharing of information, primarily through the channel of the FBI and law-enforcement-to-law-enforcement channels but also in others, to help protect not only our own citizens participating in the Games but to help protect the Games themselves. And I know we have extended and will extend similar outreach to Brazil and look forward to working as appropriate with their authorities to help protect the Games.

  

QUESTION: So far?

  

MR CARLIN: I’d have to refer you probably over to FBI or other avenues to talk about current efforts to date.

  

QUESTION: Sorry, me again. Can I just ask for a bit more information about this Safe Cities Forum? So what actually do you think will come out of that? I mean, is that just a talking shop where people are going to be exchanging ideas, or do you think that there’ll be concrete policies and agreements resulting from that?

  

MR CARLIN: I think it is both. It is, one, to make sure to focus individuals’ attention on this issue and to make sure that they – there’s a channel for community-to-community engagement. But I also think they hope to, if not at that forum, to kick it off into smaller sessions to develop best practices similar to the type of best practices we’ve developed through the Global Combating Terrorist Forum that led to resolutions like encouraging the changes in – certain changes in the criminal code, like protecting classified information and figuring out a way to do that while preserving due process or undercover operations. That’s been the type of best practice produced in my space, in the space of a group focused on criminal prosecutions. I think for the mayors, they’re hoping when it comes to combating violent extremism that similarly there may be some community-based, local-oriented best practices for cities to take into account when they’re developing their own programs as to how to keep people from going down this path in the first instance.

  

QUESTION: Alexey Osipov from Israeli Novosti. Most of the international media and of course politicians are politically correct; they call terrorism as at least international, but for sure 99 percent of terrorism have specific religion or specific nationality. In your department, in your office, do you use the words like “Islamic terrorist,” anti-Israel terrorism, Palestinian terrorism, et cetera?

  

MR CARLIN: So for us as lawyers under our statutes, we have the full remit for the prosecution of terrorist cases. When it comes to international terrorism, the statute that we use, as I was describing earlier, is based on whether or not the particular group is designated as an international terrorist group. So it keys off identifying that group and then if you provide any support – financial, even yourself to support to the group – you fall within our criminal laws. So I wouldn’t – I don’t indict a religion or a nationality, but the name of the designated terrorist group will – will be in the indictment.

  

For our domestic terrorism groups, those without an international connection, there is not a similar statute in U.S. law. There’s a definition of terrorism that works as a sentencing enhancement and for certain evidentiary purposes, but usually what we’re charging will be the actual criminal conduct, because many times under our system – and this is different than most countries throughout the world – because of the First Amendment and our dedication to free speech and free expression and the way it plays out in our legal system, in many instances talking the talk, if you will, in support of these groups is not sufficient for a criminal charge. You have to show some type of overt act in furtherance of a violation of a criminal statute.

  

QUESTION: Me again. For domestic enforcement, sort of ethnic or racial profiling has been an issue under scrutiny. How about your stance with this regard? And is there any possibility that you’re using that kind of screening?

  

MR CARLIN: So you cannot profile an individual based on their – or target an individual and use legal tools against an individual based on their – solely upon their First Amendment-protected rights under our guidelines. And as I said, when it comes to who that profile would be, at least with our current version of the ISIL terrorist threat, what we’re seeing is a threat that cuts across all 50 states, where we’ve currently brought criminal cases in over 25 different jurisdictions and where there’s little in common between the 70 individuals who are currently charged other than their – some connection to social media and being connected to one of these groups.

  

And so I think we do need to look for – this is a lesson even in the criminal realm – but is to make parents, community members aware of what could be going on with their friend or neighbor when they’re on social media, because it’s new for a lot of parents that they’re facing this type of threat, and look for those signs which both law enforcement but also community organizations are putting out of someone who’s started down this path of radicalization.

  

According to one study of cases that did end up in the criminal justice system, in 80 percent of those cases there was someone who saw that process of radicalization occurring, and in over half of those cases they did not take a step to intervene. So if we can improve those numbers and have people in the community take steps to intervene, hopefully we can reduce the number of people that ever enter the criminal system.

  

MODERATOR: We are out of time. I’m afraid we’ll have to leave it there. Thank you very much.

  

MR CARLIN: Thank you.

  

***************************************

  

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2015, 4:30 P.M. EDT

  

NEW YORK FOREIGN PRESS CENTER, 799 UNITED NATIONS PLAZA, 10TH FLOOR

Flickr ✔ If you would like to use this photo, contact

www.sebastien-duhamel.com/contact/

___________________________________________________

 

Reportage du Forum “La République face aux Extrémismes” www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/sets/7215763676867...

 

Expo. HAJJ & Manifestations en soutien aux Palestiniens www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/albums/72157645844...

 

Reportages Éducation et Politiques www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/collections/721576...

___________________________________________________

 

Clip : La République, ce qui nous unit est plus fort que ceux qui la divisent www.dailymotion.com/video/x155h97

___________________________________________________

 

Photographie de Sébastien Duhamel, professionnel de l’image

www.sebastien-duhamel.com/présentation-références/

 

Derniers reportages photos www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/collections/721576...

 

Classeurs photos www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/collections

 

Albums photos www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/sets/

 

Tournages vimeo.com/137495739

 

www.dailymotion.com/user/Sebastien_Duhamel/1

___________________________________________________

 

[NB] Les photos HD sont de 5610x3740

_☆_dans la base Flickr 700x467. Pour une visualisation optimale d’un album, placez la souris sur le bouton du centre en haut à droite de la fenêtre Flickr, puis cliquez sur le bouton.

 

Pour une visualisation pleine écran cliquez sur la photo et flèches de direction du clavier.

 

Retour à la navigation :

 

Classeurs www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/collections

 

Albums www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/sets/

 

Galerie www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/

___________________________________________________

 

Tous droits réservés sans la permission de l’auteur

 

All Right reserved without permission from the author

 

www.sebastien-duhamel.com/contact/

15-08-2007 Lahore, Pakistan. Girls follow religious and secular classes in a girl’s madrassa in one of the poorest neighborhoods of Lahore. Around one third of the Pakistani youth is educated in madrasas. For poor families it's a possibility to a free education. But also richer families send their children often for a year to a Koran school to learn about Islam. Madrasas are accused of recruiting and training members for Al Qaida or the Taliban. Most madrasas are just educational institutes that distance themselves from extremism. For girls, a madrasa can even mean a way to emancipation, because an education can help them to find a job and give them financial independence.

President Barack Obama delivers remarks at the White House Summit to Counter Violent Extremism at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., on February 19, 2015. [State Department photo/ Public Domain]

Flickr ✔ If you would like to use this photo, contact

www.sebastien-duhamel.com/contact/

___________________________________________________

 

Reportage du Forum “La République face aux Extrémismes” www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/sets/7215763676867...

 

Expo. HAJJ & Manifestations en soutien aux Palestiniens www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/albums/72157645844...

 

Reportages Éducation et Politiques www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/collections/721576...

___________________________________________________

 

Clip : La République, ce qui nous unit est plus fort que ceux qui la divisent www.dailymotion.com/video/x155h97

___________________________________________________

 

Photographie de Sébastien Duhamel, professionnel de l’image

www.sebastien-duhamel.com/présentation-références/

 

Derniers reportages photos www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/collections/721576...

 

Classeurs photos www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/collections

 

Albums photos www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/sets/

 

Tournages vimeo.com/137495739

 

www.dailymotion.com/user/Sebastien_Duhamel/1

___________________________________________________

 

[NB] Les photos HD sont de 5610x3740

_☆_dans la base Flickr 700x467. Pour une visualisation optimale d’un album, placez la souris sur le bouton du centre en haut à droite de la fenêtre Flickr, puis cliquez sur le bouton.

 

Pour une visualisation pleine écran cliquez sur la photo et flèches de direction du clavier.

 

Retour à la navigation :

 

Classeurs www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/collections

 

Albums www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/sets/

 

Galerie www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/

___________________________________________________

 

Tous droits réservés sans la permission de l’auteur

 

All Right reserved without permission from the author

 

www.sebastien-duhamel.com/contact/

President Barack Obama delivers remarks at the Leaders’ Summit to Counter ISIL and Violent Extremism at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City on September 29, 2015. [State Department photo/ Public Domain]

AIR CDRE (RETD) ISHFAQ ILAHI CHOUDHURY

As we say goodbye to the year 2012, we might take time out to reflect on our achievements and failures in the year gone by, examine our prospects for the future and the challenges that lie ahead. Religious extremism leading to terrorist activities is one such area that needs to be reviewed. While many South Asian countries are deeply embroiled in the fight against terrorism, Bangladesh had generally been free from terrorist attacks since 2005. As we tended to relax, two incidents in 2012 brought our focus back to the terrorism issue. The first was the burning and looting of the houses and temples of the Buddhist communities in Cox’s Bazar area on 29-30 September. The second was the arrest on 17 October of a young Bangladeshi man caught while planning to bomb the Federal Reserve Building in New York, USA. As the year was coming to a close, the violence unleashed across the country by the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), a right-wing Islamist party, sent us a clear signal of the growing strength of Islamist politics.

s we say goodbye to the year 2012, we might take time out to reflect on our achievements and failures in the year gone by, examine our prospects for the future and the challenges that lie ahead. Religious extremism leading to terrorist activities is one such area that needs to be reviewed. While many South Asian countries are deeply embroiled in the fight against terrorism, Bangladesh had generally been free from terrorist attacks since 2005. As we tended to relax, two incidents in 2012 brought our focus back to the terrorism issue. The first was the burning and looting of the houses and temples of the Buddhist communities in Cox’s Bazar area on 29-30 September. The second was the arrest on 17 October of a young Bangladeshi man caught while planning to bomb the Federal Reserve Building in New York, USA. As the year was coming to a close, the violence unleashed across the country by the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), a right-wing Islamist party, sent us a clear signal of the growing strength of Islamist politics.

These are happening at a time when an avowed secular party, the Awami League (AL), is in power. AL won the 2008 election with a commitment to amend the constitution to restore its secular character. It also promised stern action against all forms of religious extremism and terrorism. Four years down the line, much of those promises remain unfulfilled. Constitutional reform was half-done; Islam remained a state religion. Religious parties are more organised today than ever before. Their student fronts are active in most educational institutions. While Islamists are active on political fronts, more radical amongst them are organising themselves for terrorist activities as and when opportunities appear.

Rise of Islamic extremism in Bangladesh

On 16 December 1971, we hoped that Bangladesh would emerge as a modern democratic state. The spirit of the nation was epitomised in the Constitution (1972) that adopted secularism as a state principle and prohibited the political use of religion. The Constitution barred the state from declaring any religion as state religion. However, it all changed after the killing of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and many top-ranking political leaders in 1975. Those who seized power at the time found the Islamists as their political ally and started islamising the society and the state. Islamist political parties, such as JI, started building their party structures. The power elites established thousands of madrassas that produced religiously indoctrinated youths who would be the front-line activists of the Islamist parties. Poor, jobless students from the madrassas became easy target of the recruiters of militant Islamist organisations. By late 1990s we had militant organisations such as Jamiatul Mujahedin Bangladesh (JMB) and Harkatul Jihad Al-Islami (HUJI) that took roots in Bangladesh.

Starting from 1999 to 2005, the militants bombed temples, churches, political rallies, cultural functions, cinema halls etc. The government and the opposition kept on blaming each other for those attacks. Even when grenades attack was made on the AL rally in Dhaka on 22 August 2004 killing 22 people and injuring the AL Chief Sheikh Hasina, the government blamed it on the opposition. The series bombing on 17 August 2005 finally compelled the government to come out of the denial mode and stand up to the terrorist threat. In 2006-07, we saw a series of arrests, prosecution and handing down of sentences, including death sentences, on some of the terror leaders. Since then there has been no major terror attack in Bangladesh, but that the terrorists are active is evident from the frequent arrests of activists and seizure of large cache of arms and explosives from their hideouts.

Bulk of the Islamic militants arrested so far had come from poor rural communities. Many were from the Quomi Madrassa background. However, recent years saw a new breed of extremists called the Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HuT). HuT members are drawn from children of urban, upper income parentage, educated in the mainstream or English medium schools and colleges. HuT is targeting the cream of our youth, the nation’s future, and therefore, poses a clear danger. It is feared that HuT has penetrated among schools and universities, professionals – engineers, doctors, government officials and even among the security apparatus. Although the party was banned in 2009, its clandestine activities continue in the country. On the political front, JI continued to grow in strength in Bangladesh. The party is small in size, but highly disciplined, well-organised and has a well-defined hierarchy. Jamaat’s aim is to establish a pure Islamic state based on Sharia. The party had opposed the Liberation War of Bangladesh in 1971 and actively collaborated in the genocide. Some of the top leaderships are now facing war-crime trial. The party, therefore, is on a back foot now, but given the fact that a new election is around the corner, its rank and file might align with the major opposition party to make a bid for power. JI’s student wing, Islami Chattra Shibir (Islamic Students Front), is now a potent student organisation, from schools to universities. The other Islamist party of importance is Islami Oikyo Jote (Islamic Unity Front), a collection of small Islamic parties. Like JI, IOJ also wants to establish an Islamic state in Bangladesh, but there are differences in outlook. IOJ members are exclusively from Quomi madrassa background and more traditional. IOJ has been in the forefront, along with JI, in the movement to declare Ahmedia community as non-Muslims. Present government’s attempt to register Quomi Madrassas and reform their curriculum was thwarted by IOJ’s agitation. None of the Islamist political parties gave open support to the militant activities, however, many of the JMB and HUJI activists had previously been members of Islamist political parties. The Islamist parties have multifarious social, economic and financial investments. Some of the largest banks, insurance, hospitals, diagnostic centres, schools, universities, coaching centres, and travel agencies are operated undercover by the Islamist parties. The Islamist parties have been gaining in strength in Bangladesh at the expense of the two major political parties – BNP and AL. Both parties at one time or other have been courting these parties in order to gain short term advantage over the other.

Countering the extremists

Bangladesh government has taken a number steps to check extremism and militancy. Notable among those are: Anti-Terrorism Act 2009 and Money Laundering Prevention Act 2009 as amended in 2011. The two acts provide for deterrent punishment to offenders in case they engage in acts of terror or launder money to support terrorism. Based on a series of dialogues, workshops and seminars, participated by academics, researchers, politicians, parliamentarians, civil and military officials, a national strategy to combat terrorism in the country has been proposed.Bangladesh has banned a total of six terrorist organizations, including JMB, HUJI and HuT. A number of Islamic NGOs have been banned who had terror links, including Revival of Islamic Heritage Society (Kuwait), Rabita Al Alam Al Islami (Saudi Arabia), and International Islamic relief Organization (Saudi Arabia), Muslim Aid (UK). More than 1,300 militants were arrested; most of them belonging to JMB, HUJI-B or HuT. 29 terrorist kingpins have been sentenced to death and many more sentenced to long imprisonment or are awaiting trial.While our police action has been commendable, we did not do enough on the social front. We need to address urgently the problem of poverty, ignorance, and backwardness. Democratisation of the society is an insurance against extremist ideology. We need to improve governance and provide access to justice for the poor and downtrodden. We need to impart modern education to our youth that prepare them to face the challenges of a fast changing world. A thorough overhaul of madrassa education in our country is long overdue. We need an education system that produce people with high ethical and technical standards, a system that encourages freethinking rather than rote learning. Emergence of HuT points out a lack of pride and a sense of disillusionment among the children of affluent class. This is because English medium schools, where most of the rich parents send their children, follow a curriculum that has no relevance to our culture, history or traditions. Therefore, English medium school syllabus too needs a thorough review.Government must legislate not to allow use of religion to gain political mileage. We need to check creeping ‘Sudiaization’ of Islam. Along with the money from the ME donors, comes the ideological package of Wahhabi Islam which is alien to South Asia. One of the prices we pay for the remittance from our labour force in the ME is the influx of Saudi brand of Islam. How do we de-radicalise these migrant workers is a big challenge for us. Meanwhile, hundreds of extremists who are arrested or under trial must be segregated from other prisoners. At present, these extremists are finding a captive audience 24 hours at their disposal, busy recruiting new ones from among the prisoners. We need to isolate the extremists and start a de-radicalisation program so that when they return to the society they become useful citizen.Our effort to counter religious extremism must be supplemented by regional and global effort. We need to have close cooperation and coordination between the governments of the region. Border monitoring, passport control, anti-money laundering measures, exchange of information on the movement of suspects, arrest and deportation of fugitives are some of the areas where regional countries could cooperate. Checking of arms smuggling across the porous border is another area where regional cooperation is the answer. In short, a total, comprehensive strategy has to be adopted for fighting religious extremism. If Bangladesh is to emerge as a modern, democratic state, the menace of extremism must be eliminated.

  

29 August 2017, New York UN HQ - The United Nations Development Programme Regional Bureau for Arab States and the Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Sudan organized a special screening of “Iman: Faith at the Crossroads (Sudan, 2016)”. Ms. Mia Bittar Filmmaker and Director, attended the event that was followed by a round-table discussion on the Prevention of Violent Extremism. The feature film “IMAN”, a Sudanese film released in 2016, tells the story of four Sudanese from different walks of life who, for different reasons, are drawn to violent extremism. Based on real events, the film puts a human face to the scourge of violent extremism, and is a contribution to shared efforts to prevent its spread. The film has been accepted to prestigious international film festivals; this will be its NYC premier. Iman was produced by UNDP Sudan in cooperation with the Sudan National Commission on Counter-Terrorism, with support from the Embassies of Canada and Japan.

Old Nick's Pub hosted a Drag Queen Story Hour.

 

Apparently an eleven year old dressed in drag and read a story.

 

So, this happened.

Flickr ✔ If you would like to use this photo, contact

www.sebastien-duhamel.com/contact/

___________________________________________________

 

Reportage du Forum “La République face aux Extrémismes” www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/sets/7215763676867...

 

Expo. HAJJ & Manifestations en soutien aux Palestiniens www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/albums/72157645844...

 

Reportages Éducation et Politiques www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/collections/721576...

___________________________________________________

 

Clip : La République, ce qui nous unit est plus fort que ceux qui la divisent www.dailymotion.com/video/x155h97

___________________________________________________

 

Photographie de Sébastien Duhamel, professionnel de l’image

www.sebastien-duhamel.com/présentation-références/

 

Derniers reportages photos www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/collections/721576...

 

Classeurs photos www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/collections

 

Albums photos www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/sets/

 

Tournages vimeo.com/137495739

 

www.dailymotion.com/user/Sebastien_Duhamel/1

___________________________________________________

 

[NB] Les photos HD sont de 5610x3740

_☆_dans la base Flickr 700x467. Pour une visualisation optimale d’un album, placez la souris sur le bouton du centre en haut à droite de la fenêtre Flickr, puis cliquez sur le bouton.

 

Pour une visualisation pleine écran cliquez sur la photo et flèches de direction du clavier.

 

Retour à la navigation :

 

Classeurs www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/collections

 

Albums www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/sets/

 

Galerie www.flickr.com/photos/sebastienduhamel/

___________________________________________________

 

Tous droits réservés sans la permission de l’auteur

 

All Right reserved without permission from the author

 

www.sebastien-duhamel.com/contact/

President Barack Obama delivers remarks at the White House Summit to Counter Violent Extremism at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., on February 19, 2015. [State Department photo/ Public Domain]