With Us and Against Us

NUPI Policy Brief, 2016

In October 2016, international media reported that the Russia– US diplomatic dialogue over Syria had collapsed, with both sides holding the other party to blame. While the US State Department observed that ‘everybody’s patience with Russia has run out’, Russia’s Foreign Minister criticized the United States for using ‘a language of sanctions and ultimatums while continuing selective cooperation with our country’ (CNN 2016). The breakdown and the statements that ensued marked the endpoint of a turbulent diplomatic year, which had begun with a brief handshake between presidents Obama and Putin at the UN General Assembly late in September 2015. In the months following that handshake, Russia and the US-led coalition participated in talks and activities aimed at finding a negotiated solution to the civil war in Syria as well as to defeat international terrorism there.

Nebraska Law Review, 2016

Failing states are havens for terrorism. A toxic combination of social, economic, and political crises attract violent extremist groups to establish bases in these lawless areas. As the groups grow in strength, the violence spreads from the immediate vicinity to the nation, region, and sometimes even other continents. One need only look to the terrorist attacks in New York, London, Madrid, and Paris as proof that terrorists operating out of failing states eventually set their sights on attacking Western capitals. Although the underlying causes of terrorism are often local, the violence is no longer constrained within a particular country or region. Whether originating in Afghanistan, the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan, Somalia, Iraq or Syria, the rise of terrorist groups has become a worldwide problem that threatens the safety of citizens in both the Eastern and Western Hemispheres, albeit in differing degrees. Yet, global counterterrorism strategies focus more on symptoms rather than the underlying social, political, and economic conditions that produce politically-motivated violence. In particular, counterterrorism policies are driven by military and security interests of authoritarian states whose state violence breeds more violence by non-state actors. Western nations often limit their counterterrorism practices to merely preventing violence on their soil. With the advancement of technology, fluidity of borders, and ubiquity of international travel, countries can no longer afford to ignore the deteriorating conditions in failing states where terrorists set up bases. Nor can they limit their interest in failed states to bombing terrorist training camps or pushing terrorists underground. Only when the underlying political, social, and economic local hardships that produce fertile grounds for terrorists to operate are addressed can security improve for all people. Simply put, citizens in the West can no longer wall themselves off from violence inflicted on citizens in the East. Accordingly, this Article argues for a paradigm shift in the preventive goals of global counterterrorism policies that prioritizes human development based on the local needs of failing states. Furthermore, human development should go beyond meeting fundamental needs such as food, shelter, and water to address political reforms demanded by the local population. By failing to confront authoritarianism and its offspring of political repression, the international community misguidedly relies on counterproductive military and security-driven policies. With the rise of violent transnational actors and fluid borders, the international community loses more than it gains by supporting dictators under the auspices of preserving stability. To the contrary, dictatorships breed terrorism as they inculcate a culture of violence and instill fear, suspicion, and aggression among the citizens. In turn, violence becomes the only means to effectuate change in a zero-sum game, winner takes all political system.

2008

ProQuest, 2020

For over two decades, preventing and countering violent extremism (P/CVE) has proven a daunting challenge for foreign assistance policy makers and implementers. The challenges are rooted in its rapid emergence, continuous and uneven development, and lingering skepticism about its future and effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to provide policy makers and practitioners with a deeper understanding of how certain factors have driven the development of P/CVE policy. The research questions focused on the nature of policy alignment at all policy levels and the identification and nature of the factors that have driven rapid P/CVE policy change. The theoretical framework included the use of punctuated equilibrium theory, policy feedback theory, and path dependence. A qualitative case study and document analysis design was used. The study completed 7 semi-structured interviews with P/CVE specialists and a document analysis of 37 policy documents. Data from the interviews and documents were coded and categorized for thematic analysis and comparison. Results indicated a robust policy alignment across policy levels but also reflected a very uneven policy evolution due to numerous intervening factors. Participants also expressed a significant degree of skepticism about P/CVE effectiveness and its distinctiveness from other development tools. The implications for social change include informing practitioners and policy makers of the importance of effective, coordinated, and well-considered P/CVE policy at all levels of government. Doing so assists policy makers and practitioners to achieve important foreign assistance objectives and improve the lives of those adversely affected around the world.

Journal of Politics and Law, 2012

How is the current United States (US) counterterrorism (CT) strategy suited to combat the evolving threat posed by the Al Qaeda terrorist network? Although in some respects the US CT strategy has delivered the intended results of its sponsors, a number of events in the past several years demand that the US government reorients particular aspects of its approach to transnational terror in order to stay ahead of its adversary in the global war on terror (GWOT). Multilateral and multifaceted traits of the US CT strategy underscores the need to maintain and develop new and effective partnerships with institutions, organizations, and overseas states; but until the US government begins to look at the GWOT -not in terms of big-war paradigm, but instead as new type of war characterized by global insurgency -Al Qaeda and the Global Silafi Jihad will continue to punch above the capacity of Western democracies to manage their position in the GWOT and stay ahead of the game. 152 mitigation and prevention.Although there are a number of collaborative efforts set in motion to allay the current threat matrix, that matrix has proven its capacity topunch above the US' weight in a number of areas and test the capacity of the US' adaptability in responding a global insurgency. As such, America needs to recast its mode of thought in terms of the threat of transnational terrorism in a manner that enables it to forecast the milieu of Al Qaeda aggression, and operate in a way that is more akin to the present-day trends and tactics of the network.

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2016

for their insightful feedback. I thank the participants of the Emory Law Review symposium on national security, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies symposium on the transnational executive, Young Comparativists Conference at Tulane University Law School, the University of Texas School of Law symposium on navigating violence with nonstate actors, and the faculty colloquium at Case Western University School of Law for their feedback on presentations of earlier drafts. I also thank librarians Cynthia Burress, Patrick Flanagan, and Wendy Law at Texas A&M University School of Law for their exceptional research support. And a special thanks to my research assistants Travis Gasper, Hoa Nguyen, and Ben Nystrom for their diligence. All errors are mine alone.

Critical Studies on Terrorism, 2010

Politics & Policy, 2006

Politics & Policy, 2009

The "Global War on Terror," led by the United States, emphasizes the role of international alliances in tackling terrorist threats. By their very nature, international counterterrorism efforts challenge state sovereignty by requiring changes to both foreign and domestic policies. This, in turn, creates complex sovereignty issues and raises some interesting questions for closer examination. How has cooperation in counterterrorism altered the perceptions and behavior of allies of the United States? Has the post-9/11 security environment constrained the sovereignty of other nations? This article explores these questions in the context of Canada's cooperation with the United States. The study argues that Canada's sovereignty has been bounded, but not determined, by U.S. demands. Examining the relationship between the United States and Canada can help us understand both the limitations and the continuing relevance of the traditional concepts of power, sovereignty, and interdependence in international relations.