This is the first in a series of blogs covering the panel discussions at our Peace and Security Summit in New York’s Waldorf Astoria hotel.

After morning and afternoon sessions of expert working groups (the findings of which will be posted later), the first panel discussion of the ICSR Peace and Security Summit took place.  Entitled ‘Nine Years After 9/11: Are We Safer?’, the panel brought together an

All four of our panelists: (from left to right) Arif Alikhan, Amb. Cofer Black, Steve Clemons and Fran Townsend

impressive mix of government officials and experts to discuss if the terror threat in the West has changed and if the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the billions of dollars invested in security, have had any real and positive effect.

Representing the Department of Homeland Security was Arif Alikhan, the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development.  He was joined by Ambassador Cofer Black, former Director of the CIA’s Counter-terrorism Center; Steve Clemons, Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation; and Fran Townsend, who was previously the Homeland Security Advisor to President George W. Bush.

Moderated by our very own Dr. Peter Neumann, the panelists discussed a range of crucial issues, beginning with the simple question of are we safer now than we were nine years ago?  Fran Townsend was optimistic but cautionary, pointing out that although America is now safer, they have become victims of their own success.  Expanding on this point, she noted that a lack of successful terror attacks on the US homeland since 9/11, which was down to successful counter-terrorism measures, meant that a sense of complacency was beginning to creep into the American psyche, whereby a lack of attacks has translated into a dangerous underestimation of the threat.  She also laid out her three main solutions to the threat: a re-strengthening of alliances with foreign intelligence agencies; an improvement of the relationship between central and local government; and encouraging a greater understanding among American citizens of the true extent of the terrorist threat, who without their active involvement and support the government would be unable to prevent future attacks.

Steve Clemons was far less optimistic in his assessment, claiming that the US was far less safe now than it was.  His main worry was that whereas before 9/11 the world perceived America as a dominant country with no bounds, the attacks engendered a global shift in this attitude, whereby the country is now seen as “beset by constraints” both militarily and economically.  In response, Clemons said that the US must now take steps to “reinstate its capacity to change global gravity” and “gain a capacity to sculpt the global system.”  

When the same question was posed to former CIA agent, Ambassador Cofer Black, he seemed to agree more with Townsend, noting that before 9/11 it was very difficult for the US to “accept and validate” the real threat of jihadist terrorism, and was struggling to make the transition from a Cold War mentality.  Crucially, the US military had not undertaken any sort of counter-terrorism training and was wholly unprepared for the emerging threat.  The attacks on New York awoke the government and its security agencies from their collective slumbers, and as a result, Ambassador Black said that the country is far better prepared to face the threat than it was almost a decade ago.  His message did come, however, with a warning: although tactically the US and its allies are now safer, the threat can “change quickly and dramatically”.

Finally, Arif Alikhan concurred that the US was now safer, but warned that threats are not static.  Comparing terrorists with the criminals he had dealt with in the past as a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, he claimed that they will evolve and adapt over time.  In response, governments must anticipate future threats, and translate this into action.  Like Townsend, Alikhan also stressed the central importance of a strong relationship between central and local governments.

 

In discussion: Alikhan and Amb. Black

Dr. Neumann then shifted the discussion to specifically address the threat of ‘homegrown’ terrorism, asking the panelists if they thought that this represented a sudden change in terrorist tactics, or if indeed it was something that has been coming for some time.  None of the panelists believed that this was in any way a dramatic shift or change, and Townsend referred to two English speaking jihadist ideologues, Adam Gadahn and Anwar al-Awlaki, as evidence of a long term al-Qaeda strategy to appeal to young, Western Muslims.

Alikhan was also asked by Dr. Neumann if he, as the highest ranking Muslim in the Obama administration, believed that American Muslims were less vulnerable than their counterparts in other countries to becoming radicalised.  He began by stressing that there is in fact no ‘Muslim community’, and there are hundreds of different communities that are by no means a homogenous block.  He argued that it is not communities that are susceptible to extremism, but rather it is often isolated individuals who become terrorists and that communities are not the problem, but the solution.

In the closing minutes of the discussion, the floor was opened to the audience who asked a number of incisive and interesting questions.  Chief among them was a request that that each panelist give a short and sharp assessment of the how they saw the future threat.  Ambassador Black commented that an attack on the US homeland was an “actuarial certainty”, and Townsend agreed, also foreseeing that these attacks will likely have a low casualty count, involve a transport target and will emanate from either al-Qaeda or one of its regional affiliates, including the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

Thus, this impressive and informative discussion was concluded, leaving the audience with much to take in and think about, and setting the tone for a successful conference.

Contract article -

At its Peace and Security Summit in New York later this week, ICSR will launch its latest report, ‘Prisons and Terrorism: Radicalisation and De-radicalisation in 15 Countries’.

Based on a survey of prison policies in 15 countries, the report offers the most comprehensive study to date of the role prisons can play in radicalising people – and in reforming them.

The report identifies trade-offs and dilemmas but also principles and best practices that will help governments and policymakers spot new ideas and avoid costly and counterproductive mistakes.

Among the key findings and recommendations are:

•    The current emphasis on security and containment leads to missed opportunities to promote reform. Prison services should be more ambitious in promoting positive influences inside prison, and develop more innovative approaches to facilitate extremists’ transition back into mainstream society.

•    Over-crowding and under-staffing amplify the conditions that lend themselves to radicalisation. Badly run prisons make the detection of radicalisation difficult, and they also create the physical and ideological space in which extremist recruiters can operate at free will.

•    Religious conversion is not the same as radicalisation. Good counter-radicalisation policies – whether in or outside prison – never fail to distinguish between legitimate expression of faith and extremist ideologies. Prison services should invest more in staff training, and consider sharing specialised resources.

•    Individual de-radicalisation and disengagement programmes – such as the ones in Saudi-Arabia, Singapore, Indonesia, and other countries – can make a difference. Their positive and outward-looking approach should serve as an inspiration for governments and policymakers everywhere.

•    Even in the best circumstances, however, such programmes complement rather than replace other instruments in the fight against terrorism. They work best when the political momentum is no longer with the terrorists or insurgents.

Sixteen of the world’s leading experts contributed to the report, which was funded by the governments of Australia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, and carried out in partnership with the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), based at the University of Maryland.

In the words of ICSR’s Director, Dr Peter Neumann, ‘Prisons are not just a threat – they can play a positive role in tackling problems of radicalisation and terrorism in society as a whole. Many of the examples in the report demonstrate how.’

The report will be officially launched at the ICSR Peace and Security Summit on 1 July.

Download it here. 

Contract article -

ICSR is delighted to announce the ICSR Peace and Security Summit at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City on June 30th and July 1st.

The most important event of its kind in 2010, the Summit will bring together 400 leading policymakers, diplomats, senior officials and experts from across the globe, encouraging them to share their experiences and approaches in a number of working groups and high-level panels.

The Summit will explore the greatest security challenges of our time, ranging from domestic radicalisation and violent extremism to ongoing conflicts and the struggle for peace in places such as Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, and the Middle East.

Among the many keynote speakers and panellists are:

•    Dr. Abdulkarim Al-Eryani, former Prime Minister of Yemen
•    Amb. Daniel Benjamin, Counterterrorism Coordinator, State Department
•    Noman Benotman, former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
•    Amb. Peter Galbraith, former UN Deputy Special Representative
•    Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair
•    Hekmat Karzai, director of Centre for Conflict and Peace Studies, Kabul
•    Tsipi Livni, leader of the Israeli opposition
•    Fran Townsend, Homeland Security Advisor to President George W. Bush
•    Lord David Trimble, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

The ICSR Peace and Security Summit is organised in partnership with the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies at the National Defense University, and receives support from The Rockefeller Foundation, Public Safety Canada, as well as Rena and Sami David.

Thanks to our supporters, there will be no attendance fee. However, places are strictly limited and will not be allocated on a first come first serve basis. If you would like to attend, write to Katie Rothman at katie.rothman@icsr.info before June 25th. Make sure you include your full name, title, affiliation, and current position.

Contract article -

The International Crisis Group has just published a new report on Central Asia. The report underlines the growing numbers of Islamists in prisons and argues that the governments' tough policy on political Islam only increases the risk of violent militancy. It has interesting details (and numbers) about radical detainees and prison management in Central Asia, here (pdf).

This is of particular interest for ICSR who is engaged in a comparative study of 15 countries and their approach towards radicalisation and de-radicalisation in prisons. Though it is not final yet, you can learn more about it here.

Contract article -

Normalisation is a political concept, which refers to the measures and acts committed by governments towards each other, such as the exchanging of ambassadors, other official contacts and conducting trade.

The main problem now in the Middle East is the different perception between Israel and the Arab world related to this issue of normalisation. While Israel wants normalisation to happen before returning land, on the other hand the Arab world insists that land must first be returned and that this will lead to the development of more normal relations.  

Yesterday we – the ICSR Atkin Fellows - conducted a talk related to this subject, with a focus on normalisation among the people themselves. The aim was to try to understand whether or not there is normalisation between Israelis and Arabs on an individual level and what can be done about this.

Occasionally, we hear the argument that peace is different when it is conducted between people rather than between governments, and usually this is true. When people get to know each other on  a personal level, differences can be left behind and experiences common to all of us prevail, such as the love we hold for our families and the search for meaning in life.

I have met and interviewed some Arab Muslims, while in London for my research - usually students that came to London to study or their friends that have finished their studies and decided to stay. During these meetings I felt that even though they are intelligent, arrived some years ago from their countries and that they have a similar background, it was very difficult to conduct the discussions.
    
Though I didn't expect it to be easy, I did not believe that I might be considered (to be) a recruiter of (a) dark Israeli intelligence agencies every time I  tried to get an Arab Muslim to talk to me or to introduce me to his friends. Even my colleague, who I find to be a very intelligent and open person, cannot really socialise with me after office hours because it is a crime to have Israeli friends in Syria; and as I found out lately this still applies even if you are not a Syrian resident, as you have to be careful not to upset anyone, and may even face some consequences.

Moreover, during the interviews that deal with life and thoughts, I had the feeling that there was some sort of barrier between us, one that I could not break, even after so many years of interview experience with tough criminals and terrorists.

I do not think this was a conscious decision on their part. They were all so nice and tried to answer my questions, but it seemed that they thought carefully about every word they used, to the point that it was sometimes hard to understand how they really felt about the issue.

In trying to cover this issue at the talk, I faced the extreme attitude of a Muslim participant that declared that all Muslims and Arabs hate Israel and therefore there will be no normalisation ever.  

As I said in the beginning, I do believe that relationships between people are easier and more reliable then between governments, but on both sides much work needs to be done in order to get people to change their attitudes and prejudices towards each other, despite the influence of the media, occupation, mentality and history.

Contract article -

ICSR hosted Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation for a talk today on their new report, Unlocking Al-Qaeda: Islamist Extremism in British Prisons (pdf).

Nawaz said that the UK's National Offender Management Service (NOMS) faces a huge challenge now that more and more people who have been convicted of terrorist offences are populating the prison system.

In his view, the authorities have vastly underestimated the potential role of prisons in the process of radicalisation. Prisons have been the incubators of terrorism, yet – in many countries – they have also served as the principal engines of de-radicalisation.  

Which one it will be in the UK's case remains to be seen.

Right now,  he says, there are few signs that the challenge is being taken seriously. Extremist literature is widely available in prisons, and – on a number of occasions – imprisoned extremists have been allowed to become the representatives of prison wings.

The audience was particularly interested by Nawaz' explanation of the latent, untapped power of a corpus of literature renouncing violence that was produced by al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Egyptian Islamist group responsible for waves of terrorist violence in Egypt during the 1990s.

Those of us studying terrorism have been aware of these books for a long time and, like Nawaz, we have wondered why they have not been translated into English.

His analysis is connected, of course, to his incredibly powerful personal story. As many readers of this blog are likely to know, Nawaz – a former member of Hizb-ut Tahrir – was imprisoned in Egypt shortly after the 9/11 attacks in the United States. There, he became acquainted with the imprisoned luminaries of the Egyptian Islamist movement, including some of those behind the assassination of Anwar Sadat.  

While in prison, Nawaz came to question his (then) radical beliefs, especially under the influence of al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya's new literature and after he was adopted by Amnesty International – an organisation he had previously vilified – as a prisoner of conscience.

Maajid Nawaz' talk was recorded and can be listened to here. 

Contract article -

This is a short introduction to my corner of FreeRad!cals which will look at radicalization, terrorism and extremism – with a particular focus on what is happening in Europe and Asia. An ambitious remit which I share with a number of co-contributors to FreeRad!cals, but I look forward to adding my two cents to the debate on this growing site.

My work over the last few years has increasingly focused in on what is happening in radicalization in Europe, and specifically the United Kingdom. I am in the process of working on a large writing project trying to understand where Britain’s jihadist culture has come from and this is likely to be a major focus of my contributing on this site. However, recent work has also looked at "Understanding the Shabaab Networks," and I write regularly for the Jamestown Foundation's Terrorism Monitor on a wide range of terrorism-related topics. Further, I am currently spending most of my time in Asia on a European Community grant – so I hope to be able to bring some more information and analysis on that to the table too.

To give you some background about where I am coming from, I have been a researcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) since 2006, and before that I worked in Washington at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). I write for a wide array of other outlets, and my literary canon can be found here.

I plan on using this blog to add my thoughts on the increasing fragmentation of the Al Qaeda threat – which has evolved from its earlier franchise-based structure (as laid out by Jason Burke) into a wide array of different threats, encompassing traditional structured Al Qaeda threats, lone wolves, self-radicalizing seekers, and fellow traveler or affiliate groups like the Islamic Jihad Union or AQIM. And against this backdrop we continue to see the radicalizing impact of wars abroad amongst certain sections of Muslim diaspora communities.

I look forward to hearing your collective thoughts and reactions (positive and negative) to my contributions and hope to bring something useful in the ongoing debate of radicalization and where Al Qaeda and global jihadism is going.

Contract article -

 Dr. Radwan Ziadeh is one of the most accomplished researchers in Syria. His book "The Near Peace: The Syrian-Israeli Negotiations" was the first book about this issue to be published in Arabic.
After his seminar for the ICSR at King's College London, he agreed to a short interview.

ICSR: How crucial is the agreement between Israel and Syria as part of a peace process in the Middle East?

Radwan Ziadeh: It's very important. In order to have a comprehensive peace in the region, we need to have peace with all the parties, and not only with the Palestinian Authority. Syria still has some occupied territories by Israel such as the Golan Heights. Without having peace between Syria and Israel peace in the region is unconceivable.

ICSR: During Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's visit to Syria last week, Bashar al-Assad said: "Israel is not ready to make peace either in the short term or the long term... all Israeli governments since 1991 are identical. [...] opinion polls show that Israelis are not ready to make peace because they do not want to give the land back". With a statement like this it's hard to imagine that these two countries could come to an agreement soon.

Radwan Ziadeh: These kinds of statements aren't new between Israel and Syria. But when we get in a climate of negotiations, then the statements will change.
Peace needs serious and difficult steps.We need to create some hope on both sides, show that we have alternatives, that we have a peace agreement.
Without any of this we find ourselves now in a state called 'no peace, no war'.
Neither side can go ahead with the war: it would cost too much, nobody can deal with that. And neither side can promote peace by fear of another refusal of a peace agreement.

ICSR: We recently published a brochure called "15 ideas to fix the Middle East". If you had to contribute your own idea to progress towards peace, what would it be?

Radwan Ziadeh: To look towards the future rather than looking back. Looking back at history we get stuck in history. Only the future holds the solution.

You can listen to the podcast of the seminar by clicking the link below.

 

Radwan Ziadeh is a visiting Scholar at The Center for the Study of Human Rights at Columbia University, New York and a visiting Fellow at Chatham House, London.
Previously, he was a visiting scholar at Carr Center for Human Rights at Harvard University and a Senior Fellow at United States Institute of Peace in Washington D.C.
Radwan is the founder and director of the Damascus Center for Human Rights Studies in Syria and the co-founder and executive director of the Syrian Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Washington D.C.
 

Contract article -

You may have heard about the great Atkin conference on Middle East peace we hosted in July.

 

ICSR brought together experts and policymakers from across the region to work out ways in which to move the situation forward.

The result is a booklet with 15 ideas on 'how to fix the Middle East'. They are snapshots of the discussions and the debate that took place at the conference.

They don't amount to a comprehensive peace plan, nor are they all complementary. But they really provide an excellent overview of the issues that have to be addressed.

And they show that positive action is possible, no matter how fraught the situation appears to be.

Now that President Obama seems to be moving the process forward, it is precisely this kind of creative thinking and debate that's needed now more than ever.

Have a look at the various ideas... tell us which ones you like most... and contribute your own!!

Let's see if we can get 15 MORE ideas on how to fix the Middle East from the Free Radicals' blog... ;-)  

Contract article -

Welcome to Free Rad!cals, the official ICSR blog! This blog aims to serve as an essential resource for people interested in the issues of radicalisation, political violence and as a way to carry over ICSR’s study of these subjects to an open forum for debate, ideas and discussion between experts, stakeholders and the public.

Let me firstly introduce myself; my name is Alex Matine and I will be your ‘blogmistress’, reporting on ICSR activities and serving as a link between you the public and our bloggers.

Seven writers will be contributing regularly to this blog, sharing expertise and unique insights on their areas of focus and awaiting your reactions and comments:

• Omar Ashour on North Africa
  
• Ahron Bregman on the Middle East and Israel/Palestine
• Jeni Mitchell on Central Asia
• Peter Neumann on the UK and Europe
• ‘Amm Sam’ on North America
• Tim Stevens on cyberspace
• Stephen Tankel on Afghanistan and Pakistan

You will also be able to receive blog updates by following us on Twitter.
For privileged content, exclusive interviews, pictures of our events, or simply to get in touch drop us a line on our Facebook page!

Contract article -