Connect with us

Terrorism

The Nice attack and the future of the jihad in Europe

Giancarlo Elia Valori

Published

on

It is particularly interesting to study the attack which took place on the night of July 14 last in Nice, one of the most heinous attacks perpetrated by the jihad in Europe. A place of fun and entertainment was chosen, as in the case of the Paris Bataclan, but outdoor and without a specific indication of the religious identity of the people present there.

As you may recall, the owners of the Bataclan in Paris were of Jewish religion and the terrorist attack occurred after a series of Islamist massacres in places where there were many French and Jewish citizens.

In the case of the Nice attack, there is no difference of target between the Jews, Christians or even Muslims present in the huge crowd gathered on the Promenade des Anglais to celebrate the Bastille Bay marking the start of Republican France.

The nation, the symbol, the ordinary people – indeed everybody – are hit.

Hence, in this case, the data and aspects to be studied are different and probably more dangerous than we can imagine today: the truck was driven by a French citizen of Tunisian origin, living in Nice.

Whoever bought or stole the truck has a wide cover network probably verging on the underworld, even the non-jihadist one.

In fact, the truck driver was a jihadist with a criminal record of common offences.

Therefore the beginning of a link between the traditional “underworld” and the jihad cannot be ruled out.

Supplying arms to the jihad (although those found on the truck could not be used) and the connections with the smuggling networks – of weapons or other items – could be the new business of the traditional crime networks.

At theoretical level – namely the jihad doctrine – the attack on Europe was widely anticipated and stimulated by the ISIS and Al Qaeda proclamations.

When the Iraqi-Syrian “State” falls apart, the two rival organizations of the jihad find themselves on the same line, namely terrorist attacks among the “Crusaders and the Jews”. The indiscriminate attack which – according to some analysts , was considered “outdated” by Al Qaeda or ISIS – is now necessary for the jihad survival.

It is needed to display power, and hence win the sympathy and support of many Islamists being radicalized, as well as to show off strength to “protect” the Islamic minorities present on the “infidels’ territory”. It is also needed to scare the Western public and governments and finally to block the police and intelligence activities.

And, according to the jihadists, this happens and must happen at the very moment in which the Syrian-Iraqi “State” is collapsing.

Furthermore it seems that the quality of the law enforcement agencies and the intelligence services is a selection criterion for the jihad terrorists.

The less efficient they are, the more their countries become a target.

Belgium, at first, in which the Walloon police forces do not communicate with the Flemish ones, and the intelligence service are weak. Then France, which implemented a dysfunctional and irrational reform of the intelligence services, both those responsible for internal affairs and those in charge of external affairs.

Not to mention – for sense of patriotism – the reform implemented by Italy in 2007.

Incidentally, it seems that today European democracies do not understand anything about intelligence.

Hence the European democracies must take a decision: either they sacrifice part of the “rights” and privacy of their citizens to protect them from the jihad, or – by following the myth of mass democracy – they shall accept ever more brutal attacks.

Furthermore there is the problem of the data to work with: currently all intelligence services and police forces operate too much with an ex post approach. It is wrongly believed that the jihad generates crimes which must be punished individually, while the preaching of the “holy war” falls within the freedoms guaranteed as early as the days of the French Revolution, though with some historical exceptions.

This is false. The jihad is the specific strategy of a war which is totally different from Carl von Clausewitz’s war. The police forces must shift from the (scarce) repression of certain crimes related to, or resulting from, the jihad to the very clear and structural fight against them with the “holy war”. Somehow as the judges Falcone and Borsellino did with Mafia.

Hence a strategy against the warring Islamism need to be defined, combining very harsh pressures on the sponsoring and funding States, psychological warfare actions in Europe and in the rest of the world, as well as preventive repression of the jihad hotbeds.

We must imitate the practices of the jihad to combat it: these are the OPFOR techniques of “hybrid warfare” which are currently used by the Russian Federation in Ukraine, for example.

Hence taking actions ex post is hard, but currently inevitable for the European police forces.

We must do the opposite and on a stable and permanent basis.

And this happens for various reasons. The first is that the jihadists are quick and efficient in using the social media and the encryption needed in them.

Kik, SureSpot, Telegram, Wikr, Detect and Tor are all perfectly legal applications used to encrypt the jihadist messages or to reach the deep Internet, which does not result from the search engines.

ISIS has long been developing websites to train to encryption.

They also tend to lack operating signals, but they indicate the place and time of the attack – at the right time, and only to those who must perpetrate it.

A multiplication of sources which makes it difficult for any intelligence service to follow the jihad, which is made of hidden networks, mostly unexplored, who live according to the rule “from mouth to ear” or to the rule of immediate verbal communication which, however, overlap and control the on-line communication.

Moreover – albeit it is hard to say – the European intelligence services operate on the basis of two criteria which are difficult to be checked operationally.

Either the “grand old man” who decides everything, possibly from some cave in the Pakistani tribal territories, as was the case with Osama Bin Laden, or the free rider, namely the marginalized and radicalized young man who does everything on his own.

The jihad young men can do much by themselves, because the instructions and orders from the top leaders are always generic and it is up to those working on the field to observe, check and plan.

However, this never happens without the green light given by one of the multiple command centers, which must then justify and expand the terrorist action effects.

I believe that Europe will be the next field of action for the jihad.

For many reasons: the first is that the mass of immigrants is such that they can serve as a safety net, as well as a recruiting and funding network for many jihadists. The old leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Badie, said so a few years ago: “We will not invade Europe with the jihad, demography will be enough”.

This is exactly what is unawarely maintained by many misguided and shallow supporters of multiculturalism.

The second reason is that – as the jihad has proclaimed recently – Europe will be rapidly Islamized and the ISIS black flag will fly at the Vatican, as shown by the cover of the theoretical review of the Syrian-Iraqi group. They do what they say, but we never know how. Hence time has come to rethink the intelligence strategies throughout Europe, without creating an unnecessary “single agency”, but rethinking the jihadist threat in a new and creative way.

Advisory Board Co-chair Honoris Causa Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York. He currently chairs "La Centrale Finanziaria Generale Spa", he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group and member of the Ayan-Holding Board. In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d'Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: "A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title of "Honorable" of the Académie des Sciences de l'Institut de France

Continue Reading
Comments

Terrorism

Terrorists potentially target millions in makeshift biological weapons ‘laboratories’

MD Staff

Published

on

Rapid advances in gene editing and so-called “DIY biological laboratories”which could be used by extremists, threaten to derail efforts to prevent biological weapons from being used against civilians, the world’s only international forum on the issue has heard.

At meetings taking place at the United Nations in Geneva which ended on Thursday, representatives from more than 100 Member States which have signed up to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) – together with civilian experts and academics – also discussed how they could ensure that science is used to positive ends, in line with the disarmament blueprint set out by UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

Although the potential impact of a biological weapons attack could be huge, the likelihood is not currently believed to be high. The last attack dates back to 2001, when letters containing toxic anthrax spores, killed five people in the US, just days after Al Qaeda terrorists perpetrated the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.

Nonetheless, the rise of extremist groups and the potential risk of research programmes being misused, has focused attention on the work of the BWC.

“There’s interest from terror groups and we’re also seeing the erosion of norms on chemical weapons,” said Daniel Feakes, head of the BWC Implementation Support Unit at the UN in Geneva.

“That could spread to biological weapons as well,” he said, adding that “at the worst, you could be talking of epidemics on the scale of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, or even a global pandemic that could result in millions of deaths.”

In a bid to stay on top of the latest biological developments and threats, the BWC’s 181 Member States hold a series of meetings with experts every year, traditionally in the summer. The reports that are discussed during these sessions are then formerly appraised in December.

At the eight-day session just ended, science and technology issues were debated for two days – a measure of their importance.

Among the developments discussed was the groundbreaking gene-editing technique CRISPR. It can be applied – in theory – to any organism. Outside the Geneva body, CRISPR’s use has raised ethical questions, Mr. Feakes said, but among Member States, security ramifications dominated discussions.

“Potentially, it could be used to develop more effective biological weapons,” he said, noting that the meetings addressed the growing trend of “DIY biological labs”. However, the meetings also focused on the promotion of “responsible science” so that “scientists are part of the solution, not the problem”.

In addition to concerns that the Biological Weapons Convention lacks full international backing, the body has also faced criticism that its Members are not obliged to allow external checks on any illegal stockpiles they might have.

The issue highlights the fact that the BWC lacks a strong institution, its handful of administrators dwarfed by larger sister organizations including the OPCW – the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

The OPCW’s 500-strong staff – based in the Hague – have weapons inspectors training facilities, Feakes notes, explaining that the BWC’s focus is therefore much more “about what States do at a national level”.

Concern for the future

Looking ahead, and aside from the rapid pace of scientific change, the biggest challenge is keeping the Biological Weapons Convention relevant – which appears to still be the case today.

“There are no States that say they need biological weapons,” Mr. Feakes says. “That norm needs to be maintained and properly managed. You can’t ban CRISPR or gene editing, because they can do so much good, like finding cures for diseases or combating climate change. But we still need to manage these techniques and technologies to ensure they are used responsibly.” Gene editing, in simple terms, involves the copying of exact strands of DNA, similar to cutting and pasting text on a computer.

The latest BWC session in the Swiss city also involved key intergovernmental organizations, scientific and professional associations, academic institutions, think tanks and other non-governmental entities.

Formally known as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, the BWC was the first multilateral disarmament treaty to ban an entire category of weapons.

It opened for signature in 1972 and entered into force in 1975. It currently has 181 States Parties, and six States that have signed but not yet ratified it.

Continue Reading

Terrorism

Where is Our Sovereignty?

Hareem Aqdas

Published

on

In the name of anti-terrorism, the Justice Department of U.S.A has urged its acquisition of all modes of powers since the birth of our country.  Following are some fundamental considerations.

Why, at all, do our civil rights have to be sacrificed in order to protect (so called) us from terrorists by this outside force, called as hegemony? Why even has U.S. taken the responsibility on interfering in Pakistan’s (and the worlds) internal matters as that of security? The argument is whether security is more crucial than our liberty. We are told that the Justice Department requires these powers in order to make us secure.  But the central question goes deeper – will the sacrifice of our liberty actually make us safer, for we accept their dominance and let them interfere in our matters, why?

Can we be made absolutely safe by U.S.’s interference in our security matters? No. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together realizes this. The War on Terrorism, occurring in Pakistan, will not be won, as this war is a political act, done by politicians for political reasons. We had a war on poverty, and lost. We had a war on drugs, and lost. These kinds of wars are not about resolving issues, they are about appearing to resolve issues.

The biggest blind liberty we openly give to The U.S. is the power to name anyone amongst us as a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism, without any proof or any judicial review of the claim; we trust American leaders to name someone a terrorist or a devotee of terrorism only for the reason of protecting from terrorists. They do this in secret, on the basis of whatever information or sources they characterize, and with no one ever able to review their decision.

Once they have determined that someone is a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism (remember no testimony required), they assert (or want) the right to detain indefinitely, and in clandestine.  That is, should they decide you are a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism; they get to secretly arrest you and hold you as long as they want without anyone knowing why or where.  No court is able to review this situation. Where is our sovereignty at this point?

The above, of course, has to do with the eavesdropping they want to do, or their ability to come into our homes without a warrant and copy our hard drive, and make it possible to copy all the keystrokes we make and harass us for whatever petty grievance they hold.

Now ask yourself, how does their interference in our matters of security make us safe from terrorists?  How does their power to name someone a terrorist or a supporter of terrorists, without judicial review, make us safer? Such a power only makes the judgments, of those who hold this power, safe from any abuse of that power. How the power to search and arrest without warrant make us safer? For it threatens not the terrorists, but our sovereignty.

Continue Reading

Terrorism

Nuclear Terrorism and Pakistan

Sonia Naz

Published

on

Nuclear terrorism is a potential threat to the world security. According to the EU representative terrorists can get access to nuclear and radioactive materials and they can use it to terrorize the world. Nuclear security expert Mathew Bunn argues that “An act of nuclear terrorism would likely put an end to the growth and spread of nuclear energy.”After 9/11 the world has observed that al-Qaida wanted to get nuclear weapons. In case terrorists acquire nuclear materials, they would use it for the production of a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb is not like a nuclear bomb. A nuclear bomb spreads radiation over hundreds of square while; nuclear bomb could destroy only over a few square miles. A dirty bomb would not kill more people than an ordinary bomb. It will not create massive destruction, but it will cause the psychological terror which will lead to a panic situation which is more devastating. The world has not experienced of any act of nuclear terrorism, but terrorists expressed their desires to gain nuclear weapons. The IAEA has observed thousands of incidents of lost, left and unauthorized control of nuclear materials and such materials can go into the wrong hands.

After 9/11 terrorism generated negative perceptions about the nuclear security of Pakistan. Often western community pressurizes Pakistan that its nuclear weapons can go into the wrong hands due to the terrorism in it.  The fact is that Pakistan has faced many terrorist attacks, but not any attack towards its nuclear installation facility and radiation has been occurred. Mostly, nations obtain nuclear weapons for the international prestige, but Pakistan is one of those states which obtained nuclear capability to defend itself from India which has supremacy in conventional weapons. It played a leading role in the efforts of nuclear security since inception of its nuclear weapons. The result is that no single incident of theft and sabotage has been recorded in Pakistan.

Pakistan is a very responsible state and it has taken foolproof measures to defend the its nuclear installations and nuclear materials against any terrorist threats. Pakistan is not the member of the nonproliferation(NPT), Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and Fissile material cut off treaty (FMCT) because India has not signed them. If Pakistan signs these treaties and India does not, it would raise asymmetry between both rival states of South Asia. Pakistan’s nuclear non-proliferation policy is based on principles as per the NPT norms, although ithas not signed it. Pakistan had also proposed to make South Asia a nuclear free zone in 1970 and 80s, but India did not accept that.

However, Pakistan is a strong supporter of non-proliferation, nuclear safety and security. In this context, it is the signatory of a number of regimes. Pakistan has established the its Nuclear Regulatory authority (PNRA) since22 January, 2001 under the obligations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The PNRA works under the IAEA advisory group on nuclear security and it is constantly improving and re-evaluating nuclear security architecture. Pakistan has ratified the 2005 amendment to the physical protection convention for the physical security of nuclear materials. When Obama announced nuclear security summit in 2009,Pakistan welcomed it. It has not only attended all nuclear security summits, but proved with its multiple nuclear security measures that it is a responsible nuclear state. Pakistan’s nuclear devices are kept unassembled with the Permissive Action Links (PALs) to prevent the unauthorized control and detonation of nuclear weapons. Different US policy makers and Obama have stated that “we have confidence that the Pakistani military is equipped to prevent extremists from getting an access to the nuclear materials.”

The dilemma, however is that some major powers favour India due to their geopolitical interests, despite India’s low score in nuclear security than Pakistan, as is evident from the reports prepared by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI).The US has always favoured India for the membership of the NSG ignoring Pakistan request to become a member of the NSG, despite that it has taken more steps than India to ensure nuclear safety and security. It is following United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1540(which is about the prevention of proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDS) and it is the first state which has submitted its report to the UN.

The report explains the measures taken by Pakistan to ensure radiological security and control of sensitive materials and WMDs transfer. Although Pakistan has suffered a lot due to terrorism, but its nuclear security measures are strong and appreciable. Recently, IAEA director visited Pakistan and appreciated its efforts in nuclear safety and security. In view of Pakistan’s successful war against terrorism, its success in eliminating terrorism in the country, and strong measures that it has taken to secure its nuclear installations and materials, their should be no doubt left about the safety Pakistan’s nuclear materials.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy