Scarica Appunti di Security Studies e più Appunti in PDF di Terrorismo solo su Docsity!
LEZIONE 1
During the US military operation in Afghanistan after 9/11, Paul Wolfowitz was asked by his boss Donald H. Rumsfeld to make a list of every bad thing and every good thing that could happen in order to be ready for both cases. Graphs, tables and numbers can show military expenses BUT there can always be variations
for ex. between periods of war and periods of peace > this complexity needs to be addressed. BUT data are not always 100% accurate > correlation IS NOT causation > some American states adopted mass mandates to wear a mask outside bc of covid > BUT it’s just a correlation > you can’t take as a given the fact that a mask causes an increase or a decrease in covid cases. The same is true for the correlation between the number of people who drowned after falling into a pool in a specific period of time and the amount of movies Nicolas Cage appeared in > correlation is not causation. LEZIONE 2 Scientific research combines theory and analysis > a research study should be :
- Logical > scientific inferences must be based on logical principles of reasoning.
- Confirmable > conclusions derived must match with observed evidence.
- Repeatable > other scientists should be able to independently replicate or repeat a scientific study and obtain similar, if not identical, results.
- Scrutinizable > the procedures used and the conclusions derived must withstand critical scrutiny by other scientists. A theory is a systematic explanation of a specific phenomenon/behavior > a theory is a meaningful statement about the relationship between two phenomenon. A hypothesis is an assumption > it may have variables and it may be looking for the nature of the relationship between the variables. A Dependent Variable is the variable you wish to explain > an Independent Variable is a variable expected to explain the change in the Dependent Variable. There are 2 kinds of sources for academic research :
- Primary sources > directly related to the issue you want to investigate > official documents and statements, interviews or data collected by yourself
- Secondary sources > you rely on what another person wrote > academic books/papers + research centers
- blogs, etc. Analysis on how war changed > after 9\11, around 10k USA + western soldiers died fighting against terrorism in the last 20 years > in 1916 in 3 hours 20k thousand British soldiers died > in a day there had been more than 50k casualties including German soldiers. The number of casualties + the value attributed to life + the type of war + the technology changed. Mexico is not at war BUT since the crisis of 2007 and the war on drugs started there have been approximately 60k deaths > and the vast majority were civilians. In Baghdad there has been a change in the composition of ethnic and religious groups if we look at before and after the American invasion > segregation as a result of ethnic violence > war within the city > Sunni and Shi’as were separated + there was an area where they coexisted > after the US invasion this area almost disappeared. Defining International Security Studies Buzan and Hansen examined the transformation of international security > security can mean anything
in the 50s it would have been called strategic studies, putting at the center the role of the state and of armed forces + interstate wars. 1
Before WW2 only members of the armed forces studied security and war related matters > civilians rarely addressed security studies > after the end of WW2 there was a development of the international security studies > civilians started to study wars also because the military sector failed to prevent them
also during WW2 nuclear weapons appeared, and the fear of a nuclear war was widespread. Buzan and Hansen proposed 4 questions to understand the transformation of int. security studies :
- State as the main object of security studies? > the state is still important, but it’s not the main object of security studies anymore > individuals became relevant > the safety of the citizens is threatened > the international community started peacekeeping operations and started to address the issue of human security and the responsibility to protect. Also the environment became a relevant object to protect. Other reasons to the development of security studies is the intention to avoid a crisis and its consequences > terrorism, irregular immigration, migration > nowadays migration is considered as a threat > but it’s not.
- Internal or external threats? > threats are not just related to international dimension > an external threat is outside the state itself > after cold war , with the globalization, it became harder to distinguish between internal and external threats > for ex. transnational organized crime > blurring boundaries
- Beyond military sector and use of force? > military component is important but not as relevant as before > especially after the end of the cold war
- Security always tied with danger/risks? > this aspect is related to the concept of securitization (the enlargement of the security agenda) > the approach developed by some scholars (for ex. Buzan or Copenhagen school) who examine the relationship between security and danger/risks > according to these authors, political leaders instrumentally enlarged the security agenda > describing some threats as existential threats to national security > and due to the existence of these threats they required exceptional missions to contrast them > sometimes securitization is useful (after 9/11 or covid) sometimes not (for ex. military mobilization of Italy compared to other states for ex. operation strade sicure) > it’s useful when the threat is evident (covid). NB: the perception of a threat is crucial > even if it doesn’t correspond with the actual threat > for ex. the perception of crime > since the end of WW2 in Italy crime rates collapsed (with the exception of the 90s) > but still newspapers highlight and emphasize crime so it’s perceived as a relevant threat. Security and its adjacent concepts Authors tried to combine the concept of security with its adjacent concepts :
- oppositional concepts > peace has always been considered in opposition to war as main object of security studies
- parallel concepts > this way you put security in a wider frame and connect it with broader concepts such as identity, power, sovereignty
- complementary concepts > this way you point to a narrower and more specific set of concepts, for ex. strategy, containment, deterrence Academia developed several approaches to security > strategic studies, peace research, critical security studies, securitization (Copenhagen school), etc. > from focusing on traditional threats, armed forces, and the role of the state > to an enlargement of the security agenda. The (international) political dimension is always relevant > cybersecurity is not only related to technical issues > the crucial aspect lies in the use of technology for political reasons. In order to launch cybersecurity attacks, you need intelligence > and intelligence capabilities are mainly related to states > states are still relevant > the most relevant tasks in the cybersecurity field have been carried out by states > only states and few other actors have the capability in terms of intelligence > for ex. in 2010 USA and Israel created a virus to hinder the Iranian nuclear program > Stuxnet virus > the virus entered the computers of Iranian nuclear facilities > blocked Iranian capabilities for several months. BUT usually a state is well protected > it’s difficult to access information > to do this you must have intelligence capabilities. 2
BUT THEN:
- the threat of nuclear war disappeared
- emerged a growing process of democratization and globalization
- in response to a wide number of internal armed conflicts human rights policies were strengthened > growing attention towards human rights > right after the end of the cold war (first years of the 90s) the UN sent more peacekeeping operation than ever > during the cold war the Soviet Union had veto power
could block the UN security council. Missile crisis of Cuba > in 1962 USA discovered soviet missiles in Cuba > so they put a blockade to stop soviet ships from arriving > the war was close to becoming a nuclear war. During the blockade the US ships surrounded Cuba > but the soviet ships and submarines arrived anyways. The USA sent a missile around a submarine as a signal not to go any further > the commander of the soviet submarine interpreted it as a direct attack against the Soviet Union and decided to react with nuclear weapons > according to the soviet procedure all the 3 officials of the commander submarine should give the approval to proceed > BUT Vasili Arkhipov refused > the submarine didn’t launch the attack > huge risk of nuclear war. Other definitions of security Hard security > focus on traditional military threat by a state (or a non-state actor) vs. another state > the military instrument is central > for ex. WWI and WWII, Iran vs Iraq, or the Gulf War of 1991 (or crisis
in Ukraine). Soft security > the military component is still relevant BUT the focus is more on threats to survival and well-being of individuals, groups, states by non-state actors (like organized crime), natural catastrophes or states > BUT the main instrument is not the military > in soft security, the military is usually present in a supporting role > an ex. is immigration in Europe. Trends and patterns in international security There are three types of wars: - inter-state wars > fought between states - extra-state wars > colonial wars - intra-state wars > civil wars Since World War II (1946-2003), the number of interstate wars has remained relatively low. Colonial (extra-state) wars disappeared by the mid-1970s , but civil (intra-state) conflicts rose steadily until 1992, after which they declined steeply. Most important feature of contemporary security > the vast majority of conflicts occur mostly within a state > they are mostly intra-state conflicts > civil wars. In the last 20 years there was a decline in interstate conflicts > maybe Russia and Ukraine + Armenia and Azerbaijan (fought for the control of Nagorno Karabakh > Azerbaijan won against Armenia also because it used armed forces that completely destroyed Armenian defense) + India vs Pakistan (parties involved are USA, north Korea, Russia, France, UK and China) > in the last 20 years there have been mostly civil wars > the one between Ukraine and Russia could be a new interstate war. War War is an armed struggle between organized human groups > use of violence between organized groups
a protracted armed conflict between organized political subjects > Von Clausewitz stressed the relationship between politics and war > the political dimension is crucial > war is an extension of politics. Several scholars affirmed that war in the traditional sense has ended > some agree, others don’t > Steven Pinker says that war is almost disappearing in international politics > BUT we can’t consider only the recent years > we should compare recent years with past trends. The war between Iran and Iraq destroyed the vast majority of the population and the civil war in Syria is one of the worst civil wars since WW2. 4
LEZIONE 3
The debate on the end of the war Some scholars believe that war as we know it is ending > some don’t agree. The global trend shows that since the peak of the 40s deaths in battle declined > decline in battle fatalities
and then declined gain after east Asia, Korea, Iran vs Iraq. In fact, paradoxically, inter-state industrial wars (traditional conflicts between 2 armed forces) almost disappeared. The most relevant research was made by Steven Pinker (2011) > he made a quantitative analysis, and the main point of his study is that there has been a decline in battle fatalities > people stopped dying in war so he assumed that maybe the world is going towards a possible end of war. Some causes individuated from Pinker are related to:
- Norms > norms have changed + emerged the concept of responsibility to protect > the value attributed to life changed considerably, and therefore also the behavior of the states (for ex. the huge international campaign against apartheid).
- Security community > the EU and the NATO contributed to the creation of a security community on an international level.
- Peace after the illuminist revolution > peace is now considered a value > before it was just a break between wars.
- Domestic analogy and humanitarianism > there is no government on an international level that gives immediate and automatic sanctions > but still international organizations created thresholds and rules that must be respected > there cost of a threat to the peace consists in sanctions at best, and in the intervention of other states at worst. John Mueller examined the concept of casualty aversion > if the citizens of a state die during a war > people react negatively > as a consequence, conscription disappeared. Mueller compares war with slavery > before, slavery was common > now it’s not accepted anymore > in the same way, after the 40s war casualties started to cause more and more outrage from the public opinion > BUT WW1 and WW2 represent an exception > bc even though thousands of soldiers died, there was still hope for the future of the war. The decline of war is the dependent variable > the factors that led to the decline are the independent variables. Two significant factors that contributed to a decline in wars are international organizations and the role of the state > the increasingly importance of international organizations , especially the UN, led to a decline in overall violence > bc the PKOs sent by the UN have proven to be effective > and more operations mean less violence. Moreover, Azar Gat affirmed that the states have had a crucial role in diminishing relative casualties (out of the population). According to Azar Gat , for the 95% of their time on earth, homo sapiens have lived as hunters-gatherers > only a small percentage of the population was sent to fight in battles > now this percentage is even lower, bc only the professionals are sent on the battlefield > for ex. in a hunters-gatherers society, if 2 tribes are involved in a battle lots of people die > in a contemporary state this doesn’t happen bc only a small percentage of the population is sent to fight. Moreover, according to Azar Gat > violence is not intrinsically related to human nature, it’s not a primary drive > the 2 primary drives of human beings are nourishment (food/water) and reproduction. Moreover, according to James Scott the domestication of animals and plants led to the creation of villages and consequently of states. BUT according to Fazal , a decline in postal delivery doesn’t indicate a decline in the desire to communicate > Fazal applies the same reasoning to the decline in fatalities during battles > he analyzed a crucial variable > medicine > the number of people who died in Afghanistan is different from that of soldiers that died during WW1 or in Vietnam. According to Fazal, the percentage of wounded people that survived has increased , thanks to an improvement in evacuation times (the time it takes to be evacuated)
- better protective armors + the introduction of preventive and battlefield medicine > a combination of these elements is what reduced fatalities for Fazal. 5
Another general criticism put forward by Colombo is the fact that if 95% of the human life on earth has been spent as hunters-gatherers > then this decline occurred during a very short period of time > so it’s too soon to draw conclusions > maybe it’s just a temporary break from war. In 2011 there was an increase in violence with the war in Syria. After 2011, 3 key elements in contemporary security emerged:
- The role of non-state actors > ISIS wanted to create a califate > it’s a non-state actor
- Rising regional powers > Turkey, India and Brazil have been extremely active in recent years
- Uncertainty and institutional problems that are mainly related to the economic crisis of 2008 According to the SIPRI yearbook of 2021, the global military spending continued to rise , but the volume of international arms transfers remained roughly stable; nuclear arms control continued to stagnate; the number of armed conflicts increased again, but the global total of fatalities in war fell significantly. A major armed conflict is one where there have been more than 1000 deaths in a year as a consequence of the conflict > there have been 2 major armed conflicts in 2021 > Afghanistan + Yemen (where forces supported by Iran fought against the government supported by Saudi Arabia). Moreover, of the active armed conflicts occurred in at least 39 states in 2020 (20 in Sub-Saharan Africa), only 2 were between states > India vs Pakistan + Armenia vs Azerbaijan. AND in 2020 there have been 62 active multilateral PKO > 1 more than the previous year. Despite covid, military expenses increased significantly > the world’s military expenditures increased a lot compared to 2019 and 2011 > SO even if war declines political violence still exists. Between 2016 and 2020, Australia increased its importations of major arms, bc it’s worried about the rise of China in East Asia. Freedman spoke about the future of war and about the evolution in the concept of war > according to Freedman a decrease of the percentage of people killed by a violent death does NOT mean the end of war and political violence. Moreover, there has been a shift in international relations > in the 80s the major powers were Japan and Germany > now China is rising and the most important issue in international relations is the relationship between USA and China. Another important element to pay attention to is the military capability of the states > all major powers have more or less 1 or 2 aircraft carriers > the USA have 11. BUT while China is rising, and the relative advantage of USA is declining, from the economic pov > there is still no competition from the military pov. For ex. Russia developed its military capability after the cold war > BUT Russia’s GDP is lower than that of the Netherlands. Especially after 9/11, terrorism started to be perceived as a big threat > but in recent years there have been less terrorist attacks compared to the 70s and 80s (red brigades + Basque community + northern Ireland + Germany > mostly right wing organizations). 7
LEZIONE 4
Terrorism War did not end > Syria, ISIL, Ukraine. One of the key elements of the transformation of international security > is the multidimensional nature of threats. After the end of cold war, there was a decline in the number of terrorist attacks > in the 70s there had been several attacks from Marxist-Leninist groups or people who wanted independence (like the IRA – Irish Republican Army). One of the biggest attacks took place in Oslo and was made by a member of an extreme right group. In 2015 there has been a huge increase in the number of attacks caused or inspired by ISIL > transnational dimension of Jihadist organizations. In 2019 the majority of attacks were related to far-right groups. In 2011 Samb Modou and Diop Mor were killed by a man with far right beliefs > they were the only 2 people that had been killed in a terrorist attack in Italy in the last 20 years. According to a study by the Anti-Defamation League , between 2008 and 2017 the 71% of terrorist attacks in the USA were made by right-wing extremists, the 26% by Islamic extremists, and only 3% by left-wing extremists > right-wing extremists were responsible for the vast majority of extremist-related murders in that decade. From an ethnocentric perspective , it may be perceived that Europe has been a victim of a huge number of terrorist attacks > BUT the vast majority of terrorist attacks occur outside of Europe , generally during civil wars > the most affected countries are those involved in civil wars > for ex. the number of people killed worldwide from 2001 to 2014 is around 100k people, while in western Europe there have been around 400 deaths. Terrorist attacks in Africa in recent years occurred in Somalia (al Shabaab, jihadist Sunni terrorist group), Nigeria (Boko Haram) + Mali, Burkina and Niger + some in Libya and Algeria > the USA and European countries have deployed troops and tried to acquire intelligence to contrast these threats especially in Mali and Niger. BUT the problem of using intelligence is related to the sources of information > bc of the secrecy and the unavailability of reliable information it’s difficult to make predictions > for ex. in 2000, President Clinton said there was a 100 percent chance that within the next 10 years, the USA were going to be victim of a chemical or biological weapon attack. Regarding the 9/11 attack, the USA failed to take the necessary measures to prevent it due to a lack of organizational capabilities > the FBI had a memo of a potential attack but didn’t share the info + the USA was more concerned by former Soviet Union citizens. Moreover, at the end of the 90s governments were only starting to switch from paper documents to computer files > it required resources and time + different agencies didn’t communicate with each other + problems of secrecy + experts in a field are likely to keep focusing on that field + lack of resources to support “human intelligence”. Moreover, intelligence is a source of national sovereignty > for a state to share intelligence it means limiting its own sovereignty. For ex. the EU proposed the Strategic Compass , a tool through which EU members could share resources and information > BUT states don’t want to share the intelligence they acquire > although states need to adapt in order to be better organized to face new threats. The shooting in Las Vegas made by Stephen Paddock was defined mass shooting > what are the conditions for something to be defined a terrorist attack? Terrorist attack usually have a political aim (and a political cause) > but it’s difficult to trace the political origin of an attack. There is no shared definition of terrorism > bc it depends on the perspective > the enemy is always considered a terrorist > a state can call an entity a terrorist and not a legitimate enemy not to guarantee it the rights that typically apply to legitimate enemies (for ex. law of armed conflicts > Geneva conventions). Hezbollah is considered is considered a terrorist organization by many states > BUT it’s a political actor > it controls municipalities in several territories, enforces rules within these territories, etc. Moreover, it’s difficult to find the perpetrators of terrorist attacks bc many of them are labeled as unknown attacks. 8
Moreover, there is a connection between the aims of the group and its possibility to succeed > if the aims are limited > for ex. expel foreign armed soldiers (like Irgun in Israel), the group might succeed > BUT if the goal is broad and ambitious, it’s rarely reached. David Rapoport individuated 4 waves of terrorism rather than looking at continuity or discontinuity > with time terrorism changed > the 4 waves are: Anarchism > for ex. the Serbian student Gavrilo Princip who killed Franz Ferdinand and marked the beginning of WW1 + Gaetano Bresci > the main targets of people that defined themselves as anarchists were monarchs or political leaders Anti-colonialism > Algeria, IRA > these groups obtained results by using also other tools other than just terrorism > for ex. armed forces and political action The new left > in the 70s in Germany and Italy, extreme left wing groups also killed professors The religious wave > now? Rapoport was criticized bc he didn’t put right wing terrorism in a 5th^ wave > he didn’t bc he thinks that they just want to contrast the current society, but not impose their views on others > so he considers them just as a reaction phenomenon. Abdullah Azzam was Osama bin Laden’s mentor > Bin Laden (and others) went to Afghanistan following the ideals of Abdullah > he shaped the ideology of groups like al Qaeda > according to some scholars ISIL represents a 5th^ wave. The biggest novelty of ISIL compared to previous groups (al Qaeda) > is that ISIL wanted to establish a califate > for the leader of al Qaeda it was not the time to create a califate. With the emergence of ISIL, thousands of foreign fighters moved to join a civil war > ISIL attracted more than 40k people from more than 130 countries (more than all the foreign fighters summed together). One of the main tools of terrorist organizations is the radicalization of individuals > so if state leaders find out why people get radicalized, they can try to eradicate terrorism by eradicating the reasons of the radicalization > for ex. adopting policies to contrast the process of radicalization. Radicalization is a complex phenomenon, also bc there is a huge variation among foreign fighters > rich, poor, young, middle aged, educated, with no education, etc. > empirically, poverty is not relevant as a cause of the radicalization of people. The key factors that lead people to radicalize and become FF are: o Ideology > for ex. radical interpretation of religion o Adventure > people want be a part of something, to belong to a community > another key element is the fact that a part of the population perceives itself as an outsider > as different from the others > it’s an element of distinction, a new identity. o Grievances > there is a high incentive in using violence to contrast a perceived injustice o The role of the organization > ISIL created a califate and defeated armed forces in several battles > acquired popularity and became very relevant on an international level o Radicalization of the religion > Islam is NOT the reason why ISIL emerged > it’s the radicalization of Islam > according to Olivier Roy the problem is not the radicalization of Islam (which occurred 120 years ago) BUT islamization of the radicals > radicals that are already prone to commit crimes enter in contact with the radical interpretation of Islam > in fact, the majority of the individuals arrested hadn’t read the Quran until a few months earlier. Terrorism – organized crime nexus El Chapo (Joaquin Guzman) in Mexico, ‘Ndrangheta etc. > organized crime groups generally cannot be considered terrorist groups bc their aim is to earn money > there is no political aim > if Pablo Escobar had attacked state institutions > it would have been a terrorist attack bc the aim was political. Still, there is a connection between terrorism and organized crime > for ex. the IRA had strict links with the drug traffic in south America + Al Qaeda financed itself by smuggling tobacco > BUT there are no examples of structured connections between terrorist organizations and organized crime groups. Actually, the mafia in Italy could constitute a positive element that prevents the rising of terrorist groups > bc terrorist organizations attract police and armed forces > and organized crime groups don’t want to attract attention > they prefer to do business without using violence. Moreover, organized crime groups have the control the territory > so they know what’s going on. 10
Prisons are crucial for terrorism > people in prison are generally criminals > convicts are capable of commit crimes AND they can easily be radicalized > prison is ideal place for radicalization bc terrorists need a network to radicalize people. Due to the structure of prisons in Italy, for jihadists networking is difficult bc the regime of isolation is common. The 41 bis law imposes a strict regime for mafia leaders > mafia leaders never accepted the 41 bis law bc they still wanted to be able to manage their organization from prison > can be interpreted as a violation of human rights but at the same time can be effective against mafia. BUT states that don’t have structured threats like mafia, don’t have specific laws and policies > so prisons are useful for terrorists to radicalize prisoners. Moreover, prisoners can eventually be released > and bring their radicalization outside > so contrasting radicalization in prisons is crucial. There is a debate in Italy regarding the ius soli law, whose aim is to provide the citizenship to those who were born in Italy > this can be positive bc one of the drivers of the radicalization is the not belonging > not being part of a community > not having the citizenship can make people feel like outsiders. BUT many are against bc Italy usually expels people that are suspected to be doing something illegal > BUT the citizenship would make it impossible to expel people > a state can’t expel its own citizens > but still enhancing the sense of belonging is crucial. BUT on the other hand, Italy is more effective than other countries in terms of contrasting these kinds of threats. 3 waves of jihadist attacks in Europe
- Berlin
- Al Qaeda
- GIA > Algerian jihadist group > first jihadist group developed in Europe According to a study of the International Center for the Study of Radicalization, **radicalization is a process
there is no single driver or factor** > each factor’s relative importance differs according to context and individuals. The general drivers of violent radicalization are: - Grievances > perception of an injustice - Ideas > identification of a scapegoat + providing an ideological project - Needs > need for power, adventure, sense of belonging + psychological vulnerability - People > commitment, trust BUT also fear, pressure, social obligations - Violence > desire for revenge 11
The difference between ISIL and al Qaeda is an ideological difference:
- Al Qaeda had no intention of establishing a state bc it would have only attracted the attention of the international community Al Qaeda would have been immediately defeated bc states have huge military capabilities > BUT at the same time ISIL was able to maintain order (even if for a while) in Iraq bc it established a state > al Qaeda wasn’t able to do so > it even asked NGOs to help manage resources bc it didn’t have capability to manage a state.
- Avoiding sectarism and avoiding imposing the sharia could be more useful for al Qaeda > bc otherwise people could decide to rebel
- ISIL had an apocalyptical view > ISIL militia attacked Dabiq (Syria) and they wanted to conquer it bc that was supposed to be the place of the final battle between Muslims and enemies > al Qaeda didn’t have this apocalyptic perspective
- Use of force > using too much force to control a territory could lead to a reaction by the people > too much repression has consequences > a balance with other tools must be found > Al Qaeda members admitted that they made a mistake in attacking the Shia community > BUT for ISIL the Shia community represented the most relevant enemy until the intervention of the international community arrived > the goal was to contrast Shia militia in Iraq. Strengths and weaknesses of ISIL Among the strengths possessed by ISIL there are: The fact that it was able to build a proto state with many provinces The fact that it was able to exploit guerrilla, terrorism, and traditional warfare as well as propaganda related to its victories and to the creation of a global identity as part of a broader strategy to recruit more members. Its capability to exploit divisions among enemies > for ex. between USA and Russia, the fact that Turkey considers Kurds the most relevant enemy and not ISIL, etc. Effective military capability Its capability to acquire resources > ISIL destroyed artifacts and museums > they destroyed most of them and saved a 10% of them to sell them for a high price > the main resource of ISIL is selling artifacts, together with smuggling oil and weapons. Among the weaknesses are: - The lack of financial support > ISIL must finance itself - The excessive brutality used - Its military defeats > it’s difficult to win against the whole international community The extensive use of foreign fighters is both a strength and a weakness > bc FF can be useful BUT thousands of people coming from abroad can cause divisions bc they all have different views and ideas. FF can be defined as noncitizens of states involved in conflicts who join insurgencies during the civil conflicts. The UN security council qualifies FF as terrorists > “foreign terrorist fighters” > BUT it’s not correct. The best definition of FF is provided by Hegghammer > a FF is someone who has joined, and operates within the confines of, an insurgency + lacks citizenship of the conflict state or kinship links to its warring factions (SO it can’t be members of a diaspora > the relationship is from an ideological pov) + lacks affiliation to an official military organization (SO no mercenaries or members of armed forces) + is unpaid (actually they receive some money > BUT they didn’t join the conflict to earn money). States try to implement policies that aim at discouraging people from going to fight as FF > BUT still lots of people joined the Kurds to fight ISIL in Syria > then they came back to Italy > and now they are undergoing a trial > they risk to be convicted bc they fought in the territory of another states BUT they were not wearing the uniform of the Italian army + they are potentially dangerous bc they are civilians who learned how to fight and acquired seriously dangerous skills. There is a vast debate on the impact and the drivers of the FF , and it mainly concerns the risk from foreign fighter returnees > if they come back, they represent a threat bc they have military capabilities. 13
BUT most people either die on the battlefield or lose faith in the cause + according to Malet and Hayes, if FF come back to attack they generally do it in the first months > it’s rare to have attacks by FF after years > in the period from 1980 to 2016 they observed that the majority of attacks generally occur within the first 4 months , and not later than a year. In 2016, Neumann individuated 3 types of FF :
- Defenders > people who want to defend a community
- Seekers > live an adventure, want to gain a sense of belonging
- Hangers on > people who have contact and connections with people already involved The future of jihadism in Europe (paper by Hegghammer > ESAME) > since ISIL more or less defeated, the number of attacks decreased, can we talk about a decline of jihadism in the EU? Hegghammer says NO because of 4 reasons : a) The community from where people are recruited is not disappearing > there are a lot of young Muslims
it’s a category that is affected by the lack of social mobility and by the widespread discrimination and racism > these are very useful weaknesses that terrorist organizations use to recruit new terrorists. b) Veterans already fought on battlefields and acquired lots of skills + the problem of prisons is that they don’t rehabilitate. c) The presence of conflict in the middle east > for ex. between Palestine and Israel > is relevant for ISIL or al Qaeda > conflicts can be exploited to encourage people to become FF > for ex. terrorist organization often exploit the fact that Muslim people are mistreated by Israel and western community d) On the internet anything is available and ready to be found > BUT just watching videos and searching information doesn’t mean anything > democracy entails the freedom to access information > so it becomes difficult to assess when someone can be considered a threat Bures (2018): EU’s Response to Foreign Fighters : New Threat, Old Challenges?, Terrorism and Political Violence > internal or external factors? Problems:
- Differences regarding the scope and perceptions of the threats posed to individual Member States
- the lack of consensus on root causes of terrorism and radicalization
- the differences among Member States when it comes to addressing the difficulties of criminal prosecution of foreign fighters (reintegrate?). In 2011, Hegghammer said that since 1980, all over the world there have been between 10k and 30k people that left their country to become foreign fighters > BUT only in a few years, approximately 40k FF moved to Iraq and Syria. A majority of al-Qaida operatives began their militant careers as war volunteers. Modern Islam emerged in the late 19th^ century. Why did the Muslim FF phenomenon emerge when it did? Nowadays the possibility to travel is taken for granted but long-distance FF mobilizations were rare before 1980. That of FF is an intermediate category between local rebels and international terrorists. What’s the reason of the increased number of FF? According to Hegghammer it’s a matter of ideology > the Muslim FF phenomenon derives from a new subcurrent of Islamism (populist pan-Islamism) spread by Abdullah Azzam at the end of the 1970s, as a result of strategic actions by marginalized elites employed in non-violent Islamic organizations. Seeking political relevance and increased budgets, these activists - who were mostly based in Saudi Arabia - propagated an alarmist discourse emphasizing external threats to the Muslim nation > this led to the creation of a global network of charities. The crucial event was the Russian invasion of Afghanistan > the attack was exploited to convince Muslims that the communists wanted to harm them > as a result lots of people joined the mujaheddin > lots of people from Saudi Arabia > like Osama bin Laden. According to Hegghammer, FF contingents differ from one another in 2 aspects : their degree of state sponsorship > difference between private and state supported mobilization > if an individual leaves to be a FF or if the conflict is supported by the state > in the case of a state supported mobilization a government agency directly supplies the FF with material resources > in the case of ISIL there was no state sponsored mobilization. 14
Italy Italy is the 3rd^ country in Europe for the number of citizens > BUT the majority of FF come from Germany and France > deviant case > why did so few foreign fighters come from Italy? 1- Italy is relatively close to several conflict areas in the Middle East and North Africa and has relatively accessible borders , making it an ideal point of arrival or transit country for militants. 2- Italy is vulnerable to illegal migration > recently received a large influx of migrants , most of whom come from Muslim majority countries and conflict areas, who often do not face stringent security checks at the border. Moreover, upon entry to the country, they live at the margins of society. 3- Italy has been a logistical base for various jihadist groups since the early 1990s > the base of the jihadists that fought in Bosnia was in Milan. 4- Italy represents a symbolic target for jihadist groups. The city of Rome has great iconic value, as the fulcrum of Christianity and a major symbol of Western civilization. Rome has been frequently mentioned as a target in jihadist propaganda. 5- The Italian government has played an active role in various Middle Eastern conflicts , deploying troops to Afghanistan and Iraq (both during the 2003 invasion and currently as part of the anti-ISIS coalition) as well as providing substantial intelligence and political capital in the current Libyan strife. BUT at the same time in Italy there aren’t isolated communities + the number of Muslim people is smaller than those in Belgium and France. Moreover, Italy employs lots of policemen > there’s the widespread presence of police + Italy already contrasted terrorism in the past + contrasts mafia everyday + the judicial system is strict for certain kinds of crimes + the way prisons are structured (isolation regime is common) doesn’t allow the establishment of criminal networks. AND the focus is on legislative and institutional tools > Italy was one of the first countries to adopt policies aimed at contrasting the emergence and the recruitment of FF. Not only can Italian security forces conduct lengthy surveillance operations, preemptive raids and expulsions of foreign suspects , but administrative deportations have also become the cornerstone of Italy’s counterterrorism strategy. BUT on the other hand Italy doesn’t have the right tools to prevent radicalization. A recurring pattern is that only a minority of FF were born in Italy > the others are first- or second- generation immigrants. According to Marone and Vidino (Destination Jihad. Italy’s Foreign Fighters, 2019), Italy’s contingent of FF mainly consists of male, relatively young, first-generation immigrants. Out of the 125 FF linked to Italy, most were born abroad: Tunisia, Morocco, Syria, Iraq, Western European countries, the Balkans. 44% of the FF had a criminal record (not necessarily in relation to extremist activities) prior to traveling to the warzone. 22.4% of them had been detained before departure (not necessarily in connection with extremist activities). By April 2018 at least 33.6% were reportedly dead, while 19.2% had already returned to Europe (9.6% to Italy). So, in general, FF are born abroad and often have a foreign citizenship , in particular from North African countries. They also come from modest economic backgrounds and enjoyed modest levels of education. Most of them can also be considered to have weak and unstructured ties with other militants and extremist organizations. 16
LEZIONE 6
Fragile states There are 3 approaches to address failed states in the context of international politics > the approach adopted so far by western states and int. orgs. failed bc of their misconceptions about fragile states.
- paradigm change in international politics > ‘weak and failing states have arguably become the single most important problem for international order’ > failed states can disrupt the order within the international community > they can represent a vital threat to the international community
- it is difficult to objectively define , identify and analyze failed states with methodological rigor > it’s easier to focus on failing instead of failed states
- failed states as a politicized, ethnocentric, hegemonic concept with interventionist connotations > concept invented by western powers to intervene and shape political situation. A mistake to avoid is to consider fragile and weak as synonyms > the term weak is not appropriate to define fragility > there are fragile states with strong military capabilities > for ex. North Korea > it’s not weak but it’s fragile from the pov of its political institutions, legitimacy, etc. A definition of fragile states according to the Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is that “States are fragile when state structures lack political will and/or capacity to provide basic function needed for poverty reduction, development , and to safeguard the security and human rights of their population ”. Some scholars consider this definition as extremely narrow > bc in a way all states can be considered fragile > every state has flaws and weaknesses > it’s not easy to define fragile states. According to Newman , it’s not a matter of lack of will > for Newman the central government has the lack of capability to guarantee public order and secure borders, to provide public services and maintain public institutions > and this implies a vulnerability to external threats (extra-constitutional threats) > the state doesn’t control its territory. The capability to guarantee services is crucial to define political fragility > other crucial elements are the presence of conflicts, the economic situation, the welfare of the citizens, etc. For Newman, the transnational impact of failed states can present itself in different ways:
- Refugees > Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo
- Porous borders and trafficking (Balkans, West Africa, Afghanistan-Pakistan) > instability and underdevelopment affected the security of the borders > if borders are not under control, they can be used to smuggle weapons, drugs and people
- Fragile states constitute a threat to regional security (Liberia) > civil wars and internal violence
- Terrorism > since 9/11 fragile states attracted attention bc these territories can be used by terrorists > Somalia has been a fragile state since end of the 80s SO, since fragility and violence are a matter of concern, the international community started to intervene to try to address the causes of the fragility and to “rebuild” the state. Transnational effects > for ex. Iraq, Libya, Ukraine > other countries were affected by wars. The causes of fragility in central Africa are not related to wars but to other actors (like organized crime) or situations of underdevelopment that makes it difficult to maintain order. Beyond the failed state > paper by Call > according to Call it’s difficult to compare states where there’s war and states where there isn’t > rather than comparing the states using fixed criteria, smarter approaches are required > alternative concepts based on non-universal categories. 3 gaps must be analyzed : 1. Capacity gap : situation where the institutions of a state are incapable of providing minimal public goods and services to the population > fragile states are generally underdeveloped > BUT what is the minimal capacity? What should states provide at least? There are different expectations and ideas. 17
To try to overcome this fragility, the state needs to be reorganized > BUT this is a western perspective > it’s a political problem > there is nothing to fix > fragility is just a fact that’s being exploited by the state leaders to collaborate with organized crime groups. Cartels chosen Guinea Bissau not because if its nature of failed state but due to the specific post- Westphalian nature of the Guinea Bissau state where political and military leaders have created solid networks able to support and protect criminal enterprises. Criminal networks are in Guinea Bissau not because they are able to control and hijack the state, but because they can obtain a cheap political protection and sponsorship. And this occurs due to the features of the state and the strategy of political and (mainly) military ruling elites. The connection between Latin American gangs and Guinean high-ranking militaries worked since 2005-2006 > this system worked for a while, but then attracted too much attention. International and regional organizations usually came to Western Africa trying to reorganize the state (according to a Westphalia perspective). But this perspective is misleading: there is nothing to repair, no restoration of good governance because there wasn’t good governance before. Guinea Bissau can therefore be considered a “successful” failed state > it looks like a “traditional” failed state from outside, but there’s actually an active and direct role of state actors in managing drug trafficking. The cocaine flows start from Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil > these routes go towards Europe, passing through Cape Verde, Senegal, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Ghana, etc. Also Angola decided to support drug smugglers. The EU tried to launch Security Sector Reform activities (SSR) in Guinea Bissau > and launched the Facts and Figures Mission , which lasted from 2008 until 2010 > the participating states were France, Italy, Portugal and Spain > but it was a weak mission > the people involved consisted in 8 international staff and 16 local staff > the mission failed. Criminal networks in Mexico The number of people killed in Mexico bc of the war on drugs in the last 30 years is approximately 60k > criminal narcos active in Mexico are extremely powerful > hey are among the richest people in the world
- huge military capability. In the past there was no violence > but then in the 70s Nixon started the war on drugs > heroin and cocaine represented a threat for American citizens > so the US administration adopted a military approach to contrast drug traffickers , also sanctioning the production and consumption of these substances > but this repressive approach was a failure > even political leaders in Latin America and USA recognized the failure. In Mexico there are several drug cartels which exert their influence over specific parts of the territory > for ex. the independent cartel of Acapulco, the Gulf cartel, Los Zetas, La Familia, the Sinaloa cartel, etc. > BUT there are also some areas in the north and around Mexico City that are disputed among the cartels > regions of control and cartel alliances are very fluid. There are 3 relevant papers about what happened in Mexico. Why Did Drug Cartels Go to War in Mexico? (Trejo, Ley 2018) Trejo and Ley tried to explain why drug cartels went to war in Mexico in the 90s, when the federal government was not pursuing a major antidrug campaign. Political alternation and the rotation of parties in power within the government undermined the informal networks of protection that had facilitated the cartels’ operations under one-party rule. Without protection, cartels created their own private militias to defend themselves from rival groups and from incoming opposition authorities. Then, they used these militias to conquer rival territory. SO > before there was no violence > violence started in 90s and exploded in 2000 > the key reason for the explosion of war according to many scholars is that in the past the states provided support and protection to criminal networks > in the past there were a few organized networks that interacted with one single actor (Mexico was ruled by 1 party ) > BUT then the political situation changed > cartels started to use their military forces to contrast other cartels > so the reason is that the state stopped granting protection to criminal networks. 19
Why Drug Cartels Murder Government Officials and Party Candidates in Mexico (Trejo, Ley 2019) The attacks that occurred in Mexico between 2007 and 2012 at the expense of government officials and party candidates are surprising because criminal organizations tend to prefer the secrecy of bribery over the publicity of political murder. It’s not so much a matter of repression or competition > it’s more a matter of criminal-governance > cartels use attacks to establish criminal governance regimes and conquer local governments, populations, and territories. Cartels took advantage of Mexico’s political polarization and targeted subnational authorities who were unprotected by their federal partisan rivals. Cartels intensified attacks during subnational election cycles to capture incoming governments. Usually the most important thing for criminal networks is profit, not violence > bc violence attracts attention > for ex. in Italy mafia prefers not to attract attention > SO the violence exploded when the political situation changed and Mexican drug cartels no longer had the support of the state. The aim of drug cartels is to to make profit by controlling political leaders > it’s better to control them by bribing them > but when the political situation in Mexico changed and different parties emerged > cartels exploited the existing political rivalry to kill people > their main goal is to control the political dimension to establish their criminal governance. In Italy, only at the end of the 80s people were sentenced for the first time for mafia related crimes > before no one spoke about mafia (Giovanni Falcone considered mafia as an international security problem > he was the first one to propose a cooperation among the states to contrast mafia). Geography, weak states, and violence: the case of Mexico (Snyder and Duran-Martinez, 2009) For Snyder and Duran-Martinez, there is a connection between illicit markets and violence > the state- sponsored protection mechanisms. According to Snyder and Duran-Martinez (2009) the state-sponsored rackets are “informal institutions through which public officials refrain from enforcing the law or, alternatively, enforce it selectively against the rivals of a criminal organization , in exchange for a share of the profits generated by the organization”. Moreover, they think that “ when state-sponsored protection rackets form, illicit markets can be peaceful ”. So, the ceasing of state-sponsored protection rackets can lead to violence. The State has the capacity to make a credible commitment to enforce the law. Criminal organizations have the capacity to offer a credible guarantee to make payments to state officials and comply with any agreed-on behavior (halting violence, sharing info). Geography of enforcement : the spatial organization of law enforcement. Geography of criminality : the spatial organization of illicit markets. “The longer the time horizons of state officials and the greater the congruence between the geographies of enforcement and criminality, the easier it is for state-sponsored protection rackets to develop and persist ” > bc long time horizons (no political turnover) increase reciprocity and credibility of transactions (repeated interactions, sharing of info, etc.). In the case of Mexico, until the late 1980s the behavior from drug traffickers was rel atively peaceful > there was a monopoly of power by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) > this means that despite the federal character of the political system, there was a centralization of the capacity of law enforcement. Moreover, trafficking organizations had internal command and coherence. In the late 1980s, the protection racket in Mexico weakened and eventually broke down because the political competition increased (fragmentation of the PRI’s control)
- reforms intended to reduce corruption were introduced (the rotation reduced the time horizon, transforming geography of enforcement with enhanced subnational governments) + Colombian traffickers and new criminal organizations started to emerge. The patterns of violence confirm this theory. In the case of state-sponsored protection mechanisms , the public authority doesn’t contrast drug cartels or even makes laws to contrast the rivals of the drug cartels > the ultimate goal is profit > in fact, violence started in Mexico after state sponsored protection rackets ceased to exist. 20
