Dissident terrorism paradigm speakers
International law and organizations are central to the efforts to create a world order to limit armed conflict, regulate world economy, and advance programs for economic redistribution among nations, and set minimum standards of human rights. This course explains the theory of international law and organizations that is accepted by diplomats and compares this viewpoint to the analysis of social scientists concerning the past record and likely future of world order concerning conflict, economic redistribution, and human rights. Introduction to the analytical and comparative study of revolutionary movements and related forms of political violence. Topics include: the classical paradigm; types of revolutionary episodes; psychological theories; ideology and belief systems; coups; insurgencies; civil wars; terrorism and revolutionary outcomes. A survey of international peacekeeping and peace enforcement in civil conflicts with a simulation of international diplomacy.
We are searching data for your request:
Dissident terrorism paradigm speakers
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Content:
Strategic Rivalry between United States and China
I have spent years researching jihadist terrorism in the Middle East, Africa, South Asia, and the Balkans — regions where leaders have embraced hardline religious movements, concocted conspiracy theories, and instrumentalized ethno-national, tribal, and sectarian sentiments in pursuit of power. America is still much safer from political violence than the places I study, but the growing threat from right-wing extremism is narrowing the gap.
This trend began before Donald Trump became president, but has been worsening since then. A lot of ink has been spilled trying to explain whether or not President Trump is culpable for far-right terrorism. If I look at my own country through the lens I normally apply to foreign lands it seems clear that the president and his allies are indeed enabling the right-wing movements whose adherents are responsible for the recent paroxysm of violence.
The term is useful for two reasons. First, it avoids the trap of trying to show direct causality for specific attacks, which is difficult to assess, and instead pays attention to how an actor helps to fuel the movement from which terrorists emanate. It is possible to preside over an executive branch apparatus that actively opposes terrorists — arresting and prosecuting individuals involved in illegal activities, as U.
The term also accounts for the fact that even people who are not inspired by Trump still may be more prone to commit acts of extremist violence because of the environment he has helped create.
Second, the term focuses on the impact of the positions and policies in question, not the motivation behind them. Leaders and governments may engage in enabling behavior because they sympathize with an extremist cause, to enhance their domestic legitimacy with key constituencies, to project power abroad, or for various other reasons.
Trump may not be deliberately trying to enable far-right violence, but his rhetoric and actions are having that effect. Right-wing extremist movements, which include white supremacists, neo-Nazis, sovereign citizens, anti-immigrant zealots, and neo-Confederates, are a product of longstanding fault lines in American society.
Their level of activity has ebbed and flowed over the years. Law enforcement stepped up its investigations of right-wing extremist groups in the s following a series of bombings, armed robberies, and murders. The FBI infiltrated various right-wing movements, arresting people involved in illegal activities, and provoking paranoia among others. Many violent members of the far-right were imprisoned or dead by the early s, when federal government sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco triggered another wave of activism and violence.
Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols , who executed the deadliest terrorist attack ever to have taken place on U. Additional government resources and action followed. Right-wing domestic terrorism appeared to decline by the end of the decade, while the threats from international terrorism were growing.
As the security climate became more restrictive by the end of the s, the political environment was becoming more conducive for pushing elements of the far-right agenda through non-violent means.
Domestic terrorist attacks still occurred , however, and with greater frequency than jihadist attacks. The United States experienced a 70 percent increase in violent attacks perpetrated in the name of far-right ideology during his first year in office. The Anti-Defamation League reported a 57 percent growth in the number of anti-Semitic incidents in the United States during his first year in office, the largest increase it has ever recorded over a one-year period.
For example, the Anti-Defamation League also observed a 77 percent increase in incidents of white supremacist propaganda and recruitment efforts on college campuses from to Extremists of all stripes often make sense of their personal grievances perceptions of the ways they have been wronged by blaming them on political injustices. They believe others threaten them and their kind, and often consider the government as inept at best or complicit at worst.
Fear is often a major motivator for violence, which extremists believe they are committing in defense of themselves and their kind.
The magnitude of oratorical malfeasance — in numbers and content — is overwhelming. His public pronouncements have also contributed to the climate in which terrorist attacks occur. At least the first four of these indicators are currently present. Trump is the president of the United States, and his rallies and Twitter feed provide a means of direct communication to right-wing extremists, who clearly have grievances he can cultivate and a history of violence.
Trump has made calls for violence as well, although it is hard to know with certainty whether they influenced individuals involved in domestic terrorism or other incidents of extremist violence. It is not just what Trump says. His administration made three attempts to implement an anti-Muslim travel ban ostensibly to combat terrorism, despite the fact the ban in no way reflected the real terrorist threats facing Americans.
Rather, in a ruling, justices found that , as president, Trump had the statutory authority to make national security judgments regarding immigration despite his history of incendiary rhetoric against Muslims.
Although his party controls the executive and legislative branches, Trump has threatened to shut down the government on multiple occasions over his demands to build a border wall to keep out, in practical effect, non-white immigrants. Just recently, Trump ordered the U. He has been trying to turn this into a national emergency in advance of the midterm elections. As I was writing this article, the president announced his plans to use an executive order to end birthright citizenship , an objective that is a cornerstone of white nationalism.
By mobilizing the machinery of government in service of policies that are not only anti-immigration, but also anti-immigrant, Trump illustrates a commitment to action and to far-right objectives that goes beyond mere rhetoric.
These policies, which are intended to cater to his base and mobilize voters through fear, also reinforce the right-wing threat perceptions that fuel extremist activism and violence. The use of American troops as political pawns is especially notable and galling because it sends the explicit message that force against immigrants is both necessary and legitimate.
Enabling can include actions that thwart efforts to combat extremism, as well as those that encourage it. Trump has been a direct impediment to combating right-wing extremism in several ways. First, he has largely demolished the federal government infrastructure created to prevent extremist violence by domestic actors.
Soon after taking office, Trump cut money for a government program intended to counter different forms of violent extremism in the United States, and canceled funding for outside groups working to counter white supremacist ideology specifically. His administration recently indicated that it will end the program entirely. Second, the president has refused to single out right-wing extremists for culpability after domestic terrorist attacks or to disavow them in general. Scholars of political violence have pointed out that both of these actions may lead right-wing extremists to believe Trump supports their views and will be more tolerant of extremist violence or illegal acts than previous presidents.
Third, although Trump has yet to interfere with an investigation or prosecution of domestic terrorism, he pardoned Joe Arpaio , who is a hero to many on the far-right because of his aggressive efforts against undocumented immigrants. There are numerous instances of right-wing extremists citing Trump or his positions after committing various acts of violence.
Cesar Sayoc, who was arrested in late October in south Florida for allegedly sending more than ten mail bombs to prominent Democrats and critics of the president, was reportedly a lost soul uninterested in politics before the election. Not all right-wing extremists who commit an act of terrorism are Trump supporters, but that does not mean their violence is disconnected from the environment he has helped to create. Anyone familiar with the study of political violence will recognize this dynamic: Figures of authority promote extremist ideas, but they do not take sufficient action to satisfy some of the rank-and-file, who then act on their own.
Domestic terrorism poses a singular threat that jihadist attacks launched or inspired from abroad do not: It can rend the national fabric because some of the causes that motivate right-wing extremists also appeal to many other Americans who eschew violence. As a result, terrorist attacks that should unite us instead further divide us, fueling political polarization.
If left unchecked, violence could beget more violence and sow greater discord. So, what can be done? Normally, I would attempt to offer policy recommendations the U. Federal counterterrorism analysts and law enforcement officers are constantly on the lookout for would-be jihadists radicalizing and organizing, both online and in person.
And just as the U. There are plenty of other areas where lessons from U. Considering that the Department of Homeland Security essentially ignores right-wing extremism, and the FBI devotes only a small fraction of its budget and manpower to the threat, it is also clear that more resources are needed to prevent and counter domestic terrorism.
Unfortunately, these are not normal times. When trying to explain what the United States can expect from difficult counter-terrorism partners in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia, I emphasize that many leaders in these parts of the world prioritize their personal interests over the national interest. Like the authoritarian elites in these countries, Trump prioritizes his personal interests over the national interest. He cares more about keeping power than exercising it for the good of the people he governs.
It would be a stretch to suggest Trump considers right-wing domestic terrorism useful. But he clearly does not see it as enough of a threat to cancel out the usefulness of right-wing extremist voters or the wider electoral mobilizing potential of the issues that get them fired up. As long as Trump and his allies continue to pursue policies and spout rhetoric that enable far-right extremism, it is naive to focus mainly on technocratic solutions.
We can debate the finer points of the tactics and tools of counterterrorism, but we cannot remove politics from political violence. This makes it all the more important to focus on what elected officials who take this issue seriously can do to move the ball forward, and equally on how those of us outside federal government can contribute to this effort. In this spirit, I offer two recommendations. Create a federal statute criminalizing domestic terrorism.
Currently, the U. As a result, individuals responsible for domestic terrorism are not charged as terrorists because this charge carries no punitive measures. It is true that there are other criminal statutes that have been used to arrest, prosecute, convict, and punish people involved in acts that qualify as domestic terrorism. Nevertheless, as Mary McCord, the former acting assistant attorney general, wrote after the Charlottesville attack last year, it is past time to recognize that domestic terrorism is no less dangerous or malicious than international terrorism.
Criminalizing domestic terrorism would help to ensure that acts of domestic terrorism are labeled as such. This is about more than semantics. First, charging individuals involved in attacks that meet the definition of domestic terrorism accordingly could help to discredit them and their actions among potential supporters, and isolate them from the wider public. Second, the failure to call domestic terrorism what it is can embolden right-wing extremists, and can make it harder to curtail some of their activities, which would be restricted if carried out by homegrown jihadists.
Third, because the government typically labels attacks by homegrown jihadists as terrorism, not applying the same label to actors on the far-right risks alienating Muslim communities who are important allies in the preventing jihadist violence. Fourth, states have responsibility for crimes unless these crimes cross state borders or involve the federal government in some other way.
Fifth, creating a domestic terrorism statute would provide a forcing function for the federal government to clarify its concept of domestic terrorism, and allow for federal record keeping of violent incidents and other crimes involving domestic extremists.
Introducing legislation to create a domestic terrorism statute would also provide a forcing function for the federal government to deliberate about whether to include provisions for developing a list of designated domestic terrorist organizations, and outlawing material support to them.
Currently, the secretary of state is authorized by law to designate groups involved in international terrorism as foreign terrorist organizations and to block any of their assets that were in the possession of or under the control of U. It is a felony for Americans knowingly to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization. No designation of any kind is available domestically.
If Congress created one then the bar for designation would need to be high, transparent, and focused on activities — threatening, supporting, or using terrorist violence — as opposed to ideology. Any material support clause would also need to be written more narrowly than the one that exists for international terrorism in terms of which activities would be criminalized.
Designating domestic extremist groups as terrorist organizations and charging people who aid them with material support could also throw fuel on the fire by promoting the perception of the deep state at work. It is time to move the discourse into the mainstream.
If the Democrats take the House and perhaps even the Senate tomorrow, they should consider introducing legislation to criminalize domestic terrorism. If they do not win one or both houses of Congress, pushing sensible domestic counterterrorism policies still provides a way to foster much-needed debate, pressure Trump and his allies, and create a foundation for a post-Trump strategy to counter domestic terrorism and right-wing extremism.
Make countering extremism and promoting pluralism major civil society initiatives, and support them accordingly. Civil society is a key player when it comes to countering radicalization and recruitment. In many countries around the world, civil society organizations and other non-governmental actors have had to fill the void created by leaders who are unwilling to launch the government programs and undertake the reforms needed to counter violent extremism.
Redefining Homeland Security: A New Framework for DHS To Meet Today’s Challenges
This major international conference will address a range of important themes with respect to all major business fields. The conference will include numerous papers and workshop presentations by academics and researchers from around the globe. Conference participants are welcome to submit full papers, short papers, extended abstracts, paper drafts, or invited session proposals. Submitted papers will be fully refereed and published in electronic formats.
How to fight terrorism in the Donald Trump era
Center for American Progress. The U. Department of Homeland Security DHS was created nearly 20 years ago in response to catastrophic terrorist attacks on the United States. What America needs from DHS today, however, is different from when it was founded. In an era of increased movement of people and goods across borders, we need a DHS that prioritizes the rule of law, and one that protects all Americans as well as everyone who comes to live, study, work, travel, and seek safety here. Despite consensus among policymakers that the department could be far more effective, 1 there is little agreement on how to fix it. With appropriate oversight and respect for civil liberties, the department has tremendous potential to advance public safety and provide critical services. But it is time for DHS to focus on the missions and activities that it is uniquely capable of carrying out, and for which it, rather than other agencies, is the natural lead.
Unsupported Browser Detected.
I have spent years researching jihadist terrorism in the Middle East, Africa, South Asia, and the Balkans — regions where leaders have embraced hardline religious movements, concocted conspiracy theories, and instrumentalized ethno-national, tribal, and sectarian sentiments in pursuit of power. America is still much safer from political violence than the places I study, but the growing threat from right-wing extremism is narrowing the gap. This trend began before Donald Trump became president, but has been worsening since then. A lot of ink has been spilled trying to explain whether or not President Trump is culpable for far-right terrorism.
Speakers, Spring 2005
It seems the web browser you're using doesn't support some of the features of this site. For the best experience, we recommend using a modern browser that supports the features of this website. Remarks by H. At the outset, I would like to thank Dr. Desai, President of Asia Society and her colleagues for holding this event.
Marco Provvidera
Claremont McKenna College E. Eighth Street Claremont , CA Phone: Email: athenaeum cmc. Phone: Fax: Email: athenaeum cmc. Skip to main content. Speakers, Spring
Top Skip to main content. Search under "terrorism" in our online catalog for the most recent additions. Our "Terrorism" collection is now shelved in Room for easy access by staff and researchers.
January 29, — April 22, RL The Iraq war was launched on March 19, , with a strike against a location where Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and top lieutenants were believed to be meeting. On March 17, President Bush had given Saddam an ultimatum to leave the country or face military conflict. Although some resistance was encountered after U. In November , the United Nations Security Council had adopted Resolution , giving Iraq a final opportunity to "comply with its the disarmament obligations" or "face serious consequences.
During the summer of , the worst drought in almost a decade hits the Western , Midwestern and Northeastern United States. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For other uses, see disambiguation. Calendar year. Further information: Category deaths. Main article: Deaths in January
It shapes both strategic debates and real political , military and economic dynamics. The development and use of technologies thus become part of a systemic competition. While Washington has withdrawn from a number of multilateral institutions, Beijing is expanding its influence in contexts like the United Nations.
I express my gratitude for your help in this matter.