One World, Many Peaces

A Visual History of Airline Terrorism and the TSA

Source: Online Universities

Math Makes Counter-Terrorism More Effective, Less Pervasive

Who would have thought that math club members in high school would have turned out to be the next counter-terrorism superheros? Anything that keeps our blossoming police state from bearing more fruit deserves widespread attention and support.

New models to dismantle terrorist networks, set to make current (and, some would say, not working) ones obsolete, have been put forth by ultra-high-level mathematicians at the New England Complex Systems Institute. Luckily for us mere mortals, no numbers are required to understand how their mathematical improvements can keep us safer, cheaper and less pervasively.

They published their breakthroughs in the most recent issue of the International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, what all the cool kids are reading these days. In laymen's terms, their new counter-terrorism strategy goes something like this.

Terrorist networks today are taken on as whole through a series of short-term battles. Think of trying to go after Osama bin Laden here, then there, then there, and still never finding him while killing lots of innocent people in several host countries along the way. (Note: Apparently, this method has also been superseded by the U.S. giving $2 billion in military aid to the Pakistani so they can do it themselves.)

What these magician-mathematicians have shown is that it is much, much more effective and less resource-intensive to isolate hubs within a terrorist network rather than try to eliminate them, which goes against centuries of military strategy, including the one currently used to pursue Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups globally. This math-based counter-terrorism strategy is also much less pervasive than its predecessors.

Philip Vos Fellman, an expert in mathematical modeling and strategy, explains that "the nature of a dynamic [terrorist] network is akin to the robust Internet but contrasts starkly with the structure of the armed forces or homeland security systems, which tend to be centralized and hierarchical." His sophisticated computer simulations of real-world terrorist networks show that isolation rather than removal of terrorist cells is the key to successfully defeating terrorists networks as a whole.

Then again, those math club members in high school could also have gone on to be the next software multi-billionaire software developers. But where is the glory in that?

Photo Credit: trindade.joao

Conscientious Objector in Israeli Military Imprisoned at Age 19

Omer Shoshan, age 19, from the town of Yehud near Tel Aviv, was sentenced to 20 days of imprisonment for refusing to carry out orders against Palestinians he considers immoral, called conscientious objecting. Below is personal statement of refusal. He enlisted in the Israeli military eight months ago, but after becoming a soldier he realized he could not continue his military service under the current Israeli apartheid regime.

Shoshan is held in a secret detention centre, rather than in a military prison, so his prison address is unknown. However, letters of support and encouragement can still be sent to him via e-mail at messages2prison@newprofile.org, and they will be printed out and delivered during visits.

Omar Shoshan's Statement of Conscientious Objection

I refuse to be part of the Israel Defence Forces, an army that occupies and oppresses a Palestinian population on a daily basis, which undermines the chances to achieve peace, and thus also Israel’s security, and which corrupts the moral and democratic character of the state.

For more than 40 years the IDF has been daily oppressing the Palestinians in the occupied territories and denying them their most basic rights to live normally. This includes hampering their freedom of movement, undermining their economy, hurting their bodies, illegally arresting them and committing many other severe crimes that usually fail to make it to the mainstream media. The very fact that any simple soldier serving beyond the Green Line has power over the lives of local residents and can force them to do as he pleases is illegal and undemocratic, and obtains the exact opposite of what it is supposed to – it produces more terrorists, increases hatred towards us and undermines any realistic chances for peace. So what purpose does this oppression really serve? Only one – perpetuating the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which are illegal in their own right and which are the obstacle to reaching a compromise between the two peoples.

Even before enlisting I had my doubts about whether or not to join the army, whether to support the army that represents my country or to refuse. I eventually decided to enlist, because I felt that I could refuse from within, to do things otherwise, to effect change. Today I understand that the army’s actions in the occupied territories themselves, its very presence there, are what constitutes the occupation, and no action I could make, not even if I offer a more positive treatment to Palestinian civilians, could make any difference.

I believe that in a country that claims to be a democracy, it is good and even necessary for each of us to voice criticism and indignation when the country is wrong. The IDF is an organisation that fights for interests that I don’t believe in, performs anti-democratic and immoral actions and seriously undermines the chances to achieve piece. I am no longer willing to be part of it.

Another Separatist Group's Peace Offering Dismissed, This Time the ETA in the Heart of Europe

Spain has rejected outright the peace offering of a longtime violent separatist group, the ETA: Euskadi Ta Askatasuna or Basque Homeland and Freedom, which has been operating in the region between France and Spain for the past forty years, causing over eight hundred deaths. This past weekend, ETA representatives offered to stop their deadly campaign and confirmed "its commitment to finding a democratic solution to the conflict" in an official group video statement. The response they got from the Spanish government was unthinkingly cold, putting peace prospects in continued jeopardy.

"I think the word [ceasefire] insufficient reflects quite well the position not (just) of the government but of all the democratic parties,"  Spanish Interior Minister Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba told Spain's state-run TVE television station on Monday in rejecting the offer. He stressed that the group was weaker than ever and his government would continue to pursue its members. What he didn't stress is that when people are weak and desperate, rare opportunities for lasting peace arise, but also last attempts to cause as much damage as possible in a hopeless cause not of their own doing.

In a video handed to the BBC and broadcast on Sunday, three hooded Eta fighters are shown sitting behind a desk with the ETA flag pinned up behind them. One reads out a statement defending Eta's campaign of violence, but towards the end says the group now wants to achieve its aims by peaceful means. True, this is an awkward way to make a peace offering, especially considering that the past two from the ETA did not stop its member's use of violence. But anyone who thinks this is not better than what has been happening for decades either wants more violence or is hopelessly stupid.

Mr Rubalcaba said the word ceasefire was now "a dead concept," claiming that his government doesn't deal with terrorists, exactly what the Turkish government said in recently rejecting the peace offerings of Kurdish separatist after three deadly decades. Other than surrender, an unlikely event given the histories involved, a ceasefire is the necessary first step towards complete disarmament for any separatist group. Rejecting a ceasefire outright, then, is also the first step in ensuring that peace is indefinitely postponed. 

Mutiny at the Highest Levels of U.S. Military: General Petraeus

Commander-in-Chief, the title and responsibilities accorded to the President, don't matter for the once again new military commander of the Afghanistan War, in a munity that is punishable by death according to U.S. military law. In two separate addresses recently, General Petraeus said that only he will decide when to withdraw from Afghanistan, flying in the face of the already too distant withdrawal start date set by the President upon election, and that he won't carry out his delegated duties of running the military operations there as a "graceful exit" from the country, even if the Secretary of Defense says otherwise.

Putting himself at striking odds with both his bosses, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and President Obama (not to mention their bosses too, us), General Petraeus apparently thinks he's calling the shots, even if the U.S. Constitution says differently. This is nothing short of a mutinous military takeover of wartime chains of command punishable by death according to the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 94. And it makes General Petraeus the number one obstacle to the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and a highly dangerous one at that considering the tens of thousands of troops and sophistacated weaponry he now has under his direct command.

To be precise, Article 94 of the UCMJ states that any person "with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny… shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct." If what Petraeus said and is doing accordingly don't fit this definition, nothing does or will. We are not advocating that he should be killed, but he should be removed from his post immediately and court-marshaled to the same military tribunals as Guantanamo inmates still are if the U.S. military is to maintain any semblance of legitimacy domestically or globally. And the story only starts there, with the the withdrawal from Afghanistan in the balance.

In an interview that aired last week on NBC's Meet the Press, Petraeus had the gall to say that: "Oil spot is a term in counterinsurgency literature that denotes a peaceful area, a secure area. What you're always trying to do is extend that, push that out." This is more than a doublespeak message at the highest levels of the U.S. military which everyone should be able to identify and decode for themselves by now, it is an outright duplicitous public relations campaign to dupe the American people into continued, complacent support of the war in Afghanistan.  This, despite the fact that Afghan, U.N., U.K. and even certain high-ranking U.S. officials have made it clear that the only viable solution is a political one, not military.

Now for the bad news. According to the same article in the UCMJ, if we don't do anything to stop this mutiny, we are as much to blame as Petraeus himself. Any person who "fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition." We need to stop this military takeover of our political processes before it's too late, and you can start by signing the petition to pressure the President to withdraw responsibly from Afghanistan, legally by Congress passing binding legislation to do just that.  

If the U.S. military doesn't follow it's own rules, we cannot expect it to follow any others either.

Photo credit: Hector Alejandro

When Capitalist Democracy Meets Maoism in India, Peace Results

Indian Maoists, not to be confused with the original Chinese ones, are members of the Communist Party of India, whose explicit aim is to violently overthrow the government, also the largest democracy on earth with over one billion people. But in a strange and hopeful twist in Indian politics, a unique synergy between capitalist democracy and Maoism is taking place, for the first time outside of China. 

Maoists have been attacking government troops, paramilitary groups and civilians in the northern part of the country for decades in the hopes of separating along ideological lines, including their most deadly attack ever earlier this year. Just this week, however, Indian Railway Minister Mamata Banerji addressed a huge rally - supported by Maoists - at a rebel stronghold in West Bengal. Ms. Banerji and her Trinamul Congress Party, a majority Indian Congress Party ally, have always denied any links with the insurgents, according to the BBC. But maybe those ties will emerge with her peacemaking proposal.

A senior Maoist leader urged local people to attend the event in Lalgarh and thousands showed up. Her message was clear: to open negotiations between the national government and the Maoist rebels, stop the terrorism. "Terror should stop in Lalgarh and all areas around it and the counter-insurgency operations in the area should be stopped," she told flag-waving supporters. By "counter-insurgency" she meant the government and paramilitary forces who have been just as violent, if not more so, than the Maoists themselves. Nothing short of a tremendous development, to be sure.

Indian Maoists are an outgrowth of the People's War Group (PWG) which emerged in the 1980s. Extreme in their anti-globalization just as much as in their anti-caste system, they believe in the Marxist revolutionary model that Mao proposed, in which rural peasants (not just industrial workers) can lead the way. Until now, this required the use of revolutionary violence to be accomplished along Maoist ideological lines.

What this momentous event signals is a possibility that Maoists could adopt the native Gandhian practice of nonviolence and integration, rather than the foreign-derived violent separatism they have stuck to, signaling a shift in Indian politics that could have repercussions worldwide.

More Autonomy for More Disarmament says Separatist Group After Three Deadly Decades

You wouldn't use a chainsaw to change a light bulb or a hammer to ice a cake, so why would anyone use anything other than political means (like violence and war, for instance) to achieve political ends?

For close to three decades now, Kurdish rebels have been fighting on behalf of their ethnic group against Turkish and Iraqi oppression, both cultural and economic, with little success. If anything, the more violent their action became, the more oppressive the state's response. But based on what it's leader said this week, it seems like that dangerous equation could change. Or at least a new window of opportunity for peace has been opened.

The leader of a Kurdish rebel group, Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK, designated a terrorist organisation by Turkey, as well as the EU and US) engaged in a guerrilla war with Turkey has told the BBC it is willing to disarm in return for greater political and cultural rights for Turkey's Kurds. PKK leader Murat Karayilan said he would order his fighters to lay down their weapons under UN supervision in exchange for greater autonomy for the Kurdish region there, which actually reverses the deadly equation above and replaces it with the formula: more autonomy for more disarmament.

"If the Kurdish issue is resolved in a democratic way through dialogue we will lay down our weapons, yes. We will not carry arms," Karayilan said to the BBC. You would think that Turkish officials would welcome the opportunity to turn an armed and violent group into a peaceful political constituency, but their response showed a close-mindedness at least as dangerous as the PKK's previously, especially given that some 40,000 people have died in armed conflict since it began in 1984. "Not in the habit of commenting on statements made by terrorists," said a senior official.

It would seem, then, that Turkey wants the chainsaw and hammer, regardless of the double standard it would create now that disarmament talks with longtime rival Greece are underway, as previously reported on One World, Many Peaces. This may be because the PKK's disarmament offer came with a threat, but still political not military in essence: "If the Turkish government refuses to accept that, we will have to announce independence," as distinct from the autonomy for disarmament equation that constitutes the biggest peace breakthrough in the situation, ever.

The cultural and economic autonomy the PKK is proposing in exchange for disarmament would reap greater rewards for them and Turkey than either continued conflict or independence. It's time to turn on the light bulb and ice the cake with the proper means, political not violent.

Global Peace Index 2010 Points to a Less Peaceful World This Year

By Liz Ford

The world has become less peaceful over the last year, despite a drop in the number of armed conflicts, according to this year’s Global Peace Index (GPI).

Figures published today show homicide rates and violent crime had increased around the world, particularly in Latin America, where levels of peacefulness showed the biggest slip over the past 12 months.

The GPI has been published annually for the last four years by the Institute for Economics and Peace, a global thinktank that researches the relationship between economics, business and peace. The rankings, compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit, are calculated using 23 indicators, such as violent crime, political stability and military expenditure, correlated against a number of social development indicators such as corruption, freedom of the press, respect for human rights and school enrolment rates.

Figures show that Africa has become the most improved region of the world for peacefulness over the last four years. The continent has experienced fewer conflicts, less military spending and improved cross-border relations. However, sub-Saharan Africa still remains one of the planet’s least peaceful areas, with nine states featuring in the bottom 20 countries listed.

The Middle East has also shown improvements in its levels of peacefulness since 2006, largely through decreasing military spending and improved relations between states.
However, South Asia has become the most volatile area over the last four years, mainly due to increased involvement in conflicts and human rights abuses. This year, Pakistan was ranked 145 out of the 149 states listed and India ranked 129, evidence, says Steve Killelea, founder of the GPI, of the impact of the war on terror.

Levels of peace

For the second year running, New Zealand is rated the most peaceful country in the world, with Iceland climbing back up to second place, after dropping from the top slot in 2008 to fourth place last year. Japan ranked third. Fifteen of the top 20 countries are western or central European states and all Scandinavian countries are listed in the top 10, suggesting that small, stable, democratic countries are the most peaceful. The UK was ranked 31, one of the few countries to improve positions, while the US dropped two places to 85, largely due to its military expenditure, high prison population and increasing rates of violent crime and homicide.

For the fourth year running, Iraq was found to be the least peaceful country, followed by Somalia, Afghanistan and Sudan. Russia ranked 143.

This year, five extra countries were added to the index – Armenia, Gambia, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Swaziland, which ranked 113, 63, 99, 53 and 73 respectively.

In a sense, the GPI make a case for peace – putting a monetary value on peace in terms of business growth and economic development. The index authors estimate that the total economic impact of an end to violence could have been US$28.2tr between 2006 and 2009. A 25% reduction in global violence would add an annual $1.85tr to the global economy. Killelea said these amounts could pay off Greece’s debts, meet the yearly requirements needed to hit the Millennium Development Goals and pay for the EU’s carbon reduction programme, and still leave change.

Aid thoughts

The rankings could provide useful backing to donor governments rethinking their aid strategies. The UK government is currently reviewing the countries to which it gives aid and has set up a National Security Council to pull together plans for development and defence. In a speech last week, the international development secretary, Andrew Mitchell, spoke of the importance of building “peaceful and stable societies abroad”, with particular reference to Afghanistan.

“It’s highly appropriate to look at the index and review how we go about giving aid. In the past, a lot of it was giving on a political whim, to prop up some government,” said Killelea. “You need the right resources and approaches to build a well functioning government and make sure resources are spread around the people.” A government would also save “hundreds of billions of dollars” in military expenditure.

Africa, he added, had experienced significant economic growth over the last decade, which had resulted in improved GDP across the continent, a drop in armed conflict and improvements in child mortality and education rates. But Killelea the continent still had a long way to go. “We don’t want to lose sight that Africa is the most violent region in the world”, he said.

The highest ranked country in Africa is Botswana, at 33. Uganda ranked 100 this year, an improvement on last year. However, Killelea noted that while the country had clearly improved in a number of areas, particularly in terms of economic growth, political instability, a worsening respect for human rights and an increasing number of deaths from organised crime remained major problems.

Photo Credit: syvwlh

India and Pakistan Open Breakthrough Peace Talks

Something unimaginable just a couple of months ago is quickly becoming actuality: the leaders of India and Pakistan have opened direct talks to resolve their many outstanding issues, several of which have triggered wars in the past. Top on the list of items in the breakthrough preliminary discussions are addressing the growing terrorist threat within and between the two countries, and the rise of China as their mutual neighboring superpower to the East. Only a few weeks ago, another armed conflict seemed likely between the three countries over their respective interests in the Kashmir region.

Meeting in Bhutan for the first time in close to a year, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart, Yousuf Raza Gilani, to work out ways to restore trust and confidence in the two states' troubled and storied relationship, "thus paving the way for a substantive dialogue on all issues of mutual concern", Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao told reporters. Since the deadly Mumbai attacks in 2008, India has purposefully distanced itself from Pakistan, a move which now seems to its leaders as being counterproductive when it comes to fighting terrorism.

The last time the two premiers sat down together was at the Non-Aligned Movement's summit in Egypt last July, and both parties seemed genuinely relieved and encouraged by the overtures, although it is too soon to tell what (if anything) will result. Bonding over the wounds of terrorist attacks and an imposing common neighbor may not be the ideal conditions for reconciliation, but they certainly are proving pragmatic, especially as both countries have nuclear arsenals of questionable security.  "I don't think either side was expecting such a positive turn in dialogue," Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Quresh told reporters. "It was a step in the right direction and it was in the right spirit."

When India seceded from the British Empire in 1947, the subcontinent was further partitioned by its leaders and an all-to-willing exiting empire into Pakistan as a Muslim country. Gandhi, who struggled for Indian autonomy, and then independence when these efforts were thwarted, considered the partition the greatest regret of his life. For years earlier, he had tried to reconcile Hindu and Muslims in the region through marches, fasts and town-hall style meeting, but to no avail. Given that the premiers of the two countries agreed to meet in person again soon, this current event is one that Gandhi may not have wanted, but would have welcomed as creating a more peaceful future for Asia and the world.

Troubling Terms: Muslim, Islamist, Arab... All the Same, Right? Wrong

Few words are used more often with less scrutiny than those referring to the followers of Mohammed's Qur'an, and this in an age when what's left of political correctness (quantitatively and qualitatively) is just enough to prohibit progressives from speaking at ease and conservatives the sick joy of contraventions. What one of the latter, the leader of the British National Party (BNP), said in a live radio session that was also televised really went out his way to make the terminology political… and politically incorrect (depending on your views).

In response to a caller accusing him of anti-Muslim sentiment, ultra-conservative (a nice way to say racist bigot) BNP leader Nick Griffin politely stated he had read the Koran and believed it to be 'not a religious book, but a manual for conquering other people's countries', which it decidedly is not. He is not anti-Muslim, he started off by saying, but he is anti-Islam. The facetious point he was making is that there is a difference between being against a religion and being against people who belong to that religion. Splitting hairs, maybe, but here are some of the terms being used and abused:

Islamist: Usually used in reference to actively fighting soldiers, guerillas, insurgents or resistance fighters (and not necessarily terrorist, see below) who adhere to Islam and who may or may not be fighting in its name, which gives the peaceful a bad one.
 
Muslim: By far the most widely used word referring to adherents of Islam, and generally considered the most neutral term; the literal translation of the word aslama is "one who submits or surrenders," i.e. to Allah's/God's will as expressed in the Qur'an.

Mohammedan: Rarely used today, this term can still be found in works of literature, news and Western government reports that date from about 1400s to the 1930s; among the other historical and more derogatory or ambiguous terms are Turk, barbarian and heathen.

Black Muslim: Although Muslims who have black or dark brown skin live throughout Africa and the world, the term is usually used with specific reference to African-American Muslims who belong to the Nation of Islam, like Malcolm X.

Arab: Although the majority of those the West here about outside of Pakistan and India are of this racial origin (which perhaps ironically has the same antecedents as Semitics, or "racially Jewish"), it only has to do with Islam insofar as implied or explicit associations are made, and no more.

Fundamentalist: Contrary to popular belief based on media portrayals, not all Muslims are fundamentalists, any more so than Christians are; the term tends to be used in reference to people who live in places where religion is all they can cling to, from poverty or abundance.

Terrorist: Again contrary to popular belief based on media portrayals, only a tiny fraction of the Muslim population worldwide is involved with terrorism, and even fewer commit terrorist acts, which are in any case not limited to this religion but have been done in the name of all.

The point here is not to be politically correct when you refer to adherents of Islam, but to be accurate and assured that the words you use are a current event creating a world in which words hurt less and help more.

Photo credit: Bird Eye