We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication.
Real Action Needed Against ISIL, Not Sloganeering: National Post, Aug. 15, 2015— The reports are scattered, with little hope of speedy confirmation from Western reporters.
Saving Tunisia From ISIS: Mustapha Tlili, New York Times, Aug. 3, 2015 — “Who lost Tunisia?” This question may well haunt future European leaders.
Europe's Great Migration Crisis: Soeren Kern, Gatestone Institute, July 12, 2015 — Europe's migration crisis is exposing the deep divisions that exist within the European Union, which European federalists have long hailed as a model for post-nationalism and global citizenship.
How to Get a Better Deal With Iran: Mark Dubowitz, Foreign Policy, Aug. 17, 2015— The Iran nuclear deal is a ticking time bomb.
The Illegitimate Libyan Government Is Funding the Terrorists Who Killed Chris Stevens: Ann Marlowe, National Review, July 20, 2015
Migration Crisis Pits EU’s East Against West: Anton Troianovski & Margit Feher, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 19, 2015
For French-Algerians and Algerian-French, No Place to Truly Call Home: Amir Jalal Zerdoumi, New York Times, Aug. 15, 2015
Libya Seeks Airstrikes Against ISIS Branch: New York Times, Aug. 15, 2015
REAL ACTION NEEDED AGAINST ISIL, NOT SLOGANEERING
National Post, Aug. 15, 2015
The reports are scattered, with little hope of speedy confirmation from Western reporters. But there are mounting indications that, over the last several hours and days, the Islamic State has massacred hundreds in the Libyan town of Sirte. Local militias in the area had tried to resist encroaching Islamic State influence and are now reportedly paying for their resistance with their lives, including reports of wounded men being executed in their hospital beds.
Ho-hum. Another day, another ISIL atrocity. In recent days, the New York Times has detailed at length the brutal but highly organized, even bureaucratized, system of sexual slavery that thousands of young Yazidi girls and women are trapped in. Herded into pens, displayed for sale, raped repeatedly, their bodies are the war booty ISIL uses to reward its soldiers and entice new ones to join the fight. On Friday, reports emerged that U.S. intelligence officials believe that ISIL forces recently used chemical weapons — mustard gas, specifically, a blistering agent that damages the skin and lung tissue — during a battle against unprotected Kurdish militiamen.
The world has known such evil before. But never has the evil so openly celebrated its own depravity. You might have expected that to make it easier to rally decent nations to take up the fight against this group. But no. Other than a half-hearted allied air campaign, which has only partially contained its spread, the world seems little interested in putting an end to ISIL’s rule over millions.
Indeed, even as casualties mount and the rape camps remain much in demand, in North America, ISIL is treated as an issue fit only for domestic politicking. In the United States, Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush has been trading barbs with Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and current frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. Both accuse the other of sharing responsibility for ISIL’s rise. Bush’s brother, of course, was George W. Bush, whose botching of the Iraq war left the country in no condition to resist ISIL’s spread. Clinton, in contrast, was secretary of state when the Obama administration too-hastily withdrew the last U.S. troops from Iraq, though many U.S. officials — including Clinton herself, she claims — believed Iraq still needed support from the U.S. military to remain stable.
In Canada, of course, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is the tough-on-terror candidate, while the opposition parties squirm uncomfortably with every new ISIL outrage and try to explain why they would end even Canada’s relatively minor contribution to the allied effort. The Conservatives feel this is a winning issue for them, and hammer away at it often. While North American politicians posture and position, ISIL continues to grow. It now controls half of Syria, Iraq’s second-largest city and is spreading into Libya. Talking points on the domestic barbecue circuit are of little help to the sex slaves of the Islamic States, to the Kurdish militiamen breathing blistering fumes or the millions of displaced people crowding makeshift refugee camps.
It’s true that there is no immediate or obvious solution to the crisis. But that is no excuse not to be working on one. The suffering populations of the region need a real plan for confronting ISIL and a commitment to see it through. Instead, the leaders of the free world exchange slogans and sound bites in hopes of scoring rhetoric points off their political opponents. It is common to say, of past atrocities, “never again.” But sorrowful vows long after the fact are no substitute for action in the here and now.
Mustapha Tlili
New York Times, Aug. 3, 2015
“Who lost Tunisia?” This question may well haunt future European leaders. As Hervé Morin, a former French defense minister, recently warned, Europe — and France in particular — cannot afford to wait until the black flag of the Islamic State is hoisted above the presidential palace in Tunis. Sadly, this bleak scenario can no longer be dismissed as an alarmist exaggeration. Only weeks after the Bardo National Museum massacre in March, a jihadist struck again in June, this time at Sousse, a popular beach resort, killing dozens of European vacationers. The attack’s clear objective was to destroy Tunisia’s tourism industry, destabilizing the economy and undermining the new democratic state.
The carnage at Sousse exposed the Tunisian authorities’ inability to tackle on their own the country’s growing security challenges. Tunisia’s successful transition to democracy, the legitimacy of its government and the bravery of its armed forces are not enough to save it. Nor should anyone in Europe and the West comfort themselves with the idea that the jihadist movement will eventually self-destruct.
From their new theater of operations in Tunisia, the terrorists aim at extending their caliphate to Europe and beyond — a stated ambition of the Islamic State. In a video released in February of the brutal execution of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians on a beach in Libya, an Islamic State leader gazes out across the Mediterranean horizon and, in flowery classical Arabic, compares the coming battles in Europe to early Islam’s struggle against Rome.
The instability in Libya that followed the ouster of Muammar el-Qaddafi has turned that country, Tunisia’s immediate neighbor to the east, into a vast training camp and huge arms bazaar for Islamist terrorists of all stripes. The Islamic State, as the most barbaric, determined and messianic of them all, has been gaining ground there. Tunisia’s president, Beji Caid Essebsi, is fully aware of the mortal dangers his country confronts in the aftermath of the Sousse attack. Declaring a state of emergency last month, he warned that another large-scale terrorist attack could cause the state to collapse.
Tunisia’s vulnerability has its roots in the postcolonial era. Habib Bourguiba, the first president after independence in 1956, was eager to modernize his nation, but he was wary of the military coups that plagued other countries in the region at the time. So he spent a great part of the national budget on education and starved the army of resources. His successor, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, continued on the same path, but as his administration turned dictatorial, he developed a strong police force. As a result, after the 2011 revolution that deposed Mr. Ben Ali, Tunisia inherited a discredited police force and a small army, which, though professional, was poorly funded and ill equipped. The police force was largely disbanded by the new authorities and has yet to be effectively reconstituted.
Tunisia also faces a threat from within. After decades of repression, the country’s youth face high unemployment and poor prospects; some are susceptible to radicalization by the jihadists’ sophisticated social media recruitment campaigns and by the proselytization of Salafist preachers from the Persian Gulf region. As many as 3,000 Tunisians have traveled to fight in the Syrian civil war, and hundreds more have become combatants in Libya. Some of these fighters return to Tunisia to spread havoc, as was the case in the Bardo Museum and Sousse attacks.
Despite this precarious situation, a recent survey suggested that more than three-quarters of Tunisians approve of the coalition government’s response to the crisis. And there is a consensus of support for new emergency measures, such as the crackdown on mosques linked to radical Salafist imams; restrictions on the travel of young Tunisians to parts of the Middle East; and the adoption by Parliament of a new antiterrorism law, which was passed by an overwhelming majority. Rachid Ghannouchi, the leader of the main Islamist party, Ennahda, has been vocal in his support for the administration’s response.
Tunisia, though, has been caught ill prepared to fight the threat of fanaticism. After meeting Mr. Essebsi in Washington in May, President Obama demonstrated a clear commitment when he conferred on Tunisia the status of “major ally.” The United States already supplies military aid, but Mr. Essebsi emphasized that more economic assistance was needed. “Our friends need to help us,” he said, “but we want stronger cooperation.” The Council of Europe recently reaffirmed its support for Tunisia’s young democracy, and Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain promised a “full spectrum” of antiterrorist assistance in the wake of the Sousse massacre. For obvious geographical and historical reasons, Europe is more closely linked to Tunisia than the United States will ever be. European leaders should follow the American lead.
To prevent the Islamic State from making Tunisia a beachhead for attacks on Europe, Mr. Cameron, along with President François Hollande of France and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, should make a joint visit to Tunis. To provide Tunisia’s army and reorganized police force with greater support in the fight for control of their country, the European powers should offer Tunisia a security commitment that includes free access to arms, military training and intelligence-sharing.
Since the United States has already named Tunisia a “major ally,” why not also invite Tunisia to become an “aspirant country” for eventual membership in NATO on the basis of shared democratic values and common security interests? These values and interests are, after all, directly opposed to those of the Islamic State and its ideological kin. Europe has a strong interest in a secure, democratic Tunisia and must come to its aid. Only if it does so can we ensure that the question “Who lost Tunisia?” is one we will never have to answer.
EUROPE'S GREAT MIGRATION CRISIS
Soeren Kern
Gatestone Institute, July 12, 2015
Europe's migration crisis is exposing the deep divisions that exist within the European Union, which European federalists have long hailed as a model for post-nationalism and global citizenship. Faced with an avalanche of migrants, a growing number of EU member states have moved decisively to put their own national interests above notions of EU solidarity. Hungary's parliament, for instance, has approved the construction of a massive border fence with Serbia as part of a new anti-immigration law that also tightens asylum rules.
The move is aimed at stopping tens of thousands of migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East from entering Hungary, which has become a key gateway for illegal immigration into the European Union. Hungarian officials say drastic measures are necessary because of the EU's inaction in the face of an unprecedented migration crisis, which has seen more than 150,000 migrants cross into Europe during the first six months of 2015. More than 715,000 people have applied for asylum in the EU during the past twelve months.
Hungarian lawmakers on July 6 voted 151 to 41 in favor of building a 4-meter-high (13-foot) fence along the 175-kilometer (110-mile) border with Serbia. The measure aims to cut off the so-called Western Balkan Route, which constitutes the main land route through Eastern Europe for migrants who enter the EU from Turkey via Greece and Bulgaria. More than 60,000 people have entered Hungary illegally during the first six months of 2015, a nearly 900% increase over the same period in 2014, according to Frontex, the European border agency. Approximately 95% of the migrants entering Hungary — most coming from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia and Kosovo — cross into the country from Serbia, which unlike Hungary is not a member of the EU.
Hungary forms part of the EU's passport-free Schengen zone, which means that once migrants are inside the country, they can travel freely throughout most of the rest of the EU without further border checks. In 2014, Hungary received more refugees per capita than any other EU country apart from Sweden. Although most of the migrants entering Hungary continue onward to wealthier countries in Western Europe, a growing number of refugees are deciding to stay in Hungary. During the first three months of 2015, Hungary received the largest number of asylum requests as a share of population of any EU member state.
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has justified the moves as necessary to defend his country. "The Hungarian government is committed to defending Hungary and defending the Hungarian people from the immigration pressure," he said. "Hungary cannot allow itself to wait any longer. Naturally, we hope there will be a joint European solution." Critics say the decision to build a fence evokes memories of the Cold War, when Europe was divided between East and West. "We have only recently taken down walls in Europe," said the EU's spokesperson for migration, Natasha Bertaud. "We should not be putting them up."
An unnamed European diplomat told the Telegraph newspaper: "This is a scandal. Hungary, which was the first Communist country to dismantle the Iron Curtain, is now building a new curtain on its southern border." Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has pointed to the big picture consequences of untrammeled immigration from Muslim countries. Speaking at a conference in honor of former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who recently turned 85, Orban warned that the influx of so many migrants was threatening "the face of European civilization" which "will never again be what it is now." He added: "There is no way back from a multicultural Europe. Neither to a Christian Europe, nor to the world of national cultures."
Hungary is not the only EU country that has been building or fortifying walls and fences to keep migrants out. Bulgaria has built a 33-km (21-mile), three-meter-high (10-foot) barbed wire fence along its border with its southeastern neighbor Turkey in an effort to limit the influx of migrants from Syria and other parts of the Middle East and North Africa. The Interior Ministry has also deployed more than one thousand police officers to patrol the Turkish border.
Greece has erected a 10.5-km, four-meter-high barbed-wire fence along part of its border with Turkey. The Greek wall is said to be responsible for diverting migration routes toward neighboring Bulgaria and, consequently, for construction of the wall there. Spain has fortified fences in the North African exclaves of Ceuta and Melilla as record numbers of migrants are jumping over the barriers from neighboring Morocco. Border police registered more than 19,000 attempts to jump the fence at Melilla in 2014, up 350% on 2013, according to the Interior Ministry. Nearly 7,500 migrants successfully entered Ceuta and Melilla in 2014, including 3,305 from Syria.
The UK is setting up more than two miles of nine-foot-high security fencing at the Channel Tunnel port of Calais in northern France, in an attempt to stop thousands of illegal migrants breaking into trucks bound for the UK. Currently, more than 3,000 migrants are camped in and around Calais hoping to make it to Britain. More than 39,000 would-be illegal immigrants were prevented from crossing the Channel in the 12 months prior to April, more than double the previous year…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
HOW TO GET A BETTER DEAL WITH IRAN
Mark Dubowitz
Foreign Policy, Aug. 17, 2015
The Iran nuclear deal is a ticking time bomb. Its key provisions sunset too quickly, and it grants Iran too much leverage to engage in nuclear blackmail. To defuse it, Congress needs to do what it has done dozens of times in the past including during the Cold War in requiring changes to key U.S.-Soviet arms control agreements: Demand a better deal. And contrary to the President Barack Obama’s threats, this doesn’t have to lead to war.
First, let’s review why this deal is so dangerous. The sunset clauses — the fatal flaw of the agreement — permit critical nuclear, arms, and ballistic missile restrictions to disappear over a five- to 15-year period. Tehran must simply abide by the agreement to soon emerge as a threshold nuclear power with an industrial-size enrichment program. Similarly, it must only hang tight to reach near-zero breakout time; find a clandestine sneak-out pathway powered by easier-to-hide advanced centrifuges; build an arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles; gain access to heavy weaponry like more sophisticated combat aircraft, attack helicopters, and battle tanks after the lifting of the U.N. conventional arms embargo after five years; and develop an economy increasingly immunized against future sanctions pressure. Iran can achieve all this without even cheating by simply waiting for the sunset dates to be reached; but cheating will only get Tehran there faster, for example, if it refuses physical access by the International Atomic Energy Agency to suspicious sites and Washington can’t get European support to punish Iranian stonewalling.
And it gets worse. If world powers reimpose sanctions in response to Iranian noncompliance, Tehran can void the deal. The nuclear agreement explicitly contemplates in paragraphs 26 and 37 of the main text that Iran will walk away from the deal if sanctions are reimposed in response to an Iranian violation. It also contains an explicit requirement in paragraph 29 of the main text for the United States and the EU to do nothing to interfere with the “normalization of trade and economic relations with Iran.” Let’s call these Iran’s “nuclear snap backs,” wherein Tehran will threaten nuclear escalation if the world powers try to force it back into compliance with the agreement.
But even without this arrow in their quiver, the Iranians over time will be immunized from economic shocks. Once European companies are sufficiently invested in Iran’s lucrative markets, any Iranian violations of the deal are likely to provoke disagreements between Washington and its European allies. Indeed, why would Europe agree to new sanctions when they have big money on the line? Their arguments against new nuclear sanctions will include questions about the credibility of evidence, the seriousness of the nuclear infractions, the appropriate level of response, and likely Iranian retaliation.
This dynamic undeniably threatens the effectiveness of the agreement’s Joint Commission — an eight-member body comprised of the United States, France, Britain, Germany, a representative from the EU, as well as Russia, China, and Iran — established to monitor the implementation of the deal. While an even more difficult-to-achieve unanimous decision is required for most decisions, a simple 5-to-3 majority is needed to get approval should Iran object for all-important IAEA access to suspect Iranian sites. The administration designed this scheme to bypass Russia and China if they take Iran’s side in a dispute. Washington assumes it can always count on European votes. But this is a mistake. Europe will have strong economic incentives to demur, particularly as pressure from European business lobbies grows, and good reason to buck the United States if Iran threatens a nuclear snap back. While Washington can unilaterally reimpose U.N. sanctions if the issue does not get resolved and it “deems the issue to constitute significant non-performance,” it is unlikely to do this in the face of European resistance.
The same dynamics apply to the reimposition of non-nuclear sanctions, such as terrorism or human rights sanctions. On July 20, Iran informed the U.N. Security Council, stating that it may “reconsider its commitments” under the agreement if “new sanctions” are imposed “irrespective of whether such new sanctions are introduced on nuclear related or other grounds.” Would Europe agree to a U.S. plan to reimpose terrorism sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran if it was found — once again — to be financing terrorism? This is doubtful given that Tehran would threaten to return to its nuclear activities including large-scale uranium enrichment, putting not just European investments but the entire nuclear deal in jeopardy.
In other words, Europe’s fear of a collapsed deal and lost billions would erode American leverage and diminish our ability to reapply snap back economic sanctions. And as Washington’s influence steadily weakens, its options become increasingly limited. Over time, with sanctions off the table, American or Israeli military force could become the only option to stop an Iranian nuclear weapon. If and when that war comes, Iran will be far stronger — economically and militarily — than it is today. So, what’s the alternative? The president says there is none. He’s wrong. Congress can and should require the administration to amend the agreement’s fatal flaws, such as the sunset clause and the nuclear snap back.
There is ample precedent to amend the deal. Congress has required amendments to more than 200 treaties before receiving Senate consent, including significant bilateral Cold War arms control agreements with the Soviets like the Threshold Test Ban Treaty and the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty, as well as multilateral agreements like the Chemical Weapons Convention negotiated with 87 participating countries, including Iran, by President Bill Clinton. And it’s not just Republicans putting up obstacles. During the Cold War, Democratic senators like Henry Jackson withstood pressure from Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger who insisted that the deals they negotiated go unchanged. This all happened at a time when Moscow had thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles aimed at America.
Should Congress follow in this proud tradition and disapprove of the Iran deal, there are three possible scenarios. Each presents challenges. But each is preferable to this fatally flawed agreement…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
The Illegitimate Libyan Government Is Funding the Terrorists Who Killed Chris Stevens: Ann Marlowe, National Review, July 20, 2015 — On June 14 of this year, American F-15 fighter-bombers struck a meeting of high-level terrorist leaders in Libya, targeting the notorious North African al-Qaeda leader Mokhtar Belmokhtar but also hitting members of Ansar al-Sharia, an increasingly important terror group in the region.
Migration Crisis Pits EU’s East Against West: Anton Troianovski & Margit Feher, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 19, 2015 — Slovakia says it will take in 200 Syrian refugees to help fellow European Union countries cope with an influx of hundreds of thousands of migrants—but with a condition: All 200 of them have to be Christians
For French-Algerians and Algerian-French, No Place to Truly Call Home: Amir Jalal Zerdoumi, New York Times, Aug. 15, 2015— The fishermen of Cap Falcon, a peaceful beach on Algeria’s western Mediterranean coast, swear they can see the Spanish mountaintops when the weather is clear. So tantalizingly close is Europe, the beach is a favorite launching point for the “harragas,” as illegal migrants are known here.
Libya Seeks Airstrikes Against ISIS Branch: New York Times, Aug. 15, 2015 — Libya’s internationally recognized government has asked fellow Arab states to conduct airstrikes against the Libyan branch of the Islamic State in the coastal city of Surt, a cabinet statement said on Saturday.
