Individuals with mental illness are often perceived as inherently violent or dangerous. However, according to a 2021 study by the American Psychological Association, mental illness alone is not a significant predictor of violence. In fact, those who suffer from mental health issues are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. Substance abuse, treatment noncompliance or psychotic symptoms such as hallucinations are other factors that increase the risk of violence in individuals with mental health issues.. Furthermore, situational stressors such as job loss and physical illness and environmental factors entailing pollution, heat stress and noise also play crucial roles.

Mental health and the media

The media perpetuates stigma by highlighting rare cases of violence involving mental-health issues, discouraging individuals from seeking help due to fear of being labeled dangerous or unstable, despite most violent acts being committed by those without diagnosed conditions.

Portrayals in media are one of the primary mechanisms by which stereotypes about mental illness and violence are perpetuated through media portrayals. News reports frequently highlight the mental health status of perpetrators following acts of violence, often without substantial evidence. This pattern, often seen in the case of mass shootings, creates a misleading association between mental illness and violence.  This was demonstrated in the case of Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter. Despite extensive investigations revealing no definitive diagnosis of psychosis, initial media speculation cemented the stereotype in the public’s mind.

Popular media also plays a significant role in reinforcing these stereotypes. Horror films and crime dramas often depict mentally ill characters as violent and dangerous, creating a narrative that those with mental health issues are inherently threatening. This portrayal not only perpetuates fear and misunderstanding but also dehumanizes individuals with mental illness.

In this vein, another factor responsible for the exacerbation of mental health crises is scapegoating. Scapegoating consolidates the persistence of stereotypes about mental illness and violence. By attributing acts of violence to mental illness, society shifts blame away from other contributing factors, such as access to firearms, social inequality and substance abuse. This scapegoating is evident in political and media rhetoric, which often emphasizes mental illness as a primary cause of violence following mass shootings.

Terrorism

After a 2012 shooting at an Aurora, Colorado movie theatre that killed 12 and injured 70, it was discovered that the shooter, James Holmes, was diagnosed with schizophrenia. His lawyers used this diagnosis to argue that he was temporarily insane at the time of the shooting because he was in the throes of a psychotic episode. In a July 31, 2012 article, Time magazine argued that stigmatization can “exacerbate existing symptoms of delusion, disconnection from reality, social withdrawal and lack of emotion,” and could have played a role in Holmes’ actions. 

There is also a commonly voiced belief that terrorists are typically driven by psychopathology or mental disorders, but the link between terrorism and mental health is not straightforward. Some individual terrorists might exhibit signs of psychological disturbances, but terrorists are motivated by ideological beliefs, social and political injustices, group dynamics and individual susceptibilities. Additionally, people with feelings of alienation, need for belonging or identity crises are more susceptible to radicalization. 

These are not necessarily indicative of mental disorders but can overlap with issues such as depression, anxiety or Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Individuals exposed to conflict zones, violence or traumatic events are more likely to suffer from these conditions, which, without proper treatment and support, are sometimes triggers. Terrorist organizations often exploit these people’s vulnerability in recruitment. 

The Relationship between Mental Health Problems and Terrorism, a report by the Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats, indicates that mental health disorders are notably prevalent among extremists, including jihadists, foreign fighters and members of white supremacist movements. Common conditions among these groups include schizophrenia, autism spectrum disorder and PTSD. Some evidence suggests that white supremacist groups might specifically recruit individuals with mental health issues due to their potential for violence. However, further investigations are necessary to fully understand the recruitment strategies targeting individuals with mental health problems.

Omar Mateen, the gunman responsible for the 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida, which resulted in the death of 49 people and wounded 53 others, declared allegiance to the Islamic State during the attack, which was initially labeled as an act of terrorism. However, investigations and subsequent reports revealed a complex picture of Mateen’s motives and mental state. Mateen had a history of behavioral issues and unstable relationships, and some who knew him suggested he might have been struggling with his sexual identity, which was speculated to be a factor given the target was a gay nightclub. His ex-wife also reported that he had bipolar disorder and exhibited erratic behavior, though these claims were not officially confirmed by medical records during the investigation.

The FBI had investigated Mateen twice before the attack but found no conclusive evidence to charge him with any form of terrorism or link him directly to terrorist groups. This case illustrates the difficulty in disentangling the influence of mental health issues from ideological or personal motives in acts that are initially perceived as terrorism. It highlights the complexities involved in determining the exact motivations behind such violent acts and the role mental health may play alongside other significant factors.

Self-harm

Self-harm, often misunderstood as attention-seeking or mislabeled as a suicide attempt, refers to various behaviors where individuals intentionally injure themselves to cope with acute emotional pain. This can include cutting, burning or hitting oneself. These acts are typically not intended as suicide attempts but as a way to relieve intense psychological distress. Studies, such as those highlighted by the American Journal of Psychiatry, indicate that the cost to society from self-harm encompasses not only medical and healthcare expenses but also lost productivity and long-term welfare dependency.

Furthermore, research suggests a complex relationship between self-harm, interpersonal violence and societal impact, revealing that those who self-harm are at a higher risk of also experiencing or perpetrating violence. This connection underscores the profound implications such behaviors have on public health and safety, emphasizing the need for comprehensive mental health interventions and preventive measures.

On a different note, singer and actress Demi Lovato has helped shed light on the issue of self-harm. Lovato, who has publicly discussed her struggles with bipolar disorder, addiction and eating disorders, said she began self-harming as a teenager to cope with emotional pain and feelings of emptiness.  

Therefore, dismantling the deeply entrenched stereotypes that link mental health issues with violence, self-harm and terrorism is crucial for the advancement of informed policy-making. 

By relying on robust research and rejecting simplistic narratives, society can move towards implementing policies that are not only just but are also effective in addressing the root causes of violence and supporting mental health. 

Establishing guidelines for how mental health is portrayed in the media can reduce stigma. Encouraging responsible journalism that avoids sensationalizing mental health-related violence and highlights stories of recovery and successful management of mental health conditions can shift public perception. Collaborations with mental health organizations to create these guidelines can ensure they are comprehensive and effective. 

Moreover, ensuring access to mental health services, especially for those in underserved communities, can prevent untreated mental health issues from escalating. In this vein, expanding mental health services in schools, workplaces and through telehealth can make it easier for individuals to seek help early.

On a concluding note, providing training for law enforcement and first responders on how to handle situations involving individuals with mental health issues can reduce unnecessary violence. Crisis Intervention Team programs have shown effectiveness in this area, equipping officers with the skills to de-escalate situations and connect individuals to appropriate services.

[Ainesh Dey edited this piece]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Beyond the Stigma: Understanding Mental Health and Its Complex Relationship with Violence appeared first on Fair Observer.

The fallout: Unintended consequences of US reaction 

The 9/11 attacks were the deadliest foreign assault ever on US soil, claiming 2,977 innocent lives. At the time, President George W. Bush stated that while American freedom was under attack, the US would undoubtedly win the war that had been waged upon it. For Bush, the notion of American exceptionalism demanded a strong and resolute response to the unprovoked attacks in order to protect national security and prevent future acts of terrorism. The way the US went about its response, however, was deeply flawed and often counterproductive. The legacy of these flawed policies underscores the importance of thoughtful approaches to addressing complex global challenges.

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the US launched its “War on Terror,” a multifaceted and global campaign aimed at dismantling al-Qaeda and preventing future terrorist threats. Two primary theatres emerged: Afghanistan and Iraq.

Consequences of the War on Terror and the Iraq War

In Afghanistan, the US invasion aimed to remove the Taliban from power, disrupt al-Qaeda’s core leadership, eliminate terrorist sanctuaries and weaken its ability to conduct large-scale international attacks. While the initial phase of the war achieved these goals, the subsequent years witnessed a protracted conflict with unforeseen consequences. The US effort to stabilize Afghanistan struggled amid insurgency and regional power dynamics.

The primary rationale for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was the purported presence of weapons of mass destruction, but the invasion had broader implications for the region. The toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime triggered sectarian strife and unleashed forces that Iraq struggled to contain for years to come.

One of the most significant and unintended consequences of the 9/11 attacks was the emergence of new extremist groups in the Middle East. Al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization responsible for 9/11, was not the only group operating in the region, but its audacious attack galvanized jihadists and set in motion a new wave of militancy. Afghanistan and Iraq became epicenters of violence and instability where new extremist groups could thrive. The region saw the rise ISIS and others who exploited the power vacuums created by the conflicts. These groups posed significant security threats not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but also globally.

Iran watched the developments in Afghanistan and Iraq with a mix of apprehension and opportunism. The fall of Saddam Hussein ultimately shifted the balance of power in Iraq in favor of that country’s Shiite majority. Iran sought to capitalize on this by cultivating Shiite militias and political groups in Iraq, effectively increasing its influence in the country. The Bush administration’s inclusion of Iran in the “Axis of Evil” further strained US-Iran relations. These tensions would later play a role in Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities and regional proxy conflicts. Today, Iran remains one of only four countries the US has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Hard lessons: Military choices undermine soft-power efforts

The US engaged in diplomatic outreach to build international support for its counterterrorism efforts. This involved seeking cooperation from regional and international partners, including NATO countries. However, trust issues and concerns about US motives hampered diplomatic efforts. The perception of US unilateralism and preemption in the Iraq War eroded trust among traditional allies and regional actors.

These trust issues spilled over to the battlefield. The US managed to form alliances such as the “Coalition of the Willing” to share the burden of combat operations and provide legitimacy to their interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. When it came to delegating responsibility to its partners, however, the US chose to dominate the planning and execution of military actions. This approach led to the perception that the coalition was in name only.

The US invested in public diplomacy efforts to improve its image and engage with Middle Eastern populations after its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. These initiatives to win hearts and minds, promote American values and counter extremist narratives included cultural exchange programs, educational scholarships and English-language teaching. The US also sought to counter extremist narratives through various media outlets and information campaigns, including the creation of Arabic-language media such as the satellite television channel Alhurra and Radio Sawa. These outlets faced credibility issues and struggled to compete with established regional media organizations.

Doubts about US motives undermined the impact of many of these efforts, and this skepticism carried over to the superpower’s efforts to promote democratic governance and human rights in the region. The thinking behind the US policy was that addressing political grievances would help counter extremism; however, the efforts were met with accusations of hypocrisy, particularly because the US continued to support authoritarian regimes that were allies in the War on Terror. The absence of weapons of mass destruction also undermined the legitimacy of the Iraq War and fuelled anti-American sentiments across the Middle East, leading to protests and strained diplomatic relations.

One of the most controversial aspects of the War on Terror was the use of extra-legal renditions and enhanced interrogation techniques, including torture. Techniques such as waterboarding, stress positions and sleep deprivation were employed on detainees at various detention facilities, including Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib in Iraq. These practices undermined the moral high ground the US sought to occupy, sparking global outrage with critics arguing that they violated international law and human rights standards.

Some Middle Eastern governments, particularly those with close ties to the United States, cooperated in the rendition of individuals suspected of terrorism. These countries allowed US intelligence agencies, including the CIA, to detain and transport individuals through their territory or airspace. This cooperation often raised concerns about complicity in practices that violated international human rights standards, including the use of torture. Jordan, for example, was used as a transit point for the rendition of suspected terrorists. Jordanian intelligence agencies were known for their involvement in interrogations that raised concerns about torture and human rights abuses.

The legacy of the 9/11 campaigns: Human suffering and moral failure

The prolonged military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq reinforced a militarized approach to counterterrorism, which inadvertently led to collateral damage and civilian casualties. The wars led to widespread displacement, with millions of Afghans and Iraqis forced to flee their homes. Internally displaced persons and refugees faced dire conditions, lacking access to basic necessities and enduring harsh living conditions. Between 2002–2003, public opinion of the US was less favorable in the Middle East than elsewhere around the world. By 2022, regional opinion polling found that more than half the respondents agreed that the United States has become an unreliable partner and that the region should reorient its attention towards Russia and China as partners.

The human cost of post-9/11 war zones is estimated to be nearly 4.6 million causalities. While the figure represents an approximation that includes both direct casualties as a result of war, many others — especially children — lost their lives due to the reverberations of war, including devastation brought on by economic impacts and the spread of diseases.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq also resulted in significant casualties among US military personnel. Over seven thousand American soldiers lost their lives in post-9/11 war operations, while many more were wounded in combat operations. Deployments to combat zones also took a toll on the mental health of US service members. The exposure to combat stress, traumatic experiences and multiple deployments contributed to high rates of PTSD and other mental health issues among returning veterans.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs, responsible for providing healthcare and benefits to veterans, faced challenges in meeting the needs of a large and growing veteran population. Reports of long wait times, inadequate mental health services and bureaucratic inefficiencies raised concerns about the quality of care provided. From 2001-2011, the US government spent nearly $31.3 billion providing medical care and disability benefits for nearly 650,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans as a result of injuries sustained during their tours.

FO° Talks: Make Sense of Afghanistan With Thomas Barfield: Part 2

Given all this, it is imperative that US policymakers internalize the profound lessons offered by the flawed foreign policies following 9/11. These lessons underscore the need for nuanced, well-considered approaches that prioritize diplomacy, international cooperation and respect for human rights as fundamental cornerstones of effective global engagement. Dealing with terrorist attacks presents an inherently challenging landscape, one where policymakers must resist ideological rigidity and instead adopt pragmatic, thoughtful strategies.

The complexity of the modern world demands a flexibility of thought and an openness to nuanced solutions that can adapt to the evolving nature of global threats. Such an approach acknowledges that while security remains paramount, it should not come at the expense of civil liberties, human rights or long-term stability. Achieving a balance between security and the preservation of democratic values is a delicate but essential task for policymakers navigating the post-9/11 world.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The Ripple Effect: 9/11’s Profound Impact on the Middle East appeared first on Fair Observer.

France has long prided itself on its laïcité, a principle that seeks to keep religion separate from public life. Critics, however, note that the headscarf and abaya bans risk marginalizing religious minorities. Laïcité, they argue, should be a curb on religious domination of the public sphere — not a curb on religious expression in public.

Political gridlock, social unrest: symptoms of a country in crisis

The abaya ban comes at a time of great turmoil in France. Since his reelection in April 2022, President Emmanuel Macron has been forced to deal with country-wide protests over the government’s decision in January 2023 to raise the country’s retirement age and coups in former French colonies such as Gabon and Niger that threaten to cut off France’s access to oil and other resources.

Anti-government sentiment also boiled over at the end of July in reaction to the police shooting of a 17-year-old Parisian of Moroccan and Algerian descent. Protests over the shooting led to $1 billion of damage and over 2,000 arrests, mostly in suburbs populated by Muslim citizens from former French colonies. This was not the first time Macron had to deal with an Islam-related incident. In response to the 2020 beheading of a teacher who showed caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed in class, Macron said: “Islam is a religion that is experiencing a crisis across the world.” This attitude has been echoed in the president’s remarks about the abaya ban. Authorities tasked with enforcing the new law will be “uncompromising,” he said, adding that teachers and school administrators will “not be left alone.”

FO° Exclusive: Make Sense of the Hellish Rioting in France

Political pressure might also be a factor in the timing of the crackdown on Islamic symbols in schools. At the end of August, Macron met with leaders of France’s right-wing National Rally Party and the left-wing New Economic and Social People’s Union or NUPES coalition to try and break a stalemate in the National Assembly that is stalling the president’s legislative agenda. The abaya ban could be an attempt by the president to signal his capacity for change and concessions on right-leaning issues.

The decision has garnered support from right-wing conservatives, who typically remain distant from Macron’s liberal Renaissance party, but also from far-left socialist and communist parties, who have historically opposed the influence of religion, primarily Catholicism, in affairs of the state.

More moderate liberals are outraged by the abaya ban, arguing that an individual’s right to practice their religion freely is one of the bedrocks of a democratic society. Banning the abaya or other religious clothing sends a message that France is willing to compromise on individual freedom in the name of secularism and that certain cultural and religious practices are not welcome.

There are many Muslim women’s voices: Let’s listen to them

France is a nation known for its rich cultural diversity. Its strength lies in its ability to accommodate and celebrate diverse backgrounds. The Muslim community in France represents this diversity. Opinions on the headscarf and abaya vary, with some more secular Muslims adopting Western fashions. Other Muslim women choose to wear the headscarf and abaya as a matter of personal religious faith and identity. They consider them an important aspect of their relationship with Islam and a symbol of modesty and piety. Other Muslim women view religious clothing as a form of empowerment and a means to assert their identity in a society that frequently stigmatizes them. They argue that the ban on headscarves and abayas is an infringement on their right to practice their faith and cultural identity.

Opponents argue that religious clothing disrupts the educational process and promotes religious proselytism. They assert that it symbolizes the oppression of women and runs counter to the values of laïcité. French authorities have also expressed concerns that abayas and headscarves are barriers to assimilation into French society, potentially leading to social and cultural isolation.

Schools can provide a platform for students to learn about different cultures and religions, fostering an environment of mutual respect rather than exclusion. Education should remain at the forefront of this approach, as informed students are more likely to understand the importance of respecting diverse perspectives.

It is entirely possible for France to uphold the principle of secularism while respecting individual religious freedoms and cultural diversity. Rather than banning the abaya, the government should focus on educating and fostering tolerance among our students. The true strength of a secular society lies in its ability to embrace diversity, not stifle it. In doing so, the state can reaffirm the values of liberty, equality and fraternity that France holds dear.

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Is Banning Women’s Garments Really A French Value? appeared first on Fair Observer.

Race relations in French politics

The event has reignited concerns about police violence and systemic racism, with longstanding grievances from rights groups and residents of low-income, racially diverse suburbs. Thousands of people participated in peaceful marches and expressed widespread distrust of the police. Many could be heard chanting, “No justice, no peace!” Some of the protests turned violent as rioters clashed with law enforcement, set buildings and vehicles on fire, and looted stores. Many police officers were injured, and hundreds of people were arrested.

On the other side, groups such as the Marine Le Pen-led National Front (now called National Rally) have used the riots as an opportunity to promote their anti-immigration and nationalist agenda. They have portrayed the riots as evidence of the failure of multiculturalism and have called for stricter immigration policies to prevent the perceived threat to French culture and identity.

Relations between the police and young, working-class men from minority ethnic backgrounds were deteriorating before the current protests, and campaigners are demanding answers regarding policing practices in France, particularly regarding the excessive use of force and racialized policing. Poor police-community relations, including instances of police harassment, racial profiling and excessive use of force, are significant contributing factors to tensions in the outlying neighborhoods known as banlieues. Perceived systemic bias and abuse by law enforcement have led to anger and resentment, which has manifested itself in protests.

Is the past repeating itself? A look at France’s 2005 riots

The riots and protests have now spread to various cities, including Marseille, Lyon, Pau, Toulouse and Lille as well as other parts of Paris. French President Emmanuel Macron has so far ruled out declaring a state of emergency but condemned the violence. Macron held several crisis meetings to address the situation and to prevent a repeat of the 2005 riots that followed the deaths of two teenagers hiding from the police.

On November 8, 2005, shortly after the Paris suburbs riots began, President Jacques Chirac declared a state of emergency that granted the authorities enhanced powers to enforce curfews and conduct arrests. The government deployed thousands of police and security forces to restore order, but its heavy-handed tactics and alleged police brutality further exacerbated tensions. The handling of the riots and the perceived lack of empathy from political leaders deepened the sense of mistrust and alienation among residents of the affected areas.

The events prompted a national conversation about integration, social cohesion and the need for greater investment in disadvantaged neighborhoods. In response to the riots, the government implemented several measures aimed at addressing the underlying issues including increased funding for urban renewal programs, job creation initiatives and efforts to improve police-community relations. The events also led to a reevaluation of French urban policy and a recognition of the need for greater inclusion and equal opportunities for residents of marginalized communities.

The long-term impact of the riots and the effectiveness of the government’s response remain subjects of debate. While some positive changes were implemented, socio-economic disparities and issues of discrimination persisted in certain neighborhoods. The 2005 riots also had political implications. Nicolas Sarkozy, who was Interior Minister at the time, decided to run for president, and a key plank in his platform was a more aggressive approach to policing, which he called “culture du résultat.” This policy set “goals” for the number of arrests and detection rates and used statistics to measure effectiveness. The aggressive policing strategy helped Sarkozy win the presidency in 2007 and was kept in place even after Sarkozy lost his position in 2012.

Community policing

Community policing in France was first introduced as a strategy in the 1990s, aiming to enhance cooperation between the police and local communities to address crime and improve public safety. The policy was implemented by Jean-Pierre Chevènement, who served as the Minister of the Interior from 1997 to 2000 under President Jacques Chirac. However, the experiment in community policing was soon deemed a failure. An increase in terrorist attacks, the politicization of security issues and new managerial thinking pushed community-oriented policing off the reform agenda, where it has largely remained. Instead, political leaders, like Sarkozy, used “tough on crime” rhetoric and proposed “law-and-order” measures to appeal to public sentiment and enhance their political standing. This approach tends to prioritize reactive and punitive measures rather than proactive community engagement.

France should reorient its approach towards community policing by implementing a range of essential measures. First and foremost, there is a pressing need to prioritize comprehensive training programs for law enforcement officers, emphasizing cultural sensitivity, implicit bias awareness, de-escalation techniques and conflict resolution. Simultaneously, robust accountability mechanisms must be established to address instances of misconduct, excessive use of force or discriminatory behavior within law enforcement agencies. Independent oversight bodies responsible for monitoring and ensuring police accountability ought to be established. These oversight mechanisms should have the authority and resources to investigate complaints, review police practices and make recommendations for improvement. Furthermore, fostering dialogue and consultation between the police and the public through dedicated platforms can play a pivotal role in building trust, addressing concerns and facilitating collaborative decision-making processes.

The recent surge of unrest underscores the urgent need for improved police-community relations while addressing systemic issues of racism. Implementing community policing, comprehensive officer training and accountability measures are vital steps to prevent further tensions and promote social cohesion.

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Community Policing, Not Tough-On-Crime Policies, Is What France Needs appeared first on Fair Observer.

The commission ruled that the decision to revoke Begum’s British citizenship did not render her stateless as, by default, the United Kingdom also considered her a Bangladeshi citizen “by descent.” However, the Bangladeshi Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that it did not consider her as a citizen of that country. A statement released by Begum’s British lawyers argued that she indeed had never visited Bangladesh, nor had she ever applied for dual nationality.

Made in Britain: Understanding the Realities of Radicalization

READ MORE

In the meantime, the press has chastised Begum, who remains a detainee in a camp operated by ethnic Kurdish militias in northern Syria, for making controversial statements such and saying that seeing her first severed head did not faze her “at all” and suggesting that people should “have sympathy” toward her for everything she has been through.

Why Women?

England’s Court of Appeal, in turn, unanimously agreed that Begum should be granted the right to have a fair and effective appeal of the decision to strip her of her citizenship, but only if she is permitted to come back to Britain. Of course, that does not guarantee the reinstatement of her citizenship rights, just that she has a right to present her case in person. Regardless of the legal wrangling and the debate about the legality that her case has sparked, this example sheds some light on the issue of contextualizing female IS supporters and terrorists and the legality of stripping Western-born suspects of their European or North American citizenship.

There has been some academic discussion of why women, especially young women, who were born, raised and educated in the West, migrate to IS-held territory and join terrorist groups, leaving behind family, friends and a way of life while abandoning liberal values and opportunities that countries such as the UK offer them. It is difficult to ascertain whether a particular female, such as Shamima Begum, was a victim of IS, an active supporter or both. The widely circulated stories of “jihadi brides” have projected an image of confused and naïve girls and women traveling to join the Islamic State. While certain dynamics lured a number of females to IS-held territories, many went of their own free will. Yet it is highly debatable to what extent a 15-year-old understands the realities of this extremist group.

Muslim women have migrated to IS-held areas for a multitude of reasons, including the romantic ideal of marrying a “lion” — a supposedly brave and noble warrior — looking for an adventure and contributing to the establishment of an Islamic “caliphate” regulated by strict enforcement of Sharia law. The sense that joining the Islamic State empowers people to live meaningful lives draws many of the migrant women. One study suggests that besides issues of belonging and identity — and a skewed interpretation of Islam — it is, in the case of young women like Begum, online social networks that appeared to be the primary venue and driving factor for radicalization. It turns out that the vast majority of foreign women who traveled to Syria and Iraq served IS primarily as one of several housewives or sex slaves.

It is only by understanding the motivations and experiences of those who have gone to fight abroad that governments can prevent the recruitment of another generation of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. The enemies of the Islamic State have ostensibly defeated the group in the Middle East, yet unknown numbers of surviving IS fighters have found the means to relocate to Afghanistan. Permutations of IS and other extremist groups are also active in many African countries like Burkina Faso, Chad, Nigeria and  Somalia, among others. Aside from Afghanistan, other places in South Asia are not immune.

Displaced Burden

The UK, US and some other countries have chosen to prevent the return of foreign fighters by revoking their citizenship. Although such actions may prevent the return of foreign fighters in the short term, they do not solve the problem and may also be illegal under both national and international laws. In several instances, this will simply displace the burden and force weakened states such as Syria and Iraq to deal with the consequences of radicalization. It may also instill further grievances and act as a trigger for radicalization into surviving Western-born radicals who may plot terrorist attacks against Western targets.

In certain cases, citizenship revocation has led to concerns over statelessness. Rendering an individual stateless runs against Western legal principles and is contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In several legal systems, there is a lack of sufficient evidence to prosecute female returnees because of their domestic roles in Syria and Iraq. Another challenge associated with prosecutions of foreign fighters lies with demonstrating intent. This applies both to the intent of the actions committed while in the war zone and the intent of travel for aspiring foreign fighters. There is also an argument that many such individuals, especially the juveniles, were victims of human trafficking.

A more fruitful approach would be to allow a panel of experts to determine whether an individual returning to the home country is dangerous or disillusioned. The prime example of this approach is Denmark, which has already implemented assessment protocols that allow authorities to determine the individual circumstances for each returnee. Based on the results of such screenings, Danish police, together with social services, develop a plan of action for each returnee. Together, they decide whether a returnee is imprisoned, placed in a rehabilitation program or is assigned a combination of both approaches. It is extremely difficult to separate a victim from a perpetrator, and the boundaries can be particularly murky for foreign fighters.

*[Gulf State Analytics is a partner organization of Fair Observer.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Shamima Begum: The Sensitive Case of IS Returnees appeared first on Fair Observer.

Will Qatar Succeed in Hosting the First Carbon-Neutral World Cup?

READ MORE

Environmental pollutants are indifferent to national boundaries. Addressing climate change requires long-term international cooperation. All countries must make serious and collective efforts to stop irreversible damage caused by climate change.

The Environment-Security Nexus

The United Arab Emirates is among the world’s biggest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases. In fact, the World Wide Fund for Nature has ranked the UAE as having the world’s highest per capita environmental footprint, which largely has to do with the unsustainable megaprojects that began in the Emirates amid the oil boom of the 1970s.

Other factors such as the desert country’s climatic conditions are in the picture too. There are also the popular modes of transportation within the Emirates: According to a survey conducted by the Department of Transport in 2014, “60 per cent of Abu Dhabi and Dubai residents who owned a car said they never used public transport. Only two to three percent use public transport frequently.” This is in part due to the long-standing car culture in the Emirates and relatively cheap fuel as well as car prices, but also because of connectivity problems to certain destinations.

As outlined by Jon Barnett in his 2013 essay “Environmental Security,” environmental problems pose threats to the national well-being as well as the quality of life of the inhabitants of any state. Analysts and scholars refer to environmental security when discussing the threats and dangers emanating from the environment. The principal source that threatens ecological security is human activity. The environment is one of the seven sectors outlined in the United Nations Development Program’s early definition of human security, and environmental change has long been identified as a human security issue.

The Emiratis have been struggling with a number of environmental threats for decades. Today, numerous environmental issues — including pollution, waste, land degradation, desertification, biodiversity loss, etc. — all impact the UAE. Waste and air pollution constitute major challenges, in particular outdoor air pollution. The UAE ranks in the bottom fourth globally in exposure to particulate matter — tiny particles of sand, dust or chemicals registered at elevated levels that are highly dangerous and associated with risks of numerous diseases such as cancer, as well as respiratory and heart diseases. In 2017, the Environment Agency of Abu Dhabi considered poor air quality to be a “primary environmental threat to public health.”

In terms of water, the UAE continues to have highly unsustainable groundwater extraction rates. Being largely a desert country, the contamination of its fresh groundwater reserves and seawater endangers the UAE’s future. Some experts have warned of the imminent depletion of groundwater sources by 2030.

In the area of biodiversity conservation, the UAE boasts a number of protected areas both on land and in the sea. But its fish stocks are in a critical state. Overfishing and heavy commercial maritime shipping across the Persian Gulf have also contributed to a potentially irreversible decline in the health of fragile coral reefs off the coast. Silt from shoreline construction has had a negative impact on coral.

“Greening” the Emirati Economy

The UAE has long acknowledged climate change as a serious threat multiplier to the country and is ahead of the curve when compared to other countries that are still debating the seriousness of the issue or even outright denying its reality. Recognizing these environmental threats, the UAE has been in the process of “greening” its economy by developing a solar energy sector along with a nuclear energy sector and managing its scarce water resources with an emphasis on conservation and efficiency. It has been at the forefront of the renewables revolution with its solar farms while very slowly transforming its thermal desalination plants into reverse osmosis desalination facilities that produce far fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

The UAE Vision 2021 document contains as one of its wide-reaching goals a “well-preserved natural environment” and seeks to address various environmental threats to the country. The Emirate of Abu Dhabi has put in place its Environment Vision 2030 strategy, which lists five priority areas, namely climate change impacts, air and noise pollution, water resources, biodiversity and waste. The UAE government has set up various institutions and initiatives to address environmental issues in the previous decades such as the Environment Agency — Abu Dhabi, the Abu Dhabi Global Environmental Data Initiative and the Arab Water Academy, and has signed and ratified numerous international and regional environmental conventions. The government has launched a variety of awareness campaigns pertaining to environmental issues in order to educate different sectors of society.  

According to Dr. Taoufik Ksiksi, a plant biologist and climate change researcher at the United Arab Emirates University at Al Ain, these awareness campaigns were not quite sufficient: “More needs to be done to raise the awareness levels, especially at the lower levels, in schools with young people, and there have to be substantial changes to the curriculum to incorporate courses on environmental sciences, native ecology and conservation in general,” he said in a phone interview. In addition, Ksiksi suggests that “more robust climate modeling approaches that focus primarily on the region need to be developed with increased processing power that take into account regional circumstances and are not geared towards climate conditions prevalent in Europe.”

Dr. Ksiksi thinks that UAE’s advantage is that it enjoys “the benefit of resources than can fund technology and new initiatives.” Yet the lack of synergy in terms of regional cooperation in the area of green economy building in the Arabian Peninsula somewhat hampers such efforts.    

The UAE has for some time now incorporated narratives of sustainable development into the country’s national policy aims. Masdar City, described as a city of the future, is perhaps the best known and most ambitious example of an avowedly green megaproject. Other projects such as Sustainable City and Desert Rose City are additional examples of green cities that emphasize technological innovation in Masdar City’s manner.

The greening of the Emirates takes on a central aspect of the modernization narrative. The main gist is that the existing ecological challenges can be measured, and existing institutions and policies find solutions to the problems. According to Dr. Gökçe Günel, the UAE is making a serious effort to maintain its status quo while offering up “technical adjustments” to environmental challenges. Sustainable development juxtaposes intense economic development along with high consumerism coexisting with an environmentally friendly and responsible society. This reveals a paradox in the greening process currently in place.

These projects are small in scale and only take on a tiny space in the overall urbanity of the country. They take place in a bounded environment and constitute living laboratories that pioneer green technology. But they cannot be replicated on a larger scale or implemented and applied across the whole territory.

Inevitably, rapid urban growth and transnational migration flows have massively enlarged the ecological footprints of countries such as the UAE. It will be very difficult to achieve sustainable development while Arab Gulf states subsidize massive energy consumption, continue to expand urban sprawl and expansion, and allow for traffic congestion while remaining careless about water and electricity consumption.

*[Gulf State Analytics is a partner organization of Fair Observer.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post How Will the UAE Cope With Growing Environmental Insecurity? appeared first on Fair Observer.

There is a long history of Hezbollah and the disarmament issue being part of Lebanon’s political discourse. The issue is complex and contentious. There are various angles. First, one needs to distinguish between the internal Lebanese debate and the demands imposed externally by Western countries. Both perspectives are interconnected.

Within the Lebanese context, Hezbollah has over time toned down its Islamic narrative and burnished its Lebanese credentials. The party has had representatives elected to parliament, various members in the cabinet, and stated that it would be willing to discuss disarmament within the framework of national dialogue. Hezbollah has pointed out that the Lebanese government itself has sanctioned and acknowledged the Shia organization’s role as a resistance movement. It has also repeatedly claimed that it would be willing to integrate into the national defense system once the Lebanese government is run efficiently, with the Lebanese armed forces proving capable of protecting the country.  

A number of Western and Arab states and Israel have designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization. These governments view the Iranian-sponsored group as a major obstacle that is guilty of impairing progress in the Middle East, sowing chaos and advancing Iran and Syria’s sinister plans. A common narrative in Washington, some Gulf Arab capitals and Tel Aviv is that Hezbollah is mainly an Iranian stooge and/or a Syrian agent. The Shia organization, from this perspective, is a “state within a state” that willfully undermines the sovereignty of the Lebanese state while stripping the government of having the sole monopoly over the use of force in the country. The externally driven disarmament rhetoric, some have argued, is intended to demonize Iran as “harboring and abetting” terrorist movements and hence isolating it further.

The Taif Accords of 1989, which was the formal peace treaty that ended the Lebanese Civil War, stipulated and mandated that all militias be disbanded within a certain timeframe. Hezbollah was exempt from this and was allowed to hold on to its arms, which must be understood within the context of the Israeli occupation of parts of Lebanon that lasted from 1982 to 2000. For Hezbollah, holding on to its arms fulfilled various purposes.

Rationale for Retaining Its Weapons

The Lebanese group has used the disarmament issue in order to strengthen its leverage vis-à-vis various parties, especially the state. While Hezbollah has participated in various elections and had representatives elected to parliament, the organization feels the system has not adequately reflected its legitimate grievances and power-sharing concerns. For many, Hezbollah has taken on a pragmatic wait-and-see approach, hoping that a political opportunity would arise. Giving up its arms would weaken its position and imply a strategic loss to the party. As some have claimed, this would jeopardize its survival as a party and as a movement as such.

However, regarding recent events, Dr. Aurelie Daher, a researcher at Sciences Po in Paris, warns: “One has to keep in mind that Hezbollah is not a party in the sense that Western political science would give the notion, as much as it is a lobby. Hezbollah does not intend to rule, does not intend to grasp all the governmental portfolios or take all and any kind of decisions at every level.”

She adds: “Their presence in Lebanese politics has been, since its beginning in the early 1990s, motivated by a will to prevent any threat against the interests of the Islamic Resistance [the military part of the organization]. As long as the other political parties and groups do not jeopardize the Islamic Resistance’s weapons, Hezbollah is ready to leave rather a comfortable room for maneuver to the other political actors — whether they are friends or foes.”

Hezbollah has repeatedly stressed its exclusive Lebanese identity while admitting to its longstanding ties to Iran and Syria. Undeniably, both countries are strategic allies that have played critical and essential roles in Hezbollah’s expansion of influence across Lebanon, the greater Middle East and presumably to other parts of the world, such as Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America.

Giving up its arms would not just substantially weaken Hezbollah, but its major patrons in Tehran and Damascus would be less inclined to invest significant amounts of funding in a group that has had to give up its major asset, namely its military capacity. Of course, Hezbollah has been very astute at diversifying its funding sources over the years and is no longer exclusively reliant on Iranian cash, which has gradually declined.

Another factor that has emboldened Hezbollah to hold on to its arms is its openly-declared success against Israel in its various confrontations, such as in the summer of 2006. Hezbollah representatives have used this event to point out the necessity of resisting Israel further. Although many argue that Hezbollah provoked the encounter with Israel and was viewed by many as instigating the conflict, it managed to take advantage of Israel’s misguided policy of coming down hard on the whole of Lebanon. By resisting the surge mounted by Israeli forces and by presenting itself as victorious in the conflict with Israel, Hezbollah managed to remind onlookers of its strength and its continued importance as a resistance movement.

In the wake of the 34-day conflict, Hezbollah once again used its well-established social welfare system to supply money to distraught Lebanese citizens who lost their homes and property. Over time, Hezbollah’s arms narrative has evolved from liberation to resistance to deterrence.

A Moment of Change?

At the beginning of Lebanon’s thawra (also dubbed the “WhatsApp Revolution”) back in October 2019, there was little discussion about Hezbollah. Most of the protesters’ attention centered on issues such as corruption, mainstream politicians, sectarianism and the corrupt political system as such. Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Hezbollah, took the high ground by pointing to the party’s fight at Lebanon’s southern border with Israel and its moral stance of being a “clean” and “pure” party.

The picture started to change when Hezbollah supporters started attacking demonstrators, according to certain sources such as Amnesty International. Many demonstrators subsequently felt that Hezbollah, in actuality, was part of the corrupt political system that has been “controlling” the Lebanese people. Many have come to see Hezbollah as the primary backer of the current government, along with its allies, the Amal Movement and the Free Patriotic Movement.

However, according to Nicholas Blanford, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, Hezbollah also faces an array of challenges. He says these include “financial difficulties, largely due to US sanctions against it and its supporters and against Iran; corruption issues which have surfaced in the past decade-plus in part because of the party’s sudden and huge expansion in numbers after the 2006 war; [and] the weakening resistance narrative — a whole new generation of Lebanese Shias have grown up since the Israelis departed Lebanon in May 2000, and they have no memory of the Israeli threat.”

He adds: “The last major engagement with Israel was 14 years ago. Since then, Hezbollah has been fighting Arab Sunnis rather than Israeli Jews. The party has become deeply enmeshed in Lebanese politics, not out of choice but in order to better defend its resistance priority. But playing a greater political role brings its own complications.”

Instability in Syria

Looking ahead, the situation in Syria and the ways in which the US-imposed sanctions on Damascus, known as the Caesar Act, play out in the war-torn country will heavily impact on Hezbollah’s future. To be sure, the crisis in Syria is not resolved, as underscored by the situation in Idlib, the last rebel stronghold. Moreover, with anti-Assad protests breaking out in regime-controlled parts of Syria, saying that the government in Damascus faces major challenges would be an understatement.

Within this context, many Lebanese, including the majority of Shia and Christian citizens, will see Hezbollah disarming as too dangerous from a security standpoint, given that Lebanon’s border with Syria could again become porous. Most likely, wealthier Lebanese citizens who are anti-Hezbollah will leave the country as a result of the Caesar Act’s destabilizing impact on Lebanon amidst other crises stemming from the unrest resulting from the WhatsApp Revolution, the financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Perhaps this will all serve Hezbollah and its allies, who will defend the arsenal of the world’s most-heavily armed non-state actor.

*[Gulf State Analytics is a partner institution of Fair Observer. This article was updated on July 14, 2020, to correct a quote by Aurelie Daher that mistakenly identified the Islamic Resistance wing of Hezbollah as the Islamic Republic of Iran.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Should Hezbollah Be Disarmed? appeared first on Fair Observer.