Diplomacy & Crisis News

How changing military strategy may have led to misconduct.

The U.S government needs to play a more assertive role in protecting the public from digital threats, just as it protects it from conventional ones.   

Democratic societies are fracturing into segments based on ever-narrower identities, threatening the possibility of deliberation and collective action by society as a whole. Unless liberal democracies can work their way back to more universal understandings of human dignity, they will doom themselves—and the world—to continuing conflict.  

Assam's citizenship crisis is the latest legacy of a division that made nations.

Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro d’été de Politique étrangère (n° 2/2018). Laurence Bindner propose une analyse de l’ouvrage dirigé par Thomas Hegghammer, Jihadi Culture: The Art and Social Practices of Militant Islamists (Cambridge University Press, 2017, 288 pages).

Alors que la recherche sur les groupes djihadistes privilégie habituellement les analyses historiques, opérationnelles ou doctrinales, cet ouvrage collectif en défriche un aspect méconnu : la culture et les pratiques sociales.

À travers sept champs d’étude explorés par dix spécialistes, Hegghammer éclaire le phénomène djihadiste à l’aune des préoccupations artistiques et esthétiques (poésie, musicologie, iconographie, cinématographie) de quelques groupes transnationaux, ainsi qu’à travers leurs us et coutumes (interprétation des rêves, martyrologie, pratiques non militaires – religieuses en particulier, ou d’autres plus surprenantes, comme les pleurs), des années 1980 aux années 2010.

L’exploration de ces champs souligne plusieurs aspects du djihadisme. La volonté de se poser comme héritier d’un islam des origines s’exprime dans tous les domaines artistiques. À titre d’exemple, les visuels de combattants en habits traditionnels mais à l’armement moderne révèlent la recherche d’une légitimité religieuse en illustrant la filiation entre passé et présent. L’adversité, l’appartenance à un cercle d’« élus » pratiquant un islam authentique est valorisée, notamment dans les textes poétiques. L’omniprésence de la martyrologie, esthétisée et désirée (les pleurs exprimant entre autres la déception de n’avoir pas encore été martyr) en confirme la centralité dans l’engagement djihadiste, au même titre que celle de la ferveur religieuse (pratique zélée, interventionnisme divin dans le réel ou les rêves…).

Les productions culturelles ont évolué avec le temps : l’audiovisuel, peu prisé auparavant, tient désormais une place de choix. Elles ont, de plus, intégré le progrès technologique et, fait remarquable, incorporé une altérité tant en provenance de l’Occident (rythmes musicaux, iconographie de « super-héros »…) que d’autres courants de l’islam, pourtant décriés (martyrologie soufie ou chiite). Cet effort d’adaptation peut s’expliquer par l’utilisation pragmatique des éléments culturels : les leaders djihadistes ont en effet conscience qu’ils mettent en jeu des moteurs émotionnels puissants et universels, plus susceptibles que l’intellect d’engendrer un militantisme et de renforcer une détermination à agir, comme l’écoute d’un nashid avant une opération-suicide. De plus, la prégnance de ces activités dans la mouvance djihadiste contribue à la construction d’une véritable identité culturelle, resserrant le lien d’appartenance au groupe autour de références communes, lien d’autant plus crucial que les djihadistes sont souvent en rupture avec leur environnement.

L’étude d’une culture djihadiste peut poser question : doit-on s’y pencher, au risque d’en humaniser les protagonistes ? L’ouvrage ne porte, à cet égard, nul regard complaisant. Les exposés, très descriptifs (parfois même techniques), ne perdent de vue ni le contexte, ni l’objectif totalitaire des groupes djihadistes, et constituent une source de connaissances substantielles sur leurs mentalités, leurs mœurs et leurs obsessions. Leur lecture s’inscrit donc dans la compréhension globale du phénomène et pourra alimenter la réflexion des autorités dans plusieurs domaines (contre-argumentaires, évaluation d’un stade de radicalisation ou d’une ancienneté dans la mouvance, voire possibilité d’infiltrer un groupe). Dans l’optique d’élargir l’étude de ces thèmes, Hegghammer pose de solides jalons.

Laurence Bindner

S’abonner à Politique étrangère

India's online biometric ID database offers a model for treating digital infra­structure as a public good and data as something that citizens deserve access to.   

In an world increasingly driven by the ability of private companies and governments to collect vast amounts of personal data online, the European Union's ambitious new data rules enshrine data privacy as a fundamental right rather than a luxury.

Since taking office, President Trump has made a series of unilateral decisions with enormous consequences for U.S. foreign policy. But Trump hasn't single-handedly destroyed the checks and balances that are supposed to constrain executive power in foreign policy: his actions are merely exposing that they have been wearing away for decades.

The United States long promoted its vision of an open and free Internet on the global stage. But today, as authoritarian governments and private actors increasingly weaponize the web, U.S. leadership is largely absent. It’s time for Washington to overcome its belief that the Internet can fix itself and instead work to maintain the Internet as a tool for strengthening democracy.

Andrés Manuel López Obrador's promise to shake up the status quo propelled him to success in Mexico's presidential election. But whether AMLO's leadership will bring about inclusive, forward-looking reforms or a turn backward to dominant-party rule and increased presidential power remains unclear. 

The 2015 Iran nuclear deal stands as a model for combining the threat of sanctions and continued isolation with the hard work of negotiating, even between countries whose relationships are shaped by conflict and distrust. The Trump administration's decision to withdraw from the agreement has turned Iran into a nearly impossible problem for future U.S. governments. 

The decision is a blow to Ankara but could also complicate matters for Washington.

Good riddance to the so-called strategic relationship between Washington and Ankara.

Four strategies that other countries can use to deal with a suddenly unpredictable superpower.

The country’s strongman plans to step down, but the United States must tread carefully.

Qui oserait nier qu'en France la tentation et la peur de l'histoire existent simultanément ? De la tentation témoignent la multiplication des revues et bandes dessinées, le triomphe renouvelé de toutes les formes du roman historique, de Dumas à Zévaco, d' Angélique aux Rois maudits. De cette peur (...) / Histoire, Idées, France, Éducation, Audiovisuel, Médias - 1981/02

China is set to remake cyberspace in its own image. That will make the Internet less open and allow Beijing to reap vast economic, diplomatic, and security benefits that once flowed to Washington.

Not since the 1950s has the need for a unified European security framework been greater. Deteriorating relations between the United States and European nations, evidenced most recently by disagreements during the G7 Summit, reflect a divergence in foreign-policy interests between traditional cross-Atlantic partners —and the end of an era in which Europe can blindly count on the U.S. for security. As the United States continues to engage in diplomatic maneuvers that alienate even its closest allies, Europe must redirect its security efforts toward a self-reliant strategy aimed at improving coordination in key areas of counterterrorism, cyber, and logistics, while consolidating global peace operations. Reliance on the U.S. is no longer a guaranteed option. In the face of adversity, this is an opportunity for Europe to stand up on its own and respond to future challenges, like elections meddling, border tensions and nearby conflicts – each with the potential to escalate.

Drifting Apart

The United States has been drifting away from Europe in various domains, including diplomatic, economic and military issues, many of which though have security implications. In 2009, the Obama administration implemented policies intended to shift foreign-policy focus—and American resources—to the Asia-Pacific, where China’s rising power requires increasingly more attention. But never before has the retreat from Europe been so blunt, with several policy makers and analysts discussing whether the alliance is inevitably compromised.

In June, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order imposing steel and aluminum tariffs on the European Union (EU), Canada and Mexico over national security concerns—an “insulting” maneuver, in the words of Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and one that undermines the mutual trust on which security alliances such as NATO rest.

Nor can the U.S. be viewed as a credible partner in negotiations concerning other issues. In May, it unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA, disputing International Atomic Energy Agency reports that confirmed Iran’s compliance with the agreement, and effectively leaving Europe in a difficult position to uphold the deal. Such maneuvers impair American reliability in future negotiations and underscore the amount of caution with which Europe must enter multilateral agreements involving the U.S.

Established security institutions, too, are under fire. After denouncing NATO as “obsolete,” President Trump criticized members who had not reached 2 percent of GDP in defense spending, despite the 2014 Wales Summit Declaration calling only for members to “aim to move towards the two percent guideline within a decade.” Add this to the litany of issues with consequences on international security on which the U.S. and the EU disagree—including funding to UN peace operations, Palestine’s membership in UNESCO, and the U.S. embassy’s move from Israel to Jerusalem — and it becomes increasingly clear that the EU and U.S. are going their separate ways. The U.S. is moving towards a more isolationist direction, disregarding multilateral processes, in contrast with the common EU approach.

 

Europe’s Time to Stand Up on Its Own

After the failure of several European leaders’ attempts to find common ground with Washington, including President Emmanuel Macron’s and Chancellor Angela Merkel’s visits to the White House in April, the EU can no longer count on its historic security partner expecting disagreements to be worked out respectfully. Nor can it count on the situation to sort itself out anytime soon, simply waiting for the next administration to change policies. If transatlantic relations do worsen, the EU must be able to stand up and provide for its own security.

Deteriorating relations with the U.S. provides a great opportunity for Europe to accelerate the Permanent Structure Cooperation (PESCO), launched in late 2017. PESCO is moving in the right direction with many of its projects that address key EU strategic areas. Still, improvement is long overdue in sectors including cyber, coordination between forces, logistical capabilities, and research and development. By focusing on targeted missions, it is possible to achieve more without increasing spending.

For example, two PESCO projects that focus on cyber issues – the “Cyber Threats and Incident Response Information Sharing Platform” and the “Rapid Response Force” – are both meant to put in place a system to cope with cyber incidents at the European level. “Military Mobility,” commonly known as “Military Schengen,” is the most well-received PESCO project, allowing units and equipment to travel throughout Europe more easily. The “Network of Logistic Hubs” facilitates the logistical coordination between forces from different countries, while the European Defense Industrial Development Programme set the groundwork for the “Europe Defense Fund,” which is aimed at supporting the necessary technological and industrial base.

At the same time, it is essential for the European External Action Service to establish a real foreign policy that goes hand-in-hand with security policy. Harmonizing foreign and security efforts among all EU members is the ultimate goal, but failure to do so cannot prevent Europe from taking necessary steps towards building a better security framework. If the United Nations and the African Union have managed to deploy thousands of soldiers in extremely complex peacekeeping operations throughout the past several decades, there are no valid reasons whereby Europe cannot do the same, other than political will.

 

Wake-Up Call

Developing a unified security framework would serve Europe’s long-term strategic interests. Moreover, it would send a strong and clear message across the Atlantic. Trust and mutually beneficial actions are fundamental for any multilateral alliance. Disregarding them in an attempt to pursue unilateral agendas risks damaging a meaningful relationship built on common history and values. The EU response will signal that the importance of allies and partners cannot be disregarded without facing some consequences. The improvement of the European security framework does not imply an ideologically confrontational stance towards the U.S. Europe will continue to uphold its principles and be open to collaboration with any reliable partner, but it will not allow the United States to take advantage of it. It istime for Europe to stand up on its own.

Cristian Tracci is an MIA candidate at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), where he specializes in International Security Policy and Conflict Resolution. Cristian currently serves as a board member of SIPA’s Progressive Security Working Group. He was previously a graduate consultant for the Eurasia Group and the UN Mission in Kosovo.

The post Security Woes: Why Europe Must Develop Its Own Security Framework appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

L'innovation technologique est-elle en mesure de fournir un nouveau souffle au véhicule automobile ? La question n'est pas neuve. La prise de conscience par la population des problèmes d'environnement a largement contribué à poser les problèmes de l'avenir technique de l'automobile. Celle-ci (...) / Écologie, Économie, Industrie, Technologie, Transports, Environnement - 1975/10

Catch up on everything you need to know about Trump’s Space Force, the impact of powerful new White House sanctions on Russia, Turkey and Iran, an interview with U.S. Central Command chief Gen. Joseph Votel, and more.