But just because democracy can fill the dictator-shaped holes dotting the Arab World’s heart, doesn’t mean it will: If liberal reformists - whether secular or religious - don’t plug the power vacuums soon, extremists will. At least that’s the line coming from a cosmopolitan new counterterrorism (CT) team headed by Washington and Ankara.
Consisting of 29 countries - 11 of them Muslim-majority - and the European Union, the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) is the first “dedicated international venue to regularly convene key counterterrorism policy makers and practitioners from around the world,” in the words of its American co-chair, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
A fundamental aim of the club is to help countries located in regional hotbeds of terrorism - MENA, the Sahel, the African Horn, and Southeast Asia - build the legal capacity to curb it. As Mike Smith, head of CTED, the Security Council committee charged with monitoring implementation of national counterterrorism strategies, pointed out in a media roundtable at the U.N. General Assembly’s annual meeting (UNGA), “Counterterrorist activities that do not respect rule of law and human rights push terrorists deeper into radicalism.” With legal institutions weakened - and in some cases absent - throughout MENA as a result of Arab Spring uprisings, the threat of radicalization is high.
Speaking in New York on the eve of September 11 commemorations, Clinton detailed the GCTF’s applicability to such contexts:
The forum will assist countries that are transitioning from authoritarian rule to democracy and the rule of
law. It will provide support as they write new counterterrorism legislation and train police, prosecutors,
and judges to apply the laws in keeping with universal human rights [...] The future is uncertain and it’s
still possibly going to be exploited by extremists. Security forces are distracted and disorganized. Weap-
ons are missing. We know from experience that democratic transitions can be hijacked by new autocrats
or derailed by sectarians.
But will high profile promises and lofty declarations actually roll back the tide of terrorism? Critics charge that adding yet another layer to the already sprawling and at times disjointed global counterterrorism regime - the U.S. and U.N. alone have more than 45 agencies working on the issue - is counterproductive. Improved coordination between existing actors is more urgent than the addition of new ones, they argue. Indonesian Minister of Foreign Affairs Marty M. Natalegawa, a rising star in global CT efforts, agrees; at the UNGA roundtable, he stressed the need for CT actors to avoid the “paradox of the plenty” and instead seek to be “as agile as the perpetrators of terrorism are.”
Paradoxically, the bureaucratizing forum does just that. As an informal coalition of the willing, free from the constraints of formalized multilateralism (i.e. bureaucracy), the GCTF is uniquely qualified to navigate the extralegal world of terrorism in establishing legal institutions to address the scourge.
The forum also brings much-needed legitimacy to the table. Granted, the idea was pitched by Washington at this year’s G7 (plus Russia) summit - a platform for rich, Western countries - but it came to fruition on the most multilateral of stages: the United Nations General Assembly. Its membership includes many countries where terrorist networks are based, including Algeria (al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), Saudi Arabia (al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula), and Nigeria (Boko Haram). Furthermore, the forum is co-chaired by an influential Middle Eastern government in Ankara that in many ways straddles the Western and Arab worlds. These legitimacy-enhancing attributes stand in sharp contrast to the predominantly American-led CT efforts of the past ten years.
The GCTF’s novel, untested approach to counterterrorism brims with potential - and snags. Whether the U.S. can bridle its hegemonic instincts and settle into a partnership role is an open question. Indeed, cooperation in general among such an ideologically diverse group of power brokers on an exceedingly controversial issue may prove too tall an order. But if the forum can capitalize on the strengths of its informal structure and uniquely legitimate composition, it may well have the potential to be as “agile as the perpetrators of terrorism are.” The Arab Spring’s coming elections will be its litmus test. As Clinton noted on the eve of 9/11 commemorations in New York, “What happens in these transitions will have profound consequences for our long-term struggle against violent extremism.”
a global affairs media network
Terror-Proofing Election Season in the Arab Spring
October 20, 2011
But just because democracy can fill the dictator-shaped holes dotting the Arab World’s heart, doesn’t mean it will: If liberal reformists - whether secular or religious - don’t plug the power vacuums soon, extremists will. At least that’s the line coming from a cosmopolitan new counterterrorism (CT) team headed by Washington and Ankara.
Consisting of 29 countries - 11 of them Muslim-majority - and the European Union, the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) is the first “dedicated international venue to regularly convene key counterterrorism policy makers and practitioners from around the world,” in the words of its American co-chair, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
A fundamental aim of the club is to help countries located in regional hotbeds of terrorism - MENA, the Sahel, the African Horn, and Southeast Asia - build the legal capacity to curb it. As Mike Smith, head of CTED, the Security Council committee charged with monitoring implementation of national counterterrorism strategies, pointed out in a media roundtable at the U.N. General Assembly’s annual meeting (UNGA), “Counterterrorist activities that do not respect rule of law and human rights push terrorists deeper into radicalism.” With legal institutions weakened - and in some cases absent - throughout MENA as a result of Arab Spring uprisings, the threat of radicalization is high.
Speaking in New York on the eve of September 11 commemorations, Clinton detailed the GCTF’s applicability to such contexts:
The forum will assist countries that are transitioning from authoritarian rule to democracy and the rule of
law. It will provide support as they write new counterterrorism legislation and train police, prosecutors,
and judges to apply the laws in keeping with universal human rights [...] The future is uncertain and it’s
still possibly going to be exploited by extremists. Security forces are distracted and disorganized. Weap-
ons are missing. We know from experience that democratic transitions can be hijacked by new autocrats
or derailed by sectarians.
But will high profile promises and lofty declarations actually roll back the tide of terrorism? Critics charge that adding yet another layer to the already sprawling and at times disjointed global counterterrorism regime - the U.S. and U.N. alone have more than 45 agencies working on the issue - is counterproductive. Improved coordination between existing actors is more urgent than the addition of new ones, they argue. Indonesian Minister of Foreign Affairs Marty M. Natalegawa, a rising star in global CT efforts, agrees; at the UNGA roundtable, he stressed the need for CT actors to avoid the “paradox of the plenty” and instead seek to be “as agile as the perpetrators of terrorism are.”
Paradoxically, the bureaucratizing forum does just that. As an informal coalition of the willing, free from the constraints of formalized multilateralism (i.e. bureaucracy), the GCTF is uniquely qualified to navigate the extralegal world of terrorism in establishing legal institutions to address the scourge.
The forum also brings much-needed legitimacy to the table. Granted, the idea was pitched by Washington at this year’s G7 (plus Russia) summit - a platform for rich, Western countries - but it came to fruition on the most multilateral of stages: the United Nations General Assembly. Its membership includes many countries where terrorist networks are based, including Algeria (al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), Saudi Arabia (al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula), and Nigeria (Boko Haram). Furthermore, the forum is co-chaired by an influential Middle Eastern government in Ankara that in many ways straddles the Western and Arab worlds. These legitimacy-enhancing attributes stand in sharp contrast to the predominantly American-led CT efforts of the past ten years.
The GCTF’s novel, untested approach to counterterrorism brims with potential - and snags. Whether the U.S. can bridle its hegemonic instincts and settle into a partnership role is an open question. Indeed, cooperation in general among such an ideologically diverse group of power brokers on an exceedingly controversial issue may prove too tall an order. But if the forum can capitalize on the strengths of its informal structure and uniquely legitimate composition, it may well have the potential to be as “agile as the perpetrators of terrorism are.” The Arab Spring’s coming elections will be its litmus test. As Clinton noted on the eve of 9/11 commemorations in New York, “What happens in these transitions will have profound consequences for our long-term struggle against violent extremism.”
