Category: Terror

Categories
Academic integrity Modes of propaganda Radicalisation Terror

ASPI demonstrates its allegiance to arms manufacturers and US and UK governments

On the 12th of April, ASPI (Australian Strategic Policy Institute) launched the annual report by the IEP (Institute for Economics & Peace). The report gives credible data on global terrorism, with its key publication being the ranking of countries according to the impact that terrorism has had on it.

One wonders why the IEP needs ASPI to launch its report, as IEP director Dr David Hammond did little more than simply highlight various elements of the report. Expert contributions were interesting but did not really add much to the report except, perhaps, to give perspectives from other countries; which, of course, does nothing to change the underlying facts of terrorism.

Based on the report and those before it (back to 2014), I asked a question at the launch which was completely relevant and addressed the successes and failures of counter-terrorism, as objectively shown in the data. This is the question.

In 2014, we find 4 countries in a comparable position on the GTI – US, UK, China, and Indonesia, at around rank 30. This indicates significant challenges in managing terrorism in those countries. Australia was ranked 95, an enviable position to be in.

If we consider the UK, we find that from 2014 to 2022, the rank stays stubbornly on 30 + or – 2. The US position drifts gradually down to rank 20, indicating that terrorism in this country increased. Only in the last 3 years has this improved, mostly in line with global trends.

Meanwhile, Australia plunged 36 places from 2014 to 2015, still much more favorable than both the US and UK but has, as with the UK and US, stayed stubbornly at around 60. Indonesia shows a steady rise until 2018 when it starts to drop in line with global trends.

The miraculous story is China. From a low 25 (below US, UK, and Indonesia), China has steadily risen, year on year, through the rankings to now be 67th place, passing Australia.

This represents a change of 42 positions over 8 years.

China’s record can only be described, objectively, as incredibly successful. Its program of clear intent, selective detention, surveillance, poverty alleviation, economic development and strong determination has produced results that are, surely, the envy of the world.

In view of the relentless campaign by western media, academics, and ASPI to discredit this achievement, can you reflect on why you think ASPI has taken such a negative line and whether, in the final assessment, their campaign against China has been grounded in poor research and lack of objectivity?

There was a mistake in the question that was a result of accidentally writing what I intended for an earlier paragraph. I should have written “Indonesia shows a steady rise until 2018 when it starts to drop, against global trends.” In any case, this was a minor point, included to show that other large Asian countries still face a challenge.

In graphic form, this looks like:

The question goes directly to the issue that is obvious. Despite incredible expenditure and political posturing, the UK and US have been singularly unsuccessful in combatting terrorism while China, in contrast, has been spectacularly successful. Time to celebrate that one country has found a way of keeping its citizens safe.

My question was the first to be put but Katja Theodorakis, Head of Counterterrorism Program made the decision to censor it on behalf of ASPI and its sponsors – US arms manufacturers and two foreign governments – UK and US. One wonders how the ASPI program can be labelled as ‘counterterrorism’ when those involved in the program demonstrate contempt for real discussion on major successes.

In line with the dishonesty and complete lack of integrity that ASPI displays as its normal mode of operation, this launch proved to be a complete farce. As global conflicts and climate change make ever increasing demands on populations, providing ample breeding grounds for terrorism, ignoring successes and failing to properly analyse the basis of their success will be at our own peril.

Categories
Academic integrity Anti-China Narratives Modes of propaganda Terror

Occasional shorts – #4

In this edition, I will take a detour from the new report called “The architecture of repression” by Xu @xu_xiuzhong, Leibold @jleibold and Daria Impiombato.

Today, I return to Michael Clarke, whose scholarly work underpins much of the reports and articles regarding China and Xinjiang. Of particular interest is Clarke’s “Widening the net: China’s anti-terror laws and human rights in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region“. The central thesis of this paper, written in 2010, is that China has sacrificed human rights for security in relation to terrorism. Throughout the paper, general references to global initiatives related to terrorism do not use the ironic indicators of single quotes. For example, he writes

Domestically, the ‘war on terror’ has permitted China to not only deploy significant repressive force, in political, legal and police/military terms, to confront the perceived threat to Xinjiang’s security posed by Uyghur terrorism but also to establish the political and legal framework through which to confront any future challenges to state power.

Note the acknowledgement of Uyghur terrorism – indicated by the simple unironic adjective. Quite ‘accidentally’, on many occasions, Clarke affirms that terrorism may in fact be just that. However, in a most confused way, as Clarke begins to talk about China’s response, he uses (on 14 instances – there are many other instances of usage in phrases or other forms) the ironic ‘terrorism’, indicating scepticism.

Indeed, by the end of the paper, a reasonable reader would conclude that Clarke does not believe any terrorism at all had occurred and that Beijing had simply adopted a repressive mode, seemingly towards nearly everything.

Notably absent from Clarke’s assessment is a comparative analysis of counter-terrorist modes and counter-terror theory, probably due to the fact that this is certainly not his area of expertise and he speaks with no more authority than a CNN journalist. In particular, he is silent on the insidious influence of Salafist extremism that spread throughout Central and South East Asia. This silence, in view of his historical expertise, is unforgivable, and puts a large question mark on what he might be intending with this paper.

Also absent is any attempt to ascertain what Uyghur people might actually think of the policy. Like so many of the white men who speak on behalf of those in developing countries, ignoring their agencies, Clarke is happy to posit, without evidence, some kind of universal Uyghur identity that conveniently supports separatism, Salafist extremism and violent independence movements. In this paternalistic endeavour, Clarke joins fellow academics purporting to speak on behalf of Uyghurs.

Of course, Clarke’s thesis was demonstrated, in the subsequent terror attacks in Xinjiang, to be completely misguided.

My suggestion to Michael is that he “pull is head in” and stick to subject matter over which he has some control and knowledge and avoid the trend in academia to signal one’s liberal views by China bashing.

Categories
Deradicalisation Modes of propaganda Terror

Occasional shorts – #1

@ASPI_org has produced a new report called “The architecture of repression” by Xu, Leibold & Daria Impiombato. I will be analysing this document in the next few weeks. Here’s a taster.

Reference 21.
Context

International experts agree that Uyghur militants exist in Syria and Pakistan in small numbers, but argue that they pose little direct security threat to China. 21

Note

Michael Clarke, ‘China’s “war on terrorism”’, in Michael Clarke (ed.), Terrorism and counter-terrorism in China: domestic and foreign policy dimensions, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2018.

Comment

Apart from the vague “international experts agree”, not appropriate for any kind of scholarly or serious report, Clarke is not a terrorism or counter-terrorism expert. His expertise is history, which does not necessarily lend itself to understanding the practical problems with implementation of anti-terror programs.

He has no experience in security issues, nor has he served in a police service. He is also not an expert in surveillance or deradicalisation. It is doubtful that he has engaged with the lived experience of moderate Muslims who have been silenced, bullied, harassed and killed by extremists. (See interview with K in Beyond deradicalisation centres – Beijing takes a holistic and rational approach to poverty alleviation in which this lived experience is described after an interview with K)

Thus, his opinion is irrelevant and can be disregarded.

Additionally, his recent article, quoted here, is contradicted by his own words in 2017

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/bloody-isis-video-puts-china-in-cross-hairs

“It appears to be the ISIS group’s “first direct threat” against China, Dr. Michael Clarke, an expert on Xinjiang at the National Security College of Australian National University, told AFP. “It is the first time that Uighur-speaking militants have claimed allegiance to IS,” he added, referring to the group by its other name.

 

The video showed China is now “very firmly a target of jihadist rhetoric,” Clarke said, marking a shift from years past when it rarely figured in statements by global militant groups.

 

But Clarke said it also could indicate a possible split among Uighur fighters, as it includes a warning to those fighting with the Al Qaeda-aligned Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) in Syria.” Clarke said the hints of a Uighur split could “intensify the threat to China” as it indicates Uighur militants may be able to tap into the capabilities of both ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

Like so many of the references in this document, the full work of the source author is not considered. Clarke has, in the past, completely contradicted the claim in the report, but, like so many academics, has changed his ‘tune’.