A ReSeT Analysis Paper authored by Iñigo Eguia Sosa and Balder Hageraats

For the full paper, please click here.

But are the efforts of the UN to counter terrorism proportionate to the threat? And has the UN been coherent in their policies of adding groups to their list of designated terrorist organizations? Or does the track-record of sanctioning terrorist organizations rather reflect a selective logic, influenced by the political interests of those who impose sanctions? This paper will answer both of the questions posed above. Firstly, we will consider the threat posed by international terrorism in relation to other ‘threats to the peace’ that the UN Security Council has sanctioned since 1990, including wars of aggression, coups d’état, and civil wars. Secondly, we will consider the 27 terrorist groups that were sanctioned by the UN under UNSCR 1267 and 2253, and compare them to a total 67 other terrorist organizations that were arguably equally ‘sanctionable’, but that were nonetheless not sanctioned. In total, 88 groups are analyzed on the basis of the amount of deaths produced and on their claimed objectives, categorizing the objectives in order to distinguish groups who aim for regional autonomy or to overthrow their government from those who want to implement sharia law or establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate, among others.

Our research leads us to conclude that UN sanctions do not respond to the act of terrorism as such, but rather to the objectives that organizations claim to pursue. As a result, relatively minor Islamic extremist groups are sanctioned, whereas separatists, nationalists, and communists who commit brutal acts of terror are left off the hook. The UN’s focus on words rather than deeds is partially explainable; after all, words matter, and some objectives are more dangerous to international security than others, especially when they threaten the modern international sovereign state system. Nevertheless, the track-record of UN sanctions on terrorist organizations seems to be a disproportionate result of political considerations within the institutional boundaries of the UN Charter than a reflection of humanitarian concerns.

A ReSeT Analysis Paper authored by Thomas Kruiper and Federico Fargion

For the full paper, please click here.

In order to measure deadliness, we use data from the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) database. In order to establish whether a terrorist organization can be defined as ‘sanctionable’, we rely on the Sanctionable Offences Database. To establish the ‘religious background’ of each organization we rely on our own research.

All in all, the organisations that have been sanctioned under UNSCRs 1267 and 2253 in contrast to sanctionable organisations that have not been listed since 2001, we have exposed that the UN is not anti-Islam as such but rather against a creation of a new Islamic Caliphate by organisations that commit acts of terror as it poses a threat to the current international balance of power. In addition, it would appear that the UNSCR 1267 is unsuccessful in deterring further acts of terror after organisations have been listed, with a majority of organisations in fact having an increase in their overall deadliness over time.

ReSeT Analysis Paper authored by Eleanor Manley and Thomas Kruiper

For the full paper, please click here.

ReSeT Analysis Paper authored by Kristine Bondevik Westlie and Balder Hageraats

For the full paper, please click here.

This summer the ReSeT team have worked on a number of important internal changes, with our emphasis shifting towards application projects and research for external organisations. As a result, we have decided to de-prioritise publications for our own website. Whenever one of our projects is in the public domain, we will still publish it on our site. However, regular articles will no longer be featured. In order to reflect this new focus, we will adjust the website accordingly in the next few weeks.

As always, please contact us for further information at info@resetweb.org.

Kind regards,

The ReSeT Team

As we are about to part with 2014 and usher in the new year, we can proudly look back at the past year and the progress that we made. It has been a great pleasure to work on the Polis as well as other projects. Now, at the dawn of 2015, we are ready to implement the practical application of the Polis, an important and exciting step for all of us. The model is fully developed, we have an enthusiastic network of local and global partners, and a lot of ideas on how to implement our project on the ground.

We therefore very much look forward to 2015 being a successful year full of opportunities and challenges. For now, however, our thoughts turn gratefully to those who have made our progress possible. Thank you all for your continued support, collaboration and trust throughout 2014.

All of us at ReSeT and the Polis Project wish you a Happy Holiday Season and all the best in the new year.

The ReSeT Team

Please click here to go to the RTVE site and listen to the broadcast (in Spanish).  ]]> http://resetweb.org/jesus-garcia-luengos-on-the-conflict-in-south-sudan/feed/ 0 http://resetweb.org/welcome-to-our-newly-designed-website/ http://resetweb.org/welcome-to-our-newly-designed-website/#comments Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:47:05 +0000 The ReSeT Team http://resetweb.org/?p=226 After almost three years of using the same design, it was time for a fresh look at resetweb.org. This new format better reflects our evolving work and growing range of activities, and allows us to further expand our online output during the coming years.

Our publications can now be accessed in an easy, intuitive way. The most recent additions will be available on the home page, and all others can be found on the Library page. There we will also publish a selection of our past work. If there are articles or reports from the old website that are not available any more, please feel free to contact us and we’ll send you a pdf version.

Please note that it will take a few weeks before all our uploaded content is up-to-date and complete. 

Our other work will be organised through our Polis page, which is ReSeT’s new and ambitious initiative that is at the centre of our focus. This page will be expanded over the course of 2013 and 2014, and will eventually lead to access to more advanced research and application for Polis members.

This means that you’ll continue to be able to find new commentary, insight and analysis by our team here on resetweb.org, and in-depth research and other ReSeT work will be made available through Polis membership.

We hope that you’ll be as enthusiastic about this new format as we are, and that you’ll continue to enjoy our work. As always, feedback is very much appreciated.

- The ReSeT Team

ReSeT has written a series of articles by its experts on what the post-withdrawal future will bring for the most important national actors involved, and on how this will affect international relations during the coming decade.Through one article per country, we will analyse the impact that the new Afghan situation will have on:

Afghanistan (Carmen Alonso Villaseñor): The conflict in the Central Asian country is a prime example of the complexities involved in New Wars. The inability of the superpowers to understand and address them has historically led to defeat in the arid mountains of this country. Beyond the particular failed policies of the consecutive invaders, Afghanistan represents the inaptitude of the international system of states to deal with modern challenges.

Pakistan (Balder Hageraats): Afghanistan’s future is intimately linked with that of Pakistan because of cross border identities and interests. Both countries’ complicated and ambiguous relationships with the US will become even more strained after 2014, and Islamabad will shift its focus towards Beijing and other local players. The West is likely to be marginalised in this process, and may need to shift its focus back to India.

Iran (Ricard Boscar): Despite mainstream thought in policy and security circles in the West, Iran could play an important role in the stability of Afghanistan and the region. Teheran has enough resources, ranging from cultural to economic assets, to cast its influence eastwards. How Iran decides to use them is linked to the future arrangement of interests in the region and depends on the US stance towards the ayatollahs’ regime.

Russia (Alberto Pérez Vadillo): The American withdrawal will force Moscow to recalibrate its policy towards Afghanistan and across the region. Much of what Russia can achieve depends on its relations towards the various Central Asian states. Regarding this, Moscow’s room to manouver will be constrained by both the presence Washington chooses to preserve and Beijing’s ambitions.

China (Carmen Alonso Villaseñor): The growing weight of China in international geopolitics has gotten to a point of no return. But the new superpower is still reluctant to assume the responsibility and burden that its position implies. Beijing’s economic diplomacy is already strong, but to secure its interests, China will have to adjust its foreign policy, and Afghanistan after 2014 will be an important thest of this.

The United States (Balder Hageraats): The United States, after licking its wounds from two unwinnable wars and economic crisis, will need to scale back it global ambitions, and particularly those in Central Asia, where it will no longer be able to compete with other more local competitors. Washington policy will focus on specific goals, such as national resources security, rather than maintaining its more expansive agenda of the last decade.

Read the whole report here: ReSeT Report: The US Withdrawal from Afghanistan