Underwear bomber number 2 (still unnamed) isn’t the only one with his shorts in a twist over the latest attempt to bring terror to the sky over the Atlantic. The CIA, FBI, and MI6 are all scrambling to explain (or unexplain) their accounts of who did what when to take-down the would-be bomber and save a planeload of unwary infidels from mid-air incineration. US intelligence is blaming the administration for ‘leaks’ they say compromise a secret intelligence partnership, while other, perhaps less sanctioned leakers from each agency continue to spin the story in ways designed to claim victory for their team. Word is that someone at the White House leaked ‘the story’ to a national security advisor or some intel czar who then rushed the news to three major networks.

Headline? Let’s see…Obama Administration preempts significant terrorist strike against United States?

The result? Alerts about the nefarious ’underwear bomber’ have dominated the news for days, the mainstream media (getting it wrong again) rushing to attribute the just-in-time preemptive strike to the talents and skill of US intelligence. First reports indicated that the individal in charge of the entire operation was employed by the CIA, a ‘double agent’ in control of the whole operation from start to finish.

Saudi Intel Discovers Bomber-not US or Brits

Then, yesterday, the story changed–the operation’s mastermind, the fellow who encouraged the 29 year old chemist from Yemen to aspire to a slicker, less-detectable, more highly-charged explosive device than the one that left  Nigerian underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmatallab (who tried to blow up a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit in 2009) smoking but still intact–really worked for British intelligence, MI6.

Still wrong. Sources in the international intelligence community now suggest that  the covert agent, the good guy who conceived and managed the underwear bomb operation #2 really works (and has, all along) for Saudi intelligence, Mabahith–and that it was Saudi intelligence that turned the device, once obtained by its operative, over to the CIA.  But the narrative continues: the CIA, lacking appropriate lab facilities, then turned ‘underwear bomb number 2′ over to the FBI, an agency amply funded and equipped to apply the proper reengineering techniques to the device and, theoretically, figure out how to repond to the new and improved threat.

Why is any of this important? For several reasons.

First, the intelligence victory claimed by the US administration appears to have been a gift from the Saudi government (not always reliable, do we think?), as opposed to the product of rigorous, on-the-scene investigative efforts by the US or its allies. And why would Saudi intel send this guy and his next-generation underwear bomb our way? I thought you’d never ask. The story is that, in this particular case, the motivation behind the Saudi hand-over to US intelligence was an incident about a year ago in which the same bombmaker, intent on testing his product, actually implanted the device in his own suicide-bomber brother (true story) and instructed him to stand next to a target, a Saudi prince, against whom the 29 year old chemist apparently had some special grudge. The ‘test,’ while successfully blowing the chemist’s own brother to smithereens, revealed the device lacked sufficient explosive charge to take down the prince or any other standerbys, so it was back to the drawing board. The Saudi Royal Family, however, was not amused. And you know what they say about payback…

The second reason all this confusion about who deserves the real kudos for heading off another terrorist scheme is important: it reveals a propensity on the part of White House officials to manipulate the press in regard to the achievements of US intelligence. Now the White House is backpeddling, revising the narrative by citing our skill and wisdom in outsourcing our intelligence work (and if you believe the US actually relies on intel from the mideast, I’ve got a bridge to sell you).

Finally, the situation exposes the eagerness and gullibility of the mainstream media, which grabs for the sensational without regard to its own investigative responsibilities. Now we have a media muddle, another fine, and embarrassing fix for the White House (remember the ‘plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the US in a Georgetown eatery?’–and a lot of bad feelings between intelligence agencies we were given to believe could function at high efficiency together.

What’s going on? You tell me.

Koeberg Nuclear Power Station, Western Cape, South Africa

Many hold a view that the terms Africa and nuclear security have no correlation. This is a false and dangerous perception.

South Africa’s Energy Minister Dipuo Peters announced on Tuesday 28 February 2012 that the country plans to use nuclear energy as part of diversified mix to help cure South Africa’s energy crisis and to take a step closer to cleaner energy. The plan – called the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2010) – places specific emphasis on various technologies including gas, imports, nuclear, biomass, renewables (wind, solar and hydro).

As it stands, about 90% of South Africa’s energy, like most African countries, is produced from burning coal, which in turn has a negative impact on the world’s climate. And like South Africa, most African countries are looking towards nuclear power as a potential alternative to fossil fuels. South Africa’s Koeberg nuclear power station, located 30km north of Cape Town, is the only nuclear power station in South Africa and the entire African continent. However, this will change in the coming years/decades.

Many African countries have publicly expressed their interest in developing nuclear energy for both economic and environmental reasons. In total, there are around 22 African states considering the introduction of nuclear power: Algeria, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Libya, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, and eight others.

In addition, eight countries on the continent, including South Africa, currently possess nuclear research reactors: Algeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Ghana, Libya, Morocco, Nigeria and South Africa.

Africa’s nuclear resources and the associated risks

I had the privilege of participating in the Institute for Security Studies (ISS)-Monash experts workshop on ‘Progress on Securing Africa’s Nuclear Resources’ held in early February in Johannesburg. This event brought together individuals from around the continent and the world to address the challenges and needs in Africa in the field of nuclear security.

Africa’s anticipated movement towards nuclear energy was one of many issues discussed. And with developments such as these come obvious risks. One is a Fukushima type incident. However, one of the most immediate threats to the national security of most countries including the United States of America is a terrorist organization acquiring nuclear weapons or materials.

US President Barack Obama presented a three-part strategy in April 2009 to generally address international nuclear threats and in particular the increase in the risk of nuclear material diversion and illicit trafficking by: 1) proposing measures to reduce and eventually eliminate existing nuclear weapon arsenals; 2) strengthening the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); and, 3) preventing ‘terrorists’ from acquiring nuclear weapons or materials.

Number three is the real concern in Africa due to the large amounts of uranium ore found on the continent. According to www.wise-uranium.org, uranium exploration is being carried out in 30 African countries with Malawi, Namibia, Niger and South Africa possessing the ‘legal’ operational mines. Others in the advanced development stage are the Central African Republic, Tanzania and Zambia.
The ISS points out the locations of some of these mines often make them vulnerable to other national insecurities, such as intrastate conflict, bringing into question the security of these materials. But has uranium been smuggled before?

There are a number of both confirmed and unconfirmed incidents of natural uranium smuggling. According to the IAEA, 12 such incidents occurred between 1994 and 2005. These took place in Tanzania (four incidents), and the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Namibia and South Africa (two incidents each). One area of main concern, according to the ISS, is the illegal uranium and cobalt mining at the Shinkolobwe mine in Katanga Province, where the source material for the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 originated.

There has only been one known theft of nuclear fuel from an African research reactor, when eight fuel rods of uranium were stolen from a Kinshasa research reactor in 1997. One of the rods was recovered. The other seven are still missing.

This is extremely frightening considering one ‘dirty nuclear bomb’ by a terrorist organization could lead to a number of deaths and potentially hundreds more due to radiation poisoning. A ‘dirty nuclear bomb’ combines conventional explosives with radioactive materials such as uranium. However, the real concern is the uranium ending up in proliferation networks (ie AQ Khan) and the material eventually becoming enriched.

America obviously doesn’t want any of these scenarios to play out. According to Wikileaks, the US diplomatic corps are hard at work trying to thwart a terrorist nuclear attack in what the US government calls its “second line of defense.”

A report by Julian Borger and Karen McVeigh of the Guardian (UK) shows that the leaked cables reveal some mind-blowing tales taking place in Africa:

In June 2007, the US embassy in Burundi reported an approach by a local elder alerting the Americans to a cache of uranium in a concrete bunker over the border in the Democratic Republic of Congo. He was concerned that it would fall into the hands of “the wrong people”, specifically the Arabs who will “destroy” people with it. At the request of the sceptical Americans, he returned a few weeks later with a Congolese smuggler who said he found the material hidden at an old Belgian colonial building. He had pictures of a wicker basket with a uranium cask inside, apparently the property of the country’s Atomic Energy Commission.

Each time an incident like this occurs, it means the “first line of defense” has already been breached. The fissile material (the fuel for a nuclear warhead) or radioactive isotopes (which emit harmful radiation), have already been stolen from their source.

The UK journalists are exactly right when they say the ‘Burundi/DRC type’ incidents are only the tip of an iceberg.

The upcoming 2012 Nuclear Security Summit in the Republic of Korea (ROK)

The 2010 Nuclear Security Summit held in Washington DC brought together 47 world leaders to discuss concrete measures to prevent nuclear terrorism and secure vulnerable nuclear materials. Five from Africa attended: Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria and South Africa. No African state made national commitments at the summit.

One of the key elements of nuclear security barely touched on this article and discussed at the 2010 Summit is that of transportation. And despite South Africa not making any national commitments in Washington in 2010, South Africa delivered the first shipment of Molybdenum 99 (Mo-99), a highly radioactive material used in medical procedures, to the US in December that same year.

This isn’t completely bad news when it comes to nuclear security. Most of the Mo-99 used to be produced from highly enriched uranium from a limited few number of nuclear reactors around the world. However, when the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa) announced the December 2010 shipment in question, the public was informed that this particular batch of Mo-99 was produced with Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) and approved for patient use. In fact, this makes South Africa the world’s first large-scale producer to supply Mo-99 using LEU.

In June 2011, after a well-known global shortage of Mo-99, NNSA publicly recognized the efforts of Lantheus Medical Imaging (LMI), NTP Radioisotopes Ltd. (NTP) – a subsidiary of Necsa – and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization (ANSTO) for delivering record amounts of LEU-based Mo-99 to the US.

In case you were wondering, Mo-99, iodine 131, xenon 133, and other radioactive materials are used to produce small amounts of radioactive materials known as radiopharmaceuticals for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures or for research and development. This falls under what is known as nuclear medicine, a discipline where radiopharmaceuticals are used to diagnose or treat disease on a very individual basis, usually in cardiology, oncology and neurology. Nuclear medicine is able to measure the biological function of cells.

A September 2011 report by Duyeon Kim stipulates that the issue of securing radioactive materials, whether it be uranium or Mo-99, will be a high priority at the March 26-27, 2012 Summit in South Korea. The event will include top heads of state including Barack Obama and others.

Kim argues that South Korea could also capitalize on its renowned technology for tracing and tracking radioactive sources by setting an example and sharing its know-how with summit participants. A great suggestion.

Conclusion

One of the concluding thoughts of the ISS-Monash workshop, and of various experts around the world for that matter is about finding a balance between security and development. This is the most challenging aspect of the international nuclear security regime. Therefore, it is imperative that African states play a key role in determining the nuclear security agenda in future. And they can start to do this in South Korea.

Amelia Broodryk of the ISS is most definitely right when she argues that more substantial participation and constructive engagement by the five African countries is needed at the 2012 Summit, especially if the continent intends to further develop its peaceful nuclear programs without endangering its citizens. Lets wait and see what unfolds.

Photo 1- Courtesy of Eskom, South Africa’s power regulator

The New America Foundation's drones database analyzes the reported number of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004.

I recently had the privilege to attend an event sponsored by The Aspen Institute’s Justice and Society Program entitled, “Targeted Killings and the Law of War.”  The roundtable discussion brought together leading experts in law and foreign policy, each of whom addressed if/how U.S. and international law apply to the practice of targeted killings. It was obvious from the nature of the questions and a quick glance through recent headlines that drone strikes dominate the debate – rightfully so given the onset of the new, advanced technology and the ease with which it can be utilized on (and off) the battlefield.

So far, drone strikes have reportedly been carried out in six countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya. According to the New America Foundation’s drones database, which analyzes U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, “283 reported drone strikes in northwest Pakistan, including 70 in 2011, from 2004 to the present have killed approximately between 1,717 and 2,680 individuals, of whom around 1,424 to 2,209 were described as militants in reliable press accounts.”

Two main themes are immediately clear. First, if you accept the premise that the U.S. is engaged in an armed conflict with non-state actors domiciled in foreign countries which are unable or unwilling to respond to an imminent threat of violence (however one defines ‘imminent’), do drone strikes adhere to international law according to the Geneva Conventions? Second, according to U.S. law, what rights, if any, are guaranteed to those individuals being targeted, especially if they are U.S. citizens as was the case with Anwar al-Awlaki? Should they be afforded an opportunity to surrender? What about due process and the role of the courts?

The event at The Aspen Institute made it clear that the answers to these questions remain unclear at best and non-existent at worst. Targeted killings will no doubt be a policy – covert or not – that faces increasing legal scrutiny at home and abroad. For that reason, and because after-the-fact adjudication is unlikely to happen in the near future, many experts are urging the executive and legislative branches to clarify the substantive and procedural law surrounding the use of targeted killings – before others attempt to do so for us.

 This piece was originally published in The School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution Newsletter, February 2012 edition.

(Photo Source: New America Foundation)

On August 3rd the White House released an eight-page strategy for countering extremism entitled “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States.” The strategy, which took over a year to produce, lays out three areas of improvement: enhancing engagement with appropriate local communities, building government and law enforcement expertise in the area of violent extremism, and countering violent extremist propaganda.

Some responded favorably to the strategy, such as some Muslim American groups. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a statement supporting the new plan. CAIR National Director Nihad Awad affirmed, “Any effective strategy must avoid viewing the relationship between the American Muslim community and government agencies solely through the prism of national security… (It) should recognize Muslims as partners in projecting the best of American principles and values to the world.” Farhana Khera of Muslim Advocates stated, “In the wake of increasing anti-Muslim hate and the recent horrific attacks in Norway, we are heartened that the president recognizes that violence motivated by extremist beliefs is not unique to one racial, ethnic or faith community… All Americans must act together to address the challenge, and the administration’s strategy is a good start.”

Not everyone reacted so favorably. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King, who held controversial hearings this year on Muslim radicalization in the U.S., believed the strategy was going for a “politically correct feel-good” approach. “My concerns are with language in the report which suggests some equivalency of threats between Al Qaeda and domestic extremists and also with the politically correct inference that legitimate criticism of certain radical organizations or elements of the Muslim-American community should be avoided,” King said. Similarly, Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman stated, “We continue to be disappointed that the administration remains reluctant to identify violent Islamist extremism as the main cause of the homegrown terrorist threat.” Lieberman also complained that the strategy failed to designate a federal agency to lead the counter extremism effort.

According to POLITICO, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes affirmed the strategy was crafted in part out of a recognition that Al Qaeda is increasingly looking to use Americans and U.S. residents to mount attacks. “We saw Al Qaeda shifting its tactics… We wanted to make sure we responded to that… We explicitly prioritize Al Qaeda in the strategy. We go out of our way within the strategy to say the greatest threat comes from Al Qaeda and its affiliates,” Rhodes said.

Indeed, in laying out “The Challenge,” the strategy states: “Today, as detailed in the National Security Strategy and the National Strategy for Counterterrorism, al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents represent the preeminent terrorist threat to our country. We know that these groups are actively seeking to recruit or inspire Americans to carry out attacks against the United States, particularly as they are facing greater pressure in their safe-havens abroad.”

While the strategy does state that Al Qaeda is the foremost terrorist threat to the U.S., it paints a rather broad picture of how to counter this threat. The three-pillared approach appears to be heading in a positive direction, but without concrete details of how for example, law enforcement will improve its expertise in preventing violent extremism, it is difficult to tell how successful this strategy will be.

It’s not exactly yellow cake, but the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the US Treasury Department accused Iran of aiding and partnering with Al Qaeda:

The U.S. for the first time formally accused Iran of forging an agreement with al Qaeda, helping operatives move money, arms and fighters through Iranian territory to the terrorist group’s bases in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The U.S. Treasury Department outlined on Thursday what it said was an extensive fund-raising operation devised by al Qaeda that utilizes Iran-based operatives and draws from donors in oil-rich Persian Gulf countries such as Kuwait and Qatar.

The story needs more flesh, but this is still pretty alarming. The American public has been told for years that Iran did not have a partnership with Al Qaeda and in fact likely viewed the transnational terrorist group as an enemy (Shia – Sunni battle), but this evidence shows otherwise. It would be one thing if Al Qaeda just had operatives in Iran, but the Treasury Department said:

.. it had sanctioned six al Qaeda members for allegedly overseeing this network. The network’s head, Syrian-national Ezedin Abdul Aziz Khalil, is based in Iran and has been operating there under an agreement with Iranian authorities since 2005, according to senior U.S. officials.

The key part is ‘under an agreement with Iranian authorities’. Like I said before, there is much more that needs to be fleshed out of this connection before we can fully accuse top Iranian leaders of aiding and abetting America’s number one enemy, but if ever the Obama administration needed a  ‘smoking gun’ to rally public opinion and pressure the Islamic Republic, this is it.

Please see the June 2011 issue for an article I wrote on Sayyid Qutb’s continuing relationship with Al Qaeda:

With the death of Osama Bin Laden, there have been much speculations as to who would take his place as the leader of the Al Qaeda. It is highly likely that the next leader will be someone who has a deep and profound allegiance to the teachings of Sayyid Qutb. Through the years, Al Qaeda has consistently used Qutb’s ideas to further its aims of a global jihad.

The full article can be found here or from the ICPVTR’s homepage at http://pvtr.org/

Undated file photograph of Sayyid Qutb (1906 -1966). Image Credit: Encyclopedia of the Orient http://looklex.com/e.o/qutb_s.htm

‘World is Safer and Better Place Because of the Death of Osama bin Laden’

President Obama

You got that right, Mr. President. The death of Osama Bin Laden, the perpetrator of numerous crimes against the United States and humanity, including mass murder, at the hands of an American soldier is justice served. Bin Laden’s orchestrated attack against the United States on 9/11 was an act that will live in infamy in this country and to all those who watched those two towers fall. His death does not bring the nearly 3,000 fallen back to our lives, but it can’t help but bring some form of closure. This successful action also makes something very clear: If you mess with the United States and threaten our safety and way of life, you will get the horns!

A few thoughts:

• The braveness shown by the group of Navy Seals/CIA (details of course our sketchy), who were dropped from the sky to probably the most hostile of environments to carry out one of the most crucial, historical, and dangerous missions in American history, is hard to comprehend. They are heros through and through and have earned our eternal gratitude.

• This successful mission could not have been accomplished without years of hard work by our nation’s intelligence agencies, military forces, and diplomats and all of them deserve all the accolades coming to them.

• President Obama showed great leadership and of course this mission could not have happened without it. His presidency will forever be known as the one that got Osama, and like his quote above, the US and world are all the better for it.

• Though the details and facts of this amazing mission are still coming in, it seems that it could never have been accomplished without information gathered by the much-maligned CIA during the crucial and headspinning days/years after the 9/11 attack. It seems that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave up the name of the courier that led the US to Osama’s compound 5 years ago. This strategic information might never have been acquired without the Bush administration’s stress on capturing Al Qaeda figures alive so they could be interrogated. The success of this mission indeed has many fathers, and former President Bush and his staff definitely belong among them.

• This fight is far from over. Al Qaeda’s No. 2 al-Zawahriwi is still alive and free and this must change. He is a powerful figure and in many ways was the leader of Al Qaeda’s strategy and logistics. Violent attacks against the US by Islamic radicals did not all funnel from Osama Bin Laden, either. The failed bombing attempts in Time Square (car), Detroit (underwear bomber, plane), and Portland (Christmas tree), just to name a few, had no known direct links to Osama’s camp, but nevertheless they were real and dangerous and their threat is still alive.

• The big elephant in the room now is American and NATO’s mission in Afghanistan. Already I have heard in the media and among some colleagues about declaring ‘mission accomplished’ and ‘getting out’. Though I disagree with this, I do believe Osama’s death is going to be a game changer. More on this later.

So good riddance to human garbage and big cheers to all those who helped make our country and the world a bit safer and much more just.

On March 29, 2011, India and Pakistan concluded bilateral talks in New Delhi which are expected to lead to a formal investigation into the Mumbai terror attacks. The talks were the first formal dialogue since the 2008 attacks, which halted the two countries’ highly unstable peace process and stunted the joint terror investigation.

Pakistan has agreed to host an Indian investigative delegation, marking a breakthrough in relations between the two restive neighbors. Dates for the visits were to be decided in four to six weeks. Additionally, India’s Home Secretary Shri Gopal K. Pillai and Pakistan’s Interior Secretary Qamar Zaman Chaudhry issued a joint statement affirming that both sides would set up a hotline between the interior secretaries to facilitate real-time information sharing regarding terrorist threats. During the talks, India also shared information on a 2007 train bombing that killed more than 60 people, mostly Pakistanis.

India broke off formal peace talks with Pakistan following the Mumbai bombings. The Indian government implicated the Pakistan-based organization Lashkar e Tayyiba (LeT) in the 26-29 November 2008 attacks in Mumbai, in which gunmen using automatic weapons and grenades attacked several sites, killing 166 people and leaving at least 300 wounded. Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, the lone living gunman in the attack claimed he was fighting on behalf of LeT. In May of 2010 Kasab was tried and sentenced to death by hanging.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations, LeT gathers donations from the Pakistani expatriate community in the Persian Gulf and the UK as well as from Islamic NGOs, Pakistani and Kashmiri businessmen, and Saudi Arabia. In addition, and what should be of great interest to the Indian government, experts say LeT also receives funding from Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI.

“The talks are extremely positive. We have moved forward and the trust deficit has reduced,” the Indian home secretary told reporters following the closure of the peace talks. One can only hope the two days of talks will lead to a disruption in terrorist activity between the two countries, however a couple days of formal dialogue will not change a history of secrecy and war lasting on and off for over sixty years.

Representative Peter King, a Republican from Long Island, appears to harbor a fierce unhappiness with the Muslim community in the United States. As the chairman of the powerful Homeland Security Committee, Congressman King has all the clout he needs to act on his displeasure.

Despite this rather odious implication that King is a bigot and unfairly targeting Muslims, Herbert gives not one real piece of evidence of his claim. Do you know what there is actual evidence to support though? The fact that the United States does indeed face a troubling growth in homegrown terrorist activity, which sadly, but truthfully, mostly comes from those of Muslim backgrounds. According to Gregory Treverton of the RAND Corporation’s Center for Global Risk and Security, there were 46 publicly reported cases of radicalization and recruitment of jihadist terrorism, involving 125 individuals in the US between 9/11 and the beginning of 2010. Those numbers do not include Richard Reid, who plotted his attack outside the US, or Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber. In 2009, there were two fatal attacks from homegrown products targeting Americans: the Fort Hood massacre (13 killed, 31 wounded) and the murder of another American soldier at an Arkansas recruiting office. Lest we also forget Mohamed Mohamud, who last November pressed a button believing it would blow up hundreds of families watching the lighting of the downtown Portland Christmas tree. I could go on…

So to argue or even insinuate that homegrown terrorism, particularly of the Islamist variation, is not a serious national security is to ignore the reality of the past ten years. Rep. King’s hearing is not happening to put American Muslims in a poor light. If done correctly, it will just highlight a disturbing trend in the radicalization of a small segment of our population that poses a threat to all of our safety and well being. No one gives American Islam a worse name than those who seek to kill and maim in the religion’s name. To defeat an enemy, you have to know it. It does no one any good to hide behind political correctness and baseless claims of racism.

Patrick Frost, Senior Blogger

Indonesia, a predominantly Muslim nation of 240 million, has battled extremists since 2002, when members of the al-Qaida-linked network Jemaah Islamiyah bombed two nightclubs on the resort island of Bali, killing 202 people, most of them foreign tourists. Members of a violent offshoot of the group have continued to carry out near-annual strikes on embassies, beach-side restaurants and glitzy hotels since then, killing more than 60.

Tholut, also known as Mustofa, became one of the country’s most wanted fugitives after master bomb-makers Noordin M. Top and Dulmatin were gunned down earlier this year in a series of police raids. In 2001, Tholut was convicted for his involvement in a bomb that rocked a shopping plaza in central Jakarta which left six wounded. However, he was released five years later citing for good behaviour. Like dozens of Indonesia’s so-called “rehabilitated” terrorists, it he seems to have quickly returned to his old ways. Post his release, he is alleged to have helped in setting up a militant training camp for the home-grown terror cell, Jamaah Anshorut Tauhid (JAT). JAT was uncovered by police in the westernmost province of Aceh in February. The organisation, led by Indonesia’s best-known radical cleric Abu Bakar Ba’asyir, has been an enigma since its founding in 2008. An ostensibly above-ground organisation, it has embraced individuals with known ties to fugitive extremists. It has welcomed many members of the militant Jema’ah Islamiyah (JI) but clashed with the JI leadership over strategy and tactics. The group’s main objective was to help recruit members and raise money to meet the broad objectives.

Police say that Abu Tholut was deeply involved in terrorist training in Aceh and armed robberies in North Sumatra province. The police has also informed that the cell was also plotting assassinations, including on President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, to punish the state for lending support to the U.S.-led war on terrorism, and Mumbai-styled gun attacks on foreigners.

Indonesia has been widely praised for its anti-terror fight, arresting, bringing to trial and jailing hundreds of militants since 2002. The frequency of attacks has sharply declined, as have the number of deaths.

But experts warn that extremists continue to be a threat.

Dr. Singh said that India’s partnership with the 27-nation bloc European Union has evolved from economic and development cooperation to a broader strategic engagement. The Prime Minister will be in Brussels on the first leg of his two-nation European tour that will also take him to Germany for talks with German leaders including Chancellor Angela Merkel on Saturday. It is expected that the situation in Afghanistan and Climate Change, the state of the global economy and the role of the G-20 in the recovery process will also come up for discussions during Dr. Singh’s talks with European Leaders.

India has been rather keen on substantiating its cooperation in counter-terrorism with the European Union. Towards this end the India is likely to sign an agreement on enhancing cooperation in the field with the European Union. Media reports quoted Lars-Olof Lindgren, Ambassador of Sweden as saying that “an agreement to enhance security cooperation may be signed between the two sides during the summit”. The EU’s Counter-Terrorism Coordinator Gilles de Kerchove has had wide ranging talks with Indian officials. They also have to up to a month to explore possibility of broadening cooperation between the two sides on security related issues. Intelligence sharing, research and development of skills of counter-terror security forces are some of the areas identified by Kerchove.

Interesting, in neighbouring Pakistan, Prime Minister Mr. Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani speaking in an interview with a Turkish channel reiterated his country’s firm resolve to fight against terrorism and militancy. Towards achieving this end he stressed on the need for enhanced regional cooperation to root out this menace for peace, prosperity and socio-economy development of the region. “Terrorism is a regional problem and there should be a regional solution. There should be increased cooperation in the fight against terrorism”, Gilani said.

Interesting this call by the leaders of the Gulf nations on December 7 at the 31st Summit meet of the Gulf Cooperation Council comes at a time when Internet whistleblower site, WikiLeaks has made public diplomatic cables that revel the perception in the US Administration and its concern over the funding that the terror groups receive from donors in the mid-east nations. As reports in the New York Times quoted a classified memo sent out in December 2009 by the US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton which was leaked out by WikiLeaks says that “donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terror groups worldwide”. It further goes on to quote her as saying that “it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority”. Other nations in the region where fund raising activities for extremist groups have also caused serious concern include the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Kuwait. The classified document also points out that the al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba (the group that carried out the terror attacks in Mumbai, India in 2008) and others “probably raise millions of dollars annually from Saudi sources, often during Hajj and Ramadan” when fundraisers for the groups fan out to seek money for their causes.

The communiqué issued by the GCC called on the United Nations to create a Centre that will enhance national, regional and international efforts to counter terrorism through the exchange of information and expertise to watch terrorist organisations and foil their schemes. All the GCC member states have agreed to a common strategic approach to fight terrorism, sending a clear message that terrorism is unacceptable in all its forms and manifestation, and resolving to take practical steps individually and collectively to prevent and combat it. The spread of al-Qaeda was a top item of concern for the leaders. The GCC heads of state also vowed to stand with the international community in fighting terrorism. They cited the fear spread by al-Qaeda in the region; condemning terrorist plots that they said were aimed at murdering innocents, spread destruction and halt development. Analysts have warned that Gulf countries faced a range of threats, including internal ones to the stability of their regimes.

It is notable that the Saudi administration has recently been cracking down on terror suspects. Major countries in the Gulf pre-dominantly have a monarchical form of government, which understandably means that they have to seek to safeguard their regimes. In doing so the dilemma of these nations is in finding the ideal middle path – toeing the line of countering global terrorism and at the same time ensuring that they do not unwarrantedly antagonise their local communities and the global Ulema.

The blast took place around 6:35 PM just five minutes after the Ganga Aarti. Media reports, quoted Union Home Secretary GK Pillai as confirming that the blast was a terror strike carried out by Indian Mujhaideen. Indian Mujahideen is a Pakistan based Islamic terrorist group in India that has claimed responsibility for several attacks against innocent targets in India recently. The India Mujahideen is believed to be a “shadow amalgam of the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and Lashkar-e-Toiba”.

It was confirmed that a two-year-old girl, succumbed to her injuries. Thirty-two people including five or six foreign tourists are also known to have been injured in the blast. Media reports quoted government officials as saying that seven to eight people were injured in the blast but the numbers increased because a railing at the ghat broke leading to a small stampede. About 15 people were injured in the stampede.

Police also recovered an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) from a dustbin near the blast site. Senior police officials were unable to confirm the nature of the blast and said that only a thorough investigation would reveal the exact nature of the terror strike. Immediately following the blast, the Indian Mujahideen accused of having carried out the attack, sent out an e-mail to media houses claiming that the blast in Varanasi was carried out in retaliation to the verdict in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janambhoomi title suit case. Also known as the Ayodhya dispute, it revolves around the claim over the land in Ayodhya, which is considered scared by Hindus as it is believed to be the birthplace of Lord Ram while Muslims seek to defend the Babri Masjid at the site. The Babri Masjid which was a 16th century mosque in Ayodhya was pulled down by Hindu Karsevaks on December 6, 1992 in an attempt to reclaim the land known as Ram Janmabhoomi.

In fact, India has been on alert a day after the anniversary of Babri Masjid demolition. Following the blast, a high alert has been sounded in other metros of India including Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore and Hyderabad.

Unconfirmed, media reports suggest that the e-mail sent by the Indian Mujahideen taking responsibility for the blast was in fact prepared on December 6 and sent from Malad which is a suburb of Mumbai. The five-page e-mail was signed by ‘Al-Arbi’

Following the blast, the Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh expressed concern over the attack and appealed to all to maintain calm and peace. “The blast is an attempt to weaken our resolve by evil forces of terrorism in which terrorists will not succeed,” he said.

Newspaper reports suggest that the suspects range in age from 21-30. The group also includes one woman member. They were detained following police raids in Athens, the port of Piraeus, the western town of Agrinio and the southern Mediterranean island of Crete Saturday.

It has been reported that all the six suspects were formally charged with three felonies, including participation in a terrorist group, aggravated arms possession and possession of explosive materials. The police will present the accused before an examining magistrate within a day or two.

Among those arrested, two members were wanted by the police in connection with a left-wing terrorist group, Conspiracy of Fire Nuclei, that was allegedly behind a series of parcel bombs sent to European leaders and embassies last month. Greece has a long history with domestic terrorism, which has left more than 40 people dead in the last three decades, including a British military attache, a CIA station chief, police officers, journalists and businessmen.

Interesting this blog covered an analytical article on the Terrorism Risk Index of various countries in with Greece has been ranked 24 on the list. It was reported that Greece faces a major challenge from left-wing terrorist groups. These groups have been the cause of the increased risk profile of the country. Between June 2009 and June 2010, Greece experienced about 180 attacks – more than took place in Yemen which is a country in the high risk zone. However it has been noted that attacks carried out by the left-wing groups tend to be non-fatal, but they can be highly disruptive in nature.

Police said that the first two suspects were arrested after officials discovered three submachine guns, seven handguns, grenades, 50 kg of explosive powder and 200 grams of TNT in a basement garage in the Athens suburb of Nea Smyrni. Anti-terrorist police then made further arrests in the Athens suburb of Kalithea, the central Athens neighbourhood of Exarchia, the central Greek town of Agrinio and on the island of Crete. Media reports quoted the police chief as saying that the arrests of the suspects was carried out based on the surveillance undertaken and after evidence showed they were planning a terrorist attack.

The Police believe that the terror suspects belong to a group which is known as the “Sect of Revolutionaries”. The Sect of Revolutionaries first emerged after the rioting over the death of teenager Alexis Grigoropoulos, killed by a police bullet in December 2008. Officials had initially said the weapons found were similar to the kind used by left-wing guerrilla group Sect of Revolutionaries, which claimed responsibility for the slaying of Sokratis Giolas, an investigative journalist and an anti-terrorist police officer. Giolas had been shot dead in front of his pregnant wife July 19 outside their Athens home.

The group has vowed to increase attacks on police, business people, prison guards and corrupt media, in addition to tourists.

A summary of the report released to this blog, indicates a notable increase of terrorism risk status of Greece and Russia. This is a prominent shift reflected in this year’s TRI when compared to the year report released by Maplecroft. Russia has moved up from medium risk category country into the high risk category. This, the report says, is primarily due to an increase in large-scale mass-casualty attacks carried out by separatists from the North Caucasus. The report indicates that March 2010 bombings on the Moscow Metro, for example, were the deadliest attacks on the city’s underground rail system and the first terrorist attack on Moscow’s Metro since 2004. In another attack in September 2010, a suicide car bomber detonated at the central market in Vladikavkaz, North Ossetia-Alania killing at least 17 and injuring more than 160.

However, the report indicates that the largest fall in rankings is in the case of Greece, which dropped from 57 to 24 to overtake Spain (27) and become the European country most at risk from terrorist attacks. The report agrees that not many people would expect Greece to emerge as a high risk country. However, the report says that the challenge Greece faces is from left-wing terrorism that has caused its increased risk profile. Between June 2009 and June 2010, the country experienced 180 attacks – more than took place in Yemen. Recently, small left-wing groups have re-emerged, attacking a range of targets. Attacks tend to be non-fatal, but they can be highly disruptive as was seen in early November 2010, when a series of parcel bombs were addressed to embassies in Athens as well as European leaders and institutions.

Another interesting trend that the TRI 2011 presents is in Yemen. The report says that Yemen saw a very significant increase in risk. It was included in the extreme risk category for the first time. This is due to an increase in the number of attacks on its soil as well as its use as a haven by al-Qaeda. Between June 2008 and June 2009, only 31 terrorist attacks were recorded in Yemen. This increased to a total of 109 attacks between June 2009 and June 2010. Yemen’s most infamous association with terrorism, however, is its apparent use as a haven for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). AQAP was behind an airliner bombing plot in December 2009 when a passenger attempted to set off plastic explosives on an international passenger flight from Schiphol Airport in the Netherlands, to Detroit Metropolitan Airport, USA. More recently, the group was behind a plot involving packages containing bombs sent from Yemen in cargo planes. Two were intercepted in the UK and Dubai.

The Terrorism Risk Index has been developed by Maplecroft, and comprises of three separate sub-indices: incidence – which calculates the frequency of attacks over a 12-month period (June 2009 – June 2010, the latest available data); intensity –a calculation of how lethal terrorist attacks are. The report indicates that in some countries like Greece for example, there have been a lot of small scale attacks that typically do not kill anyone. In other countries, like Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan for example, terrorist attacks are designed to kill as many people as possible. The intensity index also counts the number of mass-casualty attacks per country. The third includes historical aspects– the historical component looks at a country’s past experience of terrorism, whether it has a long-standing militant group that has operated in the country, for instance, Colombia’s FARC which has been active since the 1960s. Based on these parameters the Index, released annually covers 196 countries.

The release from the company indicates that to maintain consistence in definition the data used for the analysis is taken up the US National Counter-terrorism Center’s Worldwide Incidents Tracking System (NCTC). The company agrees that terrorism by itself is hard to define, making it harder for analysts to review data. Hard still is the fact that the analysis of terror activities globally is influenced by various subjective factors. It agrees that there is “no universally agreed definition of terrorism and any attempt at defining such a politically-loaded word is bound to provoke debate.” Hence to overcome the ideological underpinnings that overstretch the definition of the phenomenon called terrorism, TRI adopts a very broad definition. For the purposes of the index, Maplecroft defines terrorism as “incidents in which sub-national or clandestine groups or individuals deliberately attack civilians or non-combatants (including military personnel and assets outside war zones and war-like settings).”

At a subjective level the report agrees that it is not always possible to determine an ideological motive for such attacks, nor the exact circumstances under which they occurred. The report notes that it is not always easy to distinguish where the perpetrators of the attacks are foreign nationals operating in a third country or are nationals from the same country where the attack takes place. Therefore, to capture the risk posed by al-Qaeda and other international Islamist groups, Maplecroft has introduced a component to the index which tracks whether a country has experienced an attack by al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab or similar, or whether it has been threatened by one of these groups.

The report draws up a list of countries that it considers to be at risk of an al-Qaeda attack (including al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), or an attack by al-Shabaab or another international Islamist group. These countries are: Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt, Israel, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Pakistan, Palestinian Occupied Territory, Somalia, Tajikistan, Uganda, USA, Uzbekistan and Yemen. The countries that have been threatened or have had failed plots by al-Qaeda or another international Islamist group include: Australia, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Ethiopia, France, United Kingdom, Kenya, Kuwait, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Oman and Qatar. Further the report indicates the other countries that are considered to be at risk due to regional proximity of such extremists groups. These include; Djibouti, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Libya, Tanzania and Nigeria.

The worst scoring on Maplecroft Terrorism Risk Index are sixteen countries rated as ‘extreme risk’ with Somalia (1), Pakistan (2), Iraq (3), Afghanistan (4), Palestinian Occupied Territories (5), Colombia (6), Thailand (7), Philippines (8), Yemen (9) and Russia (10). Maplecroft report found no major Western economies in the high or ‘extreme risk’ bracket; the United States (ranked 33 on the risk index), France (44) and the United Kingdom (46) all remain in the ‘medium-risk’ category. India is ranked 16 in the list, has been categorised as an ‘extreme risk’ nation in the index of global terror risk. “India experienced a total of 749 terrorist incidents between June 2009 and June 2010. This compares to 775 terrorist attacks between June 2008 and 2009, a year previously. Levels of terrorism in India have thus remained constant and the country’s ranking has remained in the extreme risk category,” the index explained. China rose to number 43 from number 54 due to an increase in the intensity of security incidents in 2008-09 compared to 2006-07. Iran rose to number 19 from number 25, due to insurgencies in Baluchistan and Khuzestan and rising anti-government sentiments and Egypt rose to number 54 from number 66, due to a spate of minor security incidents in late 2008 and early 2009.

Maplecroft's Analysis of Terror Risk Countries

Terrorism Blog wishes to thank Jason McGeown, Communications Manager at Maplecroft for kindly providing a summary of the TRI for this report.