Migration, Terrorism and the Quest for Transatlantic Sanity

Photo: Reuters/Michaela Rehle
Photo: Reuters/Michaela Rehle

The debate in Europe and the United States has been hijacked by a simple and false amalgam that Syrian refugees are the same type of people that have bombed a Russian airliner and killed over 120 civilians in the streets of Paris. Such amalgam is resonating among the citizens of the Euro-Atlantic nations and is affecting societal unity as well as serious policy-making.

American and European Discourses

In the United States, the political debate for constructive policy-making and governance is on hold until the November 2016 Presidential elections. So far, the political debate has been framed by the large pool of Republican presidential hopefuls seeking for attention and party nomination. Because of the two-step process of American elections, candidates ought to win their party

Photo:
Photo: AP

primaries in order to face the opposition in the second round. Historically, this part of the race is the most extreme and radical as each candidate (from the Republican or Democrat) wants to win the nomination from their party base. In recent decades, the base for the Democrats and Republicans has become more extreme. For such reason Republican hopefuls are tapping in the most radical rhetorics in order to get the nomination. This leads ultimately to ultra-nationalist and anti-immigration narratives highly embedded in ideologies and leaving facts on the side. The current leader of the Republican field, Donald Trump, has been quite tough on wanting to stop immigrants from coming into the US and even rejecting illegal immigrants currently living in the country. But the debate in the US has become even more radical ensuing the terrorist attacks in Paris. Now Governors of the states of Florida and Georgia have both claimed that they will be refusing to welcome any Syrian refugees. First of all, immigration in the US is a federal matter, so that would go against federal policies. Second, the process to get asylum in the US is extremely difficult, long and thorough.

Interestingly enough, Marco Rubio, Senator for the state of Florida, is even forgetting about his own history by taking a tough stand against refugees. His family flew the Cuban dictatorship as many Cubans did since the 60s. For political and historical reasons, the Cubans are among the very few to receive automatic citizenship. Cubans were fleeing a violent dictatorship persecuting individuals opposed to the regime; so are a majority of Syrians. If the 60s and 70s were one of the most tense moment between Communist regimes and Capitalist regimes, the fear was about protection of intelligence and the US responded through the implementation of virulent anti-communist policies starting with McCarthy. Today, the fear from the Syrians is not so much about intelligence gathering and spying, but rather about terrorism. In both cases, the American public has been extremely fearful of welcoming refugees from highly unstable places. Individuals like Marco Rubio taking a selecting reading of personal and national history and migration are affecting the sanctity of an important debate on proper refugee policies.

Credit: Pew Research Center. September 2015.
Credit: Pew Research Center. September 2015.

As illustrated by the recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, a majority of Americans (51%) approves the US decision to take more refugees. Within this 51%, the wide majority of Americans in favor of such policy move belongs to the Democratic Party (69%), when only less than 1/3 of Republican supporters approve it. When asked about the US on doing more, only 44% of citizens agree with such statement. If Democrats were predominantly in favor to welcome refugees (69%), only 50% of them are in favor on doing more and 35% rather stay with the current course of action. Ultimately, the current debate taking place in each party reflects very well the results of such poll. In the case of the Republicans, the main argument is to limit the number of refugees, while in the case of the Democrats it is to maintain the current status-quo. Neither parties offer a true solution on welcoming Syrian refugees.

Credit:
Credit: Steve Benson

On the other side of the Atlantic, the populist and xenophobist parties of the extreme right are getting some serious leverage. Not only they are getting into power like in Poland, Denmark and Sweden, but other extreme right parties like in France are continuing their progressive ascension. The European rights are shifting towards the extreme of their spectrum in order to seek for a confused electorates. In the case of France, despite the ongoing investigations, the rights are splitting from the government  and are fighting over a ‘frighten’ and ‘powerless’ electorate. In his many speeches and addresses, President François Hollande has called for national unity and solidarity. But the rights are rejecting such unity. For instance, during the address of the Prime Minister Manuel Valls before the National Assembly, the rights booed and refused to join the current government in maintaining the national unity. The Republicans (center-right) and Front National (extreme-right) shall be called for what they are in this moment of grief, tension and uncertainty (considering the fact that the police and intelligence services are still looking

Photograph: Etienne Laurent/EPA
Photograph: Etienne Laurent/EPA

for terrorists and working on dismantling terrorist cells around the country): vultures. In addition, if one were to actually read and listen to the narratives of Prime Minister Valls, one would get confused about his political affiliation. The securitarian rhetorics of the current socialist government is identical to the ones used by the French rights. In a recent interview with international medias, PM Valls expressed through very tough language radical policies in order to curb the threat of terrorism (read here an article in the Financial Times). In addition, the PM and President have not shied away from repeating that ‘France is now at war’ and more attacks should be expected.

Politically, France is highly divided, much more than after the terrorist attacks in January, while socially, French citizens are in fact seeking and searching for some sort of unity and solidarity. Interestingly enough, the world has offered the unity and solidarity to French citizens more than its own political class. The demonstrations of support in the US and the UK (both on the right of the political spectrum and in opposition to economic and social policies of the Hollande’s government) have been quite humbling.

 The Quest for Transatlantic Sanity and Maturity

The threat of terrorism and its recent successes in Paris, Egypt, Beirut, Tunis (to name a few) is causing Westerners and others to reflect on a simple question: what does the future entail? How do we, as a society, avoid for a radicalization of our youth? and how do we secure our nations without violating our own democratic principles and values? The US waged two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for over a decade, violated its democratic principles (through the Patriot Act, rendition and the use of torture). Now the French are at war and are passing laws in order to extend the state of emergency as well as a deprivation of nationality for bi-nationals. A French Patriot Act was already in the making ensuing the attacks against Charlie Hebdo 10 months earlier.

With regards to the refugees leaving their homelands in Syria, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan and others, Europeans cannot find a common position on welcoming them and relocating them across the Union. Member States rather locked them down by closing their borders and ultimately slowly killing one of the greatest successes of the EU, the Schengen agreement (read here a previous analysis on the issue). Europeans live in the absolutely fantasy that closing and re-instituting national borders will ultimately stop the flow of migrants. In the 19th century and early 20th, an ocean and closed American borders did not stop Italian and Irish migrants to seek for an opportunity in the United States. So it is quite futile to forget about history and geographical realities.

The obvious policy response from, supposedly developed countries, should be to assume their responsibilities by welcoming refugees and letting their legal mechanisms grant asylum to the few of them. The question of the Schengen agreement should be properly addressed instead of being criticized for political reasons. The concept of Schengen, a borderless continent, is fascinating but cannot work without its members boosting up their cooperation between their police and intelligence services. Free movement of people should be guaranteed, but that does not mean that it should be a lawless continent. Criminal and terrorist networks ought to be controlled through deeper European cooperative mechanisms requiring more funding, more human and material capabilities, and naturally political will.

The two complex crises of migration and terrorism have illustrated a core reality. Our ‘leaders’ need to do more ‘leading’ and less following. Governing is a complex matter that requires vision, leadership and courage. Until our elected officials seek for perpetual reelection by only worrying of grabbing an endlessly shifting confused electorate, these complex crises will linger.

(Copyright 2015 by Politipond. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission).

Reason, torture, the CIA, and American influence

Getty Images
Getty Images

“‘There are things which must cause you to lose your reason or you have none to lose.’ An abnormal reaction to an abnormal situation is normal behavior.” This sentence is from Viktor E. Frankl’ seminal book, Man’s Search for Meaning, looking at human reactions and actions in times of great violence and stress. Such statement strongly resonates with the current discussion stirred by the release of the Feinstein report on December 9th, 2014. The Feinstein report looks at the role of the CIA and its use of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs), known as torture, following the 9/11 attacks.

The Feinstein report is one of the most important pieces of reflection in contemporary American history for two reasons. First, it encapsulates the complexity and vitality of American democracy. Very few governments in the world would have looked so closely into one of its darkest hours and denounced its abuses. Second, it as well demonstrates how quickly democratic fondations and basic human, moral and ethical principles can be shattered because of fear and in the name of security. The Feinstein report embodies the best of American democracy – self-reflection and correction – as well as the worst of government policies.

Soul Searching and…

RAMZI HAIDAR via Getty Image
RAMZI HAIDAR via Getty Image

In her foreword, interviews, and articles, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Dianne Feinstein explains clearly and rationally her motivations for this lengthy work and the publication of the executive summary. The process started in 2009 once the Select Committee realized that the CIA had initiated in 2007 a process of destroying videotapes of detainee interrogations. For over five years, staff members of the Committee Study reviewed more than “six million pages of CIA materials, to include operational cables, intelligence reports, internal memoranda and emails, briefing materials, interview transcripts, contracts, and other records.” The report (access to the executive summary here) published on the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s website includes Senator Feinstein’s foreword and a 500 page executive summary. The final17692408 report, that won’t be released to the public for security reasons, includes over 6,700 pages.

Dianne Feinstein, an old time advocate of the Intelligence Community (IC), explained the moral dilemma in publishing the report. On the one hand, the US had to react after the 9/11 attacks. She underscores in her foreword, that “I can understand the CIA’s impulse to consider the use of every possible tool to gather intelligence and remove terrorists from the battlefield, and CIA was encouraged by political leaders and the public to do whatever it could to prevent another attack.” On the other hand, she is trying to expose the ‘alleged’ abuses perpetuated by the CIA from 2001 to 2009. The pages describing the EITs are a difficult read and lead the reader/citizen to wonder about the ethical and moral justifications behind such program.

207CIA Torture Report

Several findings and conclusions were underscored in the Feinstein report:

  1. The CIA's use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees (p.2)
  2. The CIA's justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on inaccurate claims of their effectiveness (p.2)
  3. The interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than the CIA represented to policymakers and others (p.3)
  4. The conditions of confinement for CIA detainees were harsher than the CIA had represented to policymakers and others (p.4)
  5. The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice, impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program (p.4)
  6. The CIA has actively avoided or impeded congressional oversight of the program (p.5)
  7. The CIA impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making (p.6)
  8. The CIA's operation and management of the program complicated, and in some cases impeded, the national security missions of other Executive Branch agencies (p.7)
  9. The CIA impeded oversight by the CIA's Office of Inspector General (p.8)
  10. The CIA coordinated the release of classified information to the media, including inaccurate information concerning the effectiveness of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques (p.8)
  11. The CIA was unprepared as it began operating its Detention and Interrogation Program more than six months after being granted detention authorities (p.9)
  12. The CIA's management and operation of its Detention and Interrogation Program was deeply flawed throughout the program's duration, particularly so in 2002 and early 2003 (p.10)
  13. Two contract psychologists devised the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques and played a central role in the operation, assessments, and management of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. By 2005, the CIA had overwhelmingly outsourced operations related to the program (p.11)
  14. CIA detainees were subjected to coercive interrogation techniques that had not been approved by the Department of Justice or had not been authorized by CIA Headquarters (p.12)
  15. The CIA did not conduct a comprehensive or accurate accounting of the number of individuals it detained, and held individuals who did not meet the legal standard for detention. The CIA's claims about the number of detainees held and subjected to its enhanced Interrogation techniques were inaccurate (p.12)
  16. The CIA failed to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of its enhanced interrogation techniques (p.13)
  17. The CIA rarely reprimanded or held personnel accountable for serious and significant violations, inappropriate activities, and systemic and individual management failures (p.14)
  18. The CIA marginalized and ignored numerous internal critiques, criticisms, and objections concerning the operation and management of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program (p.14)
  19. The CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program was inherently unsustainable and had effectively ended by 2006 due to unauthorized press disclosures, reduced cooperation from other nations, and legal and oversight concerns (p.15)
  20. The CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program damaged the United States' standing in the world, and resulted in other significant monetary and non-monetary costs (p.16)

… national security

The report created a clear divide and a furor among high level officials of the Bush administration and the CIA. The response by the CIA is not surprising. Its former Directors have disputed the results of the report. And even a group of CIA agents have launched a site (ciasavedlives.com) demonstrating the benefits of their work. If one reads closely the foreword and executive summary, the Feinstein report is not a repudiation of the CIA nor of the Intelligence Community (IC). The report criticizes, more accurately sheds light, on the way the CIA conducted its operations, especially the use of EITs and black sites, from the beginning of the program in 2002 to its end in April 2008 (watch here an interesting short documentary by the New York Times).

The national security’s argument has been raised principally by the Republicans (at the exception of Senator McCain splitting with the Republican establishment), former members of the Bush administration, and high ranking CIA officials. It is undeniable that the release of the allegations of torture may be used by terrorists around the world as a recruiting tool. But which dimension of American foreign policy has not been used as a recruiting tool? Former members of the Bush administration have gone after the credibility of the report by claiming that the conclusions and data are not true, that the Senate was informed, and that the torture permitted the gathering of valuable information. Dick Cheney, former Vice President, still stands behind the use of EITs – as he said that the end “absolutely” justified the means. A group of top intelligence officials responded in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that EITs “saved lives” and framed the report as a “partisan” attack against the Republican establishment. They are accusing the report of a “one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation—essentially a poorly done and partisan attack.”

American Transparency?

The debate occurring in the US about the use of torture in order to gather information from terrorists is an healthy and important one. The release of the Feinstein report should not be perceived as a witch hunt against the CIA and the men involved in torture. It is in fact the exemplification of the check-and-balance system of the different branches of American government.

The executive branch, meaning the White House and President Obama, have yet to take a stand on the issue. President Obama is struggling, calling EITs torture and condemning the persons involved (some even call for the White House to grant a pardon). Even though President Obama never supported the enhanced interrogation program and banned it once in power, he has yet to take a stand on the Feinstein report and remains supportive of CIA director John Brennan. As argued by Karen Greenberg, director of the Center on National Security at the Fordham University School of Law, “The intelligence agency has become the lead agency in national security, and therefore he’s beholden to it, and there’s no getting around that. It’s much bigger than before 9/11. It’s not just about Brennan.” The President cannot afford losing the support and the intel provided by the CIA. The report comes at a good time, even though Dianne Feinstein wondered about it by asking “But is there ever a good time to admit our country tortured people?” The war against radical Islamic groups is ongoing and with no end in sight. A debate about the way America gathers information while protecting itself from foreign attacks is healthy and vital. The report may offer the needed admission and closure on this dark era.

(Copyright 2014 by Politipond. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission).