Band 16 / 2016 Band 16 / 2016
What is the potential for violent extremism in the Western Bal- kans? This question has been the main topic of discussion of the 31st workshop of the Study Group Regional Stability in South East Europe that took place in Belgrade, Serbia, from 27 to 29 September 2015. The term “radicalism” witnessed many different interpretations in the past, especially among Violent Extremism the political elites across the Balkans. With the beginning of the civil war in Syria in 2011 and the emergence of IS, the term in the Western Balkans “radicalisation” received a different meaning in the context of the Western Balkans. “Radicalisation” is increasingly being used as proxy for Balkan-born fighters going to the battlefields in Syria and Iraq. This increasing on-site potential of violence affects the international political community which is making efforts to put a halt to this phenomenon. Violent Extremism in the Western Balkans Violent Extremism in the Western
ISBN: 978-3-902944-99-3 Filip Ejdus and Predrag Jureković (Eds.) 16/16
31st Workshop of the PfP Consortium Study Group
Regional Stability in South East Europe (Eds.) Jureković Ejdus, Study Group Information
Study Group Information
Filip Ejdus Predrag Jureković (Eds.)
Violent Extremism in the Western Balkans
31st Workshop of the PfP Consortium Study Group “Regional Stability in South East Europe”
16/2016 Vienna, May 2016
Imprint:
Copyright, Production, Publisher: Republic of Austria / Federal Ministry of Defence and Sports Rossauer Lände 1 1090 Vienna, Austria
Edited by: National Defence Academy Command Stiftgasse 2a 1070 Vienna, Austria
In co-operation with: PfP Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany
Study Group Information
Copyright © Republic of Austria / Federal Ministry of Defence and Sports All rights reserved
May 2016 ISBN 978-3-902944-99-3 Printing: HDruckZ-ASt Stift 16-01297 Printed according to the Austrian Ecolabel for printedmatter, Austrian Federal MinistryofDefence and Sports/ Stiftgasse 2a Armed Forces Printing Centre, UW-Nr. 943 1070 Wien
Table of Contents
Foreword 5 Filip Ejdus and Predrag Jureković
Abstract 9
Keynote Speech 11 Susan Woodward
PART I: THE ROOTS OF VIOLENT EXTREMISM 23
Socio Economic Roots of Extremism in the Region 25 Nemanja Džuverović
PART II: RADICAL ISLAM AND VIOLENT EXTREMISM 37
Salafi – Jihadists: a Threat to the Western Balkans? 39 James Kenneth Wither
Foreign Fighters, Religious Radicalism and Violent Extremism in Albania and the Western Balkans 57 Ebi Spahiu
Islamic Radicalism in Bosnia and Herzegovina 87 Edina Bećirević
Violent Extremism and Religious Radicalism in Albania 95 Enri Hide
PART III: NATIONALISM AND VIOLENT EXTREMISM 111
The Roots of Success of Far Right Parties in Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria 113 Věra Stojarová and Richard Stojar
3 Serbian Nationalism and Right Wing Extremism 133 Isidora Stakić
PART IV: STRATEGIES FOR THE FIGHT AGAINST VIOLENT EXTREMISM IN THE WESTERN BALKANS 149
Policing, Violent Extremism in the Western Balkans 151 Gordana Jankuloska
The Role of the Civil Society in Countering Violent Extremism 163 Izabela Kisić
Countering Violent Extremism – The Role of the European Union 179 Marianne Wade
PART V: POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 201
Policy Recommendations from the Regional Stability in the South East Europe 203 Filip Ejdus
List of Authors and Editors 209
4 Foreword
Filip Ejdus and Predrag Jureković
The 31st workshop of the Study Group Regional Stability in South East Europe was convened in Belgrade, Serbia from 27 to 29 September 2015. Under the overarching title of “Violent Extremism in the Western Balkans” 30 experts from the South East European region, the international com munity and major stakeholder nations met under the umbrella of the PfP Consortium of Defence Academies and Security Studies Institutes and the Austrian Ministry of Defence and Sports, represented through its National Defence Academy and Directorate General for Security Policy. The work shop was supported by the regional partner organization Belgrade Centre for Security Policy.
During the last two decades, the region of South East Europe has been on the agenda of Transatlantic, European and Austrian institutions with the goal of enhancing capabilities in the field of conflict management and peace support. Recent developments in the region have given rise to the main topic of the 31st workshop of the Study Group Regional Stability in South East Europe.
For more than a decade, the Western Balkans was considered to be a re gion slowly recovering from the conflicts of the 1990s and on the way to consolidating peace and stability. In spite of occasional setbacks, democ ratic backslides and sluggish reforms there has been a dependable expecta tion that conflicts will be resolved or at least managed peacefully. The at tack on a police station in the Bosnian town Zvornik (April 2015) and the killing of two soldiers of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina near Sara jevo (November 2015) as well as the “weekend war” in Kumanovo, Mace donia (May 2015), put violence back on the agenda of the Western Balkans. Primarily the first two events shed new light on the problem of an increas ing number of foreign fighters from the region who have joined the Islamic State or the Al Nusrah Front. In a video message from June 2015, the Is lamic State invited Balkan Muslims to “either join, or kill over there”.
5 In particular during autumn and winter 2015, when also this part of South East Europe was heavily affected by the humanitarian challenges of the global refugee crisis, but with minor intensity as well after the closing of the so called “Balkan route” in March 2016 there have been fears that the refu gee crisis could have negative security implications. On the other hand, these challenges, coupled with the never ending economic crisis, EU enlargement fatigue, as well as the deterioration in West Russia relationship further bolster extreme right wing mobilization across the region. A par ticularly strong catalyst for right wing mobilization has been the war in Ukraine attracting some dozens of foreign fighters and mercenaries from the Balkans who joined either Kiev or pro Russian rebels. If continued, the current refugee crisis may also bolster the rise of right wing extremism thus returning ethnic security dilemma to the politics of South East Europe.
The following key questions constituted the framework of discussion and debate during the workshop and thus also structure the contributions from the four panels in the following pages:
• What is the potential for violent extremism in the Western Balkans? • How can the region prevent radicalization? • Is the Islamic State a threat to the Western Balkans? • Should returning foreign fighters be reintegrated or sanctioned? • Should the refugee problem be securitized or treated purely as a humanitarian issue? • What is the role of media in the fight against violent extremism? • Is “the Greater Albania” project a myth or reality? • What are the links between right wing extremism and right wing political parties? • How can the region cooperate in the prevention of radicalization? • What is the role of the international community in the fight against violent extremism in the Western Balkans? • In what way can the civil society contribute to de radicalization?
After Susan L. Woodward’s general reflections on the overall topic, part I of this book addresses the roots of violent extremism. The contributions in part II deal with the ties between Islamism and Salafi Jihadist threats for
6 the Western Balkans. The various dimensions of nationalism are analyzed in part III. Finally, part IV focuses on the strategies for fighting violent extremism in the Western Balkans. The policy recommendations and find ings of the expert group are summarized at the end of the publication in part V.
The editors would like to express their thanks to all authors who contrib uted papers to this volume of the Study Group Information. They are pleased to present the valued readers the analyses and recommendations of the Belgrade meeting and would appreciate if this Study Group Informa tion could contribute to generate positive ideas for supporting the still chal lenging processes of consolidating peace in South East Europe.
Special thanks go to Ms. Adriana Dubo, who supported this publication as facilitating editor, and to Mr. Benedikt Hensellek for his stout support to the Study Group.
7
Abstract
For more than a decade, the Western Balkans was considered to be a re gion slowly recovering from the conflicts of the 1990s and on the way to consolidating peace and stability. The hope for peace was abruptly shaken by several violent incidents in 2015. The attack on a police station in the Bosnian town Zvornik and the killing of two soldiers of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina near Sarajevo as well as the fights in Kumanovo, Mace donia, put violence back on the agenda of the Western Balkans. The fear of new violence and the problem of an increasing number of foreign fighters from the region who have joined the Islamic State or the Al Nusrah Front is a constantly present threat to the region. The Islamic State is encouraging Muslims in the region to start a fight against the “new world” and join their mission. These new developments are of concern to the international community who is afraid that old wounds could be reopened and instability and chaos would prevail.
9
Keynote Speech
Susan Woodward
When I accepted this invitation to speak today, I thought I was attending a conference on Regional Stability in South East Europe. Only later did I learn that the actual agenda for the meeting is on Confronting Violent Ex tremism. Are these related in any way? I will argue that they are not, but that we do need to ask this question – are they related and if so how – and to be quite open and explicit about our answers, whichever position each one of us takes. This would seem to apply to all of the sessions today and tomorrow.
Let me begin with this new policy agenda on violent extremism, originating in Washington, D.C., but gaining wholehearted support from the United Nations in UN SCR 2178, introduced by the U.S. under its Council Presi dency on 24 September 2014, and already generating a large number of research institutes and policy platforms. Although some identify this con cern with the war in Syria and the emergence of the radical Islamic extrem ism of the Islamic State, ISIS/ISL, we know that the leadership of the latter originates much earlier in Afghanistan and that the U.S. framing derives directly from 9/11 and the Bush Administration’s global war on terror. “Violent extremist groups” are explicitly said to be the new nature of the terrorist threat, carried primarily by “foreign terrorist fighters,” already with its own acronym, FTF. I propose, however, that the lineage of this policy agenda actually goes back to the early 1990s when the end of the Cold War, and particularly its enormous expenditures on armed forces and arma ments, led to wide ranging debates about a new definition of security, both national and international, appropriate to the new international conditions and the alternative uses for those mammoth defense budgets that such a new understanding of security would support. It was even called the peace dividend. In a book manuscript that I have just completed, I argue that the concept that emerged victorious at the time was that of the failed state and its security threat to international peace and stable countries (largely, the U.S. and Western Europe, that is, the transatlantic alliance). There was, therefore, no redefinition of security for the post Cold War era, no restruc
11 turing of the U.S. designed international order in security and development, only a simple displacement of Western Cold War threat analysis from the Communist world to poor countries mostly embroiled in civil war. The threat that these poor, conflict affected countries were said to present came through refugees and asylum seekers, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, mass violations of human rights, pandemics of infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, SARS, and even Ebola, and trafficking in illegal goods such as illicit drugs, looted natural resources like diamonds and coltan, unregistered small arms, or in human beings for prostitution or slavery. Although the original argument was that these were new asymmetric threats and actors such as what were called warlords at the time who did not obey the rules, both normative and practical, to which international actors such as national militaries, the U.N., or the World Bank and IMF were accustomed and for which the international system in 1992 4 and these actors were unprepared, the focus shifted quickly onto the so called failed or fragile states as the threat. The original argument was based on actual events at the time, not only Somalia, Rwanda, and Haitian migrants, but also above all the Balkan wars – especially Bosnia Herzegovina.
As we watch the EU countries quarrel over how to share the refugee and asylum seeker burden currently, it is hard not to remember the very same fight in 1992 and 1993, including the development by then U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Sadako Ogata, of what she called “a right to stay,” that is to assist Bosnians of all nations and Serbs expelled from Croa tia to become IDPs at home rather than refugees in places like Germany. The same argument has reappeared this month in regard to the Syrian civil war and the exodus from Africa.
For reasons I can explain but will only state here, the result of this particu lar framing of global security threats and particularly toward countries of the transatlantic alliance was, in a very short period of time, an increasing focus on military responses – the expansion of NATO, ever more forceful (“robust” is the euphemism) definitions of intervention, including by U.N. peace operations, humanitarian war (so called because the term should be an oxymoron) in Kosovo and Libya, the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, increasingly military delivery of humanitarian aid – even now the pri marily military responses by the EU to the migration crisis of this year and last. For me, it was a tragic missed opportunity in the early to mid 1990s to
12 reorganize the international system and the policies of the major powers in support of the alternative proposals – cooperative security, human security, and above all, economic development after the devastating consequences worldwide of structural adjustment policies in indebted countries – policies that might have prevented, or at least substantially reduced, the renewed cycle of civil war and migration that we have been seeing since 2000 after the much celebrated decline in the number of conflict affected countries in the second half of the 1990s.
Let me remind you of a significant article by Richard Ullman, the distin guished American scholar of security and international relations, in 1983, who argued already that the U.S. had an excessively narrow and excessively military definition of national security, and that the U.S. public thought about resource allocations for military and non military dimensions of se curity in quite different ways – a single, authoritative determination on mili tary security and none on non military dimensions – and that this pre vented thinking and deliberation on a wide range of non military vulner abilities such as environmental disaster, human rights, and other threats to the quality of their living conditions.1 The article was aimed at the U.S. public, but it applies everywhere. It also correctly predicted the dilemma I believe we are now in, with ever more violent conflict – in 2010, there were 31 armed conflicts, in 2011, 37.2 U.N. military and police deployments were at an all time high by 2011 13 since their peak in 1992 1996.3 In early 2015, UNICEF recorded a milestone, of never before five simultaneous “level 3” humanitarian crises – Central African Republic, Iraq, Liberia, South Sudan, and Syria. I believe this is the consequence of this missed opportunity to develop robust non military responses to conflict and genuine attention to prevention and the rapid resort instead to the military as a default toolkit, as if it were a solution, which it is not. The lesson of the past two decades also seems to be having effects in the discussions on Countering Violent Extremism (CVE), for example, the CVE principles articulated at the Feb ruary 2015 summit in Washington, in the 2014 language of the UN Security
1 Richard Ullman, “Redefining Security,” International Security, 8: 1 (Summer 1983): 129 153. 2 ECD 2012: 32, using data from the Uppsala armed conflict dataset; OECD DAC 2014: 5. 3 Perry and Smith 2013. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2358162.
13 Council, and by private NGOs such as the Global Center on Cooperative Security that emphasize prevention, respect for human rights, and encour agement of non military tools and interstate cooperation; nonetheless, CVE remains a tool of counterterrorism so that it is difficult to imagine how these principles will win out against a military response.
Turning to Southeast Europe, however, why would the security threat, whether defined generally by the ideology of failed states or its current component, that of violent extremist groups and “foreign terrorist fight ers,” apparently of concern to the United States, the UK, or France, for example, also apply to Southeast Europe? We know that most of the world, from China to India to South Africa to Brazil or Argentina, does not accept either version of this argument. The electoral logic of countries with minor ity Muslim populations and attacks in the last years, such as France, make their concern a bit understandable on popular, if not scholarly grounds. But how did Southeast Europe transition from a perceived source of threat in the early 1990s (I say perceived because I never accepted this argument), to being victim of this threat? Or is the region still considered a threat to the outside?
We can break this question into three parts. First, the primary assumption of the Countering Violent Extremism agenda is that the threat is Islamic extremism. But the populations in Southeast Europe are either majority Muslim or have large Muslim minorities. While it is true that conflict provoking grievances by Muslim minorities against discrimination exists and is quite understandable in some cases, even these have not led to vio lence, nor, I predict, will they. This is not France, or even the U.K., in other words, where outsiders might find purchase in violent attacks by instructed individuals. Moreover, the enormous variation among Muslim populations in the region of Southeast Europe – linguistically, ethnically, religiously (e.g., doctrinally), organizationally – should even require those who speak of Muslims as a political actor to say what and who they mean.4 As Kerem Öktem writes, on the basis of extensive ethnographic fieldwork in Albania, Greece, Bosnia, Macedonia, Bulgaria, and Turkey in 2010, the exaggerated
4 Kerem Öktem’s recent survey of this variation is very useful: “Between emigration, de Islamization and the nation