Inclusion trumps isolation in the war on terror.

The events in Paris have simultaneously brought out moments of the best and worst of humanity in the news. The demonstrations of solidarity throughout the world are incredible and should be supported. Never before has the overuse of red, white and blue neon lighting been so welcomed across the world.

Meanwhile, however, there is a growing feeling of isolationism and hatred which has started to take grip. It is no longer a surprise that Republican Presidential nominees have to take an anti-immigration stance if they want to appeal to the vocal right, what has been something of a surprise is just how vile some of the recent comments have been. When Donald Trump suggests that Muslims should have to sign a register or Ben Carson likens them to rabid dogs and they can still stand a chance at winning the nomination then there is something very wrong with the system.

As easy as it is to ridicule the Republicans and their increasingly isolationist ideas it isn’t just the American system of government which is taking an anti-refugee, anti-immigration stance. Across the world the fear of refugees has been growing and the attacks in France have just helped elevate the rhetoric of the right wing to new heights.

It is easy to explain that we should be helping people who need it. It is pretty obvious to most people that the majority for those who are fleeing for their lives are not planning terrorist attacks. The amount of news coverage has made it clear to the majority of semi educated individuals with an average GCSE reading age that the potential proportion of refugees who may harbour jihadist sympathies is such as small fraction as to be mathematically insignificant. Of course the risk of one individual with a bomb must be taken seriously and sensible measures taken to prevent them. Denying millions of the chance of a safe life away from the bloodshed is not the way.

New housing policies in the UK for example, ensuring that landlords have to get specific documentation and id from potential tenants, will not prevent people running to Britain. It may delay them from finding shelter, however, after living rough for months and spending all of their money getting there is unlikely to deter them for long. What it will do though is start to create isolated communities, communities which are willing to only accept people of the same religion, ethnicity, culture. Instead of protecting the country it allows for a sense of isolation to spread and from there the increased risk of radicalisation.

There are many other policies being suggested across Europe and the West and almost all of them will lead to an increase in the threat of radicalisation. Terrorism fails to flourish when people are educated about multiculturalism. It relies on a feeling of persecution and hatred, it is almost impossible for it to spread in an atmosphere of inclusion and understanding.

If governments are serious about stopping the spread of terrorism then they need to dramatically alter their current mindsets. Of course threats need to be identified and stopped but creating a persecution complex is not the way to do it. Only be promoting genuine understanding and tolerance can terrorism truly be defeated. Although isolating some of the Republican Presidential candidates may not be an entirely bad idea.

Whose in the right in humanitarian intervention?

THE idea of humanitarian intervention is, and indeed should be, a contentious issue. It revolves around the principle of assuming that one group of individuals are better suited to solve issues and decide what is right rather than another.

By its very nature it speaks of an unevenness in the international system and the implication that some states are unable to manage their own affairs. 

There is an argument to be made that intervention, particularly in recent years in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya et al, has been conducted via a British and American led concept of imposing westernised thinking on the rest of the world. It is a post-colonial argument that we have never stopped seeing ourselves as the saviours of the rest of the world.

There is another argument, however, that due to our past involvement with much of the world we have left the foundations for current crises. This does not necessarily mean historic involvement though. 

In the case of Iraq it seems inevitable that we will once again deploy ground troops. When we invaded in 1990 it started a chain of events which has by clear and predictable means led to the situation whereby much of the country is ruled by terrorist insurgents and it balances dangerously on the precipice of becoming a failed state.

Both invasions into Iraq, led by Bush and son inc, served no purpose in increasing US, or another nation states, power. Indeed they could arguably seen as diminishing power by demonstrating weaknesses in American long term foreign policy, particularly in regards to divisions between the Republicans and Democrats outlooks. On a separate front it has opened America, and the West as a whole, to a new wave of terrorism which weakens them domestically.

The recent interventions, and lack of intervention in some places, has additionally highlighted the failure of liberal ideology and the use of international agencies. 

The US had overruled the United Nations on a number of occasions to launch interventions under the pretext of defence of self interest. In other instances opportunities when intervention may genuinely be justified it is blocked by the self interest of member states with the power of veto. Likewise individuals in an increasingly networked society may be under the illusion that they have the power to shape the choices and identity of states. Evidence in the international system at present, think new order in Egypt as a crucial example, proves this wrong though, with non-state actors having a transitory effect at best. Protests for or against intervention may gather a few extra viewers for the news, and add a couple of column inches, however if it truly had an effect then we would not be back working with Iraq.

As such humanitarian intervention cannot, and should not, be seen as something which can be covered by one particular mindset. No single theory can cover the multifaceted issues which surround the moral and legal justifications for intervening in the affairs of a sovereign state. As Lebanon buckles under the sheer volume of refugees from Syria, and in turn finds itself under threat of civil war, it is clear though that for the sake of a global society we must do something to help our fellow human beings. What higher justification can be needed than to preserve the basic human rights of our fellow beings?

ISIS aren't just another terror threat

BRITISH Prime Minister David Cameron has issued a stark warning that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has planned six terrorist attacks in Europe.

His warnings come as sources close to the security services revealed that they have identified the insurgent known as Jihadi John, believed to be responsible for the murders of American journalists James Foley and Stephen Sutloff.

In a statement to MP's Mr Cameron said: "The point I would make even today to the British people is: be in no doubt about the threat that so-called Islamic State poses to us. We have already seen something like six planned attacks in the countries of the European Union from [Isis], including of course that appalling attack in the Brussels Jewish museum, where innocent people were killed. That flows directly from this organisation."

While ISIS, which is also known as Islamic State (IS) and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), may be planning attacks against the West it would be far too simple to think of them as just another terrorist organisation.

ISIS may have started out as an offshoot from Al-Queda, however, it has now morphed into something all the more dangerous and insidious.

"This is not a terrorism problem anymore,” says Jessica Lewis, an expert on ISIS at the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think tank. “This is an army on the move in Iraq and Syria, and they are taking terrain.”

"We are using the word encircle,” Lewis tells TIME. “They have shadow governments in and around Baghdad, and they have an aspirational goal to govern. I don’t know whether they want to control Baghdad, or if they want to destroy the functions of the Iraqi state, but either way the outcome will be disastrous for Iraq.”

ISIS's metamorphosis creates an issue in the way in which the British government, and nations as a whole, need to combat them. Traditional methods of dealing with a terrorist threat has involved cutting off supply and removing leadership. In the case of ISIS these are unlikely to work though. Due to the territory it has taken and the armaments it continues to capture it has essentially become self sustaining in terms of supply. While it has a powerful leader in the form of  Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi it is increasingly clear that his removal would have little impact on the long term effectiveness of the group with a replacement likely waiting in the wings. 

The British government has already confirmed that it will supply arms to Kurdish fighters and the Iraqi government waging a war against the spread of ISIS.

The Prime Minister has said: “I have always said we would respond positively to requests from them for the direct supply and we are now prepared to do that and so will be providing them with arms, as the Germans and others will.

“Also with allies, we think it’s right to step up our training and mentoring efforts and so we’ve said we would be willing if they would like to train a battalion of Peshmerga fighters because they are doing such a vital job.”

As the conflict continues though more may need to be done. While another military intervention in the Middle East is less than palatable it may become necessary as the group becomes viewed as an occupying army rather than a terrorist group. 

Summit is adapt or die moment for NATO

ESCALATING chaos in Iraq and Syria and rising tensions in Ukraine will dominate discussions among world leaders at the NATO conference in Wales.

Not since the closing days of the Cold War have the stakes been so high for the NATO participants as they attempt to determine if the alliance is ready to face the challenges of the 21st century.

British Prime Minister David Cameron will join NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen in leading the talks taking place over the course of two days.

Speaking ahead of the summit Mr Cameron said: "It's hard to think of a Nato summit coming at a more important time for our alliance.

"We see the appalling actions of Russia in eastern Ukraine. We see the appalling scenes in Iraq and Syria and the rise of this so-called Islamic Caliphate and its dreadful brutality in executing the American hostage we saw overnight.

"And in this dangerous and difficult world NATO has an absolutely key role in providing our collective security, and that's what the next two days are going to be all about."

Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen gave his views to journalists: "In today's world we are, so to speak, surrounded by an arc of crisis.

"To the east, to the southeast, to the south - and at this summit we will address the whole range of security challenges and improve Nato's ability to act swiftly if needed."

The dynamics of global powers have shifted since world leaders last met in the UK as part of a NATO summit. When last gathered on British shores in 1990 Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister and the Cold War, against the alliances old sparring partner Russia, was drawing to a close. There was a need to rethink NATO's operational concept and evolve to face a changing world. 

With the crisis in Ukraine reaching new levels, amid reports of Russian interference, and the dangers of allowing terrorist groups such as Islamic State to take hold of large areas of territory NATO's role has become crucial once again for international 

 stability.

A 2013 brief from the Atlantic Council warned, “The world is changing rapidly, and if NATO does not adapt with foresight for this new era, then it will very likely disintegrate.”

This summit needs to answer the question of whether the group is prepared to adapt, or if as the brief warns it will disintegrate amid bickering and internal divisions.

In a jointly written article for the Times Mr Cameron and American President Barack Obama laid out their plans for the future: "With Russia trying to force a sovereign state to abandon its right to democracy at the barrel of a gun, we should support Ukraine's right to determine its own democratic future and continue our efforts to enhance Ukrainian capabilities," they wrote.

"We must use our military to ensure a persistent presence in eastern Europe, making clear to Russia that we will always uphold our... commitments to collective self-defence.

"And we must back this up with a multi-national rapid response force, composed of land, air, maritime and special forces, that could deploy anywhere in the world at very short notice."

The world will now be watching to see if old animosities and competing agendas can be set aside as they once were decades ago to fulfil the future promise of not just NATO but global peace and security.

Terror laws create division

DESPITE only returning from summer recess on Monday the British coalition government is already mired in controversy and disputes with proposed anti-terror laws.

Prime Minister David Cameron has come into conflict with Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and civil liberties groups over plans to tackle extremist elements in the UK.

The proposals come in the wake of revelations that approximately 500 Britons have travelled to Syria to join with the fundamentalist Islamic State organisation. 

Speaking to MP's on Monday Mr Cameron set out his commitment to the new laws: "It is abhorrent that people who declare their allegiance elsewhere can return to the United Kingdom and pose a threat to our national security.

"We are clear in principle that what we need is a targeted, discretionary power to allow us to exclude British nationals from the UK."

Civil liberties groups and MP's have expressed reservations over the issue amid fears that the far reaching policies could be used to curtail human rights.

Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve warned that some of the concepts in the proposed legislation would be a "mistake".

"I do share concerns that have been expressed that the suggestion British nationals, however horribly they may be alleged to have behaved, should be prevented from returning to this country. Not only does it offend principles of international law, it would actually offend basic principles of our own common law as well," he said.

Among critics from within the Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition is Sir Menzies Campbell who told BBC Radio 4's The World This Weekend: "I think it's rather difficult and it might well constitute illegality. To render citizens stateless is regarded as illegal in international law.

"To render them stateless temporarily, which seems to me the purpose of what's being proposed, can also I think be described as illegal.

"At the very least it's the kind of question that will be tested here in our own courts and perhaps also in the European Court of Human Rights."

The row has reinvigorated the debate over freedoms within the UK which were addressed last year following the detention of journalist David Miranda. At the time the National Union of Journalists released a statement warning of the impact upon the freedom of the press and democracy.

Michelle Stanistreet, NUJ general secretary, said:

"The shocking detention of David Miranda for the crime of being the partner of a respected investigative journalist points to the growing abuse of so-called anti-terror laws in the UK...

"This is not an isolated problem. The NUJ believes that journalists are coming under more scrutiny and surveillance, being stopped at borders and their work interfered with, simply for doing their job."

If passed Mr Cameron's plans to protect Britain against suspected terrorists could undermine the very values which he hopes to defend. For those travelling to conflict zones, whether for charitable or journalistic purposes, this could be inherently concerning. 

To combat extremism Mr Cameron needs to realise that by creating yet more feelings of isolation and separation within communities he is only magnifying the problem.

Threat to US and Britain on doorstep following Iraq escalation

WITH America and Britain unwilling to become involved in the escalating conflict in Iraq fears have arisen of home-grown terrorists joining the fighting in the Middle East.

Concerns have started to grow that British and American nationals have been recruited by fundamentalist groups to fight in Iraq and Syria.

The American Federal Bureau of Investigation is currently investigating allegations that approximately 15 men travelled to Syria to join up with groups against the hardline forces of President Bashar A-Assad. On Thursday a spokesman from  the FBI’s Minneapolis office, Kyle Loven, was reported as saying that the bureau had received information indicating that 10 to 15 men from the region's large Somali community had travelled from the Minneapolis-St Paul area to Syria.

While it has been known for some time that both British and American nationals have been joining with terrorist groups in the Middle East fears that some may have linked up with the ultra-radical group the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) have added a new dimension to the nature of international interference in the region.

According to a statement from the office of British Prime Minister the insurgency in Iraq is part of an “arc of extremism” which is starting to engulf the Middle East. The British Secret Intelligence Service, commonly known as MI6, suspects that approximately 500 British citizens have travelled to Syria to take part in the campaign, and may now have joined up with ISIS in Iraq.

The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman was reported as saying: “Our Security Services and all the relevant agencies will be monitoring those types of risks very closely. Clearly there is a very porous border between parts of Syria and parts of Iraq.

“As the PM has said, the greatest extremist activity and jihadist threats to the international community are in Syria. We need to keep these things under very close watch.”

While America and Britain have claimed that they have no intention of re-engaging in Iraq to combat the growing insurgent threat both countries may find that the conflict is brought to their doors.

Syria's stalemate exposes divisions in international community

DESPITE the best intentions of the Western governments the Syrian stalemate looks set to continue.

Foreign Ministers from Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the UK and the US met today in London in another attempt to find a solution to the civil war in Syria.

"We are of course united in our disgust and anger at what's happening in Syria and the ruthless utter disregard for human life, “ said British Foreign Minister William Hague, adding "We've also agreed unanimously to take further steps to... do everything we can to hold the Assad regime accountable for the terror it is perpetrating."

With the continuing tensions between the West and Russia over the developing situation in Ukraine, however, it seems unlikely that they will be able to reach any lasting resolution to the ongoing crisis.

With Russia’s support necessary for any effective international resolution agreement to bring  a lasting peace between the Syrian government and pro-democracy militia current events make it seem unlikely.

Russian Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov called the “Friends of Syria’s” approach “prejudiced and destructive”.

"Unlike some of our Western partners, meeting in London, we work with all Syrian sides, not just with one as if supporting it against the other," Mr Bogdanov told reporters from Russian news agency Interfax.

Without a unified international presence and strong stance by the United Nations it is unlikely that anything will change in the Syrian dynamic.

Retaking Homs has been hailed by supporters of Syrian President Assad ahead of elections in June as a sign that the regime is winning in the three year civil war which has left 150,000 dead.

The relinquishing of Homs is symbolic only though. The rebels have been given an opportunity to regroup their forces, placing them in a stronger position to continue to fight against Assad’s regime, without their most battle hardened fighters confined in the besieged city.

So long as Russia and the West resume old cold war animosities the chances of anything other than a stalemate are limited.

Bashar Al-Assad is guaranteed to win the Presidential elections in June but if the rest of the country does not recognise them then they will have no effect.

"Out of today's meeting, every facet of what can be done is going to be ramped up - every facet. That includes political effort. It includes aid to the opposition. It includes economic efforts, sanctions,” claimed US Secretary of State john Kerry. With Syria already aware that they are facing sanctions, in excess of those it already has in place, these are likely to have little effect though.

Without a combined effort and the international community putting aside its own agenda Syria’s civil war will continue ad infinitum.