SARAH SEWALL'S REMARKS ON COMBATING TERRORISM

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Combating Terrorism: Looking Over the Horizon
Remarks
Sarah Sewall
Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights
Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Geneva, Switzerland
June 15, 2015

(As Prepared for Delivery)

Good morning everyone. Thank you Dr. Mohamedou, and the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, for inviting me to address this accomplished group of scholars and practitioners on a topic that concerns much of the globe today: the threat of violent extremism. This threat takes many forms and appears throughout the world including: Neo-Nazi actors in the United States or Europe, violent radical Islamist movements in the Middle East and Africa, or extremist Buddhism operating in parts of Asia.

Violent extremism’s growth over the last decade is an extremely dangerous and destabilizing phenomenon. It is essential that the world mobilize against such backward-looking intolerance and cruelty, which threatens humanity’s moral, political, and economic progress. We know that terrorists must be defeated militarily, yet we also see them responding to military force by dispersing, rebranding, aligning and reforming – continuing to spread as new members join their ranks. This underscores the need to adopt a more preventive approach, one that halts the spread of violent extremist networks. This was a unified message from the February White House Summit to Counter Violent Extremism.

Yet we remain challenged by the difficulty of understanding why individuals or communities would join such backward, violent extremist groups. Terror network recruits come from all walks of life: posh suburbs and forgotten slums; from countries rich and poor, repressive and free, stable and conflict-ridden.

They have many complex, overlapping and context-specific motives. This can be confounding for a global community eager to understand why violent extremism proliferates and how we can address it.

Even as our understanding remains incomplete, we have documented a range of grievances and motives that propel individuals, and in some cases, communities to join or align with terrorist actors.

Motives can be identified along what psychologist Abraham Maslow famously posited as a human hierarchy of needs.

Maslow argued that individuals have a range of needs that must be met – in priority order – before people attain their greatest self-realization.

At the bottom of the pyramid are needs critical to physical survival, such as food, shelter and safety.

Higher up the hierarchy of need, individuals look to find love and belonging, self-esteem, and purpose.

In my view, understanding Maslow’s schema usefully helps us disaggregate the reasons that individuals might be “pushed” or “pulled” toward violent extremism. What have been called push factors – the conditions that make individuals or communities vulnerable to extremist recruitment – prominently feature conditions like physical insecurity or the inability to provide for oneself or one’s family. But even where people’s lower-level needs are met, social and political marginalization can impact higher-order human needs such as a valued role or purpose.

The Hierarchy of Needs therefore helps us understand why dramatically different profiles of persons can be drawn to organizations antithetical to what we would identify as progress and humanity.

Any type of violent extremist group exploits human needs all along the spectrum.

From al-Shabab in Somalia to Da’esh in Syria, terror groups lure some with the promise of a paycheck –the undereducated youth with no prospect of employment or a future, or the father who can no longer provide for his family.

Others are motivated to join extremist ranks by higher-end needs – purpose, meaning, identity. The exclusivity of belonging to group that aligns itself against another may lure the racial supremacist -- whether a “Skinhead”, Bhuddist extremist, or other variety. Terrorist narratives and slick media-driven marketing make casting calls for heroic warriors, wives of a new nation, or spiritual martyrdom. By targeting of psychological needs, despite the realities behind the pitch, violent extremists entice local youth, girls from Europe, and wealthy engineers to their ranks.

Maslow’s hierarchy suggests that those with unmet basic needs, be it physical security or a paycheck, may be particularly vulnerable to terror organizations. But the hierarchy also points toward other vulnerabilities that terrorists exploit. In so doing, this schema of needs suggests a complementary – if complex – set of interventions that states and communities must pursue to protect the most vulnerable from the false claims of terrorist propaganda.

Because violent extremists prey on different grievances, from people’s immediate needs for security to their more abstract desires for empowerment, and identity, a ‘whole-of-society’ approach is the key to preventing the spread of violent extremism’s appeals.

We absolutely need our military, intelligence, and law enforcement tools to defeat terror networks. But as Al-Qa’ida was dispersed, new terror groups sprang up, and they have merged or made common cause with other actors – sometimes coopting political movements or non-theologically affiliated communities (such as Sunni communities in parts of Iraq). Tens of thousands of individuals from around the globe travel to join the epicenters of terror. Violent extremism continues to spread.

Therefore as an international community, we must continue to expand our approach to counter terrorism to include greater emphasis on prevention – protecting individuals and communities from violent extremism. As agreed at the February White House Summit, global counter-terrorism efforts must learn to build resilience and resistance within the most vulnerable communities, helping address the range of human needs we have just discussed.

This can mean pushing governments to ensure space for dissent and religious freedom to reduce perceptions of marginalization and enable communities to find their voices; training security forces to protect instead of profile their citizens; supporting civil society to engage youth through educational, service or mentoring programs; partnering with businesses to expand vocational training or economic opportunities in marginalized communities; and amplifying the voice of cultural or religious leaders to challenge violent extremist marketing and propaganda.

Given our limited resources, effective prevention means identifying priority regions and communities at greatest risk of radicalization to violence and working proactively to address the grievances and needs violent extremists are most likely to exploit.

As important as countering extremist narratives is, we must help communities and governments provide alternatives that are as credible, as visible, as empowering, and as broadly available as we can make them.

Local actors must lead this effort, for they have the greatest credibility, knowledge and long-term stake in implementing effective and at times, interrelated interventions.

Governments must also acknowledge their contributions to the grievances violent extremists exploit, like police abuse and corruption, and act swiftly to remedy them.

Our experience and observations since September 11th – the gains, and the missteps – show us that, while our considerable military, intelligence, and law enforcement tools can significantly diminish the capabilities of violent extremist groups, unless local actors address the underlying grievances that feed them, we become locked in managing the consequences of violent extremism without addressing key push factors.

Our experience also demonstrates how, once violent extremism has taken root, the conflict and instability associated with it make it far harder to address the conditions that enable its growth.

That is why we see focusing on prevention as a critical part of how we counter violent extremism and increase the likelihood of avoiding costly interventions later.

To realize the broad partnership required for this long-term and holistic strategy, the White House convened a summit last February of more than 300 participants from national and local governments, civil society, the private sector and international organizations to launch a global movement to counter violent extremism.

Participants discussed the underlying drivers of violent extremism, distinguishing “push factors” that made individuals vulnerable from the “pull factors” that lured them to a particular organization. Summit participants developed an Action Agenda for collaborating on a number of priority areas, from researching the local drivers of violent extremism and empowering civil society, to expanding economic opportunities and amplifying local voices to counter violent extremist narratives.

In advance of a CVE leaders level meeting on the margins of the UN General Assembly, members of the international community have begun or are planning regional summits all over the world to broaden this movement and help partner governments develop national strategies tailored to their challenges with violent extremism.

I have participated in two regional summits thus far, and several more are on the horizon – while work is ongoing in capitals and in neighborhoods around the world. I encourage you all to learn more about this agenda by visiting www.cvesummit.org.

I am inspired by the energy around the prevention agenda, which increasingly extends beyond the “usual suspects” in the counterterrorism sphere. For example, Klaus Schwab has committed the World Economic Forum to engage deeply in this approach to countering violent extremism.

The United Nations has long emphasized the need for prevention in its longstanding counter terrorism strategy. At the White House Summit, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon announced his commitment to develop a CVE plan of action to guide member states’ and the UN’s prevention efforts. As this expert audience knows well, violent extremism is a generational challenge.

Prevention too often receives short shrift in our debates and budgets. But the preventive aspects of CVE can harness a far broader array of actors and resources than we have to date. Foreign assistance – or overseas development assistance – has a critical role to play, as do the international and regional financial institutions and indeed the private sector. As we broaden this global campaign to counter and prevent violent extremism, we are forging new partnerships with the EU, WEF, IFIs and philanthropic organizations.

We are also strengthening our engagement with the Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund (GCERF) based right here in Geneva.

Recognizing the key role of local governments in this effort, we anticipate on the margins of the UN General Assembly a launch of a Strong Cities initiative for mayors and municipal leaders and practitioners all over the world to exchange their successes and challenges in countering violent extremism. We are also anticipating the launch of regional civil society networks that allow young activists working to build community-level cohesion and artists using the power of creative expression to counter extremist messaging not only to share best practices, but also to connect with potential private sector sponsors to scale their innovative, community-level CVE programs. A side conference in New York that brings together young researchers from around the world working to identify local drivers of violent extremism and what has worked to build community resilience against violent extremism, will lead to the launch of a global research network for those working in this field.

And, I hope this Center can play a role in this new network and more broadly by contributing its world-class scholarship to help illuminate where and why violent extremism is most likely to thrive, and by continuing this vital conversation about the benefits of preventive, whole-of-society approaches to this challenge.

Thank you all very much, and I look forward to your questions.

SARAH SEWALL'S REMARKS AT 'LOCKDOWN IN TIBET' EVENT

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks Delivered at the "Lockdown in Tibet" Event
Remarks
Sarah Sewall
Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights
International Campaign for Tibet
Geneva, Switzerland
June 15, 2015

(As Prepared for Delivery)

Introduction

Thank you Ambassador Harper for that kind introduction. We wish you and your colleagues a productive 28th session of the Human Rights Council. And thank you to the Helsinki Foundation for arranging this event. I am very pleased to be here.

At the U.S. Department of State, I serve as the Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy and Human Rights. I was also designated by Secretary Kerry as the Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues, a position created within the State Department in 1997.

We believe that the Tibetan people, like people all around the world, should be able to enjoy their fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The State Department’s country reports on human rights noted that China “engaged in the severe repression of Tibet’s religious, cultural, and linguistic heritage by, among other means, strictly curtailing the civil rights of China’s ethnic Tibetan population, including the freedoms of speech, religion, association, assembly, and movement.” So there is no more fitting place to discuss the barriers and challenges that Tibetans face than here in Geneva on the margins of the Human Rights Council.

The problem of Tibet is, of course, also a problem for China. For the United States, just as for many countries represented here today, China is a vital strategic partner, and we welcome its participation and leadership in the web of international norms, laws and practices that have helped preserve global stability since the end of World War II. As we look at the past 70 years, one of the key long term lessons is the cost and fragility of the repressive state. Thus, as we look for China to play a growing role in the international community, we also look for it to abide by its international commitments with respect to the human rights of people in Tibet.

Human Rights Council and Tibet

Over the years, this Council has been a key advocate for Tibetan human rights by maintaining attention on this issue through its sessions, the work of its Special Rapporteurs, and the Universal Periodic Review process.

In recent sessions, many countries – including Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, Switzerland and the United Kingdom – have argued that China must make more progress in upholding its international obligations to protect Tibetans’ fundamental human rights.

In 2013, nine states made Tibet-specific recommendations to China in its UPR process. They called for China to improve religious freedom, minority rights, and access for UN officials to Tibet. The Chinese government, however, accepted only one of the twelve recommendations.

Human rights Situation

The United States has consistently urged the Chinese government to uphold its international commitments to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, specifically by ending the harassment, detention, and other mistreatment of individuals who seek to peacefully practice their religion, express their views or seek legal redress. We call on Chinese authorities to release Tenzin Delek Rinpoche and other prisoners of conscience, and to allow Dhondup Wangchen to be reunited with his family.

Many other states, like Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Sweden have also worked to maintain attention on human rights challenges in Tibet with their own annual reports on human rights. We applaud these efforts and encourage other countries to do the same.

Unfortunately, China’s response has been to tighten already strict controls on Tibetans’ freedom of religion, expression, assembly, association, and movement. Chinese authorities have also taken actions to denigrate His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

This is unfortunate and counterproductive. I have met with the Dalai Lama on three occasions, including at his residence in Dharamsala in a visit last year. I have seen that the spiritual connection between the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhists is beyond measure. His views are widely reflected within Tibetan society, and we believe he can be a constructive partner for China in addressing continuing tensions in Tibetan areas.

Access to Tibet

The Tibetan Plateau’s stunning beauty and unique culture are world treasures that all should be able to enjoy. During his visit to Tibet last month, U.S. Ambassador to China Max Baucus said he looked forward to cooperation on clean energy development, the environment, and wetlands. We welcome China’s promise to promote foreign tourism in Tibet. While investments in infrastructure have removed the geographical barriers to access to the Tibetan plateau, significant other obstacles remain.

Every single foreigner who wishes to visit the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) must first obtain a special entry permit from the Chinese authorities. This is not required for travel to any other provincial-level entity in China.

Diplomats and journalists also face regular challenges in visiting Tibet. Reciprocity is a cornerstone of diplomatic relations. However, while Chinese diplomats and journalists travel freely throughout the United States, our diplomats and journalists are not afforded the same access to Tibet. Over the last four years, 35 of 39 requests made by our Embassy or Consulates to visit the TAR were denied.

The restrictions on access frustrate our ability to provide services to American citizens. In October 2013, the Chinese government delayed consular access to the TAR for over 48 hours during an emergency situation involving a bus accident. The bus crash resulted in the deaths of three U.S. citizens and injuries of several others. Under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the 1981 U.S.-China Bilateral Consular Convention, China is obligated to allow expedient consular access. We urge China to fulfil its obligations.

The Foreign Correspondents Club of China, which represents journalists from some 40 nations, has reported that Tibetan areas in China are effectively off-limits to foreign reporters. We have expressed our deep concern that foreign and domestic journalists in China continue to face restrictions that impede their ability to do their jobs, including delays in visa processing. We urge China to commit to a timely, predictable visa issuance and credentialing process for foreign journalists, unblock U.S. media websites, and eliminate restrictions on journalists in Tibet and other areas.

While we are pleased that Ambassador Baucus was allowed to visit Lhasa last month, our concerns about restricted access remain and we continue to push for greater diplomatic access to Tibet.. We are not alone in our frustration and know that other countries have encountered similar obstacles. I encourage you to share those here today.

Navi Pillay, the then-High Commissioner on Human Rights, noted in 2012 that there were 12 outstanding requests for official visits to China by Special Rapporteurs. To my knowledge, none has yet been granted. In the UPR process, China agreed to a visit by the High Commissioner. High Commissioner Zeid seeks to visit to Tibet as part of his promised visit to China. We urge China to allow the High Commissioner to visit Tibet and to reconsider its opposition to upholding the Vienna Convention on consular access.

Religious Freedom

In encouraging tourism to enjoy Tibet’s extraordinary heritage, China should acknowledge that this heritage is inextricably linked with the free and authentic practice of Tibetan Buddhism. Yet in recent years, China has taken an increasingly assertive and controlling role in the Tibetan people’s cultural and religious affairs.

In March 2015, the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief Heiner Bielefeldt criticized China's efforts to control the reincarnation of Tibetan monks, arguing that the Chinese government was “destroying the autonomy of religious communities, poisoning the relationship between different sub-groups, creating schisms, pitching off people against each other in order to exercise control."

This analysis was echoed by the State Department's own reports on International Religious Freedom, which note China's growing interference in the centuries-old system of recognizing reincarnate Tibetan Buddhist lamas. In a very notable case, soon after the Dalai Lama recognized the 11th Panchen Lama, Gedun Choekyi Nyima, he was disappeared. The Chinese government has since banned images of him and refuses to respond to inquiries about his whereabouts.

The current Dalai Lama has said that the question of whether there will be another Dalai Lama, and if so who it will be, should be resolved within the Tibetan Buddhist community according to their longstanding traditions. He said it would be inappropriate for the Chinese government to "meddle in the system of reincarnation and especially the reincarnations of the Dalai Lamas and Panchen Lamas." The basic and universally recognized right of religious freedom demands that any decision on the next Dalai Lama must be reserved to the current Dalai Lama, Tibetan Buddhist leaders, and the Tibetan people.

Dialogue

In the absence of peaceful avenues for the exercise of basic rights, people despair. The US, EU and former High Commissioner Pillay, all have urged China to address the restrictions on rights and freedoms that have driven some 140 Tibetans to set themselves on fire in protest.

This tragedy underscores the need for the Chinese government to resume direct dialogue, without preconditions, with the Dalai Lama or his representatives. We are very concerned that it has been more than five years since the last round of dialogue. The situation on the ground, as others on this panel will discuss, continues to deteriorate.

When President Obama last invited the Dalai Lama to the White House in February 2014, he stressed the benefits of renewed dialogue and expressed support for the Dalai Lama's "Middle Way" approach. The Dalai Lama has repeatedly clarified that he does not seek independence, and instead wants China to help preserve Tibet's cultural heritage through genuine autonomy within the People’s Republic of China. We believe the Dalai Lama is sincere and can be a constructive partner for peace and stability. We urge China to seize this opportunity.

Conclusion

Like any people, Tibetans have an inalienable right to be stewards of their unique cultural, religious and linguistic heritage. They have a right to do so without interference, in peace and with dignity. I urge members of the Council to join the United States in encouraging the Chinese government to live up to its international obligations to respect Tibetans’ distinct culture, identity, and fundamental human rights, as well as respect international protocols on diplomatic relations and reciprocal access among states.

Thank you.

SARAH SEWALL SPEAKS ON ATROCITY PREVENTION AT UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Atrocity Prevention is a Core National Security Interest for the United States
Remarks
Sarah Sewall
Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights 
25th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council
Geneva, Switzerland
March 4, 2014

(As delivered)

High-Level Dialogue With Relevant United Nations Entities on the Promotion of Preventative Approaches Within the UN System

I would like to focus my comments on an immense aspect of prevention with which the United States has long been concerned, and that is the prevention of mass atrocities. Atrocity prevention is a core national security interest for the United States. In 2012, our government formalized an institutional structure to bring together numerous government agencies and departments to address these issues, with the creation of the Atrocities Prevention Board. Since its creation, the Atrocities Prevention Board has helped U.S. government policymakers identify and address atrocity threats, while overseeing deeper institutional changes that will make us more nimble and effective in addressing, and in some cases responding to, these threats in the future. This work remains an ongoing effort, and one that, we increasingly understand, must be shared with other international actors in order to be effective.

Our key to atrocity prevention is a whole-of-government approach, bringing together a wide range of experts from different government departments. Whether through training or multilateral engagement, prevention is a guiding lens for much of our work in challenging situations and countries where conflicts and atrocities are taking place.

In our work we focus on the collection, analysis, and dissemination of information on early-warning indicators and trends of mass atrocity risks. Each agency has its own tools and trainings at its disposal, to ensure that all of our officers in Washington, as well as in the field, are prepared to gauge situations and identify risks well before they escalate to violence, or to react to conflicts immediately and effectively.

We believe a structured inner organizational framework and effective assessments of early warning signs and indicators will give us a better chance to spot problems early on, and allow us to use the tools we have available to influence the context and actors that could trigger violence. This may include sharing information about early warning, establishing national and multilateral focal points, and coordinating responses – be those in the form of deploying mediators or public diplomacy — to stress the importance of preventing a situation from escalating into a mass atrocity.

So therefore, we commend the United Nations for its Rights Up Front Plan. We support the approach of ensuring coherent strategies and information sharing and a “One UN approach.” We hope to work together with OHCHR and other member states to respond to situations in a timely fashion. The key is not to just mitigate the damage caused by situations as they happen, but to look at the early warning signs and preempt atrocities outside of conflict situations and, in places where conflict has begun, respond before violence escalates into mass atrocities.

In closing, I would like to pose a question. What role can member states and civil society organizations play in both New York and Geneva, as well as on the ground, to enhance the UN’s work on prevention and to advance the goals of “Rights Up Front”?