NEIEF in action !!! Peace living society is always progressive and has focuses to determine in future what can do to provide development to its younger generation to benefits from. Long live federal republic of Nigeria long live NEIEF
UMAR ALH MALLAM
Contact Form
Monday 29 May 2017
Peace is the backbones of any existing country
Tuesday 31 January 2017
THE WAY FORWARD TO COUNTER TERRORISM IN NORTH EASTERN PART OF NIGERIA
With regard to the thematic focal I choose
which is countering violent extremism in north east and promoting religious tolerance
in north eastern part of Nigeria.
Firstly, let me talk about
countering violent extremism in north east. Violent extremism is not a new
phenomenon, but the traditional response to it has been limited to counterterrorism
efforts by military and government authorities. As a result, there has been no
space for an active role for civil society, even if there can and should be. Countering
violent extremism, as a public-private partnership, is a new approach.
It is growing in fits and
starts—with reluctant acceptance compounded by limited research and funding
constraints—and the unwillingness of many to change the status quo. The need to
move past these manageable constraints has never been more acute. The tragic
incidents in north eastern part of Nigeria have shown us that we need to
reformulate our counterterrorism paradigm to one that involves prevention,
intervention, and rehabilitation.
There is a lot of talk about
countering violent extremism: It has been on the forefront of the Nigerian domestic
counterterrorism agenda and north east they will meet from this program. But,
like terrorism, the term has no universally accepted definition despite the
fact that it is included in policy directives across the world and condemning
violent extremism. I define “countering violent extremism” as: “the use of
non-coercive means to dissuade individuals or groups from mobilizing towards
violence and to mitigate recruitment, support, facilitation or engagement in
ideologically motivated terrorism by non-state actors in furtherance of
political objectives.”
This “means” can typically be broken down into four intersecting parts:
preventing radicalization, intervening on behalf of individuals who have
radicalized, interdicting or finding and prosecuting those who have engaged in
criminal behavior, and reintegrating into society those offenders who are in
prison, have served their term, or are returning from conflict zones.
Globally, there are hundreds of
counter extremism programs. In many countries, practitioners focus on
strengthening communities to reduce their vulnerability towards radicalization.
The emphasizes prevention and
interdiction. But there are very few countries that have programs addressing
all four aspects—especially intervention and reintegration.
As a result of this gap,
individuals who have begun to radicalize are not turned around and those who
have acted violently are not rehabilitated.
Building Trust among the People
Affected
When it comes to prevention and
intervention, government agencies together with non-governmental agencies
consider community engagement to be synonymous with countering violent
extremism, to the exclusion of other programming. This narrow understanding of
countering violent extremism assumes that if all at-risk people had a better
relationship with the government, they would be less inclined to commit acts of
terrorism. Government agencies seem to think so, but sometimes such engagement
only makes communities feel targeted. If an environment of trust does not exist
already, it needs to be cultivated before sensitive topics like radicalization
can be discussed. However, building trust with communities by talking to only
(sometimes self-proclaimed) community leaders is not enough. Those who have
been willing to speak with government agencies do not usually represent the
people that would be considered “at-high risk.” The communities that are least
inclined to engage are often the ones that need the outreach the most.
Community policing
Another aspect of countering
violent extremism is community policing, which involves establishing partnerships with
neighborhoods to involve them in problem solving to enhance public safety. This
technique was once heralded as a silver bullet. But, in practice, there is no
consistent understanding or implementation of such a strategy across the
country.
Many police departments consider
community policing as an avenue for finding informants to help detect rather
than prevent criminal activity. As the responsibility for counterterrorism has
shifted (or is now being shared) from the federal level to the local levels,
local law enforcement officials have been encouraged to gather intelligence,
which only undermines the initiatives aimed at fostering community trust.
Meanwhile, federal law enforcement, which conducts most of the country’s
terrorism investigations, is often the outfit least trusted by communities
precisely because of how it collects information.
Community policing also incorrectly
assumes that geographically defined and connected communities exist. In large
urban areas, neighbors do not always know one another, and there are also no
clear guidelines on what constitutes suspicious activity under the “See
Something, Say Something” campaigns.
To establish a sound relationship
between prevention, law enforcement, and the community, leadership and
community outreach units at some of the larger FBI field offices need to be
reformed. For example, some field offices frequently reassign their staff,
resulting in new faces nearly every two years. By the time the field officers
have fostered ties with the community, it is time for them to take on a
different role. In addition, community outreach is still one-sided: It depends
on whether the leadership at the local field office has made community
engagement a priority. Essentially, there is an uneven relationship in which
one side calls all the shots regarding the frequency and nature of interactions
with the community. Finally, there are no incentives to engage in
counter-violent extremist activities since more often than not, an agent is
rewarded for catching a terrorist rather than for preventing and dissuading
someone from becoming one. This too must change. But it requires extensive
training and attitude shifts across law enforcement agencies.
Counter-messaging
One of the cornerstones of
countering violent extremism is the use of public communication tools to
dissuade its supporters. These accounts have limited dialogue and can legally
only target accounts from outside the country.
Counter-extremism narratives must address the
political grievances wrapped in ideological language, some of which are
legitimate even if others might not be. The objective of counter-extremism
messaging should be to dissuade people from supporting violence, not to defend
policy choices made by lawmakers and politicians. This messaging is best done
by non-government actors, but they are unfortunately few and far between.
Meanwhile, the voices behind those
messages need to be diverse and they need to be amplified. They need to be
running active campaigns to disrupt extremism narratives and provide resonant
alternatives. And they need to be tagging offensive recruitment content for
removal. Needless to say, social media platforms provide the most uncontested
space for extremism recruiters. So government should aggressively suspend
accounts of individual or group of people involved in.
Provision of counseling services
Social and spiritual counseling can
be a viable option but few communities have counselors trained in methods to
psychologically extract youth from terrorist groups.
There is a growing need to
formalize public–private partnerships and build intervention teams where
psychologists, social workers, educators, counselors, clergy, and families can
be assembled to create strategies for dealing with individual cases.
Furthermore, Nigeria recently offers
de-radicalization programs for those who have already committed extremist
violence. Imprisoning convicted violent extremists without rehabilitation is an
incomplete solution; it is merely deferring a problem that will worsen over
time. Although rehabilitation programs are resource intensive—and there is of
course no guarantee of a perfect success rate for such programs—the
consequences of failing to do anything are huge as younger and younger people
become radicalized, commit crimes, and are sent to jail.
By provision of fund to the counter
terrorist program
One of the questions practitioners
often get asked is why the community does not step up and do something about
violent extremism.
The biggest problem is a lack of
funding for the programs that focus on prevention and intervention. Although federal
government funding is available for law enforcement training and countering
violent extremism research, there are no grants available for community-led
programs. State and local governments have some funds for prevention programs,
but they are very limited. Foundations are loath to step outside their missions
and support countering violent extremism programs since they traditionally fall
under the purview of counter terrorism. At a government-convened forum that
included a handful of trusted practitioners, some of the largest philanthropic
organizations responded with a categorical “No” when asked to give money.
Some large corporations are starting to provide training and access to their
services and facilities, but no one is willing to run or sponsor initiatives
yet.
To highlight the scale of the
resources needed (and that are not available), let us look at what is involved
in implementing one of the more straightforward counter-violent extremism
programs: workshops to raise awareness of violent extremism and online
radicalization and help families intervene. Covering even a fraction of at-risk
communities would take tens of thousands of workshops per year. To be
effective, people need to hear the message more than once. To truly confront
violent extremism and prevent extremist groups from preying on at-risk youth,
tens of thousands workshops need the requisite funding. They cannot be run as
free or voluntary services. Expecting members of a specific faith community to
become experts in radicalization and violent extremism so they can effectively
do extremism prevention training is naïve and impractical.
Wednesday 20 July 2016
lectures commence
this is to inform all public administration student that taking pad 125 (element of cooperative) and pad 128 (principles of marketing) pad 128 that lectures commence immediately on Monday next week.
Thursday 22 October 2015
umar: hi i hope your doing fine
umar: hi i hope your doing fine: hi i hope your doing fine
to more on our book title the student enrollment system in database management system(DBMS) please link below www.umarmallum15.blogspot.com
to more on our book title the student enrollment system in database management system(DBMS) please link below www.umarmallum15.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)