Organizations such as the ISIS and Al-Qaeda may benefit from the lack of US support to the war on terrorism, as this would allow them to rearrange their ranks and expand into areas that were under the surveillance of US forces.

Ibrahim Ali* (South24)

In a surprise move a few hours after his official inauguration on January 20, US President Donald Trump issued an order to freeze US financial aid for foreign assistance programs including in areas related to counterterrorism efforts. These include efforts aimed at combating terrorist organizations such as the Somali ’AlـShabaab‘ and AlـQaeda in West Africa.

This aid freeze is considered a controversial move as supporting these programs was part of the US’ foreign policy to counter global terrorism. This assistance was allocated for providing financial and training support to several countries and partners in the region with an aim to combat terrorist groups threatening global security.

The ‘Washington Post’, highlighting the possible risks linked to this freeze, quoted US officials as saying that “many of the affected programs were specifically designed to respond to national security threats, and their suspension could put the United States and its international allies at risk.”

At a sensitive time, when terrorist groups such as the Al-Shabaab and AlـQaeda are intensifying their attacks in several African countries and in view of reports about the cooperation and coordination between terrorist groups in the Horn of Africa and the Houthis, this decision constitutes a big challenge. Suspending the US assistance will likely make counterterrorism more difficult in areas already suffering from very poor security and military resources such as Yemen, which could give these groups space to expand.

Regardless, the Trump administration has defended its decision in order to make a comprehensive review of the US aid policies. It aims to reـevaluate the effectiveness of these programs to ensure achieving the best results in counterterrorism efforts. However, this has led to growing concerns regarding the repercussions this freeze would have on international security and the strategic interests of the US and its allies in the region, putting the future of these efforts in doubt.

What is Behind the New Approach?

Trump’s order to freeze counterterrorism assistance in his second Presidential term, in contrast to his enhanced efforts toward fighting terrorism in his first term, can be attributed to several political and strategic factors, including the following points:

- In his second Presidential term, Trump has begun to focus more on gradual withdrawal from the long wars in the Middle East and Asia, including those that require major US intervention in counterterrorism wars, such as Syria. In view of this, the freeze on aid may reflect Trump’s commitment to his “America First” approach which seeks to reduce Washington's costly military and diplomatic involvement in areas of ongoing conflict.

- Pressure to Reduce Government Spending: In his second term, Trump is seeking to slash government spending, especially on international aid. Freezing or cutting down on counterterrorism aid is considered part of his strategy to reduce the federal budget and foreign aid in order to keep financial resources within the United States.

- Stance Toward US Allies: Aid freeze may also be a result of Trump’s stance toward the US’ allies. Trump has been openly critical of Washington’s allies who don’t contribute adequately to support the US’ counterterrorism goals. This is seen in his posture toward the NATO states from whom he has demanded that they increase their expenditure on NATO to 5% of their GDP. In this regard, the freezing of US assistance may exert pressure on the allies to increase their contribution or accelerate reforms in their local and regional policies.

- Focusing on Counterterrorism Inside the US: It isn’t unlikely that Trump has decided to focus more on counterterrorism within the United States, especially after the internal attacks in the country in light of the rise of extremist groups. Thus, he may prefer allocating resources for internal counterterrorism efforts instead of delivering international aid.

- Change in the Counterterrorism Methods: Although Trump intensified the war on terrorism in his first term, it is possible that he may believe that providing international aid hasn’t been effective in the long run. Thus, his administration may resort to a new approach that doesn’t necessarily involve providing massive amounts of financial aid but focuses on other strategies such as diplomatic pressure or security assistance of a specific nature.

In general, Trump’s order to freeze counterterrorism aid can be attributed to a number of internal and external strategic reasons that reflect changes in his policies toward the Middle East wars and his economic and military priorities in his second term.

Implications of the Decision

Undoubtedly, the US aid freeze or scaling back of the counterterrorism war may have big implications at the regional and international levels, foremost of which are listed below: 

- Enhancing the Capabilities of Terrorist Groups: Organizations such as the ISIS and Al-Qaeda may benefit from the lack of US support to the war on terror. This will allow them to rearrange their ranks and expand into areas that were previously being monitored by the US forces. Without this crucial US support, their pace of operations and expansion into new areas may increase. 

- The Deterioration of Global Security: It is important to point out that the US had designed the counterterrorism plans in places like the Middle East, Afghanistan, and North Africa. The sudden suspension of this support may lead to the deterioration of stability in these areas, which could in turn result in an increase in terrorist attacks in the Western countries and the world at large.

- Rising Tension Between Countries: The suspension of the US support may lead to increased tension between countries that rely on the US counterterrorism assistance. Some of the main US allies are frustrated, and these tensions may lead to a lack of coordination in counterterrorism efforts which will have a negative impact on international cooperation.

- Pressure on Regional Allies: If the US stops supporting counterterrorism efforts, its allies in the region, such as the Arab Gulf states and Turkey, will have to bear greater responsibility in confronting terrorist threats. This may create additional challenges to their internal and global security, leading to new geopolitical rivalries. 

- Increase in Russian and Chinese Influence: Russia and China may seek to fill the gap resulting from the US withdrawal from the counterterrorism war. The absence of the US’ leadership would help them spread their influence in areas which were under the US control.

- Impacting the US Domestic Policy: Suspending the war on terrorism may cause big political divisions domestically over the question of its effectiveness and the reasons behind the war. This may impact future elections as well as the image of the United States across the world.

In Yemen

In terms of Yemen, the US decision has come at a delicate time as the country still suffers from the repercussions of long years of an ongoing war. Yemen also faces threats from terrorist groups such as the Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and ISIS as well as other religious groups including the Houthis. The aid freeze will directly harm the capabilities of the government forces to combat these groups which exploit chaos to advance their agendas.

Even if the freeze order is part of the US’ review of its policies in the region and to determine the effectiveness of the aid in countering terrorism, it may actually have a negative impact on the efforts to combat terrorism in Yemen. This is despite the fact that the first weeks of Trump’s second term witnessed several military operations using drones which targeted prominent AQAP leaders in Marib, Abyan, and Shabwa.

The US support of the local forces in Yemen includes providing training, equipment, logistics and intelligence support. However, of late, this support has decreased. With the ending of this support altogether, these local forces may find themselves in a tough situation, particularly in light of the limited resources and the pressure of continually having to tackle armed groups. This would open the path for the terror groups to expand their threats in new areas.

With regard to the international community, Trump’s decision may stir questions about the US’ commitment to counterterrorism, especially in countries experiencing prolonged conflicts such as Yemen.

If the Yemeni government or the Southern forces fail to confront the terrorist threat by themselves, the terrorist activities could spill into other countries in the region, thereby increasing the regional and international security risks. This would make it necessary to reconsider backing the counterterrorism efforts to ensure more effectiveness on the ground without harming local stability.

Historical Commitment

Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the US has been at the center of the international war on terrorism, and taken on the leadership mantle to confront this phenomenon which threatens global security.

The attacks imposed a historical commitment on the US as it partnered with countries across the world to fight terrorism in all its forms. Since then, the US has been the main driving force behind forming international alliances and joint initiatives to combat terrorism, whether through military interventions or by providing intelligence and logistical support to its partner countries.

In addition, the US developed several strategies to combat terrorist organizations, including during Trump’s first presidential term. Despite the challenges and hardships the US encountered in its direct wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its firm stance on fighting terrorism helped in nudging other countries to participate in confronting these threats.

It can’t be denied that the US support in training, providing financial resources, and intelligence information has helped enhance the capabilities of other countries to combat terrorism within their borders. However, over time, several voices began to question the future of this war and the US’ priorities in supporting it, especially in light of the revelation of several documented violations against innocent civilians, including in Yemen. American reports revealed that the US wars following the September 11 terror attacks led to the killing of 4.5 million people in countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.

While many countries have developed their security capabilities and been successful in disabling some terrorist organizations, many threats remain. In the meantime, international terrorism has changed its form and methods, taking on newer paths like the internet and social media to recruit extremists. This makes it necessary for continuation of the US counterterrorism support. 

It is true that the US National Defense Strategy of 2018 concluded that “Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in US national security”. Nonetheless, Washington must remain at the forefront of the international coalition against terrorism, not only militarily, but also through economic and diplomatic initiatives, as a strategic responsibility that not only affects its national security interests, but also global stability.

While some countries may choose to focus on their internal challenges, the need for international cooperation to combat terrorism in its new forms and different geographical regions of the world remains urgent.