3 Silenced and Split This chapter explains how two transnational forces suppressed voice after exit in the Libyan, Syrian, and Yemeni diasporas before the Arab Spring. The first mechanism is what I call transnational repression, meaning attempts by regimes to punish, deter, undermine, and silence activism in the diaspora. While Yemenis reported some fears of transnational repression in their communities, the analysis shows that this phenomenon most forcefully impacted the Libyan and Syrian diasporas. This was because as dissidents escaped the totalitarian terror wrought by Gaddafi and the Assads, regime assassins and informants followed closely behind. Diaspora members learned through their personal experiences, observations, and rumors that regimes had the capacity to inflict real harm on activists and their relatives at home. Corresponding fears of being surveilled, threatened, and punished for using voice had detrimental effects on transnational activism. Although a small group of exiles made their grievances public, as Chapter 2 describes, transnational repression made activism for the home-country a high-risk endeavor for ordinary diaspora members. Because similar repertoires of transnational repression produced congruent effects in the Libyan and Syrian diasporas, this chapter discusses these cases together. The second factor hindering transnational activism is what I call conflict transmission, meaning the reproduction of home-country conflicts within diaspora groups through emigrants’ biographical and identity-based ties. The transmission of conflicts to the diaspora reproduced sociopolitical fault lines within all three national communities abroad, creating tensions and factionalism. In particular, conflict transmission split anti-regime members, drawing lines between anti-Gaddafi reformers and hardline revolutionaries, Syrian Kurds and the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood members, and secessionist and pro-unity Yemenis. In addition to hampering solidarity, it also depressed initiatives for charity and development because efforts to distribute resources at home were perceived as tainted by parochialism and corruption. In short, 71 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009272148 Published online by Cambridge University Press