26 April 2002
Expert Says Adjustments Needed to Combat Terrorism
(Raphael Perl on redefining national security in the modern era) (3060)
Policymakers throughout the Western Hemisphere, and elsewhere, must be
nimble enough to adapt to a rapidly changing environment in order to
safeguard national, regional and global security, says Raphael Perl, a
specialist in international affairs at Congressional Research Service.
In his April 26 address to the 20th annual Journalists and Editors
Workshop on Latin America and the Caribbean, Perl noted that the
world's political and economic landscape has altered profoundly during
the past 20 years, and that the end of the Cold War ushered in a new
security environment that has spawned many encouraging trends as well
as a number of troubling ones.
The "positive and enlightened" changes since the collapse of the
former Soviet Union include "a rise of democracy" in countries from
Eastern Europe to Latin America, he said. However, "the end of a
simple, bi-polar political world has given new vigor to festering
national and ethnic aspirations" and "has created conditions ripe for
the expansion of global organized crime," Perl warned. "Nothing has
demonstrated more vividly than the tragic attacks of September 11th
that terrorism is a global threat with global reach."
He pointed out that the rise in globalization, and access to the
sophisticated technology upon which it depends, can be exploited by
terrorists to advance their own agenda. "Terrorists operate in a world
environment of growing interconnectedness -- interconnectedness of
global infrastructure with national infrastructure, of global security
with domestic security," he said.
Perl also argued that revolutionary advances in weapons and delivery
systems have erased the sense of invulnerability once conferred by
mere geographic distance from the site of an attack. "When terrorism
incubates in other countries, this has immediate relevance for our own
security. We need a mindset that conceptualizes this, and institutions
that reflect it," he declared.
Governments must be willing to adjust those institutions and policies
that no longer serve 21st-century security needs, Perl said. He urged
policymakers to ask themselves the following question: "To what degree
does our strategic mindset for national security reflect the realities
of the world we live in today -- not the world as we would like it to
be and hope it could become, but the increasingly dangerous world it
really is?"
In addition, economic policies that foster social stability may be
critical tools in the campaign against terrorism, he suggested.
"Traditionally, when we think of hemispheric security, we think in
terms of military and political spheres," he said. Yet "increasingly,
many see the growing gap between the rich and the poor, the gap
between the nations with widespread advanced technology and those
without, as a breeding ground for the malcontent that fuels criminal
and terrorist movements," Perl observed. "Widening the gap between the
rich and poor in many nations are high rates of unemployment --
especially among youth -- and high fertility rates. Undoubtedly, we
need to win the immediate battles when national security is involved,
but can we win the future war without addressing the long-term issue
of economic development in the hemisphere?"
In combating modern terrorism, Perl said, "there is much to be
redefined." Perhaps most significantly, "there may be a need to
redefine our traditional concept of deterrence as a largely reactive
response," he explained. "In past eras dominated by state-sponsored
terrorism, deterrence was often an effective defense: states could be
identified, held accountable for their actions, and targeted for
retaliation. Today, situations may arise where terrorists, bent on
striking first and inflicting mass casualties from foreign staging
areas, cannot be deterred. Under such circumstances, pre-emptive
measures warrant consideration."
And "there is also a need to redefine our concept of alliances to
include flexible sub-arrangements and coalitions on individual issues
where terrorism is involved," Perl continued. "Redefining or
fine-tuning alliances to include more emphasis on regional,
sub-regional, and local efforts to implement strategies to prevent and
respond to terrorism warrants policy focus as well. For example,
currently the OAS [Organization of American States] is working on
defining hemispheric standards and procedures for combating terrorism
to form the basis of a proposed Inter-American Treaty on Responding to
Terrorism."
While reasonable people "may disagree over the nobleness or villainy,
justness or unjustness of particular events, ideologies, or goals," he
said, "it is becoming increasingly clear that three things exist that
the United States cannot accept, nor should any civilized country: (1)
terrorist targeting of innocent civilians, (2) leaders of countries
pursuing mass destruction for offensive purposes, and (3) leaders of
countries harboring terrorists."
Finally, Perl reminded his audience that success in the global
campaign against terrorism will require equal measures of vigilance,
resolve and flexibility from leaders in the hemisphere. "President
Bush has emphasized that the war on terrorism will be long in duration
and there will be ongoing casualties," he cautioned. "One of the most
important challenges facing policymakers as they engage terrorism is
to ensure that our biggest casualty is not our open, innovative, and
democratic way of life as we engage in the process of redefining
national security in a terrorism-threatened environment."
Following is the text of Perl's remarks, as prepared for delivery:
(begin text)
Remarks by Raphael Perl, Specialist in International Affairs,
Congressional Research Service, before the 20th Annual Journalists and
Editors Workshop on Latin America and the Caribbean, April 25-27,
2002, Florida International University, Miami, Florida (delivered
April 26, 2002, 9:00 a.m.).
REDEFINING NATIONAL SECURITY IN A TERRORISM-THREATENED ENVIRONMENT
Thank you for the opportunity to address this distinguished group on
your 20th annual workshop on Latin America and the Caribbean. During
the two decades that you have been meeting, the security environment
affecting the world has evolved in many positive and enlightened ways:
the end of the Cold War, a rise of democracy, and an explosion of
globalization, free trade, technology and information. But
hand-in-hand with the advent of the new millennium has come a
sinister, revolutionary advance in the weapons systems, delivery
systems, communication systems and organizational structures of groups
that threaten national, regional, and world security.
The Changing Interdependent Global and Hemispheric Security
Environment
Today we see a world markedly different from the world we shared 20
years ago. We live in an increasingly deregulated and interconnected
global society ever more closely linked by trade, travel, technology
and finance: a world where traditional notions of time, distance, work
and even money are being eroded by technology.
The end of a simple, bi-polar political world has given new vigor to
festering national and ethnic aspirations. It has created conditions
ripe for the expansion of global organized crime. Nothing has
demonstrated more vividly than the tragic attacks of September 11th
that terrorism is a global threat with global reach.
But terrorism remains a regional and local threat as well. Terrorists
operate in a world environment of growing interconnectedness --
interconnectedness of global infrastructure with national
infrastructure, of global security with domestic security.
Increasingly, the concept of security is becoming holistic and
indivisible. Hemispheric isolationism no longer works for terrorism.
When terrorism hits one victim, it hits us all. When terrorism
incubates in other countries, this has immediate relevance for our own
security. We need a mindset that conceptualizes this, and institutions
that reflect it.
Need for Adjustments in Mindsets, Institutions and Policies
Much has changed and has changed rapidly, but has the way we view
national security kept pace with the rapid changes engulfing us? To
what degree does our strategic mindset for national security reflect
the realities of the world we live in today -- not the world as we
would like it to be and hope it could become, but the increasingly
dangerous world it really is?
Beyond mindsets, we also need to think in terms of institutions.
Institutions inevitably have inertia. They change more slowly than the
mindsets they reflect. To what degree are the institutions and
alliances that served us so well in a bi-polar Cold War environment
effective in responding to national security threats encountered in an
increasingly interconnected world? To what degree can our
institutional mechanisms, alliances and structures respond rapidly and
effectively to changing economic and social phenomena that impact on
national security?
Traditionally, when we think of hemispheric security, we think in
terms of military and political spheres. But the tragedy and horror of
September 11th have clearly demonstrated that the American economy,
the life force of our freedom, is a central and avowed target of those
who seek to challenge us and the values we hold. For some, U.S.
economic power is seen as unwelcome globalization, and globalization
is seen as the central vehicle that spreads our values and [our] open,
tolerant culture and lifestyle. This cultural awakening and global
economic vitality frightens our enemies, because it erodes their
power.
Increasingly, many see the growing gap between the rich and the poor,
the gap between the nations with widespread advanced technology and
those without, as a breeding ground for the malcontent that fuels
criminal and terrorist movements. Through the medium of television,
images of the lavish lifestyle of the haves continuously bombard the
have-nots. Widening the gap between the rich and poor in many nations
are high rates of unemployment -- especially among youth -- and high
fertility rates. Undoubtedly, we need to win the immediate battles
when national security is involved, but can we win the future war
without addressing the long-term issue of economic development in the
hemisphere?
Let us also think about alliances. Security arrangements like the Rio
Pact and NATO, concluded in the context of the Cold War, served us
well against threats of external aggression. But do they appropriately
address the conditions and threats of the 21st century? What is needed
to enhance their relevance to today's threats and problems? Are
solutions to be found in taking in new members and providing new
mission flexibility?
And where does the issue of promoting democracy -- and with it human
rights, anti-corruption, transparency, a free press, and the rule of
law -- fit into our agenda of promoting national and domestic
security, economic security, and stable and solid regimes in the
Western Hemisphere and elsewhere?
National Security Threats Increasingly Overlay and Defy Traditional
Categorizations
Perhaps the biggest change shaping how policymakers view national
security today is that threats that were relatively predictable and
definable in the past have become difficult to assess. Policymakers
and populations alike increasingly face uncertain threats, from
undetermined weapons and delivery systems, to undetermined targets,
from often-undetermined entities, at undetermined times. The
randomness and unclarity of such threats defy a deeply engrained
notion in Western society, science, and logic -- that if problems can
be defined and quantified, they can be solved. Even more perplexing to
many in the policy community is the need for costly government
contingency-planning and allocation of resources to match a seemingly
endless array of potential threats and targets.
Today, and even more so in the future, when dealing with national
security, we are likely to encounter phenomena which change, overlap,
and are blurred. We are facing increasingly blurred distinctions:
-- among terrorism, drug trafficking, organized crime, and even war
-- among the effects and boundaries of international, regional and
local conflicts
-- among conflicts based in religion, ethnicity, linguistic and
cultural orientation
-- among the concepts of national security, homeland defense, law
enforcement, and force protection
-- among military, civilian and economic targets, between combatants
and non-combatants
-- between helpless civilians, and people of all ages and genders
participating in combat as homicide bombers or human shields
-- between self-defense and overreaction
-- between who is "responsible" for supporting terrorist acts and who
is not
-- between the borders of one state and those of another
-- between the effects of violent terrorism and the far-reaching
consequences of cyberterrorism
-- between acts of terror and so-called Acts of God.
Some Basic Assumptions on Terrorism and National Security Warrant
Examination
When rethinking national security in the context of a
terror-threatened environment, a number of traditional assumptions
warrant examination. Indeed, many of these are already being
challenged. These include the following classic assumptions:
-- that terrorism is primarily state-sponsored
-- that terrorism is primarily an overseas threat and that U.S. soil
is relatively immune from attack
-- that the terrorist threat to the U.S. is from foreigners and the
threat from domestic "home-grown" terrorists is minimal
-- that terrorism is primarily a law-enforcement issue
-- that terrorists are a tactical nuisance and generally do not pose
strategic dangers to the state
-- that terrorists seek to limit damage because they seek public
support and moral legitimacy
-- that terrorists want recognition for their acts and seek public
credit for them
-- that terrorist goals are primarily political and not religious or
financial
-- that terrorists can be deterred
-- that we should never make concessions to terrorists
-- that we generally know who the terrorists are
-- that technology will give us the competitive edge over terrorists
-- that it is almost universally accepted that our way of life,
democracy and free trade are morally right
-- that we will know terrorism when it has been committed
-- that a defensive policy mindset can be effective against terrorism
In Combating Modern Terrorism, There is Much to be Redefine
In combating terrorism, there is much to be redefined. There is a need
to redefine who the enemy is and tailor the response accordingly. Is
one dealing with foreign governments, private domestic or foreign
groups, non-rational or disturbed individuals, disgruntled insiders,
or criminals using terror as a tool for profit or power?
There is a need to redefine our traditional concepts of weapons and
delivery systems. For the creative terrorist, the supply of weapons
and delivery systems is unending. We have all too poignantly seen how
the postal service can serve as a special delivery system, and a 747
aircraft as a suicide bomb.
There may be a need to redefine our traditional concepts of targets
and safe-havens in a protracted struggle where civilians are likely to
be not only the objects of terror, but also the subjects perpetrating
terror. Terrorists hide and live among civilians, plan among
civilians, recruit from civilians, get funding and logistical support
from civilians, and train civilians to kill.
There may be a need to redefine our traditional concept of deterrence
as a largely reactive response. In past eras dominated by
state-sponsored terrorism, deterrence was often an effective defense:
states could be identified, held accountable for their actions, and
targeted for retaliation. Today, situations may arise where
terrorists, bent on striking first and inflicting mass casualties from
foreign staging areas, cannot be deterred. Under such circumstances,
pre-emptive measures warrant consideration. In situations where
deterrence of terrorism is a viable option, we need to be mindful that
an integral part of deterrence is ensuring that potential adversaries
are not cornered into hopeless desperation, but retain something dear
that can be taken away. Part of a proactive policy of modern
deterrence includes strategies designed to incorporate terrorists and
potential terrorists into the mainstream political and social systems.
To be effective in deterring terrorists, we need to do more to
understand their goals, motives, perspectives, and mindsets. It is
important to understand what is important to them ---independent of
our goals and values. When we achieve such a level of understanding,
we open up the possibility of talking to them in a language that they
understand without conceding to them.
The war of terror and the campaign against terror are as much
political as they are military. As public opinion shapes political
dynamics, combating terrorism requires an active media component. But
in crafting a media component of policy, it is important to aim the
right message to the right audience. It has been said that terrorist
leaders such as Osama bin Laden use the media to talk to the street,
whereas Western governments use the media to talk to the elite.
There is also a need to redefine our concept of alliances to include
flexible sub-arrangements and coalitions on individual issues where
terrorism is involved. The concept of full-commitment alliances based
on overarching common interests will be hard-pressed to withstand the
call to anti-terrorism in countries where the threat of terrorism is
not perceived as immediate, and where confronting it is seen as costly
in political and economic terms. Redefining or fine-tuning alliances
to include more emphasis on regional, sub-regional, and local efforts
to implement strategies to prevent and respond to terrorism warrants
policy focus as well. For example, currently the OAS is working on
defining hemispheric standards and procedures for combating terrorism
to form the basis of a proposed Inter-American Treaty on Responding to
Terrorism.
Concluding Observations
To the extent that we redefine policy, we must do so at the same time
that we take proactive and concerted actions against real, deadly, and
immediate threats to our nation, and indeed, to the future of
humanity. Never before in history have a committed few, bent on
destruction, had the ability to harm so many.
Reasonable men may disagree over the nobleness or villainy, justness
or unjustness of particular events, ideologies, or goals. But it is
becoming increasingly clear that we are all in this world together.
And it is becoming increasingly clear that three things exist that the
United States cannot accept, nor should any civilized country: (1)
terrorist targeting of innocent civilians, (2) leaders of countries
pursuing weapons of mass destruction for offensive purposes, and (3)
leaders of countries harboring terrorists.
In ending my remarks, I would like to emphasize that a well-known
tactic of asymmetric warfare is to take the enemy's greatest strength
and turn it into his greatest weakness. In this regard, one of our
nation's greatest strengths is our openness to new ideas and our
overall tolerance of that which is different.
President Bush has emphasized that the war on terrorism will be long
in duration and there will be ongoing casualties. One of the most
important challenges facing policymakers as they engage terrorism is
to ensure that our biggest casualty is not our open, innovative, and
democratic way of life as we engage in the process of redefining
national security in a terrorism-threatened environment.
Thank you.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
