• Military
• WMD
• Intelligence

• Security Menu                     

• Systems
• Industry
• Operations
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Space

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee:

When alert U.S. Customs officials caught an Algerian named Ahmed Ressam trying surreptitiously to bring bomb-making materials into the U.S. at Port Angeles in December, Americans were reminded again of our vulnerability to international terrorism. As always in such events, we asked ourselves: Does this apparent attempted terrorist bombing indicate a new and growing threat? And is there anything more we should do in the future to prevent such dangers?

Measuring the extent of terrorism and the threat it poses is a difficult challenge.

Terrorists operate secretly. The pattern of their attacks is erratic and unpredictable. Today's terrorists are motivated by many causes, some of them difficult to fathom. In the past, terrorists usually identified their cause or group, but increasingly, they strike anonymously.

Established terrorist organizations and states that sponsored terrorism were behind most international terrorism in the 1970's and 1980's. But in recent years, ad hoc groups of terrorists, sometimes loosely linked, and often claiming to act on behalf of Islam, have been the most dynamic element in international terrorist attacks against the United States. These are deviants and fanatics who are betraying the tenets of Islam, just as other terrorists who have sometimes used Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and other religions to justify violence, have distorted and abused their faiths.

Islamic extremists were behind the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York in 1993, a conspiracy to blow up the UN, the Holland Tunnel and Federal buildings in New York, another conspiracy in 1995 to bomb American passenger aircraft over the Pacific, and two bombings against American military personnel in Saudi Arabia. Many of these extremists fought in the Afghan war against the former Soviet Union or received training in Afghanistan. Some, but not all, of these terrorists are linked to Usama Bin Laden, the Saudi Arabian fugitive who has been indicted along with others for the bombings of our embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam on August 8, 1998.

According to press reports, Ahmed Ressam, the Algerian arrested in Port Angeles in December, and suspected accomplices who have also been arrested, may have ties to the Algerian Armed Islamic Group, a terrorist organization that has killed thousands in Algeria. In the past, the Armed Islamic Group has not attacked Americans. I do not know if that organization has decided to strike at Americans. If so, that would be a worrisome development. But until the FBI completes its investigation, assigning blame to any group or organization for the December attempt would be premature.

How serious a threat to America is international terrorism? Measured by the number of international terrorist attacks in recent years, the threat is declining. International terrorism against all nationalities appeared to peak in 1987 when there were 666 such attacks, but declined more or less evenly to 273 in 1998. I understand the number for 1999 is roughly the same as for 1998, although the final data is not yet available.

The number of U.S. citizens who are killed or wounded by international terrorists is another measure of the threat. Since 1990, the average number has been about ten a year.

But statistics are not an entirely reliable guide to the international terrorist threat. A single event, like the bombing of Pan American Flight 103 in 1988 that killed 193 Americans and many others, shows that a single terrorist act can have a great traumatic impact.

Also, in measuring the overall impact of terrorism, domestic terrorism in the U.S. must be considered. Terrorism is not just an exotic foreign phenomenon. We have a long history of domestic terrorism in the U.S., including violence inspired by racial and religious hatred, anti-abortion killings, even violence by environmental extremists. The most serious threat of domestic terrorism appears to come from individuals and informal networks whose hatred of government inspires acts of violence. We were reminded of this danger in our midst by the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, that killed 168 people, the worst terrorism disaster for Americans in this decade.

We have been less precise in defining politically motivated crimes of violence in the U.S. as terrorism than we have such crimes against Americans abroad. Accurate statistics on domestic terrorism, to my knowledge, are not readily available. But domestic terrorism presents at least as great a threat to Americans as international terrorism, and perhaps a greater threat.

In assessing the threat of terrorism, the specter of biological, chemical, or nuclear terrorism, must also be considered. Thus far, there has been little terrorism of this variety, and the probability of mass attacks using such substances, based on past experience, is not high. Nevertheless, the potential consequences are so grave that the U.S. Government is taking major steps to prepare for and defend against such attacks.

Where, then, should we draw the bottom line in assessing the threat of all forms to terrorism to the U.S. and our citizens? The toll of casualties and property damage caused by terrorism, even when we include domestic terrorism, is modest compared to more mundane forms of murder and mayhem that Americans confront every day. For example, the average annual number of Americans killed by terrorism in recent years, international and domestic, is probably less than two dozen each year, whereas, according to press reports, thirteen American children are killed by gunfire each week.

But the threat of terrorism, both international and domestic, lies beyond its objective impact in numbers of people killed or injured or property damaged. Terrorism, among all forms of violent crime, is a peculiar evil, since it inspires fear and creates disruption far beyond the direct casualties is inflicts. Traditionally, that has been the essence of terrorism and the goal of terrorists - to create fear. The killing of innocent victims by surprise and at random, for political reasons, gives terrorism a particularly heartless and frightening character. This, and the spectacular drama of bombings, aircraft hijackings, and other major terrorist attacks, creates a unique and powerful psychological impact and a sense of collective vulnerability. Also, terrorism, as a compelling human-interest story, is intensely - and sometimes sensationally - covered by the media, far more than other more mundane forms of violent crime. This coverage multiplies the fear and emotional trauma that terrorism inspires, and thus enhances the power of terrorism.

It is the fear and disruptive impact that terrorism, both international and domestic, creates, more than the relatively modest number of casualties it causes, that makes terrorism such a threat to our sense of security and well being. This is one reason why our government, and those in other democratic societies, give such high priority to combating terrorism. There are other reasons, as well, for example, the harmful effect of terrorism on our foreign policy, and the economic toll it takes.

We must fight terrorism vigorously. At the same time, we should not exaggerate the threat it creates, awful as it is, lest we inadvertently enhance the influence of terrorists and enlarge the fear they seek to spread.

What more should the U.S. do to minimize the risk of terrorist attacks, international and domestic? I use the word "minimize" since it is not realistic to expect that we can eradicate terrorism altogether, any more than we can end other kinds of violent crime.

First of all, based on my former experience as Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the Department of State, I think the U.S. has sound counterterrorism policies and a very resourceful and effective counterterrorism programs.

The rule of law is at the heart of U.S. policy. Over the years, the Congress has enacted tough anti-terrorism laws that have strengthened our ability to investigate and prosecute terrorist crimes at home and abroad. Although we have broad and strong anti-terrorism laws, we have wisely resisted suggestions for changes in our laws that would curtail our civil liberties in order to monitor, detect and apprehend terrorist suspects. A weakening of our democratic, constitutionally protected, freedoms, would, of course, be a gift to the terrorists, whose values are profoundly anti-democratic.

The U.S. has also worked to strengthen international law, in the form of eleven treaties designed to combat a wide range of terrorist acts and strengthen international cooperation.

Also in the international realm, the U.S. is working with friends and allies to help spread the truth that terrorism is a crime and is an unacceptable as a form of political protest, whatever the cause. A zero-tolerance approach to terrorism is growing, in contrast to past decades, in Europe, in most of the Arab states, in Latin America and in Asia. But this process is still incomplete. For example, Afghanistan has thus far refused to extradite the terrorist suspect, Usama Bin Laden, and some governments have not fully abandoned state terrorism.

The U.S. has also helped build an international structure of anti-terrorism cooperation through an intensive process of consultation and cooperation between the State Department, FBI, CIA, Department of Defense, FAA, and their counterparts in scores of countries. As a result, more and more nations are working with the U.S. and other states to track down and punish terrorists.

The payoff for the U.S. has been success, working with friendly governments, in identifying and bringing to justice many terrorists involved in major terrorist crimes against the U.S. in recent decades. These crimes include the World Trade Center bombing, the bombing of Pan Am 103, the killing of CIA personnel and others at Langley, and the bombing of our embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam.

Solid teamwork here in Washington among counterterrorism professionals in State, Justice, FBI, CIA, Defense, Treasury, Energy, FAA and other agencies is another reason for these successes.

There were suggestions after Ahmed Rassam tried to carry bomb materials across the Canada -U.S. border that we should do more to control our borders against penetration. This incident has renewed the focus on Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that calls for automated entry and exit controls at all U.S. ports of entry.

The United States, as an open and democratic society, is more exposed to terrorism, both international and domestic, than authoritarian states. The process of globalization of trade, travel, and contacts at every level has created enormous benefits for our country. At the same time, it has also made it easier for international terrorists to roam more freely around the world. Yet we have stringent visa requirements for visitors from many nations. We have tightened our immigration and deportation laws in recent years to discourage entry by terrorists and other undesirables and to expel such elements. And we have effectively used computerized data banks and other electronic systems to screen out undesirables. Still, terrorists and suspects occasionally penetrate these defenses, entering from other continents and, as we saw in December, from Canada.

Such occasions have been rare, judging from the very few international terrorist attacks within the U.S. In my view, controls of the kind called for in Section 110 are not warranted by the extent of the danger, nor would they, it seems, have a significant effect on the entry of terrorists or other criminal elements into the U.S. Such controls, of course, would have no effect on domestic terrorism, and they would be very expensive, thus diverting resources from other more effective law enforcement and security programs. For these reasons, I recommend that Section 110 be amended to eliminate such controls.

I believe that Section 110 or other measures that would significantly restrict or slow traffic across the U.S. Canada and U.S. Mexico border could do more harm than good. These neighbors are two of our closest trading partners. Many North American industries are integrated and depend on rapid flow of exports and imports. The volume of visitors for family reasons, shopping, or tourism from these countries is also huge and lucrative. The economic cost and major inconvenience to Americans who cross these borders daily would be very high prices to pay for additional controls

A more effective means of minimizing the penetration of our northern and southern borders by terrorists is close cooperation with the Canadian and Mexican Governments.

Since Mexico has not been a focus of international terrorism, our border control relationship with Mexico has been more concerned with narcotics, illegal immigration and other crimes.

As for Canada, speaking from long and direct experience working with Canadian counterterrorism officials, I can assure you that the U.S. and Canada have a cooperative relationship in the area of counterterrorism that is in unique in terms of its closeness, multiple levels of contact, and success.

Our Federal law enforcement, intelligence, immigration and customs officials, and our police and other authorities at the state and local levels, have extraordinarily close relationships with their Canadian counterparts and cooperate literally around the clock. This relationship has been strengthened by a system of sharing computerized information systematically on undesirable elements that might attempt to penetrate our respective borders. The U.S. and Canada also have a valuable cooperative relationship for research and development of counterterrorism technologies.

At the policy level, the State Department works closely with Canadian counterterrorism officials in dealing with both bilateral and multilateral terrorism issues. These ties are the best insurance of protection of our northern border.

There are other areas, however, where the U.S. could to more to reduce the risk of terrorist attacks against Americans abroad, and to make it more difficult for international terrorists to move freely around the world and enter our country.

First of all, in my view, the Congress and the Clinton Administration have not provided adequate funds for protecting our diplomatic missions abroad, although the terrorists bombings of our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in August 1998 were a cruel reminder that we are still vulnerable.

The Accountability Review Boards that were appointed to make recommendations after these bombings, chaired by retired Admiral William Crowe, in which I participated, recommended far more ample funding to build and reinforce American embassies overseas. Unfortunately, although funding has increased to some extent, adequate funds for safe embassies have not been made available because of overall limitations on State Department budgets.

If we are serious about terrorism, and I am sure we are, we must do a better job of protecting our foreign missions, which have traditionally been targeted by international terrorists. It is not fair to the men and women of many agencies who serve us abroad to do less.

Second, I believe we could do more in the way of anti-terrorism training and technical assistance to foreign governments who are exposed to terrorism, and whose countries are used as refuges or transit points by terrorists. For example, the State Department's Anti-Terrorism Assistance Program is a successful effort in this area, but it could be expanded. Since many terrorists rely on counterfeit passports or other forged documents, one area that deserves attention is technical and financial assistance to governments that lack modern, forge-proof passports and modern border control systems and technology.

Third, and finally, we must recognize that terrorism, like other forms of political violence, is often an extreme symptom of conflict caused by political, ethnic, economic and other factors. Effective counterterrorism cannot be a stand-alone policy that is limited only to diplomacy, law enforcement, intelligence and other programs of counterterrorism, per se. These programs are vital, but they are not enough unless we also address the root causes of terrorism.

This requires U.S. engagement in efforts around the world to deal with the root causes of conflict, especially, poverty, overpopulation, and environmental degradation. The U.S. is the world's wealthiest and most powerful nation, and we have enormous capabilities. Yet we are doing less in these areas to protect our interests that we were twenty years ago. The funds we spend on foreign affairs, the non-military side of national security, have been cut virtually in half, in real terms, in the last decade. These cuts have reduced our presence overseas and our ability to protect our interests abroad. They have limited our participation in many programs designed to create a safer, less violent world. For example, the U.S. now ranks 20^th among nations on a per capita basis in the funds we spend on economic development assistance.

Restored funding for full U.S. engagement abroad will not, of course, stop terrorism or violence altogether. These are conditions of human life that will never be totally eradicated. But greater attention to the root causes of terrorism and political violence, and adequate funds for dealing with these causes and resolving conflict through diplomacy and other programs where the U.S. can make a difference, will help reduce the threat of international terrorism to our country and citizens.