26 April 2002 Expert Says Adjustments Needed to Combat
Terrorism 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) *** |
U.S.
Embassy Jakarta Home Page
Information
Resource Center | Visa
Information | American
Citizen Services
Top | Feedback | Site Index | Search | Privacy Notice | Bahasa Indonesia
Please contact our Webmaster
with questions and comments.
This page is produced and maintained by American Embassy
Information Resource Center, a state-of-the-art research facility
with access to a wide variety of print and electronic resources.
DISCLAIMER: Links to non-U.S. government Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.
