After the 2006 bombings in Europe and the growing insurgent violence in Palestinian disputed territory, Iraq and Afghanistan, there is still no international consensus concerning global terrorism. Some political leaders, such as Prime Minister Tony Blair, however, are taking a strong stand against terrorism. Blair is calling for the U.S. to lead a global alliance to promote “global values” of democracy, human rights, liberty, religious tolerance, and rule of law. Supporting these values would allow for the international community to reduce the threat of Islamic radicals and insurgents who would use nuclear weapons to attain their political grievances against the West and its value system. He also suggests that we convince terrorists that these values of democracy, individual rights, peace and stability can help terrorists’ achieve their more legitimate political goals.
Despite the importance of promoting global values for global stability and security, there is a critical element missing in Blair’s proposal; it does not directly address terrorism. An international pledge to promote global values does not provide the shift in ideas and motivation needed to reduce the risk of nuclear weapons getting into the hands of international criminals. Countering global terrorism requires more international collaboration to condemn it, prosecute it, and address its perpetrators’ underlying grievances.
This proposal might seem more easily said than done. It raises questions about implementing such a policy on a global scale. Some would argue that the grievances of many terrorists, including the radical Islamic terrorist network Al Qaeda, are too difficult to satisfy. Radical Islamic terrorists possess a deeply engrained hatred for Western modernity and the imposition of democracy on the Middle East. This is combined with a notion that frightening and killing people will achieve their political causes.
It is true that grievances of terrorist groups’ like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Palestinian Jihad in the Palestinian territories are vague, and they have a fear of being unable to exercise their traditional values in the existing international system. These political objectives, however, do not leave the international community helpless in attempting to deal with their concerns. Specifically, mitigating terrorist acts by radical Islamic terrorist networks requires the international community to first talk to radical Islamists who oppose violence to achieve their political goals. These talks would provide the culturally and historically specific information needed to understand the intentions of these terrorists. We would be able to start moving away from continuing to divide the world between “evil” terrorists and the “West.” Pursuing impulsive military action against terrorist networks does not lesson terrorists’ resolve to commit mass violence nor does it promote any willingness for a compromise. The international community can also persuade moderate Muslims to denounce Islamic terrorists’ radical and violent means to achieve legitimate political ends. We need their cooperation to convey alternative ways for radical terrorist groups to achieve their goals under rule of law. Unless we start working with these radicals to convince them that the desired progress toward democracy in the Middle East is beneficial to their political survival, we would only instigate their distress and exacerbate tensions. Extremists that resort to violence would feel more threatened that their own values are being undermined and political aims are being demoralized.
Opponents of this counter terrorism strategy might doubt how we can improve international law to strengthen the prosecution of terrorists. The U.S. government currently serves as the dominant policeman of the world, willing to use force to destroy external threats. Meanwhile, the UN and Europe continue to be reluctant to become actively involved in counterterrorism missions. It seems unlikely that we could establish uniform international and regional standards for our borders and law enforcement in each country if many countries currently disagree on the existing regime change and direct intervention counter terrorism policies.
This counterargument disregards the 2005 and 2006 terrorist attacks in London and Madrid. These attacks have changed Europe’s attitude toward global terrorism and the need to respond quicker to the potential threats of terrorist attacks on European soil. Europe no longer has the luxury of allowing the U.S. to take care of external threats because terrorist acts by some fundamentalists are as much of a threat to Europe as to the U.S. As a result, Europe needs to reconcile some of its structural and ideological differences with the U.S. to solidify international and regional cooperation on uniform standards of law enforcement, border control, and sharing of intelligence. Europe can also use the European Union to facilitate counter terrorism policies that includes balancing Europe’s desired liberal, international law and rules based international system.
The UN’s reluctance is also likely to decline as there is a stronger demand for international forums where all states can discuss the problems of global terrorist networks. These forums would improve intelligence sharing of terrorist activities, and build cooperation on long term counterterrorism strategies. For example, it is critical to find better ways to integrate Muslim youth into European societies and discourage them from joining Islamic fundamentalist groups that use violence to settle their socioeconomic plight and political grievances.
The main challenge of forums, however, is maintaining participation of powerful military and economic countries. These international counter terrorism forums would only be effective if powerful countries, including the U.S. and the European Union are bounded to these institutions with agreements that link cooperation with their other global and regional security interests. Only then, international forums would be able to prevent a future problem of one powerful country pursuing its own counterterrorism policy of regime change or military intervention that might not be conducive to the rest of the word’s political climate and security interests.
Prioritizing the need to prosecute terrorists and address their grievances is necessary for an immediate response to the problems of terrorism and threat of nuclear weapons getting into the hands of terrorists. Yet, we also need to consider a long term solution of promoting the liberal values that Blair proposes in building well-functioning states that respect international rule of law and order. Supporting people who desire progress toward democracies, rights, political stability and rule of law in their own countries is crucial to foster global stability and create more opportunities for people, including fundamentalists, to better their lives, and improve their economic and social protection against violence and injustice.
The lack agreement on how to respond to the root causes of insurgents’ grievances and confront their criminal behavior has prevented us thus far from designing a global counter terrorism strategy. Now, we can prevent terrorists from dictating our global agenda and international system, provided that countries strengthen their commitment to agreed upon law enforcement standards, and establish regional and international institutions related to countering global terrorism. The newer approach combines addressing global terrorism on the ground while developing more awareness of global values and rule of law into our foreign policy agendas. As long as we understand the key differences between these approaches and treat them as separate processes, we can further link international cooperation for the explicit purpose of countering terrorism with broader cooperation on global affairs such as economic trade and environmental policy to protect our global order.
The author is a MPA candidate at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
Comments (4)
hi Sanya. You claim that "the UN and Europe continue to be reluctant to become actively involved in counterterrorism missions" and that "the 2005 and 2006 terrorist attacks in London and Madrid ... have changed Europe's attitude toward global terrorism." Don't forget that Europe has suffered far more terrorist attacks than the US. Britain and Spain have been repeatedly attacked by domestic groups right into this decade, and Germany, France and Italy all have experienced deadly terrorism in recent decades. Europe doesn't need the US to tell them what it means to be the victim of terrorism. As for the suggestion that Europe is reluctant to get involved in counter-terrorism operations, I don't see the evidence for that. Some European countries had the good sense to stay out of Bush's war against Iraq (which had nothing to do with terrorism), but there are plenty of European troops in Afghanistan (which is a NATO-led mission). And European officals and law-enforcement officers are active against terrorism in many parts of the world. If there is a reluctance to send in troops, it is perhaps because bitter experience from Northern Ireland, Algeria and elsewhere has taught Europeans the lesson that terrorism is not solved by military action. It's a pity that the US didn't learn that lesson from the Europeans and instead is finding it out the hard way.
Posted by John Virgoe | February 10, 2007 10:17 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 22:17
There were two criticisms raised in John's comments. I want to take issue with the first and contest the second. Have European countries been reluctant to become actively involved in counterterrorism, as Sandya wrote? Leaving Iraq aside, John cites Afghanistan as his example that Europeans are pulling their weight. But even Europeans leaders don't seem to think so. In recent days, the Danish Minister of Defense reportedly "lambasted" the EU for not sending enough troops to Afghanistan; Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, has also been trying to rally her colleagues and countrymen for such an effort. Likewise, in response to the assessment of the top NATO commander, Secretary of Defense Gates has requested that European countries meet their obligations. These are not signs of enthusiastic European support for the war against terrorists, especially at a time when the Taliban are attempting to rally their own forces against the legitimate ruling government.
But that is just Afghanistan,the EU has been more helpful in regulating the flow of terrorist financing, in hunting down and arresting criminals, often in the Levant region of Northern Africa, and obviating terrorist plots. Yet,their relentless criticisms of American policies in Iraq, at times on point, have rarely helped matters. I'm thinking of Francein particular, as well as Zapatero's Spainand Italyunder Prodi, which brings me to your second point. It isn't difficult to cite examples of effective counter-insurgency campaigns that used military force: the FARC is weaker then ever in Colombia thanks to aggressive military tactics, the Palestinian intifada was quelled after aggressive counter-terrorist incursions by Israeli forces (which may or may not have been too aggressive), and black Americans, who were under attack by Southern insurgents, were successfully protected by Union troops following the US Civil War (until the troops were withdrawn and the KKK took their place).
To the extent that military force backfired in Northern Ireland and Algeria, it was probably the result of too little regard for civilian casualties and economic repercussions;although, more fundamentally, when the strong fight against the liberty of the weak, it's rarely a popular cause. Despite a few egregious incidents and a dearth of initial economic planning, the US military is not making these strategic miscalculations (morally or politically), and indeed, it is fighting for liberty, not against it. To get a better sense of these differences one can read the counter-insurgency manual written by our fellow Wilson School graduate, General David Petraeus, and take a look at his record in Mosul, which Fiasco author Thomas Ricks (on the Brian Lehrer Show) characterized as having remarkably few incidents of abuse. It would be helpful if more Europeans could appreciate the merit of the Bush and Blair Administrations; military (and civilian) efforts and not conflate it with their own imperial histories.
Posted by J.T. Rothwell | February 11, 2007 12:33 PM
Posted on February 11, 2007 12:33
There is a lot to take issue with in Jonathan's comments. So strong arm tactics have worked against the FARC? Really? On a day when the Chief of Operations for the Drug Enforcement Agency has announced that 9 out of 10 grams of cocaine reaching the US has passed through FARC hands? Aggressive Israeli military operations may have killed a few terrorists, but have they done anything to resolve the long-term conflict, or to promote real security for Israelis or Palestinians? And I'd certainly dispute the suggestion that the problem in Afghanistan is that the Europeans aren't pulling their weight - the problem is that the US treated the Afghanistan operation as little more than a hit-and-run exercise, focusing only on their (failed) attempt to knock out Osama and leaving the mopping up to others. Even now, the Administration see Afghanistan as little more than a sideshow to Iraq, giving it far less resources and attention - even though Afghanistan is far more critical to the fight against terrorism than Iraq (was).
Oh, and surely Germany and Denmark are European countries? Not to mention Britain and Netherlands. For all of these, Afghanistan is by far their largest overseas military operation since World War 2.
Jonathan's assertion that the US military "is fighting for liberty, not against it" (as opposed, apparently, to the British in Northern Ireland) is very patriotic, but would raise a wry smile in many parts of the world. US foreign policy and military actions are certainly not seen as "for liberty" by many people - not only Palestinians, Iraqis and their numerous Arab sympathizers, but also the millions of people in western countries (including the US) who have demonstrated or voted against Bush and his policies.
Nobody ever got a prize for good intentions. It is results which matter - and the results of US military action in Iraq have certainly not included "liberty" (or security, come to that).
It isn't "relentless criticism" from the French which has undermined support for the so-called War on Terror. It is the demonstrated failure of the US-led military action to reduce the terrorist threat. What success we have had in averting terrorist attacks appears to have been largely due to law enforcement (with some of the most striking successes achieved by the British police, with their long experience of tackling Irish terrorism). By contrast, military action has merely succeeded in creating another failed state, radicalizing the world's Muslims, and giving the US a reputation for bellicosity, unilateralism, and distain for legality and human rights.
Let's give a cheer for democracy. It isn't a case of a couple of maverick European leaders sniping at St. George, St. Dick and St. Donald. Rather, Zapatero and Prodi are there precisely because their electorates understood exactly what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were about, and voted out their Spanish and Italian proxies. Likewise, Blair will be gone in a few months, his popularity at rock bottom because of his attachment to Bush. The American public isn't behind the game, either - it gave exactly the same message to Bush last November, though he has chosen to ignore it. Unfettered by ideology, and wiser through experience, the people know that terrorism won't be defeated by bombing the hell out of random countries. Less bombs, more brains is what we need.
Posted by John Virgoe | February 12, 2007 10:17 AM
Posted on February 12, 2007 10:17
I certainly wasn't implying that military force is a solution to all political problems, but neither are all political problems amenable to non-military solutions. I'd confidently state that no one in the Bush Administration believes that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be resolved without diplomacy and negotiated compromise. Similarly, the FARC might in fact continue to be involved in the cocaine industry, but that's a problem of 1) demand for drugs and 2) law enforcement/anti-corruption, whereas this report from the UK's [left-wing] Guardian
provides evidence of just the sort of success I was alluding to (from last
September):
"But now the government of President Alvaro Uribe is intent on changing all that. The president's hardline stance against leftist rebels and the demobilisation of more than 30,000 rightwing paramilitary fighters have seen kidnappings drop 73% and murders fall 37% since Uribe first took office in 2002."
As for world perception, the global left might consider the views of Iraqis who, when asked by University of Maryland researchers, still believe "despite everything" that the war was "worth it," and their elected leaders have acknowledged the need for increased foreign troops. I largely agree with your characterization of the distain for the war on terrorism, but maybe the Bush Administration's handling of Iraq wouldn't have gone so poorly if France and Germany would have been more forthcoming, or if in fact, NATO would have been involved (I wasn't prepared to trust the Bush administration back in 2003 either; since that time, I've been impressed by its dedication to the establishment of Iraq as a viable democracy, and now I admit that I was uninformed and harboring a few leftist delusions). As we know France, Germany, and Russia had lucrative economic incentives against not deposing Saddam's regime. This is not to exculpate the Bush Administration and its countless mistakes, but there is a difference between harangue and constructive criticism. I fear Chirac, Prodi, and Zapatero have been long on the former and short on the latter.
To your final point, the US is dropping very few bombs at the moment and, pertaining to your recommendation, employing a "brain turst" as part of the surge. Indeed the precision bombing part proved to be much easier, but all is not yet lost (follow link for NYT reporter Damien Cave's story on progress in Sadr City.
Posted by J.T. Rothwell | February 13, 2007 7:57 PM
Posted on February 13, 2007 19:57