Counterterrorism Strategy: Lessons after Nairobi, Dar es-Salaam and Omagh
Public Event
Date
August 26, 1998
The Institute seeks to foster an open dialogue with the viewpoints of all sides
represented. We believe that such free exchange of opinion on policy matters best
serves the interests of promoting peace and reflects American values of liberty and
pluralism. In accordance with this principle, fellows are expected to address
controversial matters bearing on their research, and we expect that they will be
challenged concerning their views.
The current issues briefing on terrorism reflects the ongoing interest of the U.S.
Institute of Peace in the issue of terrorism and low-intensity conflict.
The Institute, founded and funded by the U.S. Congress, is mandated to strengthen
the nation's capabilities to prevent, manage and resolve violent conflict. Consistent
with this mandate we seek to analyze international terrorism and contribute to
strategies addressing a problem that is unlikely to go away. Indeed, some officials
have suggested it may be the prevalent form of warfare of the immediate future.
It is clear that if we are to deal with terrorism, we need to understand its
dimensions.
Through our in-house staff work as well as grants and fellowships to
distinguished scholars and practitioners, we have sponsored research on a number of
relevant topics, including:
- the origins of terrorism
- the psychology of perpetrators of political
violence
- the nature and varieties of terrorism
- chemical and
biological terrorism
- counterterrorism methods and the rule of law
- the use of terrorism by those who want to destroy peace processes.
In addition, we have supported research about the public debate over American
policy toward international terrorism. The current issues briefing supplements this
by highlighting the research of two Senior Fellows, Paul Arthur and Ehud Sprinzak,
who are currently at the Institute working on important dimensions of this
problem.
Our fellowship program attracts distinguished professionals from all over the
world. Their opinions are their own, and do not reflect the Institute's position. The
non-partisan nature of the Institute precludes us from taking an advocacy role.
The Institute's goals in sponsoring the August 26th current issues briefing
are threefold:
- to deepen our understanding of the dynamics of terrorism as a political weapon in
today's world.
- to help devise effective coping strategies to prevent
terrorist action.
- to find ways of reducing the impact of terrorist acts on
peace processes and political systems.
While the recent terrorist bombings in East Africa and Northern Ireland are fresh
in our minds, the purpose of this meeting transcends these particular tragedies. The
presenters will address the universal issues and processes that can help us better
understand and react appropriately to events of this kind. They draw on the knowledge
gained from dealing with terrorists over the years to extract lessons that can
instruct policy today.
Highlights
Paul Arthur
"If we are going to deal with counterterrrorism
strategies this is one of the things we must keep in the front of our minds: The
security response is easy, the consequences of the security response can not always
be anticipated—in fact, rarely are anticipated."
In a place like Ireland words count for a great deal. We don't speak about
terrorists anymore, we speak about paramilitaries. That's very important in terms of
the conflict, the length of the conflict, and where the conflict stands at any given
time. It's taken a very long time for the governments to realize that the way forward
is not simply a security response, but that the way forward had to be a combination
of a number of factors.
Rather than look at political violence simply as the antithesis of politics you
can also look at it as an anti-discourse against the political system at any one
time.
In the Irish conflict and elsewhere, political violence is used as a form of
communication. It's used by the marginalized, who are saying you can not ignore us.
And it is used to engage the state apparatus in some form of communication.
The Irish case study shows American foreign policy at its best. There are few
examples of where a prestigious third party has played such an important role in
bringing the marginalized in from the margins, into the center, and persuading them
that the way forward is political dialogue.
We do not yet know what the security response in Sudan and Afghanistan is going to
be. But there are enough parallels to tell us that we should be concerned about
it.
[The bombing] violated the sovereignty of other countries, threatening civilian
populations, and intensifying anti-American sentiment. I understand why it was done,
but I wonder what the consequences may be.
A great degree of policy analysis needs to go into this issue. The key question
is, what are the deeper roots of the conflict, not how do we best strike back very,
very, quickly.
There needs to be a serious public debate in this country so that people are
better informed of what foreign policy is about.
We need to look afresh at issues of preventive diplomacy. They can play a wider
role.
I think the United States is dangerously isolated. I see that in particular inside
the United Nations, and I do believe that there is something that Congress could do
immediately, by dealing with the tremendous debt it owes the United Nations. Only
then will it begin to bring some friendly powers on board and then this issue of
counterterrorism can begin to be dealt with collectively, rather than in the
singular.
Ehud Sprinzak
"Terrorism is a psychological warfare. Terrorists
are not in the business of killing people. They are in the business of killing a
small number of people to instill in everyone the fear that they may be next in
line."
I talk about the war against terrorism, but the goal remains a world without
terrorism, a world without violence and this is the goal that the U.S. Institute of
Peace is very much committed to.
Terrorism is a wave-like phenomenon. Policy makers have to be aware of this
wave-like nature. An effort must be made to focus on terrorism or we will continue to
be surprised.
Terrorism is not really a major security issue. There are a small number of
perpetrators, and a relatively small number of casualties.
In my opinion, Mr. bin Laden and other terrorists are not going into weapons of
mass destruction. They can get everything they need in a car bomb.
What does it mean to focus on intelligence? I cannot stress enough the need for
human intelligence. Americans have a tendency to focus on technology. You have great
monitoring devices, satellite imagery. But this particular war is a war of minds, a
war of brains. and you need good people, good analysts, especially people who
understand the complexities and the sensitivities of the Middle East and Middle
Eastern groups.
We do not need experts to make blanket statements about the Middle East and the
Arab world. We need people who understand the nuances and can identify where there is
a threat and where there is just general anti-American sentiment.
One of the major mistakes of Dar-es Salaam and Nairobi was defining them as
low-risk places. They were not low-risk. Terrorists do not like to operate when they
don't have an environment in which they can hide and which they are easily
identifiable.
There is not in the world a secret service that can provide 100% protection. What
you want to get from a service is 100% vigilance and 100% effort. This is something
that the American people deserve today in addition to very constructive and
innovative diplomacy.
Robert Oakley
Robert Oakley
...Ehud's article, ("The Great Super Terrorism Scare," September 1998, Foreign
Policy) is almost prescient because we are into the terrorism scare at the moment and
that's the one thing we need to avoid is getting scared and getting into a panic.
One thing that would be extremely dangerous in Pakistan and in the Muslim world is to
make it appear that somehow Israel and India were working together against Pakistan
on the basis of terrorism. This would hurt the Pakistani incentive to do something
about it.
In reference to Osama bin Laden: You can't exaggerate the importance of a single
individual. When something happens to bin Laden, there will be somebody to take his
place.
Media Inquiries
Please contact Ian Larsen (+1.202.429.3870) or Lauren Sucher (+1.202.429.3822) in
the Office of Public Affairs and Communications.
