Search

Begin New Search Topic Terrorism

1211. Not Worth a Blue Ribbon

Author:
Reuel Marc Gerecht
Publication Date:
08-2004
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Abstract:
The 9/11 Commission report fails to offer effective solutions to problems in American intelligence, concentrating on new bureaucratic structures rather than on revitalizing the clandestine service to infiltrate and destroy terrorist organizations.
Topic:
Government and Terrorism
Political Geography:
United States and America

1212. Naming the Enemy

Author:
Thomas Donnelly
Publication Date:
08-2004
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Abstract:
The report of the 9/11 Commission should help strengthen American resolve in the war on terror. The report brings greater clarity to the enemy and threats we face, as well as to the methods by which the United States can strengthen national security through a “forward strategy of freedom” in the greater Middle East.
Topic:
Terrorism
Political Geography:
United States, America, and Middle East

1213. The Post 9/11 Partnership: Transatlantic Cooperation Against Terrorism

Author:
David L. Aaron, Frances G. Burwell, C. Richard Nelson, Anna M. Beauchesne, K. Jack Riley, and Brian Zimmer
Publication Date:
12-2004
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
On September 11, 2001, the world was introduced to a new type of terrorism, one that was truly global in its organization and its impact. In both Europe and the United States, it was immediately clear that an effective response would require new levels of cooperation across the Atlantic and around the world. The initial response was in part military, as NATO invoked its mutual defense clause for the first time ever and a military campaign began in Afghanistan. But equally important was the decision by both the European Union and the United States to boost the capacity of their domestic law enforcement agencies and judiciary to respond to global terrorism and to look for ways to cooperate with each other in doing so. Since then, U.S.-EU cooperation in combating terrorism has been one of the success stories of transatlantic relations.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, and Terrorism
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, United States, and Europe

1214. NATO's Role in Confronting International Terrorism

Author:
Richard A. Clarke, C. Richard Nelson, and Barry R. McCaffrey
Publication Date:
06-2004
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Leaders on both sides of the Atlantic agree that a successful global effort to confront terrorism will require a multi–faceted approach that draws on the strengths and unique assets of many international organizations. One such, the European Union (EU), has already taken a leading role in coordinating national efforts in areas closely tied to many of that organization's key functions (i.e. judicial and law–enforcement cooperation, financial controls and border security). Similarly, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has and ought to have an important role coordinating other aspects of Western national responses, notably – though not exclusively – those in which military forces are likely to play a primary or a supporting part.
Topic:
NATO, International Cooperation, and Terrorism
Political Geography:
United States and Europe

1215. Do Economic Sanctions Work? Lessons from ILSA Other Sanctions Regimes

Author:
Stuart E. Eizenstat
Publication Date:
04-2004
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The 1990s saw a cascade of contentious sanctions legislation. Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, including an amendment to the Sovereign Immunities Act, which permits lawsuits against governments on the terrorism list – a major step in denying foreign governments normal immunity from suit in U.S. courts. The Iran–Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) was also passed in 1996, with the goal of discouraging third–country companies from investing in Iran or Libya. This sparked outrage from European countries, which objected to the act's “extra–territorial” reach, and from the European Union (EU) institutionally, which responded with a law barring any European company from complying with the legislation (and with similar provisions regarding Cuban trade under the controversial Helms–Burton Act).
Topic:
International Relations, Economics, and Terrorism
Political Geography:
United States and Europe

1216. The Proliferation Security Initiative in Perspective

Author:
Andrew Prosser
Publication Date:
06-2004
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Defense Information
Abstract:
Participant countries of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a U.S.-led effort to stem the illicit trafficking of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and delivery systems, met on the first anniversary of the initiative, from May 31 to June 1 in Krakow, Poland. Russia announced on the first day of the meeting its decision to participate in the PSI, a move that U.S. officials had supported as an important step in augmenting the effectiveness of the initiative. However, Russia's participation will only occur, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry, as long as PSI activities do not violate national or international law. Russian officials have similarly expressed concerns that the PSI's land, sea, and air-based WMD interdiction activities could endanger international commerce, and give unwarranted powers to the U.S. Navy to act as a global police force.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
Russia and United States

1217. Counter-Terrorism: A Game Theoretic Analysis

Author:
Daniel G. Arce M. and Todd Sandler
Publication Date:
02-2004
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for International Studies, University of Southern California
Abstract:
This paper establishes the prevalence of deterrence over preemption when targeted governments can choose between either policy or employ both. There is a similar proclivity to favor defensive counterterrorist measures over proactive policies. Unfortunately, this predisposition results in an equilibrium with socially inferior payoffs when compared with proactive responses. Proactive policies tend to provide purely public benefits to all potential targets and are usually undersupplied, whereas defensive policies tend to yield a strong share of provider-specific benefits and are often oversupplied. When terrorists direct a disproportionate number of attacks at one government, its reliance on defensive measures can disappear. Ironically, terrorists' can assist governments in addressing coordination dilemmas associated with some antiterrorist policies by targeting some countries more often than others.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Security, Government, and Terrorism

1218. The Financial Front in the Global War on Terrorism

Author:
Patrick D. Buckley and Michael J. Meese
Publication Date:
01-2004
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Department of Social Sciences at West Point, United States Military Academy
Abstract:
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States has aggressively executed the Global War on Terrorism on many different fronts. The approval of Executive Order 13224 on September 24, 2001, marked a bold initial step toward targeting terrorists' financial networks. The success of terrorist organizations is dependent upon these financial networks because though terrorist attacks are not necessarily expensive, the support of international terrorist networks, training camps, command and control, and infrastructure requires either a large reserve of available finances or the ability to raise significant funding. Estimates of al-Qaeda's current funding vary widely, but it is believed that prior to the Taliban's removal from power, al-Qaeda's annual expenses were at least $36 million on top of an initial fixed cost of approximately $50 million for equipment and infrastructure.
Topic:
Defense Policy, International Trade and Finance, and Terrorism
Political Geography:
United States

1219. Why German-US Relations Still Matter to the Transatlantic Alliance—One Year after War in Iraq

Author:
Michaela C. Hertkorn
Publication Date:
12-2004
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Columbia International Affairs Online
Abstract:
A declaration on NATO transformation of October 6, 2002 stated the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needed to be “capable of taking action whenever the security of its members was threatened, upon the basis of the United Nations Charter. By making it clear that there is no safe haven for those who would threaten our societies or for those who would harbor such people” the deterrent element of Alliance strategy was strengthened. The North Atlantic Council should decide actions on a case-by-case basis. Where NATO as a whole was not engaged, allies willing to take action should be able to make use of NATO assets, procedures and practices. The declaration stressed high priority goals essential to the full range of Alliance missions including the defense against terrorism. This new initiative was to be based on firm national commitments with specific target dates. National commitments should be made transparent for parliamentary monitoring and oversight. Priority should be given to projects maximizing multi-nationality, and which had the potential to become common NATO assets. NATO and European Union capabilities initiatives needed to be mutually reinforced and thoroughly harmonized through permanent co-ordination mechanisms and procedures in a spirit of openness. NATO should redouble its efforts to reduce the fragmentation of defense procurement efforts through the pooling of military capabilities, co-operative acquisition of equipment and common funding. It should reduce to a minimum the obstacles for the sharing of technology. The alliance had to be able to act wherever NATO' s interests were threatened, creating coalitions under NATO' s own mandate, as well as contributing to mission-based coalitions, concerning both, old and new threats. NATO General Secretary, Lord Robertson referred to the experience NATO had with post-conflict stabilization, as in Kosovo and Macedonia. On October 8, 2002 Robertson declared, an enormous number of security issues on the Euro-Atlantic agenda required the greatest possible communication and coordination among Europeans and North Americans. The November 2002 Prague Summit would be a transforming event for the Alliance. It covered a wide range from terrorism, NATO' s military command arrangements and headquarters structure, to a further development of Partnership. The most visible issues referred to enlargement and improvements to NATO' s military capabilities. The question of capabilities concerned the member countries of NATO and of the European Union (EU). Because each nation had only one set of forces, it was necessary to make the best use possible of the scarce resources, avoiding duplication and overlaps. The message was very clear: the European Capabilities Action Plan and NATO' s Prague Capabilities Commitment needed to be coherent. Work in full transparency on capabilities issues was imperative, if EUNATO impasse was to be avoided or ended.
Topic:
Terrorism and War
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Europe, Kosovo, Germany, United Nations, and Macedonia

1220. Minimal Investments, Minimal Results: The Failure of Security Policy in Afghanistan

Author:
Michael Bhatia, Kevin Lanigan, and Philip Wilkinson
Publication Date:
06-2004
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Columbia International Affairs Online
Abstract:
Prime Minister Tony Blair's 2003 declaration that the international community “will not walk away from” Afghanistan missed the real question: When will the international community really walk into Afghanistan, and make the necessary commitments and investments that will give the Afghan people a reasonable chance at building a peaceful and stable country?
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Security, Development, and Terrorism
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Central Asia, and Asia