Dazzling military victories in Afghanistan and Iraq may mislead us about the war on terrorism. If it were merely a matter of rogue states, we could think that progress is being made. But technology is putting into the hands of deviant groups and individuals destructive capabilities that were once limited primarily to governments and armies. Even if eliminating all terrorist incidents proves impossible, reducing their frequency and lethal potential will make a large difference in their impact on our societies. The world needs a multi-faceted strategy that de-legitimizes attacks on civilians as a method of conflict; discourages states from providing resources or safe harbor to those who use such methods; hardens our targets at home; denies terrorists easy access to weapons of mass destruction; and reduces incentives to use terrorism.
Military measures may not deal with the largest part of the problem, but they are essential sometimes. Depriving al-Qaeda of its Afghan safe haven was not sufficient, but it was necessary. The number of states sponsoring terrorism has decreased over the past decade. Diplomacy backed by military threat can reduce the number further. Some failed states are so chaotically organized that they cannot be deterred from providing a haven for terrorists. In such instances, military assistance may be relevant; in others, intervention may be necessary.
Intelligence sharing
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
Intelligence sharing and police cooperation is often the most effective front line of defense. Because of the sensitivity of sources and the dangers of disclosure, much of this work is carried out through bilateral arrangements.
Multilateral cooperation is possible in tracing financial flows, which can help to deprive terrorists of resources as well as provide useful information. Information sharing can also be enhanced by devoting more resources to under-funded organizations like Interpol.
Working to raise the thresholds that terrorists must overcome requires a systemic approach, since plugging one hole can simply divert terrorists to others. Our societies are as vulnerable as the weakest international link. It makes no sense to beef up airport security in London if a terrorist can enter the system easily in, say, Rome or Lagos.
Because modern societies are similar in their vulnerabilities, countries have a great deal to learn from each others' mistakes and best practices. Governments should establish regular contacts among agencies responsible for both the technical and policy dimensions of homeland security. Homeland security is an international issue.
Aid and assistance can be used to strengthen the capacities of poor countries involved in these transnational systems. Such investments are a clear case of coincidence between self-interest and charity. A particularly important type of assistance is in helping other countries to develop capabilities to deal with weapons of mass destruction. In the case of biological agents, world public health has become a security issue.
Terrorists can obtain microbes and viruses from inadequately protected foreign laboratories, or by bribing underpaid scientists in the remnants of the Russian biological warfare system, or from natural sources.
The World Health Organization has created a global network of national laboratories that do early detection work, and manages on a meager annual budget of roughly US$400 million.
Crucial area
Another crucial area for assistance is the Cooperative Threat Reduction effort, which provides funds to help improve the control and destruction of weapons-grade materials in former Soviet countries. These programs, too, are under-funded, although there was an agreement in principle at the G8 summit in Canada last year for 10 countries to provide an additional US$10 billion over the next 10 years.
Somewhat more controversial is the question of whether aid to development is an important counter-terrorist instrument. Advocates say that it is a crucial tool for "draining the swamps." But skeptics challenge whether poverty lies at the root of terrorism. They point out that most of the terrorists who attacked the US in September 2001 were middle-class citizens of a relatively wealthy country. If we must wait for development assistance to raise the world from poverty as the answer to terrorism, we will all be dead.
Both sides of this argument have a point. The time horizons of development policy are out of line with the time horizons of counter-terrorism, but terrorist groups are often led by well-off deviants who (like Osama bin Laden) recruit followers by pointing out the world's injustices.
Development assistance by wealthy countries can help deprive terrorist leaders of such arguments by showing that policies are aligned with the long term aspirations of the poor.
It is important to provide the prospect of hope, both in material terms and in our policies towards intractable conflicts such as those in the Middle East and Kashmir.
Military success
US military success in Iraq was dazzling, but the metaphor of war is misleading. There will be no equivalent to the fall of Baghdad, and no silver bullet in the struggle against terrorism. Success will require investment in a wide range of instruments. Yet, while the US spends only about 1 percent of its federal budget on foreign affairs, an effective counter-terrorism strategy cannot be divorced from all the dimensions of foreign policy.
Joseph Nye, the author of "The Paradox of American Power" and a former US assistant secretary of defense, is dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.