The introduction
material in the first section of this course focused on environmental regimes and
organizations, and in seeking to integrate this material with other
international news and issues, I began to think and wonder why there wasn't much information or news about successes from the international counter-terrorism
regime. We've begun to explore the environmental and climate change regimes,
and some of the ineffective and effective treaties and protocols that have
resulted from these international collaborations, but I don’t believe that we have
seen much like this is the world of counter-terrorism.
With the ever-present threat of international
terrorism continuing to grow, especially with the emergence of the Islamic
State in Syria, individual nations all over the world are working diligently within
their own states to prevent terrorist attacks at home, and abroad. In addition
to the actions of individual states, there are intergovernmental organizations
like the United Nations (U.N) Security Council, that focus on international
peace-keeping and security, but these organizations still do not focus solely
on combating terrorism and do not produce treaties specifically related to
counter-terrorism efforts. Like the complexities involved in dealing with environmental
issues ranging from stratospheric ozone depletion to systematic deforestation,
it can be argued that due to the difficulties encountered when dealing with radical
ideology and violence from non-state actors, that it is not feasible to create
protocols like Montreal to effectively counter the actions of terrorist
organizations.
As we discussed
in class, a regime is a system of principals, norms, rules and operating
procedures that institutions accept to coordinate action in a specific area, and
although we are focusing specifically on environmental regimes in this course,
we can apply some of our understanding of treaties under the environmental regime
to the counter-terrorism regime. Some of the ways in which we can assess the effectiveness
of a regime include analyzing compliance with treaties and protocols and analyzing
if the problem was actually solved. In seeking to discuss the prospects for the
counter-terrorism regime, we can analyze the success of the Montreal Protocol
in order to see why success is not as guaranteed in the counter-terrorism
regime.
As we know, the
Montreal Protocol was the agreement created in order to help protect the depleting
ozone layer, and overall, it was very successful in achieving its goal,
particularly through the emergence of new technologies or “viable technological
fixes” (Pielke Jr., 2012). Because of research and scientific discovery,
regulations were more easily put in place to limit CFC’s and this helped to
lower the rate of depletion of the ozone layer. Unfortunately, the solution to countering
terrorism and terrorist attacks is not as straightforward as finding technological
alternatives because no advancement in science or technology, no matter how
large, can combat the radical ideology that leads to terrorist attacks and the
loss of innocent civilian lives. One of the inherent difficulties that lies
within countering terrorism is the necessity to address the radical ideology
that groups spread in order to justify their actions and recruit new members
and sympathizers. It is extremely difficult to battle an ideology because it
involves so much more than bombing a suspected terrorist strong-hold or conducting
targeted killings against terrorist leaders. It involves somehow reaching the
root of the problem, which can be through addressing the grievances of these groups,
in an effort to counter the radical ideology that they spread to their followers
who are ready and willing to commit acts of violence.
Further, the success
of the Montreal Protocol was partly due to regime design and the ability of the
agreement to incentivize states to actually comply with the regulations, and
this is not something that is feasible with the non-state actors involved in terrorism.
The Montreal Protocol was able to incentivize compliance through trade and the
economy, and this would not be as straightforward in the counter-terrorism
regime because it is not possible to incentivize terrorist organizations like
al- Qaeda or the Islamic State that seek to annihilate the “the West”, its ideologies,
and interests. For transformational organizations like these that seek the
total destruction of their enemy, the use of incentives as a means to end the
violence is not truly a feasible option for the counter-terrorism regime.
Montreal was also successful because it was able to create a system of positive
feedback to encourage continued compliance, and this too would not be easy
to accomplish via a treaty because the non-state
actors committing the acts of terror are not typically willing to compromise their
goals.
It is clear that environmental issues still
persist and that all issues are not completely “solved”, but the Montreal
Protocol itself is widely viewed as a success in that it helped to phase out
CFC’s and positively impacted the state of the ozone layer. The issue of
combating terrorist attacks through counter-terrorism initiatives also hasn't been “solved” due to the on-going and evolving nature of the threat, and as
demonstrated, it is not likely to be solved through international treaties like
Montreal because of the inherent influence of non-state actors and complex radical
ideologies. With this being said, does that mean there is room for an
alternative to help with international counter-terrorism efforts, like an NGO
devoted solely to counter-terrorism efforts? What would this look like and what
would its prospects be?
Photo from: http://www.itv.com/news/story/2014-06-10/iraq-in-state-of-emergency-as-insurgents-take-mosul-city/
Monique, your idea of dealing with terrorism through an international regime is interesting. I think that some forms of terrorism could potentially be lessened through international cooperation, but not all of them. For instance, terrorism that targets religious or ethnic groups and affects many countries simultaneously could possibly be resisted on an international scale. However, terrorist groups that focus on an individual country should be dealt with by that country alone. Unless a country is brought into another country's issue by request or by attack, countries typically prefer to deal with their national issues alone. When a terrorist group attacks the United States, that is an foreign policy issue that the United States deals with alone. Forming an international regime for counter-terrorism could potentially result in the production of treaties that enhance efforts against terrorism; however, the enforcement aspect of these treaties would be left up to individual countries alone. I think it may be best for countries to handle their own terrorism efforts alone, and to call in other nations if they need assistance. I'm not sure an international regime is the best way to deal with this issue.
ReplyDeleteMandi,
DeleteI would say that I agree with you in that dealing with ethnic terrorist groups should be handled by the state itself, primarily because these kinds of organizations tend to have temporal goals. This simply means that there goals are more immediate and that they do not require the total destruction of their enemy. In the case of ethic conflict this could mean that the organization seeks to achieve autonomy or their own land, and once they achieve this, that their use of violence will cease. As for your comment that "countries to handle their own terrorism efforts alone", I would have to say that I severely disagree. Although if you are talking about enforcement, I believe that my answer would be different. The prevention of terrorist attacks is contingent upon information sharing among domestic agencies as well as agencies of ally nations, and therefore if states were to "handle their own terrorism efforts alone" I fear that they would be missing out on crucial intelligence sharing opportunities.
Monique,
ReplyDeleteVery interesting.
I would like to echo Mandi's comments and go a step further. One problem with such an approach might be that what is and is not terrorism is contested. Remember the old line, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". For instance, is ISIS a terrorist organization? They have an army and actually rule territory (they even hand out parking tickets!). They almost sound like a state. Why would they be different from other tyrannical states through history in this conception. Similarly, many argue that terrorist groups only turn to terrorism because they are weak. Wouldn't this only be punishing the weak?
An international organization for terrorism would have to choose which groups are and are not terrorists and which ends are worthy to fight for. How do you think these issues could/should be solved in an International Counterterrorism Organization?
Professor Shirk,
DeleteAfter studying terrorism in a historical context as well as terrorism today, I definitely understand and acknowledge some of the inherent difficulties in declaring an organization as such. It certainly is true that depending on the vantage point, one may view the actions of an individual or groups of individuals as heroic, rather than terroristic in nature. Therefore, it is clear how this can cause issues with not only coming up with a "definitive" definition of terrorism, but also with designating organizations.
As for the question of ISIS, I would absolutely say that they are a terrorist organization, especially if we are basing the criteria on the generally accepted notion of using violence or the threat of violence against innocent civilians to advance one's own political goals. Yes, I would say that ISIS has become more complex in its structure and operational activity (I hadn't heard about the parking tickets, but this is definitely interesting), almost in an attempt to operate as a pseudo-state. I would say that they are different from other tyrannical states because only they recognize themselves as having a state to begin with. They proclaimed themselves to have established their Caliphate in the region, although this is certainly not recognized in any official capacity by the international community. Also, the way in which they "established" their Caliphate was by threatening violence and committing atrocious acts against innocent civilian populations, and therefore by a conventional definition, constitutes terrorism.
Further, in the case of ISIS, I don't believe that declaring them as a terrorist organization would be punishing them as the weaker side. In the conventional sense of asymmetric warfare, those that resort to terrorism are viewed as the weaker side, but I believe that declaring them as such is a way to hold them accountable for their actions and convey to them that terrorist activity will not be tolerated domestically or internationally.
In terms of how these issues could be solved in an international counter terrorism organization, I think it could be useful to begin the designation baselines with guidance from several of the "power" nations including the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. I think it would be important to implement a mechanism that wouldn't allow any one nation to stall procedures, like the veto power can in the Security Council. I also think it would be important to have the developing nations heavily involved as they would be able to directly speak to the threat of terrorist activity in their nations, rather than simply taking advice from the more “powerful” nations. I do think that it would be difficult at first to get such an organization started, but I don't think that it would be impossible. I think it would just depend on in what direction the international community believes counter-terrorism efforts should head towards.
I too agree with Prof. Shirk and Mandi. You make an interesting parallel, however, I think the point you bring up about terrorist organizations being non-state actors is essential. Further, as Prof. Shirk mentioned, the international community may not agree on which organizations are terrorist organizations. An international body with the purpose of combating terrorism seems implausible to me.
ReplyDeleteJess,
DeleteI agree that there can definitely be disagreement among states in the international community regarding which organizations should be declared terrorist organizations. I wonder, to help alleviate some of this, if certain nations (most likely the larger "great powers") should take the reigns in helping to nominate and explain their choices for terrorist designations.
Also, I was wondering if you could elaborate further as to why you see an international body devoted to combating terrorism being implausible. Do you think it's mainly because of the difficulty in designating terrorist organizations, or do you see other reasons as more prominent? I definitely think it would be difficult, but as the threat of terrorism continues to rise, I believe that this could potentially present itself as an option in the future.
Monique,
DeleteJumping off of the points made by Jess, Prof. Shirk, and Mandi, I think that the issue with an international organization which combats terrorism would be inherently flawed, as the concept of "terrorism" itself can be so subjective. From a broader standpoint, what constitutes terrorism? Who commits these acts?
As Professor Shirk brought up, an action being slated as terrorism can very much depend on an individual state's perspective, and for this reason, I think that the international body devoted to combating terrorism which you have suggested may indeed be an unlikely future for the international arena. While from a liberal perspective, it is necessary to work through institutions with the goals of peace and prosperity, I think that realistically, the states involved in such an organization would get little accomplished due to discord over which terrorist groups required attention.
Sarah,
DeleteI again agree with the acknowledgements you all bring up about the difficulty in defining terrorism as well as designating terrorist organizations as such. To answer your questions, I believe that from a broader standpoint, terrorism commonly contains three critical aspects which include: 1). violence or the threat of violence 2). non-state actors and 3). actions carried out against innocent individuals. The influence and actions of non-state actors is a crucial aspect, I believe, in defining terrorism. Of course, this is not to say that there aren't exceptions to this, especially with the case of countries like Iran, Syria, and Sudan all of whom the United States have declared as state sponsors of terrorism.