Cutting Trade Ties Sponsors International Terrorism Too
Daniel L. Byman | Brookings Institution | May 2008
Terrorist groups all over the world benefit from the support of governments. The US State Department draws up a special list of countries considered to be state sponsors of terrorism. Yet Daniel Byman says this list is not worth much. For one thing, it lists Cuba and North Korea along with Iran, Sudan and Syria. The first two countries have practically no connection with today's international terrorism. In addition, this list is established on the basis of classic active sponsorship of terrorism. This is defined by direct state control of the terrorist groups supported, the coordination of terrorist activities and regular contact between state and terrorist authorities. However today, a new kind of support, passive state support, is a problem that requires a new approach in the fight against terrorism.
Passive support is essentially less specific. Terrorist groups today mostly support themselves financially. The main form of support is the lack of individual governments' action against them. They for instance accept that terrorists operate from their territory. The best example for this is Pakistan, a country which is considered one of the main supporters of the Taliban who are fighting the US backed government in Afghanistan. Another characteristic of passive sponsorship is that a government shows no concern or wilfully ignores the threat a group represents. Sometimes it is also due to a government's inability to control its entire territory. According to this definition, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, and Venezuela, as well as Pakistan belong to those who passively support terrorism. To meet the challenge of this threat, there is no need for another list but for targeted actions:
• International consensus: A clear definition should be established, clarifying what is considered to be state sponsorship of terrorism. This definition should no only take into account direct support such as arming and training but also the lack of action concerning the procurement of goods, funds, and recruitment. The common efforts made in the fight against money laundering could be used as a model.
• Public exposure: Governments that passively sponsor terrorism should be exposed by the international community. In this case, a simple listing of the type of the anticorruption index would suffice.
• Political and economic restrictions: Should diplomatic efforts fail to be effective, political and economic sanctions should be applied. For instance, banning members of the government, state elites, and potential foreign investors from travelling would demonstrate that harder sanctions will follow.
These new state sponsors conceal a danger which is clearly much greater for the West than traditional supporters. Together, the measures described above would be much more effective than the list that has been at hand until now.
This summary was prepared by the Atlantic Community editorial team from "The Changing Nature of State Sponsorship" published here by the Brookings Institution in the Saban Center Analysis Paper Nr. 16 in May 2008.
Related materials from the Atlantic Community:
- Transatlantic Press Round-up: France Adopts a Multilateral Defense Policy
- Mark Brzezinski: Renewed Alliances: How to Face Today's Threats
- Loretta Napoleoni: Think Tank Analysis: Why the West Lost the Financial War against Terror
Tue, Jul 1st 2008, 07:20
ilyas m mohsin, ppp, Platinum Contributor (253)
US and pakistan gave massive support to the Afghans fighting against the Soviet occupation in the 80s which ultimately led to the collapse of the Communist Empire. In those days the Mujahideen were comparable to 'America' founding fathers' for President Regan. Now except for Northern surrogates, the Afghans are the 'badguys' who deserve to be killed as is done in the video-games.
Rather simplistic. Even the passive support theory is highly debatable and appears to be dictated by indiscriminate use of over-blown power-complex. Both Iraq/ Afghanistan have had the bitter taste of the same which has killed about 2 million people due to the 'occupation' besides the destruction of those countries. In Iraq only Oil is relatively safe because, as per the game-plan, reportedly, it had to be guarded.
Making theories without knowing the ground realities personally, and not form media-despatches, is easy but in the process we are producing situations whereby Vietnam would start looking like a picnic, the G7'
destructive power notwithstanding.
Better sense must prevail al the Global level.