Hind Aboud Kabawat spoke at the Woodrow Center for Scholars on Friday, October 10 on the subject of Middle East Reform. She opened by questioning why, in the Middle East, autocratic governments have remained the norm rather than the exception. Despite the unprecedented transfer of wealth to these governments, they have not matured; they still exercise complete and arbitrary power over their people. There is a direct connection between the immature government and the lack of social development evidenced by an inferior education system, inferior health care, and the lack of economy outside of the oil sector. Despite the accumulating wealth, most people remain stuck in ignorance and poverty.
Ms. Aboud Kabawat then moved on to discuss how to change this problem. The change she would like to see take place is the creation of an environment in which dissent is tolerated, there is political accountability, an independent judiciary, free press, and a government that serves the interest of all the people and is free from systemic corruption. She explained the problem of crediting the lack of current democracy to the absence of historical democracy. There is nothing in Arab societies, she argues, that inhibits democratic maturation. Another argument she discounts is that the presence of Israel in the region is some kind of external hindrance to democratic development. There has been too much time and energy, she stated, devoted to fighting when efforts could have been directed towards creating a fair and just society.
Then, what are the real causes of governmental immaturity? One, there is a lack of secular, Westernized elites who are not members of the ruling elite standing at the vanguard of society, creating a new pillar in the Arab world. Two, everyone is worried that fanatic Islam would be what the masses want. Both of these hindrances to democracy stem from the culture of fear that political elites foster through jailing and exiling advocates for change.
The signs that the government is immature are evidenced by the lack of infrastructure, and a lack of accountability to the people. There is no independent judiciary, free press or other checks on the government. There are no open elections, no transferring of power, no transparency. The shortage of transparency allows corruption to become systemic and further inhibit economic growth. The entire world is willing to pay for oil wealth, she stated, and these countries need to use this money transfer to develop other technologies and future wealth opportunities. This change will not happen effortlessly. The government is reluctant to embrace change because their absolute power gives them security and stability. However, change will happen. The Middle East is plagued by poverty, corruption, discrimination and unemployment.
So, what can be done? We can get a better future if we create a society where all can work together. There are four pillars Ms. Aboud Kabawat stated are important for maturing democracy in the Middle East. First, the rule of law must be established. There must be independent judges. Currently, the government does not want to share power, and results in suppressed civil institutions. However, the government should work with civil society and work on engaging everyone. She also asserts that secular government must be the norm; there must be a separation of state and religion because the state must be for all. The rule of law must stand free from religion.
The second pillar is the empowerment of women. This, she argues, is an essential part of modernization. In the Middle East, women have very few rights and the empowerment of women would lead of liberalization of the entire political system. Women are capable of doing great things, she states, we must let them do it. The third pillar is education. The current education is substandard. There must be quality education for all. This would result in more discussions and more ideas. Poverty, ignorance, and terrorism go well together. Fighting ignorance defeats poverty and the next generation of terrorists.
The fourth pillar is peace. Countries in the Middle East are spending money killing each other, while this money is spent on a fruitless war, it cannot benefit society. The U.S. is also guilty of this; money is being spent on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of building institutions. The poor are the ones suffering for this misappropriation of resources. There must be peaceful coexistence with Israel and the rest of the world. While fighting increases, there is a decrease in money spent on reform and chances for the country to improve.
She quotes Gandhi who says, “There is no way to peace. Peace is the way.” There is a need for an environment of change, a need to get everyone working together. The Middle East intellectuals must play a primary role in change. Even in jail, or oppressed, they can never give up. They must keep trying to improve society. This will help convince leaders that change should happen. These four pillars must become the norm, and there must be engagement with the Middle East in order to see reform.
Date: October 10, 2008
Location: Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars
Attended by: Emily Riff
Showing posts with label Anti Terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anti Terrorism. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
NGO briefing on Reconstruction Activities in North East Afghanistan
On September 11th, 2008, the Department of State invited representatives of Non-Government Organizations to participate in a briefing regarding the current situation in North East Afghanistan. The presenter, Matthew Asada, has been a member of the Foreign Service since 2003, and spent the past year working with a German-led Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kunduz, Afghanistan.
Asada opened the briefing by stressing that Kunduz and the surrounding regions provide a strategic transit link to Kabul, as well as other North and Central Asia trading regions. According to Asada, the current security issues facing the region prevent it from reaching its maximum capacity or trading, and functionality. However, during the year he was stationed there, he witnessed an increase in security, trade, and overall community morale. This is due to counter-insurgency efforts, as well as foreign aid and investment, and training programs for local officers.
The German PRT launched a multifaceted counter-insurgency effort that focused on immediate security. Their main objectives included patrolling around known troubled regions to ensure orderly conduct, as well as extensively training local police officers. They would retrain them to prevent corruption, and then mentors would follow the police officers back to their regions for two additional months, in order to help them re-acclimate to their posts. The local police officers also received a pay increase in order to help combat bribery. These tactics allowed for the German PRT to patrol in expanding rings, with Kunduz in the center. And they did not have to continue patrolling the same areas, as the local police were able to Patrol relatively stable regions. This specific program not only improved safety, but also improved relations between the German PRT and the local Afghani National Security Forces and Intelligence offices.
In addition to the German PRT programs, Asada attributes Kunduz’s improvements to international developments such as the Tajik Bridge, which was part of a $49 million dollar project sponsored by the United States. This bridge links Afghanistan to Tajikistan for the first time ever. It is a major trade point, and prior to the bridge, the transportation of goods was conducted through a ferry system that could only transport 30 trucks per day. The new bridge currently holds a record of 600 trucks per day (including delays caused by border checks between the two countries). Since the bridge opened in October 2007, trade has been increased sevenfold, and customs profits have multiplied by ten.
While these are all great feats for Kunduz and Afghanistan as a whole, Asada stresses that the battle is far from won. There is still turmoil in the country over the legitimacy of the government, and its levels of corruption, specifically in the judiciary system. There is also much more development to be done, and a lot of help needed. Asada remarks that although the current development sponsored by the US is fantastic, the organizations that know development the best are in fact NGOs. Essentially, he believes Afghanistan could benefit from an increase in NGO participation in the region. Currently USAID is working on building schools in the region, along with the help of UNHCR. However, there are many more projects that need to be taken up. Among the challenges faced include a lack of power during the winter, and while donor countries can do a lot of help, they face many more bureaucratic limitations as well.
Sponsor: Department of State
Date: September 11th, 2008
Representative: Daria Willis
Asada opened the briefing by stressing that Kunduz and the surrounding regions provide a strategic transit link to Kabul, as well as other North and Central Asia trading regions. According to Asada, the current security issues facing the region prevent it from reaching its maximum capacity or trading, and functionality. However, during the year he was stationed there, he witnessed an increase in security, trade, and overall community morale. This is due to counter-insurgency efforts, as well as foreign aid and investment, and training programs for local officers.
The German PRT launched a multifaceted counter-insurgency effort that focused on immediate security. Their main objectives included patrolling around known troubled regions to ensure orderly conduct, as well as extensively training local police officers. They would retrain them to prevent corruption, and then mentors would follow the police officers back to their regions for two additional months, in order to help them re-acclimate to their posts. The local police officers also received a pay increase in order to help combat bribery. These tactics allowed for the German PRT to patrol in expanding rings, with Kunduz in the center. And they did not have to continue patrolling the same areas, as the local police were able to Patrol relatively stable regions. This specific program not only improved safety, but also improved relations between the German PRT and the local Afghani National Security Forces and Intelligence offices.
In addition to the German PRT programs, Asada attributes Kunduz’s improvements to international developments such as the Tajik Bridge, which was part of a $49 million dollar project sponsored by the United States. This bridge links Afghanistan to Tajikistan for the first time ever. It is a major trade point, and prior to the bridge, the transportation of goods was conducted through a ferry system that could only transport 30 trucks per day. The new bridge currently holds a record of 600 trucks per day (including delays caused by border checks between the two countries). Since the bridge opened in October 2007, trade has been increased sevenfold, and customs profits have multiplied by ten.
While these are all great feats for Kunduz and Afghanistan as a whole, Asada stresses that the battle is far from won. There is still turmoil in the country over the legitimacy of the government, and its levels of corruption, specifically in the judiciary system. There is also much more development to be done, and a lot of help needed. Asada remarks that although the current development sponsored by the US is fantastic, the organizations that know development the best are in fact NGOs. Essentially, he believes Afghanistan could benefit from an increase in NGO participation in the region. Currently USAID is working on building schools in the region, along with the help of UNHCR. However, there are many more projects that need to be taken up. Among the challenges faced include a lack of power during the winter, and while donor countries can do a lot of help, they face many more bureaucratic limitations as well.
Sponsor: Department of State
Date: September 11th, 2008
Representative: Daria Willis
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
The Future of the U.S. Military Presence in Iraq
With the political atmosphere in Washington DC charged for the upcoming election, there are few issues debated more that the future of US military presence in Iraq? On Friday, July 25th the United States Institute of Peace, USIP, decided to engage those on all sides of this debate for a panel discussion concerning this very subject: The Future of the U.S. Military Presence in Iraq. The speakers included Ms. Kimberly Kagan, Mr. Charles Knight, Mr. Colin Kahl, and Ms. Rend al-Rahim.
Ms. Kimberly Kagan, the President of the Institute for the Study of War, detailed that the surges contributed to political process although political advances lag behind those of increased security. Our objectives in Iraq are to help Iraq establish peace with neighbors, become an ally in the War on Terror, and to generate a stable, legitimate, democratic government. She suggests we retain US military presence to prevent ‘malign’ influences on the upcoming elections and any resurgence of violence. It is wise to avoid considering the upcoming election as a culmination of efforts but instead to look at them as the beginning of a political process that will continue to need social, economic, and political assistance. She believes the US should maintain ‘peacekeeping activities’ because a withdrawal would give Iranian-backed enemies a timetable to regroup and jeopardize the political process. The presence of US forces allows the Iraqi government to focus on governance, reconstruction, and reintegration of previous extremist into government to begin negotiations.
Quite contrary to Ms. Kagan’s speech, Mr. Charles Knight, Co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives at the Commonwealth Institute, strongly expressed that the US military occupation is the central feature of “our strategic failure” in Iraq. He discussed the miscalculation of what could be accomplished by arms, the failure of the US to understand identity politics, and the failure to consider international cooperation and legitimacy of actions. He expressed that the US military presence in Iraq has “tarnished the meaning and promise of democracy.” Mr. Knight advocates for unconditional withdrawal accompanied by internationally supported reconciliation efforts under a code of non-interference. While he acknowledges that the surges have increased security, he believes it is far from sufficient and that the US- Iraqi alliance is a “shaky marriage of convenience.”
Mr. Colin Kahl, a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, believes that our future presence in Iraqi is “all about balance,” between eradicating terrorism, generating stability, and providing leadership and credibility for governance. To contend with ongoing problems of ethno-sectarian conflicts, Mr. Kahl advocates that Iraq bring extremists into the political process, improve governance and increase employment. Additionally, the US needs to help professionalize the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) to ensure that they will act as a neutral body accountable to the state. The best option for future US military involvement is that of conditional engagement to pursue withdrawal and also provide residual support. The idea of a timeline with ‘conditions’ attached is paramount because the fundamental flaw in our strategy has been US politics not involving conditionality according to Mr. Kahl.
USIP’s Iraqi Fellow, Ms. Rend al-Rahim strongly echoed Mr. Kahl’s sentiments stating that he has a good understanding on things on the ground and the failure of US policy strategy. She furthered Mr. Kahl’s argument that the surges have been successful in increasing security but their original intent to improve the political process has seen little gain. Furthermore, she cited four mistakes the U.S. made in structuring the ISF: focusing on quantity and not quality, focusing on combat instead of command or control, ignoring integration of those serving in the ISF, and ignoring issues of loyalty of the army to the state. Ms. al-Rahim supports conditional engagement in Iraq and believes that the United States’ lack of declaratory statements and sanctions against Iraq have actually hindered the development of good governance. Iraq remains fragmented and faces problems with amnesty which prevent sustainable security. She comments that is a great sense of apprehension in Iraq that the increased security can break down at any moment; therefore, the US military should continue to stress the importance of integrating the ISF. If Sunnis do not feel as though they are equal partners in the state then Iraq may face another insurgency and relapse in violence. Sunnis must see the benefits of participating in society and they must be integrated into the leadership of the country. Above all else, Ms. al-Rahim emphasized that the US has not yet used the whole range of carrots and sticks in the last 5 years in Iraq and the military should change our strategy to one of conditional engagement while we strengthen the ISF.
This idea of conditional withdrawal supported by both Mr. Kahl and Ms. al-Rahim and opposed by both Ms. Kagan and Mr. Knight adequately illustrated the strong differences in opinion presented at the panel. For example at the conclusion of the panel, while Colin was of the mindset that 2009 will be spent “managing our increasing irrelevance,” Ms. Kagan strongly believed that 2009 will be a crucial year demanding strong US military support for the upcoming Iraqi elections.
Sponsor: United States Institute of Peace
Date: July 25, 2009
Time: 10 am -12 pm
Representative Attending: Jessica Walker
Ms. Kimberly Kagan, the President of the Institute for the Study of War, detailed that the surges contributed to political process although political advances lag behind those of increased security. Our objectives in Iraq are to help Iraq establish peace with neighbors, become an ally in the War on Terror, and to generate a stable, legitimate, democratic government. She suggests we retain US military presence to prevent ‘malign’ influences on the upcoming elections and any resurgence of violence. It is wise to avoid considering the upcoming election as a culmination of efforts but instead to look at them as the beginning of a political process that will continue to need social, economic, and political assistance. She believes the US should maintain ‘peacekeeping activities’ because a withdrawal would give Iranian-backed enemies a timetable to regroup and jeopardize the political process. The presence of US forces allows the Iraqi government to focus on governance, reconstruction, and reintegration of previous extremist into government to begin negotiations.
Quite contrary to Ms. Kagan’s speech, Mr. Charles Knight, Co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives at the Commonwealth Institute, strongly expressed that the US military occupation is the central feature of “our strategic failure” in Iraq. He discussed the miscalculation of what could be accomplished by arms, the failure of the US to understand identity politics, and the failure to consider international cooperation and legitimacy of actions. He expressed that the US military presence in Iraq has “tarnished the meaning and promise of democracy.” Mr. Knight advocates for unconditional withdrawal accompanied by internationally supported reconciliation efforts under a code of non-interference. While he acknowledges that the surges have increased security, he believes it is far from sufficient and that the US- Iraqi alliance is a “shaky marriage of convenience.”
Mr. Colin Kahl, a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, believes that our future presence in Iraqi is “all about balance,” between eradicating terrorism, generating stability, and providing leadership and credibility for governance. To contend with ongoing problems of ethno-sectarian conflicts, Mr. Kahl advocates that Iraq bring extremists into the political process, improve governance and increase employment. Additionally, the US needs to help professionalize the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) to ensure that they will act as a neutral body accountable to the state. The best option for future US military involvement is that of conditional engagement to pursue withdrawal and also provide residual support. The idea of a timeline with ‘conditions’ attached is paramount because the fundamental flaw in our strategy has been US politics not involving conditionality according to Mr. Kahl.
USIP’s Iraqi Fellow, Ms. Rend al-Rahim strongly echoed Mr. Kahl’s sentiments stating that he has a good understanding on things on the ground and the failure of US policy strategy. She furthered Mr. Kahl’s argument that the surges have been successful in increasing security but their original intent to improve the political process has seen little gain. Furthermore, she cited four mistakes the U.S. made in structuring the ISF: focusing on quantity and not quality, focusing on combat instead of command or control, ignoring integration of those serving in the ISF, and ignoring issues of loyalty of the army to the state. Ms. al-Rahim supports conditional engagement in Iraq and believes that the United States’ lack of declaratory statements and sanctions against Iraq have actually hindered the development of good governance. Iraq remains fragmented and faces problems with amnesty which prevent sustainable security. She comments that is a great sense of apprehension in Iraq that the increased security can break down at any moment; therefore, the US military should continue to stress the importance of integrating the ISF. If Sunnis do not feel as though they are equal partners in the state then Iraq may face another insurgency and relapse in violence. Sunnis must see the benefits of participating in society and they must be integrated into the leadership of the country. Above all else, Ms. al-Rahim emphasized that the US has not yet used the whole range of carrots and sticks in the last 5 years in Iraq and the military should change our strategy to one of conditional engagement while we strengthen the ISF.
This idea of conditional withdrawal supported by both Mr. Kahl and Ms. al-Rahim and opposed by both Ms. Kagan and Mr. Knight adequately illustrated the strong differences in opinion presented at the panel. For example at the conclusion of the panel, while Colin was of the mindset that 2009 will be spent “managing our increasing irrelevance,” Ms. Kagan strongly believed that 2009 will be a crucial year demanding strong US military support for the upcoming Iraqi elections.
Sponsor: United States Institute of Peace
Date: July 25, 2009
Time: 10 am -12 pm
Representative Attending: Jessica Walker
Peace and Stability Operations: What the Experts Think
The Better World Campaign and the Henry L. Stimson Center sponsored three expert panelists including William Durch, Gayle Smith and Gordon Adams who each provided insightful commentary on their views regarding peace and stability operation overseas.
William Durch, who is the Senior Associate and co-Director of the Future of Peace Operations at the Stimson Center and has an extensive career in Disarmament and International Affairs, stressed the need for peace to be self regulated. Durch claimed that it is possible for countries currently in conflict (such as the Democratic Republic of Congo) to provide self-regulated peace, however the constant barrier is a lack of peace enforcers. In the eyes of the international community, this is a role UN Peacekeepers should play. However, without the full support of the Security Council and local government, the Peace Keepers are not even able to defend themselves. Such is the case in Darfur, which Durch labeled as a “dangerous place for United States and United Nations Peace Keeping Forces” mainly due to under-staffing and lack of support from the local government. While we can not control the support of the local government, Durch does point out that a large part of the under-staffing is due to lack of funding. The consistently late payments made to the UN have a detrimental affect on its operations. Although some may argue that independent governments (such as the US) can fill in where the UN falls short, the UN has “a broader political legitimacy and greater reach into the private sector” making it the most likely to succeed in peace keeping operations (Durch).
Gordon Adams, Director of the Budgeting for Foreign Affairs and Defense Project at Stimson, agreed with Durch, providing a series of suggestions that he feels the US should implement in order to assist in the international goals to sustain peace. Adams pointed out that the majority of the issues require more than just the US government’s input, and that there is a large network of institutions, both public and private, that the US should be working with. Adams also pointed out that while Darfur and the DRC are current “hot spots” the world should not lose sight of other situations for fear that the US will fall into fighting the “last-post-war” and rely on ad hoc responses, when in reality we need to fight preventatively. Adams also stressed the need for cooperation within the US government, suggesting that the responsibilities of international peace need to be carefully divided between the Department of Defense, USAID, and other governmental departments.
Finally, Gayle Smith, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and Co-Chair of the ENOUGH Project, provided eye-witness analysis of current and past peace issues in Africa based on her extensive journalism experience in the area. Smith stressed that in situations such as the DRC, peace keeping operations are not sufficient, and in Darfur, peace keeping operations are set up to do things and provide support beyond their capacity. Smith criticized the government of being short-sighted, and lacking comprehension regarding the necessities to provide international security. Smith also said that the peace keeping operations need to re-focus on preventing crisis, rather than reacting, managing trends that give rise to crisis, and transitional periods that extend past two years. Finally, Smith offered her theory that security needs to be addressed in three lenses: physical, economic, and human dignity.
Adams and Smith seemed to agree with Durch’s recommendations for the next administration. Durch proclaimed that in order for the US to achieve the kind of security it needs, the incoming administration needs to cooperate with the UN by affirming common goals, offering financial and technological support, military assistance, and peace keeping contributions. Until this is accomplished, the US will continue to fall behind in security, as it is no longer unilaterally achievable.
Sponsor: Better World Campaign and the Henry L. Stimson Center
Date: 7/29/08
Representative: Daria Willis
William Durch, who is the Senior Associate and co-Director of the Future of Peace Operations at the Stimson Center and has an extensive career in Disarmament and International Affairs, stressed the need for peace to be self regulated. Durch claimed that it is possible for countries currently in conflict (such as the Democratic Republic of Congo) to provide self-regulated peace, however the constant barrier is a lack of peace enforcers. In the eyes of the international community, this is a role UN Peacekeepers should play. However, without the full support of the Security Council and local government, the Peace Keepers are not even able to defend themselves. Such is the case in Darfur, which Durch labeled as a “dangerous place for United States and United Nations Peace Keeping Forces” mainly due to under-staffing and lack of support from the local government. While we can not control the support of the local government, Durch does point out that a large part of the under-staffing is due to lack of funding. The consistently late payments made to the UN have a detrimental affect on its operations. Although some may argue that independent governments (such as the US) can fill in where the UN falls short, the UN has “a broader political legitimacy and greater reach into the private sector” making it the most likely to succeed in peace keeping operations (Durch).
Gordon Adams, Director of the Budgeting for Foreign Affairs and Defense Project at Stimson, agreed with Durch, providing a series of suggestions that he feels the US should implement in order to assist in the international goals to sustain peace. Adams pointed out that the majority of the issues require more than just the US government’s input, and that there is a large network of institutions, both public and private, that the US should be working with. Adams also pointed out that while Darfur and the DRC are current “hot spots” the world should not lose sight of other situations for fear that the US will fall into fighting the “last-post-war” and rely on ad hoc responses, when in reality we need to fight preventatively. Adams also stressed the need for cooperation within the US government, suggesting that the responsibilities of international peace need to be carefully divided between the Department of Defense, USAID, and other governmental departments.
Finally, Gayle Smith, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and Co-Chair of the ENOUGH Project, provided eye-witness analysis of current and past peace issues in Africa based on her extensive journalism experience in the area. Smith stressed that in situations such as the DRC, peace keeping operations are not sufficient, and in Darfur, peace keeping operations are set up to do things and provide support beyond their capacity. Smith criticized the government of being short-sighted, and lacking comprehension regarding the necessities to provide international security. Smith also said that the peace keeping operations need to re-focus on preventing crisis, rather than reacting, managing trends that give rise to crisis, and transitional periods that extend past two years. Finally, Smith offered her theory that security needs to be addressed in three lenses: physical, economic, and human dignity.
Adams and Smith seemed to agree with Durch’s recommendations for the next administration. Durch proclaimed that in order for the US to achieve the kind of security it needs, the incoming administration needs to cooperate with the UN by affirming common goals, offering financial and technological support, military assistance, and peace keeping contributions. Until this is accomplished, the US will continue to fall behind in security, as it is no longer unilaterally achievable.
Sponsor: Better World Campaign and the Henry L. Stimson Center
Date: 7/29/08
Representative: Daria Willis
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
"Fighting Terrorism in the 21st Century"
In the fight against terrorism, the United States has relied heavily on military solutions. Considering the ideological basis of most violent extremists, strategic communications and public diplomacy seem to be more effective deterrents. The Honorable Adam Smith (D-WA) and The Honorable Mac Thornberry (R-TX), both members of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, recently addressed the need for a deliberate outreach campaign in order to discourage extremists from joining terrorist groups.
Strategic communication, as explained by Representative Thornberry, “unifies and focuses the right message to the right audience with the intent to shape their perceptions”. In order to combat terrorism, the United States must craft culturally sensitive messages designed to decrease animosity toward the Western world. Furthermore, the United States must recognize opportune moments for strategic communications campaigns. Representative Thornberry explained that many violent extremists are now starting to question their ideological beliefs, creating an invaluable opportunity for the United States to use strategic communications to promote pro-Western, democratic values.
In order to create an effective strategic communications strategy, Smith and Thornberry emphasized the need for comprehensive cooperation between all the government agencies involved in counter-terrorism work. To address this, Smith and Thornberry have introduced a strategic communications amendment to the 2009 Defense Authorization Bill. The amendment first outlines the need for a more concrete communications and diplomacy strategy. It also stipulates that both the State Department and Department of Defense must meet to clearly define their individual counter-terrorism responsibilities. Additionally, the bill calls for further investigation into creating a new agency to coordinate counter-terrorism strategic communications. The Representatives pointed out that creating a new agency would be a faster way to organize public diplomacy than restructuring within existing organizations or appointing one person to coordinate the activities of the different departments.
In addition to improving the communications strategy, providing development assistance is a major element to Thornberry and Smith’s view of public diplomacy. Efforts such as building schools, digging wells, and providing medical help will create positive sentiment toward Western society, and demonstrate that the United States supports the international community. While the military’s responsibility for these projects should not diminish, the United States needs to focus on increasing its overall international development efforts. These changes, coupled with a well-coordinated communications and public diplomacy strategy, will make the United States a much more effective force in the war on terror.
Sponsor: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Date: July 17, 2008
Time: 9:30 – 11:00 am
Representative Attending: Kate Lonergan
Strategic communication, as explained by Representative Thornberry, “unifies and focuses the right message to the right audience with the intent to shape their perceptions”. In order to combat terrorism, the United States must craft culturally sensitive messages designed to decrease animosity toward the Western world. Furthermore, the United States must recognize opportune moments for strategic communications campaigns. Representative Thornberry explained that many violent extremists are now starting to question their ideological beliefs, creating an invaluable opportunity for the United States to use strategic communications to promote pro-Western, democratic values.
In order to create an effective strategic communications strategy, Smith and Thornberry emphasized the need for comprehensive cooperation between all the government agencies involved in counter-terrorism work. To address this, Smith and Thornberry have introduced a strategic communications amendment to the 2009 Defense Authorization Bill. The amendment first outlines the need for a more concrete communications and diplomacy strategy. It also stipulates that both the State Department and Department of Defense must meet to clearly define their individual counter-terrorism responsibilities. Additionally, the bill calls for further investigation into creating a new agency to coordinate counter-terrorism strategic communications. The Representatives pointed out that creating a new agency would be a faster way to organize public diplomacy than restructuring within existing organizations or appointing one person to coordinate the activities of the different departments.
In addition to improving the communications strategy, providing development assistance is a major element to Thornberry and Smith’s view of public diplomacy. Efforts such as building schools, digging wells, and providing medical help will create positive sentiment toward Western society, and demonstrate that the United States supports the international community. While the military’s responsibility for these projects should not diminish, the United States needs to focus on increasing its overall international development efforts. These changes, coupled with a well-coordinated communications and public diplomacy strategy, will make the United States a much more effective force in the war on terror.
Sponsor: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Date: July 17, 2008
Time: 9:30 – 11:00 am
Representative Attending: Kate Lonergan
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
UN Fights Terror With Law
On Friday July 11th Alistair Millar, director of the Center on Global Counterterrorism Cooperation, in conjunction with Mike Smith, Executive Director of Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate provided their thoughts on the multiple successes of counterterrorism efforts over the past 30 years. According to Smith, while the United Nations has outwardly acknowledged the rising issue of terrorism for more than 30 years, the debates regarding the urgency of terrorism ended on 9-11. The global impact of the terrorist attack, in conjunction with its close proximity to the UN Delegate’s annual assembly (which happened to be taking place during 9-11) led to the global rejection of terrorism is a legitimate form of foreign policy.
It took the catastrophic events of 9-11 for the UN to launch resolution 1373, otherwise known as CTED. Smith described resolution 1373 as a “security council legislation for the world,” which is fairly accurate considering it requires counties to criminalize terrorism, strengthen their legal intelligence, uphold borders, and extradite felons. Many countries had commenced counter-terrorism efforts prior to this CTED mandate and the UN “stamp” further exemplifies the global norm that the use of terrorism is unacceptable. The value of this UN “stamp” enables states states to work together, provides a greater authoritative influence, and promotes international collaboration on expertise and intelligence. An example of these capabilities is the international policing force: Interpol. Currently, Interpol projects a list of lost and stolen passport numbers and ID’s all over the globe in order to help countries uphold their borders and prevent the migration of criminals.
In addition to its intimidation factors and border assistance, the UN mandate compiles profiles of each country, and their strengths and weaknesses regarding counterterrorism initiatives. To do so, CTED, along with committee members from Interpol, UN Office on Drugs and Crime, and other UN affiliations, creates a Task Force that visits each country and meets with leaders in order to asses their needs. With the consent from each country, they will then ask “donor” countries (such as the US) to assist the countries in need by donating technology or information.
While CTED demonstrates the world’s ability to cooperate, and has faced little resistance in their efforts, there are still some shortcomings. For instance, until this year, CTED had only visited 3rd world countries, thus spurring international complaints of discrimination. CTED also faces issues regarding the limitations Human Rights present when attempting to enforce counterterrorism laws. Finally, there are inefficiency issues and CTED faces the possibility of attacks as it struggles to create a profile for every country.
Currently CTED is making a few changes in order to address these concerns and increase efficiency. They recently visited Australia, thus breaking their previous trend of exclusive third world country visits. CTED has also revamped its visits to be custom-designed and country-specific as oppose to the previously performed general, comprehensive visits. It is clear that CTED is a pioneer in global anti-terrorism, however it has a long way to go and risks failure at the expense of inefficiency.
Sponsors: Center on Global Counterterrorism Cooperation
Date: 7/11/08
Representative: Daria Willis
It took the catastrophic events of 9-11 for the UN to launch resolution 1373, otherwise known as CTED. Smith described resolution 1373 as a “security council legislation for the world,” which is fairly accurate considering it requires counties to criminalize terrorism, strengthen their legal intelligence, uphold borders, and extradite felons. Many countries had commenced counter-terrorism efforts prior to this CTED mandate and the UN “stamp” further exemplifies the global norm that the use of terrorism is unacceptable. The value of this UN “stamp” enables states states to work together, provides a greater authoritative influence, and promotes international collaboration on expertise and intelligence. An example of these capabilities is the international policing force: Interpol. Currently, Interpol projects a list of lost and stolen passport numbers and ID’s all over the globe in order to help countries uphold their borders and prevent the migration of criminals.
In addition to its intimidation factors and border assistance, the UN mandate compiles profiles of each country, and their strengths and weaknesses regarding counterterrorism initiatives. To do so, CTED, along with committee members from Interpol, UN Office on Drugs and Crime, and other UN affiliations, creates a Task Force that visits each country and meets with leaders in order to asses their needs. With the consent from each country, they will then ask “donor” countries (such as the US) to assist the countries in need by donating technology or information.
While CTED demonstrates the world’s ability to cooperate, and has faced little resistance in their efforts, there are still some shortcomings. For instance, until this year, CTED had only visited 3rd world countries, thus spurring international complaints of discrimination. CTED also faces issues regarding the limitations Human Rights present when attempting to enforce counterterrorism laws. Finally, there are inefficiency issues and CTED faces the possibility of attacks as it struggles to create a profile for every country.
Currently CTED is making a few changes in order to address these concerns and increase efficiency. They recently visited Australia, thus breaking their previous trend of exclusive third world country visits. CTED has also revamped its visits to be custom-designed and country-specific as oppose to the previously performed general, comprehensive visits. It is clear that CTED is a pioneer in global anti-terrorism, however it has a long way to go and risks failure at the expense of inefficiency.
Sponsors: Center on Global Counterterrorism Cooperation
Date: 7/11/08
Representative: Daria Willis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
