Categories
Terrorism

Trends in Modern International Terrorism

Trends in Modern International Terrorism.
Trends in Modern International Terrorism Boaz Ganor Abstract This chapter examines some of the most widely researched trends and developments within the phenomenon of modern international terrorism, providing policy recommendations on how to counter its emerging threats – particularly that of the Global Jihad movement and “homegrown” terrorism. The magnitude of the modern terrorist threat was demonstrated by the attacks of September 11, and ever since, the field has experienced a renewal of sorts, attracting unprecedented attention by both scholars and the mainstream public.
This chapter will introduce readers to the main schools of thoughts within the academic field that explain terrorism. It will also present the many disciplines applicable to the study of terrorism, demonstrating that the phenomenon is multifaceted in nature, requiring a cohesive international and broad-based response. In covering a number of dilemmas facing terrorism experts, the chapter explores the debate over a definition of terrorism, providing a proposed definition that distinguishes acts of terrorism from criminal acts.
The chapter continues on to explore the phenomenon of modern terrorism, the role of traditional crime within the terror sphere, and the growing threat of Global Jihadi terrorism – including terror networks and homegrown cells and activists who have emerged as a result of the spread of radical Islamic ideology. The role of terrorism in democratic states and the economic ramifications of terrorism are also explored. Finally, the chapter ends with recommendations on how governments should effectively respond to terrorism and discuses room for further research.

Trends in Modern International Terrorism In recent years, the academic world has witnessed a surge of research and academic programs in the field of homeland security and counterterrorism. After the attacks of 9/11, the threat of global terrorism immediately topped the international agenda. B. Ganor Lauder School of Government, International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT), Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya, Israel e-mail: [email protected] ac. il D. Weisburd et al. (eds. ), To Protect and To Serve: Policing in an Age of Terrorism, DOI 10. 007/978-0-387-73685-3_2, © Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009 11 12 B. Ganor Growing recognition of the threat, combined with an increase in government spending, spurred the development of academic research institutions, think tanks, and new higher education programs in the study of homeland security and counterterrorism. The trend was particularly prominent in the United States, as researchers sought a basic understanding of the characteristics of terrorism and agencies sought ways to effectively cope with the phenomenon.
This trend was accompanied by a significant increase in the number of researchers focusing on the phenomenon of terrorism. These researchers came from a wide array of academic disciplines, applying varied quantitative and qualitative research tools and methods in their analysis of the threat. In understanding the phenomenon and preventing future terrorist attacks, researchers have focused primarily on understanding the rationale of terrorist organizations in general and Global Jihad organizations in particular – their cost-benefit calculations and their decision-making processes. Trends” in terrorism have also been explored – often focusing on the introduction, transition, or prominence of a specific modus operandi or a method, such as suicide bombings, the Global Jihad movement, or the use of unconventional weapons. Reviewing these trends and themes in terrorism – and the academic research that has accompanied them – is crucial in determining how far we have come and how far we have to go, both in terms of the governments designing and deciding on counterterrorism policy and the academics informing such decisions.
In exploring the phenomenon of modern international terrorism, this chapter will first introduce readers to the various schools of thought and academic approaches used in explaining terrorism – drawing on a wide range of disciplines and theories. Discussion will then move to one of the most basic components of the terrorism dilemma, with implications on how the term – and thus phenomenon of terrorism itself – is treated, applied, and understood by the international community – the debate over defining terrorism.
As will be demonstrated, definitions of terrorism vary widely – with equally as wide implications – yet there is still a general consensus among most leading scholars as to the essential nature of the threat. “Modern terrorism,” the next theme that will be explored in this chapter, is regarded as a form of psychological warfare intended to spread fear and anxiety among the target population. This fear is translated into political pressure on decision makers to change policies in such a manner that will serve the terrorist’s interests.
As such, modern terrorists attempt to exploit the liberal values of democratic states, forcing governments to adhere to their demands as a result of the physical, psychological, and economic ramifications of terrorist attacks. The nature of terrorism in relation to the democratic state will be explored in a later section of this chapter as well. As terrorist groups are usually engaged in a long war of attrition, terrorist organizations need ongoing support and funds to ensure they can maintain their activities.
In fact, one of the main sources of funding for many terrorist organizations is criminal activity: smuggling, counterfeiting, extortion, and narcotics. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the threat of international terrorism grew with the spread of Global Jihad terrorism. Made up of complex networks of hierarchal terrorist organizations, proxy and affiliate organizations, local and international terror 2 Trends in Modern International Terrorism 13 etworks, sleeper cells, and indoctrinated radical activists, all these actors share a common extreme ideology and the readiness to use violence in general – and terrorism in particular – in order to achieve their goals. The economic ramifications of these activities only further exacerbate the damage posed by terrorist attacks, another focus of terrorism research. This dynamic terrorist phenomenon has threatened an increasing number of states while involving more terror organizations, networks, activists, and supporters worldwide.
The growing level of the threat, its international scope, its lethality,1 and the possible use of nonconventional terrorism (CBRN – chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons) necessitate future multidisciplinary research in the field and a more cohesive, international response. Explaining Terrorism In general, two schools of thought explaining the phenomenon of modern terrorism have emerged out of the collection of academic work within the discipline – the “psychological-sociological” school of thought and the “political-rational” school of thought.
Both schools maintain that terrorism seeks to achieve political goals by instilling fear and anxiety among the target population, but each stresses a different aspect of the explanation. The psychological-sociological school, represented most recently by scholars such as Dr. Jerrold Post (1998) and John Horgan (2005), stresses the phenomenon’s psychological component, maintaining that the immediate and central goal of terrorism is to instill fear and anxiety, while its political goals are long term. Terror as a clinical term refers to a psychological state of constant dread or fearfulness, associated with an abnormally high level of psych-physiological arousal. This is central to what terrorists aim to achieve, since after all, while they have some ultimate set of political objectives, it is an immediate goal of most terrorist groups to cause terror” (Horgan, 2005:14). The psychological-sociological school addresses both the desired effect of terrorism and its root causes, relying primarily on social group dynamics and the psychological profile of an individual terrorist actor.
Some early psychological explanations of terrorism have focused on the disruptive or psychopathological personalities of terrorist operatives, analyzing terrorists based on characteristics or disorders associated with violent or aggressive behaviors (De la Corte et al. , 2007). Some of the common psychological characteristics that have been attributed to alleged terrorists Analysis of terrorist incidents over the last 35 years confirms that terrorist attacks, while arguably decreasing in quantity, are growing more deadly over time, as the number of fatalities per attack has increased (LaFree and Dugan, in this volume).
Such data, however, rely on a definition of terrorism that LaFree and Dugan themselves note is relatively “inclusive. ” The Global Terrorism Database (GTD), on which their analysis is based, excludes “attacks on the military by guerilla organizations,” but includes military targets attacked by substate actors motivated by political, economic, or social motives (See LaFree and Dugan; in this volume). 1 14 B. Ganor re paranoia, antisocial and narcissistic personalities (Millon, 1981; Post, 1987), lack of empathy with victims, hostility toward parents, dogmatic or ideological mentality, or a simplistic or utopian worldview (Victoroff, 2005). At one end of the spectrum within such literature is the assertion – and at times assumption – that terrorists are to some degree psychologically “abnormal,” possessing personality disorders that qualify them as insane or psychopathic (as discussed by Cooper, 1978; Hacker, 1976; Lasch, 1979; Pearce, 1977; Taylor, 1988).
Despite early research providing psychological profiles of terrorists, other terrorism researchers have come to the general conclusion that there is no universal terrorist personality pattern; most terrorist operatives are not necessarily “psychopaths” (Silke, 1998), nor do they show traces of being clearly or consistently mentally ill (Crenshaw, 2000; Post, 1998; Stahelski, 2004). Early studies on the topic have been largely disproved or debunked, in fact, even within the psychological-social school of thought.
Further research has shown that terrorists rarely meet the criteria for insanity,2 but rather may possess some “particular personality dispositions” related to psychological conditions or disorders (Post, 1987). Dr. Jerrold Post, an expert in political psychology, maintains that even though terrorists fit within the spectrum of “normality,” a large number have demonstrated specific personality characteristics that indicate a minor psychopathology, such as aggression, activism, thrill seeking, an externalist psychological mechanism and factionalism.
These are characteristics of narcissistic disorders and borderline personalities (Post, 1998:25–27). While Post stops short of actually diagnosing terrorists with such disorders or characteristics, he does claim they tend to have high frequency among terrorists, contributing to a uniform rhetorical style and logic (Silke, 1998:65). According to Post, there is a unique logic that characterizes a terrorist’s thought process – a “terrorist psycho-logic. Post claims that terrorists are motivated by psychological influences when they choose to conduct violent acts, as expressed in rhetoric that relies on “us versus them” and “good versus evil” dichotomies. He further claims that lodged in a terrorist’s permanent logic is the notion that the regime must be toppled, which is a result of the terrorist’s search for identity. In an attack against the regime, a terrorist is actually trying to destroy the inner enemy within him.
However, even as some researchers cite it as the primary cause, a terrorist’s individual psychological profile is not the only significant explanation for the phenomenon of terrorism. Rather, group psychology and sociology may be significant explanatory factors behind terrorist attacks. Various researchers have cited group pressure as a variable to explain recruitment, methods of operation and involvement in terrorism (Merari, 2004). Others have applied the cult model to terrorist organizations (Morgan, 2001). Studies by Heskin (1984), Rasch (1979), and Taylor (1988) have all cited evidence discrediting the assumption that terrorists are psychologically “abnormal. ” 2 Trends in Modern International Terrorism 15 It is in this context that Post emphasizes the group as a framework in which a sense of belonging and importance for its members is created. He claims that ideology plays an important role in supporting a unifying environment for the group.
Shared ideology justifies the group’s activity and quickly transforms into the group’s moral guide. The psychological-sociological school relies, therefore, on psychological and sociological characteristics, motives, and grievances in explaining the phenomenon of terrorism. In contrast, the “political-rational” school of thought views terrorism as a rational method of operation intended to promote various interests and attain concrete political goals (Crenshaw, 2000; Hoffman, 1998; Shprinzak, 1998).
Rational choice theory has been adopted by a number of terrorism researchers within this school, and maintains that terrorist action derives from a conscious, rational, calculated decision to choose one route of action over another (Crenshaw, 1992; Sandler et al. , 1983; Sandler and Lapan, 1988; Wilson, 2000). 3 Leading researcher Martha Crenshaw explains that an organization chooses terrorism among several operational alternatives in order to promote their mutual values and preferences.
In making a rational calculation of the costs and benefits, terrorism is deliberately chosen as the preferred method of political activity because it is perceived to be the most effective of the operating alternatives – the benefits exceed the costs. In this context, Ehud Shprinzak similarly stressed that the phenomenon of terrorism is not the result of disturbed human activity or a random thoughtless attack. This is a process that almost always begins without violence or terrorist activity (Shprinzak, 1998:78).
Rand terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman further clarified the “rationalist” approach: “I have been studying terrorists and terrorism for more than twenty years. Yet I am still always struck by how disturbingly ‘normal’ most terrorists seem when one actually sits down and talks to them… Many are in fact highly articulate and extremely thoughtful individuals for whom terrorism is (or was) an entirely rational choice…” (Hoffman, 1998:7)
The dispute between the rationalist and psychological approach is important in understanding the root causes of terrorism, allowing experts and security professionals to identify characteristics of the threat and formulate effective counterstrategies. While the two schools may seem to fundamentally clash, an interdisciplinary explanation of terrorism may actually be the most effective way to approach the phenomenon. In a sense, these two schools can complement and complete each other.
In the Israeli setting, for example, the case of a suicide bombing is likely motivated by a combination of the rational calculations of the organization, a cost-benefit analysis made by the attackers themselves, social pressure from the attackers’ peer group, and personal psychological, social, cultural, and religious motivations. The decisionmaking process functions on a number of levels, in which both political-rational 3 For an overview of psychological, social, and rational choice theories, see Victoroff, 2005. 16 B. Ganor Psychology H ci ol og ist or y So Law Why Terrorism ? Economics Media & Communication Political Science Fig. 2. 1 Explanatory disciplines to terrorism and the psychological-sociological explanations have their place, demonstrating the multidisciplinary nature of terrorism. As Crenshaw noted, even though an act of terrorism may not be wholly the result of a psychological disorder, that is not to say “the political decision to join a terrorist organization is not influenced or, in some cases, even determined by subconscious or latent psychological motives” (Crenshaw, 1998:386).
It seems that only multivariable explanations based on methodologies and theories from different disciplines can adequately address the complex phenomenon of terrorism, provide explanations for the growth, development and characteristics of the phenomenon, and suggest methods for effectively dealing with terrorism (Fig. 2. 1). Explanatory Disciplines to Terrorism Different research disciplines may be able to provide answers to fundamental questions at the core of terrorism research, such as:
Psychology The field of psychology can provide answers to such questions as: Do terrorists have common psychological characteristics? Do terrorists have a psychological profile? Why do people become terrorists? Which people might become terrorists and which will not? Why do people join a terrorist organization and why do they leave it? When, why, and how does the personal radicalization process take place? (See Post, 1998; Raine, 1993; Hubbard, 1971). 2 Trends in Modern International Terrorism 17 Economics How important are economic variables in explaining the development and motivation of terrorism?
To what degree can terrorists’ financial situation explain the motives for their behavior? How much does the economic factor determine the scope and characteristics of terrorism activity? 4 (See Abadie, 2004; Kahn and Weiner, 2002; Krueger and Laitin, 2008; Krueger and Maleckova, 2002; Piazza, 2006). Sociology How much influence does one’s peer group have on the decision to join a terrorist group or the motivation to conduct acts of terrorism? How much can processes of socialization and delegitimization by society – ostracizing, discrimination, alienation, etc. serve as variables explaining the motives of terrorism? Why does a certain population at a specific time tend to carry out terrorist attacks while another population with similar characteristics does not choose this course of action? What is the extent of the connection between terrorism and different cultures? 5 (See Bandura, 1973, 1998; Gibbs, 1989; Merari, 2004; Morgan, 2001; Webb, 2002). Criminology To what extent should terrorism be treated as a phenomenon in the criminal sphere? What are the differences between the characteristics of criminal and terrorist activity?
What are the similarities and the differences in the organizational characteristics between terrorist and criminal organizations? 6 (See Klein et al. , 2006; Klein and Maxson, 2006; Lafree, 2007). 4 Several studies have focused on refuting the widely claimed link between poverty and terrorism (Harmon, 2000; Hasisi and Pedahzur, 2000; Schmid, 1983). In fact, a 2003 study by Krueger and Maleckova showed that higher-earning Palestinians were more likely to justify the use of terrorism to achieve political goals; and a 2002 study (Krueger and Maleckova, 2002) did not find a link between Hezbollah fighters and impoverished conditions – ather, they were richer and more educated than their counterparts. Another study looked at the biographies of 285 suicide bombers and found them to be richer and more educated than members of the general population (Victoroff, 2005:21). 5 Until September 11, there were few academic studies of terrorism from a strictly sociological viewpoint. However, Bandura (1973, 1998) used social learning theory to suggest that violence follows observation and imitation of an aggressive model. Friedland (1992) cited the “frustrationaggression hypothesis” in understanding why terrorists turn to violence (as cited in Victoroff, 2005).
Morgan (2001) applied the cult model to understand individual actors and group dynamics within terrorist groups. 6 For the role of policing in counter-terrorism strategies, see Chaps. 3–5 of this volume. LaFree and Dugan (Chap. 2) also briefly discuss the comparison between rates of terrorist attacks and other types of criminal violence. The interplay and linkages between organized crime and terrorism are explored in several anthology volumes, such as Holmes (2007), among many others. 18 B. Ganor
Political Science and International Relations To what extent should terrorism be understood in rational terms (cost-benefit calculation) as an effective method intended to achieve political goals? To what extent can political terms such as sovereignty, power, authority, and social justice serve as variables to explain the phenomenon of terrorism? To what degree is the phenomenon of terrorism connected to certain ideologies or a certain form of government? To what degree does modern terrorism aim to take advantage of the liberal democratic form of government’s values and traits?
To what extent is the media component essential in order to explain the strategy of modern terrorism? How are the decision-making processes different in terrorist organizations than other organizations? Can terrorism be understood as a means for states to achieve their interests in the international arena? To what extent can terrorism be dealt with by using deterrent measures in general and deterring state-sponsors of terrorism in particular? (See Crenshaw, 2000; Ganor, 2005; Hoffman, 1998; Nacos, 1994). Theology To what extent is modern terrorism a result of religious extremism?
How is incitement to terrorism carried out with the use of religious rationalizations and how can this incitement be dealt with? (See Atran, 2006; Hoffman, 1995; Juergensmeyer, 2003; Ranstorp, 1996; Rapoport, 1984). Hence, nearly every academic research discipline has been, and will continue to be, critical in providing answers to some of the central issues that lie behind understanding the phenomenon of terrorism and the methods for dealing with it. Only this multidisciplinary approach can provide a profound understanding of the phenomenon. The Definition of Terrorism
Growing interest in the field of terrorism and increased funding allotted to academic research and teaching budgets post-9/11 has spurred and supported the publication of hundreds of books and articles in the past few years, many professional and academic conferences, and a general flourishing of the field. Yet, six years after the world recognized the magnitude of the terrorist threat on 9/11, researchers, security professionals, politicians, jurists, and others have still not been able to agree upon its most fundamental component – what is terrorism?
Moreover, and somewhat surprisingly, the only consensus these individuals have reached is that it might be impossible, or even unnecessary, to reach an internationally 2 Trends in Modern International Terrorism 19 accepted definition of terrorism. 7 Those who hold this opinion – in fact the majority in the field – usually cite the cliche “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” in order to imply that, in their opinion, the issue of definition is subjective. As such, even partial agreement regarding its content cannot be reached. Louis Henkin (1989) captured this entiment in 1990 when he said that: “Terrorism… is not a useful legal concept. ” Those who do not regard a definition as critical believe that the international system – and the security establishment in particular – can manage without consensus on the issue. They claim that terrorists, in a sense, commit regular crimes – extortion, murder, arson, and other felonies already covered by conventional criminal law. Therefore, they can be tried for committing these felonies without the need for a special criminal classification, and thus definition, for terrorism.
Needless to say, there is no shortage of proposed definitions for terrorism. Every researcher, expert, security professional, NGO, country, and politician espouses their own definition, one that likely represents a distinct world view and political stance. By the early 1980s, Schmid and Jongman had already listed 109 definitions of terrorism proposed by researchers in the field (Schmid and Jongman, 1998:5). In their chapter in this volume, LaFree and Dugan touch upon the difficulty in reaching a consensus on a definition of terrorism given its controversial and highly politicized nature.
It is within this context that they note the U. S. was reluctant to define the attacks by Contra rebels in Nicaragua as terrorism, while regarding practically all violence in Iraq and Afghanistan as such. They further note that more inclusive definitions of terrorism are often preferred by businesses or private think tanks that are collecting data for the purpose of risk assessment, as such an approach ultimately benefits their clients (LaFree and Dugan, in this volume). Among the hundreds of definitions of terrorism that have been accepted throughout the years, some contain conceptual and phrasing problems (Hoffman, 2004:3).
Many researchers note that the only certainty regarding terrorism is the pejorative manner in which the word is generally used and associated (Hoffman, 2006:23; Horgan, 2005:1). As such, when scholars, politicians, or activists describe and analyze the activities of alleged terrorist organizations, they very often use alternative terms that bear more positive connotations, such as guerilla or underground movements, revolutionaries, militias, militants, commando groups, national liberation movements, etc. (Hoffman, 2006:28).
Many in the Western world have accepted the premise that terrorism and national liberation are located on two opposite ends of a spectrum legitimizing the use of violence. The struggle for “national liberation” is, allegedly, located on the positive 7 In a presentation on the definition of terrorism to the UK Parliament in March 2007, Lord Carlile quoted David Tucker from Skirmishes at the Edge of the Empire, stating that: “Above the gates of hell is the warning that all that enter should abandon hope. Less dire but to the same effect is the warning given to those who try to define terrorism” (See http://www. amilnation. org/terrorism/ uk/070317carlile. htm); for a reporter’s perspective see Kinsley, 2001; see also Levitt (1986), in which he claims a definition for terrorism is no easier to find than the Holy Grail. 20 B. Ganor and justified end of the violence spectrum, while terrorism is its unjust and negative polar opposite. Within this framework, it would be impossible for a specific organization to be considered both a terrorist group and a national liberation movement, as Senator Henry Jackson claims: “The thought that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter is unacceptable.
Freedom fighters or revolutionaries do not blow up buses with noncombatants; terrorists and murderers do. Freedom fighters do not kidnap and slaughter students, terrorists and murders do…” (As cited in Netanyahu, 1987:18) There is little basis for the claim that “freedom fighters” cannot carry out acts of terrorism and murder. This approach unintentionally plays into the hands of terrorists, who claim that since they are acting to expel who they consider to be a foreign occupier, they cannot also be considered terrorists.
However, many freedom fighters in modern history committed crimes and purposely targeted innocent civilians. The difference between “terrorism” and “freedom fighting” is not a subjective distinction based on the observer’s point of view. Rather, it derives from identifying the perpetrator’s goals and methods of operation. Terrorism is a means – a tool – for achieving an end, and that “end” can very well be liberating the homeland from the yoke of a foreign occupier. An organization can be, at the same time, both a national liberation movement and a terrorist group.
It is not the specific goal – whether “freedom fighting” or another legitimate political objective – that distinguishes a group as a terrorist organization or justifies its activities. Many groups, however, such as the Muslim World League, do not clearly make this distinction. In a special publication from 2001, the Muslim World League states that: “Terrorism is an outrageous attack carried out either by individuals, groups or states against the human being (his religion, life, intellect, property and honor).
It includes all forms of intimidation, harm, threatening, killing without a just cause… so as to terrify and horrify people by hurting them or by exposing their lives, liberty, security or conditions to danger… or exposing a national or natural resource to danger” (Al-Mukarramah, 2001). In presenting the activities that constitute terrorism as being committed “without a just cause,” the Muslim World League’s definition infers that such acts committed with a just cause are not considered terrorism.
Such definitions are typical of attempts to create confusion between the means and the end, ultimately foiling any possibility of reaching a consensus on a definition. Since September 11, international terrorism has emerged on the top of national and international security agendas, widely perceived as a severe and very real threat to world peace. It is a threat that necessitates international alignment and cooperation on an unprecedented level. Such a high degree of cooperation cannot be established or sustained however without agreement over the most basic common denominator – the definition of terrorism.
Outside intelligence and military circles, the effectiveness of other apparatuses essential in countering the terrorist threat is dependent upon a clear, broad, and objective definition of terrorism that can be accepted internationally. Such a definition is essential in order to: disrupt the financing of terrorism, respond to states and 2 Trends in Modern International Terrorism 21 communities that support terrorism, prevent recruitment and incitement of terrorist operatives, and establish legal measures and guidelines to both outlawed terrorist organizations and activities, and arrest and extradite alleged terrorists.
Above all else, the international community must establish a binding normative system to determine what is allowed and not allowed – what is legitimate and not legitimate – when violence is used for political objectives. A definition that would address all these requirements is: Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence aimed against civilians in order to achieve political goals (nationalistic, socioeconomic, ideological, religious, etc. ) In defining terrorism within the above framework, it is important to note that a terrorist act would not be classified as a “regular” criminal activity warranting the application of criminal legal norms.
Rather, terrorism would be viewed as an act of war, and the countermeasures mounted against it would too be conducted in accordance to the norms and laws of war. The Israeli High Court of Justice has itself struggled with the distinction between criminal acts and acts of war, reflecting the tension facing those studying and responding to terrorism today. According to Justice Cheshin, “a judge’s job is difficult. It is sevenfold as difficult when he comes to deal with a hideously murderous attack such as we have in front of us.
The murderer’s action is inherently – though not within the framework of or as part of the formal definition – an act of war, and an act that is inherently an act of war is answered with an act of war, in the ways of war” (Abd Al-Rahim Hassan Nazzal and others vs. the Commander of the IDF forces in Judea and Samaria, 1994). In a different verdict, the judge ruled that a “criminal code created for daily life in human society does not have an answer for the question” (Federman and others vs. the Attorney General, 1993).
The debate over whether terrorism should be considered a criminal act or an act of war remains strong among academics, NGOs, and counter terrorism professionals. Without consensus on the issue, states have applied their own policies in trying and convicting alleged terrorist suspects – whether as criminals or combatants. Despite the fact that criminal acts can consist of the same actions as terrorism – murder, arson, and extortion – terrorism, unlike an average criminal act, threatens the internal social order, personal and national security, world peace, and the economy. As previously noted, acts of terrorism are intended to achieve various political goals and could thus be considered arguably more severe than criminal violations. In addition, as international law expert and terrorism prosecutor Ruth Wedgwood has argued, criminal law may be “too weak a weapon” to counter terrorism, as destroying terrorist infrastructure and networks requires diplomacy, use of force, and criminal 8 Resolution 1566 (2004) adopted by the Security Council in its 5053rd meeting, on Oct. 8 2004: “…Reaffirming that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to peace and security.
Considering that acts of terrorism seriously impair the enjoyment of human rights and threaten the social and economic development of all states, they undermine global stability and prosperity. ” (See: http://daccessdds. un. org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/542/82/ PDF/N0454282. pdf? OpenElement. ) 22 B. Ganor law combined. She adds that the restrictions embedded in a criminal justice system make sense in civil society where deterrence is a factor, but this may not apply in a fight against a highly networked terrorist organization (Wedgwood and Roth, 2004). Bruce Hoffman points to a fundamental difference between a criminal and a terrorist when he asserts that while a criminal seeks personal material goals, a terrorist usually sees himself as an altruist acting for and in the name of many others (Hoffman, 2006:37). Therefore, a terrorist may be perceived as posing greater danger through his actions, since he is significantly more willing than a criminal to sacrifice in order to achieve his goals – even to the point of self-sacrifice in certain situations. The criminal code in itself does not serve as an adequate platform to define terrorism.
The laws of war are better suited as a framework for defining and dealing with terrorism, since the phenomenon is a violent action intended to achieve political goals, often involving the use of pseudo-military methods of operation. By basing the definition of terrorism on an established system of norms and laws, already included in international conventions and accepted by most of the countries in the world, the international community is more likely to reach a broad international agreement on the definition of terrorism – a basic tool in the joint international struggle against terrorism.
At the core of the Geneva and The Hague conventions are rules differentiating between two types of personnel involved in military activity: “combatants,” military personnel who deliberately target enemy military personnel; and “war criminals,” military personnel who, among other actions forbidden by the laws of war, deliberately target civilians. Currently, the moral differentiation between a legitimate combatant and a war criminal is based on the attacked target (military or civilian), and, at least in principle, only applies to state entities and their armies and not to substate entities.
In the Israeli setting for example, a Palestinian, considered part of a subnational group, who is involved in a deliberate attack against an Israeli military target, will receive the same treatment and punishment as a Palestinian who deliberately attacks a civilian target. Since there is no distinction made between the two, despite the difference in their targets, the degree of international legitimacy or condemnation of both cases will likely continue to be dependant on the supporter or condemner’s political stance and not necessarily on the character or target of the deliberate operation – its legality under applicable rules and norms.
The American government, for example, classifies attacks against its troops in Iraq as terrorist attacks, as it does the October 2000 attack against the USS Cole or the attack against the American military barracks in Dhahran (June 1996). In fact, in an attempt to expand the definition of terrorism to include attacks against soldiers, the U. S. State Department’s definition states that terrorism is the Ruth Wedgewood and Human Rights Watch Director Kenneth Roth debate the US’s treatment of terrorist suspects – as combatants versus criminals – in a series of articles in Foreign Affairs (See Roth, 2004; Wedgwood and Roth, 2004). 2 Trends in Modern International Terrorism 23 deliberate use of violence against “non-combatant targets,” which includes both civilians and military personnel not on the battle field. 10 While it is natural for victims of terrorism to adopt this broad-based definition, terrorist organizations and their supporters can legitimately argue that in seeking to achieve their political goals, they cannot reasonably be required to either not confront military personnel entirely, or do so only when they are fully armed and prepared for war.
They claim that they must be given the right to attack and surprise soldiers whatever the circumstances. In applying these considerations, the U. S. State Department’s definition of terrorism could not successfully serve as a common denominator leading to international agreement. It is only in reducing the scope of the definition to the deliberate targeting of civilians – as opposed to “non-combatants” – that may solve this problem, enabling the establishment of a clear moral boundary that should not be crossed. A terrorist act would be considered, in a sense, the equivalent for a substate entity to a war crime committed by a state. 1 During a state of war, normative principles and the laws of war forbid the deliberate targeting of civilians but allow deliberate attacks on an enemy’s military personnel (in accordance with other applicable regulations). Similarly, in modern asymmetric warfare, a normative rule must be set to address limitations on substate actors, differentiating between guerilla warfare (violence against military personnel) and terrorism (violence against civilians) – just as the rules of war differentiate between legitimate combatants and war criminals.
For the purpose of defining terrorism, it is not significant what goal the organization aspires to achieve (as long as it is political); both the terrorist and the guerilla fighter may aspire to achieve the same goals. However, they each chose a different path – a different means – in order to realize these goals. Defining terrorism is critical in ensuring that the same normative standards currently enforced on states are applicable to nonstate actors, defining when their use of violence is permissible and when it is prohibited.
Paradoxically, what is currently prohibited for states is not yet prohibited for organizations. Defining terrorism does not raise or lower the obligation of states to behave normatively and certainly does not place additional legal burdens upon them. It simply makes organizations accountable for their actions under the same value system currently obligating states. Terrorism is defined by the U. S. State Department as: “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents. (from the 22 U. S. C. , 2656f(d)(2); See http://www. state. gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/65353. htm. ) 11 The UN short legal definition of terrorism, proposed by terrorism expert Alex P. Schmid, states that an act of terrorism is the “peacetime equivalent of a war crime. ” While such a definition does not consider terrorism an act of war, in drawing a parallel with a war crime it notes the importance of the target (civilian vs. military) in legitimizing acts of violence. (See: http://www. unodc. org/ unodc/terrorism_definitions. html. ) 10 24 B. Ganor
Reaching a broad international agreement regarding the definition of terrorism may require the international community to apply laws of war that forbid the deliberate targeting of civilians, but allow for the deliberate attack (in accordance with the other regulations) of an enemy’s military personnel. The definition proposed in this chapter may be capable of eliciting a broad base of support from many countries and organizations, both because it is based on already accepted international norms, and because it seemingly provides subnational organizations the possibility of legitimately using violence in order to achieve their goals.
Such a definition would not allow for the artificial distinction that is often made between “bad” terrorism and “good” or “tolerable” terrorism. It instead adheres to the principle that “terrorism is terrorism is terrorism,” no matter who carries it out – a Muslim, Christian, Jew, or member of any other religion. Terrorism would be considered an illegitimate and forbidden method of operation in all cases, under all circumstances. The ideological or cultural background of the perpetrators; and the religious, political, social or economic motives of the act; would all be irrelevant in classifying an act of terrorism.
Many view the effort to achieve a broad international agreement on terrorism as hopeless and naive. However, Security Council Resolution 1566, which was unanimously accepted by Council members in October 2004, may be a basis for hope that countries will overcome prior disputes, rise above their own interests, and reach an agreement in the near future regarding the international definition of terrorism. Resolution 1566, without serving as the definition itself, already establishes one basic principle on which an international definition can be built.
It stipulates that terrorism is a crime against civilians, which in no circumstance can be justified by political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious, or other considerations. 12 Modern Terrorism Descriptions of typical terrorist operations and their common characteristics are often included in proposed definitions of modern terrorism – particularly in those that address the fear and anxiety created by terrorist acts. In such definitions, terrorism is presented as a form of violent activity (or threat of violence) that 2 Resolution 1566 (2004): “Condemns in the strongest terms all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation, whenever and by whomsoever committed, as one of the most serious threats to peace and security…Recalls that criminal acts, including against civilians committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury or taking hostages with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons intimidate a population or compel a government or an offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic religious or other similar nature and calls upon all states to prevent such acts…”. (See: http://daccessdds. un. org/doc/UNDOC/ GEN/N04/542/82/PDF/N0454282. pdf? OpenElement) 2 Trends in Modern International Terrorism 25 intends to frighten a group of people beyond the actual victims (Horgan, 2005:1).
After reviewing the development of the definition of terrorism and examining a variety of definitions, Bruce Hoffman reaches the following conclusion in his important book, Inside Terrorism: “We may therefore now attempt to define terrorism as the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change… terrorism is specifically designed to have far-reaching psychological effects beyond the immediate victim(s) or object of the terrorist attack…” (Hoffman, 2006:40). Definitions that refer to terrorism as an act intended to instill fear and anxiety in the public are generally based on the literal meaning and historical use of the term “terrorism,” its application dating back to the French civil war. 13 Such definitions also rely on what is perceived to be the primary operational tactic of modern terrorism – psychological warfare – which seeks to achieve political goals by instilling fear and anxiety among its target population.
While definitions vary widely, there is a general consensus among most leading scholars as to the essential nature of the terrorist threat; researchers will rarely dispute the importance fear and anxiety play in understanding the phenomenon of modern terrorism. However, it is important to note that resulting fear and anxiety may not be an essential variable in defining a terrorist attack. In order to ensure that acts are objectively classified as terrorist attacks, an accepted definition must, in application, serve as a checklist of components. Based on the definition proposed in the previous section, if an act is not violent, does not deliberately target civilians, or does not attempt to achieve a political goal, then it is not a terrorist attack.
Adding the element of fear and anxiety to the definition – essentially putting it on the checklist of required components – significantly changes the term’s application. If an attack, which would otherwise be considered an act of terrorism, does not aim to frighten, but rather only seeks to achieve concrete, tangible objectives – such as the release of prisoners or the assassination of a leading political figure – would the action not be considered terrorism? Similarly, a nuclear attack aimed at eradicating the majority of the population or contaminating an extensive area – which ultimately seeks to disable the state and prevent it from operating as an independent political entity – would be widely considered a terrorist attack, even though instilling fear and anxiety is not its primary purpose.
Since such circumstances and scenarios can reasonably exist, the “fear and anxiety element” may not be necessary in defining terrorism; rather, it is valuable in explaining the modus operandi of a significant portion of modern terrorist attacks. 13 The term “terrorism” comes from the Latin terrere, “to cause to tremble. ” The term became popularized during the “Reign of Terror” carried out by the revolutionary government in France from 1793 to 1794 (Juergensmeyer, 2003: 5). 26 B. Ganor Indeed, modern terrorism is not necessarily about the numbers. In fact, most modern terrorist attacks, while violent in nature, generally produce limited damage or casualties. 4 Instead, they rely on psychological warfare as a tool in achieving their goals, creating fear and anxiety among the general population. In many cases, a terrorist attack is random, aimed not at someone specific, but rather a group that shares a common trait and symbolizes the organization’s broader target (Americans, Israelis, “infidels,” Westerners, etc. ). By simultaneously transmitting several messages, these attacks intensify the sense of anxiety felt by the target group, which leads civilians to pressure decision makers and their government into changing policies and agreeing to terrorists’ demands. Some of the messages terrorist organizations aim to send through their attacks include: 1.
Uncertainty – The randomness of the attack is supposed to instill a sense of uncertainty in the public regarding “safe behavior,” prompting fear that anyone could be the next victim (Horgan, 2005:3). 2. Vulnerability – A terrorist attack can take place anywhere, anytime, making all citizens feel vulnerable. 3. Helplessness – The state’s security apparatus cannot foil or prevent attacks, or protect civilians. 4. Personalization – You or someone close to you may not have been hurt in a recent attack, but it could very well be you the next time, since the victims have the same pro? le as you (Ganor, 2005:256). 5. Disproportional price – The price the individual must pay due to his government’s policy is very high. For that reason he must act to change national/international priorities in a way that will serve the terrorist’s objectives. 6.
Vengeance – The citizen suffers due to the government’s actions against the terrorist organization and its supporters, and for this reason it is in his best interest to pressure the government to avoid this activity. Such attacks aim to create anxiety among the target group at a level disproportionate to the actual capabilities of the terrorist organization, forcing members of the target population to reprioritize and shift their concerns from that of national security to personal security. The target population perceives a growing threat from terrorism, which may be viewed by the public as largely fueled by the government’s supposedly dangerous policies.
As political tension and criticism against the government in the target country mount, according to the strategy of modern terrorism, the public will pressure decision makers to change their policies in a manner that will suit the interests and goals of the terrorist organizations, or call for a change in administration that will establish policies more favorable to terrorist groups. In order to create this effect of fear, terrorist organizations often choose to escalate their activity in such a manner as to shock the public. According to Crenshaw, a review LaFree and Dugan note that over 53% of terrorist organizations from the Global Terrorism Database included in their study (1974–2004) have never produced a single fatality (LaFree and Dugan, in this volume). 14 2
Trends in Modern International Terrorism 27 of the history of terrorism reveals that terrorists have purposely chosen targets considered taboo or unpredictable in order to attract international media coverage (Crenshaw, 1998:14–15). The media component is central to modern terrorism’s strategy. Without media coverage, a terrorist organization has little opportunity to convey its message, let alone shock or scare its target population. The success of a modern terrorist campaign is arguably dependent on the amount of publicity it receives; the “journalist and television camera are the terrorist’s best friends” (Laqueur, 1987). Terrorism and Traditional Crime
In seeking funding to support ongoing operations or infrastructure, terrorist organizations in Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, and the Far East have increasingly come to rely on “traditional” criminal activities, such as drug trafficking, counterfeiting, petty crime, human trafficking, and extortion (Vidino and Emerson, 2006; Mili, 2006). In fact, over the last three decades, law enforcement agencies have reported increased cooperation between terrorist organizations and criminal actors and activities – including attacks that have been financed through illegal crimes and suspects who have been prosecuted for crimes in which proceeds were directed to international terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda (Noble, 2003).
Growing expenses associated with terrorist activity, such as payments to organization personnel, transportation, accommodation, training, and procurement of weapons, have served as incentive for terrorist organizations to get involved in common crime. These activities only further exacerbate the danger posed by terrorist organizations to the global economy and to the safety and wellbeing of the world’s population. By counterfeiting currency, for example, a terrorist organization can damage a country’s economy while it raises funds. Similarly, by producing and smuggling drugs to certain countries, an organization can cause considerable harm to the local population and simultaneously finance its activities.
In the early 1970s, terrorist organizations, particularly those not supported financially by states, funded their activities through criminal activities such as bank robberies, kidnappings for ransom, and blackmail. Terrorist organizations, such as the Red Brigades in Italy, cooperated with criminal elements, enlisting them into the ranks of their organization. However, in the late 1970s and more so in the early 1980s, terrorist organizations realized that drug trafficking was far more lucrative than other routine criminal activities, leading to a phenomenon known as “narco-terrorism. ”15 Terrorist organizations have been involved in producing and selling narcotics throughout the world – in Latin America (Colombia, Peru, Cuba, Bolivia); in Asia and 5 To illustrate the amount of money involved, a survey conducted by the United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention described the production, trafficking, and sales of illicit drugs to be an estimated $400-billion-a-year industry. A 2005 UN report estimated that global drug trade generated an estimated $322 billion in 2003, greater than the gross domestic product of 88% of the countries in the world (Pollard, 2005). 28 B. Ganor the Middle East (Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Afghanistan, India, the Philippines, Pakistan); and even in Western countries such as Italy, Spain, Ireland, and the United States. Drug trafficking by terrorist groups in Columbia is of particular concern to western governments. According to reports from the U. S.
Bureau of Narcotics and Law Enforcement affairs, revenues earned from narcotics cultivation, taxation, and distribution have accounted for at least half the funding used to support terrorist activities by two of the country’s largest terrorist groups – the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the United Self-Defense Groups of Colombia (AUC). The State Department estimates that the FARC receives $300 million a year from drug sales to finance its terrorist activities. 16 The tri-border area (TBA), or “triple frontier” as it is known, centered along the borders of Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil, has been widely recognized as another hotbed for terrorism financing and activity, particularly to groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Without strict border controls, the area serves as a haven for drugs and arms trafficking, counterfeiting, smuggling and other illegal activities.
Tens of millions of dollars are estimated to have been transferred to groups through illegal remittances and other illegal activities, according to investigations by local police forces (Madani, 2002; Tri-border Transfers “funding terror,” 2006). Most terror organizations, however, are not directly involved in actually growing or producing drugs. They are tasked primarily with protecting the drugs and ensuring the safety of growers and producers. They also are active in smuggling narcotics to the marketing centers in countries where the drugs are distributed (Hudson, 2003:24). These organizations usually have a diverse network of contacts, enabling them to cross borders via indirect routes and smuggle weapons, ammunition, and various other products.
Terrorist organizations can use the same routes and network used by their supporters in order to smuggle drugs. In some cases, drugs have been used to recruit foreign activists, in a sense bribing them to execute terrorist attacks. In these cases, the activists, who are not members of the organization, are enlisted in order to carry out attacks on behalf of the terror organizations, sometimes unbeknownst to the activists themselves, in return for a regular supply of drugs. 17 In other cases, terrorist organizations supply their members with drugs in order to increase their dependence on the organization and encourage obedience to its leaders. 8 Some terrorist organizations refer to the distribution of drugs as an alternative form of attack, since drug consumption can harm the national morale and weaken the ability of the population to cope with crises. 16 See Deborah McCarthy’s testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate, May 20, 2003, “Narco-Terrorism: International Drug Trafficking and Terrorism – A Dangerous Mix. ” 17 For example, On August 28, 1971, a Dutch citizen, Henrietta Hundemeir, was arrested in Israel with a suitcase containing a timer-activated bomb with a barometric altimeter. The bomb was meant to explode in the El Al aircraft in which she herself was flying to Israel.
Hundemeir was enlisted in Yugoslavia by a member of the “Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine,” who became her close friend by supplying her with drugs and using them with her. 18 One example is the “Weatherman” organization, which was responsible for terrorist attacks in the U. S. at the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s. The group perceived drug use as a part of the revolutionary process. 2 Trends in Modern International Terrorism 29 Global Jihadi Terrorism Terrorism is a dynamic phenomenon that develops over time, gradually changing its shape and activities. It is carried out by various organizations in the service of different ideologies.
Despite the fact that various local terrorist groups have operated in the international arena in the past decade, there is growing recognition by scholars and the intelligence community that the current international terrorist threat does not come from organizations motivated by nationalist grievances or separatist goals (such as the IRA, ETA, Fatah, LTTE, PKK, and others). Instead, the main threat is that of radical Islamic terrorism primarily aimed at promoting a radical religious world view. 19 Such groups are motivated by what they perceive as a divine command, making them potentially more dangerous than groups motivated by other causes. Hoffman stresses that while religion was an inseparable component of many terrorist organizations in the past, the dominant motivation for their actions was political rather than religious.
This is not the case with Al-Qaeda and other radical Islamic organizations today. For them, religion is the most important component defining their activities, ideology, characteristics, and recruitment methods (Hoffman, 2006:82). According to James Thomson, “religions are very effective at guiding in-group morality and out-group hatred. They permit the take-over of groups by disenfranchised young males, they minimize the fear of death by spreading the belief in an afterlife reward for those who are dying in a holy war, etc. ” (Thomson, 2003:82). Radical Islamic terrorism, part of the Global Jihad movement, includes acts perpetrated by many organizations, groups, and cells around the world.
The movement is headed by Al-Qaeda, which, despite the many setbacks it has endured since September 11, 2001, is still capable of carrying out “direct attacks” through activists reporting directly to its authority or “indirect attacks” through proxy organizations – radical Islamic terrorist organizations and networks that share a similar fundamentalist Islamic ideology, aspirations, and interests. Some of these organizations, such as Egyptian, Bangladeshi, and Afghan Jihadi groups, were established by Osama bin Laden under the umbrella of his “International Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders” (February 1998). Some of these organizations have made pacts or commitments to bin Laden over the years, such as the Egyptian Al-Jama’a Al-Islamiya and the GSPC (currently referred to as Al-Qaeda of the Maghreb). However, the most significant trend of the past several years has been the phenomenon of “homegrown terrorism. Lone activists and local radical groups of Muslims, who either immigrated to Western countries There are also terrorist organizations that combine religious grievances with national-political motivations, such as Hamas. On the one hand, Hamas derives its ideology from the same narrative and background as Al-Qaeda, based on the early religious global ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. At the same time though, Hamas seeks to achieve the nationalistic goal of destroying Israel and creating a Palestinian state in its place. 19 30 B. Ganor (first, second, or third generation) or converted to Islam in their country of origin, become inspired by the Global Jihad movement, leading them to carry out terrorist attacks.
Al-Qaeda, its allies in the Global Jihad movement, other radical Islamic terrorist organizations, and the radical Islamic networks and cells of the West, all believe in one divine mission, which calls upon them to spread their radical beliefs throughout the world (Sageman, 2004:1). In seeking to achieve this mission, they believe it is permissible and necessary to make use of violence and terrorism, and that they are fighting a “defensive war” that allows them to use drastic measures. One perspective shared by several researchers is that this defensive war is not actually pitted against American or Western imperialism, as Global Jihad organizations commonly claim. Rather, the “fight against the West” is used to help mobilize and recruit activists, arguably acting as “lip service” by Al-Qaeda.
It also serves to at least express their concern over every aspect of modernization, including democratic forms of government, liberal values, and even modern technology that threaten the way of life they strive for – a radical Islamic caliphate governed by Sharia law. It is also important to note that the threat of Global Jihad is not, as many tend to think, a war between Islam and other religions. Rather, it can be understood as a war of cultures – the culture of radical Islam against the outside world; or the culture of radical Islam against the culture of the “infidels,” as Islamists call all those who do not share their world view. Many in the radical Jihadi movement recognize that they will not be able to succeed in their worldwide campaign in the near future. Therefore they aim, as a first stage, to create localized radical Islamic revolutions, primarily in Arab and Islamic countries.
In fact, the majority of Global Jihad attacks over the past several years occurred in countries of the Arab or Islamic world,

Trends in Modern International Terrorism

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Terrorism

Nuclear terrorism

Nuclear terrorism.
The most recent threat of Nuclear attack attempted on the United States has come from North Korea, as such the following essay will delve into North Korea’s investment in nuclear terrorism and the plan of action the United States has against such action.  There are several links that associate North Korea to different factions of terrorism.  The following paper will give detailed examples of North Korea’s interaction and support of each group.  The support of terrorism has many forms such as weapons or money and North Korea’s handing over of monetary funds and weapons will also be documented in this essay.  The resources necessary for terrorism to exist has a partner in government and North Korea is just such a partner.
The following paper will not only address the fact of terrorism affiliation between North Korea and reputed terrorist groups and countries but also that North Korea has their own terrorist group.  This fact can be found in North Korea’s treatment toward South Korea and reported assassination attempts of their presidents on several occasions.  The terrorist affiliation North Korea harbors is one that involves not only promoting terrorism through trade with notable terrorist groups but also their own participation in Afghanistan terrorist camps and the trading of weapons technologies with such groups (Graham 20-21).
North Korea is a country with a specific dichotomy between public relations.  These relations deal mainly with money.  The reason North Korea is reported to be trading with terrorists is that their funding aids in the economic growth of their country.  The support that North Korea gives to terrorist is rewarded with monetary funds from such countries as Japan, Iran, and Iraq.  This paper will organize specific examples of each country and it’s trading policy with North Korea (what items it trades for what price etc.).  The essay will also focus on how North Korea opens up trade routes covertly using bribes and coercion.

The year 2000 saw the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the United States government went through a series of terrorism talks and the future state of terrorism as well as cooperation of North Korea’s government in several documented terrorism actions.  Such actions include the 1970 hijacking of a Japanese plane bound for North Korea and the subsequent sheltering of the Japanese Communist League-Red Army Faction members or hijackers, or the safe haven North Korea provided to the terrorist who were involved in the hijack.  Also, DPRK has been suspected of selling weapons to the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, as specified by the Philippine government.
The monetary transaction was made possible through Middle East connections (Terrorism Files, 2002).  North Korea has been on the US terrorism list sin 1988 and continues to remain on that list because of its uncooperative procedures for information on terrorist after the September 11 attacks, as Secretary of State John Bolton stated, “’North Korea has a dedicated, national-level effort to achieve a biological weapons capacity and has developed and produced, and may have weaponized, biological weapons agents.
Despite the fact that its citizens are starving,” said Mr. Bolton, “the leadership in Pyongyang has spent large sums of money to acquire the resources, including a biotechnology infrastructure, capable of producing infectious agents, toxins, and other crude biological weapons. It has a variety of means at its disposal for delivering these deadly weapons.’” (North Korea and Terrorism 2002).
Another terrorism threat that North Korea poses and has been linked with is nuclear terror.  In this respect according to Pakistan and US sources (as well as Libyan) this is the current threat of North Korea:  they have been supposedly training Arab terrorists for at minimum ten years at the Kim Jung-il Political and Military University.  North Korea is also linked with Osama bin Laden in arms dealing, as Triplett (2004) states in North Korea and Nuclear Terror, of the existing relationship between North Korea and bin Laden, “This was discovered in 2000 when bin Laden financed a shipment of North Korean conventional arms to a Philippine Islamic terrorist group”.
North Korean nuclear weapons were also being used as tests by Pakistan (in 1998).  Scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory suspect that these tests were a conglomeration between Pakistan and North Korea in nuclear testing.  Such joint ventures are not new for North Korea and their connection with terrorism.  Nuclear weapons are just the forefront of terror that North Korea has presented to the world.
North Korea, since their cover-up in 1970 of the safe haven they provided to the airplane hijackers, have been affiliated with several terrorist groups as Triplett further states, “Recently a Japanese newspaper, citing military sources, reported Iranian military figures were seen at North Korea nuclear facilities. This leads allied intelligence to suspect the Iranians of trying to move their nuclear weapons program to North Korea, beyond the range of Israeli F-16 fighter-bombers”.
The Pakistan, and North Korean conglomeration of trading weapons is a definite terrorism group.  The weapon testing near the Afghan border in 1998 was reported to have been the testing of Korean made missiles.  Another link between Pakistan and North Korea can be found with Major General (retired) Saltan Habib, who was responsible for covert acquisitions of nuclear technologies while presiding as the defense attaché of Pakistan in Moscow, was posted as the ambassador to North Korea to ‘oversee the clandestine nuclear and missile cooperation between North Korea and Pakistan’ (Raman 2002).
As the ambassador, Habib organized the covert shipment of missiles from North Korea to Pakistan.  Not only did Habib coordinate this shipment but he also was reported to have exchanged technology from North Korea to Pakistan on weapons technologies especially those dealing with missiles and nuclear devices as Raman states, “…the training of Pakistani experts in the missile production and testing facilities of North Korea and the training of North Korean scientists in the nuclear establishments of Pakistan through Captain (retired) Shafquat Cheema, third secretary and acting head of mission in the Pakistani embassy in North Korea from 1992 to 1996”.
Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is one in which North Korea has strong ties.  Prior to Habib’s position with North Korea it was filled by Major General Shujjat from the Baluch Regiment.  General Shujjat was not only working for the embitterment of North Korea but clandestine actions he performed were favoring ISI for five consecutive years as Raman states, “On Captain Cheema’s return to headquarters in 1996, the ISI discovered that in addition to acting as the liaison officer of the ISI with the nuclear and missile establishments in North Korea, he was also earning money from the Iranian and the Iraqi intelligence by helping them in their clandestine nuclear and missile technology and material procurement not only from North Korea, but also from Russia and the CARs”.
The limits of North Korea’s involvement in terror seem boundless.  Not only have they delivered ballistic missiles to Pakistan but also they are using very covert methods by which to trade.  The beginning of 2002 was witness to mass movements of nuclear weapons across the Karakoram Highway.  These weapons were being transported from China to Pakistan with the envoy containing spare parts and other assortments.  The transportation of this shipment however has ties with North Korea because China may have accepted this movement from Pakistan only in regards to North Korea’s wishes (Raman).
North Korea, Iran, and Iraq are infamously known as the Axis of Evil, because of their terrorist ties and promotion of illegal arms dealing.  North Korea has managed to become well versed in terrorism through biological, chemical, and nuclear means.  In 1988 North Korea or DPRK as well as Kim Jong-il were suspected (and this probability is almost certain) of committing to assassinate South Korean president Chun in Rangoon (or Yangun as it is known today).
The assassination was to take place by strategically placing bombs atop the Martyr’s Masoleum (in dedication to Aung San the founder of independent Burma).  Although president Chun was delayed in traffic and did not succumb to the bombings, “The huge blast ripped through the crowd below, killing 21 people and wounding 46. Among the dead were the Korean foreign minister, Lee Bum Suk, the economic planning minister and deputy prime minister, Suh Suk Joo, and the Minister for Commerce and Industry, Kim Dong Whie. The rest of those killed were presidential advisers, journalists, and security officials, most of them South Korean” (Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia).
In finding evidence to support North Korea has having terrorist ties, it is presumably difficult.  The suspects who were responsible for the Rangoon bombings committed suicide by detonating hand grenades.  Such suspects are common in assisination attempts and thus true evidence is difficult to come by in linking North Korea directly with terrorism in some cases.  However, the 1970 safehaven as well as arms dealing that Philippine officials attest to are some of the supporting materials that accumalte against North Korea (Graham 80-85).
In lieu of specific evidence to support terrorism affilitations from North Korea president Kim Jong-il admitted to the United States in 2000 that DPRK had willfully exported missiles abroad.  These missiles are traded to Syria and Iran in exchange for monetary compensation.  While Syria was reportedly a main buyer of missiles, Iran was said to be a primary buyer of not only ballistic missiles but technology as well (Wagner 2000).  The specific terrorism that exists in North Korea trading missiles to such countries exists in those countries’ intent for such exported ‘goods’.  In order for North Korea to stop association and trading of missiles, as Wagner states of the conference between the United States and North Korea held in July-August of 2000,
Einhorn characterized the talks as “very useful” and said that he hopes to meet again with the North Koreans in the near future. However, on July 12, Jang “clarified” that North Korea would only continue the talks if the United States compensated Pyongyang “for the political and economic losses to be incurred in case we suspend our missile program.”
During the meeting, the United States had once again rejected North Korea’s long-standing demand for $1 billion per year in return for the cessation of missile exports. “North Korea should not be receiving cash compensation for stopping what it shouldn’t be doing in the first place,” Einhorn said.
This compensation is coercion and is a type of terrorism in and of itself.  North Korea should not be given compensation pay for ending its affilitation with terrorism simply because their economy would suffer slightly from the lose of funds selling missiles etc. had given the DPRK.
North Korea has remained in close contact with different terrorist groups.  The Japanese Red Army who were given safehaven in 1970 after the plane hijacking are coherts of Middle Eastern terrorists and in this connection lies the bridge by which North Korea exports weapons (Fulford 2001).  As said prior Pakistan has a standing trade relationship with North Korea as missile buyers.
The funding for such North Korean weapons development as Fulford states, “However, cutting off one of ruler Kim Jong Il’s main sources of finance–illegal activities in Japan–might prove easier. North Korea’s government has been manufacturing large quantities of heroin, amphetamines, weapons and counterfeit U.S. dollars to finance its weapons development programs. It sells them either through criminal gangs in Japan or via Russia and China to the U.S. and Europe, the Korea experts say.” Pakistan is also a main supporter of the Afghanistan Taliban regime and terror weapons that are used by Taliban are subsequently provided by North Korea (Fulford).
Other avenues by which North Korea finds funding for weapons is through Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party.  The Party solicits succor toward North Korea in exchange for bribes as Fulford further states, “…when Japan gave 500,000 tons of rice aid to North Korea last year, politicians received kickbacks from North Korea, Lee says. “I was with a North Korean official as he phoned a Japanese member of parliament and told him a shipment of free fish had been sent to a company he owns,” he says.”
This bribe system works by committing North Korean businessmen, who reside in Japan, to a loan.  This loan, or lend, is given by a bank and is paid back directly to North Korea and Japan.  Thus, the money cannot easily be traced.  Public money is being used to generate a working arms dealing relationship between North Korea and Japan.
Public money is not the only money being used in corrupt manners:  The Japanese government aided North Korea’s atomic weapon development through its Fuji bank.  Fuji bank is one of the largest banks in the world and its involvement in the deal between North Korea and Japan was a catalyst in North Korean weapons building and trading.  Essentially Fuji paid approximately $350 million to a myriad of North Korean businesses and organizations who were prospering in Japan.  This money was given in exchange for debt collection services (Graham 61-63).
The funding for weapons development in North Korea as it is funded by Japan and public money is the key component of rising terrorism at a global scale.  Due to North Korea’s association with several aforementioned terrorists groups, global terror does exist.  North Korea’s trade of missiles to different terrorist organizations promotes multilateral trade in a negative fashion because what North Korea is truly promoting is terrorism through trade.
There also exist unofficial reports of North Korea terrorist involvement.  It has been established that North Korea has dealt ballistic missiles to countries: It gained the raw materials for the construction of these missiles from such countries as China.  These missiles are capable of delivering mass destruction in the form of biological as well as chemical warfare.  In late 2001 P’yongyang continued a type of global scavenger hunt for technologies dealing with the making of nuclear weapons.
The procurement of the necessary plutonium for at least one nuclear weapon has set the world on edge.  As the Unclassified Congress Report (2001) states, “Spent fuel rods canned in accordance with the 1994 Agreed Framework contain enough plutonium for several more weapons.”  Along this train of potential arms dealings P’yongyang laid the path to trade with Russia by signing the Defense Industry Cooperation Agreement.
Among the trading partners that North Korea has established ties with include Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Angola, Burma, Cuba, Libya, and Syria.  Through trade with these countries North Korea is able to consistently manage its immense military operation (14% of its economic gross goes to the military despite calling in international aid to its starving people).  The trading that continues between the aforementioned countries and North Korea involves ‘arms, chemical and biological weapons materials, and even ballistic missile technology–in clear violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime. Libya, for example, recently bought 50 Rodong-1 missiles from North Korea with a range of 1,000 kilometers’ (Hwang, 2001).
Among the trading countries that North Korea has ties and the materials thar are reportedly being traded, North Korea has also been invovled with overtly selling weapons to various terrorist groups such as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the United Wa State Army.  The United Wa State Army is a drug affiliated Burma terrorist group residing in the golden triangle.  The golden triangle is the area between Thailand, Laos, and Burma.
Not only is North Korea coordinating trading efforts with these terrorist groups but North Korea also has been training in Afghanistan terrorist camps (Hwang).  The Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John E. McLaughlin stated of North Korean involvement of terrorism, “North Korea’s challenge to regional and global security is magnified by two factors…first, the North’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and two, its readiness–and eagerness–to become missile salesman to the world” (Hwang).
Not only is North Korea associated and in league with terrorist groups by harboring hijackers and participating in terrorist camps but North Korea is a terrorist.  In 1987 North Korean agents bombed a South Korean airplane.  North Korea has continuously be involved with terrorist attacks on South Korea a reported 300 instances.  North Korea has participated in covert assassination attempts of South Korean presidents and has traversed passed South Korean borders 15 separate times (Hwang).
Not simply has North Korea been fully participatory in these incidences but as Hwang further states, “In one of the most blatant, 26 North Korean commandos in a submarine landed off the South Korean coast in September 1996; they, along with 17 South Koreans, were killed in the ensuing manhunt. Their mission is believed to have been to assassinate South Korean dignitaries”.  Therefore, North Korea guilty of fully participating in aiding terrorists through weapons and technologies and they are also delving into the leagues of terrorism by their chronic attack on South Korea (Graham 43-44).
Along the lines of defining North Korea as having terrorist groups within its borders who are North Korean Hwang states that North Korea has kidnapped an unprecedented 3,600 Korean citizens since the year 1953.  In this fact there exists relevant material to consider North Korea as having terrorist intentions and actions.  Not only has North Korea abducted Koreans but reportedly also foreigners, of which ten Japanese foreigners are the most noted.
In conclusion, North Korea is not only a country who supports terrorism through trade of weapons and technology but it is also a country which participates in terrorism through assassinations, and kidnappings.  North Korea then exists as a country spurned by monetary gain and by lines of distinction between trading partners and the uses those countries may have for nuclear weapons.
Although the above pages attest to the development of North Korea and its invovlement with terrorism it must also be noted that the United States with the advocacy of the United Nations, has established an administration of foreign policy which will attribute to the goals of nuclear disarmament.
Work Cited
Allison, Graham.  (2005).  Nuclear Terrorism, The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe.  Owl
Books, New York.
Editorial.  North Korea and Terrorism.  2002.  (Online).  Available:            http://www.ibb.gov/editorials/09924.htm
Fulford, Benjamin.  North Korea, Another Outcropping of Terrorism.  Forbes.  September 2001.
(Online).  Available:            www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/north_korea_another_outcropping_of_terrorism.htm
Hwang, Balbina.  North Korea Deserves to Remain on US List of Sponsors of Terrorism.
Asia and the Pacific.  November 2001.  (Online).  Available:            http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1503.cfm
Raman, B.  Pakistan and the North Korea Connection.  Asia Times, October 2002.  (Online).
Available:  http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/DJ22Df01.html.
Terrorism Files.  State-Sponsored Terrorism North Korea.  2002.  (Online).  Available:            http://www.terrorismfiles.org/countries/north_korea.html
Triplett, William C.  North Korea and Nuclear Terror.  The Washington Times.  2004.(Online).            Available:http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040406-101023-7315r.htm
Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia.  Rangoon Bombing.  (Online).  Available:            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangoon_bombing     
Unclassified Congress Report.  2001.  (Online).  Available:            https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2001.htm#5
Wagner, Alexander.  US-North Korea Terrorism Talks Resume; North Korea Admits to
Exporting Rocket Technology.  Arms Control Association, September 2000.
(Online).  Available:  http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_09/nkoreasept00.asp
 
 

Nuclear terrorism

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Terrorism

Essay about terrorism

Essay about terrorism.

Abstract
It is important that the police are provided with sufficient powers to identify and prevent terrorism where necessary; however it is also important that these powers are not being abused. There is a wide definition of terrorism which has led to abuse by the police and this has resulted in human rights violations.[1] In order to ensure that human rights are being preserved and terrorism is being tackled, a balance between the two needs to be struck.[2] This is not being attained at present and so reform to this area is necessary. This study intends to discuss what problems currently exist followed by any suggestions for change.
Introduction

Although there is a need to provide the police with wide and even intrusive powers it seems as though the powers are actually too broad.[1] This generally leads to abuse and those of an ethnic minority are usually discriminated against as a result.[2] Because of how difficult it is to define terrorism, it is unlikely that this problem will be rectified any time soon. This study aims to examine such issues in light of the recent Supreme Court decision of R v Gul (Mohammed) [2013] UKSC 64 by accessing relevant text books, journal articles and online legal databases.
Police Powers
The police have been given extensive powers under the Terrorism Act (TA) 2000[3] and the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security (ATCS) Act 2001 in recent years and now have the ability to undertake a stop and search in circumstances where they have a ‘reasonable suspicion that the individual is a terrorist’[4] (section 44 of the AT). They can also forcefully obtain fingerprints and other identifying features of a person to determine their identity (Part 10 ATCS) and detail foreigners suspected of terrorism (Part 4 ATCS). It has been argued that these wide powers are likely to be detrimental to the ethnic minority who will most likely be subjected to police searches.[5] This undermines a person’s right to liberty that is provided for under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998. Conversely, it was held by the Court in R (Gillian) v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis[6] that pursuant to section 44 of the TA “the interference with the appellant’s freedom of movement in order to effect a stop and search is not enough to have amounted to a deprivation of liberty.”[7] The exploitation of police powers under section 44 may therefore not amount to a deprivation of liberty and will be justified regardless of police intentions.[8] Since this Act was implemented, those of an ethnic minority have been stopped and searched more frequently than they used to, which is supported by the Ministry of Justice’s 2009 data analysis that stop and search rates from black populations are disproportionally high compared to white populations.[9] Some form of control is therefore necessary to prevent abuse by the police force because although it is necessary to provide the police with wide powers,[10] it is vital that they are only being used for their intended purpose; that is to prevent terrorism.[11] Police are also given further powers under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to detain suspected terrorists for longer periods of time and apply control orders under the Preventions of Terrorism Act 2005. The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 also provides police with the ability to question suspects after they have been charged.
Definition of Terrorism
Given the extensive range of police powers, it is vital that they are being used appropriately and do not lead to abuse. This has been further explained by McKenzie who stated that; “the responsibility that is attached is that the powers must be used appropriately and properly. That is the only way in which the police function can be conducted in a democratic society.”[12] However, the main reason why the police are able to abuse their powers in the first place is largely the result of the extensive definition of terrorism.[13] Thus, it is extremely difficult to identify what a terrorist will consist of, which is why the police have been provided with extensive powers in the first place.[14] The complex nature of this area has recently been identified in the R v Gul (Mohammed)[15] case where the issue as to what ‘terrorism’ is to be defined as was determined. It was questioned in the case whether the definition of ‘terrorism’ under section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006 includes “military attacks by non-state armed groups against national or international armed forces in a non-international armed conflict.”[16] Section 1 of the TA 2000 defines terrorism as;
“the use or threat of action; (a) involving serious violence against a person, involving serious damage to property, endangering another person’s life, creating a serious risk to public health or safety, or designed to seriously interfere with seriously disrupt an electronic system; (b) designed to influence a government or intergovernmental organization or to intimidate the public or a section of the public; and (c) made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause.”
Unless all of these conditions are satisfied, a person should not be accused of committing a terrorist act, yet the reality of this is implausible given that many individuals are often stopped and searched under the Act without having committed any act of terrorism whatsoever.[17] The Court in Gul held that section 1 had a very wide natural meaning and that it could not be read restrictively as was being argued by Mr Gul. It was made clear in the case that the definition was drafted so widely in order to account for situations such as this. Hence, My Gul was convicted of five counts of disseminating terrorist publications, which included YouTube videos showing al-Qaeda attacks. This type of behaviour should be punishable, though if a strict interpretation of the definition was employed Mr Gul would not have been prosecuted. This would be a serious threat to national security[18] and so it is vital that some flexibility is available when interpreting the definition of terrorism,[19] yet this should not be interpreted too broadly as identified in KJ (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[20] and Secretary of State for the Home Department v DD (Afghanistan).[21] Consequently, a balance needs to be struck between protecting the interests of national security and protecting the human rights of individuals.[22] This is likely to be extremely hard to achieve since the powers of the police have been extended even further since the events of September 11th 2001[23] as Rigorous attempts have been made under international law to prevent a further re-enactment of terrorism.[24]
The War on Terror (WOT) is one of the main reasons why a broad definition is frequently adopted since the objectives of WOT were to eradicate terrorism. Many believe that such efforts have been successful[25] and as argued by O’Rourke; “the war on terror has had two major economic impacts; an increase in overall military assistance to countries experiencing conflict and the elimination of sanctions on arms exports to these countries.”[26] Nevertheless, many problems continue to arise because of the wide definition of terrorism and it has been said that the Gul decision “represents a step backwards in the definition of terrorism primarily because it endorses the extremely wide understanding of terrorism.”[27] There is also much difficulty in distinguishing between a ‘freedom fighter’ and a ‘terrorist’. This has led to much controversy and debate and the law in this area remains unclear and inconsistent.[28] Because of this, inadequate anti-terrorism adoption measures are being employed which is not the intentions of WOT and unless further clarification of the meaning of ‘terrorism’ is provided, complications will continue to exist. It is vital that a freedom fighter is not mistaken for a terrorist and vice versa since the actions of a freedom fighter will be deemed lawful whereas the actions of a terrorist will not be.[29] Accordingly, it is thus essential that a terrorist does not escape criminal liability for his or her actions in the same way that a freedom fighter should not be punished.[30]
Nevertheless, as has been argued; “today’s terrorists are tomorrow’s freedom fighters, next month’s political opponents and, next year, our oldest allies.”[31] This suggests that a distinction cannot be made between terrorists and freedom fighters because of the fact that attitudes continue to change. If a strict interpretation of a terrorist was provided by the law, difficulties may still arise in the future. Furthermore, it has been said that “the only difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is whether the person describing them likes them.”[32] The extent to which this view is accurate is unclear but it is clear a dangerous one given that terrorists can be classed as freedom fighters in order to avoid criminal liability.[33] On the other hand, Hanif believes that; “the difference between freedom-fighters and terrorists is not perception but terminology.”[34] Therefore, a distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters is based on terminology as opposed to differing perceptions. The definition of terrorism remains controversial which is largely the result of the differing meanings that exist under various legal systems and governmental agencies. The international community needs to define terrorism in order to provide clarity and unity within this area. This is because it seems as though the international community have failed to adopt a universal definition that can be employed by every jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, because of the fact that terrorism is an emotionally and politically charged issue it is doubtful that harmonisation would be established. It has been stressed by Hoffman that terrorism consists of “the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change.”[35] The threat of violence or actual violence is clearly present in all acts of terrorism though because each is completely difficult from the next it is extremely difficult to provide a rigid definition and flexibility will continue to be needed. Nevertheless, “terrorists seek to obtain the leverage, influence and power they otherwise lack to effect political change on either a local or an international scale.”[36] The fact that there is no universal declaration of terrorism can actually be beneficial in allowing a flexible approach to be undertaken[37] and as stressed by the Court in R v Ashton,[38] the intention of Parliament needs to be looked at when deciding how far the definition of ‘terrorism’ should stretch. Thus, it is necessary that the definition allows for special circumstances to be taken into account, which would not be possible via a strict interpretation of terrorism. Nevertheless, Sorel believes that problems would be likely to arise if a global definition was implemented since it would be very difficult to take account of “special circumstances according to the type of action committed, the nature of the victims or the type of method of the terrorist action.”[39] Much debate has already arisen as to whether a definition is necessary, however it was decided by the Security Council when they adopted Security Council Resolution 1373 in September 2001 that “one shouldn’t try to define terrorism in order to reach a quick agreement; to do so runs the risk of getting into deeper and deeper water.”[40]
Terrorism acts are arguably so wide-ranging than an attempt to define them would only result in further risk. Having a flexible definition is vital in ensuring that each and every act is decided on its facts in order to determine whether an act of terrorism has actually occurred.[41] In R v F[42] the broad definition of ‘terrorism’ was emphasised when it was held by the Court that governments which were not representative of the people were not governments for the purposes of section 1 and that any acts carried out against such governments were not acts of terrorism. This widens the scope of section 1 even further and is likely to have dangerous consequences as evidenced by Ouseley J in R (On the application of Islamic Human Rights Commission.[43] In order to protect human rights and prevent those of authority from abusing their powers and accusing innocent persons of terrorism, some changes need to be implemented because the system at present is unsatisfactory.[44] Conversely, it has been suggested that “a definition would only be necessary if the punishment of the relevant offences were made conditional on the existence of a specific terrorist intent.”[45] An example of this can be seen in respect of the definition that has been provided by the League of Nations Convention of 1937 under Article 1.1. Here, it was stated that an act of terrorism will consist of “criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public.” It was also provided by the United Nations General Assembly under Article 2.1 of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that a terrorist is someone who causes; “death or serious bodily injury; serious damage to public or private property, or damage to property, places, facilities, or systems likely to result in major economic loss.”[46]
Distinction between a Freedom Fighter and a Terrorist
A freedom fighter is a person that attempts to achieve political freedom and is generally defined as a person who takes part in a resistance movement against an oppressive political or social establishment.”[47] Such persons include the South African Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) and the Irish Republican Army (IRA). These were considered to be freedom fighters on the basis that they fought for freedom against national governments.[48] The MK launched its first attacks in 1961 and was rendered freedom fighters despite the fact that they were originally classified by the South African government and the United States as terrorists. The IRA launched its first attacks in 1919 and was too deemed freedom fighters, although many did in fact render them terrorists. As noted by Brown; “the Provisional IRA’s ceasefire means its members should regarded as freedom fighters to distinguish them from terrorist groups that refuse to enter a political process.”[49] These two sets of freedom fighters demonstrate what a ‘freedom fighter’ will consist of, yet they also demonstrate how a fine line is usually drawn between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. In light of this, it would seem appropriate to establish a clearer definition so that the two could be distinguished more easily. The Lehi (Lohamei Herut Israel) was also classed as a freedom fighter early on, yet they later faced terrorism.
Again, this signifies how it can be difficult to distinguish between the two and it is often argued that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter[50] as also noted in the Gul case. It is arguable whether this statement holds any truth, yet given that there are varying definitions it is possible to interpret a terrorist as a freedom fighter and vice versa. This is also due to the fact that the roles in which the two undertake are extremely similar, thus making it more difficult to make an appropriate distinction. An individual may resultantly be deemed a terrorist in one jurisdiction but a freedom fighter in another because of the different meanings that exist. As pointed out by Rosand; “the General Assembly’s inability to reach agreement on a definition of terrorism after nearly thirty-five years of discussions in one form or another has limited the impact of its counterterrorism efforts.”[51] Conflicts will therefore continue to exist, yet if terrorism is to be tackled effectively it is necessary that an appropriate definition is provided by the international community in order to avoid such complexities. Consequently, “terrorism can be seen in the shadow on the wall: a silhouette of a gun, discharged into the body of a man who crumples before us.”[52] This suggests that terrorism is simply a half-truth that cannot be identified with ease. This leads to a great deal of ambiguity as it cannot be said what the exact differences between a freedom fighter and a terrorist are. Many believe that terrorists are able to escape liability for their actions as a result of these issues since they may be considered freedom fighters by certain jurisdictions.
Terrorist actions are more difficult to be eliminated because of the fact that consideration must be given to the possibility that an individual may in fact be a freedom fighter as opposed to a terrorist. Yet, in preserving the human rights of individuals this is a necessary requisite. Nonetheless, as put by Scheuer; “the counterterrorism record of the Bush administration is resoundingly negative” [53] This is because two wars, which were nearly lost, were created at the expense of thousands of lives. A substantial amount of money was spent and the credibility of the U.S. military was reduced. Furthermore, the Bush administration’s failings form part of a continuum of negative accomplishments that stretch back to more than a decade.[54] This is likely to be the result of a lacking definition since those who are involved in terrorist acts are often being rendered freedom fighters when they should be classified as terrorists.[55] However, in making the necessary distinction new concepts will be unnecessary as certain acts of violence will not be treated as crimes and will thus be permitted under international law. In accordance with this it is thereby necessary to distinguish between “common criminals and those who have exercised violent, but proportional, resistance against persons ordering the commission of a war crime or a crime against humanity.”[56] However, it is important that the seriousness of one’s actions is being given sufficient recognition within the international community so that the WOT can be effectuated.[57]
Reform
It cannot be said that a satisfactory definition is being produced at present which successfully distinguishes between a ‘freedom fighter’ and a ‘terrorist’ and because of this terrorism legislation will continue to generate controversies. [58] As has been evidenced, this can have a significant impact upon the human rights of individuals as well as the maintenance of national security and peace.[59] If a freedom fighter is mistaken for a terrorist, this can have severe human rights consequences.[60] On the contrary if a terrorist is mistaken for a freedom fighter, the international community will be at risk and their national security interests will not have been adequately protected by the international community.[61] As such, it is important to attain a balance within this area so as to prevent any absurd consequences from occurring.[62] There have consequently been many suggestions for reform in this area to create a universal definition, yet this may not be feasible given the wide-ranging definitions that already exist. The Joint Committee on Human Rights stressed that; “by using the definition of terrorism contained in the Terrorism Act 2000, the offence of encouragement of terrorism in s. 1 of the 2006 Act is much wider than the offence which is required to be criminalised by Article 5 of the Convention.”[63] Again, this signifies how a more limited definition ought to be employed so as to prevent human rights abuses from occurring. Nevertheless, if a single definition was to be adopted, serious injustice would ensue. Whether this means that the present system is in fact sufficient is arguable, though it is manifest that some clarity is fundamental.
Still, the anti-terrorist strategies that have been incorporated will not be effectuated if inconsistency exists and as put by Duffy; “undermining the authority of the law can only lay the foundation for future violations, whether by terrorists or by states committing abuses in the name of counter-terrorism.”[64] Accordingly, much of the problems that arise with combating the WOT occur as a result of the lacking definition and the extensive powers that are provided to the police. This has led Amnesty International to point out that; “Governments around the world have spent billions in an effort to beef up national security and the “war on terror”.” In spite of this, much of the security mechanisms that were adopted were deemed to be corrupt and inept systems of policing and justice.[65] Whilst the WOT is supposed to make the world safer, it seems as though more damage is being done and innocent people are being subjected to human rights abuses.[66] If the definition of terrorism was more limited and the police’s powers were not so extensive, it is likely that the WOT would be more effective. At the same time, human rights would be better protected and less conflict would transpire.
Nevertheless, because many are in favour of the broad definition[67] it unlikely that a rigid approach will ever be adopted since it is important that national security can still be maintained. However, in replace of a rigid definition, a description as to what type of actions would amount to a terrorist act could be provided. This would prevent the police from abusing their powers and violating the rights of innocent individuals, whilst at the same time avoiding persons, such as Mr Gul, from escaping liability. This would provide an element of certainty to an area that is currently overcome with confliction and would provide greater confidence to the international community that their rights were being preserved.[68] Not all agree that a description would be sufficient and instead argue that there a definition of terrorism should be implemented in international law.[69] As enunciated by Saul; there is a “need to condemn violations to human rights, to protect the state and deliberative politics, to differentiate public and private violence, and to ensure international peace and Security.”[70] Given that abuse is prevalent throughout the police force in the UK, it seems as though a lack of definition would prevent these objectives from being achieved.[71] This view is supported by Diaz-Paniagua who contends that an effective terrorism legal regime can only be established if a comprehensive definition of that crime is formed. This is because a comprehensive definition would; “on the one hand, provide the strongest moral condemnation to terrorist activities while, on the other hand, would have enough precision to permit the prosecution of criminal activities without condemning acts that should be deemed to be legitimate.”[72]
Conclusion
Overall, it is evident that the definition of terrorism and the powers that are provided to the police under section 44 of the 2000 Act are too extensive. Because of the difficulty in defining a terrorist, the police are given the power to make their own decisions, which often leads to the violation of innocent people. The police are thus able to argue that they suspected a person of terrorism without any supporting evidence, which often results in ethnic minorities being the subject of much abuse. Reform to this area is clearly necessary if the human rights of individuals are to be protected, yet this must not be at the expense of national security. It remains to be seen what, if any, changes will be made given the problems that have arose so far, yet it is apparent that something needs to be done. The starting point would be to adopt a stricter interpretation of the meaning of terrorism, yet because of the difficulties associated with distinguishing between a terrorist and a freedom fighter it is likely that this will prove problematic. In addition, because the activities of a freedom fighter are similar to the activities of a terrorist, a distinction cannot easily be made and the two are frequently being wrongly classified. Furthermore, different jurisdictions have different interpretations as to what is meant by a terrorist, yet some conformity is integral if the WOT is to be tackled effectively. This will result in many problems and the fight against terrorism will not be adequately achieved. Greater clarification is therefore needed, yet this can only be successfully achieved by the introduction of a universal definition of terrorism. This would remove the ambiguities that currently exist and the WOT’s objectives would be preserved. On the other hand, it could be argued that greater flexibility is needed when it comes to defining terrorism so that special circumstances, which would not be foreseeable, could be accounted for. This would not be possible if a strict universal definition was employed. Furthermore, because different jurisdictions all have dissimilar views as to what will amount to a terrorist act, flexibility is needed. On the whole, whilst the present approach lacks a universal declaration, this may in fact be necessary in preventing a rigid system from being established.
Bibliography
Books
Benjamin Witts, Law and the Long War: The Future of Justice in the Age of Terror, (New York; London Press, 2008).
Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism, (Columbia University Press, 1998).
Carlos Fernando Diaz-Paniagua, Negotiating Terrorism: The Negotiation Dynamics of Four UN Counter-Terrorism Treaties 1997-2005, (City University of New York, 2008).
Clive Walker. Blackstone’s Guide to the Anti-Terrorism., (OUP Oxford, 2nd Edition, 2009).
David Cole, Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of Security, (New York, London Press, 2006).
David Feldman, Civil Liberties and Human Rights in England and Wales, (Oxford University Press, 2002).
Donald Musch, International Terrorism Agreements: Documents and Commentary (Oceana Publications, 2004).
Helen Duffy, The War on Terror and the Framework of International Law, (Cambridge University Press, 2005).
James Sterba, Terrorism and International Justice (Oxford University Press, 2003).
Jordan Paust, Beyond the Law: the Bush administration’s unlawful responses in the War on Terror, (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
Laura Donohue, Counter-Terrorism and Emergency Powers in the United Kingdom 1922-2000 (Irish Academic Press, 2001).
Laura Donohue, The Cost of Counterterrorism, Power Politics and Liberty (Cambridge University Press, 2008).
Richard Stone, Textbook on Civil Liberties and Human Rights, (OUP Oxford, 6th Edition, 2008).
Peter Berkowitz. Terrorism, the laws of war and the Constitution: Debating the Enemy Combatant Decisions (Stanford Hoover Institutional Press, 2005).
Stefan Sottiaux, Terrorism and the Limitation of Rights: the ECHR and the Constitution (OUP Oxford, Hart , 2008).
Victor Ramraj, Global Anti-Terrorism Law and Policy, (Cambridge University Press, 1st Edition, 2009).
Journals
Alexander Murray, ‘Court of Appeal: Acts of War or Acts of TerrorismJournal of Criminal Law, Volume 76, Issue 298.
Adam Wagner, ‘Supreme Court Considers Definition of Terrorism’ UK Human Rights Blog, <http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2013/10/23/supreme-court-considers-definition-of-terrorism/> 05 March 2014.
Amnesty International, No Short Cut to Genuine Security: Suffering Beyond the Spotlight, Amnesty International Press Release, (28 May, 2003), <http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/POL10/011/2003/en/94f33e66-fad5-11dd-b531-99d31a1e99e4/pol100112003en.pdf> 06 March 2014.
Amnesty International. (2009) Impunity for CIA Torture is Incompatible with USA’s International Obligations, <http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/obama-accused-quotcondoning-torturequot-20090417> 08 March 2014.
Andrea Gioia, ‘The UN Conventions on the Prevention and Suppression of International Terrorism’ (2006) International Co-operation in Counter-Terrorism: The United Nations and Regional Organisations in the Fight Against Terrorism.
Ben Saul, ‘Defining Terrorism to Protect Human Rights’ (2008) Sydney Law School Legal Studies, Research Paper No 08-125.
Clive Walker., ‘Clamping down on Terrorism in the United Kingdom’ (2006) 4 Journal of International Criminal Justice 5.
Daniel Brown, ‘IRA are Freedom Fighters and Not a Terrorist Group’ (2001) The Independent UK, <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ira-are-freedom-fighters-and-not-a-terrorist-group-says-mandelson-621460.html> 07 March 2014.
Eddy, When is a Freedom Fighter not a Terrorist<http://www.chaos.org.uk/~eddy/politics/sibboleth/terrorism.html> 06 March 2014.
Eric Rosand, ‘The UN-Led Multilateral Institutional Response to Jihadist Terrorism: Is a Global Counterterrorism Body Needed?’ (2006) Journal of Conflict and Security Law, C&S Law 2006 11, Issue 3, 399.
Gary Robson, ‘In the Balance’ (2010) Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, Essential Resource for Professionals Serving the Criminal Courts Since 1837, Issue 14, 174 JPN 200.
House of Lords, House of Commons, Joint Committee on Human Rights, ‘The Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism’ (2007) First Report of Session 2006-07, Report, together with formal minutes and appendices <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200607/jtselect/jtrights/26/26.pdf> 06 March 2014.
Ian Awan, ‘The Erosion of Civil Liberties: Pre-Charge Detention and Counter-Terror Law’ (2011) 84 Police Journal 3.
Ian McKenzie, ‘Policing After Macpherson’ (2000) 73 Police Journal 323, Issue 4.
James Ames, ‘News: 90-day Detention Plans Shelved’ (2005) 3 Law Society Gazette 2, Issue 45.
James Chair, Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press, Political Science, 2004).
Jean-Marc Sorel, ‘Some Questions About the Definition of Terrorism and the Fight Against Its Financing’ (2003) European Journal of International Law, EJIL 2003, Volume 14, Issue 2.
James Bullock and Jason Collins, ‘Tax and the War on Terror’ (2004) Tax Journal, The non-taxing weekly for top practitioners, Issue 762, Issue 762.
Kevin Roach., The 9/11 Effect: Comparative Counter-Terrorism, (Cambridge University Press, 2011).
Matthew O’Rourke, ‘The Impact of the “War on Terrorism” on Internal Conflicts’ (2005) Ploughshares, Volume 26, Number 1.
Merriam Webster, Freedom Fighter, An Encyclopaedia Britannica Company, (2011) <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom%20fighter> 06 March 2014.
Michael Scheuer, ‘What War on Terror?’ (2007) The Journal of International Security Affairs, Number 12, <http://www.securityaffairs.org/issues/2007/12/scheuer.php> 04 March 2014.
Ministry of Justice, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2007/08, (2009).
New Law Journal, ‘More Haste Less Speed’ (1998) 148 New Law Journal 1293, Issue 6855.
Patrick Buchanan, ‘Terrorists – and Freedom Fighters?’ (2004) AntiWar, <http://antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=2141> 07 March 2014.
Peter Wallington and Richard Gregory Lee, Blackstone’s Statutes on Public Law and Human Rights 2006-2007 (Oxford University Press, 2006).
Robert Herron., ‘Counter-Terrorism, Rights and the Rule of Law: How Far Have we Come Since Executive Detention?’ (2011), Human Rights in Ireland, <http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2011/09/07/counter-terrorism-rights-and-the-rule-of-law-how-far-have-we-come-since-executive-detention/> 07 March 2014.
Sabia Hanif, ‘The Difference Between Freedom-Fighters and Terrorists is not the Perception but Terminology’ (2003) Islamic Human Rights Commission, <http://www.ihrc.org.uk/show.php?id=675> 05 March 2014.
Security Council in Le Terrorisme est un totalitarisme, Le Monde, (06 November, 2001).
Susan Herman, ‘Terrorism, Government, and Law: National Authority and Local Authority in the War on Terror’ (2008) Westport, CT, Praeger Security International.
United Nations General Assembly, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee established by General Assembly Resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996, Sixth Session, Annex II, art 2.1, (28 January – 1 February 2002).
Tom Campbell, Keith Ewing and Adam Tomkins, The Legal Protection of Human Rights: Sceptical Essays on Human Rights, (OUP Oxford, 2003).
Walter Kalin and Jorg Kunzli, ‘Article 1F(b): Freedom Fighters, Terrorists, and the Notion of Serious Non-Political Crimes’ (2000) International Journal of Refugee Law, IJRL 2000 12S (46).
William Burke –White, ‘Human Rights and National: Security: The Strategic Correlation’ (2004), Harvard Human Rights Journal, Volume 17, <http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss17/burke-white.shtml> 06 March 2014.
Case Law
KJ (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 292
R v Ashton [2006] EWCA Crim 794
R (Gillian) v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis [2006] UKHL 12, [2006] 2 AC 307
R v F [2007] QB 960
R v Gul (Mohammed) [2013] UKSC 64
R (On the application of Islamic Human Rights Commission [2006] EWHC 2465 (Admin)
Secretary of State for the Home Department v DD (Afghanistan) [2010] EWCA Civ 1407
Legislation
Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Human Rights Act 1998
Preventions of Terrorism Act 2005
Terrorism Act 2000
Terrorism Act 2006

Essay about terrorism

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Terrorism

Terrorism: An Emergency?

Terrorism: An Emergency?.
The September 11th terrorist attack on the World Trade Center will forever be in the minds of every American. It is a reality which tells us that it can happen again, anytime and anywhere. The impact of such act also tells us that it is something the government and the nation must pay attention to and be prepared for.
For many years now, terrorism is still an existent problem which gobbled up a substantial amount from the government resources. Not only that, but it also caused countless fatalities and destroyed properties. It has also put the government in an unsure position as to how it can be eliminated. The worsening situation regarding terrorism has the government taking up drastic steps for the nation’s security and considering it an emergency by which every nation must be prepared to face.
The Office of the Press Secretary of the United States (2007) announced about additional grant guidance and application kits for three grant programs (Port Security Grant Program (PSGP), Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP), and Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG)), which totaled to $827 million this year. According to Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security Secretary, the additional influx of federal dollars will be for the enhancement of security measures. Additionally, the money will enable the emergency managers to have more tools to “build on national preparedness goals.”

Allotment of these funds shows us how serious the prevention of terrorism is. The United States government will prioritize funding for training and public awareness campaigns, reducing the risks of improvised explosive devices and radiological, biological and chemical weapons, and securing transit systems. Moreover, grant funding will further improve the government’s emergency management capabilities.
According to the American National Red Cross (2001), there are many things which could happen after a terrorist attack which calls for emergency action. First is that there can be casualties and damages to properties such as buildings. Second is the involvement of the local, state and federal units due to the criminal nature of the event. Third is the possibility that the health and mental health resources can be strained or overwhelmed. Next, the prolonged existence of public fear, international implications and consequences and extensive media coverage. Fifth is the possibility of evacuation. And lastly, the clean-up which may take up very long.
With regards to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Taylor (2000) analyzed the use of WMD as protective measure against terrorism. The author cited the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Act, which the U.S. Congress passed in 1996, and which requires the local and state governments to have access to equipment and training needed to fight against acts of terrorism. It involves access to the use of WMD such as chemical, radiological and biological. A large amount of money is funded for the program in order to train law enforcement and emergency response agencies in dealing with terrorist attacks.
Taylor (2000) added that the production of WMD might increase the number of casualties from terrorist attacks as the US population was vulnerable to such attacks. The Legionnaire’s disease alone, which struck American Legion conventioneers, tells us of the worst possible outcome of bioweapons. As this shows that the public can be attacked with these weapons, the enemies could use these for their terrorist attacks.
Weapons of mass destruction include chemical, radiological and biological weapons. Their effects could be enormous. Lives will be lost with the deployment of such dangerous weapons. And as terrorists have access to these weapons and more, they can use it to further their attacks, resulting to more and more casualties. This is clearly an emergency both ways because the 40 percent of terrorist attacks around the world is targeted at the United States despite the fact that the country has no quarrels with other countries.  The population is even more vulnerable to an attack using WMD.
According to John Bolton (2002), Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, there are risks in using WMD. The worst thing that could happen is when the weapons fall into the hands of terrorists. To prevent this from happening, a strategy called the New Strategic Framework was formed. Under the framework, defensive systems which aim to protect against missile attacks will be created, nonproliferation and counterproliferation measures will be enhanced, nuclear weapons will be reduced and cooperation with Russia to eliminate terrorism will be prioritized.
John Wolf, Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation (2002), added that these weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the United States forces around the world. The primary concern, according to Wolf, is protection and security from WMD. This entails some steps. First, there should be reduction and cessation of WMD production. The United States’ objective is to control and dispose excess materials of WMD. The second step is stopping Iran’s acquisition of these materials.
It is believed that Iran wants to improve and develop its WMD and missile programs. Third step is stopping the proliferation of nuclear and missile in and from South Asia. Wolf stated that approximately one million troops face off on the India-Pakistan border. Concerns were raised over the possibility that the WMD and missiles there might fall in the wrong hands.
Several actions are needed to be taken to prevent further proliferation of WMD and missiles. One is to make sure that the suppliers of WMD materials and missiles end their cooperation. Another is to ensure that security is at its maximum against WMD and missile proliferation. The effectiveness of the export control of the states should also be enhanced. They should also secure their WMD and missiles and help other states that do not have enough resources.
Terrorism is a rare phenomenon that must be put in perspective. Everyone knows that one attack using WMD can cause massive casualties. According to Pete du Pont (cited in Taylor, 2000), 15 terrorist incidents happen each year in the United States. Statistics also showed that approximately 42 Americans die while 115 are injured from international acts of terrorism since 1982. What the United States should do, Taylor noted, is to implement military restraint overseas but respond to terrorist incidents against U.S. targets.
Should there be a terrorist attack using WMD, there are three things that the government must address. First, responses of the government must minimize the injury and death and implement actions which prevent the public from harm. This means that the attack site should be isolated, the agent class is identified, exposure levels is evaluated and those who are exposed evacuated to facilities where they can be treated. The government must make sure that the individuals in the attack site cooperate with it (Taylor, 2000).
Second, evidence should be gathered which will be used for later prosecutions. This should be the primary concern of law enforcement officials. They should identify the attackers. Third is mitigation. How to prevent such incident from happening should be determined (Taylor, 2000).
The magnitude of these terrorist attacks and the use of WMD call for every emergency measures from both the state and local levels. One problem which hinders to the success of emergency management, according to Taylor (2000), is the difficulty of getting public support. Effective emergency management program will be the solution to the program, and this requires public support. The public should be educated about what they can do in case terrorist attacks happen. Additionally, they should be taught about the WMD and what they should do in each case.
Considering the effects of terrorism, and the things it can do to a country, it should be seen as an emergency alongside other types of disasters. This paper does not posit that terrorism should be prioritized over other disasters, but the government must also allot resources and actions to prevent or be ready in case it happens.
References
American National Red Cross. (2001). Terrorism: Preparing for the unexpected. Retrieved on December 16, 2007 from http://www.redcross.org/services/disaster/0,1082,0_589_,00.html
Bolton, John. (2002). The new strategic framework: A response to 21st century threats. U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda, 7, 2.
Office of the Press Secretary. (2007). DHS announces additional $260 million in supplemental grants funding. Retrieved on December 16, 2007 from the Homeland Security web site, http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1187294574562.shtm
Taylor, Eric R. (2000). Are we prepared for terrorism using weapons of mass destruction? Government’s half measures. Policy Analysis, 387, 1-17.
Wolf, John. (2002). U.S. approaches to nonproliferation. U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda, 7, 2.

Terrorism: An Emergency?

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Terrorism

Is It a Threat of Terrorism?

Is It a Threat of Terrorism?.
It is my dream to live in a world where no country on Earth requires a military to protect its citizens from invasion, but like most Utopian fantasies, such a world will never exist. As the leader of the free world, America has built up a huge military to protect the nation’s interests, its allies, and its way of life for its people. After the terror attacks on September 11, 2001, and our senseless invasion of two Islamic countries, the nation is still engaged in war to prevent Islamic extremist attacks.
In recent years, public officials in the United States and terrorism analysts here and abroad have warned of an increasing threat of Muslim homegrown terrorist attacks. The terrorist attacks in Madrid in 2004 and in London in 2005 perpetrated by European homegrown terrorists have contributed to these concerns, as has the surge in terrorist-related arrests in the United States in 2009 and 2010. A closer look at the evidence, however, reveals that the threat of Islamic extremist engaging in lethal attacks in the United States has been frequently overstated.
Since 1985 there has been 3,178 deaths resulting from Islamic terrorist attacks; including the 2,977 Americans casualties on 9/11. However, the number of American casualties resulting from Islamic extremism is falling drastically; with only 28 Americans killed by Islamic Extremist since the 2001 terror attacks. Terrorist plots by American Muslims are not growing in sophistication, and terrorists’ capacities to acquire skills from overseas training are limited.

In addition, contrary to concerns that so-called “lone wolves” will increasingly attempt terrorist attacks that are difficult to foil, there have been only two shootings in the United States by American Muslims since September 11, 2011, despite a significant propaganda effort by leaders of Al-Qaida encouraging such attacks. The Islamophobes (people with irrational fear of Islamic people) claim that Islam is intrinsically a terrorist religion. The proof? Well, just about every terrorist attack is Islamic, they retort. Unfortunately for them, that is not true.
More like six percent. Using their defunct logic, these Islamophobes can now conclude that nearly all acts of terrorism are committed by Latinos. Let them dare say it. They could not; it would be political and social suicide to say such a thing. Most Americans would shut down such talk as bigoted; yet, similar statements continue to be said of Islam, without any repercussions. The war on terror focuses on groups loosely affiliated with the Al Qaeda terrorist network, but it turns out that Islamic extremists do not pose the greatest threat to America according to numerous reports.
One report from the Department of Homeland Security states that the biggest threat to America, its people, and government is actually from Latinos. Latino terrorist spew out acts of terror on American soil every day. According to the Los Angeles Times, these terrorist also control over 90% of all the drugs that enter the United States. Latino gang violence has resulted in a shocking number of casualties. Over 2,199 innocent American lives have been lost since 2007 due to kidnappings, sex trafficking, and horrendous murders, committed by Latino Terrorist.
These facts might throw you for a total paradigm in your thoughts, but what if I also told you that Latinos account for over 42% of all acts of terror on United States soil since 1985? The Islamophobes live in a fantasy world where everyone is supposedly too “politically correct” to criticize Islam and Muslims. Numerous people are critical of Muslims; but can you imagine the reaction if I said that Latinos should be profiled because after all they are the ones who commit the most terrorism in the country. Islamophobes  always live in mortal fear–or rather, they try to make you feel that way.
Do not be fooled, break the spellbinding ideology of Islamophobes. I am sure that you do not live in constant fear of radicalized Latinos; even though they commit seven times more acts of terrorism than Islamic extremist in America. Why then are you constantly fearful over Islamic radicals? The time has come where we can finally halt our fear of Islamic extremist, and focus our attention more frequently on the Latino terrorist If Islamic extremist had half of a brain they would have potential to be dangerous; but for now, they are no different then automated bots, with pre-programmed information and beliefs.
They are taught at early ages that the “West” is their enemy; and that there is no higher appraisal then dying for Allah through acts of terror and suicide. Ignorance breeds ignorance. What we must do is teach the United States citizens the truth about terrorism. Nobody is saying that Islamic terrorism is not a matter of concern, but it is grossly exaggerated.

Is It a Threat of Terrorism?

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Terrorism

Is the War on Terrorism a War Essay

Is the War on Terrorism a War Essay.
The Global War on Terrorism is a military run that began shortly after the terrorist onslaughts of September 11th 2001. First used by George W. Bush. the phrase ‘war on terror’ has become to be conceptualized as a term used to mean ‘global military. political. lawful. and conceptual battle aiming both organisations designated as terrorists and governments accused of back uping them. ” The war on panic chief focal point has been with Islamist activists and Al-Qaeda.
The war in Afghanistan and Iraq are both considered to be portion of the war on terrorist act. There is much guess on whether the war on panic is really a war. This essay will reason that both points of position are valid. There are grounds which validate the war on terrorist act as being considered an existent war such as the fact that an existent decelaration of war was waged by both the US and Al-Qaeda. it can be considered a new manner of war. and that finally like war. terrorist act is a mean to a political terminal.
On the other side of the spectrum. it may non be considered a war because it does non hold a clear terminal or possible triumph. it does non hold a confined conflict infinite as regular wars. and it is a ‘war’ against an immaterial construct such as the wars on poorness. drugs. and offense. There is an extended sum of literature on the topic of terrorist act and particularly the war on panic. Mia Bloom in ‘Dying to Kill: The Allure of Suicide Terror’ examines the usage schemes. successes. and failures of self-destruction bombardment in Asia. the Middle East. and Europe.

She claims that in many cases the attempt of Israel. Russia. and the United States have failed to discourage terrorist act and suicide bombardments. Bloom besides contemplates how terrorist groups learn from one another. and therefore how they react and retaliate to counterterror tactics the funding of terrorist act. and the function of suicide onslaughts against the background of larger cultural and political struggles. Another current bookman authorship on terrorist act is Mark Juergensmeyer. Juergensmeyer surveies spiritual terrorist act more specifically. Bruce Hoffman gives a superb penetration to terrorist act and all its facets.
Hoffman describes its historical development and the mentality of the terrorist. He examines this unseeable enemy and his tactics and motive in a globalized universe. Hoffman argues that the 9/11 onslaughts on the Twin Towers radically altered the USA’s and the Wests position on terrorist act. When trying to reply the above inquiry it is of import to clear up and specify the footings. Terrorism has a huge figure of definitions and varies greatly depending on who is seeking to specify it and from what position it is being defined and at which range.
For illustration one definition of terrorist act is the FBI’s definition of it as ‘the improper usage of force or force against individuals or belongings to intimidate or hale a Government. the civilian population. or any section thereof. in farther political or societal objectives’ . Another definition is from the Department of Defense which states it to be as ‘the calculated usage of improper force or menace of improper force to instill fright ; intended to hale or to intimidate authoritiess or societies in the chase of ends that are by and large political. spiritual. or ideological aims.
A concluding illustration of one of the many definitions of terrorist act is that of the Department of homeland Security which states it as ‘any activity that involves an act that is unsafe to human life or potentially destructive of critic substructure or cardinal resources ; and…must besides appear to be intended ( I ) to intimidate or hale a civilian population ; ( two ) to act upon the policy of a authorities by bullying or coercion ; ( three ) to impact the behavior of a authorities by mass devastation. blackwash. or nobbling. ’ These definitions vary rather greatly from one to another.
Any definition of terrorist act suits a peculiar bureau and how they look at the act of force. whereas really few expression at the causes for it and what its kernel is. Notice the selected vocabulary for each definition will accommodate the type of agency’s profile. The job with specifying terrorist act is one that it is a subjective thing. and two that the parties seeking to specify it seek to include everything and nil in it. They try to set and assorted different events that happened and state of affairss every bit good to assist specify it so as to do certain that terrorist act encompasses a big figure of things.
For illustration the discotheque bombardment of Bali. It seems that the definitions need to include anything that attacks the West. With respects to the war on panic. is it the war on panic or terrorist act? Is there truly a war on terrorist act and if so harmonizing to whom? The USA? Al-Qaeda? And in which theaters and locations are we speaking about? The war on panic might be a war on panic in Afghanistan but non in other topographic points. Besides the rubric of the inquiry is rather equivocal because is terrorist act is an act of war. or is war is an act of terrorist act? Each one can be unfolded onto the other easy.
It is besides of import to see who is included in the war on panic. is it all terrorists groups including terrorist groups like the IRA? Or is it merely limited to Islamist hawkish terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda? It is non ever clear who are the terrorists and who are the terrorized… “All political relations is a battle for power. and the ultimate sort of power is force. ” Hoffman writes that terrorist act is where political relations and force intersect in the hope of presenting power. And that all terrorist act involves a pursuit for power. Power to make many things such as to rule. coerce. control but finally to ‘effect cardinal political alteration.
Clausewitz’s definition of war was ‘war is the continuance of Politick by other means’ . In this context terrorist act tantrums in conformity to his definition as terrorist act excessively can be considered portion of war. Terrorism can be considered a tactic or act of war. or war a tactic or act of terrorist act. For illustration the Gallic used anguish during the Battle of Algiers. the US uses panic tactics itself such as Abu Ghraib. It is really hard to divide war from terrorist act neatly. Bing a terrorist is a stepping-stone to going a politician.
Therefore because of the really equivocal relationship and line between war and terrorist act. terrorist act can be considered as a new manner. or military maneuver of contending war. Therefore anything that tries to counter onslaught it can besides be considered a war. Therefore riping the war on terrorist act a war. Terrorism is ‘a complex phenomena in which force is used to obtain political power to readdress grudges ’ In order for one to see the war on terrorist act as an existent war. an existent statement of engaging war has had to been made. This is the instance with the war on terrorist act. Al-Qaeda did declare war on the USA in 1998.
The bush disposal created the term of the ‘axis of evil’ and the USA did contend a conventional war in Iraq in 2003. The war on terrorist act might non be a war in itself but it could be made up and composed by several on traveling wars such as Chechnya. the authorities of Sri Lanka versus the Tumult Tigers ( which was really the first state to successfully get the better of terrorist act ) . and Mali. There have been clear aims set out and enemies to get the better of. Although this enemy is unseeable. and the manner of contending the conflicts are different ( due to the asymmetrical facet of the war on panic ) it does non intend this is non a war.
The regulations have changed. the conflict infinite as good. the manner of thought of the enemy and war has changed drastically. But it is still war. It is merely a new face of war. However. the war on terrorist act is difficult to specify as an existent ‘war’ for several grounds. One. because it seems the US and the West are merely patroling and prosecuting in state edifice to advance broad democracy. Hoffman mentions the 2nd factor. which is immensely of import in discrediting the war on terrorist act as a war saying that ‘unlike traditional wars. the war on panic does non hold a clear end’ . This is because the triumph seems unachievable.
Terrorism won’t dice along with the terrorist leaders. Not even when the most wanted terrorist has been killed. DCIA Leon E. Panetta stated that “I don’t think there’s any inquiry that when you get the figure one terrorist in the universe. that we’re a small safer today than we were when he was alive. But I besides don’t think we ought to pull the leg of ourselves that killing Usama Bin Ladin kills al-Qa’ida. Al-Qa’ida still remains a menace. they’re still traveling to seek to assail our state. and I think we have to go on to be argus-eyed and go on the attempt to finally get the better of these cats.
We damaged them. but we still have to get the better of them. ” In order for a war to be a war. shouldn’t it hold a clear terminal? Or at least a possible one? The war on terrorist act besides is discredited as being an existent war because it does non take topographic point on a clear conflict infinite. The manager of public prosecutions. Sir Ken Macdonald quoted “London is non a battleground. Those inexperienced persons who were murdered on July 7 2005 were non victims of war. And the work forces who killed them were non. as in their amour propre they claimed on their farcical pictures. ‘soldiers’ .
They were deluded. egotistic inadequates. They were felons. They were fantasists. We need to be really clear about this. On the streets of London. there is no such thing as a ‘war on terror’ . merely as there can be no such thing as a ‘war on drugs’ He continues by saying that ‘the battle against terrorist act on the streets of Britain is non a war. It is the bar of offense. the enforcement of our Torahs and the winning of justness for those damaged by their violation. ” The war on panic could merely be a war against a ‘thing’ such as the war on poorness. drugs. offense tc… There is no existent manner to get the better of. destroy and free the planet of such immaterial constructs. The war on terrorist act looked under these facets becomes more hard to truly accept as a war. It is hard to reply the inquiry if whether the war on terrorist act is an existent war. It appears that there is a battle between Al-Qaeda contending secularism. consumerism. and immorality and the US and the West is contending against retardation and against groups of people who reject western values and globalisation. Is this what the existent war being fought is about? Is this the existent war that is traveling on?
There are both facets crediting the war on terrorist act as a war and others discrediting it. This inquiry nevertheless is extremely relevant and intertwines to other facets of IR305 such as the altering nature of war ( is the war on panic the new type of war? ) . the different types of warfare ( is the war on panic the new western manner of warfare and terrorist act the Arab manner of warfare? ) . and the subject of hazard societies ( are we engendering more terrorist act by contending the war on panic. therefore making more hazard ) . All of these assorted facets of IR305 are relevant to the subject of the war on terrorist act.

Is the War on Terrorism a War Essay

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Terrorism

Combating the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism

Combating the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism.
Statement at end of two-day summit in Seoul pledges strong action and closer co-operation against nuclear terrorism. | World leaders attending a summit in the South Korean capital Seoul have pledged strong action and closer co-operation to combat the threat of nuclear terrorism.
In a statement issued at the end of the two-day 53-nation nuclear summit, the leaders reaffirmed “shared goals of nuclear disarmament, nuclear proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy”. “Nuclear terrorism continues to be one of the most challenging threats to international security,” it said. “Defeating this threat requires strong national measures and international co-operation given its potential global, political, economic, social and psychological consequences. The statement welcomed “substantive progress” on national commitments made at the  first nuclear security summit in Washington in 2010. Action stressed Before the summit concluded, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak said nuclear terrorism remained a “grave threat”, while US President Barack Obama said action was important. Chinese President Hu Jintao urged the group to work together on the issue. “The planned missile launch North Korea recently announced would go against the international community’s nuclear non-proliferation effort and violate UN Security Council resolutions. – Yoshihiko Noda, Japanese PM While the official agenda of the summit was to strengthen measures to track the movement of nuclear materials worldwide, much of the dialogue focussed on efforts to get North Korea to back off a planned rocket launch scheduled for next month and return to disarmament talks. North Korea announced earlier this month that it would send a satellite into space aboard a long-range rocket. Pyongyang has said the launch is part of its peaceful space programme and says a new southern flight path is meant to avoid other countries.
Previous rockets have been fired over Japan. The secretive North was widely criticised on the sidelines of the meeting, including by main ally China, but host Seoul has explicitly stated Pyongyang’s weapons of mass destruction programmes were off the table during the summit itself. Defiant North Korea On Tuesday, a North Korean foreign ministry spokesman said that the launch would go ahead as planned. North Korea ”will never give up the launch of a satellite for peaceful purposes”’, the spokesman said in a statement in the official KCNA news agency.

A report by the KCNA also described the ”weather satellite” Pyongyang planned to launch as useful for ”the study of weather forecast needed for agriculture and other economic fields”. Yoshihiko Noda, the Japanese prime minister, speaking at the summit, called on Pyongyang to cancel the rocket launch, saying that it would violate UN Security Council resolutions. Nuclear stockpiles| * Russia: 10,000 * US: 8,500 * France: 300 * China: 240 * UK: 225 * Pakistan: 90-110 * India: 80-100 * Israel: 80 * North Korea: fewer than 10Source: Federation of American Scientists| The planned missile launch North Korea recently announced would go against the international community’s nuclear non-proliferation effort and violate UN Security Council resolutions,” Noda said. Obama had urged North Korean leaders to abandon their rocket plan or risk jeopardising their country’s future and thwarting a recent US pledge of food aid in return for nuclear and missile test moratoria, considered a breakthrough after years of deadlock. On Monday while speaking at a university in Seoul, Obama said that he was pushing for “a world without nuclear weapons”.
Iran’s nuclear programme was also on the minds of the summit participants, as Obama met the leaders of Russia and China on the sidelines to work towards a resolution. Obama had said that the threat of nuclear weapons remained a potent challenge for the globe to confront, telling foreign leaders that “the security of the world depends on the actions that we take”. Neither Iran nor North Korea had participated in the summit. Asia-Pacific | | S Korean minister warns of energy crisis | |
Economy minister Hong Suk-Woo says “unprecedented” power shortages possible after two nuclear reactors are shut down. Last Modified: 05 Nov 2012 09:01 inShare1EmailPrintShareFeedback| S Korea operates 23 nuclear power reactors which meet more than 35 per cent of the country’s electricity needs [EPA]| A South Korean minister has sounded a warning about “unprecedented” power shortages after two nuclear reactors were shut down to replace components that had not been properly vetted. The two units at the Yeonggwang nuclear complex were shut down on Monday and may remain offline until early January. It’s inevitable that we will experience unprecedented power shortage during the coming winter with the two reactors shut,” Hong Suk-Woo, the economy minister, said. However, he said the “non-core” components posed no safety threat and were unrelated to a string of systems malfunctions at reactors this year that triggered calls for a safety review. Last month, authorities temporarily shut down two 1,000-megawatt reactors at separate nuclear plants after system malfunctions which were also blamed for another reactor at Yeonggwang being tripped into automatic shutdown in July.
Engineers will replace more than 5,000 fuses in the units shut down, cooling fans and other parts for which suppliers had provided bogus quality certificates. “Comprehensive safety check-ups are necessary at these two reactors where the uncertified parts were used extensively,” Hong said. South Korea operates 23 nuclear power reactors which meet more than 35 per cent of the country’s electricity needs. It plans to build an additional 16 reactors by 2030. The government has pledged to continue using nuclear energy despite public concerns arising from last year’s nuclear disaster in Japan.
If the two Yeonggwang reactors are not brought back online as scheduled, Hong warned of a “dramatic” drop in national power reserves to 300,000 kilowatts in January, compared to the government target of 4. 5 million kilowatts. “Energy authorities are preparing a super-intense power supply emergency plan, which will be carried out in mid-November,” Hong said, without elaborating. All parts supplied for use in South Korea’s nuclear plants require quality and safety warranties from one of 12 international organisations designated by Seoul.
Eight suppliers cited by Hong faked 60 warranties covering nearly 7,700 items that had been provided at a cost of $750,000, Hong said. Of the total, more than 5,200 parts have been used in five reactors – 99 per cent of them in the two Yeonggwang units closed on Monday. Hong said prosecutors would investigate the suppliers as well as possible collusion by officials of the state-run Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power (KHNP). | Inside Story | | Is nuclear terrorism preventable? | |
World leaders gather for their second summit to strengthen efforts in securing nuclear material around the world. | Around 50 world leaders have gathered in South Korea to discuss measures to fight the threat of nuclear terrorism, including the protection of nuclear materials and facilities, as well as the prevention of trafficking of nuclear materials. Barack Obama, the US president, used the opening day of the nuclear security summit to set out a series of wide-ranging goals on nuclear policy.
He praised achievements made so far, and promised more would emerge from these discussions. “We have to question whether the rules we have today are adequate, and my view is that they’re totally inadequate. There’s no uniformity, no requirement to control materials a certain way. “Kenneth Luongo, Fissile Materials Working Group| The summit represents the half way point of a four-year process set out by Obama with the goal of locking down nuclear materials worldwide and preventing their use in a terrorist attack.
But this year’s summit takes place against a backdrop of growing tensions over the nuclear standoff with Iran and concerns about North Korea’s plans to launch a satellite next month – a launch that the US, South Korea and others believe is a missile test. So, how big a threat is nuclear terrorism? Who sets the criteria for acquiring nuclear weapons? Are there grounds for accusing Western governments of double standards? And can a problem of such magnitude be tackled by voluntary agreements made at the summit?
Inside Story, with presenter Laura Kyle, discusses with Richard Burt, the chief US negotiator in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty who is also the US chairman of Global Zero which seeks elimination of nuclear weapons; Mark Hibbs, a senior associate in the Nuclear Policy Program at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; and Riad Kah-waji with the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis. “Even after New Start [Treaty signed with Russia two years ago], the US will still have more than 15,000 deployed nuclear weapons and some 5,000 warheads.
I firmly believe that we can ensure the security of the United States and our allies, maintain a strong deterrent against any threat and still pursue further reductions in our nuclear arsenal. “Barack Obama, the US president| Nuclear warheads around the world: Though the exact number of nuclear weapons in each country’s possession is a closely-guarded national secret, there are estimates available. Of the countries that are members of the non-proliferation treaty: * Russia is believed to have around 10,000 nuclear warheads * The US is estimated to have 8,500 France is believed to have 300 * China is estimated to have 240 * The UK is said to have 225 Of the non-member countries: * Israel is said to have 80 nuclear warheads, though it refuses to confirm or deny whether it has any * Pakistan is thought to have between 90 and 110 * India is believed to have between 80 to 100 * North Korea is believed to have enough material to produce up to 10 devices Asia-pacific | | South Korea set to host nuclear summit | | Security and safety on agenda, but diplomatic fallout from North Korea’s rocket launch plan could dominate on sidelines. |
South Korea is preparing to host the heads of more than 50 nations and international organisations at a nuclear security summit in Seoul. The meeting, starting on Monday, comes a year after the meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan and participants will discuss efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and how to restore faith in civil nuclear energy. Participants include US President Barack Obama, who is due to visit the border zone between the two Koreas on Sunday, and Chinese President Hu Jintao. The controversial nuclear programmes of North Korea and Iran are not due to be formally discussed.
But Obama is expected to hold talks on the sidelines with both Hu and South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak over North Korea’s plans to launch a satellite into space aboard a long-range rocket next month. Dozens of protesters from South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Thailand gathered near the summit venue in downtown Seoul on Friday to denounce the gathering, saying nuclear energy was threatening the safety of their lives. “The nuclear energy industry told us the industry is safe, but actually, there have been many accidents that happened,” Lee Heonseok, a protester, said. We think those accidents will be repeated in the future. Therefore, we insist the nuclear energy industry should disappear. ” Richard Broinowski, a professor at the University of Sydney and former Australian ambassador to South Korea, told Al Jazeera that the summit was aimed at rebuilding confidence in the nuclear industry. “The point of the safety nuclear conference should be about terrorism and the breakdown of systems, such as what happened in Fukushima, and what to do about them,” he said. But the summit could be overshadowed by diplomatic fallout from North Korea’s announcement of its planned rocket launch.
North Korea said earlier this month that it had halted its nuclear programme, weapons testing and long-range missile launches and was ready to return to international talks in return for US food aid. The US says April’s rocket launch would violate that agreement, while Japan’s defence minister said on Friday he had ordered the military to prepare to shoot down the rocket if it entered Japanese airspace. China, North Korea’s closest regional, has also expressed concern that the launch could endanger regional stability. North Korea halts nuclear programme | Uranium enrichment, weapons testing and long-range missile launches to be stopped in return for US food aid. | North Korea has agreed to stop nuclear tests, uranium enrichment and long-range missile launches and to allow international inspectors to visit its Yongbyon nuclear complex in return for food aid from the United States. The announcement, made simultaneously by the US state department and North Korea’s official news agency on Wednesday, paves the way for the possible resumption of six-party disarmament negotiations with the Communist state.
It also marks a significant policy shift by North Korea’s reclusive leadership after the death of longtime ruler Kim Jong-il in December. “The DPRK, upon request by the US and with a view to maintaining positive atmosphere for the DPRK-US high-level talks, agreed to a moratorium on nuclear tests, long-range missile launches, and uranium enrichment activity at Yongbyon and allow the IAEA to monitor the moratorium on uranium enrichment while productive dialogues continue,” the official KCNA news agency said. North Korea is known formally as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).
China, North Korea’s only powerful ally, approved the announcement. Foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei said in a statement posted on Thursday that China welcomed efforts by the two sides to improve relations and preserve peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. He reiterated China’s willingness to participate in efforts to restart the six-party talks. ‘Profound concerns’ The state department was cautious in its response but said Washington was ready to finalise details of a proposed food aid package of 240,000 metric tonnes of nutritional assistance, and that more aid could be agreed based on continued need. Secret talks that led to the agreement were held at the North Korean embassy in Beijing [AFP]| “The United States still has profound concerns regarding North Korean behaviour across a wide range of areas, but today’s announcement reflects important, if limited, progress in addressing some of these,” a state department statement said. A South Korean foreign ministry spokesman said the development reflected “the close work Seoul and Washington have done to try to resolve the nuclear standoff,” while the International Atomic Energy Agency called it “an important step forward”.
Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett, reporting from Washington DC, said that its linking “nutritional assistance” with political developments was contrary to standard US foreign policy. “[This move] is certainly going to come under the microscope in terms of US policy. The US has used [food aid] successfully as leverage and there is going to be some talk about that,” she said. The announcement comes as the Obama administration steps up pressure on Iran over its atomic ambitions, which Western governments fear are aimed at producing nuclear weapons.
It followed talks between the US and North Korea last week in Beijing, the first such meeting since veteran leader Kim Jong-il’s son, Kim Jong-un, succeeded his father as leader. Christopher Hill, the former chief US negotiator in the six-party talks, said it was an important step that Kim’s son, Kim Jong-un, had made such a high-profile decision in the wake of his father’s death. He said that the military, which is influenced by Chang Song-taek,  Kim Jong-il’s powerful brother in law, had probably played a role in the agreement. I think the first order of business is to try to figure out the terms by which we provide the food aid,” Hill said. “We’re going to have to make sure the North Koreans have the aid and that we can monitor that the food aid goes to the right people. ”  Six-party talks North Korea agreed to curtail its nuclear activities under an aid-for-denuclearisation agreement reached in September 2005 by six-party talks bringing together North and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the US.
Under the terms of that deal, the North agreed to abandon its nuclear programmes in exchange for economic and diplomatic incentives to be provided by the other parties involved in the negotiations. But the embryonic deal was never fully implemented. Instead, the North held two nuclear bomb tests, in 2006 and 2009, and later disclosed a uranium enrichment programme, giving it a second path to obtaining fissile material for bombs, in addition to its long-standing programme of producing plutonium.
The US, South Korea and their allies had been sceptical of North Korea’s assertions that it stands ready to return to the six-party talks, and said they would insist on evidence of the country’s willingness to denuclearise before any such talks could resume. World leaders: Nuclear terrorism a ‘grave threat’ Comments (250) Cannot play media. You do not have the correct version of the flash player. Download the correct version President Obama: ”There are still too many bad actors in search of these dangerous materials” Continue reading the main story Related Stories * Which countries have nuclear weapons? North Korea’s missile programme * Timeline: Nuclear stand-off World leaders have called for closer co-operation to tackle the threat of nuclear terrorism at a summit on nuclear security in Seoul. A communique at the end of the summit reiterated a joint call to secure “vulnerable nuclear material”. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak said nuclear terrorism remained a “grave threat”, while US President Barack Obama said action was key. The meeting was dominated by North Korea’s plan to launch a rocket. North Korea says the long-range rocket will carry a satellite when it goes up in April.
The US says any launch would violate UN resolutions and constitute a missile test. Iran’s nuclear programme was also on the minds of the summit participants, with Mr Obama pledging to meet the leaders of Russia and China on the sidelines to work towards a resolution. ‘Bad actors’ At the meeting, world leaders discussed measures to fight the threat of nuclear terrorism, including the protection of nuclear materials and facilities, as well as the prevention of trafficking of nuclear materials. Continue reading the main story Analysis Jonathan Marcus BBC Diplomatic Correspondent
The communique describes nuclear terrorism as one of the most challenging threats to international security. But the responsibility to maintain security over nuclear materials lies firmly with states rather than international bodies. And any effort to try to establish or impose common international standards inevitably raises concerns in some quarters that the world’s major powers are seeking to intrude into the nuclear affairs of other countries. That’s why this communique reaffirms that measures to strengthen nuclear security will not hamper the rights of states to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
The summit urges states to minimise the use of highly enriched uranium – one of the building blocks for a nuclear bomb. The summit highlights the threat from radioactive materials more generally. But again all the summit can do is urge states to take measures to secure these materials and work towards ratifying international conventions on nuclear security. It is hardly a resounding outcome from a gathering over-shadowed by the more immediate wrangling over North Korea’s and Iran’s nuclear activities.
A joint communique reaffirmed their commitment to nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. “Nuclear terrorism continues to be one of the most challenging threats to international security,” it said. “Defeating this threat requires strong national measures and international co-operation given its potential global, political, economic, social and psychological consequences. ” But it omitted a reference made in a draft communique last Thursday on the need for “concrete steps” towards a world without nuclear weapons, AFP news agency reports.
There are currently no binding international agreements on how to protect nuclear material stored peacefully inside its home country, says the BBC’s Lucy Williamson in Seoul. An amendment seeking to do that is still unratified after seven years. Addressing the summit, Mr Obama warned there were still “too many bad actors” who were threatening to stockpile and use ”dangerous” nuclear material. “It would not take much, just a handful or so of these materials, to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people and that’s not an exaggeration, that’s the reality that we face,” he said. The security of the world depends on the actions that we take. ” Mr Hu called for “an international environment conducive to boosting nuclear security” to be created and Mr Lee called for concrete action to tackle a threat that posed “a grave challenge” to peace. The summit was attended by almost 60 leaders from around the world. Rocket launch Meetings on Monday were overshadowed by North Korea’s planned launch, scheduled to take place between 12 and 16 April. Pyongyang says it is intended to mark the 100th anniversary of the birth of North Korea’s founding leader Kim Il-sung.
Continue reading the main story Nuclear stockpiles in numbers * Russia: 10,000 * US: 8,500 * France: 300 * China: 240 * UK: 225 * Pakistan: 90-110 * India: 80-100 * Israel: 80 * North Korea: fewer than 10 Source: Federation of American Scientists * Nuclear weapons: Who has what? On Tuesday, a North Korean foreign ministry spokesman said that the launch would go ahead as planned and criticised Mr Obama’s stance as ”confrontational”. North Korea “will never give up the launch of a satellite for peaceful purposes”, the spokesman said in a statement in the official KCNA news agency.
A KCNA report also described the ”weather satellite” Pyongyang planned to launch as useful for ”the study of weather forecast needed for agriculture and other economic fields”. Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, speaking at the summit, called on Pyongyang to cancel the rocket launch, saying that it would violate UN Security Council resolutions. “As such, the international community strongly urges North Korea to exercise restraint and cancel the launch,” he said. The resolutions were passed after a similar launch in April 2009.
Japan is particularly concerned as that rocket was launched over the country three years ago. The US and Chinese presidents met on Monday on the sidelines of the summit and agreed to co-ordinate their response to any “potential provocation” if Pyongyang went ahead with the launch. South Korea and the US say North Korea risks further sanctions and isolation if it does not cancel its plans. Seoul has also warned it will shoot down the rocket if it strays over South Korean territory. Which countries have nuclear weapons? There are an estimated 20,000 warheads in the world’s combined stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Of these, almost 5,000 are considered operational and about 2,000 belonging to the US and Russia are believed to be ready for use at short notice. Although the exact number of nuclear weapons in each country’s possession is top secret, the Federation of American Scientists has made best estimates about the size and composition of national nuclear weapon stockpiles based on publicly available information. Their sources include the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Countries and their nuclear weapons |
Country | Operational and strategic weapons* | Total arsenal** | Source: Federation of American Scientists, as of 6 March 2012| Russia| 2,430| 10,000| US| 1,950| 8,500| France| 290| 300| China| 0| 240| UK| 160| 225| Pakistan| 0| 90-110| India| 0| 80-100| Israel| 0| 80| North Korea| 0| Fewer than 10| *Strategic weapons are designed to target cities, missile locations and military headquarters as part of a strategic plan **Total arsenal inventory includes non-strategic and non-deployed weapons as well as stockpiles North Korea’s missile programme
Continue reading the main story Related Stories * North Korea rocket plan condemned * N Korea agrees to nuclear freeze * North Korea country profile North Korea is believed to have more than 1,000 missiles of varying capabilities, including long-range missiles which could one day strike the US. Pyongyang’s programme has progressed over the last few decades from tactical artillery rockets in the 1960s and 70s to short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles in the 1980s and 90s. Systems capable of greater ranges are understood to be under research and development.
According to the Council on Foreign Relations, an independent think-tank, some of North Korea’s missiles also have the capability to carry nuclear warheads. However, the country is not yet thought to have developed such warheads. The country’s missile programme has mainly been developed from the Scud. It first obtained tactical missiles from the Soviet Union as early as 1969, but its first Scuds reportedly came via Egypt in 1976. Egypt is believed to have supplied North Korea with missiles and designs in return for its support against Israel in the Yom Kippur War.
By 1984, North Korea was building its own Scuds, the Hwasong-5 and Hwasong-6, as well as a medium-range missile, the Nodong. Its latest missile combines these technologies to give a long-range missile, the Taepodong. In 2006 and 2009 it test-fired a new missile called the Taepodong-2, which experts say could have a range of many thousands of miles. The missile failed to perform on both occasions. Short range missiles North Korea is believed to be in possession of a variety of short-range missiles, such as the KN-02, which can reach up to 120km and could target military installations in neighbouring South Korea.
The Hwasong-5 and Hwasong-6, also known as Scud-B and C, have longer ranges of 300km and 500km respectively, according to the US Center for Nonproliferation Studies. These missiles can deliver conventional warheads, but may also have biological, chemical and nuclear capabilities. The Hwasong-5 and 6 have both been tested and deployed, defence experts believe, and would enable North Korea to strike any area in South Korea. Relations between the two Koreas are fraught and they remain, technically, in a state of war. The two countries never signed a peace treaty after an armistice ended their 1950-53 conflict.
They are separated by one of the world’s most heavily fortified borders and both have strong military capabilities. Nodong missile North Korea went on to embark on a programme in the late 1980s to build a new missile, known as the Nodong, with a range of 1,000km. Its likely target is Japan. But, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, little is actually known about the development, production, and deployment of the Nodong. The institute believes the weapon is not accurate enough for effective use against military targets, such as US military bases in Japan.
A March 2006 report by the US Center for Non-proliferation Studies, concluded it had a “circular error probable” of 2km to 4km, meaning that half the missiles fired would fall outside a circle of that radius. Analysts therefore believe that should the Nodong be used as a weapon against Japan, it could lead to high levels of civilian casualties. Musudan missile The Musudan, also known as the Nodong-B or the Taepodong-X, is an intermediate-range ballistic missile. Its likely targets are Okinawa, Japan, and US bases in the Pacific.
Range estimates differ dramatically. Israeli intelligence believes they have a 2,500km range while the US Missile Defense Agency estimates they have a range of 3,200km; other sources put the upper limit at 4,000km. These differences are due in large part to the fact that the missile has never been tested publicly, according to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Its payload is also unknown. Taepodong-1 and 2 missiles (including the Unha space launcher) The Taepodong-1 – known as Paektusan-1 in North Korea – was the country’s first multi-stage missile.
Based on satellite photographs, independent think-tank the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) believes the first stage is a Nodong missile and the second stage a Hwasong-6. Continue reading the main story Missile ranges * Short range: 1,000km or less * Medium range: 1,000-3,000km * Intermediate range: 3,000-5,500 km * Intercontinental: Greater than 5,500km Source: Federation of American Scientists It has an estimated range of 2,200km, but is understood to be even less accurate than the Nodong. The Taepodong-1 is understood to have test flown once in August 1998 as a space launcher.
Instead of a normal ballistic missile payload, the missile carried a third stage that was meant to send a small satellite into low Earth orbit. The FAS believes that although the first two stages worked, the third stage did not function correctly and no satellite entered orbit. The federation also says it is possible the Taepodong-1 was always meant as a space launcher and was never intended to be an intermediate range military missile. The Taepodong-2 – or Paektusan-2 – is also a two to three-stage ballistic missile, but is a significant advance on the Taepodong-1. Its range has been estimated at anything between 5,000-15,000km.
The Center for Nonproliferation Studies puts the figure at a maximum estimated 6,000km. Taepodong-2 and its technology has been flight tested twice – in 2006 and 2009. It failed to perform on both occasions. In the early morning of 5 July 2006 (still 4 July in the US), it flew only 42 seconds before exploding – according to US sources. A three-stage space launcher version of the Taepodong-2 was then used in a failed attempt to send a satellite into space in April 2009. The launch was widely condemned by the US and South Korea, among others, as cover for a long-range missile test.
North Korea refers to the space launcher version of the Taepodong-2 as Unha – Korean for galaxy – and describes it as a “carrier rocket”. Although space launches and missile launches follow slightly different trajectories and the rocket may be optimised for one purpose or the other, the basic technology used is the same. This includes the structure, engines, and fuel. If the Taepodong-2 were successfully launched and it reached its maximum estimated range, its increased power could put Australia and parts of the US, among other countries, within range. North Korea profile * Overview * Facts * Leaders * Media Timeline For decades North Korea has been one of the world’s most secretive societies. It is one of the few countries still under nominally communist rule. North Korea’s nuclear ambitions have exacerbated its rigidly maintained isolation from the rest of the world. The country emerged in 1948 amid the chaos following the end of World War II. Its history is dominated by its Great Leader, Kim Il-sung, who shaped political affairs for almost half a century. After the Korean War, Kim Il-sung introduced the personal philosophy of Juche, or self-reliance, which became a guiding light for North Korea’s development.
Kim Il-sung died in 1994, but the post of president has been assigned “eternally” to him. Continue reading the main story At a glance * Politics: A family dynasty heads a secretive, communist regime which tolerates no dissent * Economy: North Korea’s command economy is dilapidated, hit by natural disasters, poor planning and a failure to modernise * International: The armistice of 1953 ended armed conflict on the Korean peninsular, but the two Koreas are technically still at war; tensions have been exacerbated in recent decades by North Korea’s nuclear ambitions Country profiles compiled by BBC Monitoring
Decades of this rigid state-controlled system have led to stagnation and a leadership dependent on the cult of personality. Aid agencies have estimated that up to two million people have died since the mid-1990s because of acute food shortages caused by natural disasters and economic mismanagement. The country relies on foreign aid to feed millions of its people. The totalitarian state also stands accused of systematic human rights abuses. Reports of torture, public executions, slave labour, and forced abortions and infanticides in prison camps have emerged.
A US-based rights group has estimated that there are up to 200,000 political prisoners in North Korea. Pyongyang has accused successive South Korean governments of being US “puppets”, but South Korean President Kim Dae-jung’s visit in 2000 signalled a thaw in relations. Seoul’s “sunshine policy” towards the North aimed to encourage change through dialogue and aid. Nuclear tensions This tentative reaching-out to the world was dealt a blow in 2002 by Pyongyang’s decision to reactivate a nuclear reactor and to expel international inspectors.
In October 2006 North Korea said it had successfully tested a nuclear weapon, spreading alarm throughout the region. Since then, intensive diplomatic efforts have aimed to rein in North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. After years of on-and-off talks, a deal was thrashed out in February 2007 under which Pyongyang agreed to shut down its main nuclear reactor in return for aid and diplomatic concessions. But negotiations stalled as North Korea accused its negotiating partners – the US, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia – of failing to meet agreed obligations.
North Korean soldiers keep watch over the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Tensions between North Korea and the rest of the world increased steadily again from late 2008 onwards, especially after the new South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak, ended his predecessor’s “sunshine policy” of rapprochement with the North. In April 2009 North Korea walked out of international talks aimed at ending its nuclear activities. The following month the country carried out its second underground nuclear test and announced that it no longer considered itself bound by the terms of the 1953 truce that ended the war between the two Koreas.
Tensions reached a new high in spring 2010, when the South accused North Korea of sinking one of its warships, the Cheonan, and cut off all cross-border trade. Pyongyang denied the claims, and in turn severed all ties with Seoul. After the US imposed tough sanctions in August, the North began to make overtures again. Its then leader, Kim Jong-il, signalled a readiness to resume six-party nuclear talks during a visit to China, and indicated a willingness to accept Southern aid to cope with major flood damage.
Kim Jong-il’s successor in December 2011, his third son Kim Jong-un, continued the dynastic policy of sending out mixed signals. He agreed to suspend long-range missile tests in order to receive US food aid in February 2012, only to challenge the US and the other frontline states almost immediately by announcing a forthcoming “rocket-launched satellite” for April, to mark Kim Il-Sung’s birthday. In October 2012, Pyongyang responded to the unveiling of a new missile deal between Seoul and Washington by saying that it had missiles capable of hitting the US mainland.
North Korea maintains one of the world’s largest standing armies and militarism pervades everyday life. But standards of training, discipline and equipment in the force are reported to be low. Q&A: North Korea nuclear programme Negotiations over North Korea’s nuclear programme have been a stop-start process North Korea’s nuclear programme remains a source of deep concern for the international community, amid reports from South Korea suggesting Pyongyang is planning a third nuclear test. The BBC looks at North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and multi-national efforts to curtail them.
Has North Korea got the bomb? Not yet. In 2006 and again in 2009 North Korea announced that it had conducted successful nuclear weapons tests. Satellite data from P’unggye-yok, in a remote area in the east of the country, appeared to tally with claims that the experiments had been conducted underground. The North is believed to possess enough weapons-grade plutonium for at least six bombs – but experts say it has not yet solved the problem of making a nuclear warhead small enough to fit into a missile. Opinions vary on how close the regime is to completing this process of “miniaturisation”.
American expert Siegfried Hecker told South Korea’s Yonhap news agency late last year that a third nuclear test could be sufficient for them to master the technology. Mr Hecker is one of the few people to have seen the North’s capabilities first-hand. In 2010, he was shown a uranium-enrichment facility with 1,000 centrifuges and said he was “stunned” by the sophistication of the plant. He said he saw no evidence that the fuel was for anything other than generating power, but added that it could be “readily converted to produce highly enriched uranium bomb fuel”. What does the regime say about its programme?
Over the years Pyongyang has issued brash, contradictory and often inflammatory statements about its programme. After the 2009 nuclear test, an official communique stated that the test was “part of measures to enhance the Republic’s self-defensive nuclear deterrent in all directions”. And in a rare unguarded moment after the 2006 test, deputy foreign minister Kang Sok-ju told reporters: “Why would we abandon nuclear weapons? Are you saying we conducted a nuclear test in order to abandon them? ” Yet Pyongyang also regularly proclaims that it is committed to a nuclear-free Korean peninsula.
It has frequently promised to give up part or all of its programme in return for aid. In February 2012, the regime promised to allow UN inspectors back into the country and to suspend uranium enrichment in return for US food aid. But shortly after that it launched a rocket in apparent defiance of UN resolutions banning missile tests, leaving that deal dead in the water. What has the international community done about the programme? Multiple rounds of negotiations have taken place between the North, the US, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea aimed at persuading Pyongyang to give up its nuclear ambitions.
In September 2005, after more than two years of on-off talks, North Korea agreed a landmark deal to give up its nuclear ambitions in return for economic aid and political concessions. But implementing the deal proved extremely difficult and the talks stalled in April 2009 over the issue of whether North Korea was fully disclosing its nuclear assets. In July 2011, contact began again between the US and North Korea aimed at restarting the talks. Less than six months later, North Korea’s long-time leader Kim Jong-il died. He was succeeded by his son, the young and inexperienced Kim Jong-un.
In February 2012 North Korea suddenly announced it had agreed to suspend nuclear activities. It also said it was placing a moratorium on nuclear and long-range missile tests. Its reward would be food aid from the US. But that deal has now been suspended following Pyongyang’s 13 April 2012 rocket launch. What is the current state of the North’s programme? The Yongbyon site is thought to be North Korea’s main nuclear facility. The North has pledged several times to halt operations there and even destroyed the tower in 2008.
But both the US and South Korea have said in the past that they believed the North had additional sites linked to a uranium-enrichment programme. And Mr Hecker’s revelations in 2010 of a hitherto undeclared plant suggest that clandestine nuclear work is continuing. In December 2010, US State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said that the work being done at the site shown to Mr Hecker could not have been achieved if other related sites did not already exist. “We’re very conscious of the fact that, in the recent revelations to American delegations, what they saw did not come out of thin air,” he said. It certainly reflects work being done at at least one other site. ” Why does the issue of North Korea’s nuclear capability matter so much? The two Koreas remain technically at war, since no peace treaty was signed after the 1950-53 Korean conflict. Tension has been high since an international panel blamed North Korea for sinking a South Korean navy warship in March 2010, with the loss of 46 lives. Ties were further strained in November 2010, when North Korea shelled a border island, killing four South Koreans.
North Korea has a million-strong army and its border with the South is one of the most militarised in the world. Pyongyang’s nuclear tests have sparked debate in Japan on allowing its military the option to launch a pre-emptive strike if it fears a missile attack. A fully nuclear North Korea could trigger an East Asian arms race, as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, for instance, consider whether to go nuclear as well. North Korea claims nuclear plant progress Pyongyang says it has made rapid advances in building a light-water reactor and enriching uranium * Share 45 * * * inShare10 Email * Associated Press in Seoul * guardian. co. uk, Wednesday 30 November 2011 07. 38 GMT Pyongyang says it is making rapid progress on work to enrich uranium and build a light-water nuclear power plant Link to this video North Korea says it is making rapid progress on work to enrich uranium and build a light-water nuclear power plant, increasing worries that the country is developing another way to make atomic weapons. Pyongyang’s foreign ministry said in a statement that the construction of an experimental light-water reactor and low enriched uranium were “progressing apace”.
It added that North Korea had a sovereign right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy and that “neither concession nor compromise should be allowed”. Concerns about North Korea’s atomic capability took on renewed urgency in November 2010 when the country disclosed a uranium enrichment facility that could give it a second route to manufacture nuclear weapons, in addition to its existing plutonium-based programme. North Korea has been building a light-water reactor at its main Yongbyon nuclear complex since last year. Such a reactor is ostensibly for civilian energy purposes, but it would give the North a reason to enrich uranium.
At low levels, uranium can be used in power reactors, but at higher levels it can be used in nuclear bombs. Earlier this month, North Korean state media said “the day is near at hand” when the reactor will come into operation. Washington has concerns about reported progress on the reactor construction, saying it would violate UN security council resolutions. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, speaking to reporters on Wednesday at an international aid forum in the South Korean port city of Busan, did not address the North’s statement on uranium.
She called the US-South Korean alliance strong and mentioned the recent first anniversary of North Korea’s artillery attack on a frontline South Korean island that killed four. “Let me reaffirm that the United States stands with our ally, and we look to North Korea to take concrete steps that promote peace and stability and denuclearisation,” Clinton said. Five countries, including the US, have been in on-again, off-again talks with North Korea to provide Pyongyang with aid in exchange for disarmament. North Korea pulled out of nuclear disarmament talks in early 2009 in protest at international condemnation of ts prohibited long-range rocket test. In recent months North Korea has repeatedly expressed its willingness to rejoin the talks, and tensions between the Koreas have eased. Diplomats from the Koreas and the UShave had separate nuclear talks, and cultural and religious visits by South Koreans to the North have resumed. South Korean and US officials, however, have demanded that Pyongyang halt its uranium-enrichment programme, freeze nuclear and missile tests and allow international inspectors back into the country before resuming negotiations.
The North Korean statement on Wednesday accused the U S and its allies of “groundlessly” taking issue with the North’s peaceful nuclear activities. They are “deliberately laying a stumbling block in the way of settling the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula through dialogue and negotiations”, the statement said. Kim Yong-hyun, a professor at Dongguk University in Seoul, said the North’s statement appeared aimed at applying pressure on Washington and the international community to rejoin the nuclear disarmament talks quickly. “North Korea is expected to step up its rhetoric,” he said.
History of Nuclear proliferation The impetus behind the NPT was concern for the safety of a world with many nuclear weapon states. It was recognized that the cold war deterrent relationship between just the United States and Soviet Union was fragile. Having more nuclear nuclear-weapon states would reduce security for all, multiplying the risks of miscalculation, accidents, unauthorized use of weapons, or from escalation in tensions, nuclear conflict. The NPT process was launched by Frank Aiken, Irish Minister for External Affairs, in 1958.
It was opened for signature in 1968, with Finland the first State to sign. Accession became nearly universal after the end of the Cold War and of South African apartheid. In 1992 China and France acceded to the NPT, the last of the five nuclear powers recognized by the treaty to do so. In 1995 the treaty was extended indefinitely. After Brazil acceded to the NPT in 1998 the only remaining non-nuclear-weapons state which had not signed was Cuba, which joined NPT (and the Treaty of Tlatelolco NWFZ) in 2002. Several NPT signatories have given up nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons programs.
South Africa undertook a nuclear weapons program, allegedly with the assistance of Israel in the 1970s, and may have conducted a nuclear test in the Indian Ocean in 1979, but has since renounced its nuclear program and signed the treaty in 1991 after destroying its small nuclear arsenal; after this, the remaining African countries signed the treaty. Several former Soviet Republics, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, destroyed or transferred to Russia the nuclear weapons they inherited from the Soviet Union.
The former Soviet republics joined NPT by 1994. Successor states from the breakups of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia also joined the treaty soon after their independence. Montenegro and East Timor were the last countries to sign the treaty on their independence in 2006 and 2003; the only other country to sign in the 21st century was Cuba in 2002. The three Micronesian countries in Compact of Free Association with the USA joined NPT in 1995, along with Vanuatu. Major South American countries Argentina, Chile, and Brazil joined in 1995 and 1998.
Arabian Peninsula countries included Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in 1988, Qatar and Kuwait in 1989, UAE in 1995, and Oman in 1997. The tiny European states of Monaco and Andorra joined in 1995-6. Also signing in the 1990s were Myanmar in 1992 and Guyana in 1993. See also: North Korea and weapons of mass destruction, 2006 North Korean nuclear test, and Six-party talks North Korea ratified the treaty on December 12, 1985, but gave notice of withdrawal from the treaty on January 10, 2003 following U. S. allegations that it had started an illegal enriched uranium weapons program, and the U.
S. subsequently stopping fuel oil shipments under the Agreed Framework[52] which had resolved plutonium weapons issues in 1994. [53] The withdrawal became effective April 10, 2003 making North Korea the first state ever to withdraw from the treaty. [54] North Korea had once before announced withdrawal, on March 12, 1993, but suspended that notice before it came into effect. [55] On February 10, 2005, North Korea publicly declared that it possessed nuclear weapons and pulled out of the six-party talks hosted by China to find a diplomatic solution to the issue. We had already taken the resolute action of pulling out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and have manufactured nuclear arms for self-defence to cope with the Bush administration’s evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea],” a North Korean Foreign Ministry statement said regarding the issue. [56] Six-party talks resumed in July 2005. On September 19, 2005, North Korea announced that it would agree to a preliminary accord. Under the accord, North Korea would scrap all of its existing nuclear weapons and nuclear production facilities, rejoin the NPT, and readmit IAEA inspectors.
The difficult issue of the supply of light water reactors to replace North Korea’s indigenous nuclear power plant program, as per the 1994 Agreed Framework, was left to be resolved in future discussions. [57] On the next day North Korea reiterated its known view that until it is supplied with a light water reactor it will not dismantle its nuclear arsenal or rejoin the NPT. [58] On October 2, 2006, the North Korean foreign minister announced that his country was planning to conduct a nuclear test “in the future”, although it did not state when. 59] On Monday, October 9, 2006 at 01:35:28 (UTC) the United States Geological Survey detected a magnitude 4. 3 seismic event 70 km (43 mi) north of Kimchaek, North Korea indicating a nuclear test. [60] The North Korean government announced shortly afterward that they had completed a successful underground test of a nuclear fission device. In 2007, reports from Washington suggested that the 2002 CIA reports stating that North Korea was developing an enriched uranium weapons program, which led to North Korea leaving the NPT, had overstated or misread the intelligence. 61][62][63][64] On the other hand, even apart from these press allegations—which some critics worry could have been planted in order to justify the United States giving up trying to verify the dismantlement of Pyongyang’s uranium program in the face of North Korean intransigence—there remains some information in the public record indicating the existence of a uranium effort. Quite apart from the fact that North Korean First Vice Minister Kang Sok Ju at one point admitted the existence of a uranium enrichment program, Pakistan’s then-President Musharraf revealed that the A.
Q. Khan proliferation network had provided North Korea with a number of gas centrifuges designed for uranium enrichment. Additionally, press reports have cited U. S. officials to the effect that evidence obtained in dismantling Libya’s WMD programs points toward North Korea as the source for Libya’s uranium hexafluoride (UF6) — which, if true, would mean that North Korea has a uranium conversion facility for producing feedstock for centrifuge enrichment. [65] The history of nuclear weapons chronicles the development of nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons possess enormous destructive potential derived from nuclear fission or nuclear fusion reactions. Starting with scientific breakthroughs of the 1930s made by the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom during World War II in what was called the Manhattan Project to counter the assumed Nazi German atomic bomb project. In August 1945 two were dropped on Japan ending the Pacific War. An international team was dispatched to help work on the project.
The Soviet Union started development shortly thereafter with their own atomic bomb project, and not long after that both countries developed even more powerful fusion weapons called “hydrogen bombs. ” There have been (at least) four major false alarms, the most recent in 1995, that resulted in the activation of either the US’s or Russia’s nuclear attack early warning protocols. [1] North Korea Main article: Ryanggang explosion On September 9, 2004 it was reported by South Korean media that there had been a large explosion at the Chinese/North Korean border.
This explosion left a crater visible by satellite and precipitated a large (2 mile diameter) mushroom cloud. The United States and South Korea quickly downplayed this, explaining it away as a forest fire that had nothing to do with the DPRK’s nuclear weapons program. List of most powerful nuclear tests The following incomplete list contains nuclear tests conducted with a yield of over 10 Mt TNT. Date| Yield| Test mode| Country| Test Site| Remarks| October 30, 1961| 50 Mt| air-drop| Soviet Union| Novaya Zemlya| Tsar Bomba| December 24, 1962| 24. Mt| air-drop| Soviet Union| Novaya Zemlya| Test 219| August 5, 1961| 21. 1 Mt| air-drop| Soviet Union| Novaya Zemlya| | September 25, 1962| 19. 1 Mt| air-drop| Soviet Union| Novaya Zemlya| | February 28, 1954| 15 Mt| ground| USA| Bikini Atoll| Castle Bravo| May 5, 1954| 13. 5 Mt| sea surface| USA| Bikini Atoll| Castle Yankee| October 23, 1961| 12. 5 Mt| air-drop| Soviet Union| Novaya Zemlya| | March 26, 1954| 11 Mt| sea surface| USA| Bikini Atoll| Castle Romeo| November 1, 1952| 10. 4 Mt| ground| USA| Eniwetok| Ivy Mike| September 27, 1962| 10 Mt| air-drop| Soviet
Union| Novaya Zemlya| | Background Korea has been a divided country since 1945, when it was liberated from the defeated Japan after World War II. The Korean War was fought from June 25, 1950, until an Armistice Agreement was signed on July 27, 1953. As part of the Armistice, both sides, including U. S. forces, conduct military patrols within the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). [citation needed] In September 1956 the U. S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Radford told the U. S. Department of State that the U. S. ilitary intention was to introduce atomic weapons into Korea. From January 1957 the U. S. National Security Council considered, on President Eisenhower’s instruction, and then agreed this. However, paragraph 13(d) of the Korean Armistice Agreement mandated that both sides should not introduce new types of weapons into Korea, so preventing the introduction of nuclear weapons and missiles. The U. S. decided to unilaterally abrogate paragraph 13(d), breaking the Armistice Agreement, despite concerns by United Nations allies. 8][9] At a June 21, 1957, meeting of the Military Armistice Commission the U. S. informed the North Korean representatives that the U. N. Command no longer considered itself bound by paragraph 13(d) of the armistice. [10] In August 1957 NSC 5702/2[11] permitting the deployment of nuclear weapons in Korea was approved. [8] In January 1958 nuclear armed Honest John missiles and 280mm atomic cannons were deployed to South Korea,[12] a year later adding nuclear armed Matador cruise missiles with the range to reach China and the Soviet Union. 8][13] North Korea denounced the abrogation of paragraph 13(d) as an attempt to wreck the armistice agreement and turn Korea into a U. S. atomic warfare zone. At the U. N. General Assembly in November 1957 the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia condemned the decision of the United Nations Command to introduce nuclear weapons into Korea. [9] North Korea responded militarily by digging massive underground fortifications resistant to nuclear attack, and forward deployment of its conventional forces so that the use of nuclear weapons against it would endanger South Korean and U.
S. forces as well. In 1963 North Korea asked the Soviet Union for help in developing nuclear weapons, but was refused. However, instead the Soviet Union agreed to help North Korea develop a peaceful nuclear energy program, including the training of nuclear scientists. China later, after its nuclear tests, similarly rejected North Korean requests for help with developing nuclear weapons. [8] Tensions between North and South have run high on numerous occasions since 1953. The deployment of the U. S.
Army’s Second Infantry Division on the Korean peninsula and the American military presence at the DMZ are publicly regarded by North Korea as an occupying army. In several areas, North Korean and American/South Korean forces operate in extreme proximity to the border, adding to tension. This tension has led to numerous clashes, including the Axe Murder Incident of 1976. In the early 1960s security concerns in the region and an apparent Soviet dismissal of these concerns hastened the DPRK’s efforts to acquire the technology to produce nuclear weapons.
In the wake of the student-led April 19 movement in 1960 that overthrew the South Korean president Rhee Syngman and the May 16, 1961, military coup d’etat that brought General Park Chung-hee to power in the south, North Korea sought a mutual defense treaty with the Soviet Union and China. Soviet leaders reportedly did not even consider such a pact necessary, despite the military posture of the anti-communist Park regime, as long as the Soviets improved relations with the United States. 14] Perhaps the two most important factors in North Korea’s attempts to obtain nuclear weapons and become militarily self-reliant were the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 and the prospect of a US–Japan–ROK alliance following the 1965 establishment of diplomatic relations between the ROK and Japan. Kim Il-sung reportedly did not trust that the Soviets would live up to the conditions of the mutual defense pact and guarantee North Korea’s security since they betrayed Castro by withdrawing nuclear missiles in an effort to improve relations with the United States.
As a North Korean official explained to Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin in 1965, “the Korean leaders were distrustful of the CPSU and the Soviet government, they could not count on that the Soviet government would keep the obligations related to the defense of Korea it assumed in the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance, Kim Il-sung said, and therefore they were compelled to keep an army of 700,000 and a police force of 200,000. In explaining the cause of such mistrust, the official claimed that “the Soviet Union had betrayed Cuba at the time of the Caribbean crisis. “[15] However, as recently declassified Russian, Hungarian, and East German materials confirm, no communist governments were willing to share the technology with the North Koreans, out of fear that they would share the technology with China. [16] With the collapse of the Soviet Union, North Korean leaders recognized the need for a new security relationship with a major power since Pyongyang could not afford to maintain its military posture.
North Korean leaders therefore sought to forge a new relationship with the United States, the only power strong enough to step into the vacuum left by the collapse of the Soviet Union. From the early 1990s, throughout the first nuclear crisis, North Korea sought a non-aggression pact with the United States. The U. S. rejected North Korean calls for bilateral talks concerning a non-aggression pact, and stated that only six-party talks that also include the People’s Republic of China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea are acceptable.
The American stance was that North Korea had violated prior bilateral agreements, thus such forums lacked accountability. Conversely, North Korea refused to speak in the context of six-party talks, stating that it would only accept bilateral talks with the United States. This led to a diplomatic stalemate. On October 9, 2006, the North Korean government issued an announcement that it had successfully conducted a nuclear test for the first time. Both the United States Geological Survey and Japanese seismological authorities detected an earthquake with a preliminary estimated magnitude of 4. in North Korea, corroborating some aspects of the North Korean claims. [4] On November 19, 2006, North Korea’s Minju Joson newspaper accused South Korea of building up arms in order to attack the country, claiming that “the South Korean military is openly clamoring that the development and introduction of new weapons are to target the North. ” North Korea accused South Korea of conspiring with the United States to attack it, an accusation made frequently by the North and routinely denied by the United States. 17] The United Nations Security Council condemned the test in Resolution 1874. On May 25, 2009, North Korea conducted a second test of a nuclear weapon at the same location as the original test (not confirmed). The test weapon was of the same magnitude as the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in the 2nd World War, (confirmed South Korea and Russia). At the same time of the test North Korea tested two short range missiles (reported a South Korean News Network YTN – not officially confirmed). In July 2011, Abdul Qadeer Khan, the key figure in Pakistan’s nuclear weapons evelopment, allegedly claimed that North Korea had gained access to Pakistan’s nuclear technology in the late 1990s by paying bribes to Pakistan’s senior military officials, a claim Pakistan’s senior officials disputed. Khan stated that he had personally helped transfer $3 million in gratuities to senior Pakistan’s military officers, though he neither provided any proofs to his claims. [18] Chronology of events Main article: Timeline of North Korea nuclear program [edit] Plutonium | This section needs additional citations for verification. (October 2009)| MWe experimental reactor at Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center North Korea has had two operating reactors, both located at the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center. The older reactor is a Russian supplied IRT-2000 research reactor completed in 1967. [19] Uranium irradiated in this reactor was used in North Korea’s first plutonium separation experiments in 1975. [20] Nevertheless, the primary purpose of the reactor is not to produce plutonium and North Korea has had trouble acquiring enough fuel for constant operation. The U. S.
Department of Energy estimated that this reactor could have been used to produce up to 1–2 kg of plutonium, thoug

Combating the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Terrorism

Counter-terrorism

Counter-terrorism.
What is counterterrorism? Why is it important to understand the motivations behind terrorism efforts? What kind of general motives might you find among terrorists in this country and abroad? Counter-terrorism is a combination of practices, strategies, techniques and practices that the various governments, police departments and the military service units use to stop terrorism acts with both the response to completed acts and the detection of potential terror acts included in counter-terrorism.

The techniques and practices used in counter-terrorism aim at preventing or stopping certain terrorism acts, with the strategies usually offensive in operation. One major reason why the motivations behind terrorism efforts need to be understood is its great role in the development and implementation of effective counter-terrorism strategies. Since counter-terrorism measures depend on the nature of the terrorism act being mitigated, it is vital to identify how and why certain terrorism act is undertaken in order to also combat it successfully.

Understanding the motivation behind terrorism efforts forms the base for the development of an effective countering action where lack of a clear understanding of all the issues surrounding a terror act, makes the possibility of curbing the act properly and effectively almost impossible (Bolz. F et al. 2001). In addition, understanding the motive behind terrorism efforts allows the appropriate government organizations to select amongst the many, an effective action to counter a terrorism act that seems like an isolated event.
This kind of understanding promotes good intelligence which forms a very vital component of preparing an effective counter-terrorism strategy. Another reason why identification of terrorist motives is vital is the huge role it plays in hunting down hard-core terrorist. It is through proper knowledge of a terrorist’s motives, that a government can isolate the hard-core terrorists and cut them off from external supplies. This makes it possible for the terrorists to be referred to as criminals, making it easy to hunt terrorists according to the law and with popular support.
When a government or an organization plans and implements a counter-terrorism strategy, there is need to understand how terrorism efforts violate the human rights. This in turn enables the governments to develop effective measures that ensure that severe and appropriate actions are taken against the terrorists who are viewed as human rights violators, a situation that may repel others from participating in terrorists’ activities.
Counter-terrorism experts are able to eradicate any terrorist organization if they correctly and accurately understand the terrorists’ motives, where one is able to understand the terrorists’ thoughts so that one can anticipate their next move correctly to stop it on time. In the USA and other countries, terrorist’s motives are many and they vary (Crank, J. et al.. 2005). In the USA, Some of the general motives that might be found in terrorists include, political motives, fighting for the injustice of a given group of people, economic superiority as well as the creation of fear and a sense of insecurity in the American citizens.
When they view themselves as the underserved underdogs on a mission, the terrorists use the strategy of using the weak to weaken the strong and to strengthen the weak. Question 2 Is counterterrorism a tactic of warfare or crime-fighting? What role does due process play in either context? What are the implications when terrorists can be characterized as the “enemy” rather than mere criminals? Counterterrorism can be used as both a warfare tactic or as a crime fighting tactic. However, in the United States counterterrorism is usually used as a crime- fighting tactic.
For instance, the computer and the Internet are used to undertake warfare actions through the cyber space. Counter terrorism as a warfare tactic is then used and can be used to stop people from using terrorism tactics against a given nation or organization. In such a case, comprehensive tools can be used to deal with possible terrorist incidents and can further be used to repulse attacks that have been directed against a nation. As a crime fighting tactic, counter terrorism is used by the law enforcement authorities to hunt down terrorists who have been labeled as criminals.
The authorities normally cut off hard-core terrorists from external sources of supply so as to label terrorists as criminals, and then use the law to easily hunt the terrorists down (Combs. 2005). When terrorists are referred to as “enemy” instead of “criminal,” it encourages more terrorist’s attacks or strengthening of terrorist organizations. For example, it leads to the recruitment of more followers in the terrorist organizations because those who are recruited have developed great desire to become fighters against their enemy.
The labeling of terrorists as an enemy serves as a motivation for every group to strengthen itself to attack another group they view as “enemy”. It further encourages terrorism behavior of solidarity, loyalty and self protection even when the group faces difficult times. The members get convinced that they need to protect themselves from a group that views them as an “enemy’. Finally, referring to terrorists as ‘enemy’ instead of criminals makes it very hard for the concerned organization or government to hunt down the terrorist according to the law.
In addition, the organization lacks the popular support to hunt down the terrorists (Crank. J et al.. 2005) because they are seen as just revenging against other people with an unjustified reason. The terrorists cannot be tracked down in pursuit of justice which makes it difficult to use force against hard-core terrorists with the use of brutal force generating more terrorism and terrorists. Question 3 How has surveillance changed from the “traditional” to “new surveillance”? Are these changes potentially problematic for civil liberties in any way in the United States?
Should law enforcement be permitted to use all technological resources available to accomplish its mission including in the fight against terror? Are there limits? Traditionally, counterterrorism strategies and techniques against terror acts were hugely the responsibility of the military force, and the level of surveillance not as intensive as it is in the new strategies of surveillance. The major reason for this is that in the past, terrorism acts were not as many as they are in the modern world.
Traditional institutions approved surveillance only when it was seriously necessary to do so, as compared to new surveillance which has been blamed for overstepping the bounders. The ever increasing terrorist attacks against certain states in the world have demanded the development of many and effect counter terrorism measures through surveillance, in comparison to the traditional surveillance. In new surveillance, building of the counterterrorism plans has integrated all the segments of the society or government agencies (Mahan, S and Griset, P. 2007).
New surveillance has seen the development of counterterrorism strategies that have increased both the standard of the police as well as domestic intelligence. While traditional surveillance involved the interception of communication and tracing of the suspected terrorists, new surveillance has expanded its ways of operation due to the advancement in technology. For instance, new surveillance has managed to expand the range of both the law and the military enforcement operations. The direction of domestic intelligence at specific groups that is based on origin and religion is a feature of the new surveillance.
Mass surveillance is also done in new surveillance where an entire population is investigated. In the United States, changes in the surveillance have raised concerns based on the civil liberties. One good example is the mass surveillance which involves the surveillance of an entire population, an issue that has been objected since it is considered to defy civil liberty of the citizens (http://www. usatoday. com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa-x. htm). The surveillance defies the citizen’s liberty in that mass surveillance is done whether or not there is the consent of those being surveyed.
Furthermore, surveillance is done whether it serves or it does not serve the citizen’s interest. For instance, use of a network of secret police informers is considered a new surveillance abuse. In the United States, the government has been accused of illegally cooperating with the National Security Agency to monitor the US citizens’ phone records. Further allegations that the government has conducted electronic surveillances of domestic phone calls without warrants are an issue that has been said to go against the civil liberty.
However, the law enforcement organizations should not be fully allowed to use technological resources to fight terror. This is because uncontrolled use consequently may result to severe negative effects. For instance, there have been some instances where technological measures against terror have resulted to the abuse and violation of the human rights. The return and extradition of people within countries and restriction of freedom of citizens are some of the examples that violate human rights during the process of counterterrorism.
Invasion of people’s private lives through technology-advanced tools need to be stopped by limiting how far the law enforcement bodies should go to fight terror. Lack of a boundary within which technology can be used poses a great risk, where the authorities may undertake counterterrorism practices while they violate the human rights at the same time. Question 4 What is the FISA court? Explain how it works. What authorities can it grant law enforcement? How is it different from traditional courts? What concerns exist about expanding the use of FISA?
A FISA court refers to a secret court in the USA that has the responsibility of approving the wiretaps that target the terrorists. It was established and has been working since 1979 to ensure that terrorists and foreign agents are monitored. The FISA court was established under the 1978 US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The court has approved domestic wiretaps and has continued to handle very sensitive domestic wiretaps in the US national security investigations| (media filter. org/CAQ/cqq53. court. html). The FISA court operates through a process that is based on probable cause.
An application to a FISA court judge is normally made by the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) if it believes that it can show probable cause that the target of the surveillance is either a suspected terrorist or a foreign agent. The application should contain 4 documents; a request for a wiretap, FBI directors’ or executive branch official’s certification that information cannot be acquired through the normal investigative tactics, and an FBI supervisory affidavit with a statement of fact about the target of surveillance.
This is then followed by the submission of the documents to the Justice Department for the Justice Department attorneys’ review. The application is then forwarded to the FISA court and presented to a federal judge. There are 10 federal judges in the FISA court who sit on the court on a rotating basis. The FISA court grants authority to the law enforcement authorities based on the probable cause presented to them. It gives warrant to the authorities to conduct surveillance on a suspected target, if enough evidence is provided in the court to justify why a suspect should be surveyed.
It receives an application if the FBI director certifies that there is need to obtain information above the normal investigative tactics. Clear indication of facts about the target of surveillance is also demanded by the FISA court before they give the authority and the judges often demand for more details about the targeted communication to authorize or approve a wiretap. It maintains a high rate of secrecy where a judge can make an ultimate decision to approve a wiretap (FISA orders 1979-2004)
The FISA court is different from the traditional court in its secret nature of operation where the court makes approval of the applications in secret. Furthermore, the FISA court is considered to have acquired expanded authority than a traditional court to approve surveillance applications made, after President’s Clinton signing of the Executive Order 12949. Unlike in the traditional courts, the FISA court evidence can be used in criminal trials after the 1995 expansion as compared to the traditional courts where the evidence could only be collected and stockpiled only for intelligence purposes.
The FISA court has expanded powers and it has the authority to allow both the electronic and physical searches due to its expanded powers. The expansion of using the FISA court in the USA has raised great concern. One concern of the FISA court expansion is the possibility of government’s extreme intrusion into people’s private lives. Because the court operates secretly, government measures that may intrude into people’ lives unnecessarily may result. Another great concern is the fact that, it promotes surveillance that defies people of their liberty.
For instance, the expansion of the FISA court has made it able to give legal authority to approve black-bag operations, that authorize the Department of Justice to conduct both electronic and physical searches without an open court warrant. Furthermore, the subjects are not notified and an inventory of seized items not provided. Sometimes the surveillance allowed by the FISA court is considered to be unconstitutional. The Civil liberty lawyers in the United States have stated that some searches that have been conducted are unconstitutional.
It is a great worry that under the FISA court cover of secrecy, the court is likely to exceed its own broad legal mandate. The expansion of the court has been argued to have been motivated by the governments need to conduct searches they would not have been allowed to undertake under the nation’s national provisions. For instance, the US government may attempt and fail under the traditional constitutional argument to secure a search warrant, but it would go to FISA court and secure approval for a search by converting the case into a national security investigation. Question 5 How has aviation security changed since 9111?
What were the provision of the Aviation and Transportation Act? Did this Act change Aviation security in a dramatic way? What role does racial and religious profiling play in securing the aviation industry and its consumers? What role should it play? Before the 9/11 terrorist attack, the aviation security in the USA was the responsibility of the Federal Aviation Administration within the Department of transportation. However after the 9/11 attack there was great urgency in securing the US nation’s entire transportation systems. The federal agencies concerned with transport security were transferred to the Department of Homeland security (www.
encyclopedia. com/doc/iG2-34033000149. html). The need to increase aviation security after the 9/11 led to the enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Act on Nov 19, 2001. This saw the creation of the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) within the DOT (Department of Transportation). The Act permits the existing authorities to permit the TSA to flexibly manage and deploy the workforce to carry out important security work where the national security is concerned. The act mandates the increase in the number of federal air marshals and has placed the US airport security screeners under federal control.
All the screeners were required to be US citizens, though the provision was later changed by American Civil Liberties Union. It was the Act’s provision that all the bags in the airports to be first screened and then matched to the passengers. Another provision of the Act was the $1. 5 billion award to the airports and private contractors so that the direct costs of meeting new security requirements were met. Checks for baggage in the airports was made necessary with screening recommended by use of explosive detection machinery or manual methods.
The Act allowed the Transportation Secretary to authorize airports to use all the necessary equipment for the chemical and biological weapons detection. The Act did change the aviation security dramatically. For instance, before the 9/11 attack, the civil aviation security was handled by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). After the creation of the Act, the civil aviation security was put under the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). There were also changes in the federal statutes that covered aviation security (contained in title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Chapter XII).
The provisions that were made by the Act changed security practices in the airports with the airports implementing changes in the checking and screening procedures, where tight security procedures were and are still being developed. The placement of the airport security screeners under federal control made changes when all screeners were required to be US citizens and the matching of bags to passengers was made necessary with new security requirements adopted in airports. Racial and religious profiling in the US Aviation Security practices has been seen by some as illegal and inconsistent with American values (travelsecurity.
blogspot. com/2007/09lantos-warns-tsa-against-religious. html). Furthermore, this profiling is detrimental to the national security. Civil liberties of some religious groups have claimed that TSA employees conduct secondary screening for passengers wearing ‘religious’ clothing. For instance, TSA employees have discriminated the Sikh by ordering Sikh Americans to remove their turbans, which defies their faith. There have been an estimated 50 incidents of religious discrimination since the institution of the new policy. Racial and religious profiling has led to discrimination and humiliation of people including the ordinary Americans.
The practice leads to stereotyping of some citizens as terrorists and provokes a sense of fear against innocent citizens. The racial and religious profiling should instead promote changes that will prevent discrimination and humiliation of travelers. The profiling should not be used as a means of abuse but instead should be used with respect for the civilians. Exposing people to extra screening procedures simply because they belong to a certain race or religion should be done away with, but instead everyone subjected to the procedures to promote equality. References Bolz, F. , Dudonis, K. and Schulz, D.
(2001). The Counterterrorism Handbook: Tactics, Procedures and Techniques. Second Edition. CRC Publishers Crank, J. P. , & Gregor, P. E. 2005. Counter-Terrorism After 9/11: Justice, Security and Ethics Reconsidered. Cincinatti: Anderson Publishing Colangelo, P. The secret FISA court: Rubber Stamping on Rights. Covert Action Quarterly. Online at: media filter. org/CAQ/cqq53. court. html. Retrieved on June 26, 2008 Combs, (2005). Terrorism in the 21st Century, 4th Edition. Prentice Hall. FISA orders 1979-2004 Judson, K. Civil Aviation Security United States. Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence and
Security. 2004. Available at: www. encyclopedia. com/doc/iG2-34033000149. html. Retrieved on June 26, 2008 Lantos, T. US representative from California. Lantons Warns TSA Against Religious Profiling Insensitivity Sept 7, 2007. Online at: travelsecurity. blogspot. com/2007/09lantos-warns-tsa-against-religious. html. Retrieved on June 26, 2008 Mahan, S and Griset, P. 2007. Terrorism in Perspective. Sage Publications, Inc USA TODAY Com – NSA has Massive database of American’s phone calls http://www. usatoday. com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa-x. htm. Retrieved on June 26, 2008

Counter-terrorism

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Terrorism

Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century

Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century.
1. Philosohies and rules of war dictate that it is both sound and practical that groups with the same opponent and the same schema forge alliances or common supportive coexistence, and there is a very high probability that that dogma would be followed, considering the fact that terror group leaders are learned men.
But the question of having the same agenda is putting terrorism in a very general and pop culture perspective since the truth is that these types of militant extremists have, at some level, varying aims and goals. But another important point is the fact that these different groups can be brought together to act as one unit in a full scale operation. The best example of this tendency is the 9/11 bombing, described by the FBI a few days after the incident as a handiwork of an alliance of terrorists.
2. The pall of gloom that terrorism brought not just in the US but around the world is not just the threat to life, but as well as the threat to liberty. Because of the growing manhunt for suspected terrorists and the increased drive to take the upper hand and identify terrorists even before they can accomplish their missions, some elements of the law enforcement agencies are willing to overstep their boundaries marked by the exercise of individuals of their most basic human right, ready to trespass the domain of private communication with the use of many and all technologies available, including the Internet.

Terror groups also found the use of Internet for their cause – ransom demands are telecast via video streaming while home made and improvised bombs know-how is just a few mouse clicks away. For this new problem, the solution may lie in old practices – kill the head of the serpent and the body ceases to be dangerous. The Internet should not be the target, as US knows it cannot afford to start a new war – even in cyberspace.
3. Michael Hamm reported that motor vehicle violations, counterfeiting, smuggling weapons of mass destruction and armed bank robbery, are several criminal acts terrorist participate in. The most common criminal action that terrorists do is the falsification of documents and forgery. Almost every terrorist who entered the country carries a false identification. This criminal act is very crucial in the operation of terrorist cells in the country since the first and most important part of a terrorist mission is the entry of a terrorist in a country or place wherein the terrorist action would take place. This is the reason why border officials are consistently monitoring the many entry and exit points of the country.
4. The most significant findings and information contained in the Hamm report is the moving away of the image of the mythical militant extremists to purely purist forms of terrorism from the true terrorists which is much less now conformed in the mold of idealist / hero into nothing more than a common criminal.
The implications for the criminal justice system of this newfound knowledge consist of the possible responsibility law enforcement and criminal justice elements when it comes to profiling active and prospective terrorists by investigating the offenses for they are in trial for. Hamm concluded how a certain set of criminal acts bend towards particular groups as its identifiable crime suspects and this newfound information can be utilized as another efficient tool to battle terrorism.
5. Both international and domestic terrorism presents a clear and urgent threat to the US, simply because a threat to even one single life is an important issue to the US government, or to any government for that matter. Domestic and international terrorism may have many similarities and differences which include M.O. (method of operation), financing, training, orientation, goals, aims and motivation, strength in numbers, leadership hierarchy. Intelligence network and arms and ammunitions supplies, terrorism still wears the same face and the government’s efforts to counter it do not diminish based on the type of terror group it faces.
Terrorism and the government’s fight against it is a microcosm of the proverbial battle of good versus evil; the truth is that there will always be a group of people who will try to use force and intimidation to achieve there cause. Terrorists might have a different name in the future, and the government which the people created is always tasked to battle a constant threat to life presented by another man as a result of differences in ideology.
References:
Hamm, M. S. (2005). Crimes Committed by Terrorist Groups: Theory, Research and
Prevention. US Department of Justice. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/211203.pdf
Schmid, A. (2005). Links between Terrorism and Drug Trafficking: A Case of “Narco
terrorism”. Retrieved October 10, 2007.
Sisk, R. and Smith, G. B. (2001). Feds Have Names Of 19 In Dark Alliance. The New York
Daily News. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/2001/nydailynews091501.html
 
 
 
 

Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Terrorism

Terrorism at the Border

Terrorism at the Border.
Terrorism. What is it? Can anyone define it? Is terrorism when someone hits two buildings with airplanes to kill thousands? Or is it when someone smuggles drugs to a country. Could terrorism be violence or just causing harm to people in some way? Terrorism is defined in so many ways. The United States today is so much more involved with fighting the war on terrorism in far away countries like Afghanistan, then looking at the threat that is lying along the United States border. The violence at the Mexico border is terrorism. It is not only terrorism to Mexico but terrorism to the United States as well.
So many people have been terrorized by the violence that lies along the border of the United States and Mexico. The violence is stemming from the Mexico drug cartel’s who are smuggling drugs into the United States. There are not only innocent people being killed but there is also the members of the cartels that are being killed over the selling and smuggling of the drugs to the United States. There are also police officers, soldiers and most shockingly news reporters that are being murdered (Carpenter, T G (02/2/2009). Terrorism is seen in many different ways.
For example, in the Germany Holocaust, innocent people were killed because they were or thought to be Jewish. There were thousands of innocent people killed by one man who was attempting to gain control over a government. He used violence and chaos to eventually become president of Germany. How Hitler has so many innocent people killed is an act of terrorism (http://www. fff. org/freedom/fd0403a. asp). The killings of innocent people who are attempting to protect themselves from the cross fires of the Mexican Cartel’s are no different than the Jewish community attempting to hide from Hitler and his men.

With all the people getting killed, whether it is a drug cartel member, an officer of the law, or an innocent family hiding from the gunfire, it is terrorism. It is terrorism because it is a group of individuals attempting to gain power by killing. The Mexico drug trade is estimated as a twelve billion dollar business a year. It is said that Mexico gets their cocaine from Columbia and also has its own operations of marijuana and heroin. ( War without end. (2004). In 2006 alone the United States seized 2,238,075 pounds of marijuana at the border of Mexico (Katel, P. (2008, December 12).
The Mexico cartels are killing each other in brutal ways because they are fighting over areas along the border that are called “smuggling routes”. These routes are used to smuggle drugs from Mexico into the United States. (Carpenter, T G (02/2/2009). By the Mexico cartels getting the drugs into the United States and distributing them to the United States citizens that is terrorism. It is terrorism because it is causing harm to people and governing people who are addicted to these drugs. When a person is addicted to drugs they either have the mentality to stay addicted or get help off the drug.
When a person is addicted to a drug and does not want the help to get off, they then contribute to the terrorism of the Mexico cartels by needing the cartels to transport the drugs into the United States. Would that consider Americans terrorists too? Are they terrorists because they are supporting or supplying the Mexican Cartel’s with the funding or addictions needed to run a successful drug business? In many ways it is terrorism. Think of a terrorist group as a successful business. A successful business needs to sell its product to grow.
The more products it sells the more it can grow. By the cartel’s selling their drugs to the American people, the American’s are supporting terrorism. They are also supporting terrorism by selling the cartel’s the guns they use to do there terroristic acts of violence (http://www. nytimes. com/2009/02/26/us/26borders. html). But Americans are not the only ones who buy drugs from the Mexican Cartel’s. Terrorism is defined as “a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government” and it can also be defined as “violent and intimidating gang activity” from the web site Dictionary. eference. com. The Mexico cartels demonstrate both of those definitions. By being violent and intimidating gangs and having violent and intimidating activities. They also resist the government by continuing the violence and smuggling. The only way to stop the terrorism in Mexico would be to dismantle all cartels or close and secure borders. The Mexico drug war is stated as “the war without end” by an article called War without end. As long as drugs are being produced and smuggled there will always be terrorism at the Mexico border.

Terrorism at the Border

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99