Break-out group 3
Transnational threats
Saturday 8 December 2007, 3.30 pm
CHAIRMAN
Nigel Inkster
Director, Transnational Threats and Political Risk, IISS
OPENING REMARKS
Admiral William J. Fallon
Commander, Central Command (CENTCOM), United States
Günter Gloser
Minister of State for Europe, Federal Foreign Office, Germany
Zamir Akram
Adviser to the Prime Minister for Foreign Affairs, Pakistan
Remarks made in break-out groups may not be attributed to the individuals who made them. This rule is designed to encourage free discussion.
In the wake of globalisation and the explosion in communications technologies, new security-related threats have emerged that are to a great extent independent of national boundaries. The actors involved and their networks are to be found all over the world and their operations have global reach. Some actors, such as terrorists and criminals, may patently be malicious and violent, while some of their operations, such as narcotics-smuggling, the misuse of cyberspace, or illicit financial and banking activities, may have less visible malign effects. Other global phenomena, such as climate change, dwindling stocks and scarcities of energy and water, the flow of refugees and natural disasters, can also have profound security-related consequences.
Such threats, which go beyond traditional concepts of defence and national security, call for new responses, including multilateral ones, which need to be tailored to the particular purpose and based on a sound understanding of the issues involved. Long-standing traditional security institutions may no longer be adequate to deal with the new challenges. Nonetheless, the need for effective responses was urgent and should not be delayed, the break-out group heard.
Discussion elaborated the threats in more detail. It was noted that boundaries were sometimes blurred between extremist groups that advocated and practised terrorism and criminal groups involved in, for instance, piracy, narcotics and human trafficking. While these operations might appear to be quite different, there were frequently relationships and interdependencies between them. Such activities were often stimulated by conditions in failing states, such as poor governance, absence of border controls and corruption.
Terrorism in particular needed to be addressed in its historical perspective, with consideration given to the consequences of past actions, such as Western support for mujahadeen groups during the Soviet–Afghan War. It was suggested that a comprehensive approach was called for, that included engagement with opponents, the use of economic assistance for reconstruction and development as a means of engendering public support, enhanced intelligence-sharing in real time, and technical capacity-building, including the provision of specialised equipment.
Energy, water and climate change posed particular challenges that were far from easy to deal with. While most energy was currently used by the developed world, it was suggested that India’s and China’s demands, stimulated by sustained high economic growth, would soon exceed that of others. Africa, Central Asia and Latin America were also in the competition. New, reliable mechanisms were needed to deal with or head off possible resulting conflict. There was also much scope for increasing the efficiency of energy extraction, and for greater use of renewable energy. Some countries could only realise their potential for economic growth, and hence for poverty alleviation, if they had better access to nuclear-energy technology.
Climate change was linked to energy security, and the time available for action was shorter than had been anticipated. The increase in extreme conditions and increased variability in climatic phenomena would lead to more disputes about the distribution of natural resources. This enhanced the need for immediate and effective climate control. Food stocks should be developed and cultivable areas in developing countries expanded.
Responses to such threats could include taking military action (although this was not seen as an ultimate solution), building capacity by means of facilitators/advisers and training, enhancing awareness of the problems on the part of publics and the political community, standardising action-orientated procedures, increasing cooperation between relevant government agencies, and undertaking close international military cooperation at all levels.
But effective responses would require effort if they were to be realised. It was suggested that more international dialogue was needed. The inherent tendency not to share information was being overcome to a certain extent, but improvements could not be taken for granted. Dialogue could lead to the establishment of a framework for cooperation, based on mutual understanding, in which the activities of all concerned were integrated, and in which prevailing conditions were addressed.
There were differing views about the best instruments for promoting international cooperation. Some advocated the UN and its agencies as the first choice. Others favoured a ‘ground-up’ approach – making use of whichever specialist organisation was most fit for the particular purpose. It was noted that plenty of international organisations already existed of which better use could be made. Such organisations should be empowered more and politicised less. Non-governmental organisations also had a role in conflict prevention.
It was noted that there was currently an imbalance between military engagement in response to crises and the response of civilian government. The military human and financial resources devoted to such tasks were far greater than civilian resources. And yet many of the challenges in fragile states, such as those concerning agriculture, public health and education – sources of employment and stability – fell pre-eminently into the civilian domain, and militaries were ill-equipped to deal with them. Furthermore, within donor governments there were often tensions between the various civilian departments that dealt with such issues. This could impede both coordination and direction. Restrictive civilian terms of service hindered the recruitment and deployment of experts in hazardous environments, which could increase the burden on the military yet further. Such factors tended to accentuate the role and responsibilities of the military in public eyes, for instance in Afghanistan, when in practice many of the challenges in such environments were, or should be, of a civilian nature. Questions therefore arose as to whether existing civilian governmental institutions needed to be modified in order adequately to meet the current challenges and those in prospect.
Discussion about the fundamental causes of many of these new challenges ranged widely and was inconclusive. One issue addressed was the politicisation of religion, particularly of Islam. It was argued that Islam’s misuse for essentially political purposes, and the development of extreme Muslim ideologies, needed to be addressed by Muslims themselves. Such phenomena could not be attributed entirely to lack of education, since much of the militant leadership was highly educated. On the other hand, many suicide bombers and other ‘foot soldiers’ of extremism came from deprived backgrounds and were heavily dependent on the charity and welfare provided by religious schools, and some (but by no means all) of the latter were breeding grounds for extreme ideologies. A view was also expressed that it was not Islam, or its perverted forms, which motivated extremism, but the build-up of grievances arising from the cumulative mistreatment of Muslims. In such circumstances, jihad could be seen as a form of self-defence.
It was pointed out that, insofar as religion was used as a form of excuse for militant action, religious leaders and scholars could have a role in communicating a different narrative, especially to young people. Muslim political parties could also help.
In conclusion, the international community had been slow to recognise the global and dynamic nature of the new threats. National governments now urgently needed to share their views and work together in appropriate regional and international fora to respond to them.
