FIGHTING TERRORISM IN THE LIBERAL STATE NATO Security through Science Series This Series presents the results of scientific meetings supported under the NATO Programme for Security through Science (STS). Meetings supported by the NATO STS Programme are in security-related priority areas of Defence Against Terrorism or Countering Other Threats to Security. The types of meeting supported are generally “Advanced Study Institutes” and “Advanced Research Workshops”. The NATO STS Series collects together the results of these meetings. The meetings are co-organized by scientists from NATO countries and scientists from NATO’s “Partner” or “Mediterranean Dialogue” countries. The observations and recommendations made at the meetings, as well as the contents of the volumes in the Series, reflect those of participants and contributors only; they should not necessarily be regarded as reflecting NATO views or policy. Advanced Study Institutes (ASI) are high-level tutorial courses to convey the latest developments in a subject to an advanced-level audience Advanced Research Workshops (ARW) are expert meetings where an intense but informal exchange of views at the frontiers of a subject aims at identifying directions for future action Following a transformation of the programme in 2004 the Series has been re-named and re- organised. Recent volumes on topics not related to security, which result from meetings supported under the programme earlier, may be found in the NATO Science Series. The Series is published by IOS Press, Amsterdam, and Springer Science and Business Media, Dordrecht, in conjunction with the NATO Public Diplomacy Division. Sub-Series A. Chemistry and Biology Springer Science and Business Media B. Physics and Biophysics Springer Science and Business Media C. Environmental Security Springer Science and Business Media D. Information and Communication Security IOS Press E. Human and Societal Dynamics IOS Press http://www.nato.int/science http://www.springeronline.nl http://www.iospress.nl Sub-Series E: Human and Societal Dynamics – Vol. 9 ISSN: 1574-5597 Fighting Terrorism in the Liberal State An Integrated Model of Research, Intelligence and International Law Edited by Samuel Peleg Department of Political Science and Strategic Dialogue Center, Netanya College, Israel and Wilhelm Kempf Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Germany Amsterdam • Berlin • Oxford • Tokyo • Washington, DC Published in cooperation with NATO Public Diplomacy Division Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Fighting Terrorism in the Liberal State: An Integrated Model of Research, Intelligence and International Law Konstanz, Germany 15–16 April 2005 © 2006 IOS Press. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without prior written permission from the publisher. ISBN 1-58603-600-9 Library of Congress Control Number: 2006922869 Publisher IOS Press Nieuwe Hemweg 6B 1013 BG Amsterdam Netherlands fax: +31 20 687 0019 e-mail: order@iospress.nl Distributor in the UK and Ireland Distributor in the USA and Canada Gazelle Books Services Ltd. IOS Press, Inc. White Cross Mills 4502 Rachael Manor Drive Hightown Fairfax, VA 22032 Lancaster LA1 4XS USA United Kingdom fax: +1 703 323 3668 fax: +44 1524 63232 e-mail: iosbooks@iospress.com e-mail: sales@gazellebooks.co.uk LEGAL NOTICE The publisher is not responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS Fighting Terrorism in the Liberal State v S. Peleg and W. Kempf (Eds.) IOS Press, 2006 © 2006 IOS Press. All rights reserved. Introduction: Terrorism and the Open Society – A Question of Balance Samuel PELEG Department of Political Science and Strategic Dialogue Center at Netanya College, Israel In June 1974, I was staying with my Aunt and Uncle during my summer vacation. They lived in northern Israel, in the sleepy little town of Naharya. At the age of 16, it was the farthest away from home that I could go. On the fifth night of my visit, at around 2:00 a.m., we were violently awakened by a barrage of bullets and the deafening blasts of hand grenades. We were all terribly frightened and felt totally helpless. The onslaught lasted for about 30 minutes, and then suddenly everything fell ominously silent. At dawn, we learned how fortunate we had been: The attack on the apartment house was the work of a terrorist band that had crossed over the border from Lebanon earlier that night. My relatives’ building had been randomly selected, simply because it was located near the shore. The terrorists continued wounding and killing the residents of the ground floor until Israeli Special Forces moved in, surrounded them and ended their rampage. That was my first encounter with the phenomenon of terrorism – but not my last. On March 4, 1996, a beloved teaching assistant and former student, Taly Gordon, was killed by a suicide bomber, along with 19 other innocent persons who happened to be present in a central shopping mall in Tel Aviv. The terrorist was a Palestinian artist from Gaza who belonged to Islamic Jihad. Four months earlier and three kilometers away, I had attended a peace rally that ended with the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Only an hour before the murder, my wife, our small daughter and I had passed very close by the spot where the Jewish extremist who killed Rabin was patiently waiting for his opportunity. I may even have seen him. He had not appeared the least bit suspicious either to us or to the hundreds of security personnel who were guarding the area. These examples illustrate my personal acquaintance with the nature of terrorism: indiscriminate, ruthless and unexpected. Lurking in the shadows like a ferocious beast, terrorism is aggressive and vicious. To its prey, it does not matter whether the beast is hungry or has a right to kill. From the victim’s point of view, any lethal assault is depraved, senseless and criminal. Nevertheless, however clearly and unambiguously terrorism is captured in these personal recollections, it is still a highly perplexing and confusing phenomenon. Scholars and practitioners are constantly debating the nature of terrorist activities in various parts of the world. The anti-terrorist effort is notoriously faltering and indecisive, and global cooperation against terrorism is reprehensibly inadequate. These shortcomings are especially conspicuous in liberal states, where insidious, ruthless and indiscriminate terrorism exploits the liberty and vulnerability of the open society. Terrorism appears to flourish and attract attention by striking at the soft underbelly of vi democracy. The accessibility of targets and the “silent collaboration” of the media, which exploit the sensationalism of terrorist attacks for commercial advantages, play into the hands of terrorists. This is the dilemma of terrorism in the liberal state: Should democratic liberties be curtailed for the sake of greater security? Isn’t the restriction of civil liberties a triumph for terrorism? If a “golden path” must be found, combating terrorism without sacrificing human rights and freedoms, where does such a path lead? Such questions inspired the April 2005 NATO Advanced Research Workshop, which was held at the University of Konstanz in southern Germany. This volume presents the outstanding contributions of participants at that gathering. It consists of papers by 18 leading scholars and practitioners of the war against terrorism from four continents and nine countries. They include philosophers, political scientists, psychologists, criminologists, jurists, sociologists, historians, computer analysts, intelligence analysts and law enforcement officers. This remarkably varied range of participants yielded a fascinating meeting and a noteworthy, often provocative collection of papers. The great diversity enriched our undertaking with a variety of philosophies, perspectives, and understandings. It brought together a plurality of cultures, norms and experiences to afford an exhilarating mixture of definitions and approaches. The workshop benefited greatly from the open-mindedness and forbearance reserved for those unique occasions where a diverse group of persons is present. The complex and varied nature of the contributions is reflected in this collection. Terrorism and counter-terrorism are in many ways mirror images of each other, and their names reflect that notion quite well. They are both violent activities that attempt to influence political developments and situations: the former in the direction of change, instability and disorder, the latter in the opposite direction of the status quo, stability and order. They both vie for an attentive audience and for the legitimacy of the “critical mass.” The challengers aspire to convince the population of the callousness and brutality of their government, while the authorities in turn strive to portray their opponents as ruthless criminals and malefactors. Both parties try to win the hearts and minds of the people. This struggle is waged on all political fronts, whether aimed at the members of a tribe, the citizens of a nation or world public opinion. It is relevant and meaningful on every level. While counter-terrorism marches under the banner of law and morality, terrorism defies the law and attempts to recast morality in its own terms. While the former boasts of order and stability, the latter proclaims justice and equality. The papers in this book illustrate this balanced dichotomy between terrorism and counter-terrorism against the background of the liberal state. This is a unique battlefield, where the tactical advantage is seemingly conceded to terrorists, who are free to exploit the liberties of the open society, while the authorities are constrained by those very rights and freedoms. They work under the constant scrutiny of the free press, public opinion, the political opposition, human rights organizations and the guardians of legal codes. But, as already pointed out, they have only an apparent advantage, which is forfeited the more depraved and indiscriminate terrorism becomes. Then terrorists begin to lose their popular support, and the authorities begin to win citizens’ trust in their efforts to restore tranquility. Thus, it really boils down to a question of balance: of how to establish the delicate equilibrium of combating terrorism while preserving the liberties of the open society. This book begins with this question and becomes increasingly complex as it tackles the different aspects and dimensions of this dilemma. vii The layout of the chapters follows the logic of the terrorism – counter-terrorism dichotomy. The first entries grapple with the notion of terrorism, its elusive and problematic definition, its structural preconditions, motivations and incentives. The next three chapters juxtapose terrorism with counter-terrorism and emphasize the movement – countermovement dynamics between them. This is presented via three case studies from three different corners of the globe. Then, counter-terrorism is introduced through communications and media, international law and foreign policy analyses. As in the terrorism section, both sympathetic and critical views are expressed, conveying a sense of the wide gamut of approaches to this sensitive topic. Finally, the practical and programmatic portion of the book is laid out. The three chapters of this section illustrate analytical and adaptive models for countering terrorism while minimizing the loss of the liberties of the democratic state. Thus, the book returns full circle and offers an equilibrant to the predicament of terrorism in the liberal state. My opening chapter challenges the widespread perception of terrorism as irrational, indiscriminate and improvised. Instead, I show that terrorism is a deliberate and premeditated activity that is sometimes intentionally made to seem pathological and irrational. The suggestiveness of, “Don’t offer any resistance, we are ruthless fanatics who won’t stop at anything,” might serve terrorists by intimidating the authorities and deterring citizens from cooperating with the police, but it can also benefit a State that resorts to harsh retaliatory measures against terrorists, “who don’t listen to reason.” Nonetheless, to portray terrorism as irrational is misleading and should be avoided. Unless terrorism is comprehended and countered rationally, it cannot be defeated. Egyptian philosopher Hassan Hanafi delves into the anatomy of terrorism and turns it on its head. He demonstrates logically and eruditely the vagueness and ambiguity of the term ‘terrorism’ in contrast to the clarity and consistency it is ordinarily perceived and understood to possess. His view is that, “terrorism as a term is already a pre-judgment. It has a moral connotation. The problem is resolved beforehand, even without the necessary effort to understand. It is a partial perception which works against the objective analysis of socio-political phenomena.” Lack of communication and reciprocal demonization between the West and the Arab world are responsible for the current gulf between terrorists and the targets of terrorism, or in Hanafi’s words, the victimizers and the victims. To bridge the chasm separating the two cultures, a dialogue between equal partners must be promoted, because so far, “… the stumbling block in the Euro-Arab dialogue is the discrepancy between the European economic agenda and the Arab political agenda.” In a similar fashion, Mokhtar Benabdallaoui does not consider terrorism in the conventional sense. He relates it to the larger concept of violence and maintains that in different contexts violence changes its meaning and its legal and moral status. But despite its complex, protean nature, terrorism, the extreme form of violence, should be condemned in all its forms, including, and above all, state terrorism, which is often thought to complement and support the law. Nevertheless, concludes the author, the eradication of global terrorism should not be pursued by pointing a finger at a specific religion or culture, or by invoking cultural Darwinism. The best way to counter the phenomenon is by constructing a more just and interdependent world society, composed of autonomous and free governments and societies with the appropriate means to promote new values. viii Dealing more with the perpetrators of terrorism than with the act itself, Anne Speckhard calls attention to the unique and devastating phenomenon of suicide terrorism. In a detailed and insightful study of suicide terrorism, one of the first of its kind, the author describes the motivations and rewards that induce young persons to become suicide bombers. The individual, psychological and social conditions that underlie and support these tragic choices are objectively depicted in order not only to better understand this most devastating form of terrorism, but more importantly, to find ways of opposing it. Speckhard offers some valuable proposals following her in-depth analysis and a series of rare interviews with prospective suicide-bombers. She argues, among other things, that “religious leaders must begin to stand up to the manipulation of Islam by Jihadist militants, and those who do speak out ought to be supported (if quietly) by the West.” The prevention and gradual reduction of the threat posed by suicide terrorism must address its root causes. She asserts further that, “Repressive governments must be encouraged and pressured to reform, so as to open the way for economic growth and increased opportunities for the frustrated, disillusioned and often well-educated youth who constitute the most explosive sector of the societies from which suicide terrorism comes.” General Mansour Abu Rashid, a former Director of the Jordanian Military Intelligence Department, discusses issues from the pure practitioner’s perspective. After discussing several practical difficulties in the conceptualization of terrorism and counter-terrorism, he turns to the pragmatic and programmatic questions of what can be done about terrorism. In a succinct and realistic manner, Abu Rashid enumerates what should be done on various levels – political, economic, ideological and informational. He concludes that: “fighting the contemporary wave of terrorism requires a multi- branched, multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional response. Although the traditional instruments – police and intelligence services – are the most critical, they are inadequate to meet the extent and emerging challenge of terrorism.” Finally, the General adds a counter-intuitive argument, which resonates well with his extensive experience: “an effort to institutionalize the war on terror should avoid trying to achieve greater intelligence-sharing. This oft-cited goal is best handled through bilateral intelligence channels.” Abu Rashid’s contribution structurally links terrorism and counter-terrorism and also relates to three further papers which do this using illustrations from three distinctive case studies: the Palestinian-Israeli, the Spanish-Basque and the Russian- Chechnyan. In the first of the three, Eitan Alimi analyzes the revealing case of the Tanzim (Arabic for organization). In the second Intifadah (2000–2004), or uprising of the Palestinians against the Israeli occupation, this militant faction of the Palestinian armed forces was at the forefront of violent assaults against the Israelis. Although regarded by Israeli Intelligence as a terrorist group, some of its leaders were previously committed supporters of the Oslo peace initiative. Alimi expands the theoretical approach to comprehending terrorism by embedded his case study in the larger framework of collective action and social movement theory. Such an approach, Alimi believes, will shed more light on the radicalization of the formerly non-extremist Tanzim and in addition supply counter-terrorism with fresh new insights to improve on the ways it has been conducted so far. Radicalization in general, and the resort to violence and terrorism in particular, can be better understood in the context of internal organizational dynamics, or in the author’s terms, the milieu of the SMO (social movement organization). “The study of counter-terrorism would benefit from viewing ix a terrorist organization as one actor in the overall ‘field of actors’ – a social movement, and from furthering the analysis of the internal dynamics within the movement.” Thereby, perceptiveness, discernment and pragmatism in understanding terrorism and counter-terrorism would be best served. Juan Aviles introduces the Spanish case, specifically the fight against the Basque separatist terror group ETA. The author poses the question of how to characterize the indiscriminate killing of civilians during armed conflict. This is a hybrid situation between the killing of civilians in peacetime, which is clearly terrorism, and the killing of army and police personnel during violent conflict, which is more like guerrilla warfare. However, ETA terrorism falls in the middle, for it also attacks (though not exclusively) civilian targets in the midst of an ongoing conflict with the Spanish government. Additionally, in an age of protracted, low-intensity conflicts, does the struggle constitute a war or an anomaly in a time of peace? How to characterize ETA then: terrorist group? guerrilla movement? paramilitary unit, or perhaps a band of committed freedom fighters? This is not simply an exercise in semantics, but rather a serious question of how to defeat Basque extremists and with what means: legal, political, military or diplomatic. Ultimately, Aviles concludes that recognizing ETA as a political actor and permitting its political arm to participate in Basque elections was a mistake. Another mistake was that the Spanish authorities resorted to undemocratic measures in their campaign against ETA. This was counter-productive and hurt the interests of the State. One of the biggest challenges, perhaps the most crucial, in fighting terrorism in an open society is waging efficient counter-terrorism without abandoning the principles of the democratic State. A Russian and an Armenian scholar introduce the problem of terrorism in Chechnya. Vorkunova and Hovhannesian argue that terrorism challenges order and stability by “ultimately … creating the conditions for chaos and uncoordinated activities. It is conceived to include systems of disorder at all levels of human activity’.” They call attention to the expansion of the official Russian approach to terrorism as the Chechnyan terrorist campaign began to take its toll on the Russian people. From the rather limited and narrow Article 205 of the Russian Criminal Code to the Russian Federation Federal Law On the Fight Against Terrorism, adopted on June 25, 1998, the scope of counter-terrorism has widened in direct proportion to the growing menace of Chechnyan terrorism. The authors point to the amalgam of traditional and modern motives in Chechnyan terrorism which render it extremely brutal and ruthless. Bolstered by intense Islamic fervor, this terrorism represents a formidable challenge to the newly founded democracy in Russia. However, as the authors poignantly stress, counter-terrorism in that region is still very cumbersome and handicapped by mutual suspicions and fears for economic, environmental and genetic security, the breakdown of the traditional system of values and the traditional way of life in the South Caucasus. The last part of the book concentrates on counter-terrorism and its challenges before the background of the open society. This section focuses on analytical models for combating terrorism in democracies without sacrificing civil liberties. Dealing again with the delicate issue of finding a balance between the necessity to oppose terrorism and the need to preserve the spirit of liberty, this section brings to the fore the legal perspective. Two experts on international law, one Israeli and the other German, present two contrasting viewpoints on that controversial subject, whose differences are quite apparent when juxtaposed. Barry Feinstein, in a carefully reasoned study of the x State’s right to defend itself against terrorism, positively evaluates and justifies counter-terrorism as a form of preemptive strike. He draws heavily on international law when he asserts that, “[b]eyond the responsibility of a State for all acts conducted within its territory which violate the rights of another State, as well as for any resulting violations of the other State’s sovereignty, it moreover must actively prevent such acts and violations.” Of course, if there are other alternatives to the use of force against the threat of terrorism, they must be chosen. But if there are none, “the State thereby attacked is indeed permitted to exercise force to protect itself pursuant to its inherent right of self-defense” according to Article 51 of the UN Charter. But then, an obviously pragmatic, but also moral, question arises: when to launch a pre-emptive strike? What are the justifiable grounds to initiate counter-terrorism, or should anti-terrorism efforts be exclusively reactive? Must States threatened by terrorism wait for a clear and present danger to arise, or for a threat of considerable consequence? Feinstein rejects this latter alternative. He believes that counter-terrorism is applicable not only in situations where a threat is imminent, “but also in those cases where the danger is more remote, but nevertheless real,” if the intent of the terrorist to attack has been demonstrated in the past. Berthold Meyer is less willing to condone pre-emptive measures. He earnestly questions whether increasing security is a suitable means to protect liberty. In an illuminating survey of German Law and German security measures taken after 9/11, Meyer concludes that German leaders neglected their most critical obligation: to defend freedom and civil liberties. By shifting the balance between security and democracy in favor of security, and by relying too heavily on “stockpiles of paragraphs on suspicion” and presumed intentions to act, rather than on actual and demonstrated infringements of security, the German Law on Terrorism, known as Security Packet II, fails to embody the spirit of democracy. The criteria for when to apply the strict Law are the tests of sufficient probability and life experience. Using such criteria is, in the author’s words, “treading on shaky ground.” Meyer’s own recommendations are clear: there must be stricter and more demanding standards for action, even, and especially, when emotions and sentiments are strongly aroused. The usefulness of any countermeasure against terrorism must be evaluated before its implementation, and new security legislation should expire after two years unless extended. This is the only way, warns Meyer, “to prevent civil rights from being permanently limited.” Wilhelm Kempf and Lubna Nadvi also offer reservations and admonitions against excessive counter-terrorist measures. Their perspectives differ from the previous writers and reflect their respective research disciplines, psychology and political science. Kempf examines and criticizes the overly ambitious and overly aggressive trends of post-9 /11 counter-terrorism. He points out that, “outrage at war is transformed into outrage at the enemy,” which does not serve democracies well. The reprehensible attacks of September 11, 2001 could, he proposes, have been adequately dealt with using strong legal, economic and diplomatic means, but instead the United Stated chose a policy of extreme force. The author attributes this response to America’s threatened pride in its world leadership. The vulnerability of the US triggered a “… natural impulse that American self-confidence needed to be restored and strength needed to be demonstrated by fighting back.” This was the wrong approach to counter- terrorism not only because it is irrational, but also because it is counter-productive and self-defeating. The US launched an all-out war against an elusive enemy and committed its armed forces to a protracted campaign that has provoked animosity and [...]... at terrorism from the perspective of the victim, not from that of the victimizer, as if terrorism were a one-way street, not a two-way street, blaming the victims, not the victimizers, hearing the cry of pain, but not seeing the needle, pointing the finger at the weak, not at the strong This creates, in small nations or in individuals, a great sense of frustration against the cocalization, namely the. .. efforts) The more deeply the international actors got involved in the conflict, the greater was the media sympathy for them The more they managed to stay in a neutral position, the more they were criticized, and the more negative was their press coverage In the case of the Afghan War, things were completely different, and far less propaganda was needed to persuade the public to support the war In order... history, as in the case of Darfour in Sudan, championing the UN resolution to try war criminals, with the exception of those of the USA, before the International Court of Justice Russia invades Chechnya to fight the Chechnyan national movement for independence, which is called separatism Israel occupies all of Palestine, half in 1948, the other half in 1967 India, playing the Big Power in Asia, occupies... Jewish settlers on the West Bank, organized in order to thwart the prospects of the Middle East peace process Although they reaffirmed the policy tendencies of the right-wing Shamir government at the time, they did not act in the name of that government [3] Hence, terrorism in the name of the status quo ought to be distinguished from state terrorism, or terrorism from above, in which the government officially... for detecting and warning against developing terrorist activities, while the other supplements and strengthens the model by adding the human aspects that may impact the process of building and using the system, the challenges and risks derived from them, and possible solutions. Both writers share a similar point of departure the need to explore better collaboration against international terrorism. .. and rejects the implementation of a UN resolution concerning the right to self-determination of the Kashmiri people The sole Big Power in the uni-polar system is a source of state terrorism, the invasion of Afghanistan under the pretext of fighting terrorism, of Iraq under the pretext of seeking weapons of mass destruction Now it is threatening Iran under the same pretext, Syria under the pretext of... to the observer, from Orientalism, where the West is the subject and the Rest is the object, to Occidentalism, where the Rest is the subject and the West is the object Dialogue between Equal Partners 1 2 3 4 To fight terrorism in the liberal state and to create an integrated model of research on counter -terrorism is to lay the groundwork for a dialogue between equal partners The stumbling block in the. .. changing due to the nature of things, while the agenda is fixed by ideologies, because of the fixed stereotyped images that each partner has constructed of the other The destruction of these mutual images is one of the ways of ending the myth of terrorism 14 Fighting Terrorism in the Liberal State S Peleg and W Kempf (Eds.) IOS Press, 2006 â 2006 IOS Press All rights reserved September 11 and the Need... Olga A.Vorkunova and David Hovhannesian 134 xiv The War Against State Terrorism: Reframing the Debate on Global Terrorism Lubna Nadvi 154 Understanding Suicide Terrorism: Countering Human Bombs and Their Senders Anne Speckhard 158 The World After 9/11: New Actors, New Game Samuel Peleg 176 Subject Index 193 Author Index 197 Fighting Terrorism in the Liberal State S Peleg and W Kempf (Eds.) IOS Press, 2006... misleading and detrimental to any genuine effort at countering terrorism In attempting that, this paper will follow along two interrelated lines First, I will discuss three aspects in the study of CA, demonstrating the relevancy of these aspects to a better understanding of the Tanzim in general and its shift to terrorism in particular I will then proceed to specify several implications for countering terrorism . The publisher is not responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS Fighting Terrorism in the Liberal. crucial, in fighting terrorism in an open society is waging efficient counter -terrorism without abandoning the principles of the democratic State. A