New perspectives on international security – including shifts in U.S. foreign policy – are one major implication of the war on terrorism.
"Sept. 11th was so significant and earth shattering that it is restructuring international security," Endicott says. "You are seeing the U.S. come together with Russia, China and Islamic states.... International unity has to happen and is happening. So now globalization not only refers to the economy, but we're also seeing it in terms of security. We have a new common ground – terrorism."
Particularly interesting is a shift of importance in intelligence gathering. Since the late 1950s, most nations have relied heavily upon technology – such as satellites and spy planes – to gather intelligence. Endicott, who gathered intelligence for the U.S. military in Japan in the late 1950s, believes the move away from human intelligence gathering to technology-based methods was a mistake that governments are now realizing. But rebuilding human intelligence networks will be both difficult and time-consuming, he says.
"An area specialist in the Army takes three years of training in language and usually gets a master's degree in history," Endicott explains. "They learn the culture, the politics. They spend a year working in the embassy and get to know the country. So this is part of what President Bush means when he says this war is going to take a long-term commitment. We will have a considerable problem finding the enemy and defeating him. It will be dependent on good intelligence and help from our allies."
Human intelligence includes traditional spying, but it also includes information from knowledgeable citizens. Endicott believes many Islamic Americans will answer the U.S. government's requests for assistance, as Japanese Americans did in World War II and German Americans did in World War I. Immigrants are loyal to the United States because they chose to come to the country for political and/or economic reasons, he adds.
Human intelligence is necessary to offset a surprise attack, such as Sept. 11, Endicott says. Such information can reduce the need for armed forces activity and allow the coalition countries to take preventative action.
"In an open society, there are opportunities for terrorism...." Endicott says. "Our vulnerabilities are legions.... But everybody has a vulnerability. We have to find somebody within the terrorists' system who is willing to sell out.... We have to exploit people who are not completely loyal. That is the business of human intelligence."
Human intelligence will be a key component in turning the tide in the war on terrorism, Endicott says. But he adds that the U.S.-led coalition must respond to the challenges posed by the base causes of the world's security threats. "How do we do away with abject poverty? How do we deal with people who believe dying is better than their current conditions? We must improve the human condition," Endicott says. "The present (U.S.) administration is looking toward this goal."
Even though Endicott believes Afghanistan will ultimately have a more stable and moderate government that represents multiple factions, he does not believe that change will end terrorism.
"We will always have the possibility of terrorism," Endicott says. "Are we going to eliminate sin? It's like trying to do away with evil."
The Domestic Response to Terrorism
Bill Hoehn is a visiting professor in the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs. He holds a Ph.D. from Northwestern University. Hoehn's research interests are arms control, information security, terrorism and preparedness for weapons of mass destruction. His current projects include technologies for emergency first responders. Hoehn has worked in the area of national security for much of his career. Before joining academia, he worked for 20 years – 10 of them as a vice president – at the Rand Corporation. He worked in the first Reagan administration as an international security policy advisor. And he worked for former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn.
Last year, Hoehn helped organize a policy forum at Georgia Tech that included Nunn
courtesy U.S. Dept. of Defense
|
|
A Georgia National Guardsman keeps watch at the Georgia Tech Aquatic Center during the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. The city is well ahead of most major metropolitan areas in terms of preparedness for terrorist attacks because of the 1996 Olympics and its security concerns.
|
|
and more than 40 scientists and experts on chemical and biological terrorism. They discussed the United States' preparedness for such attacks.
"A lot was accomplished before Sept. 11," Hoehn says. "The hospital system in New York City was better prepared to handle mass casualties than it would have been in the early 1990s.... In Atlanta, we are well ahead of most major metropolitan areas because of the 1996 Olympics and its security concerns.... GEMA (the Georgia Emergency Management Agency) has a well thought out plan that includes metro Atlanta's hospitals, police, firefighting and rescue agencies."
But airlines were obviously not ready for a terrorist attack, Hoehn says. Nor was the nation prepared for the anthrax threat. Now, much is being done to address those vulnerabilities.
Hoehn believes terrorists will attack again on U.S. soil, but that their methods are more likely to be car bombs, chemical releases, detonation of explosives and cyberterrorism – that is, attacks on information infrastructures, such as the Internet. Regarding the latter, he adds, "We have an enormous vulnerability for disruption of basic services."
While Hoehn believes a chemical attack of some sort is most likely, he cites food and livestock contamination as other potential terrorist methods. Though, he adds, the U.S. government is prepared for some of these scenarios.
Despite the risks, Hoehn urges Americans to put them in context. "Every year, motor vehicle accidents kill 40,000 people," he says. "That's 770 people per week. But that doesn't stop people from driving."
It's important to maintain perspective, Hoehn adds. "Terrorists love it when people alter what they're doing. That gives them success to some extent. They've already done this, I think. We have a serious confidence problem."
So what is a reasonable response to the threats? Hoehn suggests: "There are places in Atlanta where no reasonable person would walk down the street at 2 a.m. The terrorists are presenting one more issue for Americans to get accustomed to.... You are more likely to be hit by lightning than to be a victim of a terrorist attack."
U.S. Infrastructure Vulnerabilities and Information Security
Seymour Goodman is a professor of international affairs and computing at Georgia Tech. He is also co-director of both the Georgia Tech Information Security Center and the Center for International Strategy, Technology and Policy. He holds a Ph.D. from the California Institute of Technology. Goodman's research interests include technology diffusion, information technology and national security, and the related public policy issues. His areas of geographic interest and research include the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia, and parts of Africa. Before joining the faculty of Georgia Tech in January 2000, Goodman was director of the Consortium for Research on Information Security and Policy at the Center for International Security and Cooperation and the School of Engineering at Stanford University. He has served as an advisor to the U.S. departments of Defense and Commerce and the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection.
Technology can be a double-edged sword, Goodman says.
"Modern society has improved based on a wide variety of infrastructures that promote connectivity, efficiency and access," Goodman says. "These infrastructures were not designed with security in mind.
courtesy Ga. Dept. Industry, Trade and Tourism
|
|
Security is in conflict with the primary function of many infrastructures, including transportation, emergency services, energy distribution and telecommunications, says Professor Seymour Goodman. Here, a MARTA train carries passengers to Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport.
|
|
They are so widely available that they make easy targets.... For anti-American terrorists, it is the natural thing to do to bring fear to all of America. And frankly, we're available for them to do this."
Security is in conflict with the primary function of so many infrastructures, including transportation, emergency services, energy distribution and telecommunications, Goodman explains. And the Internet is another prime example. "A balance needs to be found," he adds. ".... New technologies to address the threats of terrorism must not seriously compromise values such as privacy or the primary functionality of the infrastructures."
Though some infrastructures, such as civil aviation, are quickly addressing security issues, Goodman believes too little is being done to reduce our vulnerability to attack in cyberspace. The Internet was built without security in mind. In the Internet's growth, access and efficiency, rather than security, have been the main focus of network technology.
"The costs to address Internet security will be substantial," Goodman says, "not just in terms of money and people, but also in terms of some loss of privacy."
The nature of the Internet makes it difficult to regulate in terms of security and privacy, Goodman says. For example, all telephone conversations in the United States are considered private, except those that are identified with just cause as likely to pertain to crime. But there is no equivalent to the phone tap for the Internet.
"The paradigm is the reverse for the Internet," Goodman explains. "You capture all of the communication traffic and then decide what the bad stuff is. So there's a lot of concern for privacy. This is a serious consideration as we go forward. We need a balance between security and other values."
Goodman believes the information technology industry has the most wherewithal to improve security in cyberspace, but industry may not see the positive benefit to its bottom line unless customers start demanding better security and are willing to pay for it. Improvements also may come from legal and policy incentives and mandates that demand or value better-protected cyber infrastructures, he adds. Ultimately, governments will have to play an important role in this effort.
Because of global connectivity, international cooperation will have to occur to help prevent and respond to cyber-crime and terrorism, Goodman says. An extensive international convention with near-universal participation should be formed to: focus on serious crimes against computer networks; harmonize appropriate laws; and build international capabilities to deal with the issue, he adds.
Meanwhile, Goodman cites one other vulnerability that everyone must face. "Our fear makes us vulnerable.... We can strengthen our defenses, but we'll never be invulnerable. People have to accept some vulnerability.
"We can make things better, but we can't stop terrorism entirely," he adds. "We can minimize it, but we will have to learn to live with it. It will cost more in terms of security and lives and property. That's not an entirely new thing to us. We live with the carnage of the automobile in terms of lives and property. We could develop technology to cut that loss dramatically, and we've had some success in getting it down. But there's still a lot higher probability of getting killed in a traffic accident than a terrorist attack."
The Ethical Dimensions of the War on Terrorism
Molly Cochran is director of undergraduate programs and an assistant professor in the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs. She earned a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics. Cochran's research interests are ethics and international affairs; international relations theory; and international institutions and global governance. Her current research project focuses on democracy, global governance and international public spheres.
Determining an ethical response to terrorism presents some murky propositions in regard to the ethics of war – which has historically been governed by a code that makes moral distinctions regarding the conduct of war, Cochran says. "One moral distinction that is familiar to all of us is that concerning who is and is not a legitimate target of violence in war," she explains.
White House photo by Paul Morse
|
|
President George W. Bush and Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder address the media from the White House steps in the Rose Garden Oct 9, 2001.
|
|
"Terrorism breaks down this war convention because it does not recognize innocents or non-combatants and practices indiscriminate violence of an unconventional kind," she explains. "The violence unleashed by terrorists is unconventional not only because it is indiscriminate, but also because it is not state-to-state, army-to-army conventional violence."
Thus, terrorism challenges the norms of war defined in international law, Cochran says. So the United States is finding itself in the position of defining new norms in the war it is leading against terrorism.
"Terrorism is what it is because there is no recognition of the target as human," she explains. "His or her individuality is not reciprocally respected. The relationship is one of thug to a victim. Does this mean that the victim can fight back in an unlimited manner? .... I believe President Bush cannot assume limitlessness in his response to the terrorists, despite our victimization. He has a responsibility not only for Americans in his chosen response to the attack, but to: (1) the innocents of any country that may be the focus of a military attack on a state for its role in harboring terrorists. Moral action must mean that we maintain a stance that is above that of the terrorists; that is, we must make moral distinctions that they do not. In other words, we are clear in our policy that innocents are not to be killed; and (2) global civil society as a whole... because this was an attack on democracy and open society itself," Cochran adds. "Across the world there is a loose confederation of those who share the values of democracy, establish civil societies, and contribute to a global civil society that upholds human rights and civil liberties. This community of global civil society is aghast at the flagrant refusal on the part of the terrorists to recognize the humanity of those who were their targets."
So, Cochran believes an ethical response is one that is measured and sees its effects upon the international community, rather than America alone. Thus, it is vital that the United States continue to seek multilateral support in any action it takes.
"The legitimacy of our actions depends on two key factors – that we discriminate between legitimate and non-legitimate targets and that we are able to maintain the coalition. If it falters, it creates problems.... The moral basis for continuing this war is less strong without the coalition."
Beyond the war itself, an ethical controversy has arisen over trying those responsible for terrorist attacks. In mid-November, President Bush issued an executive order authorizing the use of military tribunals to try accused terrorists who are captured. Administration officials argue that trials by military tribunals would protect the identity of intelligence sources, among other things.
Cochran believes terrorists cannot get a fair trial on American soil and that military tribunals would eliminate even the possibility of a fair trial. Instead, she advocates the "Lockerbie model" – referring to the trial that followed the airliner bomb explosion over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. Two defendants were tried under Scottish law, with judges instead of a jury, in the Netherlands, rather than Scotland.
"I am strongly opposed to military tribunals as they do not provide for the fairness in judicial proceedings that I think our ethical responsibilities to global civil society require in dealing with the terrorists," Cochran says. "Evidence deemed sensitive by the military would be presented in secret, and rules governing the conduct of the proceedings would be issued by the Pentagon. I believe that the U.S. government will not allow a trial off American soil along the lines of the Lockerbie model, but trials at home in federal courts would be much preferable to what is now being proposed if we are to live up to the ideals of justice that we in this country profess."
The European Response to the War on Terrorism
Katja Weber is an assistant professor in the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs. She earned a Ph.D. from the University of California at Los Angeles. Her research interests include international relations theory; the European Union; transatlantic security relations; and institutions and integration theory. Weber's current research project focuses on normative visions of international order in post-war Germany.
Like the Bush Administration, European leaders want to avoid the portrayal of the war on terrorism as a war between Islamic countries and the West, Weber says. They are also stressing the importance of continuous coalition-building with Muslim nations. "This matters for geo-strategic reasons, ideology and for avoiding a coalition of the West against the rest," Weber explains.
photo courtesy of NATO
|
|
Ambassadors gather in an extraordinary meeting of the NATO/Russia Permanent Joint Council (PJC) on Sept. 13, 2001, just three days after the terrorist attacks in the United States.
|
|
Coalition-building must be continuous because there are so many vulnerabilities, she says. For example, the leadership of some Muslim countries is vulnerable as they support the coalition against the wishes of some of their citizens. The United States must provide financial support to these countries, as well as other types of aid, she adds.
Beyond the war in Afghanistan, Weber adds, "The Europeans have made it clear that they don't want to get stuck in a Middle East conflict, once the United States withdraws, and be left alone to clean up the mess."
"The Europeans differentiate short- from long-term horizon," she explains. "The short term means aiding the U.S., showing solidarity and promising to abide by their NATO commitment (as codified in Article V of the NATO Treaty), which allows for a broad range of support including mere rhetoric, provision of assets and military action (such as the troops sent by Great Britain, Germany and France). The long term means insisting on a division of labor between Europe and the United States. The Europeans try to deal with terrorist activities within their own borders – for example, freezing of terrorist assets in European banks and providing intelligence support to the U.S.
"It isn't surprising that Europeans want to deal with terrorism in their own way because any time one deals with security issues, countries are protective of their sovereignty," Weber adds. "They want to decide their own affairs."
Despite these concerns, many nations have recognized that multilateral solutions are essential in the war on terrorism because Sept. 11 was more than just an attack on the United States, but was really a crime against humanity, Weber says.
"At the same time, there can be no doubt that multilateral solutions are problematic," she adds. "First, there is no agreement on the nature of the problem. There are those who view the terrorist attacks as an act of war by evil people against western civilization. However, there are also those who view the attacks as the result of a larger evil, namely the failure of modern civilization to effectively address the horrendous suffering of millions of people in the world.... There are people who recognize that we can't hide behind the walls of peace and prosperity, who understand that globalization has not only brought global flows of capital, goods and information, but huge debt, unemployment, poverty and disease.... These people are calling for multilateralism and new forms of international cooperation because they recognize the interconnectedness of different forms of violence."
Where does this leave us? Weber asks. "We obviously don't have to agree with the terrorists' views and, in fact, should openly denounce their horrific methods. But, if we hope to achieve lasting peace, we need to understand where these views come from. Alternatively, we may have to do without many of the rights and freedoms we cherish and fought for for centuries."
For more information, contact the professors at the School of International Affairs, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0610. You may also contact them by phone or e-mail at:
John Endicott (Telephone: 404-894-9451) (E-mail: john.endicott@inta.gatech.edu);
Bill Hoehn (Telephone: 404-894-8823) (E-mail: bill.hoehn@inta.gatech.edu);
Seymour Goodman (Telephone: 404-385-1461) (E-mail: goodman@cc.gatech.edu);
Molly Cochran (Telephone: 404-894-7761) (E-mail: molly.cochran@inta.gatech.edu);
Katja Weber (Telephone: 404-894-5409) (E-mail: katja.weber@inta.gatech.edu).
Contents
Research Horizons
GT Research News
GTRI
Georgia Tech
Send questions and comments regarding these pages to
Webmaster@gtri.gatech.edu
Last updated: Feb. 9, 2002
