One of the key contentions in different outlooks on the War on Terrorism centers around the suggestion that it is in every civilized nation’s best interest to control terrorism. This outlook is part of the intellectual framework that lets Kerry suggest that greatly helpful allies would have been available if only the President were better at diplomacy. The best interest argument may be true as a long term concept, but short term factors may interceed.
Saudi Arabia makes an excellent example of this. It is definitely in the long term interests of the Kingdom to eliminate Islamist terrorism because one of the major goals of such terrorism is to gain control of places like Saudi Arabia in order to create governments more like those found in Iran. Many Islamist terrorist factions are closely tied to the more fundamentalist sects found in Saudi Arabia. The government of Saudi Arabia is afraid to alienate these fundamentalist sects, so it attempts to accommodate them. Historically, one of the ways it has done so is by failing to investigate such groups when found in its own borders, so long as such groups carry out terrorism outside its borders. It also funds, or allows funding to go to these terrorist groups. This is a kind of ‘throw them to the crocodiles and hope the beasts are satisfied’ appeasement which can actually work quite well in the short term–though it tends to make the beast stronger in the long term. So long as the Saudi government can deflect the violence to other places, it makes some level of sense to do so. It is this type of appeasement that the administration tried to counter with the “for us or against us” idea.
Similar incentives are at work in Europe. France, especially, has a large and unassimilated Muslim population. If France can deflect terrorism onto the United States, it is in the best short-term interest of France to do so. And so long as everyone believes that the United States will act against terrorism when it gets too bad, the free rider effect comes into play. It is certainly in the best interests of all civilized countries that terrorism be dealt with. So long as the United States is forced to deal with it, and when you notice that dealing with it is going to take a long time, it may not be in the best interest of many countries to join (and especially to be seen to join) the US in actively fighting terrorism outside their borders. If the US is dealing with the problem, why attract attention to yourself? If you don’t want to spend money on your military, why do so if the US will fill the gap? If the danger can be deflected onto the US, why get involved? This likely is not the total reasoning of many European governments, but it is a strong incentive to stay out of the conflicts as much as possible, and perhaps even demonize the US when they get a chance.
A similar logic operates in the Sudan and exposes much of the European rhetoric about ‘just wars’ and their attachment to treaties as mere words. Genocide in the Sudan is not a threat to Europe. It is a Muslim country with long-standing ties to terrorism. Why risk getting involved over ethnic cleansing which will be over after a couple hundred thousand more people are killed? The attachment to ‘international law’ in the form of treaties suddenly vanishes. It can’t be used against the US, and might cause terrorists to notice them. So why bother with it?
All that is assuming that Europe has military might to offer. That might not be true. But in either case, Kerry’s belief that Europe will be offering much to the War on Terrorism is a fantasy, and that goes double for Iraq. And that isn’t even considering economic incentives which may play a part in certain country’s unwillingess to engage in confrontation in the Middle East.
The incentives are not inevitabilities, of course. But I suspect that resisting them is not so much a matter of diplomacy as national outlook.
Kerry’s belief that Europe will be offering much to the War on Terrorism is a fantasy, and that goes double for Iraq
Except for Poland!
Bush already got Poland.
Bush already got Poland.
Man, hope Bush doesn’t “get” the rest of our “allies”, that would be a disaster.
How do you reconcile your views expressed here with your support for the Bush administration, which regards Saudi Arabia as a valued ally, and France – distinctly not?
If France can deflect terrorism onto the United States, it is in the best short-term interest of France to do so. And so long as everyone believes that the United States will act against terrorism when it gets too bad, the free rider effect comes into play.
Err, Sebastian, isn’t this Karnak award material? ;^>
i am not sure i fully understand the post; to my mind, the main reason for the disagreement between europe and the us lies in the fact that for many europeans, invading irak was not at the time part of the figth against terrorism (now, the problem is that it is). to prevent that, better diplomacy would have been nice (i am not saying it would have succeded). but to say that we are happy that mad terrorists target americans now instead of europeans seems to me a little sad.
now, on the incentives: a certain european country helps in afghanistan (must be for all the juicy contracts to be had over there; or maybe we have a joint venture with the CIA to smuggle opium). As for irak, have you ever wondered why countries like mexico, canada and germany told you to stuff yourself: oil companies? wonderful french diplomacy? or just very bad american administration intent on lying rather ineptly to everybody so they could have their war??
dont confuse lack of agreement with constant opposition!
now dont misunderstand me: i doubt we could help in a significant way on the ground (we dont have a 100k soldiers to send) and i agree with you that morality is absent from our (in)actions; but cooperation against terrorism has many facets and i think that from that point of view, kerry will have an easier time to secure that cooperation (if you are evil, you can say, it will be much more difficult for us to say no…)
A) a war against Terrorism makes about as much sense as a war against ambushes, terrorism like ambushes is a tactic.
B)For some strange and bizarre reason I don’t see the ETA, IRA, the red brigades, etc, etc being under assault by the US. The Europeans seem to have survived all of the above and have probably forgotten more about Terrorism than we have ever known.
C)If you have a problem with the Iranian Goverment, remember that it is there due to US intervention (Mossadeq 1953).
D)I don’t remember the outrage in the 80’s when the Contras and various other Right Wing death squads were going around Central America killing people left and right.
E)Who are we to critisize the European when our little adventure in Iraq has left an estimated 100,000 civilians dead.
Has France ever been a ‘valued ally’? I would think those European entities with huge stakes in the American economy would be in play. Belgium, Germany and of course England. And is it any wonder, those countries that have small armies, thanks to our good graces, and very little global logistics capabilities to deploy them, can offer so little in support. Given they have no trump cards, their fractured political structure can suck the populist blood out of their constituents to an even greater degree than we do. Actually, Kerry fits in to their bureaucratic scheme well, determining the morale high ground with hindsight and without any foundation proclaiming ‘anything you do, I can do better’. Our pot will surely melt drastically in diverse ways if the proletariat actually speaks as they are spoken to.
Interesting post, SH. Just a couple of points which you may want to take on board: if France, say, was following a policy of ‘appeasement’ against terrorist groups, then it would avoid taking visible action against terrorist organisations. France currently has troops in Afghanistan and has done since the war. So does Germany; so do most European nations. This suggests that, in fact, none are following a policy of appeasement against terrorist groups.
A second point: if ‘most European nations’ had no ‘military might’ to offer, one would be surprised to see several thousand European troops making up – and leading – the international security force in Kabul. However, this is in fact what one sees. This suggests that, in fact, most European nations do have some ‘military might’ to offer.
A third point: if France (or any European nation) had been successfully appeasing its own Muslim terrorists, one would be surprised to find Muslim groups setting off bombs in European countries. However, this is in fact what we find. This suggests that, in fact, any appeasement has been rather limited.
A fourth point: the USA has historically not been very good at acting against terror groups, at least not by the standards of European countries. Successive US presidents caved in in the face of terrorist attacks (Lebanon); lashed out ineffectively (Eldorado Canyon, Kenyan/Tanzanian embassies); refused to act at all where it would be politically inconvenient to do so (USS Cole, Khobar Towers); sold arms to terror-supporting states (Iran) and used the illegal profits to fund other terror groups, in the face of a ban imposed by Congress (Contras); welcomed terrorists who had plotted against US citizens when it was politically convenient (anti-Castro Cubans); refused to act against terror groups threatening their allies, turned a blind eye to their fundraisers in the US, and even appointed diplomats friendly to such groups (IRA); simply lost interest in investigating terrorist attacks (the 2001 anthrax attacks) or in preventing them (9/11); and displayed staggering investigative incompetence (Atlanta Olympics bomb). This compares very poorly to the records of European governments against their own terrorist threats, such as ETA, Action Directe, Baader-Meinhof, PIRA and so on, and against foreign terrorist attacks, such as Lockerbie. Any European government which relied on the US to fight terrorism more competently than the Europeans would be going in the face of decades of evidence.
I would think those European entities with huge stakes in the American economy would be in play
Maybe we should ask the Chinese as they have a huge stake in the US economy…
Free Lunches and Terrorism
Sebastian Holsclaw makes a point raised earlier in a discussion between myself and Peter Nolan: that there is a free-rider problem when it comes to fighting terrorism. In particular, if America’s European “allies” perceive that the United States is com…
FWIW, I just looked up the figures. There are (though I welcome correction) currently 20 000 US troops in Afghanistan, and 7 000 European troops. Thus, Europe is providing just over 25% of the troops in Afghanistan: not an insignificant proportion of the whole.
“This compares very poorly to the records of European governments against their own terrorist threats, such as ETA, Action Directe, Baader-Meinhof, PIRA and so on, and against foreign terrorist attacks, such as Lockerbie.”
Almost all the groups you mention are domestic terrorist organizations, and as for Lockerbie, tell me again what the Europeans did that was so special? Are you referring perchance to France’s little side deal with Ghaddafi which turned out to be such an embarrassment when he settled with the UK and the US for billions of dollars, resulting in lots of unseemly haggling by Chirac for more money to avoid leaving his domestic audience with the (correct) impression that French victims had been sold short by their government’s unilateralism? Hardly a ringing endorsement of your thesis, is it?
Blogbudsman: Has France ever been a ‘valued ally’?
Yes, Blogbuds. For 223 years. Read a little history, why don’t you?
” Thus, Europe is providing just over 25% of the troops in Afghanistan: not an insignificant proportion of the whole.”
And yet Britain alone has contributed at least that many troops in Iraq. The French and German armed forces have some 550,000 personnel between them, so the 7,000 figure is, to say the least, underwhelming. In terms of total combat capability, the European contribution in Afghanistan is actually derisory.
From The Brookings InstitutionThe 24,000 foreign forces that US allies have in Iraq today are dominated by the United Kingdom (with 8,300 troops), as well as South Korea (3,600), Italy (2,700), Poland (2,500), Ukraine (1,600), and the Netherlands (1,300). Between them they provide 20,000 of the total foreign forces; no other country has more than 1,000 in Iraq.
In Desert Storm, things were much different—without even counting the 125,000 Turkish troops near that country’s border with Iraq, or the 125,000 additional troops that Gulf states like Saudi Arabia had on alert, or the 20,000 forces that Syria kept on its own territory but adjacent to the Iraqi border. The international community directly committed about 150,000 military personnel to the operation, all of which had important roles in Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf’s war plan.
All in all, major western allies deployed almost 60,000 personnel to the war effort. The British again led the way, with some 35,000 troops, followed by France with about 15,000, Italy with 1,500, and the Netherlands with 1,000. Germany sent 1,000 personnel to help defend Turkey against any possible reprisals.
Canada deployed 1,700 troops; Australia sent 500; smaller NATO allies another couple thousand. All in all, major western allies deployed almost 60,000 personnel to the war effort.
And that does not even talk about the money. You want to compare the share the US paid in 1991 with the US costs now?
About the war on terrorism: it is not simply a matter of finding and slaying the bad guys. If you kill the ‘first generation’ terrorists you have to work hard to make sure that there is not a net gain due to the increase in ‘second generation terrorists’.
You need intelligence, good global intelligence. Again, from the Brookings institution a piece about the improvements in French counterterrorism.
You need to stop the money flow, freeze their assets and make it very hard for them to get their hands on money. Again an issue you need global cooperation on.
And you need to prevent recruitment. IMHO all those Saoedi-Arabia financed madrasses that provide at least a bit of free schooling for the poor lay a lot of the founding bits. Education and schooling are key to schooling minds to think for themself.
Polarisation, black-and-white views and lack of nuance are good breedinggrounds too. I recommend this piece by Robbert Young about terrorism and fundamentalism.
In terms of total combat capability, the European contribution in Afghanistan is actually derisory.
As is the US contribution in Afghanistan.
I’m just saying.
“The government of Saudi Arabia is afraid to alienate these fundamentalist sects, so it attempts to accommodate them”
There is a good case to be made that significant members and portions of the SA Royal Family(government) are supporters both theologically and materially of fundamentalist terrorism. Religious fanaticism is by no means limited to the poor and powerless; nor is it always adopted cynically by the rich and powerful. Historical examples presumed unnecessary.
While I have absolutely no interest in defending European countries in everything they do, or in arguing that they are paragons of wonderfulness on all occasions, I do think this post gets it wrong. When the US was attacked on 9/11, European countries in NATO invoked, for (I think) the first time ever, the article that says that an attack on one is an attack on all, and offered their assistance. We basically did not take them up on this offer. Had they been secretly trying to deflect terrorism towards us, this is not an offer they would have made. But they did. Moreover, they helped a lot with intelligence and that sort of counterterrorism work; and, as noted, they have also helped with those parts of the administration strategy that they agree with, namely Afghanistan. They have refused to go along with those US actions that they don’t agree with, but in this they are no different from us: Kyoto and the ICC, for instance, mattered a lot to Europe, but the Bush administration thought they were the wrong policies and refused to go along with them. I really don’t see the European position on Iraq as all that different: most of them thought that what we were doing was misguided, and they declined to participate.
By now, though, their relations with the Bush administration are utterly poisonous, so it’s not just about calculations of interest. This is a terrible thing, I think.
On Sudan, the positions of many European countries are imho indefensible.
One of the key contentions in different outlooks on the War on Terrorism centers around the suggestion that it is in every civilized nation’s best interest to control terrorism.
Huh? I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone on either side say that. You got a quote?
BTW, this bit:
If France can deflect terrorism onto the United States, it is in the best short-term interest of France to do so.
is a) true for every nation in the world with respect to every other nation in the world, b) a complete non sequitur given the preceding sentence, and c) at odds with the French government’s cooperation in the law enforcement aspects of the “War on Terrorism”. Remember almost a year ago when a bunch of flights from Paris to the U.S. got cancelled?
Pathetic.
Do you have any evidence–any at all–that France has deflected terrorists onto the United States?
Responding to lots of people:
“A second point: if ‘most European nations’ had no ‘military might’ to offer, one would be surprised to see several thousand European troops making up – and leading – the international security force in Kabul. However, this is in fact what one sees. This suggests that, in fact, most European nations do have some ‘military might’ to offer.”
Which is why I specifically did not say ‘no military might’, I suggested very little, and no significant ability to act beyond their own borders. Please also note that several thousand total, from all of Europe, is A) very little and when Afghanistan asked for a mere few thousand more B) France resisted and complained and whined and C) please note that the NATO countries were unwilling to participate in the invasion itself with even a paltry 5-10,000 troops unless they were given operational control over the entire invasion. This is a typical European attitude to military operations in the current structure-pathetic contribution paired with a desire to run the show.
“You need to stop the money flow, freeze their assets and make it very hard for them to get their hands on money. Again an issue you need global cooperation on.”
You might want to do a bit more research on that issue. The UN hasn’t been cooperating in the money-freezing area. Yet another example of the untruth that ‘everyone wants to get rid of terrorism’. But thanks for reminding me of yet another area of international failure.
So, do you realize that you are merely arguing that no-one is serious about the war on terrorism? You most certainly are not arguing that Europe is serious about it, right?
This is an accurate description of European rhetoric but inaccurate in terms of meaning. Their invocation was immediately used to try to limit US action, not join in US action. The declaration was precisely counter to the spirit of a mutual defense pact.
“On Sudan, the positions of many European countries are imho indefensible.”
But you don’t seem to be interested in exploring why they take an indefensible position. Is it because they don’t care about upholding international treaties? Or is it because they have nothing substantial to offer in terms of military capability? Those are really the only two major options, but neither of them are particularly helpful.
“Remember almost a year ago when a bunch of flights from Paris to the U.S. got cancelled?”
My contention is that the most of the European powers are willing to, for the most part, police their own countries and not actively engage outside of their borders. This is entirely in line with that.
Praktike, I am not suggesting that France goes to terrorist headquarters and says, please attack the US. I am suggesting that France attempts to deflect terrorism by, A) refusing to engage it abroad, B) VERY PUBLICALLY obstructing US efforts in the Middle East including in the Sudan, and C) supporting terrorist-aiding states diplomatically. See Syria, see Iran, see the Sudan. This is entirely in line with a country which wants to play a diplomatic game against the United States while attempting to deflect Islamist attention from itself. Furthermore, this is exactly the same historical French game of playing opposing powers off each other–see especially the Cold War.
No one here is seriously engaging the free rider effect–so long as the US is fighting terrorism it is in the interests of many countries to avoid drawing attention to themselves by letting the US do so and not helping too much. They may help a bit on the side so as not to anger the US too much, but they are willing to risk US anger on serious interventions because we aren’t going to attack them.
Seabass, you are presupposing that France views the Great Iraqi Adventure as helpful in engaging terrorism abroad. I think that France’s experience in Algeria–and Chirac himself was in Algeria–is where to look for an understanding of why it has been skeptical of the American approach.
Seems to me that the biggest free-riders here are in Teheran. But then, viewed from Teheran, the road to Jerusalem leads through Baghdad . . .
I think it is safe to say that only the Coalition of the Willing is taking the actions that will reshape the Middle East which has been a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism. France seems to be putting a band aid on the problem internally, but is not willing to help cure the disease.
The Coalition of the Willing is trying to bring the people of the Middle East the freedom that the Western world enjoys in order to eliminate it as a breeding ground for terrorism. Democracy is the best option.
Another way of looking at this is to say the the U.S. is working to fix the failed Nation states that permeate the Middle East and are an underlying cause of Islamic terrorism.
hmmmm. in no particular order:
1. European actions in Sudan. As i posted in a thread a week or so ago, the US directly and adversely interfered with the development by the EU of an independant rapid deployment force. Yes, i’m sure that certain politicians in the EU were delighted to use the american interference as a justification for not funding the EU RDF. but still . . . it’s hard for the US to claim moral high ground.
2. Assimilation. The US is very lucky that its neighbor to the south is a christian country rather than a muslim one. Frankly, i see the head scarf issue in France as a highly commendable attempt to have an open dialog in that country on the assimilation of muslims.
The EU countries have a fair bit more history than the US (duh). And look at the nativist voices here. Declining birth rates and a commendable commitment to increasing the mobility of labor within the EU have necessarily lead to difficult discussions about the future of these countries, and what it means to be English, French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Italian etc. I remember reading grumbles about the fact that Lennox Lewis was black!
3. Anti-terrorism. The US’s refusal to commit to not seeking the death penalty has prevented extraditions and the sharing of evidence, despite the fact that the feds have the power to impose LWOP (life without parole). The US’s refusal to share information resulted in terrorist convictions being reversed in Germany. The republican senate has taken the lead in stifling changes to banking laws which would ease the tracking of terrorist dollars. the US AG has more staff chasing Cuba violations than terrorist financial transactions.
by contrast, french magistrates do not operate under the 4th amendment. french, spanish, italian and german magistrates have done yeoman’s work, at tremendous personal risk, in investigating european terror cells.
4. no, the EU countries aren’t perfect. and yes, the EU countries do free-ride on american investment in pharmaceuticals and weaponry. why shouldn’t they?
5. why do so many conservatives have such a strong desire to see the worst in foreign countries? why bother declaring France to be a mortal enemy (see, e.g., lgf and uss clueless)? don’t we have enough enemies as it is? why not recognize that our allies have their own interests around the world and so some conflict with american foreign economic and political interests is inevitable?
Francis
jes – “Yes, Blogbuds. For 223 years. Read a little history, why don’t you?”
Ohhhh! That would explain Guy Fawkes Day. Le plus on leur baise le cul, le plus ils nous chient sur la tete.
Seabass, you are presupposing…
Pathetic.
Do you have any evidence–any at all–that Sebastian is a fish?
I’m not here to declare France a mortal enemy, just a non-reliable neutral. But I don’t accept your narrative on the RDF.
One of the major problems with the RDF is that it wanted to be separate from NATO–but receive NATO support and equipment nonetheless. I don’t think it is shocking at all that the US wasn’t interested in that.
“Do you have any evidence–any at all–that Sebastian is a fish?”
He might have seen “The Little Mermaid” and then gotten confused. I am actually a crab with a fun singing voice. 😉
“but still . . . it’s hard for the US to claim moral high ground.”
I don’t think the point is that the U.S. is claiming a high moral ground. I think the point is that the EU needs to get up off the ground. They just seem to be sitting and watching from the sidelines… or more accurately… talking and talking and talking and talking… but that’s it.
“Assimilation.”
I wonder why they call us a melting pot. It’s pretty safe to say the U.S. has the most diverse population in the world, but yet we can still commit.
” why shouldn’t they?”
Uhmmm… pride.
“why do so many conservatives have such a strong desire to see the worst in foreign countries?”
This conservative has traveled all over the world loves almost everywhere I have ever been. Heck, I even was treated well in Paris. I know it sounds hard to believe, but they weren’t even rude to me. But, when countries actively work against our interests, then they are not being neutral. They are aiding the enemy and that is not acceptable behaviour among friends.
god forbid that the europeans who have tasked certain assets to be available for NATO operations also task those assets for use in the RRF when not being used by NATO! how dare those europeans try to be efficient with tax dollars!
try this quote from a british think tank:
“Most EU Member States, including the United Kingdom, have aimed to use the assets of existing organizations, especially from NATO, in an effort to avoid duplication and to cut down on costs. On the other hand, France, and to a lesser extent, Germany, have advocated the creation of all necessary capabilities that would enable the EU to manage its military missions entirely independent of NATO. Whereas sharing assets with NATO might help reduce costs, a completely self-contained security structure might give the ERRF more flexibility in its operations.”
and this one:
“Turkey wants the approval for EU-use [of NATO assets] to be done on a case-by-case basis because it fears the ERRF might become involved in conflicts pertaining to Turkey’s strategic interests.” Unsurprisingly, this is not acceptable to Greece.
So, oddly enough, it is the UK’s insistence on using the NATO structure, combined with Greece’s presence in the EU and Turkey’s presence in NATO, combined with the historical enmity between Greece and Turkey, that is leading to delays in the development of an effective EU RRF.
France and Germany, on the other hand, support your position, Sebastian.
Francis
France and Germany support my position rhetorically but you might note that they do not put up money. And yes the RRF hasn’t gotten anywhere because of that fight, but A) the US had little to do with it, and B) England supported NATO sharing because it would be affiliated with NATO, C) France and Germany wanted it to have a completely separate command structure.
Blogbudsman: Les regles de posting s’appliquent egalement aux posts en Francais. L’obscenite est interdit ici, quelle que soit la langue dans laquelle on l’ecrit.
Je suis vraiment désolé… veuillez m’excuser. And also for the fact that I cannot speak French.
Well, you can do a pretty good imitation of one. — If you don’t speak French, did you know what you wrote before? It was right up there on the obscenity scale.
Hilzoy, I checked what Blue wrote on Babelfish (not being particularly good at French myself) and decided to terminate the conversation. However, if he really didn’t have any idea what he was saying, I can only suggest that it’s really not a good idea to copy out things when you don’t know what they mean: you run the risk of being far more offensive that you intended to be.
I presumed blogbudsman was quoting from this, given the whole history/French as allies thing.
Oh, and having linked to the item in my previous post, I’d just like to rubbish its claim that:
The Free French were not even told when D-Day was scheduled, and took no part in D-Day. A small French force was allowed to participate in Operation Anvil—the invasion of southern France in August of 1944.
In actual fact there were at least 177 Free French commandos, the Kieffer commandos, landing with the British at Sword Beach. Moreover, they were given the honour of setting foot first on French soil.
And should anyone not believe me, they can take it up with my country’s Ministry of Defence. Or President Clinton.
Ah. All is explained. That article might also have mentioned the Resistance, but hey.
Jes,
I think there is some confusion here…
“Hilzoy, I checked what Blue wrote on Babelfish (not being particularly good at French myself) and decided to terminate the conversation.”
I don’t think I said anything other than…
“Heck, I even was treated well in Paris. I know it sounds hard to believe, but they weren’t even rude to me.”
But, my French is probably above average. What needs to be translated?
Blue, I apologise: you’re right. I mis-typed. It was Blogbudsman who made the offensive comment in French, at which point I decided to terminate the conversation with him, not with you.
I have had the same experience as you in Paris, except for a couple of waiters. But Parisian friends tell me that they’re rude to everyone, without discrimination. 😉
Dutchmarbel:
“You need to stop the money flow, freeze their assets and make it very hard for them to get their hands on money. Again an issue you need global cooperation on.”
Sebastian:
“You might want to do a bit more research on that issue. The UN hasn’t been cooperating in the money-freezing area. Yet another example of the untruth that ‘everyone wants to get rid of terrorism’. But thanks for reminding me of yet another area of international failure.”
Isn’t there an English verb about doctors that should take their own medicin?
From (a.o.) CDI:
With al Qaeda funds believed to be dispersed mainly outside the United States, international participation is indispensable in choking off bin Laden’s money supply. Nearly three months the Sept. 11 attacks, 197 countries have expressed support for U.S. efforts to block terrorist assets, and 147 countries have either put blocking orders in force or asked for U.S. assistance in enforcing legal or regulatory measures to choke of terrorist funds.
The United Nations has ordered all member states to freeze assets of organizations and individuals on the Treasury Department’s freeze list (Security Council resolution 7158). UNSCR 1373, passed on Sept. 28, 2001, requires all member nations to deny safe haven to terrorists. Furthermore, on Nov. 27, 2001, the United Nations ordered its members to freeze assets held by every member of the former Taliban government in Afghanistan. Its freeze list, containing 152 names, includes Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar as well as senior officials from various government ministries. The adoption of the list by the UN Security Council sanctions committee obligates all 182 member states to comply with the freeze order. The new UN Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) reported on Jan. 10, 2002, that it received reports regarding compliance with Resolution 1373 from 117 countries.
From The United States Mission to the European Union
Blocking the flow of money to terrorists may be one of the best ways to stop terror altogether, a Treasury department official says.
However, making progress in the fight against terrorist financing is difficult without international cooperation because the “overwhelming” bulk of terrorist assets reside and flow beyond U.S. borders, David Aufhauser, the department’s general counsel, said in September 24 testimony before a House of Representatives Financial Services subcommittee.
nd in the “deliberately” open and increasingly integrated world economy the “ways to game restrictions on the flow of capital are nearly infinite,” he added.
From The journal of Homeland Security:
An international focus has to remain the priority in any action taken, since the majority of terrorist assets, cash flows, and evidence lie outside U.S. borders. Some nations’ laws have not been harmonized with those of the United States, creating barriers to cooperation. Some nations also do not have the technical ability and training to maximize their efforts to counter terrorist financing. Consequently, legal harmonization endeavors should continue to maximize preventive efforts against terrorist financing. Also, technical assistance should continue to be provided bilaterally and multilaterally to key nations that do not have their intelligence or customs records available electronically.
Finally, the greatest weakness in the efforts to counter terrorist financing lies in the inability to develop effective tracking measures for trade-based money laundering and hawalas. Technical assistance and legal harmonization are necessary, but without an effective means of tracking all the money, they will be limited in their effectiveness in the financial war on terrorism. As a result, focusing on the methods of terrorist financing should be the new priority. This can and should be done without sacrificing the important progress made in the other areas of combating terrorist financing. By maximizing international cooperation, continuing technical and legal harmonization efforts, and increasing national and international regulation, the United States can implement a long-term strategy to combat terrorist financing. Such a strategy will aid the larger war on terrorism by starving the terrorists of their funding to commit deadly, heinous acts against the United States and the international community.
The latter also had an interesting article about the differences between European and US approach.
Dutchmarbel, as usual we see the difference between expressions of support and actual support. You quote expressions of support early in the game. If you dug a little deeper and a little later you might have found articles like This :
Or, this:
Or this:
There is also an interim report to the UN floating around somewhere which is crticial of the money-blocking efforts, but I can’t find it tonight.
The UN, as shown in both your and mine links, has actively worked to implement anti-terror measurements. Not all the members have ratified yet, for various reasons, but on the whole a lot of things seem to work well. To quote from your MercuryNews article: “The U.N. panel found that on Jan. 28, Nada traveled from his home in Switzerland to Vaduz, Liechtenstein, to change the names of two companies that were targets of the asset freeze. Despite his designated status, he traveled under his own name and even received a new passport before leaving.In Liechtenstein, Nada sought to liquidate both renamed companies and listed himself as the liquidator, a move that would have allowed him to pocket the proceeds. When U.N. officials discovered the move and protested, the liquidation was halted.”
From your quote about the EU:
EU efforts are hampered by lax border controls in many European countries, particularly those in the Schengen Area group – 13 of the 15 EU member countries that abolished border controls among themselves – and the “stringent evidentiary standards” required by certain European legal systems to block assets.
That made me laugh. They are suprised that the member countries that abolished border controls among themselves do not control borders??
And the fact that we have “stringent evidentiary standards” is true. Less so these days (your article is from 2002) and I am not sure that is an improvement.
You claim not much has been done and the US does not really need the rest of the world in the ‘war against terror’. Your proof consists of three newspaper articles about how not enough is done. Of course, if international cooperation had no impact there would be no reason to complain about lack of support…
I claim that international cooperation is essential and that quite a lot of things are allready happening. For a good overview of the things that *are* done I think the 2004 report “Patterns of Global Terrorism” by the US Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism is a good source. This is a link to the European section. First paragraph:
European nations worked in close partnership with the United States in the global counterterrorism campaign and have continued to strengthen their legal and administrative ability to take action against terrorists and their supporters, including freezing their assets. The contributions of European countries in sharing intelligence, arresting members of terrorist cells, and interdicting terrorist financing and logistics continued to be vital elements in the war on terrorism. Allies such as France and the United Kingdom were particularly responsive during periods of heightened security, cooperating with United States officials to monitor airline flights of concern.
hmmm… something went wrong in the cut and paste. This is a link to their European section.
“That made me laugh. They are suprised that the member countries that abolished border controls among themselves do not control borders?”
Still have to control the borders coming into the group, correct?
Sebastian: turn the issue around. Would you be in favor of bordercontroles between the states in the USA?
Before Schengen more borders needed to be checked and cooperation was a lot less. Since we have to control less borders we can direct are means towards the remaining border – and there are many many international projects where knowledge, experience and personnel are lent to other countries.
It actually is a hot item in Europe, especially after the recent expension of the EU, but seen more in the light of immigration issues & drugstrade.
Have you read the global terrorism reports of your government I linked too?