NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

GLOBAL INITIATIVE TO COMBAT NUCLEAR TERRORISM STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES Participants in the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism are committed to the following Statement of Principles to develop partnership capacity to combat nuclear terrorism on a determined and systematic basis, consistent with national legal authorities and obligations they have under relevant international legal frameworks, notably the Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and its 2005 Amendment, United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1373 and 1540. They call on all states concerned with this threat to international peace and security, to make a commitment to implement on a voluntary basis the following principles: Develop, if necessary, and improve accounting, control and physical protection systems for nuclear and other radioactive materials and substances; Enhance security of civilian nuclear facilities; Improve the ability to detect nuclear and other radioactive materials and substances in order to prevent illicit trafficking in such materials and substances, to include cooperation in the research and development of national detection capabilities that would be interoperable; Improve capabilities of participants to search for, confiscate, and establish safe control over unlawfully held nuclear or other radioactive materials and substances or devices using them. Prevent the provision of safe haven to terrorists and financial or economic resources to terrorists seeking to acquire or use nuclear and other radioactive materials and substances; Ensure adequate respective national legal and regulatory frameworks sufficient to provide for the implementation of appropriate criminal and, if applicable, civil liability for terrorists and those who facilitate acts of nuclear terrorism; Improve capabilities of participants for response, mitigation, and investigation, in cases of terrorist attacks involving the use of nuclear and other radioactive materials and substances, including the development of technical means to identify nuclear and other radioactive materials and substances that are, or may be, involved in the incident; and Promote information sharing pertaining to the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism and their facilitation, taking appropriate measures consistent with their national law and international obligations to protect the confidentiality of any information which they exchange in confidence. Global Initiative participants recognize the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the fields of nuclear safety and security and the IAEA has been invited to serve as an observer to the Initiative. All participants commend the IAEA for its action in the field of nuclear security. Participants intend for the IAEA to contribute to the Initiative through its ongoing activities and technical expertise.

Angelo Ray Aurelio Adina The initial partner nations intend to establish a terms of reference for implementation and assessment to support effective fulfillment of the initiative, including by facilitating the provision of assistance to participants that may require it, and facilitating suitable exercises. They express the desire to broaden participation in the Global Initiative to other countries who share the common goals of the Initiative, are actively committed to combating nuclear terrorism, and endorse the Statement of Principles. ARMS CONTROL & DISARMAMENT INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS are a cornerstone of the international nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament regime. In the aftermath of World War II and during the Cold War, multilateral initiatives to counter the spread of nuclear weapons and slow down the nuclear arms race increased in significance, despite changing security environments. The United Nations (UN) and its various bodies and agencies are at the forefront of international nonproliferation and security activities. These activities cover a wide range of security issues and decision-making processes. UN Established in 1945, the United Nations (UN), with 191 member states, is the largest international organization dealing with a wide range of international security topics. The principal UN organs that address nonproliferation and disarmament issues are the General Assembly (First Committee), the Security Council, and the Department of Disarmament Affairs (DDA). Under Article 11 of the UN Charter, the function of the General Assembly is to consider and discuss the general principles of cooperation in the maintenance of international peace and security. The General Assembly can make recommendations to Member States and the Security Council, and it can call the attention of the Security Council to situations which are likely to endanger international peace and security. The Disarmament and International Security Committee (First Committee), a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, recommends resolutions and decisions for adoption by the General Assembly. Issues discussed in the First Committee range from nuclear weapons and testing to nuclear weapon-free zones and confidence building measures regarding disarmament. The Security Council consists of five permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) and 10 non-permanent members. Article 26 of the UN Charter stipulates the following functions of the Security Council: In order to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources, the Security Council shall be responsible for formulating, with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee referred to in Article 47, plans to be submitted to the Members of the United Nations for the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments . The Military Staff Committee

advises and assists the Security Council in maintaining international peace and security. The Department on Disarmament Affairs (DDA) provides substantive and organizational support to UN Member States for disarmament norm-setting through the work of the General Assembly and the First Committee, and other bodies. The DDAs Weapons of Mass Destruction Branch supports multilateral efforts to strengthen the international norm on disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and cooperates with other UN agencies, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). CD The Conference on Disarmament (CD), established in 1979 as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community, was a result of the first Special Session on Disarmament of the United Nations General Assembly held in 1978. The CD has a special relationship with the United Nations but remains an autonomous institution; it adopts its own Rules of Procedure and its own agenda, taking into account the recommendations of the General Assembly. The terms of reference of the CD include practically all multilateral arms control and disarmament problems. The CD focuses on issues such as the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament; prevention of nuclear war and of an arms race in outer space; new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons including radiological weapons . The CD and its predecessors have negotiated such major multilateral arms control and disarmament agreements as the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). In March 1995, the CD adopted a mandate to negotiate a ban on the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. However, negotiations on the Fissile Materials Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) have been stalled for years. IAEA The International Atomic Energy Agency, established in 1957, assists in the development and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes . This work involves establishing and verifying safeguards agreements as required by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Upon completion of a safeguards agreement with a NPT member states, the IAEA is authorized to conduct inspections of the countrys declared nuclear sites and facilities . The IAEAs Board of Governors, which is comprised of 35 members, approves safeguards procedures and supervises their implementation . If a state is found in non-compliance with its safeguards agreements, the Board of Governors is to call on the state to provide more information and may refer it to the UN Security Council for further action . The IAEA conducts its activities in conformity with the principles and policies of the United Nations to provide for peace and security through safeguards .

Angelo Ray Aurelio Adina CTBTO The Preparatory Commission of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) was established by signatory member states in 1996 . The Preparatory Commission carries out preparations for the effective implementation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The CTBT was opened for signature in 1996, but has not yet entered into force . The CTBT prohibits any kind of nuclear weapon testing . The Preparatory Commission is responsible for establishing the International Monitoring System, a global verification system that monitors the earth for evidence of nuclear explosions. REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS European Union (EU) The European Union (EU) comprises 25 member states, two of which, France and the United Kingdom, are nuclear-weapon states (NWS). The EU, with its five institutions and various bodies, aims to organize relations between members and their policies in a coherent fashion. These efforts, guided by effective multilateralism, also include the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSC) which was first conceived in 1993 to preserve peace and strengthen international security. The EU is engaged in various nonproliferation and disarmament activities to promote international peace and security. Active participation in the nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT) Preparatory Committees and Review Conference has been consistent and fruitful. At the 2000 Review Conference, the EU issued a Common Position statement that represented a consensus agreement by all 15 EU members. In 1999, the Council of the EU initiated a Joint Action program to support Russias nonproliferation efforts. In accordance with its emphasis on multilateralism, the Council of the EU adopted the EU Strategy Against the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Another Joint Action was launched in 2004 to support the International Atomic Energy Agencys nuclear security program. Considering the broad and diverse membership of the EU, such agreements are the result of major efforts to represent all member states. In addition to the two nuclear-weapon states (France and the United Kingdom), four other EU members host US nuclear weapons on their territory. Under the policy of nuclear sharing of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a wide range of different types of US nuclear weapons are based in Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. NATOs Strategy Concept of 1999 promoting the reliance on nuclear weapons deployment has recently sparked renewed calls by Belgian, Dutch, and German politicians for the removal of such weapons from non-nuclearweapon states territories. One main argument for such a move is the incompatibility of nuclear sharing with Article 1 of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits the transfer of nuclear weapons. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed in 1955 to provide its 26 member states with an umbrella of collective security. NATO countries argue that its nuclear policy of basing nuclear weapons on the territories of non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS) is

central to maintaining this security. In addition to the three NATO members France, the United Kingdom, and the United States that are recognized by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as nuclear-weapon states (NWS), Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey host US nuclear weapons. This policy of nuclear sharing is reiterated in the Strategic Concept made public in 1999, which declared that nuclear weapons will remain in Europe indefinitely. NATOs nuclear policy also targets the security challenges posed by the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). In 1994, NATO declared as its main goal the Alliance Policy Framework on the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Along with its Strategic Concept, NATO announced a new initiative on WMD that serves as a consultative forum. The initiative was followed by the creation of a Center on WMD at NATO Headquarters. NATO also organizes frequent seminars and workshops on issues regarding WMD terrorism and proliferation, such as the seminar held in Sofia, Bulgaria in June 2005. Arms Control and Regional Security in the Middle East (ACRS) Working Group The Arms Control and Regional Security in the Middle East (ACRS) Working Group was formed after the opening round of the Middle East Peace Process in Madrid in 1991. This multilateral working group addresses security issues that are specific to the region and its 13 Arab member states, Israel, and Palestine. A range of extra-regional entities, including the European Union, United Nations, and the United States, also participate in plenary meetings to discuss regional confidence building measures, arms control education, and the prospects of a Middle East Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone. The group has managed to agree on arms control measures, but none have been implemented. No formal plenary session has taken place since 1995. Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was founded by Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand in 1967. ASEAN, comprising 10 members today, furthers economic and social development in the region and promotes regional security for its members. Its main achievement in regional arms control was the conclusion of the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone (SEANWFZ) Treaty in 1995. This zone covers the territories of all 10 ASEAN members, which are obligated not to develop, acquire, and possess nuclear weapons. The Treaty also provides for a Protocol that protects states parties from the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against them. The Protocol is open to signature by the five nuclear-weapon states, but none of them has ratified it yet. Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) The Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) was founded in 1994 to facilitate the implementation of the 1994 Agreed Framework between the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea and the United States. Under the Agreement, North Korea agreed to freeze and ultimately dismantle its nuclear program, while the United States pledged to assist in the building of two light water reactors. In 2003, KEDO, comprised of

Angelo Ray Aurelio Adina 13 countries, suspended the light water reactors project, claiming that North Korea had not met the necessary conditions for receiving technical assistance. Internal organizational problems may further obstruct KEDOs work. In May 2005, the executive director Charles Kartman resigned, and further downsizing of the organizations staff is planned. Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL) The Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL) is an intergovernmental agency created by the Treaty of Tlatelolco to ensure that the obligations of the Treaty be met. OPANAL is responsible for arranging regular and special general conferences and consultation meetings related to the established purposes, means, and procedures of the Treaty. The Treaty of Tlatelolco prohibits the development, testing, and use of nuclear weapons in the region. All five nuclear-weapon states have ratified the Protocol to the Treaty, which provides negative security assurances for non-nuclear states that are parties to the Treaty. NUCLEAR DETERRENCE aims to prevent unwanted action by an opponent by convincing them that the resultant costs would exceed any gains. In short, the costs would involve massive destruction from a nuclear strike. Nuclear deterrence involves several paradoxes. For example, the threat of use of nuclear weapons is supposed to prevent war, including the use of nuclear weapons. But to be credible, the deterring state must demonstrate a readiness to use nuclear weapons, which increases the probability of such use, particularly over a long period of time. Thus, nuclear deterrence is an inherently unstable policy. Nuclear deterrence has evolved from the simple threat of massive retaliation to a range of forms. It includes: counter-force; the threat of nuclear retaliation against military targets, counter-value; the threat of nuclear retaliation against the opposing state in general, flexible response; the deployment of sub-strategic or tactical weapons for battlefield use or for use as an interim step prior to massive retaliation; first-strike; the use of nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack or to pre-emptively destroy the weapons of an opponent, extended deterrence; the extension of nuclear deterrence to cover the territories of non-nuclear allies, existential deterrence; the ability to develop nuclear weapons without actual deployment. United States In January 2002, the US Administration completed a Nuclear Posture Review. In many respects the NPR continues policies outlined in more detail in the 1996 US Joint Chiefs of Staff Doctrine for Joint Theater Nuclear Operations. Key points in the document included: o A strong US nuclear capability is necessary to deter aggression Nuclear weapons could be used for political or military reasons. o Nuclear weapons are not just to deter a nuclear strike, but have a role in deterring, or pre-emptively destroying, any weapons of mass destruction.

o The US requires a wide range of nuclear systems tailored for a variety of military and political objectives. The 1996 Doctrine includes detailed plans for nuclear strikes and describes targets for such strikes including: WMD, their delivery systems and support units; ground combat units; air defense facilties; naval installations and vessels; on-state actors that possess WMD; and underground facilties. In order to be capable of delivering such strikes at a moment's notice, the US maintains over 2000 nuclear weapons on high alert status. In May 2001, US President George Bush outlined "new concepts of deterrence that rely on both offensive and defensive forces." The new policy was an admission that nuclear deterrence was not infallible, but the solution was not to abandon the current nuclear policy but supplement it with missile defence and conventional forces. The 2002 Nuclear Policy Review confirmed this "New Triad" of capabilities, as well as the intention of the US to modernise nuclear delivery systems and maintain a strong nuclear stockpile indefinitely. Thus the contradiction between US policy and its NPT commitments remains. Russia In January 2000, the Russian Government released its new nuclear policy in a document entitled Concept of National Security. The document updates policy statements made in 1993 and 1997, and indicates a heightened sense of conflict with NATO and the US on nuclear issues, and an increased reliance on nuclear weapons. It affirms a strengthened Russian policy for the use of nuclear weapons, not only in response to a nuclear attack, but also to a conventional attack. Cooperation between the US and Russia, including the Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs to secure Russian nuclear weapons and fissile materials, have come under strain in the wake of NATO expansion, the NATO attacks on Serbia and the decision by the US to move ahead with National Missile Defense. Russia no longer maintains a 'no-first-use' policy, and is considering re-deployment of tactical nuclear weapons. The Russian Duma (Parliament) ratified START II on the basis that the ABM Treaty be maintained. Thus US plans to withdraw from the ABM are prompting Russia to maintain a number of START II missiles, and possibly even increase the numbers of warheads on some of them. NATO The US deploys tactical nuclear weapons in seven NATO countries (Greece, Italy, Germany, Turkey, Belgium, UK, Netherlands), and has agreements wit these countries allowing them to take control of the weapons and use them in a state of war. These agreements are somewhat controversial with some NPT members claiming they are in violation of NPT Articles I and II. NATO policy, like that of the US, UK, France and Russia, allows for the possible 'first-use' of nuclear weapons. In the 1980s NATO Military Command maintained detailed plans for the use of nuclear weapons in specific scenarios. However, in recent years it has developed

Angelo Ray Aurelio Adina "adaptive targeting capability" designed to allow NATO commanders to develop target plans and nuclear weapons employment plans on short notice. NATO reliance on nuclear weapons was reaffirmed in the 1999 Strategic Concept released on NATO's 50th anniversary. Attempts by Canada, Germany and the Netherlands to initiate a wide debate on NATO nuclear doctrine were rebuffed by the US, UK and France. However, they did agree to an ongoing review of NATO nuclear policy. United Kingdom In July 1998 Britain's Labour government announced several changes to its nuclear forces following a Strategic Defense. Only one British submarine will patrol at any given time carrying 48 warheads. The submarine will patrol at a reduced state of alert - capable of firing its missiles within several days instead of within several minutes. Britain will maintain fewer than 200 operationally available warheads. In addition, the United Kingdom has supported the concept of multi-lateral negotiations leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons, but says that such negotiations cannot start until the nuclear stockpiles of the US and Russia are reduced commensurate to the stockpiles of the other NPT NWS. In preparation for nuclear disarmament negotiations, the Defence Department conducted a feasibility study on verification of the elimination of nuclear weapons. China China joined the "nuclear club" in 1964 with a nuclear test at Lop Nor. At the same time China announced a 'no-first-use' policy. It joined the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 1984 and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1992. In comparison to Russia and the USA, China maintains a limited nuclear capability, emphasising the deterrent effect of retaliation rather than flexible use strategies. However, US development of ABM systems are perceived by China to be eroding the retaliation capabilities and thus the deterrence value of their nuclear arsenal. In response, China may increase its arsenal. China has opposed NMD and called for negotiations to prevent an arms race in outer space. It has a policy of nuclear disarmament, and supports negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention, but calls on the US and Russia to bring their stockpiles down to numbers commensurate with those of the other nuclear powers as the first step. France On February 13, 1960, France became the fourth country to test a nuclear device by detonating its first atomic bomb in Reggane (Sahara). The decision to go nuclear was prompted by WWII experience of occupation by Germany and the differences with allies post World War II, especially in the Suez Canal crisis. Since then, nuclear weapons have been integral to France's international political status as well as to military doctrine. At the International Court of Justice hearing on nuclear weapons, France argued that it had a special right and duty, as a responsible nuclear weapon state, to

maintain nuclear weapons for the purpose of international peace and security. France has developed both tactical and strategic weapons. However, the military purpose for its tactical weapons is to serve primarily as warning shots in a strategic conflict and not as battlefield weapons. The most comprehensive statement on French nuclear doctrine was contained in the 1994 Livre Blanc (White Paper) on Defence. It re-affirmed existing doctrine on the possible threat or use of nuclear weapons in international or regional conflicts, but did not adopt the US doctrine of counter-proliferation roles for nuclear weapons. India In 1998 India openly tested nuclear weapons and declared that it had achieved a nuclear capability. It had been widely suspected that India had an undisclosed nuclear capability since the early 1970s. The decision to openly declare nuclear capability has been attributed to a combination of reasons including domestic popularity, an attempt to gain greater international consideration and frustration at the lack of progress towards nuclear disarmament by the nuclear weapon states. The government followed its tests with policy announcements including the report on "Indian nuclear doctrine" released by India's National Security Advisory Board in August 1999. These hold that: o India would not be the first to use nuclear weapons and would be willing to enter into negotiations on a treaty on non-use of nuclear weapons; o India supports negotiations on a nuclear weapons abolition convention; o India supports the inclusion of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as a crime in the Statute of the International Criminal Court. India had initially proposed negotiations for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but in 1996 opposed its conclusion on the grounds that it allowed sub-critical explosions and other high-tech nuclear weapons experiments and was no longer a step towards nuclear disarmament. Pakistan Pakistan is believed to have been developing a nuclear capability since the early 1970s. In May 1998, Pakistan responded to India's nuclear tests by testing a series of nuclear weapons and declaring itself a nuclear weapon power. Pakistan's quest for a nuclear deterrent has been motivated principally by fears of domination by India. The ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir has further fueled this fear, and provided an unstable environment which makes the deployment of nuclear weapons in the region extremely dangerous. Pakistan, like India, has supported comprehensive disarmament proposals at the United Nations and Conference on Disarmament, but did not join the CTBT for similar reasons as India. Pakistan has proposed a number of bilateral or regional initiatives which India has not supported. These include a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in South Asia and joining the NPT. India opposes these on the grounds that they do not address the

Angelo Ray Aurelio Adina nuclear threat India faces from China and the other NWS. Pakistan and India have concluded a number of bilateral confidence building measures including a hotline agreement and an agreement not to attack each other's nuclear power facilities. Both India and Pakistan have developed missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons. Israel Israel does not officially acknowledge that it has nuclear weapons but is believed to have been developing a nuclear weapons program since the mid- 1950s, with technical support from France and possibly the US. In October 1986, the Sunday Times published details of Israel's undeclared nuclear programme, based on information and photographs supplied by Mordechai Vanunu, who had worked as a nuclear technician at Israel's secret Dimona complex. Israel's nuclear policy is related to its relationships with its Arab neighbours. It includes policies of deterrence to prevent conventional attacks or those with weapons of mass destruction, as well as the "Samson option" of nuclear use following outbreak of war in order to ensure the survival of the state. Israel has joined the CTBT but not the NPT. It is not opposed to negotiations on nuclear disarmament, but links its participation to these with progress on peace in the Middle East. Israel also has concerns about verification provisions of arms control treaties, believing that these can be too intrusive and detrimental to intelligence security particularly in geographically small states.

TERRORISM
DEFINITION. Terrorism is not new, and even though it has been used since the beginning of recorded history it can be relatively hard to define. Terrorism has been described variously as both a tactic and strategy; a crime and a holy duty; a justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable abomination. Obviously, a lot depends on whose point of view is being represented. Terrorism has often been an effective tactic for the weaker side in a conflict. As an asymmetric form of conflict, it confers coercive power with many of the advantages of military force at a fraction of the cost. Due to the secretive nature and small size of terrorist organizations, they often offer opponents no clear organization to defend against or to deter. That is why preemption is being considered to be so important. In some cases, terrorism has been a means to carry on a conflict without the adversary realizing the nature of the threat, mistaking terrorism for criminal activity. Because of these characteristics, terrorism has become increasingly common among those pursuing extreme goals throughout the world. But despite its popularity, terrorism can be a nebulous concept. Even within the U.S. Government, agencies responsible for different functions in the ongoing fight against terrorism use different definitions.

The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. Within this definition, there are three key elementsviolence, fear, and intimidationand each element produces terror in its victims. The FBI uses this: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." The U.S. Department of State defines "terrorism" to be "premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. Outside the United States Government, there are greater variations in what features of terrorism are emphasized in definitions. The United Nations produced this definition in 1992; "An anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets." The most commonly accepted academic definition starts with the U.N. definition quoted above, and adds two sentences totaling another 77 words on the end; containing such verbose concepts as "message generators" and 'violence based communication processes." Less specific and considerably less verbose, the British Government definition of 1974 is"the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public, in fear." Terrorism is a criminal act that influences an audience beyond the immediate victim. The strategy of terrorists is to commit acts of violence that draws the attention of the local populace, the government, and the world to their cause. The terrorists plan their attack to obtain the greatest publicity, choosing targets that symbolize what they oppose. The effectiveness of the terrorist act lies not in the act itself, but in the publics or governments reaction to the act. For example, in 1972 at the Munich Olympics, the Black September Organization killed 11 Israelis. The Israelis were the immediate victims. But the true target was the estimated 1 billion people watching the televised event. The Black September Organization used the high visibility of the Olympics to publicize its views on the plight of the Palestinian refugees. Similarly, in October 1983, Middle Eastern terrorists bombed the Marine Battalion Landing Team Headquarters at Beirut International Airport. Their immediate victims were the 241 U.S. military personnel who were killed and over 100 others who were wounded. Their true target was the American people and the U.S. Congress. Their one act of violence influenced the United States decision to withdraw the Marines from Beirut and was therefore considered a terrorist success. There are three perspectives of terrorism: the terrorists, the victims, and the general publics. The phrase one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter is a

Angelo Ray Aurelio Adina view terrorists themselves would accept. Terrorists do not see themselves as evil. They believe they are legitimate combatants, fighting for what they believe in, by whatever means possible. A victim of a terrorist act sees the terrorist as a criminal with no regard for human life. The general publics view is the most unstable. The terrorists take great pains to foster a Robin Hood image in hope of swaying the general publics point of view toward their cause. This sympathetic view of terrorism has become an integral part of their psychological warfare and needs to be countered vigorously. HISTORY. Terrorist acts or the threat of such action have been in existence for millennia. Despite having a history longer than the modern nation-state, the use of terror by governments and those that contest their power remains poorly understood. While the meaning of the word terror itself is clear, when it is applied to acts and actors in the real world it becomes confused. Part of this is due to the use of terror tactics by actors at all levels in the social and political environment. Is the Unabomber, with his solo campaign of terror, a criminal, terrorist, or revolutionary? Can he be compared to the French revolutionary governments who coined the word terrorism by instituting systematic state terror against the population of France in the 1790s, killing thousands? Are either the same as revolutionary terrorist groups such as the Baader-Mienhof Gang of West Germany or the Weather Underground in the United States? So we see that distinctions of size and political legitimacy of the actors using terror raise questions as to what is and is not terrorism. The concept of moral equivalency is frequently used as an argument to broaden and blur the definition of terrorism as well. This concept argues that the outcome of an action is what matters, not the intent. Collateral or unintended damage to civilians from an attack by uniformed military forces on a legitimate military target is the same as a terrorist bomb directed deliberately at the civilian target with the intent of creating that damage. Simply put, a car bomb on a city street and a jet fighter dropping a bomb on a tank are both acts of violence that produce death and terror. Therefore (at the extreme end of this argument) any military action is simply terrorism by a different name. This is the reasoning behind the famous phrase "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It is also a legacy of legitimizing the use of terror by successful revolutionary movements after the fact. The very flexibility and adaptability of terror throughout the years has contributed to the confusion. Those seeking to disrupt, reorder or destroy the status quo have continuously sought new and creative ways to achieve their goals. Changes in the tactics and techniques of terrorists have been significant, but even more significant are the growth in the number of causes and social contexts where terrorism is used. Over the past 20 years, terrorists have committed extremely violent acts for alleged political or religious reasons. Political ideology ranges from the far left to the

far right. For example, the far left can consist of groups such as Marxists and Leninists who propose a revolution of workers led by a revolutionary elite. On the far right, we find dictatorships that typically believe in a merging of state and business leadership. Nationalism is the devotion to the interests or culture of a group of people or a nation. Typically, nationalists share a common ethnic background and wish to establish or regain a homeland. Religious extremists often reject the authority of secular governments and view legal systems that are not based on their religious beliefs as illegitimate. They often view modernization efforts as corrupting influences on traditional culture. Special interest groups include people on the radical fringe of many legitimate causes; e.g., people who use terrorism to uphold antiabortion views, animal rights, radical environmentalism. These groups believe that violence is morally justifiable to achieve their goals. EARLY HISTORY OF TERRORISM TERROR IN ANTIQUITY: 1ST -14TH CENTURY AD The earliest known organization that exhibited aspects of a modern terrorist organization was the Zealots of Judea. Known to the Romans as sicarii, or dagger-men, they carried on an underground campaign of assassination of Roman occupation forces, as well as any Jews they felt had collaborated with the Romans. Their motive was an uncompromising belief that they could not remain faithful to the dictates of Judaism while living as Roman subjects. Eventually, the Zealot revolt became open, and they were finally besieged and committed mass suicide at the fortification of Masada. The Assassins were the next group to show recognizable characteristics of terrorism, as we know it today. A breakaway faction of Shia Islam called the Nizari Ismalis adopted the tactic of assassination of enemy leaders because the cult's limited manpower prevented open combat. Their leader, Hassam-I Sabbah, based the cult in the mountains of Northern Iran. Their tactic of sending a lone assassin to successfully kill a key enemy leader at the certain sacrifice of his own life (the killers waited next to their victims to be killed or captured) inspired fearful awe in their enemies. Even though both the Zealots and the Assassins operated in antiquity, they are relevant today: First as forerunners of modern terrorists in aspects of motivation, organization, targeting, and goals. Secondly, although both were ultimate failures, the fact that they are remembered hundreds of years later, demonstrates the deep psychological impact they caused. EARLY ORIGINS OF TERRORISM: 14TH -18TH CENTURY From the time of the Assassins (late 13th century) to the 1700s, terror and barbarism were widely used in warfare and conflict, but key ingredients for terrorism were lacking. Until the rise of the modern nation state after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the sort of central authority and cohesive society that terrorism attempts to influence barely existed. Communications were inadequate and controlled, and the causes that might inspire terrorism (religious schism, insurrection, ethnic

Angelo Ray Aurelio Adina strife) typically led to open warfare. By the time kingdoms and principalities became nations, they had sufficient means to enforce their authority and suppress activities such as terrorism. The French Revolution provided the first uses of the words "Terrorist" and "Terrorism". Use of the word "terrorism" began in 1795 in reference to the Reign of Terror initiated by the Revolutionary government. The agents of the Committee of Public Safety and the National Convention that enforced the policies of "The Terror" were referred to as 'Terrorists". The French Revolution provided an example to future states in oppressing their populations. It also inspired a reaction by royalists and other opponents of the Revolution who employed terrorist tactics such as assassination and intimidation in resistance to the Revolutionary agents. The Parisian mobs played a critical role at key points before, during, and after the Revolution. Such extra-legal activities as killing prominent officials and aristocrats in gruesome spectacles started long before the guillotine was first used. ENTERING THE MODERN ERA: THE 19TH CENTURY During the late 19th century, radical political theories and improvements in weapons technology spurred the formation of small groups of revolutionaries who effectively attacked nation-states. Anarchists espousing belief in the "propaganda of the deed" produced some striking successes, assassinating heads of state from Russia, France, Spain, Italy, and the United States. However, their lack of organization and refusal to cooperate with other social movements in political efforts rendered anarchists ineffective as a political movement. In contrast, Communism's role as an ideological basis for political terrorism was just beginning, and would become much more significant in the 20th century. Another trend in the late 19th century was the increasing tide of nationalism throughout the world, in which the nation (the identity of a people) and the political state were combined. As states began to emphasize national identities, peoples that had been conquered or colonized could, like the Jews at the times of the Zealots, opt for assimilation or struggle. The bestknown nationalist conflict from this time is still unresolved - the multi-century struggle of Irish nationalism. Nationalism, like communism, became a much greater ideological force in the 20th century. The terrorist group from this period that serves as a model in many ways for what was to come was the Russian Narodnya Volya (Peoples Will). They differed in some ways from modern terrorists, especially in that they would sometimes call off attacks that might endanger individuals other than their intended target. Other than this quirk, we see many of the traits of terrorism here for the first time; clandestine, cellular organization; impatience and inability for the task of organizing the constituents they claim to represent; and a tendency to increase the level of violence as pressures on the group mount. TERRORISM IN THE 20TH AND 21ST CENTURY THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY

The first half of the 20th century saw two events that influenced the nature of conflict to the present day. The effects of two World Wars inflamed passions and hopes of nationalists throughout the world, and severely damaged the legitimacy of the international order and governments. NATIONALISM ON THE RISE Nationalism intensified during the early 20th century throughout the world. It became an especially powerful force in the subject peoples of various colonial empires. Although dissent and resistance were common in many colonial possessions, and sometimes resulted in open warfare, nationalist identities became a focal point for these actions. Gradually, as nations became closely tied to concepts of race and ethnicity, international political developments began to support such concepts. Members of ethnic groups whose states had been absorbed by others or had ceased to exist as separate nations saw opportunities to realize nationalist ambitions. Several of these groups chose terror as a method to conduct their struggle and make their situation known to world powers they hoped would be sympathetic. In Europe, both the Irish and the Macedonians had existing terrorist campaigns as part of their ongoing struggle for independence, but had to initiate bloody uprisings to further their cause. The Irish were partially successful, the Macedonians failed. DAMAGED LEGITIMACY The "total war" practices of all combatants of WWII provided further justification for the "everybody does it" view of the use of terror and violations of the law of war. The desensitization of people and communities to violence that started in World War I accelerated during World War II. The intensity of the conflict between starkly opposed ideologies led to excesses on the part of all participants. New weapons and strategies that targeted the enemies' civilian population to destroy their economic capacity for conflict exposed virtually every civilian to the hazards of combatants. The major powers' support of partisan and resistance organizations using terrorist tactics was viewed as an acceptance of their legitimacy. It seemed that civilians had become legitimate targets, despite any rules forbidding it. COLD WAR DEVELOPMENTS The bi-polar world of the Cold War changed perception of conflicts the world over. Relatively minor confrontations took on significance as arenas where the superpowers could compete without risking escalation to full nuclear war. Warfare between the East and the West took place on the peripheries, and was limited in scope to prevent escalation. During the immediate postwar period, terrorism was more of a tactical choice by leaders of nationalist insurgencies and revolutions. Successful campaigns for independence from colonial rule occurred throughout the world, and many employed terrorism as a supporting tactic. When terrorism was used, it was used within the framework of larger movements, and coordinated with political, social, and military action. Even when terrorism came to dominate the other aspects of a nationalist struggle, such as the Palestinian campaign against Israel, it was (and is) combined with other activities.

Angelo Ray Aurelio Adina Throughout the Cold War, the Soviet Union provided direct and indirect assistance to revolutionary movements around the world. Many anti-colonial movements found the revolutionary extremism of communism attractive. Leaders of these "wars of national liberation" saw the advantage of free weapons and training. They also realized that the assistance and patronage of the Eastern Bloc meant increased international legitimacy. Many of these organizations and individuals utilized terrorism in support of their political and military objectives. The policy of the Soviet Union to support revolutionary struggles everywhere, and to export revolution to non-communist countries, provided extremists willing to employ violence and terror as the means to realize their ambitions. THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF TERROR The age of modern terrorism might be said to have begun in 1968 when the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijacked an El Al airliner en route from Tel Aviv to Rome. While hijackings of airliners had occurred before, this was the first time that the nationality of the carrier (Israeli) and its symbolic value was a specific operational aim. Also a first was the deliberate use of the passengers as hostages for demands made publicly against the Israeli government. The combination of these unique events, added to the international scope of the operation, gained significant media attention. The founder of PFLP, Dr. George Habash observed that the level of coverage was tremendously greater than battles with Israeli soldiers in their previous area of operations. "At least the world is talking about us now." Another aspect of this internationalization is the cooperation between extremist organizations in conducting terrorist operations. Cooperative training between Palestinian groups and European radicals started as early as 1970, and joint operations between the PFLP and the Japanese Red Army (JRA) began in 1974. Since then international terrorist cooperation in training, operations, and support has continued to grow, and continues to this day. Motives range from the ideological, such as the 1980s alliance of the Western European Marxist-oriented groups, to financial, as when the IRA exported its expertise in bomb making as far afield as Colombia CURRENT STATE OF TERRORISM The largest act of international terrorism occured on September 11, 2001 in a set of co-ordinated attacks on the United States of America where Islamic terrorists hijacked civilian airliners and used them to attack the World Trade Center towers in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, DC. Other major terrorist attacks have also occured in New Delhi (Indian Parliament attacked); Bali car bomb attack; London subway bombings; Madrid train bombings and the most recent attacks in Mumbai (hotels, train station and a Jewish outreach center). The operational and strategic epicenter of Islamic terrorism is now mostly centred in Pakistan and Afghanistan. TERRORIST BEHAVIOR There is clearly a wide choice of definitions for terrorism. Despite this, there are elements in common among the

majority of useful definitions. Common threads of the various definitions identify terrorism as political, psychological, coercive, dynamic, deliberate. POLITICAL A terrorist act is a political act or is committed with the intention to cause a political effect. Clausewitz' statement that "war is a continuation of policy by other means" is taken as a truism by terrorists. They merely eliminate the intermediate step of armies and warfare, and apply violence directly to the political contest. PSYCHOLOGICAL The intended results of terrorist acts cause a psychological effect ("terror"). They are aimed at a target audience other than the actual victims of the act. The intended target audience of the terrorist act may be the population as a whole, some specific portion of a society (an ethnic minority, for example), or decisionmaking elites in the society's political, social, or military populace. COERCIVE Violence and destruction are used in the commission of the act to produce the desired effect. Even if casualties or destruction are not the result of a terrorist operation, the threat or potential of violence is what produces the intended effect. For example, a successful hostage taking operation may result in all hostages being freed unharmed after negotiations and bargaining. Regardless of the outcome, the terrorist bargaining chips were nothing less than the raw threat of applying violence to maim or kill some or all of the hostages. When the threat of violence is not credible, or the terrorists are unable to implement violence effectively, terrorism fails. DYNAMIC Terrorist groups demand change, revolution, or political movement. The radical worldview that justifies terrorism mandates drastic action to destroy or alter the status quo. Even if the goals of a movement are reactionary in nature, they require action to "turn back the clock" or restore some cherished value system that is extinct. Nobody commits violent attacks on strangers or innocents to keep things "just the way they are." DELIBERATE Terrorism is an activity planned and intended to achieve particular goals. It is a rationally employed, specifically selected tactic, and is not a random act. Since the victims of terrorist violence are often of little import, with one being as good for the terrorists' purposes as another, victim or target selection can appear random or unprovoked. But the target will contain symbolic value or be capable of eliciting emotional response according to the terrorists' goals. Remember that the actual target of terrorism is not the victim of the violence, but the psychological balance MEDIA EXPLOITATION Terrorism's effects are not necessarily aimed at the victims of terrorist violence. Victims are usually objects to be exploited by the terrorists for their effect on a third party. In order to produce this effect, information of the attack must reach the target audience. So any terrorist organization plans for exploitation of available media to get the message to the right audiences. Victims are

Angelo Ray Aurelio Adina simply the first medium that transmits the psychological impact to the larger target audience. The next step in transmission will depend on what media is available, but it will be planned, and it will frequently be the responsibility of a specific organization within the terrorist group to do nothing else but exploit and control the news cycle. Some organizations can rely on friendly or sympathetic news outlets, but this is not necessary. News media can be manipulated by planning around the demands of the "news cycle", and the advantage that control of the initiative gives the terrorist. Pressures to report quickly, to "scoop" competitors, allow terrorists to present claims or make statements that might be refuted or critically commented on if time were available. Terrorists often provide names and details of individual victims to control the news media through its desire to humanize or personalize a story. For the victims of a terrorist attack, it is a certainty that the impact on the survivors (if there are any) is of minimal importance to the terrorists. What is important is the intended psychological impact that the news of their death or suffering will cause in a wider audience. OPERATIONS IN PERMISSIVE SOCIETIES Terrorists conduct more operations in societies where individual rights and civil legal protections prevail. While terrorists may base themselves in repressive regimes that are sympathetic to them, they usually avoid repressive governments when conducting operations wherever possible. An exception to this case is a repressive regime that does not have the means to enforce security measures. Governments with effective security forces and few guaranteed civil liberties have typically suffered much less from terrorism than liberal states with excellent security forces. Al Qaeda has shown, however, that they will conduct operations anywhere. ILLEGALITY OF METHODS Terrorism is a criminal act. Whether the terrorist chooses to identify himself with military terminology (as discussed under insurgencies below), or with civilian imagery ("brotherhood", "committee", etc.), he is a criminal in both spheres. The violations of civil criminal laws are self-evident in activities such as murder, arson, and kidnapping regardless of the legitimacy of the government enforcing the laws. Victimizing the innocent is criminal injustice under a dictatorship or a democracy. If the terrorist claims that he is justified in using such violence as a military combatant, he is a de facto war criminal under international law and the military justice systems of most nations. PREPARATION AND SUPPORT It's important to understand that actual terrorist operations are the result of extensive preparation and support operations. Media reporting and academic study have mainly focused on the terrorists' goals and actions, which is precisely what the terrorist intends. This neglects the vital but less exciting topic of preparation and support operations. Significant effort and coordination is required to finance group operations, procure or manufacture weapons, conduct target surveillance and analysis, and deliver trained terrorists to the operational area. While the time and effort

expended by the terrorists may be a drop in the bucket compared to the amounts spent to defend against them, terrorist operations can still involve large amounts of money and groups of people. The need for dedicated support activities and resources on simple operations are significant, and get larger the greater the sophistication of the plan and the complexity of the target. TERRORISM AND INSURGENCY If no single definition of terrorism produces a precise, unambiguous description, we can approach the question by eliminating similar activities that are not terrorism, but that appear to overlap. For the U.S. military, two such related concepts probably lead to more confusion than others. Guerilla warfare and insurgencies are often assumed to be synonymous with terrorism. One reason for this is that insurgencies and terrorism often have similar goals. However, if we examine insurgency and guerilla warfare, specific differences emerge. A key difference is that an insurgency is a movement - a political effort with a specific aim. This sets it apart from both guerilla warfare and terrorism, as they are both methods available to pursue the goals of the political movement. Another difference is the intent of the component activities and operations of insurgencies versus terrorism. There is nothing inherent in either insurgency or guerilla warfare that requires the use of terror. While some of the more successful insurgencies and guerilla campaigns employed terrorism and terror tactics, and some developed into conflicts where terror tactics and terrorism became predominant; there have been others that effectively renounced the use of terrorism. The deliberate choice to use terrorism considers its effectiveness in inspiring further resistance, destroying government efficiency, and mobilizing support. Although there are places where terrorism, guerilla warfare, and criminal behavior all overlap, groups that are exclusively terrorist, or subordinate "wings" of insurgencies formed to specifically employ terror tactics, demonstrate clear differences in their objectives and operations. Disagreement on the costs of using terror tactics, or whether terror operations are to be given primacy within the insurgency campaign, have frequently led to the "urban guerilla" or terrorist wings of an insurgency splintering off to pursue the revolutionary goal by their own methods. The ultimate goal of an insurgency is to challenge the existing government for control of all or a portion of its territory, or force political concessions in sharing political power. Insurgencies require the active or tacit support of some portion of the population involved. External support, recognition or approval from other countries or political entities can be useful to insurgents, but is not required. A terror group does not require and rarely has the active support or even the sympathy of a large fraction of the population. While insurgents will frequently describe themselves as "insurgents" or "guerillas", terrorists will not refer to themselves as "terrorists" but describe themselves using military or political terminology ("freedom fighters", "soldiers", "activists"). Terrorism relies on public impact, and is

Angelo Ray Aurelio Adina therefore conscious of the advantage of avoiding the negative connotations of the term "terrorists" in identifying themselves. Terrorism does not attempt to challenge government forces directly, but acts to change perceptions as to the effectiveness or legitimacy of the government itself. This is done by ensuring the widest possible knowledge of the acts of terrorist violence among the target audience. Rarely will terrorists attempt to "control" terrain, as it ties them to identifiable locations and reduces their mobility and security. Terrorists as a rule avoid direct confrontations with government forces. A guerilla force may have something to gain from a clash with a government combat force, such as proving that they can effectively challenge the military effectiveness of the government. A terrorist group has nothing to gain from such a clash. This is not to say that they do not target military or security forces, but that they will not engage in anything resembling a "fair fight", or even a "fight" at all. Terrorists use methods that neutralize the strengths of conventional forces. Bombings and mortar attacks on civilian targets where military or security personnel spend off-duty time, ambushes of undefended convoys, and assassinations of poorly protected individuals are common tactics. Insurgency need not require the targeting of noncombatants, although many insurgencies expand the accepted legal definition of combatants to include police and security personnel in addition to the military. Terrorists do not discriminate between combatants and non-combatants, or if they do, they broaden the category of "combatants" so much as to render it meaningless. Defining all members of a nation or ethnic group, plus any citizen of any nation that supports that nation as "combatants" is simply a justification for frightfulness. Deliberate de-humanization and criminalization of the enemy in the terrorists' mind justifies extreme measures against anyone identified as hostile. Terrorists often expand their groups of acceptable targets, and conduct operations against new targets without any warning or notice of hostilities. Ultimately, the difference between insurgency and terrorism comes down to the intent of the actor. Insurgency movements and guerilla forces can adhere to international norms regarding the law of war in achieving their goals, but terrorists are by definition conducting crimes under both civil and military legal codes. Terrorists routinely claim that were they to adhere to any "law of war" or accept any constraints on the scope of their violence, it would place them at a disadvantage vis--vis the establishment. Since the nature of the terrorist mindset is absolutist, their goals are of paramount importance, and any limitations on a terrorist's means to prosecute the struggle are unacceptable. US DEPARTMENT OF COUNTERTERRORISM January 27, 2012 STATE | BUREAU OF

FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS (FTOs) are foreign organizations that are designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended. FTO designations

Angelo Ray Aurelio Adina play a critical role in our fight against terrorism and are an effective means of curtailing support for terrorist activities and pressuring groups to get out of the terrorism business. Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations 1. Abdallah Azzam Brigades (AAB) 2. Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) 3. Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) 4. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (AAMS) 5. Al-Shabaab 6. Ansar al-Islam (AAI) 7. Asbat al-Ansar 8. Aum Shinrikyo (AUM) 9. Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) 10. Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA) References International Terrorism and Security Research (www.terrorism-research.com/) Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.nuclearfiles.org/) US Department of State (www.state.gov)