[Back]
[Index]
[Next]
|
[Back] |
[Index] |
[Next] | The Inman Report
|
THE THREAT
History of the Threat
From the earliest times, as societies sought to communicate with one another, there evolved a tradition of receiving foreign representatives with respect. Cicero noted, the inviolability of ambassadors is protected by divine and human law; they are sacred and respected so as to be inviolable-not only when in an allied country but also whenever they happen to be in the forces of the enemy. The tradition is recognized as critical to effective relations among states and has enjoyed virtually universal acceptance. As nations developed, the requirements of diplomatic immunity were embodied in the domestic laws of most states and the few who avoided doing so simply cited the universal acceptance of the principle as excusing the need for specific legislation.
This is not to suggest there were not abuses. But any abuse or insult offered a diplomat usually was dealt with swiftly and harshly. Individuals who dared such outrages were treated as criminals who had offended not only the person of the envoy and the sovereign who sent him but also the community in which the offense occurred. Penalties often included death. When the violator was the receiving ruler himself, the matter usually became a cause for war, although there were notable exceptions which simply served to strengthen the concept. Thus, when the Ring of the Ammonites abused the envoys of King David, sent to offer condolences on the death of the former's father, David ordered his armies against the Ammonites and their allies. On the other hand, in 490 B.C., when Darius of Persia dispatched messengers to Athens and Sparta to demand capitulation, the Greeks killed them in defiance of a tradition of respectful treatment even in such circumstances. Two Spartan nobles, shamed at the outrage committed by their countrymen, offered their own lives in expiation. Darius' successor, Xerxes, however, declined the gesture, saying he would not repeat the offense of the Greeks, and sent them home unharmed. He then set out to defeat the Greeks at Thermopolae and went on to sack Athens. Abuse of persons on diplomatic missions, even though fairly common, was the exception to the customary law of nations, at least until recently.
As the United States joined the family of nations, it accepted the well-developed concepts of international law, including diplomatic immunity. We fulfilled our responsibilities toward foreign representatives in this country assiduously, and when our own envoys suffered insult or injury, we expected and usually received appropriate apologies and redress. Occasionally, when local authorities abroad were unable or unwilling to provide protection or to apprehend offenders, we used military force to back up our legitimate demands. On a number of occasions we used Marines to capture offenders for trial by local courts or to carry out what was known as Consign punishment..
Although American officials and premises abroad suffered occasional violence of one sort or another, there was not until recently any real pattern of politically inspired violence. The years following World War II saw a trend to large, often violent demonstrations against embassies and the beginnings of state-directed harassment, again often violent, against diplomats assigned to Eastern Europe.
In the past fifteen years or so, while the older forms of abuse continued against American officials as well as those of other nations, newer, more violent tactics and weapons began to appear. Diplomats more and more frequently were subjected to kidnapping or murder attempts and not a few lost their lives. The international community sought to restate the traditional maxims concerning the inviolability of internationally protected persons, including diplomats,- but with little practical effect.
The assaults have become bloodier and the casualty toll higher. The fabric of international consensus has been strained as rogue states have entered the conflict, waging undeclared war by sponsoring and supporting terrorism against the diplomats of nations whose policies they oppose. In sum, what we have seen in recent years is an expansion of the threat from physical violence against diplomats -- often private, incidental, even furtive -- to the beginnings of calculated terror campaigns, psychological conflict waged by nation or sub-group against nation, with an ever-broadening range of targets, weapons and tactics.
Future of the Threat
There is a consensus within the government and among private scholars that terrorism will be with us for a long time. The approach and kind of specific attacks will constantly change as defensive measures are taken to meet them. The United States will be a principal target of this assault. The evolution of terrorist groups from single issue elements -- such as the PLO, IRA and Basque Separatists -- to state-sponsored terrorism will ensure continued attacks against the United States. Terrorism is an inexpensive form of warfare, the aggression of choice by the weak against the strong, and has the advantage that sponsors can deny any connection with the perpetrators. The success of the Beirut bombings in creating problems for United States policy in Lebanon will assure further use of such means against us.
While attacks may occur anywhere, experts expect that the most terror prone regions will continue to be Western Europe, the Middle East and Latin America. Although the Europeans have made some progress against indigenous terrorist groups, they still must cope with non-Europeans using European locales to hit at their non-European enemies. Some Europeans have had a tendency to look the other way as long as the terrorists attacked other foreigners. It is expected that terrorism will increase in the United States with attacks on senior officials and public buildings. There is a good possibility that states sponsored groups could have the financial and technical support to mount such attacks, but less likely that they could develop the complete infrastructure to mount other than one time 'spectacular' operations.
Robert B. Rupperman of the Georgetown University Center for Strategic and International Studies, in a study prepared for the Panel noted:
"...we must accept that the tactics of terror do not remain static. As terrible as the big bombings now appear, the United States and other governments will eventually learn to cope with them (abroad, in any event, although perhaps not at home). At that point, terrorist tactics will be adapted in order to survive both physically and in the media's eye. The next natural set of terrorist tactics does not necessarily involve threats of biological or nuclear destruction. But, we may face
intermediate-level attacks against our facilities and infrastructure of electric power, natural gas, water systems, computer and-telecommunications systems."
In his paper "The U.S. Response to Terrorism: A Policy Dilemma, Brian M. Jenkins of The Rand Corporation noted:
"A growing number of governments themselves are using terrorist tactics,- employing terrorist groups, or exploiting terrorist incidents as a mode of surrogate warfare. These governments see in terrorism a useful capability, a Weapons system,- a cheap means of waging war. Terrorists fill a need. Modern conventional war is increasingly impractical. It is too destructive. It is too expensive. World and sometimes domestic opinion imposes constraints. Terrorists offer a possible alternative to open armed conflict. For some nations unable to mount a conventional military challenge, terrorism is an 'equalizer."
"As we began to perceive 10 years ago, we may be on the threshold of an era of armed conflict in which limited conventional warfare, classic guerrilla warfare, and international terrorism will coexist, with both government and subnational entities employing them individually, interchangeably, sequentially, or simultaneously, as well as being required to combat them."
"Warfare in the future may be less destructive than that in the first half of the twentieth century, but also less coherent. Warfare will cease to be finite. The distinction between war and peace will dissolve. Armed conflict will not be confined by national frontiers. Local belligerents will mobilize foreign patrons. Terrorists will attack foreign targets both at home and abroad. The U.S. will have to develop capabilities to deal with all three modes of armed conflict."
All expert testimony available indicates that terrorism will continue to pose serious problems throughout the world in the foreseeable future. The prospects for totally preventing such attacks are not good. It also must be emphasized that no amount of money can guarantee complete protection against terrorism. If determined, well-trained and funded teams are seeking to do damage, they will eventually succeed. However, there are a number of prudent steps that can be taken to minimize the probability of a successful or damaging terrorist attack, and these are the main themes of the Panel's deliberations. Among the steps that can be explored are the following:
-- motivating governments to reach agreement on actions to isolate and punish the states sponsoring terrorism;
-- improving our own intelligence collection and dissemination and building effective cooperation on this level with our allies;
-- improving the security of our buildings and facilities by expending additional resources; and
-- finding a way to change attitudes of our personnel to promote constant vigilance. Prudence, protection and preparedness should become automatic with al1 personnel.
|
[Back] |
[Index] |
[Next] | The Inman Report
|