[Back]
[Index]
[Next]
|
[Back] |
[Index] |
[Next] | The Inman Report
|
DIPLOMATIC ACTIVITIES
Diplomatic efforts to develop broad international cooperation are essential to an effective anti-terrorism program. The United States has actively pressed for a consensus on joint actions to combat terrorism. This has not been easy, but there have been successes. Clearly, there is widespread revulsion with terrorist violence, but each country's reaction is colored by attitudes toward the perpetrators; i.e., the Basque Separatists, IRA, and PLO, all of which have their supporters who rationalize that violence is the only way these groups can make their political statements.
Some countries look on terrorism as a law-enforcement problem best left to the police. Other countries take pride in their reputation as a haven for political exiles and are reluctant to extradite terrorists who do not commit acts of violence on their territory. There are also voices which caution against "overreacting" to the threat. Legal systems in each country differ on rights of the accused and other issues. The result has been that action has been more limited than one might expect. Stern action has been taken against aircraft hijackers because this is widely accepted as a crime against innocent passengers; the incidents play out on television, the terrorists are identified, and there is a strong organized group demanding counter-action, i.e., the airline pilots.
The U.S. Government has been active diplomatically in combating terrorism since the late 1960's. Relations with other governments on this issue involve diplomatic initiatives and police-level exchanges. U.S. law enforcement authorities and the Department of State have tried to work, especially with the Europeans, on what might be termed a service-to-service level. This has not been entirely satisfactory since some police officials have been reluctant to work closely with the United States for fear that information would leak. Until recently, terrorism was treated by the Europeans as a domestic police matter with some exchange of information, but fundamental differences in attitudes stultified the effort. There has been some improvement in recent months.
On the diplomatic level, the United States has been active and effective in developing concerted action to deter aircraft hijacking. As a result of strong U.S. pressure, the Montreal convention of 1977 and the Hague agreement of 1971 were negotiated and ratified. These agreements provide that states would prosecute or extradite persons who sabotaged aircraft or navigational equipment (Montreal) or hijacked aircraft (The Hague).
At the meeting of the Summit Seven in Bonn in 1978, an anti-hijacking declaration was issued in which the participating states agreed to cut off civil aviation relations with countries that refused either to try hijackers or to extradite them. This understanding was activated at the Ottawa Summit in 1981 when the members notified Afghanistan it was subject to the sanctions when it refused to extradite Pakistani hijackers. The U.S. did not have civil air relations with Afghanistan at the time, but several European states cut off air service to that country.
As a result of persistent effort by the United States over the past years, and after the April 1984 shooting incident in front of the Libyan Peoples' Bureau in London, the Summit Seven agreed in June 1984 to a declaration recognizing the special dangers posed by state supported terrorism. It included references to the involvement of terrorists in drug trafficking; the acquisition by terrorists of weapons, explosives. training, and funds and to other state supported terrorist activities, such as the misuse of diplomatic missions and immunities. This Declaration was especially important because it recognized for the first time the broad political nature of the problem as opposed to earlier declarations on specific types of incidents.
The United States has been active in promoting regional agreements to counter terrorism. A 1971 Organization of American States (OAS) convention to prevent and punish certain acts of terrorism received strong United States support and was ratified by the United States in 1976. Subsequently, the United States has worked to obtain the support of OAS member states to deal with various forms of terrorism. While not a party to other regional agreements, the United States has voiced its support for such conventions, including the 1977 European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism and other Council of Europe statements.
Efforts at the United Nations have not produced major results. It was possible to establish the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons. Including Diplomatic Agents (1973, entered into force in 1977) and the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages (1980), and the International Atomic Energy Agency's 1980 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials. Multilateral diplomacy to combat terrorism has serious limitations. The most terror prone regions are Western Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America. In the latter case, the terrorists tend to be indigenous to the country or narcotics traffickers seeking revenge on American officials. The bilateral approach is most natural. The Middle East poses unique problems. In East Asia, Japan participates more or less passively but that area has been much less dangerous in recent years. The Europeans have been the most willing to talk about the issues. The subject have been discussed at several economic summits. These annual meetings provide an excellent opportunity to let our closest international associates know the seriousness with which the U.S. addresses the terrorism phenomenon. However, the Seven do not constitute an operational entity and each participant merely agrees that actions will be guided by the agreed positions. The Department of State has expended much effort in this area, however, in practical terms, the most effective diplomatic efforts have been on a bilateral basis with the countries that are most ready to cooperate. Progress will come slowly but the United States must resist discouragement. Unremitting diplomatic pressure must be maintained.
The Department of State has worked consistently and diligently to deal with the specifics of combating terrorism. Good and useful work is being accomplished, but slowly and without any dramatic flair. There has been a noticeable increase in the willingness of Europeans to consult since the recent assassinations in France and Germany plus the attacks in Belgium on NATO related installations over the past several months. The earlier European attitude that terrorism was a domestic affair is changing under the pressure of the proclaimed unity movement among terrorists to operate internationally.
In 1984 the United States initiated the Anti-Terrorist Assistance program (ATA), a training program to teach law enforcement officers from friendly foreign nations to deal with specific types of terrorist acts. The proposal was first presented to the Congress in April 1982 and was finally approved in October 1983. It contemplates an annual appropriation of $5 million with from 750 to 1,000 trainees annually. The program is under the management of the Department of State with the actual training proved by United States law enforcement and security agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of the Treasury and the Department of State's Office of Security.
A strong political impulse will be needed to make progress in mustering international forces against terrorism and a new organization will be necessary to make sure the decisions are carried out. The Panel suggests that it would be useful to establish an International Anti-Terrorist Committee (IATC). The IATC would deal at the government and police levels. The Summit Seven countries plus Benelux and perhaps a few others could be charter members. A small secretariat might be set up with delegates attached to embassies. The committee would meet once or twice a month to cover an agenda dealing with concrete problems. This would create a political/technical interface which would provide public focus to the anti-terrorist campaign.
Improved extradition treaties can facilitate bringing terrorists to justice. The Department should assign additional lawyers to the project to update existing treaties and the promotion of agreements which can be useful in combating terrorism.
|
[Back] |
[Index] |
[Next] | The Inman Report
|