The Institute seeks to foster an open dialogue with the viewpoints of all sides represented. We believe that such free exchange of opinion on policy matters best serves the interests of promoting peace and reflects American values of liberty and pluralism. In accordance with this principle, fellows are expected to address controversial matters bearing on their research, and we expect that they will be challenged concerning their views.

The current issues briefing on terrorism reflects the ongoing interest of the U.S. Institute of Peace in the issue of terrorism and low-intensity conflict.

The Institute, founded and funded by the U.S. Congress, is mandated to strengthen the nation's capabilities to prevent, manage and resolve violent conflict. Consistent with this mandate we seek to analyze international terrorism and contribute to strategies addressing a problem that is unlikely to go away. Indeed, some officials have suggested it may be the prevalent form of warfare of the immediate future.

It is clear that if we are to deal with terrorism, we need to understand its dimensions.

Through our in-house staff work as well as grants and fellowships to distinguished scholars and practitioners, we have sponsored research on a number of relevant topics, including:

• the origins of terrorism
• the psychology of perpetrators of political violence
• the nature and varieties of terrorism
• chemical and biological terrorism
• counterterrorism methods and the rule of law
• the use of terrorism by those who want to destroy peace processes.

In addition, we have supported research about the public debate over American policy toward international terrorism. The current issues briefing supplements this by highlighting the research of two Senior Fellows, Paul Arthur and Ehud Sprinzak, who are currently at the Institute working on important dimensions of this problem.

Our fellowship program attracts distinguished professionals from all over the world. Their opinions are their own, and do not reflect the Institute's position. The non-partisan nature of the Institute precludes us from taking an advocacy role.

The Institute's goals in sponsoring the August 26th current issues briefing are threefold:

• to deepen our understanding of the dynamics of terrorism as a political weapon in today's world.
• to help devise effective coping strategies to prevent terrorist action.
• to find ways of reducing the impact of terrorist acts on peace processes and political systems.

While the recent terrorist bombings in East Africa and Northern Ireland are fresh in our minds, the purpose of this meeting transcends these particular tragedies. The presenters will address the universal issues and processes that can help us better understand and react appropriately to events of this kind. They draw on the knowledge gained from dealing with terrorists over the years to extract lessons that can instruct policy today.

Highlights

Paul Arthur

Paul Arthur

"If we are going to deal with counterterrrorism strategies this is one of the things we must keep in the front of our minds: The security response is easy, the consequences of the security response can not always be anticipated—in fact, rarely are anticipated."

In a place like Ireland words count for a great deal. We don't speak about terrorists anymore, we speak about paramilitaries. That's very important in terms of the conflict, the length of the conflict, and where the conflict stands at any given time. It's taken a very long time for the governments to realize that the way forward is not simply a security response, but that the way forward had to be a combination of a number of factors.

Rather than look at political violence simply as the antithesis of politics you can also look at it as an anti-discourse against the political system at any one time.

In the Irish conflict and elsewhere, political violence is used as a form of communication. It's used by the marginalized, who are saying you can not ignore us. And it is used to engage the state apparatus in some form of communication.

The Irish case study shows American foreign policy at its best. There are few examples of where a prestigious third party has played such an important role in bringing the marginalized in from the margins, into the center, and persuading them that the way forward is political dialogue.

We do not yet know what the security response in Sudan and Afghanistan is going to be. But there are enough parallels to tell us that we should be concerned about it.

[The bombing] violated the sovereignty of other countries, threatening civilian populations, and intensifying anti-American sentiment. I understand why it was done, but I wonder what the consequences may be.

A great degree of policy analysis needs to go into this issue. The key question is, what are the deeper roots of the conflict, not how do we best strike back very, very, quickly.

There needs to be a serious public debate in this country so that people are better informed of what foreign policy is about.

We need to look afresh at issues of preventive diplomacy. They can play a wider role.

I think the United States is dangerously isolated. I see that in particular inside the United Nations, and I do believe that there is something that Congress could do immediately, by dealing with the tremendous debt it owes the United Nations. Only then will it begin to bring some friendly powers on board and then this issue of counterterrorism can begin to be dealt with collectively, rather than in the singular.

Ehud Sprinzak

Ehud Sprinzak

"Terrorism is a psychological warfare. Terrorists are not in the business of killing people. They are in the business of killing a small number of people to instill in everyone the fear that they may be next in line."

I talk about the war against terrorism, but the goal remains a world without terrorism, a world without violence and this is the goal that the U.S. Institute of Peace is very much committed to.

Terrorism is a wave-like phenomenon. Policy makers have to be aware of this wave-like nature. An effort must be made to focus on terrorism or we will continue to be surprised.

Terrorism is not really a major security issue. There are a small number of perpetrators, and a relatively small number of casualties.

In my opinion, Mr. bin Laden and other terrorists are not going into weapons of mass destruction. They can get everything they need in a car bomb.

What does it mean to focus on intelligence? I cannot stress enough the need for human intelligence. Americans have a tendency to focus on technology. You have great monitoring devices, satellite imagery. But this particular war is a war of minds, a war of brains. and you need good people, good analysts, especially people who understand the complexities and the sensitivities of the Middle East and Middle Eastern groups.

We do not need experts to make blanket statements about the Middle East and the Arab world. We need people who understand the nuances and can identify where there is a threat and where there is just general anti-American sentiment.

One of the major mistakes of Dar-es Salaam and Nairobi was defining them as low-risk places. They were not low-risk. Terrorists do not like to operate when they don't have an environment in which they can hide and which they are easily identifiable.

There is not in the world a secret service that can provide 100% protection. What you want to get from a service is 100% vigilance and 100% effort. This is something that the American people deserve today in addition to very constructive and innovative diplomacy.

Robert Oakley

Robert Oakley

...Ehud's article, ("The Great Super Terrorism Scare," September 1998, Foreign Policy) is almost prescient because we are into the terrorism scare at the moment and that's the one thing we need to avoid is getting scared and getting into a panic.

One thing that would be extremely dangerous in Pakistan and in the Muslim world is to make it appear that somehow Israel and India were working together against Pakistan on the basis of terrorism. This would hurt the Pakistani incentive to do something about it.

In reference to Osama bin Laden: You can't exaggerate the importance of a single individual. When something happens to bin Laden, there will be somebody to take his place.

Media Inquiries

Please contact Ian Larsen (+1.202.429.3870) or Lauren Sucher (+1.202.429.3822) in the Office of Public Affairs and Communications.