GROUP OF EIGHT Global Terrorism and the G8 Response BY MATT SULLIVAN Introduction The morning of July 7, 2005 began like any other for Londoners. Suddenly, at 8:50 a.m., three nearly simultaneous explosions rocked London Underground trains. An hour later, at 9:47, a fourth explosion ripped the roof from a No. 30 bus near Tavistock Square. Fifty-two people were killed and more than 300 were injured in the four incidents. The attacks on London, perhaps not coincidentally, occurred as world leaders met in Gleneagles, Scotland at the 2005 G8 summit. As news of the bombings reached Gleneagles, G8 leaders quickly issued a statement condemning the attacks in the strongest terms and pledging solidarity with the people of London. The events affirmed the ongoing threat of non-state terrorist organizations and reinforced the need for cooperation on counterterrorism measures. Explanation of the Problem The G8 s difficulties in dealing with the problem of terrorism lie in its inability to effectively enforce agreements. The G8 is a voluntary assembly of the major industrialized nations heads of state. As a result, all G8 decisions and initiatives are contingent on the willingness and commitment of member states to comply with the agreements they have crafted. In some cases, other institutions such as NATO may be better suited to address counterterrorism issues, particularly those with a military or security component. Moreover, there is considerable disagreement within the G8 over how to properly address terrorism. For example, opinion has been divided over Russia s military struggle against separatists in Chechnya and the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, two wars waged in part to reduce the threat of terrorism. Differences aside, the G8 offers a unique opportunity for heads of state to discuss shared concerns and find mutually acceptable solutions to the difficult challenge of fighting terror. Indeed, G8 member states have cooperated over the last half-decade on a variety of counterterrorism measures. Historical Roots of Terrorism History of the Problem Terrorism refers to any act of violence used to fulfill a political objective without the use of a national army. Separatist groups, terrorist organizations, and disaffected individuals have used terrorism as a means to incite fear and promote political goals. Although terrorist campaigns can be traced back to the first century A.D. when the Roman Empire was targeted, modern terrorism began to emerge in the mid-nineteenth century. In the late 1800s, Slavic nationalists, Russian anarchists, and Irish republican extremists all resorted to these practices to achieve their goals. Terrorism in the Age of Technology In the twentieth century, technological developments in explosives, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons have increased the potential damage inflicted by a terrorist attack. Furthermore, advances in transportation and communications have enabled individuals to move across borders rapidly, especially in open democratic societies. Terrorism, however, remains a complicated concept. What one group deems terrorism may be seen by others as a necessary means for a legitimate political end. The question remains: who determines when an action is terrorist in nature, and what happens if there is disagreement among the world community? 1
G8 Responds to 9/11 Terrorism became a major focus of the G8 following the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington by the Al Qaeda organization. On September 19, the G8 nations released a joint statement condemning the attacks. This document underscored their determination to bring the perpetrators to justice and to strengthen cooperation in a variety of specific areas. In late 2001, the United States and a coalition of allies invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban government which had harbored Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The G8 member nations joined together to support the Afghan invasion and resolved to address the terrorism issue more deeply at future summits. G8 nations responded immediately. Throughout early 2002, G8 nations focused considerable energy on the financial aspect of terrorism, and worked often at the ministerial level to freeze millions of dollars in bank accounts and other assets linked to known terrorist organizations. In addition, member state governments sought to find new ways to prevent terrorist organizatoins from exploiting the Internet and other technology. The G8 also aided in the rebuilding of Afghanistan and supported that country s Transitional Authority as it formed a new government. 2002 Kananaskis Summit: Controlling WMDs The first G8 meeting following September 11 was held in June 2002 in Kananaskis, Canada. At the Kananaskis summit, G8 leaders sought to build on the accomplishments of the intervening year and to address lingering issues. One issue that had received comparatively little attention was the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The G8 leaders initiated plans to control the spread of WMD, beginning with the weapons stockpiles located in Russia and throughout the former Soviet Union. G8 nations pledged to raise $20 billion over the next decade to secure chemical and nuclear weapons, thus reducing the likelihood that such weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists. That program, the G8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, represented the organization s first major counterterrorism agreement of the post-9/11 era. 2003 Évian Summit: Domestic Measures and Shared Resources The June 2003 summit convened less than three months after a US-led coalition, defying the opinion of the United Nations and many G8 member states, invaded Iraq to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein. Despite the inopportune timing, G8 leaders continued discussions regarding terrorism and developed an initiative designed to sustain the global focus on terrorism prevention. The plan that emerged from the Evian summit, entitled Building International Political Will and Capacity to Combat Terrorism, called on nations to amend customs laws, immigration policies, domestic security measures, and law enforcement practices. Another initiative, the Counter-Terrorism Action Group (CTAG), was implemented to help maximize information-sharing and other cross-government cooperation on the theory that pooled resources would be more effective. 2004 Sea Island Summit: Securing the Transportation Infrastructure Terrorism was also a central focus of the June 2004 summit at Sea Island, Georgia. US President George W. Bush, who has continued to emphasize the global war on terrorism as a central theme of his second term, sought to use the 2004 conference to win international cooperation on a variety of counterterrorism measures. The Sea Island Summit led to the creation of the Secure and Facilitated International Travel Initiative (SAFTI), which protects transportation infrastructure against the threat of catastrophic terrorist attacks. The leaders agree that raising standards, modernizing procedures, and sharing information would help member states to deter terrorist threats in addition to reducing costs. This would maximize both security and economic efficiency. Additional agreements were made to develop a contact network to address threats to civil aviation and to study the threat posed by shoulder-launched missile systems. At Sea Island, member states also affirmed their commitment to implementing previous agreements on WMDs, terrorist finances, and infrastructure safeguards. Recent Developments 2005 Gleneagles Summit: Examining Underlying Causes As the attacks on London devastatingly demonstrated, terrorism continues to plague the G8 nations. Even as Prime Minister Blair rushed back to his country s capital, the remaining heads of state gathered at Gleneagles resolved to work toward an early agreement on a new 2
Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, a United Nations initiative. Collaboration between various intelligence and securities departments was a major theme of the 2005 conference. The leaders also resolved to examine the growth of terrorism, the recruitment methods used, and the underlying causes of violent extremism. Promoting political rights, encouraging debate, fostering crosscultural dialogue, and working with civil society, the G8 members declared, could all help to undermine the message of terrorists. The United Nations: A Case Study The United Nations Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) is a useful case study for examining the role that international institutions have taken in leading counterterrorism efforts. The CCIT seeks to help states overcome varying definitions of terrorism and compels signers of the agreement to join other states in fighting terrorism. In addition, the convention requires states to investigate and prosecute acts of terrorism that occur in areas of their jurisdiction, and to establish terrorist acts as criminal offenses in their domestic legal codes. G8 member states have supported these provisions, and will likely continue to use their prominence at the UN to see the CCIT through to adoption. The events in London and the arrests that followed provided the G8 with an opportunity to refocus its energies on the issue of terrorism. In fact, the progress made in London was substantial and included discussion of such issues as the underlying causes of terrorism to an unprecedented degree. At the same time, the nature of the London bombings demonstrated that member nations must be willing not only to cooperate internationally but also to work domestically to combat terrorism. The four perpetrators of the July 7 bombings had lived in the United Kingdom for a considerable length of time. The situation in Great Britain suggests that individual member states may have much to learn through dialogue with disaffected minority populations living within their own borders. The existence in Britain of fringe extremists within otherwise peaceful domestic Muslim communities mirrors a problem seen elsewhere in Europe. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber who attempted to detonate an explosive device implanted in his shoe, was apparently indoctrinated at radical mosques in the Finsbury Park and Brixton neighborhoods of London. Zacarias Moussaoui, who U.S. officials have dubbed the 20 th hijacker of September 11 because of his planned involvement with the nineteen successful terrorists, also spent time at mosques in these two areas. In these neighborhoods of Britain, integration of Muslim minorities into the community at large has been particularly slow and remains incomplete. Country Perspectives The individual member states of the G8 all have an important role to play in debates over how to address terrorism. Their perspectives and ideas on how to solve the problem are typically connected to their own national experiences with terrorism, geopolitical position, and specific vulnerabilities. Hopefully, this diversity of views lends itself to finding new solutions to the problem. However, it may also create conflict between member nations. Great Britain Focus of the Debate Great Britain joined the United States in 2001 as a leader in the global war on terror, and has remained at America s side throughout Prime Minister Tony Blair s tenure in office. Great Britain has also been a leading advocate for counterterrorism cooperation in the context of G8 summits. Prime Minister Blair focused the 2005 Gleneagles summit agenda on the issues of climate change and global poverty, which reflects both his recognition of other important international priorities and his understanding of the limitations the G8 has as an institution in addressing terrorism. Nevertheless, Great Britain remains a leader in promoting an international dialogue regarding terrorism. Russia Russia s concern with terrorism stems primarily from its proximity to violent extremists in Central Asia and its decade-long struggle with separatists in Chechnya. Some Western leaders, however, are reluctant to link Chechen terrorism too closely with the global struggle 3
against violent extremism. Russian brutality in its efforts against Chechnya have been well documented, and some view Moscow s unwillingness to pursue a political solution in Chechnya as exacerbating the level of violence emanating from the region. Despite allegations of Al Qaeda links to Chechen rebel groups, the threat to Russia is primarily a domestic problem. Russia itself has often resisted the unsolicited advice of the international community in how to deal with its Chechen problem. Beyond the Chechnya issue, Russian cooperation is particularly crucial in G8 initiatives aimed at curbing the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear and other weapons facilities remain throughout the former Soviet Union, and the G8 will likely continue to work with Russia to help ensure that such materials are secure and do not fall into the hands of terrorist organizations. France Nicholas Sarkozy, France s ambitious interior minister, helped to organize a G5 meeting with representatives from Britain, Germany, Italy, and Spain the week before the G8 summit at Gleneagles. Although the meeting preceded the London bombings, combating terrorism was a central focus of the meeting. The G5 may serve as an example for future groupings of core members most affected by international terrorism that could be organized in parallel with the annual G8 meetings. France itself has been the victim in recent decades from terrorism of North African origin. United States Since September 11, the United States has taken the lead in calling for international cooperation against terrorism. By defining the response to the 2001 attacks as a global war on terrorism, President George W. Bush affirmed the broad scope of the American-led effort to follow. In some respects, however, the American experience with terrorism is distinct from its G8 counterparts. The US did not face domestic threats stemming from colonial ties as France did. Nevertheless, because of its status as a global superpower with an active presence in the Middle East, the United States has been identified as a main target by international terrorist organizations. Close cooperation with European states is particularly crucial in disrupting Al Qaeda cells, shutting down terrorist finance operations, and sharing information regarding possible future attacks. Japan Tokyo s subway system was the target of a 1995 sarin nerve gas attack by an extremist religious group. However, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations receiving the most focus since 2001 do not have a significant presence in Japan. This does not limit the country s ability to contribute directly to G8 effort, as Japan may have insights as to how to avoid terrorist aggression. Germany Though not a recent victim of terrorist attacks, Germany has been an organizational center for several terrorist cells, including the infamous Hamburg Cell of Al Qaeda members. For this reason, its cooperation on intelligence matters has been and will likely continue to be critical. Possible Solutions The G8 has considerable flexibility in determining how to move forward on the terrorism issue. Members may agree to reexamine existing initiatives, assess progress, and recommit to funding and implementing those programs. Alternatively, states may propose new plans that address underlying causes that lead disaffected inhabitants to become involved in violent extremism. Continuing Current Programs Recent meetings have continued to focus on the response of G8 nations to terrorism. Securing weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear material, has been a major theme of summits over the past several years. In addition, considerable progress has been made on intelligence sharing and other security-related cooperation. Extension of these programs may lie at the center of G8 counterterrorism efforts in the near future. 4
Exploring Education and Economic Conditions Other proposed solutions may depart from these existing programs. At Gleneagles, observers noted a higher sense of interest in exploring the recent growth of terrorism, understanding the methods that recruiters use to attract new members who are most often young males, and identifying the underlying causes of violent extremism. For one, leaders could examine the problem of violent extremism by exploring the educational and economic contexts in which these ideas are transferred. Russian President Vladimir Putin has announced that education will be a major emphasis of the coming 2006 Saint Petersburg conference, so this approach may complement upcoming initiatives. Establishing Dialogue Following the 2005 attacks in London, Prime Minister Tony Blair reached out to leaders in the Muslim community. Such efforts to establish a dialogue with leaders is helpful both in understanding the concerns emanating from minority communities and in communicating to spiritual and secular leaders the need to address the problem of violent extremism among their followers. The G8 could play an important role in initiating these discussions, both on an international level and within countries with large minority populations like Britain, Germany, and France. Planning for Future Attacks Targeting Underlying Causes Finally, the G8 may also attempt to address issues that may be root causes of discontent among Muslims, such as the situation in the Gaza Strip. Pledging funds for infrastructure improvements and social services, could help reduce some of the animosity facing the United States and some European countries with regard to their Middle East policies and perceived indifference toward Palestinian suffering. Moreover, such aid could help to reduce the political influence of violent extremist groups in Gaza that also have branches of operation oriented toward social service. Hamas, a rival of the Palestinian authority, is perhaps the greatest example of this phenomenon. Providing an alternative source of funding is just one way in which the G8 could act to improve the situation in Palestine while addressing a root cause of the terrorism that plagues many member states. Sharing Best Practices Sharing the most successful methods of cmbatting terror will undoubtedly aid the G8 member states. If each member nation drew up a list of perspectives and helpful tactics on fighting terrorism while also reflecting on those that have failed, the G8 could establish a global list of best practices for fighting terrorism. This dialogue has already begun in past summits regarding WMDs and some domestic safeguards. Furthermore, the threat of terrorism continues to escalate from one attack to the next. At some point, G8 nations must consider the question of where the next threat is coming from, what form it will take, and how it can be averted. The events in London also suggested a need for new forms of targeted cooperation among G8 members. The attacks, seemingly timed to occur at the time of the G8 summit, also came just days after the International Olympic Committee awarded London the 2012 Summer Olympics. Although major international events have generally been spared from catastrophic terrorism, several haunting events have plagued Olympic Games over the past several decades. Indeed, the 1970s assassination of Israeli athletes and 1996 bombing in Atlanta suggest that the G8 may be well-advised to work together to find ways to secure such major international events. Conclusion Recent history reflects two characteristics of the Group of Eight as an institution. On the one hand, the nature of the G8 and limited organizational resources does limit its ability to implement solutions to major global problems. At the same time, the annual meetings present a rare opportunity for heads of state from many of the world s most powerful nations to gather, share ideas, and commit to bringing about international change. As representatives, you high ranking officials from the most power- 5
ful nations in the world should emphasize the second feature of the G8. There are tremendous opportunities to forge creative new solutions to the problem of terrorism, a central challenge to G8 nations and international peace. Bibliography Abode of Islam; Religious Schools. The Economist (US Edition). August 13, 2005. Building International Political Will and Capacity to Combat Terrorism: A G8 Action Plan. Agreement by G8 Leaders. June 2, 2003. Available at <http://www.g8.fr/ evian/english/navigation/2003_g8_summit/ summit_documents/ building_international_political_will_and_capacity_to_ combat_terrorism_-_a_g8_action_plan.html> (Cited September 2005) Comprehensive Convention Against International Terrorism. Draft Version. <http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/ inven/pdfs/intlterr.pdf> (Cited October 2005) The G8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction. Statement by G8 Leaders. June 27, 2002. Available at <http:// www.g8.gc.ca/2002kananaskis/globpart-en.asp> (Cited September 2005) G8 Saint Petersburg, Russia 2006. Official Website of the 2006 G8 Summit Meeting. <http://en.g8russia.ru/> (Cited October 2005) G8 Secure and Facilitated Travel Initiative. United States Department of State Fact Sheet. June 9, 2004. Available at <http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/fs/ 33384.htm> (Cited August 2005) G8 Statement on Counter-Terrorism. July, 2005. Available at <http://www.fco.gov.uk/files/kfile/ PostG8_Gleneagles_CounterTerrorism.pdf> (Cited August 2005) Islamic Extremism in Europe. Congressional Research Service Report. July 29, 2005. <http://www.fas.org/sgp/ crs/terror/rs22211.pdf> (Cited September 2005) 6