Young Professionals in Foreign Policy - Terrorism

Strengthening a Weak Link in the Global Security Chain: Regional Implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1540

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 07:50:38 -0700

Introduction [1]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004) is one in a series of measures taken to address threats to the political and social order deriving from access to, or use of, weapons of mass destruction (WMD), related materials, and means of delivery. The resolution is distinct from existing treaty-based nonproliferation and arms control regime components, such as the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) that govern the behavior of states. In contrast to these treaties, resolution 1540 in one instrument, covers all three types of weapon and reaches beyond the state to focus explicitly on the risk that non-state actors, in particular terrorist organizations bent on undermining, and in some cases supplanting, civil society might "acquire, develop, traffic in or use nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery." 1540 also goes beyond existing anti-terrorism conventions that collectively impose similar though less comprehensive obligations on convention parties in that, being adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the resolution is binding on all member states of the United Nations.

The Slippery Slope of Rational Inaction

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 07:43:16 -0700

THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF RATIONAL INACTION: Resolution 1540 and the Tragedy of the
Commons

This article explores the challenges of implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1540 through the prism of the ‘‘tragedy of the commons.’’ Because implementing 1540 requires a significant investment of time and resources, the decision by states not to implement the resolution is a rational inaction for each individual state driven by self interest to maximize private gains. However, this ultimately leads to collective irrationality and the destruction of the public good, i.e., common security, leaving every state worse off.

The role of African regional and subregional organizations in implementing Resolution 1540

Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:47:53 -0700

Introduction
In April 2006, the Security Council passed Resolution 1673. The resolution
extended the 1540 Committee’s mandate for an additional two years and
invited the committee to “explore with States and international, regional
and subregional organizations experience-sharing and lessons learned
in the areas covered by resolution 1540 (2004), and the availability of
programmes which might facilitate the implementation of resolution 1540”.[1]
In February the following year the Security Council debated ways to
enhance implementation of 1540 and again expressed the need to further

India's homegrown peril

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:08:35 -0700

The wave of terror attacks earlier this summer in India has brought delayed attention to Islamist militant activity in the country. While international media focused only briefly on the bombings, their brutality is comparable to the outrages perpetrated in Madrid and London. More than 100 people were killed in the serial blasts in three cities in north, west, and south India in May and July. These attacks sit in a continuum with serial blasts in New Delhi and Mumbai in 2005 and 2006. India's position in a volatile region further compounds the threat. No other democracy grappling with Islamist terrorism must also cope with neighbours like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, all of which are home to intensifying Islamist violence.

Syrian-Iranian Ties Not Easily Shaken

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:52:06 -0700

Some analysts believe Syria would be willing to distance itself from Iran in favor of a peace treaty with Israel. Syria and Iran have a history of close cooperation and their strategic relationship cannot be easily compromised.

There is an assumption that Syria would distance itself from Iran in favor of a peace treaty with Israel and normalized relations with the United States. Syria’s strategic relationship with Iran began in 1979 and both countries sought friendship as a deterrent from a mutual Iraqi threat. Iraq rivaled Syria as the true inheritor of Ba’thism and Arabism. Ethnic, religious and territorial disputes between Iran and Iraq prompted the former to seek an alliance with Syria.

The Great Illusion: Paul Krugman

Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:50:38 -0700

While reading about the recent crisis in South Ossetia, Paul Krugman wondered if the second wave of globalization will share the fate of the first: world war. A world in which the US isn't the only military force, argues Krugman, is a dangerous one. Russia has proven itself willing to use gas as a political weapon, and China, emboldened by Russia's example, might invade Taiwan. These nationalism-powered conflicts threaten the stability of our globalized world.

I'm skeptical.

Georgian War Could Revitalize Chances for European Missile Defense Sites

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:47:26 -0700

The looming debate in Congress over building U.S. missiles defense sites in eastern Europe could be significantly altered in the wake of Russia’s war with neighboring Georgia.

The Bush administration is moving quickly to cement agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic in a rush to break ground on interceptor and radar sites in those two countries before leaving office. Democrats in Congress have stymied these efforts by using their legislative powers to postpone groundbreaking on the sites.

YPFP at Wilton Park, UK

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:24:55 -0700

WILTON PARK, UK—On our day-trip into London, we made a stop at the American embassy. A fairly heated discussion about Guantanamo Bay and torture completely dominated the hour we spent there. Guantanamo was raised simply as an example of an issue that must very carefully defended overseas; I believe our speaker merely referenced it in passing. The minute the issue was raised, my European and American colleagues took the opportunity to delve in more deeply. We hardly discussed anything else from that point.

Much of the critique I had already heard back in the States, even by some of our own policy makers and elected officials: violating the Geneva conventions, hypocritical, immoral, secretive, detrimental to the West’s efforts in the Middle East, and a bit disgraceful overall. One of the American students said “embarrassing.”

YPFP at Wilton Park, UK

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:40:12 -0700

WILTON PARK, UK—My introduction to London was four hours spent in the Gatwick airport, with a splitting headache, no Starbucks in sight (I was in the wrong terminal for that), and in a pair of shoes that I’ll never wear to travel again. It was 3 AM on my body’s clock, so I sipped on a sub-par latte, wishing desperately I had a British accent and all the sophistication it implies, and prepared myself for the week ahead by browsing the latest Economist. I had intended to read it on the plane, as well as a whole stack of intellectual material, but the screaming infant in front of me had other plans for our seven hours together.

A US attack on Pakistan?

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:58:19 -0700

A stable Afghanistan requires Pakistan to curtail militancy on its side of the Afghan-Pakistani border. Washington, having doled out $8 billion in military aid to Pakistan since 9/11, wants proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Pakistan is pulling its weight. But fresh evidence illustrates that Pakistan's deeds do not match its reassuring words. Exhibit A: Pakistani peace deals with militant groups earlier this year precipitated a 40 percent increase in attacks in eastern Afghanistan. Exhibit B: U.S. forces in eastern Afghanistan face regular militant assaults emanating from Pakistan, most recently a Taliban attack on a remote outpost that killed nine American soldiers.

The Perils of the Palestinian Media

Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:13:54 -0700

“It looks like Mickey Mouse, it sounds like Mickey Mouse, but do you think Mickey Mouse would ever tell kids to fight Americans and the Jews?” asks FOX News anchor Eric Shawn. The Mickey Mouse in question is nothing like his Walt Disney counterpart. His name is Farfur and he teaches Palestinian children to fight for Israel’s destruction and Islam’s domination over the entire world.

“Tomorrow’s Pioneers,” a children’s program aired last summer by Hamas’ official television station, featured this unlicensed Mickey Mouse and a young co-host named Saraa. Together, the two indoctrinate young views with teachings of Islamic supremacy, hatred of Israel and the U.S., and support of “resistance”—a euphemism for terrorism.

U.S.-Iraq Pact May Spur Democrats

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:06:53 -0700

Democratic efforts to weigh in on Iraq policy could be gaining steam after the White House announced it has agreed with Iraq to a “general time horizon” for further troop drawdowns.

After years of unsuccessful attempts to legislate drawdowns and a change of mission for U.S. forces, top Democrats heralded a July 18 announcement that President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have agreed to include an unspecified schedule for U.S. troop withdrawals as part of a pending bilateral security agreement.

The announcement is likely to spur current efforts to codify Iraq withdrawal timelines and congressional oversight of any U.S-Iraq security agreement as part of the defense authorization and appropriations bills.

There are Two Pakistans

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:53:14 -0700

Uniting Pakistan the military state and Pakistan the nascent democracy is our generation’s calling.

There are two Pakistans. The first is stuck in an illusion of undisturbed national stability and unity through military management; the second stands on the weak shoulders of a nascent democracy, perpetually insecure and sporadically functional.

For more than sixty years, Pakistan has struggled with its split personality, brought about by its military or political parties. Historically the United States has preferred the first Pakistan – managed by the military and governed by the free market. The challenge for today's generals and politicians is to find a way to merge, secure, and present the country in a way that attracts the better of the two Pakistans, and preserves U.S. support in the war on terror.

Al Qaeda's Strategic Chaos

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:56:46 -0700

While Pakistani counterterrorism strategists wrestle with Al-Qaeda and its affiliates in the northwest tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda successfully applies strategic chaos to achieve its goals. Promoting religio-political and economic instability in Pakistan, Afghanistan and beyond, Al-Qaeda -- in sharp contrast to the appeal, capabilities and goals of past terrorist groups -- does not believe in eternal peace after a long, hard, bloody war. Instead, Al-Qaeda envisions a world held hostage to constant conflict where chaos delivers "perpetual chaos" until the Day of Judgment. Strategic chaos defines and supports Al Qaeda's goals, modus operandi and longevity. Victory against Al-Qaeda and affiliates rests upon understanding, exploiting and finally discrediting their doctrine of strategic chaos.

Why are the Neo-cons so interested in Turkey?

Tue, 20 May 2008 17:20:33 -0700

Why are the Neo-cons so interested in Turkey?

It's no secret that at least some neo-conservatives (neo-cons) in Washington have been obsessed with attacking Iran for a long time. Even though the U.S. failure in the Iraq war has significantly delayed the spread of the conflict into Syria and Iran, the neo-cons are determined more than ever to accomplish this mission before President Bush gets out of office in 2008. Three arguments are being used to persuade the Bush administration, the most important one being Israel's security. First, according to neo-cons, Iran constitutes the biggest threat to Israel and should be eliminated before it can develop nuclear technology. Second, pacifying Iran would curb their support of insurgents in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Third, a conflict with Iran right before the elections is likely to have a positive impact on the Republican votes. Additionally, the Bush administration doesn't have much to lose if attacking Iran brings limited or no success. A recent poll conducted by the Gallup Organization, from April 18- 20, showed that President Bush's disapproval rating set a new record of 69 percent, the highest disapproval rating of any president in Gallup's 70-year history.