United States' Narco-Terrorism Policy: A Contingency Approach to the Convergence of the Wars on Drugs and Against Terrorism

In recent years, terrorist organizations have become increasingly dependent on drug trafficking as one of several primary sources of revenue to fund terrorist activities. In response, the United States’ security and intelligence efforts against narco‐terrorism have increasingly merged into one unified policy approach. Moreover, the convergence of United States policy wars against terrorism and illicit drugs have produced complex and dynamic contingency factors. As a result, a relatively coherent nexus now exists between the United States’ antinarcotics and antiterrorist policies. The objective of this article is to explain and assess the contingency factors and implications resulting from this convergence and to provide policy scholars with an analytical perspective into the implications of the United States’ narco‐terrorism policy. It is believed that this article is significant to both policy practitioners and policy scholars concerned with the domestic impact of the United States’ narco‐terrorism policy.     

The illicit drug trade, counternarcotics strategies and terrorism

Conventional wisdom indicates that international trade in illicit drugs helps to fuel terrorism. Since 2001, counter-narcotics policy increasingly has been used to fight terrorism. This study investigates empirically the relationship between the drug trade and terrorism and examines whether or not interdiction and eradication efforts reduce domestic and transnational terrorist activity. The study finds that illicit drug production and opiate and cocaine wholesale prices are significant positive predictors of transnational and domestic terrorist attacks, while drug crop eradication and drug interdiction are significant negative predictors of terrorism. The study concludes with the policy implications of the findings.     

Utilitarian Multilateralism: The Implications of 11 September 2001 for US Foreign Policy

The 11 September terrorist attacks have led the United States to reassess its foreign policy. The overwhelming priority is the defeat of terrorism and to further this end the United States is prepared to engage with states, regardless of their democratic credentials, willing and able to help the United States on the terrorist front. There is little sign, however, that the new-found interest in promoting multilateral co-operation to deal with terrorism is spilling over into other policy areas. The United States shows no sign of modifying its opposition to a number of international treaties and agreements – such as Kyoto, CTBT or the ICC – all of which its closest allies support. The US approach may be described as 'utilitarian multilateralism'.     

The 'New Terrorism': Revolution or Evolution?

It is essential to understand the concept of the 'new terrorism', since it has fostered a paradigm shift in the way that academics, policy makers and counter-terrorism professionals conceive of the contemporary threat. Capturing the notion that there has been a revolutionary change in the nature of terrorism, it now plays a pre-eminent role in shaping counter-terrorism policy. However, despite the attractive simplicity of the concept, there are good reasons to question the assumption that the actual behaviour of terrorist groups has fundamentally altered. Indeed, an analysis of the history of terrorism shows that many of the supposed hallmarks of the 'new terrorism' have been seen in the past. As a consequence, the concept of the 'new terrorism' should be viewed with some scepticism, as it unduly exaggerates the unprecedented nature of the contemporary terrorist threat and needlessly leads policy makers to reject the relevance of historical counter-terrorism lessons.     

Appeasing nihilists? Some economic thoughts on reducing terrorist activity

Recent contributions to the economics of terrorism have given contradicting recommendations for campaigning against terrorism, from the proposal to deprive terrorists of their resources to the proposal of raising the opportunity costs of terrorism by increasing the wealth of the affected regions. Within a simple framework which differentiates between the decision to become an active terrorist and the decision to support terrorists and which allows for reciprocal reactions to anti-terrorism policies, it is argued here that undifferentiated deterrence may indeed backfire, but so may an increase of the opportunity costs of terrorism. A very targeted anti-terrorism policy aimed only at active terrorists would then be the most reasonable remaining approach.     

INTEGRATING THE POLICY MODELS OF TERRORISM AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

International and domestic terrorism present some of the same kinds of policy imperatives as do natural and other man-made disasters. In terms of the unpredictability and potential destructiveness of the events, the problems of preparing for, mitigating or lessening the effects of, responding to, and recovering from the disasters are essentially the same. This article suggests that the current emergency management models can be adapted to fit the circumstances created by terrorist violence. A model of antiterrorism policy interventions can be f i t into the preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery model now guiding the efforts of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other disaster preparedness and response agencies in the United States.     

The Virtual War on Terror: Counterterrorism Narratives in Video Games

Over the past decade, a great deal of research has been done to analyze the ways in which popular media, especially movies and television shows, construct fictional terrorist threats. However, little attention has been given to the extremely popular genre of counterterrorism video games and how they fit into the War on Terror media narrative. Counterterrorism video games reflect many of the themes of other media about terrorism, such as the demonization of terrorist enemies and the exaggeration of terrorist threats. However, video games strengthen these themes to make the threat of terrorism appear more pervasive and imminent. Consequently, counterterrorism games display an intensified vision of the War on Terror narrative, in which the entire world is a war zone. This leads game narratives to simulate and justify more extreme state responses to terrorism.     

Terrorist threats in Europe: hype or reality?

On 3 October, the American and British governments issued travel advisories on the threat of terrorist attacks in France and Germany. The United States government characterised the threat as ‘high’, while the United Kingdom raised the terrorist threat level for France and Germany from ‘general’ to ‘high’. Shortly afterwards, the French government issued a warning to its citizens about the risk of a terrorist attack in Britain. Within the UK itself, the threat level in respect of Islamist jihadist terrorism has been set since January 2010 at ‘severe’, the second highest level, indicating an attack is likely but not yet judged imminent. This has remained unchanged.     

Is Standing for Women a Stand Against Terrorism? Exploring the Connection Between Women's Rights and Terrorism

Previous large-N studies have found that the advancement of women's rights leads to a decline in conflict, but no large-N research has explored the possibility of a similar relationship between women's rights and terrorism. Nevertheless, policymakers have long argued that the advancement of women's rights forms a key component of counterterrorism policy. Simply put, we lay out a rationale for the argument that increased women's rights reduce the likelihood of terrorism. We test this hypothesis using CIRI's women's rights data combined with two datasets accounting for domestic terrorism and the production of transnational terrorism. While the results show that women's rights overall are not a panacea for both types of terrorism, the provision of women's rights is shown to have a negative relationship with domestic terrorism. States and international institutions should take the differing effects of women's rights across different types of terrorism into account when designing counterterrorism policies.     

Authoritarianism,Threat, and Americans’ Support for the War on Terror

In the years following 9/11, surveys have revealed high levels of public support for policies related to the war on terror that, many argue, contravene long‐standing American ideals. Extant research would suggest that such preferences result from the activation of authoritarianism. That is, the terrorist attacks caused those predisposed toward intolerance and aggression to become even more intolerant and aggressive. However, using data from two national surveys, we find that those who score high in authoritarianism do not become more hawkish or less supportive of civil liberties in response to perceived threat from terrorism; they tend to have such preferences even in the absence of threat. Instead, those who are less authoritarian adopt more restrictive and aggressive policy stands when they perceive threat from terrorism. In other words, many average Americans become susceptible to “authoritarian thinking” when they perceive a grave threat to their safety.     

War and other insecurities in East Asia: what the security studies field does and does not tell us

Abstract

Terrorism has become a challenge to which Southeast Asian studies need to respond. This article scrutinizes political and economic developments in regard to democracy and poverty in Southeast Asia, in particular the degree of change, and studies their influence on terrorism. The main question being asked here is whether external support for political and economic development could contribute to the Southeast Asian battle against terrorism. At the same time, this article seeks ways in which the international community, especially Europe, could support and participate in Southeast Asian efforts to address the root causes of terrorism. Finally, a global quantitative analysis of relevant factors is undertaken, and global conclusions are related to the developments and processes observed in Southeast Asia, especially in Indonesia. On the basis of the analysis, it can be established that some of the root causes of terrorism are indeed related to poverty and the lack of democracy. While it is clear that terrorist strategies to address these grievances by targeting innocent civilians are unacceptable, grievances related to poverty and the lack of democracy are perfectly legitimate. It seems that in order to inhibit individual terrorist motivations, democratization of political systems would do some good. However, the main economic and political grievances that are associated with the growth of terrorism are related to transnational communities. Thus, while Southeast Asian countries should continue to develop and democratize, they should also work together with the international community to democratize the international structures of governance.     

Earthquakes, hurricanes, and terrorism: do natural disasters incite terror?

A novel and important issue in contemporary security policy is the impact of natural disasters on terrorism. Natural disasters can strain a society and its government, creating vulnerabilities which terrorist groups might exploit. Using a structured methodology and detailed data on terrorism, disasters, and other relevant controls for 167 countries between 1970 and 2007, we find a strong positive impact of disaster-related deaths on subsequent terrorism incidence and fatalities. Furthermore, the effects differ by disaster type and GDP per capita. The results consistently are significant and robust across a multitude of disaster and terrorism measures for a diverse set of model specifications.     

国际恐怖犯罪的特点、成因及对策

国际恐怖主义是当前国际社会所面临的主要挑战之一,它严重危害了国际社会的整体利益。尤其是近几年来,国际恐怖犯罪活动猖獗,以本.拉登为首的恐怖组织,更是制造了几起震惊世界的恐怖犯罪事件。这种特殊的犯罪形式引起了国际学术界和实务界的广泛关注。因此,研究这种犯罪的特点、成因及其处置对策具有十分重要的意义。     

Four Perspectives on Terrorism: Where They Stand Depends on Where You Sit

The general assumption is that there is one objective and universally applicable conceptualization of 'terrorism'. This position is especially prominent in the United States and other Western countries after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Yet, despite such a view, it is possible to distinguish four specific perspectives or paradigms on terrorism: standard/mainstream, radical, relativist and constructivist. While the standard/mainstream approach remains dominant among academics, intelligence analysts and policy makers, the other positions have exhibited their own adherents. In the end, it will be argued that the constructivist perspective is the most accurate. Since 'terrorism' remains too contentious and disputed a term to achieve universal consensus, the constructivist approach has been the most effective in stressing the decisive role that parochial state and national interests perform in any conceptualization of 'terrorism', especially the strategic and security concerns of the dominant or hegemonic power(s) within the international system.     

Beyond the media's explanation: Examining the determinants of attitudes toward torture

The question of what constitutes torture has perhaps never held as prominent a place in US political discourse as it has since the attacks on 9/11. This has fueled a national conversation that causes us to consider to what extent do our actions as a nation reflect our values as a nation? In a post 9/11 world in which the country will confront terrorism at home and abroad and our values will be tested we should strive for a better understanding of citizens' attitudes towards the practices that are (and have been) used to counter terrorism. To the extent that democratic theory is correct in necessitating public policy and public opinions to be reasonably congruent, understanding the distribution and formation of citizen attitudes towards torture is an important endeavor.     

Risk Sensitivity and Terrorism

One enduring question about terrorism is why individuals choose to join terrorist groups. Past studies have shown that terrorists are not always poor, and they can in fact come from more privileged groups in society. Risk sensitivity and prospect theory are approaches that can help explain some of the anomalies. They suggest that two types of group are likely to supply members for terrorist organizations in disproportionate numbers. One group consists of those who face a loss of status or position due to ongoing changes in society. A second group consists of those who have an opportunity to gain a major advance in status or position. Both groups are thus more likely or more willing to take risks such as joining dissident terrorists – either to maintain their position or to improve it. An analysis of the situation of Palestinian nationalists, nationalists in Northern Ireland and the Tamils in Sri Lanka provides support for the idea that sensitivity to risk can be an important factor in explaining the willingness of individuals to join terrorist groups.     

Preferences,Knowledge, and Citizen Probability Assessments of the Terrorism Risk of Nuclear Power

How does the American public assess risk when it comes to national security issues? This paper addresses this question by analyzing variation in citizen probability assessments of the terrorism risk of nuclear power plants. Drawing on the literature on how motivated reasoning, selective information processing, and domain‐specific knowledge influence public opinion, we argue that heterogeneous issue preferences and knowledge of nuclear energy and homeland security have important explanatory power. Using original data from a unique 2009 national survey in the United States, we show that Americans are divided in their probability assessments of the terrorism risk of nuclear power plants. Consistent with our theoretical expectations, individuals who support using nuclear power to meet rising energy demands, who are generally less concerned with terrorism, or who are more knowledgeable about terrorism and nuclear security tend to provide lower assessments of the likelihood that nuclear power plants increase terrorist attacks, and vice versa. The findings have implications for the literature on public opinion, risk assessment, energy policy and planning, and homeland security.     

Terrorism and the Railroads: Redefining Security in the Wake of 9/11

This article examines the impact of the 9/11 attacks on railroad security. Railroad security has been traditionally defined as a problem of trespass and liability for deaths, injuries, and property damage sustained or caused by trespassers. It argues that the private freight railroad industry, not government, has largely directed the efforts to prevent terrorism and share information on suspected terrorist threats, through the prompt formation of a loosely coupled network of organizations coordinated by the industry trade association, the American Association of Railroads. The freight railroad network approach is contrasted with the efforts of Amtrak to gain public funds for its security efforts by connecting its survival with homeland security. Kingdon's model of the policy process is used to explain how 9/11 has presented an opportunity for railroads to use policy windows to gain benefits for the industry while at the same time resisting possible reregulation. It contrasts the network approach with the traditional hierarchical-bureaucratic form of organization used in the design of the Department of Homeland Security, and suggests it poses a valuable case study to see how information can be shared between widely divergent types of organizations, and test how best to prevent future terrorist events.     

Cold War counter-terrorism: the evolution of international counter-terrorism in the RCMP Security Service, 1972–1984

This piece provides a detailed case study of the evolution of counter-terrorism within a specific domestic security agency of a liberal-democratic state in the context of the Cold War. It does so by examining the creation of a counter-terrorism unit within Canada’s Royal Canadian Mounted Police Security Service and how it responded to international terrorism. This occurred in between major terrorist attacks in Canada in 1970 and 1985 and included a growing focus on counter-terrorism even as counter-subversion remained a top priority within a still dominant Cold War domestic security framework. Ultimately, the article, based on thousands of pages of previously secret documents, argues that the Security Service could conceive of in a broader strategic sense the threat of terrorism but found it more challenging, for a variety of reasons, including the dominance of the Cold War and the difficulties around infiltrating ethnic communities, to collect intelligence.     

"The World Changed Today": Agenda-Setting and Policy Change in the Wake of the September 11 Terrorist Attacks

The September 11 terrorist attacks constitute a focusing event that have been said to have “changed everything” in America. However, the literature on focusing events, policy change, and the policy process suggests that the “windows of opportunity” opened by focusing events like the September 11 attacks do not automatically equate to policy change. This paper considers whether and to what extent the agenda and policies have changed as a result of the attacks. While the events of September 11 provided the impetus for change, the threat of terrorism was already well established in the policy stream, and September 11 only threw open the window of opportunity for policy change based, in large part, on preexisting ideas; many of these ideas were enacted. And in the case of aviation security, some innovation is evident in the area of cockpit security.