Experts on Terrorism, U.S. Response, and Related Issues
(updated November 15, 2001)
|
name
|
quote
|
Afghanistan/Pakistan/South Asia |
|
| Samina Ahmed, Research Fellow, Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University | "Political instability, economic backwardness, ethnic conflict, proxy wars between regional adversaries, and the presence of nuclear weapons make South Asia one of the most volatile places on earth. U.S. military operations will add fuel to this explosive mix of internal and inter-state tensions, and further destabilize a conflict-prone region. The U.S. must therefore refrain from any unilateral or precipitous military action. It must create a unified international coalition, with strong Islamic representation, to bring Bin Laden and other terrorists within Taliban-controlled territory in Afghanistan to justice." |
| Robert Cutler, Research Fellow, Institute of European and Russian Studies, Carleton University | "The danger in Central Asia is that authoritarian regimes--especially Uzbekistan, on the Afghanistan front line--will count on the U.S. to turn a blind eye to intensifying domestic repression of all dissidence--whether political or not, whether Islamic or not. Add this to the worsening economic stagnation, and even if the consequences are not visible tomorrow from afar, the foundations of Central Asia's stability will threaten to crumble." |
| Jamal Elias, Chair, Department of Religion, Amherst College | "We cannot make the world a safer place for Americans by radicalizing large sections of civil society in countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan through bombing, indiscriminate sanctions, and militarized rhetoric. Strong-arming the pro-West Pakistani government could result in its toppling. And this impoverished, nuclear-capable, strategically located state could fall into the hands of extremists." |
| Muqtedar Khan, Assistant Professor, Political Science, Adrian College | "Words cannot describe the magnitude of the human tragedy that has taken place. The consequences of this event will be far reaching, and will have global as well as local impact on Muslims. There will be serious consequences for Muslims inside and outside the United States. Decades of work by scholars, groups, and activists to improve relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world and to fight the negative image of Islam in the West will be sharply reversed." |
| T. Kumar, Advocacy Director for Asia & Pacific, Amnesty International USA | "South Asia is a region of extreme contrasts. While the Taliban restricts women's rights, almost all other countries in South Asia have had women heads of State, and Sri Lanka elected the world's first female head of state in 1960. The current crisis in Afghanistan, where the last cold war battle was fought, has the potential to weaken the U.S. hold on several regions of the world. The current crisis will impact more on Central Asia than South Asia." |
| Zia Mian, Researcher on South Asian security, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University |
"Pakistan faces four dangers:
|
| Arun R. Swamy, Fellow, Research Program, East West Center in Honolulu | "The growing war of words between India and Pakistan is only the most obvious and acute example of the diplomatic contradictions that a U.S. 'war on terrorism' would involve. As the focus of this war expands beyond Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, it is going to become increasingly difficult for American foreign policy to distinguish between friend and foe. More than ever in the post-cold war period, what is needed is a genuinely multilateral effort to find nonviolent avenues for channelling genuine grievances." |
| Miriam Young, Executive Director, Asia Pacific Center for Justice & Peace | "The history of the U.S. in South Asia has been that of befriending one country or another to suit America's geo-strategic goals and moving on when those goals have been accomplished or when it loses interest. The people of Pakistan and Afghanistan in particular have been the big losers. Whether or not the U.S. succeeds in hunting down Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, it is more likely to succeed in further destabilizing the region. and increasing the suffering of its people." |
Terrorism |
|
| Jack Blum, Former investigator for Senate Sub-Committee on Terrorism; lawyer, partner with Lobel, Novins & Lamont | "We created this terrorism. In the 1980s, [former CIA director] Bill Casey got the bright idea of creating a cadre of people in the Arab world to hate the Russians. We supported a bunch of crazy fanatics and they turned it into a jihad. And we've spent 50 years propping up inhumane governments. The U.S. has gone along with 'conservative' Arab regimes and the masses have no future, no hope. What no one wants to deal with is the democratic transition in the Middle East." |
| Michael Klare, Professor, Peace and World Security Studies, Hampshire College | "Throughout history, the weapon of those who see themselves as strong in spirit but weak in power has been terrorism. If you have an army, you wage war; if you lack an army, you engage in suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism. President Bush has called upon the nation to engage in a 'war against terrorism,' a war that must be pursued until final 'victory' is achieved. But, more importantly, we have to understand these people if we are to protect ourselves and the world from this type of slaughter." |
| Stephen Zunes, Middle East Editor, Foreign Policy In Focus and Professor, Politics, University of San Francisco | "To win the war against terrorism, we need to re-evaluate our definition of security. The more the U.S. militarizes the Middle East, the less secure we have become. All the sophisticated weaponry, all the brave fighting men and women, and all the talented military leadership we may possess will not stop terrorism as long as our policies cause millions of people to hate us." |
| John Gershman, Asia Editor, Foreign Policy in Focus; Senior Analyst, Interhemispheric Resource Center | "Combating terrorism should not become a crusade that trumps all other policy concerns. Our commitment to environmental protection, human rights, democratic political transitions, economic development, poverty alleviation, disarmament, and gender equality must remain strong. But neither can counter-terrorism just be added to these policy imperatives. The challenge is to construct a counter-terrorism policy that demonstrates America's new commitment to protecting Americans and U.S. national security, while at the same time asserting our new commitment to constructing an international framework of peace, justice, and security that keeps terrorists out in the cold--with no home, no supporters, no money, and no rallying cry." |
Chemical, Biological and Nuclear Terrorist Threats |
|
| Robert Alvarez, Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies; founder and director, Environmental Policy Institute; senior policy advisor to the Secretary of Energy | "Nuclear material, both commercial and military, has long been considered a potential target of terrorists and poses a risk of theft or sabotage. At present, for instance, we have over 200 tons of nuclear explosives sitting inside and outside of dilapidated structures, including wooden buildings, often in public fly-over zones. If we're serious about terrorism, this has to be one of our first concerns." |
| Bob Carty, CBC Radio journalist, award-winning documentary Ottawa radio producer of "The Eleventh Plague: The Threat Of Biological Terrorism." | "Everyone recognizes there is a potential threat from biological terrorism, but the assessment of the degree of the threat is clouded by political agendas, military-related profit-making, and confusion about the appropriate responses. The most important thing is to get rid of the causes of terrorism--by reducing poverty and changing U.S. foreign policy. In terms of homeland defense, most important is enhancing public health systems both because this improves the lives of Americans while providing significant means of protection." |
| Leonard Cole, Adjunct Professor of Science and Public Policy, Rutgers, Newark; author, The Eleventh Plague: The Politics of Biological and Chemical Warfare | "Since September 11 and the recent incidents of anthrax exposure, Americans have become more concerned about biological and chemical weapons. It is important that the public understand the nature of these agents, how they might be used, how to help prevent their use, and what means we have of protection." |
| Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, Chair, Federation of American Scientists Working Group on Biological Weapons; Research Professor of Natural Science, SUNY at Purchase | "The terrorist threat of chemical and biological agents is real, but widely overstated. Without the full resources of a state, it's unlikely that groups of terrorists could ever use biological or chemical weapons successfully. That's all the more reason we should join with other nations to enforce the bans on the production possession and distribution of these substances." |
| Ira Shorr, Director of Back From the Brink, a campaign to take nuclear weapons off high-alert status. | |
Financing Terrorism |
|
| Randall Dodd, Director, Derivatives Study Center; Professor, Economics Department, American University | "There is a bright paper trail of the activities of the terrorists but it disappears into the shadows of off-shore tax havens. In order to bring these transactions into the light, the U.S. needs to support efforts such as the OECD [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development] initiative on tax havens that will create proper record keeping and reporting requirements." |
| Christian E. Weller, Economist, Economic Policy Institute | "The September 11 attacks seem to have given terrorists an opportunity to profit from a cynical case of insider trading. One of our goals should be to find the people who hold the purse strings for the terrorist attacks. Moreover, we need to focus on continuously improving security and transparency in stock market transactions, and on better co-operation between regulatory authorities across international borders." |
| Bruce Zagaris, Editor, International Enforcement Law Reporter; lawyer, partner with Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe | "If the stock manipulation is proven, it indicates that the persons behind this tragedy had clever and evil economic goals. To find them will be very, very difficult, will require strong international cooperation, and will not happen overnight. Unfortunately, the United States is not a party to the leading international treaty on anti-money laundering. The U.S. needs to be very careful, to exercise restraint in terms of force, or they will just exacerbate the problem." |
Civil Liberties |
|
| David Cole, Professor of Law, Georgetown University | "In responding to this outrageous incident, we must be careful to uphold our principles of freedom and the rule of law. If we violate our own highest principles, the terrorists will have accomplished their goal." |
| Harold Koh, Professor of Law, Yale University | "At this time of crisis we need to be extraordinarily vigilant about our civil liberties. We cannot forget that the first Pearl Harbor triggered not just a military response, but the internment of tens of thousands of loyal Americans based on their ethnicity. We need to avoid reckless racial profiling, brutal immigration and employment practices, invasions of privacy, and violations of our First Amendment freedoms in the name of rooting out terrorists." |
International Law |
|
| Jules Lobel, Professor of Constitutional and International Law, University of Pittsburgh Law School | "As we mourn the victims of this terrible tragedy and resolve to prevent similar terrorist attacks from occurring again, we must not fall prey to the calls for retaliating in a manner that would kill many innocent civilians in other countries. Such retaliatory bombing simply escalates the cycle of violence that terrorists feed off of, is widely considered ineffective in combating terrorism, and does not address any of the underlying causes that help create terrorists in today's world." |
| Michael Ratner, Vice President, Center for Constitutional Law and Fellow, Yale Law School | "The Congressional authorization giving the president $40 billion and open-ended authority to make war is illegal, dangerous, and may well engender more terrorism. This is cowboy politics. Perpetrators of terrorist acts should be found, extradited, and punished; only if this fails should force be contemplated. War and massive bombing, like that done to Sudan and previously to Afghanistan, may well create new terrorists. Moreover, legislation that allows for military attacks to possibly prevent future attacks is flatly unconstitutional. As is legislation without time limits." |
Intelligence |
|
| Steven Aftergood, Project on Government Secrecy, Federation of American Scientists | "September 11 has posed the greatest challenge to U.S. intelligence in a generation. The opportunity and the necessity for intelligence reform have never been so great." |
| Melvin Goodman, 25 years with the CIA; Professor, International Security, National War College | "The idea of unleashing the CIA--lifting the executive ban on political assassinations and recruiting 'unsavory' types as agents--is the wrong way to go. The terrorist attack represents a massive intelligence failure, and we need a careful, independent investigation into how this happened. The CIA cries poverty every time there is an intelligence screw up." |
Military Budget and Operations |
|
| Carl Conetta, Project on Defense Alternatives, Commonwealth Institute | "The United States can strike hard at Bin Laden both inside and outside Afghanistan without pursuing a broader war in [that country]. Expanding the scope of military action should be avoided because it would detract from the primary objective, weaken international cooperation against terrorism, and risk a broader calamity: the destabilzation of central, south, and southwest Asia." |
| William D. Hartung, President's Fellow, World Policy Institute | "Many of the responses that have been discussed--from bombing Afghanistan, to lifting the ban on assassinations by the CIA, to arming anti-government rebels in an effort to pressure regimes that are harboring terrorists--are likely to be either irrelevant to the issue of curbing terrorism, or to actually make matters worse. If this is truly a 'long-term effort,' as the president has suggested, it should encompass economic, diplomatic, and domestic security components, not just military action." |
| Christopher Hellman, Senior Analyst, Center for Defense Information | "The looming debate on how to fully fund the administration's military spending request is now moot. In the short term the Pentagon will get everything it wants, and more. In the longer term, despite the current rhetoric, it is far from clear whether recent events will actually spur a rethinking of U.S. defense spending priorities." |
| Rear Admiral Steven Baker, senior fellow, Center for Defense Information; former Chief of Staff for Naval Forces, U.S. Central Command | "In the eyes of the Islamic radicals, the U.S. is the epitome of arrogance and an invading threat to their beliefs and homeland: we support Israel, bomb Iraq, kill innocent people, and bully the Gulf Cooperation Council. The terrorist attack was also an attack on U.S. foreign policy indifference. The perception is that the U.S. does not care about the day-to-day economic plight of those living in the camps, in Gaza, and on the West Bank. They hope Washington will retaliate by doing something stupid, costly, and counterproductive, such as killing innocent civilians." |
Military Arms Exports: India and Pakistan |
|
| Erik Floden, Director, Arms Trade Oversight Project, Council for a Livable World Education Fund | "Lifting sanctions on military assistance to India and Pakistan would not serve broader U.S. security interests in the fight against terrorism. It would both fly in the face of core U.S. values and exacerbate an already tense security situation in South Asia. While cooperation from India and Pakistan may be necessary to respond to the terrorist attacks, infusing sophisticated weapons into a region where two politically volatile nuclear powers have fought four wars over the past fifty years is a short-sighted and misguided incentive that could back fire in the worst of ways." |
| Tamar Gabelnick, Director, Arms Sales Monitoring Project, Federation of American Scientists | "In its initial proposal allowing arms exports and military aid to states and non-state actors regardless of their records on human rights and terrorism, the administration was ready to forgo not just congressional oversight of foreign military ties, but also fundamental U.S. foreign policy principles. While this language was later rescinded, the intent to seek a blank check for arms exports likely still exists within the administration and may resurface in another form. This might be politically expedient, but it would not be good policy. History has shown that sending weapons and military aid to regimes that do not truly share U.S. interests will come back to haunt us in the form of national security threats and humanitarian crises." |
| Miriam Pemberton, Peace and Security Editor, Foreign Policy in Focus; Research Fellow, Institute for Policy Studies | "The Bush administration proposes to sell sophisticated weapons to India and Pakistan in the name of fighting terrorism. These sales have been prohibited since 1998 as a sanction against these countries' active nuclear weapons development and testing programs. The administration needs to think more carefully about the long-term implications of inserting more high-tech weapons into a nuclear tinder box." |
Middle East |
|
| Asad Abukhalil, Associate Professor of Political Science, California State University, Stanislaus; Research Fellow, Center for Middle East Studies, University of California, Berkeley; author, Bin Laden and Taliban: The New American War Against Terrorism | "The suffering of the civilian population in Iraq is one of the root causes of the anti-American rage that prevails throughout the Middle East and the Muslim world. The U.S. government falsely claims that its conflict is with Saddam Hussein, but its actions merely penalize the civilians of Iraq." |
| Phyllis Bennis, Director, Middle East Project; Fellow, Institute for Policy Studies | |
| Stephen Zunes, Middle East Editor, Foreign Policy In Focus; Professor of Politics, University of San Francisco | "Terrorism rarely arises out of free societies. U.S. support for occupation armies and autocratic regimes helps spawn terrorism. Support for human rights and international law in the Middle East will protect us more than arms transfers and war-making." |
Opposition in the U.S./Peace Movement |
|
| Salih Booker, Executive Director of Africa Action, and member of the FPIF advisory committee. | "It is time to think clearly about the consequences of what we do and what we fail to do. There can be no real safety in islands of prosperity or protected enclaves. The quest for greater security for the United States must be one that seeks to promote security for others. We can only achieve common security if our efforts visibly reflect common concerns, and are not efforts to pit countries, cultures, or 'civilizations' against each other, or to otherwise build rather than tear down barriers of hate among categories of people however defined." |
| John Cavanagh, Director, Institute for Policy Studies | "U.S. bombing of Afghanistan isn't catching the bad guys and has halted food deliveries to millions of Afghanis who face starvation. And, just as the German bombing of London during World War II strengthened the resolve of the public to resist, so, too, is U.S. bombing bringing recruits to the Taliban. The fact that U.S. military action isn't working is increasing the calls in the U.S. public for a halt to the bombing and for new approaches to fighting terrorism.We need justice, not revenge or war. Our best chance for preventing such devastating acts of terror is to act decisively and cooperatively as part of a community of nations, within the framework of international law, and to work for justice at home and abroad. In addition, the laws that protect our civil liberties and freedoms in the United States are part of what define us as a nation. They must not be abridged; to do so would offer victory to those who wrought these vengeful acts." |
| Martha Honey, Co-Director, Foreign Policy In Focus and Director, Peace and Security, Institute for Policy Studies | "Bombing Afghanistan is both morally wrong and politically risky. The Taliban may be gone, but the region has been further destabilized and we haven't caught bin Laden or any of his lieutenants. However, in advocating an alternative course, U.S. peace activists need more than slogans. We must craft a robust, just, and multi-dimensional set of policies. Two elements are fundamental: One, we must build a geniune international coalition, under the authority of the United Nations, that works to systematically track down, capture, and arrest this terrorist network. And second, the U.S. must alter its Middle East policies, including closing our military bases in Saudi Arabia, stopping military and political support for Israeli occupation of Palestinean lands, and ending economic sanctions against Iraq." |
| Joe Volk, Executive Secretary, Friends Committee on National Legislation | "War is the problem, not the answer. We need to hold responsible those behind the terrible atrocities in New York and Washington. But we need a law enforcement model, not a military model." |
| Rev. Jim Wallis, Editor in Chief, Sojourners | "In the name of God, we too demand that those responsible for these utterly evil acts be found and brought to justice. We must not, out of anger and vengeance, indiscriminately retaliate in ways that bring on even more loss of innocent life." |
This
page was last modified on
Thursday, November 15, 2001 1:32 PM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright
© 2001 IRC and IPS. All rights reserved.