Shifts in American Anti-Terrorist Policy

15 Jul, 2002    ·   795

R Venkata Ramani highlights the changing contours of American anti-terrorist policy
It is well known that international terrorism is a threat to the safety and security of Americans. In 2001 around sixty-three percent of terrorist incidents worldwide were committed against American citizens or their properties, the worst being the September 11 attack on the World Trade Centre, New York , which changed the perception that America is immune to terrorist attacks by foreign nationals on its own soil. Till then, attacks by foreign terrorists on Americans were on foreign soil. September 11 rang an alarm bell in the United States that it was the most vulnerable in the world. 

 

 

Till that date, US government was talking about protecting Americans from foreign state or terrorist missile attacks with the National Missile Defense (NMD). This attack proved that the NMD was helpless in protecting them from outside attacks, and exposed the vulnerability of NMD to guarantee their safety. When the attack took place, the US lacked an anti-terrorist policy.

 

 

From the late 1970’s to mid-1990’s, the basic American anti-terrorism policy was to target the regimes that supported terrorist organizations or allowed them to operate from their soil, by economic sanctions, covert action, economic inducement, use of military force, diplomacy/constructive engagement and so on. This was like attacking the oceans when the real target was the ship in the ocean. The policy of targeting the regimes enabled the real targets – the terrorists and their organizations – to carry on their activities un-deterred.  

 

 

This negative approach was realised by the Americans only in mid-1996. This year witnessed a shift in American anti-terrorism policy from targeting regimes to targeting terrorist organizations and individual terrorists itself. This led to enactment of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, under which a legal category of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) was created; funding, granting of visas and other material support to such organizations was banned. This American policy is clearly visible in its campaign against Al-Qaeda, and through its global diplomatic, military and economic onslaught against the Al-Qaeda.

 

 

This shift in American anti-terrorism policy has meshed with a change in its approach towards the states which sponsor terrorism. Thus, Patterns of Terrorism 2001 highlighted that countries like Sudan and Libya have made progress towards renouncing terrorism. But terrorists too, have changed their policy of attacking America from outside to attacking it from within, exposing the vulnerability of American homeland security. Due to this, the US has undertaken unprecedented changes in their administrative structure. Scholars compare the 2001 World Trade Centre attack with the 1945 attack on Pearl Harbor , which forced Americans to integrate their War and Navy departments into a single Department of Defense; the National Security Act of 1947 established this unified Department of Defense during the Presidency of Truman. Similarly, the attack on the WTC has compelled Americans to establish a new department called Department of Homeland Security (DHS). President Bush called on Congress to set up a cabinet-level homeland defense agency to protect the nation from “a titanic struggle against terror”, which encompasses around twenty-two separate federal agencies, offices and research centres. The new DHS would provide the unified structure with a mission to prevent terrorist attacks within America , reducing its vulnerability to terrorists and finally, to minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur.

 

 

Thus another shift in American anti-terrorism policy has occurred from ‘national security’ to ‘homeland security’. Although, the DHS is still in the process of being established, the office of Homeland Security had been already established to oversee national security emergency preparedness “with respect to terrorist threats and attacks within the United States ”. It would be the “principal forum for consideration of policy” related to such threats and attacks. 

 

 

Thus, it is evident that the United States ’ policy towards fighting terrorism is dynamic and responds to the needs of the hour. The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security would increase its vigilance over anti-terrorist agencies but whether it succeeds or not, only time will reveal. 

 

 

 

POPULAR COMMENTARIES