Keywords or Terms: September 11, 2001; US; Middle East; CIA ; Prime
Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq; President Bashar al-Assad; Nuclear Arms Race;
China, Chinese Nationalistic assertiveness ; Japan; Revisionist Principle Arab
Spring; North, West, and East Africa; President
Vladimir Putin; Crimean Peninsula; President Barack Obama; Global Counter-terrorism Forum (GCTF)
Back in 2001, in the heat of the
most dastardly act of terrorism on US soil, America revisited so many of its
past foreign policies, including some that actually portrayed our nation as
engaging in nefarious activities that led to the overthrow of a democratically
elected government in the Middle East. Fast forward to 2009, President Barack Obama’s
Speech in Cairo alluded to the possibility that the Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA) may have had a hand in overthrowing
a democratically elected Prime Minister of the State of Iran in 1953. A few
foreign policy analysts repudiated the President for acknowledging a debatable
assertion; one that is contended or contested by a few CIA head honchos and
some of our spy agencies. Some historians, journalists and government officials
out of the agency, sided with the President indicating that some of the
seething issues that make negotiations with the international community on Iran’s
Nuclear Arms race, come out of this past experience of the nation. A few Middle
East Experts indicate that notwithstanding the probable culpability of the CIA
in the down fall of a democratically elected government in Iran, the issue of
the downfall of that particular Prime Minister (Mohammed Mosaddeq) was not as clear
cut as the President may have insinuated.
Yet the downfall of the Shah of
Iran in 1979, the man said to have benefitted from the ouster of the Democratically
elected Prime Minister, seems to have called to question initial participation
of the CIA; or, probable erroneous judgment that facilitated this foreign
policy or act on behalf of the people of our nation. Pundits maintain that misrule
of the people led to the downfall of the Shah of Iran; and, America’s choice to
look other ways for political expediency, in some instances where and when
authoritarian governments abuse power, continue to make the world question our
moral compass to adjudicate in instances of political uncertainties across the
globe.
Fast forward to 2014, the dangers
arising from disputes between US and Russia, the two world’s super power, as
each jostle for position in shifting the global order, appears to be moving
into a new territory, where achievement of strategic changes across the globe
will depend partly, if not wholesomely, on the contribution of the Central
Intelligence Agency, KGB and some intelligence agencies in Western Europe. Can
the US counter the insurgency fomented by President Vladimir Putin in the
Crimean Peninsula without the work of the CIA? Can President Putin’s insurgency
in Eastern Ukraine, including the tactics of infiltrating soldiers, weapons and
intelligence agents into a convoluted mess be halted if the CIA folds its arms?
We are living in changing times and lambasting our intelligence agency for
mistakes that, as severe as the Senate Intelligence Committee Study on CIA
Detention and Interrogation Program may be putting it, i.e., as unlatching of
our national ethos of acceptable standard of behavior, may not be absolutely an
unmatched perception of the world as we now know it, today.
There are outstanding issues in the
Middle-East, offshoot of the Arab Spring, including the coming to power of the Muslim
Brotherhood in Egypt, a group whose leadership style has resulted in
uncertainties for democratically and progressively leaning group of that
nation; there is the bloodiest civil war in Syria, where Islamist-extremist
militants have actually strengthened the position of an authoritarian leader,
President Bashar al-Assad; a President our own President has voiced opposition
and questioned his authority to continue in power. The political ramification
of taking away any sort of support for our erstwhile intelligent agency in
light of the current Senate Foreign Intelligence Report (December 9, 2014), may create a
global perception that will germinate leaders with some high profile
aggressiveness that may result in further regional instability. With the
revisionist principle of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the world is about
to witness further escalated regional tension between Japan and China. How
about the increasing Chinese Nationalistic assertiveness as a global power with
its declaration of Air Defense Identification Zone that covered islands
disputed by Japan? The significant
economic size and military capabilities of China may throw a huge wrench in any
political policy whiz-kid puzzle; and, or, an unnerving outcome for regional
stability in East Asia. How is America going to anchor global security if
Asia-Pacific regional stability deteriorates further without the CIA?
I highlight all these issues not
to justify CIA actions in circumstances which the nation is in agreement regarding
unacceptable behavior in countering
insurgency in our type of democracy; however, I do this in opposition to argument
now circulating that some past CIA assets be brought to justice for their
action(s) in those uncertain times after September 11, 2001. Having
instability across the globe is inimical to democracy here and across the world.
Faltering CIA and using a huge hammer to kill a small fly in times like this
may not be in the nation’s best interest. Our Congressional leaders have to
make some hard choices in light of the current order of the world. Without a
common point of reference with respect to our Central Intelligence Agency’s
role in fighting counter-terrorism, the goal of maintaining a global world order
where America’s interests are not assuaged or marginalized, will be a mirage.
This brings me to a news release this morning by the US State Department regarding the ten things we ought to know about the global Counter Terrorism forum. According to the factsheet released by the Bureau of Public Affairs of the State Department : “The Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) was created in 2011 with primary objectives of countering violent extremism and strengthening criminal justice and other rule of law institutions that deal with terrorism and related security challenges. Ten things to know about this body are: 1) it has 30 founding members (29 countries and the European Union). More than 75 non-member countries and organizations have participated in Forum activities; 2) it’s activities have generated contributions of more than $300 million to support efforts to build civilian institutions, including the training of border officials, prosecutors, police, judges, and corrections officials, with a focus on countries in transition; 3) it has six expert-driven working groups that allow for practitioners and experts to engage with key counterparts: the criminal justice sector and rule of law; countering violent extremism (CVE); detention and reintegration; foreign terrorist fighters; capacity building in the Sahel; and capacity building in the Horn of Africa Region. Each group is co-chaired by two GCTF members from different regions; 4) it has adopted a series of rule-of-law based “good practice” documents to offer practical guidance on counterterrorism (CT) and CVE to policymakers and practitioners. This guidance addresses a wide range of topics, including: effective, human rights-compliant CT practice in the criminal justice sector; preventing and denying the benefits of kidnapping; community engagement and community-oriented policing; CVE and education; and prison radicalization and de-radicalization; 5) it members adopted in September 2014 the first-ever set of international Good Practices for a More Effective Response to the Foreign Terrorist Fighter (FTF) Phenomenon: https://www.thegctf.org/documents/10162/140201/14Sept19_The+Hague-Marrakech+FTF+Memorandum.pdf. This document informed the drafting of UN Security Council Resolution 2178 on FTFs, adopted during the 2014 Security Council Summit presided over by President Obama; 6) Hedayah, the first Forum-inspired institution and first-ever international center of excellence for training, dialogue, research, and collaboration on CVE, was launched in December 2012 in Abu Dhabi; 7) The International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law Center (IIJ), the second Forum-inspired institution, was launched in June 2014 in Valletta, Malta. It provides rule-of-law based training to criminal justice officials from across North, West, and East Africa, as well as the Middle East, on counterterrorism and related security challenges; 8) The Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund (GCERF), the third Forum-inspired institution and the first-ever public-private global fund to support local, grass-roots efforts to counter violent extremism, was established in September 2014 in Geneva; 9) To support the practical implementation of the Algiers Memorandum on Good Practices for Preventing and Denying the Benefits of Kidnapping for Ransom by Terrorists, the GCTF has developed a set of highly interactive, discussion-based training modules; and, 10) One of the Forum’s main purposes is to reinforce and support the UN Global CT Strategy at the regional and national levels, and to do so in a way that complements and reinforces the work of the UN and other multilateral organizations.”
With this, we know a long and
inclusive process is getting under way to fight global terrorism relentlessly.
When the Global Counter Terrorism Forum was initiated in 2011, I wonder if any
of the founding 29 countries and European Union considered how to bring to
book, actions and inactions that bordered on heavy-handedness in countering
terrorism? I wonder if the intelligent agencies in all these countries and membership
subscribe to subjecting their actions to second guessing by outsiders to the
union or their agents in the pursuit of terrorists, within and without? I wonder
if all memberships’ pursuits of the terrorists are endless and borderless? I double
wonder if all actions taken by a government or agents addressing terrorism
within the border of one country will be acceptable to all membership’s
government. I hope also, that its membership will not waste a monumental
opportunity by adhering to principles and policies that may question the
complete commitment to outstaring global terrorism based on the objectives of
the Global Forum?
