Ambassador Philip C. Wilcox, Jr., Coordinator for Counterterrorism Remarks to the 15th annual Government/Industry Conference on Terrorism, Political Instability, and International Crime Washington, DC, February 28, 1997.

It is good to be back at your annual conference. ASIS has led the way, in the private sector, in taking the initiative to deal with security for private Americans and our business community, here and abroad, and I'm honored to join you this morning.

Today, we live in a world of paradox. Democracy, the rule of law, and market economics have emerged as the driving force in more and more societies. Communism is dead, and the specter of nuclear war is virtually gone. Science and technology have created miracles that none of us as children could have predicted. The wonders of communications and aviation have tied the world much more closely together. America's strength and dynamism are preeminent, and we have many reasons to look forward to the next century with high hopes.

But contrary to the rosy predictions of some, we have hardly reached the "End of History." We still live in a country and a world beset with dangers.

Terrorism, political unrest, and crime--domestic and international--are still major threats. We are focusing on these more clearly now that the specter of major war has faded. I think you will agree as security professionals, that Americans are more preoccupied with terrorism today, than perhaps at any time in our history. I can assure you that fighting terrorism is one of the top priorities of President Clinton's Administration.

This morning, I'd like to examine the reasons why the threat of terror is still high on our agenda, review current trends in terrorism and our policies, and offer a kind of report card on how we are doing to reduce this menace. I will also hazard some guesses about terrorism in the future. And I'll close with some thoughts about terrorism and our overall foreign policy.

Two years ago, when I addressed this group, I noted a paradox. While the net damage from terrorism in terms of dead and wounded and economic disruption is less than some other evils--for example, ordinary crime and drugs--terrorism takes a high toll on societies because of the tremendous fear and anxiety it causes. Indeed, the goal of terrorists is to terrify, even more than to kill and maim. By striking, often randomly against innocent people, terrorists seek to create panic and disruption by spreading fear. Their goal is often to weaken the confidence of citizens in their government's ability to protect them, and to extort political concessions from frightened government.

The astonishing power of modern communications to project the horror of terrorism has made it a far more devastating weapon today. The ancient Chinese strategist, Hsun Tzu, offered a brilliant definition of terrorism: "kill one, frighten ten thousand." Today, with television, he would say "kill one, frighten one hundred million." Think, for example, of the anxiety caused by the pipe bombing at the Atlanta Olympics. Terrorists, of course, understand the power of the media, and they cleverly exploit it to heighten our sense of shock and vulnerability.

Should we then, try to pay less attention to terrorists? Some societies like the UK, with a longer experience with terrorist attacks at home, seem to take a lower-key approach, but I doubt that we will. Because of the emotion it stirs, terrorism is always a better news story than a car crash or some other tragedy. Also, we Americans, blessed by a society which offers unparalleled opportunity, a democratic process, and a legal system for resolving grievance and balancing rights and responsibilities, are particularly outraged by terrorists, like the Oklahoma City bombers or the Unibomber. We cannot begin to understand the evil of people who kill and maim innocent people because of their personal grievances and paranoias.

Moreover, the cost of terrorism is not just the enormous fear and anxiety it causes. The economic burden is immense, as you, as professionals in the field know all too well.

Security is a growing cost of doing business, here and abroad for American business, and the U.S. Government has invested billions to protect U.S. officials and military personnel abroad. The bombings of servicemen in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996 were a grim reminder that this job is never complete. We are, therefore, giving more priority than ever to the protection of our forces abroad against terrorism.

Civil aviation has also borne a heavy security burden. Although there is no evidence that the tragedy of TWA Flight 800 was a terrorist crime, that event renewed attention to the vulnerability of civil aviation to terrorists. The result flowing from Vice President Gore's Commission on Civil Aviation Security will be more security measures for American and foreign travelers. We need this, and we will have to pay the price.

Our foreign policy interests are also threatened by terrorism. As a strategic weapon, terrorism has largely failed. Those who have relied on it have tended to end up in the dustbin of history, leaving only a legacy of revulsion. Nevertheless, terrorists have done great damage in prolonging and sharpening conflicts that otherwise might have yielded to comprises and political solutions. For example, in spite of strong pressures by the majority of people in the Middle East and in Northern Ireland for compromise and peace, terrorists are fighting to keep those conflicts alive. And a few rogue states, like Iran--although they have lost the respect and friendship of most nations--continue to sow fear and instability by sponsoring terrorism.

U.S. policy in dealing with terrorism, after some fits and starts in past decades, is now firm and it is setting the standard for other states.

Our policy of refusing to bow to terrorist demands is being adopted by more and more governments who have learned, often the hard way, that concessions invite further acts of terror. By making the policy clear, for example, we have virtually eliminated efforts to take American officials hostage, in contrast to a previous era when this practice was widespread.

Our policy of insisting that terrorism is a crime and enactment of much stronger laws--some of them with extraterritorial reach--has made U.S. law a much more powerful antiterrorism tool. More and more, other governments are following suit. In past decades, states were inclined to look the other way when terrorists threatened, or to confuse terrorism with the struggle for freedom or other legitimate causes. Today, more and more governments are cracking down on terrorists and strengthening their own domestic laws.

The U.S. is also pushing to strengthen international law as a weapon against terrorism. For example, we and other governments to get on with the task of joining the 10 existing international treaties and conventions of terrorist crimes. And, we are proposing an 11th treaty on suppression of terrorist bombing.

We are also working to strengthen the fabric of international cooperation against terrorists through bilateral consultation--I take part in dozens of these--and in multilateral groups like the G-7, the European Union, and in conferences around the world. The meeting last year in Washington of counterterrorism experts from the Middle East--which included Israelis, Palestinians, and Arabs--following the Sharm al-Sheikh Summit, was an example. And international cooperation in counterterrorism will have a high profile at the G-7 Summit in Denver this June.

Another key element of our policy is to condemn, designate, and sanction state sponsors of terrorism. Our policy has helped to isolate these states and curtail their activities. But, I regret to say, we have received too little support from our allies in bringing pressure to bear against states like Iran.

We have also strengthened an effective apparatus in Washington. We have a well-oiled system to deal with terrorism abroad which integrates diplomacy, intelligence, and law enforcement under the leadership of the State Department. For terrorism here at home, the FBI is the lead agency.

Training of foreign governments in modern counterterrorism techniques also plays an important role. Our Antiterrorism Assistance Program, administered by State's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, has trained over 18,000 officials in 90 foreign countries, and in the process has strengthened ties between U.S. Government professionals and their counterparts around the world.

Our Antiterrorism Awards Program, also administered by Diplomatic Security, has helped us bring to justice escaped terrorists, such as the notorious Ramzi Ahmed Yousef.

Finally, we are increasing our research and development efforts in counterterrorism technologies, especially explosives detection and means for dealing with non-conventional threats. Technologies that are now used around the world owe their origin to this program.

In short, we have strong, time-tested policies, a well organized and staffed interagency apparatus, and solid programs to deal with terrorism, reflecting the high priority that the both the President and the Congress are giving to this issue.

Now let's have a look at current trends in international terrorism. It is an increasingly complex arena for several reasons.

First, terrorism sponsored by states, has declined, as the international consensus against terrorism has grown, and states like Libya and Iraq have been contained by UN sanctions. The exception is Iran, which remains a major offender.

Second, the old revolutionary terrorist groups continue to decline or die out, now that the Soviet Union is gone. But the hostage-taking by the revolutionary Tupac Amaru group in Peru has shown that such groups can still do harm.

Hizballah, HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Egyptian Gamaat Islamiya, and the Armed Algerian Group, have international cells and the capability to operate abroad. But in terms of the threat to Americans, the most dynamic and dangerous international terrorists today are less organized, ad hoc Islamic extremist elements who come from many nations and operate transnationally. The Ramzi Ahmed Yousef gang, which bombed the World Trade Center and conspired to blow up U.S. civilian aircraft over the Pacific, typify this new breed of transnational terrorists. Many of them did their basic training with the Mujahaddin in Afghanistan. And some get money and support from Usama Bin Ladin, the black sheep exile from a wealthy Saudi family, who has gained a reputation as the world's leading financier of Islamic extremist terrorism. These ad hoc elements are elusive and hard to pin down. They are a much tougher target for governments, intelligence agencies, and law enforcement services to monitor and arrest than terrorists sponsored by states members of traditional, well established terrorist groups.

Islamic extremism is a dynamic element in international terrorism. But the abuse of religion by terrorists is nothing new in history, and is not limited to Islam. Terrorists who have claimed to act in the name of other faiths have also been active for centuries. Some of these terrorists, indeed the most dangerous--are fanatics who believe they are doing God's will. But many others are politicians who generally exploit religion for power. Fortunately, these so-called religious terrorists still operate on the margins of their societies. But they are a very troubling phenomenon in the Arab and Islamic World, where they are often a symptom of social, political, and economic problems that need to be addressed.

Anger, alienation, and the search for simple solutions in a complex and troubled world are also motivating violence and terrorism by a variety of other political, cult, and messianic movements. The absence of coherent political agendas by these groups, and the fact that some of them commit acts of terrorism without corresponding demands, purely for revenge. Or without even taking credit, makes them an elusive and difficult target to deal with.

Against this backdrop of the threat today, how can we measure our success in dealing with terrorism? The statistics, at first glance, suggest we are during well, with respect to international terrorism, where the numbers show a major decline in incidents in 1987, the peak year, there were 862 incidents, worldwide, whereas in 1996, there were only 290. But the number of incidents don't tell the whole story. Indeed, the number of casualties, in terms of dead and wounded from international terrorism, appear to be rising as terrorists resort to bigger bombs and more mass casualties. Also, casualties can fluctuate wildly. A single aircraft bombing can be far worse than dozens of lesser acts of terror.

In this connection, businesses abroad are a more prominent target today than in the past, perhaps because the U.S. and other governments have done so much to harden embassies abroad and protect officials.

Also, while it seems that international terrorism may be declining, the number of acts of domestic terrorism may well be rising. Casualties from domestic terrorism, for example, in places like Algeria and Sri Lanka, are far greater than those inflicted in international terrorist acts.

In short, we can't be comforted by the statistics. And while we have made some progress, the glass is no more than half-full.

Moreover, looking at terrorist threats in the future, there is plenty of reason for concern. It is true, as I have said, that much of the world has advanced with the march of democracy, human rights, and economic development. But this progress has been very uneven. North America, much of Asia, and Western Europe have thrived.

But serious problems of poverty, overpopulation, instability, and environmental degradation plague Africa, the Middle East, the subcontinent, the Balkans, and Central Asia. And Afghanistan, which has produced many of today's transnational terrorists, is still in turmoil.

The march of technology, which has done so much to enhance life, also presents new dangers of terrorism. conventional bombs and weapons will continue to predominate. But conventional bombs, even crude home made devices as we saw at the World Trade Center and in Oklahoma City, are increasingly powerful and can do immense damage. Worse yet, the threat of nuclear, biological, and chemical terror is real. That fact that a major chemical attack has already occurred in the Aum Shinrikyo sarin attack on the Tokyo subways, raised the possibility that others will follow suit, if history is any lesson.

Another threat in our age of technology are terrorist or criminal attacks against the electronic infrastructure on which our economic and commercial life depends and on systems of public power and transport. Our lives today rely, to an extraordinary degree, on the safe functioning of these systems. Yet they are highly vulnerable to enterprising cyber terrorists or criminals.

I can assure you that the Clinton Administration is very much aware of, and is acting to deal with the threats of terrorism using non-conventional substances, and the new specter of cyber terrorism. Our challenge is to grasp that terrorism is a dynamic threat whose practitioners are increasingly sophisticated and enterprising. Our job is to preempt, not only to react. We need to stay ahead of the terrorists and to make sure that they, not us, are on the defensive. This brings me to a final point on why the United States needs not only an aggressive, well funded, and staffed counterterrorism apparatus and good programs and policies, but active engagement in all aspects of foreign affairs, to reduce the threat of international terrorism, crime, and political violence.

We can't rely just on tough, focused counterterrorism efforts to reduce the threat of terrorism. We need a larger, comprehensive effort to maintain U.S. foreign policy leadership and engagement across the board--and this I emphasize--we also need the resources needed to sustain it.

Terrorism often emerges from the breeding grounds of political, economic, and ideological conflict. Often it is a product of poverty and despair. For decades the United States has led the way in addressing these problems around the world. But our leadership and our ability to mobilize international support to resolve conflicts, reduce threats of all kinds, and build trusting relationships with other governments has required resources.

Today, I'm sorry to say, the resources we commit to for our international affairs are in sharp decline. Diplomacy, crisis prevention, support for the UN, development assistance, and other elements of our foreign affairs budget are cheap insurance.

Yet spending for non-defense foreign affairs has been cut by 52% in real terms since 1984, while the need to protect our interests abroad has grown. Today, we spend only 1.2% of our entire federal budget on all aspects of international affairs. In contrast, we spend 18% of our budget for military defense.

Yet diplomacy and the peaceful resolution of conflict are our first line of defense. By trying to pursue our foreign affairs on the cheap, we are risking U.S. leadership and compromising our interests and our security. The kind of slash and burn cuts we have made to our international affairs budget suggest isolation and withdrawal, not the leadership and engagement we seek and need. If this trend continues, U.S. interests, including our ability to reduce the threat of violence and terrorism, are bound to suffer.

America's overall security interests require, therefore, not just the policies and activities we have in place to put terrorists out of business and behind bars, and not just the superb military forces we have, but adequate resources to support a vigorous, engaged foreign policy leadership role across the board.

(###)

Go To State Department Terrorism Home Page.
MILNET Selected State Department Documents