25 Jan , 2015
If we look in the past or even in the current situation no state has ever been a threat towards national and international security. On the other hand, despite their disregard for international security, peace cooperation and recognition some non-states forces have began exhibiting state like characteristics.
Today non-states can easily receive financial aids from external nations. The military wings of these non-states do not move from the area of conflict; instead they create conflicts right from their homes to controlled areas and then to areas where they desire to control.
For some Hezbollah is a terrorist organization for others Hezbollah is a party. The fact is that Hezbollah is a social, political, and military non-state actor that has national importance, working structure and governing capability.
Contrary to the state funded troops, these non-state military wings attain extensive funds, financial and technical assistance from offshore accounts and untraceable bogus organizations. Arrangements like these allow the military wings to continue their fights without any external or third front opinions. However considering the situation today, military wings have started rotating combat troops to areas of conflict through interstate support and ties.
Short term deployment works as a camouflage for the military wings as they assist other non-state organization and the opponent nations doesn’t get to know. Thus Non State actors sustain in a region more and attain the power, communications, financial aid and weapons to start a war with the host nation.
The Definition
There is no definition that can accurately describe the definition of non-state actors (NSAs). However objectively looking, an NSA is defined an organised group that has a command structure, operating outside state and using forces to achieve politically or making an allegedly political approach. Some factors include ‘rebel groups’ and some anti government factors which may or may not be recognised as a state.
However ICRC states “Although it is clear that all parties to non-international armed conflict are legally bound by IHL, armed groups cannot ratify or formally become party to IHL treaties; only States can do so. As a result, armed groups may consider themselves technically not bound by the international obligations specified in treaty law.” ICRC is a leading organization that monitors movement of state actors worldwide. International Humanitarian Law is applicable only in situations with smaller factions and short armed conflicts. Human Rights are violated at all times hence there should be a debate as to what extent should it be applicable on long terms conflicts.
A pre-emptive strategy is required to tackle the issue of increasing non-state actors, as it is absolutely necessary for these non-state actors to be eliminated right before their maturation.
Emerging Non State Actors
Threats in Middle East
For some Hezbollah is a terrorist organization for others Hezbollah is a party. The fact is that Hezbollah is a social, political, and military non-state actor that has national importance, working structure and governing capability. Americans would however remember the other side of Hezbollah whose agents were seen driving “a truck bomb right into the U.S. Marine Corp’s barracks in Beirut of 1983, killing 241 soldiers and injuring many more. It is not wrong to say that “Since then, the attack of 1983, Hezbollah has become more mature”.
In 2006, after 24 years of its formation, “Hezbollah became a self sustaining virtual state in the southern part of Lebanon.” Hezbollah had 14 elected representatives in the 128 seat Lebanese parliament, including two major cabinet posts. They ran schools and hospitals, and secretly smuggled weapons and ammunition including 14,000 rounds of rocket propelled grenades to pound on Israel with the help of its Iranian partner. Major Bradley Cooper, a former marine turned diplomat estimates Hezbollah to receive around $33 million pounds of financial aid yearly from Iran. Iranians major assistance to the organization have geared them socially, economically along with military ambitions making them a perfect example for other Islamic movements in the world. With the Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon in 2000 many nations saw “Hezbollah as a major cause for Israeli defeat” and many “Middle East Analysts hailed Hezbollah for becoming the Arab military organization to successfully defeat Israel.” This success has inspired many military organizations in the world such as HAMAS in Palestine to Muqtada al Sadr’s Madhi Army in Iraq.
Asian Non State Threats
Abu Sayyaf Group comprises of a lower category of military and politico impression as compared to Hezbollah, this Asian non-state actor is considered a major threat throughout the Republic of Philippines. Not long ago, Pilipino police apprehended 16 Abu Sayyaf agents. These agents were apprehended along with tons of reading materials on Biological warfare. David Matthew a security affairs analyst for The Diplomat considers Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), a growing Al Qaeda extremist wing in the South Asia as the second Asian non state threat that exhibits characteristics of a nation.
Around the World
In recent years non-state activities were seen in parts of South America and Africa. J.Richards reports growing Hezbollah’s presence in Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Ecuador, Panama, and recently Venezuela. He explains, “They [Hezbollah] are the ones behind increasing militant activities in Argentina and actively promoting Islamic fanaticism.” “The reason behind their presence in Venezuela is to create psychological pressure and to let the third front nations know they are there” and to counter balance the nation of western culture. He thinks that this sudden appearance of Hezbollah in Venezuela is because of an “unidentified liaison between Hugo Chávez and former president Ahmadinejad.”
As great powers too can’t defeat the increasing power of non-state actors thus at some point small organizations will get their hands on nuclear material and they will not hesitate to use it…
It is not new that non-state actors are developing themselves against their host nations, within their host nations in Africa. The increasing oil and gas industries in Nigeria makes the task for non-state actors easy as their primary source of funds are sanctified enabling them to connect with major extremist organizations such as Al Qaeda. A pre-emptive strategy is required to tackle the issue of increasing non-state actors, as it is absolutely necessary for these non-state actors to be eliminated right before their maturation.
Growing Non State Networks
In this era of globalisation the most salient threat to security and peace comes from self sustained and strong network organizations such as the Al Qaeda and its followers. These state less organizations can only be battled by neutralising each and every one of its members, since organizations like these are certain to annihilate everyone. As great powers too can’t defeat the increasing power of non-state actors thus at some point small organizations will get their hands on nuclear material and they will not hesitate to use it against a strong nation certainly like the United States. This has become one of the greatest threats post Cold War hence great powers should come together devote their resources and counter it.
It is more likely that non-state actors like Al Qaeda could attack great power nations as they neither share the boundaries nor are they attached to any territory and depend less on state approval. Contrary to governments, non-state networks do not bother themselves with maintaining infrastructure, protecting civilians, managing economy or international relations. They depend heavily on black market trade, smuggling illicit weapons from military depots and industrial base rather than international trade. With a different perspective than guerrilla rebels they attack the interested parties of the great nations and do not harbour near the enemy territory. They fully exploit all the medium of communication specially the internet and use this space to communicate, strategize, and spread ideology.
As non-state actors do not burden themselves in governing the expanded territories, the costs for attacking a powerful state is lower than the ones of the state.
As non-state actors do not burden themselves in governing the expanded territories, the costs for attacking a powerful state is lower than the ones of the state. For example, to attack the targets in New York or Mumbai, Al Qaeda has to take fewer risks as compared to any state. Contrary to the leader of North Korea Kim Jong II, Al Qaeda’s supreme commander Osama Bin Laden never ruled a nation hence had hardly anything to lose in retaliation. Recalling the statement made by Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld during his debate on America’s response to 9/11; he said – “there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan.” Hence comparing to the territorial nations, non state actors have “a greater ability” to attack other great powers as they don’t have to burden themselves with international or national security.
This clearly means the concept of deterrence breaks down during asymmetric conflicts against the non-state actors. The principle of deterrence is very simple (if you do Z, then I will destroy your cities), on the contrary growing security is making threats more credible. These networks are in no manner associated to the boundaries or the state hence facing retaliation doesn’t affects them. They are well aware that the host nation is enemy number 1 and they will do anything to stop their attacks.
Any violence conducted against any Muslim in the world, harmed in anyway, non state actors such as Al Qaeda manipulates and narrates as if the US is imminently launching an attack on all Muslims. It will not be wrong to say that deterrence acts as a major centrepiece of strategies for symmetric conflicts, the logic acts as a counterproductive response in modern asymmetric warfare.
Unable to rely on deterrence the nuclear power faces a grave danger specially relying more on technological advancements. “Tactically,” says General Lehmann, “financial markets to transportation systems to electric power grids, standards of living worldwide depend fundamentally on integrated technical systems that are susceptible to idiosyncratic threats”, he adds. These systems are the most vulnerable to an attack, and this will fuel more fear, thus the openness of the modern nations allow the terrorist to exploit asymmetric information and ability to sabotage.
Using the internet properly, these actors increase their reach and attain transnational level as they spread.
The internet acts as a visual information medium, more knowledge or economic day today activity and undenied access for cyber terrorism. This vast amount of dependency exhibits the nation from performing freely and they have to protect a large amount of resources at once, creating a possibility of major or multiple attacks by networks of non state actors, which are neither present in the region nor nearby. The 9/11 is a perfect example. They infiltrated the US, waited and patiently prepared for years, and then turned the American planes into guided missiles. Capt. Jaime Richards points, “a small number of men killed 3,000 people and destroyed a huge portion of prime commercial real estate, part of the military’s national nerve center, and four expensive aircraft. The ripple effects, however, multiplied those costs.” This clearly explains the economic and physiological developments of non-state actors as it not only declared war on a great nation but it provoke the nation for “war on terror,” clearly explains the mentality of fourth generation extremism.
Comparing Al Qaeda with Vietcong or Mujahedeen, they are in awe of military power and also they lack tactical and logistical support but still they were able to attack a great power. A fatwa issued in 1996 stated “the Zionist Crusader alliance,” bin Laden warned his followers against a growing power and declared the US and their allies “infidels of Allah” asking for necessary response against western aggression. Bin Laden saw the American power coming and hence declared the US a major threat to dealt with. Thus, analyst Deepak Verma points out, “American global primacy is one of the causes of this war,” motivating al Qaeda’s purposes and “choice of tactics.”
With the increasing modernisation of technology the global jihadist let its members operate freely and improvise with the situation. As the definition suggests these organizations enjoy advantages instead of confronting each other. Their opponents on the contrary have to ensure structural and political incentives that make them vulnerable. Using the internet properly, these state actors increase their reach and attain transnational level as they spread. They use the internet to spread their message and focuses on one to one interaction. Telephones allow the boundary free communication but it does not deliver information transfer; Fax machines on the other hand transfer information but only for a small time. The internet focuses on the information transfer increasing an average user knowledge and awareness. While telephones tends to keep people nearer, but the internet connect strangers across nations, separated by land, to connect chat and share together. This alters the manner how humans share and consume time.
Well pointed by former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer “use of the internet is essential to al Qaeda’s expansion into a global movement”. Through the internet the Islamist organizations, prepare attacks, communicate, strategise and train new recruits.
The author of New York bestseller “The internet,” Scheuer said, “internet allows militant Muslims from every country to meet, talk, and get to know each other electronically, a familiarization and bonding process that in the 1980s and early 1990s required a trip to Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan or Pakistan.” Additionally the internet enables jihadists organizations to share intelligence, coordinate attacks, plan and strategise as well as spread justifications for their actions followed by “online military training: small unit tactics; the use and manufacture of toxins and poisons; trade craft for intelligence activities; martial arts manuals; textbooks, or sections thereof, dealing with the theory and construction of weapons of mass destruction; al Qaeda’s now famous Encyclopaedia of Jihad” and many more, he adds. This massive data of information is available in all the language to any non state actor planning an attack, not just militants. And with the increasing number of users and medium to access, this information flows from a user to another user with absolute anonymity.
Armed with internet the non-state actors work progressively to extend their reach, making more difficult for operators to eliminate threats.
The internet security further raises concern for more vigilance as transnational actors work freely without even sharing boundaries. This multiplies the challenges a nation faces while combating the non-state actors. Great powerful nations can easily target and eliminate physical bases and operating camps but it cannot eliminate transnational networks such as the ability to organize, recruit, finance, plan, and spread ideology. Movable in nature, these terrorist groups coordinate attacks, plan and promote heinous crimes against humanity; while there surviving members infiltrate the nation. Armed with internet the non-state actors work progressively to extend their reach, making more difficult for operators to eliminate threats. With support from terrorist organizations worldwide, and internet access on their doorstep organizations like Al Qaeda does not fear nuclear threat. If they seek nuclear threats then this would create a problem heavily for US and its allies.
Thus this modernization in technology grants both the state and the non-state actor’s ability to act in a situation which makes the state more vulnerable. For example, Al Qaeda with its vats materialistic support wants nations like US to attack first; while the US cannot risk the possibility of next attack by Al Qaeda as it will then be able to arm itself with nuclear technology. This contrast the analysis of Richard K Bright. While Bright correctly identitifies the, present needs and challenges but he incorrectly assesses the physical pressure on the nations. He states the current situation as an “active defence,” using the abilities of counter terrorist organizations. Thus the overall objective is clear “threat of an undeletable nuclear attack, coupled with the insufficiency of surveillance technology in the physical and virtual realms, create strong incentives for states to go on the offensive”, he adds.
Using Non State Actors in Foreign Policy
Non state actors are not merely a threat or risk to be mitigated. Rather, there are some non-state actors that could play an extremely valuable and effective role in promoting the foreign policy objectives of a state. Claude Bruderlein has explained the value of non-state actors in the context of armed conflict, but his comments are equally applicable to other situations:
…non-state actors can more effectively build a network with civil society representatives and focus with them on longer-term perspectives.
“These actors function without the constraints of a narrow foreign policy mandate of state institutions, with increased access to areas inaccessible to official actors. They can talk to several parties at once without losing credibility. They can deal directly with grassroots populations and operate without political or public scrutiny. In addition, non-state actors can more effectively build a network with civil society representatives and focus with them on longer-term perspectives. They are less subject to complaints of outside interference or breaches of sovereignty. In short, these actors are often more flexible than state actors especially in internal conflict situations.”
The state’s diplomatic, economic and development resources should be coordinated to maximize the contribution of non-state actors that are supportive of the government’s foreign policy program. Following are some examples of how foreign policy realigned to reflect non-state actors can work.
Republicans have made combating human trafficking – a practice that denies human liberty and allows organized crime to flourish – a foreign policy priority. Organizations that obtain government funding to combat human trafficking in the U.S. must be committed to the abolition of the modern-day slave trade, as opposed to promoting a regulated sex trade. Faith-based organizations alongside humanitarian organizations have formed a powerful coalition around the issue.
At the same time, U.S. law enforcement agencies are active abroad and at-home investigating and prosecuting both traffickers and child sex offenders. NGOs in the field help identify victims and offenders, gathering evidence for prosecutions. Diplomatic pressure is kept up by an annual ranking of how other countries are doing on combating human trafficking, drawing on information from NGOs in the field. Tourism companies are also required by law on certain flights to caution travellers about extraterritorial and local laws against child sex tourism. U.S. embassies around the world organize informal meetings of local groups to build coalitions to catalyze change on the issue. This overarching approach of building a powerful NGO and business coalition to combat transnational criminal organizations is compelling, and it is working. It is a remarkable demonstration of how far a polycentric strategic foreign policy can go, without making a large financial investment. Indeed, so much foreign aid funding is uncoordinated that merely coordinating what is already budgeted could lead to big results.
The US has been fully aware of the economic power of its businesses for some time. It has long recognized that aligning these non-state actors with its foreign policy objectives is necessary.
Likewise, the U.S. has been fully aware of the economic power of its businesses for some time. It has long recognized that aligning these non-state actors with its foreign policy objectives is necessary. Most notably, the U.S. has opted to do so through legal prohibitions on export and travel to unfriendly regimes. The private military and security company industry has also not escaped notice. The U.S. licensing regime for military services requires all American PMCs to register with the State Department, and their activities must conform to the United States Munitions List and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (both of which regulate military services as well as arms). A license must be obtained for every U.S. PMC contract. Larger contracts (i.e. those over US$14 million in equipment or US$50 million in services) require Presidential approval.
Realizing the strategic importance of PMCs, the U.S. barred its PMCs in the 1990s from working for certain parties in the former Yugoslavia, and in 2002 for Robert Mugabe’s Government of Zimbabwe.
Conclusion
Talking about the sovereignty of a nation, these NSA’s will continue to hamper and dismantle security by external or internal means, which makes this absolute necessary to deal with. No matter how much we debate on their actions and discuss our repercussions illegal trade of arms and aiding terrorist organizations will continue to work if strong actions are not taken. I fear increasing militancy in the world, will soon become a cause of demise for the UN. Former Secretary General Kofi Annan once said:
With no actual steps to tackle active violent acts performed by non-state actors, the world will soon be gripped in war.
“Overhauling basic management practices and building a more transparent, efficient, and effective United Nations system to revamping our major intergovernmental institutions so that they reflect today’s world and advance the priorities set forth in the present report, we must reshape the Organization in ways not previously imagined and with a boldness and speed not previously shown…While purposes should be firm and principles constant, practice and organization need to move with the times. If the United Nations is to be a useful instrument for its Member States and for the world’s peoples…it must be fully adapted to the needs and circumstances of the twenty-first century.”
Indeed the UN is surrounding with major political and economical challenges. For UN to become a successful organization it imperative that reforms are changed. However the real challenge is implementing the reforms. Simply debating the issues and that too an issue like terrorism will slowly lead to the demise of this magnificent organization that was once formed to change the world. With no actual steps to tackle active violent acts performed by NSA’s, the world will soon be gripped in war. The UN should revamp its charter with the growing developments in 21st century. The UN must create a CTC that will work independently and deal with the sole issue of growing terrorism. I sincerely hope that these changes are promoted in the organization making it a collective security giant that will ensure strong partnership between member nations, intelligence agencies, and non government organizations, and implement a multilateral arrangement to eliminate activities by NSA’s.
No comments:
Post a Comment