Turning a National Strategy into a Coalition Strategy
Practically every aspect of U.S. counterterrorism strategy relies on
international cooperation. Since 9/11, these contacts concerning military, law
enforcement, intelligence, travel and customs, and financial matters have
expanded so dramatically, and often in an ad hoc way, that it is difficult to
track these efforts, much less integrate them.
Recommendation: The United States should engage other nations in
developing a comprehensive coalition strategy against Islamist terrorism. There
are several multilateral institutions in which such issues should be addressed.
But the most important policies should be discussed and coordinated in a
flexible contact group of leading coalition governments. This is a good place,
for example, to develop joint strategies for targeting terrorist travel, or for
hammering out a common strategy for the places where terrorists may be finding
sanctuary.
Presently the Muslim and Arab states meet with each other, in organizations
such as the Islamic Conference and the Arab League. The Western states meet with
each other in organizations such as NATO and the Group of Eight summit of
leading industrial nations. A recent G-8 summit initiative to begin a dialogue
about reform may be a start toward finding a place where leading Muslim states
can discuss-and be seen to discuss-critical policy issues with the leading
Western powers committed to the future of the Arab and Muslim world.
These new international efforts can create durable habits of visible
cooperation, as states willing to step up to their responsibilities join
together in constructive efforts to direct assistance and coordinate action.
Coalition warfare also requires coalition policies on what to do with enemy
captives. Allegations that the United States abused prisoners in its custody
make it harder to build the diplomatic, political, and military alliances the
government will need. The United States should work with friends to develop
mutually agreed-on principles for the detention and humane treatment of captured
international terrorists who are not being held under a particular country's
criminal laws. Countries such as Britain, Australia, and Muslim friends, are
committed to fighting terrorists. America should be able to reconcile its views
on how to balance humanity and security with our nation's commitment to these
same goals.
The United States and some of its allies do not accept the application of
full Geneva Convention treatment of prisoners of war to captured terrorists.
Those Conventions establish a minimum set of standards for prisoners in internal
conflicts. Since the international struggle against Islamist terrorism is not
internal, those provisions do not formally apply, but they are commonly accepted
as basic standards for humane treatment.
Recommendation: The United States should engage its friends to
develop a common coalition approach toward the detention and humane treatment of
captured terrorists. New principles might draw upon Article 3 of the Geneva
Conventions on the law of armed conflict. That article was specifically designed
for those cases in which the usual laws of war did not apply. Its minimum
standards are generally accepted throughout the world as customary international
law.
