Long-range Objectives Needed in War on Terrorism

The U.S. war against terrorism should include an integrated set of long-range geopolitical objectives that advance global peace and stability, according to a new task force report by Rice University’s James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.

The report, The Geopolitical Implications of the War Against Terrorism explores how September 11 changed the geopolitical calculus in regions across the world. Edward Djerejian, director of the Baker Institute, presented the report in separate meetings with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington, D.C., in June.

Developed by a 13-member task force of former government officials and policy experts, the report offers the following recommendations:

• NATO: Washington should give serious consideration to expanding NATO competencies in the area of counterterrorism by strengthening multilateral coordination among domestic counterterrorism agencies.
• Europe/Transatlantic Alliance: The United States should encourage the Europeans to rationalize their military capabilities, capitalizing on the unique strengths of each country, in order to maximize the overall effectiveness of the transatlantic alliance.
• Russia: More leadership and resources should be directed by the United States to broadening the Nunn-Lugar initiative to secure nuclear materials and expertise in Russia. Regarding Chechnya, Washington should become more actively engaged with Moscow to achieve peace in the Caucuses.
• People’s Republic of China: The U.S. goal is to define the Sino–American agenda for the next leadership in Beijing, advance the agenda relating to the campaign against terrorism, strengthen the political environment between the two countries, and in the process, reduce tensions created by fundamental differences over Taiwan.
• Middle East Peace Process: The United States must attach the highest priority to serving as a catalyst to achieve an Israeli–Palestinian peace. Washington must articulate the parameters of a framework for a final settlement, which would provide the necessary political context to begin negotiations within a mutually agreed upon time frame.
• Iraq: It is recommended that the United States follow a “ramp up” strategy, employing escalating phases of suasion and coercion, to effect a change in regime in Iraq. That implies beginning with multinational efforts to bring about political change. Beyond that, it implies moving, under appropriate circumstances, from indirect support of alternative political players to covert operations to military operations that undercut the Iraqi Baathist regime.
• Iran: Washington must recognize that, despite the power of the hard-line clerics, Iran may very well be in a “prerevolutionary” stage (that is, demographic dynamics are generating significant societal transformation). In the near- and mid-term, it is in U.S. interest to identify with and keep channels open to the youth and the reformers.
• South Asia: U.S. policy toward Central Asia must drive toward two objectives: avoiding a war that could involve nuclear weapons and eliminating the terrorist threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The near-term crisis and the longer-range strategy require an intensified and major role in seeking to defuse the current threat of warfare in Kashmir.