Highlights of a Forum Convened by the Comptroller General of the 
United States: Enhancing U.S. Partnerships in Countering	 
Transnational Terrorism (31-JUL-08, GAO-08-887SP).		 
                                                                 
The United States and the international community have stressed  
that a coordinated response is required to address the global	 
threat from transnational terrorism. Multilateral engagements	 
provide opportunities to foster relationships with traditional	 
and nontraditional partner countries. Partnerships also can raise
common awareness of the threat and build the trust necessary to  
share information that could prevent and detect terrorist acts.  
GAO convened a forum on April 22, 2008, to advance the dialogue  
on how partnerships can mitigate the conditions that foster	 
transnational terrorism and to identify potential strategies for 
overcoming challenges faced in engaging in such partnerships.	 
Participants included representatives from U.S. government	 
agencies, foreign embassies, nongovernmental and multilateral	 
organizations, policy institutes, the private sector, and	 
academia. The forum focused on (1) the partnership efforts and	 
key practices of the U.S. government and its partners, (2)	 
challenges to these efforts and practices, and (3) strategies to 
overcome the challenges. Comments expressed during the		 
proceedings do not necessarily represent the views of all	 
participants, the organizations they represent, or GAO. 	 
Participants reviewed a draft of this summary, and their comments
were incorporated, as appropriate.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-887SP					        
    ACCNO:   A83184						        
  TITLE:     Highlights of a Forum Convened by the Comptroller General
of the United States: Enhancing U.S. Partnerships in Countering  
Transnational Terrorism 					 
     DATE:   07/31/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Accountability					 
	     Combating terrorism				 
	     Counterterrorism					 
	     Foreign governments				 
	     Foreign policies					 
	     Funds management					 
	     Government information dissemination		 
	     International agreements				 
	     International cooperation				 
	     International organizations			 
	     International relations				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Terrorism						 
	     Information sharing				 
	     CG Forum						 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-887SP 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to [email protected]. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Highlights of a Forum: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

July 2008: 

Convened by the Comptroller General of the United States: 

Enhancing U.S. Partnerships in Countering Transnational Terrorism: 

Counterterrorism Partnership Forum: 

GAO-08-887SP: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-887SP, a GAO forum 

Why Convened This Forum: 

The United States and the international community have stressed that a 
coordinated response is required to address the global threat from 
transnational terrorism. Multilateral engagements provide opportunities 
to foster relationships with traditional and nontraditional partner 
countries. Partnerships also can raise common awareness of the threat 
and build the trust necessary to share information that could prevent 
and detect terrorist acts. 

GAO convened a forum on April 22, 2008, to advance the dialogue on how 
partnerships can mitigate the conditions that foster transnational 
terrorism and to identify potential strategies for overcoming 
challenges faced in engaging in such partnerships. Participants 
included representatives from U.S. government agencies, foreign 
embassies, nongovernmental and multilateral organizations, policy 
institutes, the private sector, and academia. 

The forum focused on (1) the partnership efforts and key practices of 
the U.S. government and its partners, (2) challenges to these efforts 
and practices, and (3) strategies to overcome the challenges. Comments 
expressed during the proceedings do not necessarily represent the views 
of all participants, the organizations they represent, or GAO. 
Participants reviewed a draft of this summary, and their comments were 
incorporated, as appropriate. 

What Participants Said: 

Forum participants discussed the types of partnerships or initiatives 
they have engaged in to counter the enabling environment that fosters 
transnational terrorism. Some of the partnership activities that 
participants cited include information sharing, training and capacity 
building, dialogue and education on counterterrorism, and conducting on-
the-ground assessments. A few participants voiced concerns that certain 
labels for partnership programs could limit program effectiveness. Some 
participants also described characteristics of effective partnerships, 
such as shared objectives and common understanding of terminology. 

Participants identified and ranked the challenges they currently face 
or have perceived in their partnerships to combat transnational 
terrorism. The top five challenges were (1) cultural differences and 
lack of trust, (2) differences in political views/foreign policy 
objectives, (3) differences in relationships with states from which 
extremists emerge, (4) lack of funding, and (5) lack of consensus about 
the underlying causes of terrorism (see figure). 

Participants discussed strategies for overcoming some of the 
challenges. A few participants suggested that funding for 
counterterrorism programs and activities be made more flexible, so that 
it could be allocated where needed and have the most impact. Some 
participants indicated it would be helpful to gain a better 
understanding of extremist ideologies and the underlying causes of 
terrorism before making decisions about funding. A few participants 
also mentioned that knowledge and ï¿½practical capacityï¿½ in countering 
terrorism need to be integrated, so that the United States and its 
partners can gain a better understanding of extremism and current 
adversaries. 

Figure: Top Five Counterterrorism Partnership Challenges Identified by 
Participants: 

This figure is a bar graph showing top five counterterrorism 
partnership challenges identified by participants. The X axis 
represents the number of participants, and the Y axis represents 
challenges. 

Challenges: Cultural differences/lack of trust; 
Number of participants: 21. 

Challenges: Difference in political views/foreign policy objectives; 
Number of participants: 21. 

Challenges: Differences in relationships with states from which 
extremist emerge; Number of participants: 20. 

Challenges: Lack of funding; 
Number of participants: 17. 

Challenges: Lack of consensus about underlying causes of terrorism; 
Number of participants: 17. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of participant' forum responses. 

[End of figure] 

To view the full product, click on [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-08-887SP]. For more information, contact Charles M. 
Johnson Jr. at (202) 512-7331 or [email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Introduction: 

Background: 

International Partnerships to Counter Transnational Terrorism: 

Challenges to Countering Transnational Terrorism: 

Participants Identified Strategies for Addressing Key Challenges: 

Appendix I: Forum Agenda: 

Appendix II: List of Participants: 

Appendix III: Key Enabling Factors That Could Foster Transnational 
Terrorism: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Additional Enabling Factors Fostering Terrorism Identified by 
Participants before the Forum: 

Table 2: Additional Key Areas of Partnership Identified by Participants 
before the Forum: 

Table 3: Examples of Counterterrorism Partnerships: 

Figure: 

Figure 1: Participants' Rating of Challenges to Partnerships: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

Introduction: 

The United States continues to face threats and challenges to its 
national and economic security, including those from international 
terrorist organizations. These threats have required the U.S. 
government to rethink its international activities, strengthen 
antiterrorism capacity-building programs overseas, and enhance 
interagency and international community coordination. Mitigating 
terrorist threats has become a central focus of U.S. national security 
policy. Specifically, a number of U.S. policy initiatives and U.S. 
government expert reports that focus on combating terrorism--such as 
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the 2006 
National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, and the 9/11 Commission 
Report--point out that the United States needs to strengthen and work 
with its coalitions and partnerships to facilitate appropriate 
solutions to the challenges posed by transnational terrorism.[Footnote 
1] 

GAO convened this forum on April 22, 2008, to assist federal agencies 
in advancing the dialogue on how partnerships could mitigate the 
conditions that foster transnational terrorism and to identify 
potential strategies and solutions for the challenges faced in engaging 
in such partnerships. The forum focused on (1) U.S. and international 
partnership efforts and key practices to counter enabling environments 
that foster transnational terrorism, (2) challenges to these 
partnerships efforts and practices, and (3) short-and long-term 
strategies that the U.S. government and its partners can pursue to 
overcome the challenges. (See app. I for the forum agenda.) Prior to 
the forum, we solicited the views and experiences of participants on a 
number of issues pertaining to countering transnational terrorism. 
During the first session of the forum, we presented the information 
that participants provided. 

The forum brought together a diverse group of experts, including 
participants from (1) the U.S. government; (2) foreign entities, 
including officials of foreign embassies, a foreign government 
official, and an official from a multilateral institution; and (3) 
nongovernment entities, including representatives from nongovernmental 
organizations, policy institutes, academia, and the private sector. 
(See app. II for a list of participants.) We also extended to members 
of the intelligence community an invitation to participate in the 
forum, but they chose not to attend. The forum was structured so that 
participants could comment on issues openly, without direct 
attribution, and to facilitate a frank and substantive discussion. Not 
all participants commented on all topics, and individual comments are 
not necessarily representative of the views of other participants. 

This summary attempts to capture the ideas and themes that emerged at 
the forum, the collective discussion of participants at the sessions, 
and participants' comments of a draft of this summary. This summary 
does not necessarily represent the views of the organizations that 
participated in the forum, including GAO. Participants reviewed a draft 
of this summary, and their comments were incorporated, as appropriate. 

I would like to thank the forum participants for taking time to share 
their knowledge, insights, and perspectives on this important topic. 
Others will benefit from these contributions. We look forward to 
working with the participants on these and other issues of mutual 
interest and concern in the future. 

Signed by: 

Gene L. Dodaro: 

Acting Comptroller General of the United States: 

July 31, 2008: 

Background: 

The U.S. administration and the international community have stressed 
that a coordinated, comprehensive response is required to address the 
global threat from transnational terrorism. With its Global Counter- 
Terrorism Strategy, the United Nations has set up a framework that aims 
to enhance national, regional, and international efforts to counter 
terrorism.[Footnote 2] The strategy, adopted in 2006, marks the first 
time that member states have agreed to a common strategic and 
operational approach to fighting terrorism; it also emphasizes the 
importance of cooperation and engaging in partnerships. Multilateral 
engagements provide opportunities to foster relationships with 
traditional and nontraditional partner countries to combat terrorism. 
Partnerships can also raise common awareness of the threat and build 
the trust necessary to share information that could prevent and detect 
terrorist acts. The international community, including multilateral 
organizations and partner nations, is collaborating in various ways to 
address and combat transnational terrorism. 

GAO Has Emphasized Transnational Counterterrorism Strategies and 
Partnerships: 

In a 2005 report, GAO highlighted the need to identify international 
strategies to confront the terrorist threat as a 21st century challenge 
for the federal government.[Footnote 3] Specifically, GAO reported that 
understanding the underlying causes of terrorism and focusing on 
mitigating those causes may be one way to diminish levels of terrorism 
globally. GAO also noted that tactics to address and mitigate the root 
causes of terrorism may hinge on intelligence, diplomacy, and 
multinational partnerships and that advancing and protecting U.S. 
international interests requires the use of all available instruments 
of power. Several U.S. government entities are key stakeholders in the 
U.S. effort to combat and mitigate the underlying conditions of 
transnational terrorism. Their tools for combating terrorism abroad 
include diplomatic, military, intelligence, development assistance, 
economic, and law enforcement support. 

A number of GAO reports have pointed out issues in coordination among 
U.S. government entities that engage in combating transnational 
terrorism. These reports have also highlighted challenges that the U.S. 
government faces in coordinating an international approach to combating 
terrorism. For example, in October 2005, GAO reported that the U.S. 
government lacks an integrated strategy to coordinate the delivery of 
counterterrorism financing training and technical assistance to 
countries vulnerable to terrorist financing.[Footnote 4] In addition, 
in May 2007, GAO reported that U.S. law enforcement agencies generally 
lacked not only guidance on using resources to assist foreign nations 
in addressing terrorist vulnerabilities but also performance monitoring 
systems and formal structures for information sharing and 
collaboration.[Footnote 5] A list of related GAO reports since 2005 can 
be found at the end of this report. 

GAO Solicited Participants' Views on Counterterrorism Issues before the 
Forum: 

Prior to the forum, we solicited participants' views on a number of 
issues pertaining to countering transnational terrorism and used the 
participants' responses to help shape the forum's agenda and discussion 
sessions. Questions posed to the participants focused on the definition 
of terrorism, the key enabling factors that could foster transnational 
terrorism, key areas of partnership, and the challenges participants 
face or perceive in collaborating on counterterrorism.[Footnote 6] 
Nearly half of the participants who attended provided their 
views.[Footnote 7] Participants who responded included officials from 
U.S. government agencies, foreign partners, a multilateral institution, 
policy institutes, a nongovernmental organization, and the private and 
academic sectors. 

Definition of Terrorism: 

The first question we posed to the participants prior to the forum 
focused on the definition of terrorism. As a baseline, in the absence 
of a global definition of terrorism, we provided participants with the 
UN's working definition of terrorism, which is itself based on an 
academic consensus definition: 

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, 
employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for 
idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby--in contrast to 
assassination--the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. 
The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly 
or selectively from a target population, and serve as message 
generators. Threat-and violence-based communication processes between 
terrorists, victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main 
target, turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a 
target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or 
propaganda is primarily sought. 

We then asked participants how their agency, organization, or country 
defined terrorism. Their responses showed that the definition of 
terrorism varied across forum participants. However, several common 
elements of what constitutes terrorism emerged from participants' 
responses, including (1) the unlawful use of force or coercion (2) 
through violence against a government, person, or group (3) for the 
attainment of political, economic, religious, ideological, or social 
goals, (4) as well as the violent manifestation of extremism. 

Key Enabling Factors of Terrorism: 

The second question we posed to participants prior to the forum focused 
on the key enabling factors that foster transnational terrorism. Based 
on discussions with the Department of State's Office of the Coordinator 
for Counterterrorism and terrorism experts in the academic community, 
we developed a list of factors that could foster terrorism (see app. 
III) and asked participants to rank the key factors. The factors most 
frequently cited were: 

* propagation and funding of extremism, 

* feeling of alienation among host country youth, 

* anti-Western sentiments, and: 

* repressive and corrupt governments. 

In addition, responding participants indicated other enabling factors 
(see table 1). 

Table 1: Additional Enabling Factors Fostering Terrorism Identified by 
Participants before the Forum: 

Infectious ideology of transnational jihadism; 
Cultural and ideological factors; 
History of political violence in a society; 
Lack of history of successful nonviolent protests; 
Family and friendship bonds to members of extremist groups, which in 
turn serve as a key to recruitment; 
The extent to which a society is undergoing political transition; 
Regional instability; 
Weak partner states' capacity to combat terrorism; 
Infectious ideology of transnational jihadism; 
Grievances stemming from real and perceived human rights abuses against 
marginalized communities to which terrorists relate, associate, or 
admire. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

Key Areas of Partnerships in Countering Terrorism: 

The third question we posed to participants prior to the forum focused 
on the key areas of partnerships that participants' organizations, 
agencies, and countries engage in to prevent and combat terrorism. We 
used the UN Global Counterterrorism Strategy to identify a number of 
the areas, including those associated with various participants. We 
chose six of the areas we considered most relevant to the forum. We 
then asked participants to comment on the areas and to identify the key 
partnership strategies they are engaged in. A number of participants 
indicated they are engaged in all of the strategies that we listed. The 
strategies participants selected most often included: 

* cooperating in exchanging timely and accurate information concerning 
the prevention and combating of terrorism; 

* stepping up national efforts and bilateral, subregional, regional, 
and international cooperation to improve border and customs controls in 
order to prevent and detect the movement of terrorists; 

* coordinating and cooperating in combating crimes that might be 
connected to terrorism, including drug trafficking, trading in illicit 
arms, and smuggling of potentially deadly materials; and: 

* stepping up efforts and cooperating to improve the security of 
manufacturing and issuing of identity and travel documents and 
preventing and detecting their alteration and fraudulent use. 

In addition, participants identified several key areas of partnership 
that were not presented as options (see table 2). 

Table 2: Additional Key Areas of Partnership Identified by Participants 
before the Forum: 

Training in consensus building; 
Programs to empower civil society; 
Exchange of data related to travel; 
Critical infrastructure protection; 
Public-private partnerships; 
Protection of vulnerable targets; 
Crisis management exercises; 
Cyber security and cyber crime; 
Tactical cooperation with policy, intelligence, and enforcement 
agencies; 
Collaborative research and education between nongovernmental actors 
involving open-source data; 
Training and equipping partner military forces; 
Stabilization activities; 
Security assistance and cooperation programs. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

Prior to the forum, when asked about the most effective partnerships in 
combating transnational terrorism, participants cited: 

* regional partnerships involving states, nongovernmental 
organizations, and regional and international organizations; 

* unprecedented unanimity of focus among intelligence services and law 
enforcement agencies; 

* joint investigations or initiatives with international law 
enforcement and intelligence counterparts; 

* partnerships leading to changes in government policy that result in 
more security, less alienation, and more opportunity for citizens; 

* intelligence and information sharing and exchange; 

* industry share forums with other providers of financial services; 

* partnerships among local law enforcement agencies within and across 
countries; and: 

* building partner capacities for security and strengthening governance 
institutions before terrorism becomes a problem. 

International Partnerships to Counter Transnational Terrorism: 

Forum participants discussed the types of partnerships or initiatives 
they have engaged in to counter the enabling environment that fosters 
transnational terrorism. Partnerships can be formal, informal, 
bilateral, or regional, or involve multiple agencies. In addition, 
participants voiced concerns that certain labels for partnerships could 
limit their effectiveness and provided their views on the 
characteristics of effective partnerships. 

Types of Partnerships Depend on a Number of Factors: 

The U.S. and foreign governments and nongovernment entities use both 
formal and informal partnerships on a bilateral and regional basis when 
addressing transnational terrorism. Depending on its focus, the 
partnership activity could dictate the type of partnership approach 
used, according to participants. U.S. government, foreign, and 
nongovernment representatives at the forum stated, for example, that 
formal structures might be best suited for cooperation among 
international governmental actors on issues such as information sharing 
and legal matters such as extraditions and prosecutions. They also 
mentioned that informal mechanisms might be more applicable to dealing 
with home-grown operatives and conducting training and advisory 
programs between the United States and other countries. It was noted 
that in academic and research circles, scholars share information about 
terrorism-and counterterrorism-related issues informally. 

Forum participants stated they are engaged in bilateral and regional 
partnerships or cooperate in other ways with the U.S. government, 
foreign partners, and other institutions to address transnational 
terrorism. A foreign official indicated that partnership activities 
build on each other and help increase cultural understanding. The 
partnership activities that U.S. government, foreign, and nongovernment 
representatives said they are engaged in include information and 
intelligence sharing, training and capacity building, dialogue and 
education on counterterrorism, and conducting on-the-ground assessments 
(see table 3 for examples of partnership programs). For example, some 
participants noted that they share information about specific 
operations, terrorist-financing-related issues, and how to conduct 
certain counterterrorism operations. However, two foreign officials 
pointed out that the United States and other organizations need to take 
into account the unique characteristics and the circumstances on the 
ground in each region in order to understand the potential consequences 
of their various approaches to counterterrorism. 

Table 3: Examples of Counterterrorism Partnerships: 

Customs and security training at ports of entry; 
Training to build a foreign government's capacity to investigate and 
combat terrorist financing; 
International assessments of why communities participate in terrorism; 
Financial sector partnerships to examine financial data;
Training and equipping of military forces; 
Security and stabilization assistance; 
Support by U.S. special operations forces. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

U.S. government officials at the forum mentioned interagency 
partnerships that address countering transnational terrorism. A U.S. 
government official noted that a variety of interagency assessments 
have identified the underlying causes of terrorism and that agencies 
have partnered together to examine from the defense, political, and 
development perspectives how best to coordinate funding to address 
violence and extremism. In fact, coordination among U.S. government 
agencies has led to the creation of the Center for Complex Operations, 
where agencies can share knowledge and understanding, focus on training 
and education available in the academic and "think tank" communities, 
and use research to develop a common platform that can help address 
issues related to violence and extremism. 

Counterterrorism Label Can Limit Partnership Effectiveness: 

Forum participants discussed some of the limitations they have faced in 
engaging in partnerships aimed at countering transnational terrorism. A 
U.S. government official and a foreign official indicated that labeling 
a program as a counterterrorism effort can limit its effectiveness 
because foreign countries may hold negative perceptions of U.S. 
policies on the "global war on terror." Similarly, accepting funding 
from the U.S. government for programs could also have a negative 
effect. A U.S. government official said that countries are more willing 
to openly collaborate with U.S. government agencies on some issues that 
focus on terrorism than others. Furthermore, programs that offer 
technical support, such as border security, are more accepted. 
Moreover, a U.S. government official and a nongovernment representative 
said that to circumvent potentially negative connotations attached to 
counterterrorism operations, they have chosen to refer to such 
operations as "conflict management" or "dealing with vulnerable 
populations," especially populations that are "vulnerable to the call 
of those who espouse violence." Therefore, while some entities, such as 
nongovernmental organizations, engage in activities that counter the 
enabling environment and receive funding from U.S. agencies, they do 
not refer to those activities as counterterrorism because they believe 
that doing so could jeopardize their activities in high-risk countries 
and increase risks to personnel on the ground. 

Participants Describe Characteristics of Effective Partnerships: 

Characteristics of effective partnerships to counter the enabling 
environment that fosters transnational terrorism were also discussed at 
the forum. A U.S. government official noted that for a partnership to 
be effective, the partners need to have shared objectives and a common 
understanding of what they are trying to accomplish. In addition, they 
need to have a common understanding of terrorism-related terminology 
and definition. A foreign official also stated that partnerships that 
involve trust and confidence can be successful and result in the 
sharing of information that is necessary to counter terrorism. 

A foreign and a nongovernment participant noted that rhetoric and 
unilateral actions can limit partnerships and strain relationships. A 
few participants noted that it is important for the United States to 
articulate the purpose of its counterterrorism programs when working 
with foreign countries. A nongovernment representative suggested that 
the United States put more effort into public education campaigns, so 
that the programs are not viewed suspiciously and as part of a 
unilateral effort. 

To overcome suspicion about the U.S. government's actions in countering 
terrorism overseas, a few participants suggested that the United States 
emphasize its partners' efforts as a contribution to a common threat 
and even frame the U.S. programs in a local or regional context. An 
official from a nongovernment entity also noted that international 
counterterrorism mandates can be more successful if they are put into a 
context that local populations can better understand. 

Participants also identified and commented on a number of key practices 
they have encountered in their efforts to address counterterrorism 
issues. In discussing the importance of partnerships, some participants 
agreed that relationships with foreign and other global partners are 
necessary to deal with the global threat of terrorism. Moreover, an 
official from the U.S. government and a foreign entity stated that 
cooperation is best facilitated by long-term relationships that involve 
long-term solutions. A U.S. government official pointed out that some 
of the U.S. goals to counter terrorism are short term while those of 
the adversary are long term. To deal with this issue, the official said 
it is therefore important to engage in capacity-building programs that 
offer long-term development and solutions. A representative of a 
nongovernment entity said that the United States has engaged in 
reactive measures in some counterterrorism areas and should pursue a 
more proactive approach. A number of participants agreed that the 
United States has not devoted enough resources to understanding the 
current adversaries and that the U.S. government could draw more fully 
upon academic knowledge in dealing with and operating in other 
societies to combat transnational terrorism. 

Challenges to Countering Transnational Terrorism: 

Prior to the forum, we solicited participants' views on key challenges 
in partnering to combat the enabling environment that fosters 
transnational terrorism. Based on the responses we received, we then 
asked forum participants to identify the extent to which each of the 
key challenges represented a current challenge they face or have 
perceived in their partnerships. Participants then discussed strategies 
for addressing the challenges. 

Participants Rated Key Challenges to Partnerships: 

Prior to the forum, we asked participants to rank, from a list we 
provided, what they viewed as their top three challenges in partnering 
to combat the enabling environment that fosters transnational 
terrorism. The list included the following challenges: 

* international/national laws, 

* lack of funding, 

* lack of human resources, 

* differences in political views/ foreign policy objectives, 

* differences in relationships with states from which extremists 
emerge, 

* lack of common terminology (i.e., differences in defining the 
threat), 

* legal and policy issues with information sharing, 

* differences in approach to counterterrorism operations, 

* monitoring and assessing progress, 

* technological and operational differences (i.e., incompatibility in: 

* systems to share information), 

* cultural differences/lack of trust, 

* accountability, 

* intelligence sharing, and: 

* other. 

Based on the responses, "differences in political views/policy 
objectives" emerged as the most frequently cited challenge, while "lack 
of funding," "legal and policy issues with information sharing," and 
"intelligence sharing" emerged as the second, third, and fourth most 
frequently cited challenges, respectively. 

At the forum, we presented the 10 challenges most frequently cited by 
the participants prior to the forum. We then asked participants to 
identify the extent to which each of the key challenges represented a 
challenge that they currently face or have perceived in their 
partnerships to combat transnational terrorism. The range of responses 
that participants could choose from included "very great," "great," 
"moderate," "some," and "little or no extent." The challenges that most 
participants identified as being very great, great, or moderate 
included differences in culture and trust and differences in political 
views/foreign policy objectives, as shown in figure 1. The challenges 
that received the fewest very great, great, or moderate responses 
included the lack of intelligence sharing and lack of a common 
terminology. 

Figure 1: Participants' Rating of Challenges to Partnerships: 

Challenges: Cultural differences/lack of trust; 
Number of participants: 21. 

Challenges: Difference in political views/foreign policy objectives; 
Number of participants: 21. 

Challenges: Differences in relationships with states from which 
extremist emerge; Number of participants: 20. 

Challenges: Lack of funding; 
Number of participants: 17. 

Challenges: Lack of consensus about underlying causes of terrorism; 
Number of participants: 17; 

Challenges: Legal and policy issues with information sharing; 
Number of partipants: 16;  

Challenges: Differences in international/national laws; 
Number of partipants: 14;  

Challenges: Differences in approach to counterterrorism operations; 
Number of participants: 13;  

Challenges: Lack of common terminology; 
Number of participants: 11;  

Challenges: Lack of intelligence sharing; 
Number of participants: 10;  

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of participants' forum responses. 

Note: We asked 22 participants to identify the extent to which they 
faced or perceived each of the key challenges above. The figure 
indicates the number of participants who reported facing these 
challenges to a very great, great, or moderate extent. The number of 
responses to each challenge ranged from 20 to 22. 

[End of figure] 

Participants Identified Top Challenges to Partnerships: 

Participants were asked to identify what they viewed as their top 
challenge among the five most frequently cited challenges during the 
forum (see fig. 1). A number of participants cited lack of funding or 
other funding issues as a challenge. For example, several foreign 
officials, U.S. government officials, and officials from nongovernment 
entities stated that funding for counterterrorism needs to be more 
targeted, flexible, and sustainable. Some participants also noted that 
if funding is flexible, resources can be allocated when needed to 
programs that address a specific counterterrorism issue. Furthermore, 
an official from a nongovernment entity said that given the fiscal and 
financial pressures the United States has been facing recently, it is 
important to have sustainability rather than quantity of funding for 
counterterrorism operations. He went on to say that resources would 
have to be reallocated within the U.S. government to give priority to 
those areas that make the most sense. Rather than funding each agency, 
funding would be determined by overall objectives, such as 
counterterrorism. A U.S. government official agreed that it would make 
sense to have a funding mechanism in place that establishes a 
counterterrorism budget for U.S. agencies. Finally, an official from a 
nongovernment entity noted that there might be perception problems or 
stigmas associated with U.S. government funding for counterterrorism, 
particularly for programs that may be more on the development side. 

Additional Challenges Identified: 

Some forum participants also identified additional challenges, 
including the following: (1) the need for the United States to refine 
the way in which it projects political views in order to build trust 
among other countries and (2) the need to build greater awareness about 
the ways in which terrorist organizations use funds to support and 
carry out their acts as well as the legal impediments to information 
sharing, including within the international banking community. 

Participants Identified Strategies for Addressing Key Challenges: 

At the end of the forum participants identified strategies to address 
key challenges that the U.S. government and its partners can pursue. 
The following are three of the top challenges participants identified 
during the forum as well as suggestions for addressing those 
challenges: 

* Lack of flexible funding. It was suggested that funds for 
counterterrorism programs and activities be made flexible so that 
funding could be best allocated where needed and, therefore, have the 
most impact. An official from a nongovernment entity mentioned that it 
would be helpful to develop a counterterrorism budget with its 
components or line items identified and to examine past investments in 
activities and programs, as well as the results of the investments. 

* Lack of consensus about the underlying causes of terrorism. Some 
participants from nongovernment entities indicated that it would be 
helpful to gain an understanding of extremist ideologies and the 
underlying causes of terrorism before making decisions about funding. A 
few participants also mentioned that knowledge and "practical capacity" 
in countering terrorism need to be integrated so that the United States 
and its partners have a better understanding of extremism and current 
adversaries. Specifically, a participant from the U.S. government and a 
nongovernment entity agreed that this approach should combine the 
knowledge of those in academia and policy institutes, and those working 
in conflict areas. 

* Differences in culture and lack of trust. A foreign official noted 
that the United States needs to be more mindful of how it projects its 
political views and should not project the appearance of distrust in 
its partners. Such a positive approach could help further build 
partnerships and cooperative endeavors. A nongovernment representative 
agreed that the issue of trust is a challenge when it comes to 
partnerships in countering terrorism. 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Forum Agenda: 

8:30 a.m.: Check-in: 

8:45 a.m.: Opening session: 

* Welcome: 

* Introductions: 

* Setting the stage: 

9:30 a.m.: 

Session I: Presentation by GAO on results of preforum questionnaire: 
definition of terrorism, key enabling factors, and key areas of 
partnerships: 

10:00 a.m.: 

Break: 

10:15 a.m.: 

Session II: Round-table discussion on partnership efforts to counter 
the enabling environment that fosters transnational terrorism: 

11:45 a.m.: 

Break/buffet lunch: 

12:00 p.m.: 

Session III (working lunch): Moderated group discussion on key 
practices and challenges in partnerships: 

Electronic voting on key challenges: 

2:00 p.m.: 

Break: 

2:15 p.m.: 

Session IV (closed session): Moderated group discussion on short-and 
long-term strategies for moving forward in partnerships: 

3:15 p.m.: 

Wrap-up: 

3:30 p.m.: 

Adjournment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: List of Participants: 

Presenters: 

Gene L. Dodaro: 

Acting Comptroller General of the United States: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 

Jacquelyn L. Williams-Bridgers: 
Managing Director, International Affairs and Trade: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 

Charles Michael Johnson Jr. 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 

Zina Merritt: 
Assistant Director, International Affairs and Trade: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 

Andrea Miller: 
Senior Analyst, International Affairs and Trade: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 

Moderator: 

Frank J. Cilluffo: 
Associate Vice President for Homeland Security and: 
Director, Homeland Security Policy Institute: 
The George Washington University: 

U.S. Government: 

Gerald M. Feierstein: 
Principal Deputy Coordinator for Counter Terrorism: 
U.S. Department of State: 

Elisabeth Kvitashvili: 
Deputy Assistant Administrator: 
Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance: 
U.S. Agency for International Development: 

Scott Moore: 
Senior Advisor for Strategic Initiatives to the Deputy Assistant  
Secretary of Defense for Partnership Strategy: 
U.S. Department of Defense: 

Mark A. Randol[Footnote 8] 
Director, Counterterrorism Policy Division: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 

James H. Robertson: 
Section Chief, International Terrorism Operations Section: 
Federal Bureau of Investigation: 

Michael Rosen: 
Policy Advisor, Office of Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes: 
U.S. Department of Treasury: 

Foreign: 

Ahmed Aleisa: 
First Secretary: 
Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia: 

Benjamin Burdon: 
Political Counselor: 
Embassy of Australia: 

Ashraf Haidari: 
Political Counselor: 
Embassy of Afghanistan: 

Mauricio Ibarra: 
Head of the Office for Special Affairs: 
Embassy of Mexico: 

Karim El Mansouri: 
Political Counselor: 
Embassy of Morocco: 

Pablo Martï¿½nez: 
Deputy Secretary, Inter-American Committee against Terrorism: 
Organization of American States: 

Matthias Sonn: 
Deputy Coordinator for Counterterrorism: 
German Ministry of Foreign Affairs: 

Nongovernment: 

Jarret Brachman: 
Director of Research, Combating Terrorism Center: 
United States Military Academy: 

John J. Byrne: 
Regulatory Relations Executive: 
Bank of America: 

Robert Herman: 
Director of Programs: 
Freedom House: 

Brian Michael Jenkins: 
Senior Advisor to the President: 
RAND Corporation: 

Dennis M. Lormel: 
Senior Vice President: 
Corporate Risk International: 

Alistair Millar: 
Director: 
Center on Global Counterterrorism Cooperation: 

Sharon Morris: 
Director, Conflict Management Programs: 
Mercy Corps: 

Kathleen Smarick: 
Executive Director, National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and 
Responses to Terrorism: 
The University of Maryland: 

Karin von Hippel: 
Codirector, Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project and Senior Fellow, 
International Security Program: 
Center for Strategic and International Studies: 

Mona Yacoubian: 
Special Advisor, Muslim World Initiative: 
Center for Conflict Analysis and Prevention: 
United States Institute of Peace: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Key Enabling Factors That Could Foster Transnational 
Terrorism: 

Funding of fundamentalism and extremism; 
Emergence of the new mass media--i.e., the internet; 
Globalization; 
Demographic bulge--i.e., youth bulge; 
Availability of safe havens; 
Weak border controls; 
Weak counterradicalization policies; 
Lack of implementation of international counterterrorism agreements; 
Lack of political will to address terrorism; 
Insufficiency in law enforcement measures/ capabilities; 
U.S. foreign policies; 
U.S. public diplomacy; 
U.S. military presence; 
Anti-Western sentiment; 
Repressive and corrupt governments; 
Foreign domination and control of host country resources; 
Feeling of alienation among host country youth; 
Lack of forum for moderate host country voices; 
Lack of education, lack of opportunity, or poverty in host country; 
Inequality/discrimination on the basis of ethnic or religious origin in 
host country; 
Weak legislative environment/practices in host country; 
Lack of implementation of laws in host country. 

Source: GAO analysis of information from the Department of State and 
terrorism experts. 

Notes: The list of factors were identified by GAO and provided to 
participants for their ranking prior to the forum. 

Key factors are listed in no particular order. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Charles Michael Johnson Jr., (202) 512-7331 or [email protected]: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Zina Merritt, Assistant 
Director; Andrea Miller; and Eve Weisberg made significant 
contributions to the report. Other important contributors included 
Martin DeAlteriis, Alice Feldesman, Debbie Chung, and Mona Sehgal. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Combating Terrorism: Actions Needed to Enhance Implementation of Trans- 
Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership. GAO-08-860. Washington, D.C.: July 
31, 2008. 

Information Sharing Environment: Definition of the Results to be 
Achieved in Improving Terrorism-Related Information Sharing is Needed 
to Guide Implementation and Assess Progress. GAO-08-492. Washington, 
D.C.: June 25, 2008. 

Afghanistan Security: Further Congressional Action May Be Needed to 
Ensure Completion of a Detailed Plan to Develop and Sustain Capable 
Afghan National Security Forces. GAO-08-661. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 
2008. 

Combating Terrorism: The United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to 
Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan's 
Federally Administered Tribal Areas. GAO-08-622. Washington, D.C.: 
April 17, 2008. 

Combating Terrorism: State Department's Antiterrorism Program Needs 
Improved Guidance and More Systematic Assessments of Outcomes. GAO-08- 
336. Washington, D.C.: February 29, 2008. 

Combating Terrorism: Law Enforcement Agencies Lack Directives to Assist 
Foreign Nations to Identify, Disrupt, and Prosecute Terrorists. GAO-07- 
697. Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2007. 

U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department Efforts to Engage Muslim 
Audiences Lack Certain Communication Elements and Face Significant 
Challenges. GAO-06-535. Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2006. 

Terrorist Financing: Better Strategic Planning Needed to Coordinate 
U.S. Efforts to Deliver Counter-Terrorism Financing Training and 
Technical Assistance Abroad. GAO-06-19. Washington, D.C.: October 24, 
2005. 

Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and 
Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies. GAO-06-15. Washington 
D.C.: October 21, 2005. 

International Affairs: Information on U.S. Agencies' Efforts to Address 
Islamic Extremism. GAO-05-852. Washington, D.C.: September 16, 2005. 

Foreign Assistance: Middle East Partnership Initiative Offers Tools for 
Supporting Reform, but Project Monitoring Needs Improvement. GAO-05- 
711. Washington, D.C.: August 8, 2005. 

U.S. Public Diplomacy: Interagency Coordination Efforts Hampered by the 
Lack of a National Communication Strategy. GAO-05-323. Washington, 
D.C.: April 4, 2005. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, P.L. 108- 
458 (December 17, 2004); the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism 
(September 2006); and The 9/11 Commission Report (July 22, 2004). 

[2] See http://www.un.org/terrorism/strategy-counter-terrorism.shtml. 

[3] GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal 
Government, GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.: February 2005). 

[4] GAO, Terrorist Financing: Better Strategic Planning Needed to 
Coordinate U.S. Efforts to Deliver Counter-Terrorism Financing Training 
and Technical Assistance Abroad, GAO-06-19 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 24, 
2005). 

[5] GAO, Combating Terrorism: Law Enforcement Agencies Lack Directives 
to Assist Foreign Nations to Identify, Disrupt, and Prosecute 
Terrorists, GAO-07-697 (Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2007). 

[6] These challenges will be covered in a separate section of this 
report. 

[7] The views provided do not necessarily represent the views of all 
participants. The views reflected are based on those received by April 
15, 2008. 

[8] Since the forum, Mr. Randol is no longer with the U.S. Department 
of Homeland Security. His current position is at the Congressional 
Research Service as a Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and 
Counterterrorism. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.  

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates."  

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:  

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061:  

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:  

Contact:  

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:  

Congressional Relations:  

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

*** End of document. ***