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 �practical capacity� 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 Mart�nez:
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. ***