| 摘要 | Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify before this distinguished Committee on this vitally important subject.
I accepted your invitation, Mr. Chairman, because I believe it is essential that this nation’s defenses be adequate to cope with the growing dangers we face from hostile powers possessing weapons of mass destruction and effective means of delivery.
Mr. Chairman, I encountered this subject and became concerned about defense of the United States, as a consequence of having served on President Reagan’s “Blue Ribbon Presidential Task Force on Nuclear Products” in 1985, in the National Security Planning Group from 1981-1985, on the “President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB)” from 1985 to 1990, and on the Defense Policy Review Board from 1985 to 1992. I also chaired the “Fail Safe and Risk Reduction Committee” (generally referred to by its acronym as the FARR Committee) charged with reviewing the United States Nuclear Command and Control system [1990-1991].
These experiences made a strong impression on me concerning the dangers of proliferating nuclear and missile technology. As everyone who is interested in these matters now knows, the number of countries capable of producing and delivering nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction has grown to include India and Pakistan and includes several of the world’s most aggressive, repressive, destructive countries–North Korea, Iran, Iraq–as well as a Russia less stable than we would prefer and a China less benign.
We know, moreover, that other regimes with little regard for the rule of law or human rights work hard to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Americans and their allies are more vulnerable than we have ever been. With rogue states developing the capacity to attack our cities and our population, effective deterrence remains important to the security of Americans.
Mr. Chairman, as we experienced on September 11th, the threat to Americans is here and now. It has expanded dramatically, not only because of Chinese theft of America’s most important military secrets and because of the inadequate U.S. policies governing the safekeeping and transfer of technology, but also because several countries who are signatories of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty have violated their commitments under the Treaty.
Terrorism began a rapid growth in the 1970s. The early success of the PLO was important. The PLO introduced airline hijacking as an international weapon. Though seemingly independent, the terrorist groups throughout Europe, Japan, North and South America, and the Middle East appeared to be linked to one another: the Arab PLO, Iranian Mujahadeen, the Armenian ASALA, the German Bader Meinhof gang, Italian Red Brigades, the July 17th Group. They were built around Marxism and radical Islam. The targets of terrorism have been numerous. They included the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Israel, Japan, Spain, Portugal, and the United States.
An early contact of the Reagan Administration with terrorism came with the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, which was, I am sure everyone remembers, a cruise ship that was hijacked off the coast of Egypt on its way to Israel–transporting Americans. It was hijacked, the Americans on board were treated brutally, and one of them, Leon Klinghofer, was murdered when he and his wheelchair were pushed overboard.
That act of terrorism was carried out by a PLO group, headed by one Abu Abass, who was a member of the PLO Executive Committee and a close aide to PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. They had smuggled some quite heavy weapons on board the Achille Lauro at the same time they boarded.
In responding to the experience on the Achille Lauro, the Libyan bombings of American property, and the murder of Americans, President Reagan made clear he that did not intend to accept attacks on Americans passively. But we in the Reagon Administration did not incorporate terrorism into our major strategic plans.
We all know that the increased capacities which have since developed–not just nuclear, of course, but electromagnetic, chemical, and biological capacities–have increased our potential powers as a military establishment and also our vulnerability. The progressive centralization of our population renders us particularly vulnerable to some new developments in, for example, miniaturization and liquification and terrorism.
We are all, I think, aware of the increasing capacity of a very small numbers of people to do very large amounts of damage. That capacity was illustrated in too many relatively recent tragedies–including the bombings of our embassies in Africa, the attacks on international aid workers in Afghanistan and Iraq–the murder of Americans, our allies, and our friends–by a relatively small number of people. The dangers of miniaturization and liquefaction, centralization and interdependence are growing and making all types of domestic security more difficult than it previously has been.
A growing number of people cross our borders with increasing frequency. Most of those people are unknown to us and how to control our borders is unknown to us today, too, in some sense.
Our intelligence needs have increased geometrically alongside our growing vulnerabilities. I have been for a number of years–since my time in the Reagan Administration–quite deeply concerned by our vulnerability, however, to weapons.
Our open borders, habits of free movement, and casual border security enhance our vulnerability. September 11 and the previous World Trade Center bombing demonstrated how possible it is for Americans at home to be targeted by foreign terrorists. (The Oklahoma city bombing illustrates American vulnerability from domestic terror.) Threats against Americans make the same point.
We can also watch the work of Hamas, the Al Aqsa Brigades, and Hizbollah spreading terror in Israel. In the years since the Iranian revolution, we have grown familiar with the mix of fanaticism, intolerance, and violence that accompany the Islamic politics and Islamic rule in most of the states that sponsor terrorism: Iran, Sudan, and non-state alliances that seek power in Egypt, Algeria, Lebanon, Lybia, and Afghanistan.
Bombings by Al Queda and associated groups throughout the Muslim world show that the spread of radical Islam–and the violent methods it condones–remains a potent threat.
The attacks on American embassies in Dar es Salam and Nairobi by a band of violent extremists dramatized the reach of non-state groups in our times. We learned later about the efforts of such groups to procure deadly gases for their weapons, and also about their links to terrorist states, such as Sudan, which has long condoned the terrorist initiatives of Iran.
The fact that so many of the extremist individuals, groups, and states explicitly speak of war against Americans suggests that the problem will be with us for some time.
Bin Laden himself issued a fatwa on behalf of the “World Islamic Front Against Jews and Crusaders,” exhorting Muslims “to kill the Americans and her allies–civilian and military in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the Aqsa mosque and the Holy Mosque in Mecca from their grip.”
It was neither the first nor last time bin Laden had urged and planned the killing of Americans. He is believed to be behind the ambush in which 19 American Rangers were killed and more than 70 wounded in Somalia. He is also implicated in the Khobar Towers attack on U.S. servicemen. And, most seriously, most tragically, he has proudly claimed credit for destruction of the Twin Towers and a part of the Pentagon, threatened further destruction, and incited his followers to murder Americans everywhere.
How can U.S. policy defend against to terrorist attacks?
With vigilance and with action.
Unilateral action is sometimes necessary for an effective response for reasons of secrecy, dispatch, and determination, but a worldwide alliance is also important.
We must make it clear that states will be held responsible where they protect and service terrorists.
In sum, an adequate U.S. response to the new threats in the world since the strategic revolution requires:
The establishment of the Homeland Security Department was necessary to coordinate and improve our defenses. Careful attention to our alliances is important. Sometimes, however, we may need to act alone. It is important that Americans and the American Government understand that the U.N. Charter recognizes, as stated in article 51, that the U.S. and all other governments have an unalienable right to self defense.
Jeane J. Kirkpatrick is a senior fellow at AEI. |
