The fight against terrorism has been a top political agenda globally, with several approaches being adopted. The interventions adopted to counter terrorism have not successfully countered violence or enabled peace. The main agenda should be to battle militia groups and monitor migration so that people do not move from country to the next without being documented. This will be significant, as it will encourage urgent military centered responses. The government should prevent eroding recognized global norms that safeguard the rights of human rights, to security and migration (Smith, Burke, de Leiuen, & Jackson, 2016). The present strategies being adopted can heighten abusive and unethical behavior for a shorter time and lead to extended drivers of conflict like inequality, relegation, and corrupt governance.
Civilizations distinguished by history, culture, traditions, and religion resulted in a varied set of beliefs that stem from individual rights and responsibilities to perspectives on authority and the response to hierarchy and inequity. Culture can have a significant role in curtailing the advancement of a terrorist mentality that has been construed through cultural interactions from different parts of the world (Jackson, 2018). Culture is also becoming a critical aspect of terrorism. No particular region, nation or local culture should qualify as a terrorist group but the extremist idea of some of its factors can be raised to validate the existence of terrorist activities.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Globalization is enhancing interaction so that the issue of identity becomes more prevalent other than the state, city, or region that people live in. People are identified probably on their religious ideologies that go beyond the places they live, status in the society or the language being spoken (Smith et al., 2016). An Islamic militia group that attacks a mall and kills people that are not able to recite a prayer to Allah is an instance of such a scenario. This issue of identification is making terrorism take root in several regions, with a common intention of fighting Westernism most of the times.
The declaration of Jihad is, “it is normal to kill Americans and their friends, both civil and military." The big question should be why would he will be motivated to kill Americans and urge others to be committed to this course. In fact, this is a declaration of war against the United States and the Saudi Arabia regime by Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden along with other Muslim militants could be just be longing for motivation beyond their local borders to the international realm. Their idea was to become an internationally recognized entity that is threatening the Western superpower who persecute the Muslims (Jackson, 2018). Another motivation for this threat was the American forces found in Saudi that threatened the existence of Muslims. The Muslims were triggered to resist and expel them ultimately from their soil.
Duan gives it a different approach in his paper, “Can Al Qaeda be deterred from Using Nuclear Weapons.” He determines that Al Qaeda has demonstrated the need to acquire nuclear weapons but they are deficient of the materials as well as they lack enough funds to make the acquisition from states like North Korea and Iran. The utilization of nuclear weapons would be the ultimate for al Qaeda terrorist anger. It is projected that al Qaeda's purchase of nuclear weapons would be quickly followed by their utilization. Launching the missiles may be a complicated issue because the employment of the weapons would require some training. In addition, the terrorists may not be involved in a comprehensive missile program because when they are exposed, they can be captured easily. Thus, the acquisition of these missiles and weapons by the terrorists should be prevented totally.
The whole government approach is one of the current counterinsurgent and counters efforts in the United States of America. Suggestively, the value of enhancing harmonization between military and civilian actions should be promoted to increase the success of these counterterrorism missions. The UK Ministry of Defense launched the Good Operation program in 2017 to find a framework for enhancing how decision-makers contemplate and implement security and stability activities like establishing a whole-of-government approach to help in national security (Jackson, 2018). The fundamental objective of such a complete approach is to attain multifaceted and system-extensive impacts in multinational and interagency activities.
A number of fundamental operations should be considered to eliminate the threat of terrorism based on culture. The government and international organizations should advocate for training and experience of local law enforcement, border patrol agents, customs enforcement officials as well as National Guard units. If these groups are trained well, then it is possible to address terrorism at their root level instead of responding to it when an attack has been executed. It could imply creating an international WMD intelligence database for nations to unite and counter there emerging threats as well as be aggressive to recognize any eminent terrorist activities. The civil sector should be involved in this step so that the international WMD intelligence can be thorough in receiving information about the terrorist activities in any region. Interpol traces criminals across nations, have a central repository of WMD related intelligence that is significant to the global community. The WMD specific database could alert people on imminent threats, showcase trends and suggest players of interest. They also have detection technologies that can be helpful in revealing an attempt of attack before it occurs. The central repository of WMD platform could also be a ground where the UN Security Council is informed of potential abuses of UNSCR 1530. The ultimate goal is that the global initiative helps regions be free from nuclear terrorism of any form.
Accordingly, culture in all its facets, including arts, customs, religion, educational background, sports, media, scientific aspect, can be very instrumental in counteracting the development of a terrorist attitude. Prospective terrorists can be discouraged through those aspects of culture so that they appreciate others. The grounds for any cultural move to counter-terrorism depend on the comprehension of the complicated and sensitive relationship between terrorism and its cultural background.
International efforts should determinedly be against any claims to ascribe any particular region, tribe or local culture as a terrorist. However, under some circumstances, any community has the capability to produce terrorism. Understanding of some elements of a specific culture or religion such as holy war, sacrifice, being a martyr, or having some secular philosophies can suggest some terrorist activities. The efforts to fight terrorism should target not to undermine culture (Smith et al., 2016). Besides the physical damages or demolition of shrines, markers or symbols of a specific culture and their ways of life, terrorist acts focus on destroying cultural identities of individuals or groups. They also threaten the cultural heritage of a people, which is mutual to all people globally.
In conclusion, it is significant to see modern national security-focused missions as corrupted. Going forward, the goal should be to embark of global actions that are done simultaneously with the national security-focused programs across varying lines of effort. The elements of every mission should be unveiled so that it is seen as an extension of a greater whole-of-government strategy to fulfill the strategic intentions of a state. A structure that is coherent with the interagency organization across all the national operations should also be formed to facilitate the counterattack of terrorism. The idea is to have integrated team energy to attain national security goals.
Lessons Learned in DPRK, but Not Applied to Iran
A comparison of the motivations of Iran and North Korea in the nuclear realm is very needful and empirically enlightening. Both the regions are robustly driven proliferators that disregard their NPT agreement to stay non-nuclear. In fact, in both of these regions, the attempts to take them back to the previous commitment of remaining non-nuclear has proved a challenge for the global community. Both of the countries also display violent approach toward states in their areas and beyond their boundaries, with much focus being in the utilization of missile and nuclear warheads. It is also notable to indicate that the nuclear aptitudes they pursue – while significant for regime existence – are also a way of creating offensive strategic goals (McEachern & McEachern, 2017) . This is evident in North Korea’s recurrent threats of real (first) use, but in essence, both regions understand the value of nuclear protection. That is, the fact that nuclear potentials cause states to be untouchable to intimidating reactions to their actions.
The US, South Korea and Japan's are so prepared and equipped with anti-missile systems that have a capability of countering and destroying ballistic missiles that are fired from North Korea. Therefore, North Korea cannot just challenge the voice that the seven other confirmed nations on earth possess. For instance, there is the voice that their possessions of nuclear weapons as well as the level of their GDP drive the nations. North Korea should not just boast of the nuclear system that they have invested in and yet they lag behind in other significant frameworks. The US projections have acknowledged that North Korea is presently a nuclear estate, with sufficient missile materials for approximately 60 nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles that can be launched against its bordering regions. In spite of their demonstration of ICBM potential through the missile tests that they have shown in 2017, more time is still needed before they catch up with the US capability (McEachern & McEachern, 2017) . However, the region’s efforts should not be underestimated as it is heading toward this goal of having the most predominant voice.
Iran is also endeavoring to have its voice felt in the Middle East. Notably, though, Iran is far much behind compared to North Korea and is still far from crossing the nuclear threshold. In fact, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) developed that high standard framework that was intended to hinder Iran from ever crossing the near threshold stage. The deal was to pull down Iran's threatening nuclear system and facilities. This move may not do much in suppressing the voice of Iran. Consequently, if the deal expires, Iran can go back to its former intentions of intensifying its nuclear activities. Iran will even be at an advantage because it will be more stable economically, and stronger regionally since it has fortified its regional scope since the time the deal was forwarded.
Secondly, Iran and North Korea are motivated to defend their regimes. Iran is presently a strong regional power, which should send a signal in its potential to match up in the nuclear realm. Iran has demonstrated through its clerics who create policies and practices that they need to extend their regime further and protect its borders. Additionally, it should be noted that Iran sponsors terror organizations and proxies in the Middle East to help them extend their power and impact (Cotta-Ramusino, 2018) . In fact, Iran has regional hegemonic objectives that it intends to develop with the input of the proxies, and by forming a support-base of influence across their territory. Kim Jong has also demonstrated authoritarian control in North Korea for the DPRK to remain in power. Kim’s regime depends on several tools of autocratic control to remain in power.
The only difference is that Iran seeks to dominate the region and is utilizing avenues such as proxies who will likely expand fundamentalism. North Korea is acting differently in this bid, as they do not intend to outdo China’s powers in the region. North Korea is presently posing a more stern challenge than Iran as far as additional proliferation efforts and activities are concerned. North Korea has demonstrated its desire to share nuclear technology with any nations that can afford to pay them for the service (Cotta-Ramusino, 2018) . Iran has a low chance of taking this direction of directly distributing its nuclear products with other countries. However, North Korea and Iran are both feared nuclear proliferators and are against nuclear standards that are being established in the past few decades. As an opinion, the current global efforts to develop a “ban the bomb plan” should immediately be targeted on the nuclear arms control. This should be accompanied with surrendering efforts to both North Korea and Iran since they are the most threatening nuclear regions.
Considering approaches North Korea and Iran are taking, a few observations can be made. The chronology of US-NK nuclear missile diplomacy suggests that North Korea has joined a cycle of crisis, stalemate, and tentative progress towards denuclearization. The periods of crisis, stalemate and tentative progress towards denuclearization have terminated the negotiation to stop North Korea’s nuclear and missile creation and exporting of the ballistic missile system. North Korea’s intention to withdraw from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1994 required non-nuclear weapon regions to disown the advancement and purchasing of nuclear weapons (Cotta-Ramusino, 2018) . The Agreed Framework was also an agreement that the United States and North Korea signed so that Pyongyang dedicated to stopping its illegal plutonium missiles program in exchange for help. This agreement was later dropped in 2002, forcing North Korea to withdraw from the NPT the following year and going back to their operation of nuclear facilities.
Another diplomatic attempt was the Six-Party Talks that began in August 2003 that incorporated China, Japan, Russia, South Korea as well as the United States. In the middle of the stalemate and crisis, the deliberations reached significant developments after two years as North Korea committed to leave all nuclear weapons and withdraw existing nuclear processes (McEachern & McEachern, 2017) . They were willing to join back NPT. North Korea was also tactical in initiating a crisis whereby food and supply donations were accepted and other relief foods. The extra funds were channeled to assist the country focus on nuclear energy and technology by engaging in more research to develop the system. This was realized during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations.
Iran has issued consistent threats in the past causing Europe, Israel, and Saudi Arabia to be on their side on agreement dubbed “Additional Protocol.” The additional protocol is an agreement that is intended to protect other agreements since it gives extra tools for verification. It enhances the chance of IAEA to ensure that all countries comply with the safeguards agreements (Cotta-Ramusino, 2018) . For instance, Iran can operate their nuclear material peacefully since it assigned the additional protocol. Iran has not fully executed its binding obligations of suspending its enrichment-related activation is some facilities.
Failure to stop both Iran and North Korea from advancing nuclear weapons and missiles have heightened risks of proliferation and heightened probability for conflict. The fear of Iran is that it can affiliate with a terror group to sell the missile products to them considering their desperate economic state. There is a leakage of nuclear materials and technology already in North Korea. Approaches should be considered to prepare for the extreme so that there is readiness to counter any of these states even if they emerge as a nuclear power. The most focus of IAEA should be to the Far East that seems to have a missile competition in not just North Korea and Iran, but also in Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria that are striving to go nuclear.
References
Jackson, R. (2018). Writing the war on terrorism: Language, politics and counter-terrorism .
Smith, C., Burke, H., de Leiuen, C., & Jackson, G. (2016). The Islamic State’s symbolic war: Da'esh's socially mediated terrorism as a threat to cultural heritage . Journal of Social Archaeology , 16 (2), 164-188.
McEachern, P., & McEachern, J. O. B. (2017). North Korea, Iran and the Challenge to International Order : A Comparative Perspective . Routledge.
Cotta-Ramusino, P. (2018). Status of Nuclear Non-proliferation. In International Cooperation for Enhancing Nuclear Safety, Security, Safeguards and Non-proliferation–60 Years of IAEA and EURATOM: Proceedings of the XX Edoardo Amaldi Conference, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome, Italy, October 9-10, 2017 (pp. 101-108). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
