New Security Paradigm After 9-11 Attack

Dr. Prem Singh Basnyat 

The World was in shock horror on 11 September 2001. It was an unbelievable incident. There is no word to describe about this incident. Moreover, it was not a parcel bomb, remote controlled car bomb or raid or attack and not a natural disaster. How can we believe that four commercial American Airlines had to be simultaneously hi-jacked in American Airspace via American Airports and flown into highly specific targets within 45 minutes to each other’s? About 3000 innocent people died within minutes and without their reasons. Politics born conflicts. In contrast, it is the public who suffers this harm. Beside death, injury and fear, there are less publicized long-term implications families and friends, and spread of the social harm from one criminal act with terrorist impact is regrettably considerable. The evidences of emergences of new range of challenges is comparatively recent, but in recent time it seems especially in the 1990s, terrorism appears to have change more than it ever has since the contemporary “re-birth” of terrorism in the1960s.[1] However the terrorists of 11 September provided a great surprise to American intelligence services. It is totally new types due to their pattern of operation. The method they used was never happened before. Christopher Bellamy compares this tactics with Gulf war as : "By contrast, the operation now underway has the hallmark of the new kind of conflict that military experts have dreaded for years. Nations face an asymmetric war, in which the enemy is an elusive “non-state actor” with no recognizable military infrastructure to hit”.[2]

The unprecedented multiple attacks on high prestige US target on 11 September exposed the vulnerability of that state of the suicide terrorist threat. Although land and sea –borne suicide bombers attacked US marine barrack in Lebanon in 1983, US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the USS Cole in Yemen. But it is the first time a suicide terrorist attack has been launched on Western soil. It is also the first instance in the world where a terrorist group has conducted an airborne suicide attack. Is this the culminating point of terrorism or innocent human beings have to face more horror disasters? No one had predicted the whole pattern. From military point of view, the incident has following characteristics, which has shifted the future security paradigm.[3]

Firstly, it was super terrorism. Because, it was not possible to equate the combined effect of the impact of the two airlines on the twin towers and subsequent fire with a small nuclear strike in terms of the energy released and the effect was undoubtedly similar. The terrorist did not use exactly as the definition. But, 24000 gallons of aircraft fuel has exploded as nuclear weapon.[4] So it can be said that terrorist used the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). In fact, the Aum Shinrikyo Sarin attack in Tokyo in 1995 is seen as a watershed, representing the first time in which a terrorist group actually used a chemical weapon to attempt to kill a number of civilians. Then, US President Bill Clinton has linked this Aum attack and the World Trade Canter bombing with the 1995 truck bombing in Oklahoma City, as defining moments in his thinking on super terrorism.[5]

Secondly, it was done by none state actors, which is Osama Bin Laden and his associates and not by any nation. He used the soil of Afghanistan though; Afghanistan did not do it formally. Moreover, Laden is not the citizen of Afghanistan. He himself and his associates do not belong to any proper nation. In fact, Laden’s Al-Quida network done it. Moreover it instigated a new kind of war, a conflict in which the opponent is not a state but a movement reaching across international borders. This is the first true “ globalisation war”[6], in which the attackers stuck back against the global hegemony they hate.

Thirdly, it was anti-elite action. When the world divides into haves and have nots, then anti elite action by those feelings, by politically and economically deprived against the beneficiaries of the status quo was widely forecast as a cause of conflict, both within states and between them. Fourthly, it was a asymmetric conflict. Terrorists’ attack was not based on any military principle of war in ratio. A minor terrorist group launched it against the World Super power America. In fact it was a big challenge against American big army, navy, missiles, fighters, armoured, wealth and democracy. An elusive enemy made a big disaster. A true asymmetric conflict is where not only the means used, but the ends and vulnerabilities are quite different. We can say that terrorist attack on 11 September is the hallmark of asymmetric conflict. The threat should be considered in different security levels.

National Security

A national security suggests a perspective on security issues that looks out from a national capital. The primary concern is the well being and perhaps the survival of a particular state. The threat or use of military power or both is viewed as a principle instrument used to insure the survival. Moreover the state is viewed as the primary actor in an anarchic or quasi- anarchic international system. Similarly, it can also embrace alliances, arm control agreements and other multinational agreements as instruments of a national security policy.[7]

National security may be more fragile in some part of the world from the close proximity of conflicting groups, identities and interests conflicts, the shared common histories of the conflict ants and dynamic of severe stereotyping coupled with radically differing perceptions of each other.[8] The geographic setting these conflicts wills often the immediate community, neighbouring villages or the domains of close sub clans. So that it will be more difficult to control national communities which may caused is the explosion within states of wars between ethnic and religious groups, some times called conflicts of identity and belief, many involving ancient hatreds. On the other hand, civilian casualties will be increased .For an example, at the beginning of the twentieth century between 85 and 90 per cent of war death were military. Where as at the end of twentieth century, about three quarters of war deaths are civilians.[9] Many of the killers will be member of ill disciplined local militias or individuals of one ethnic group paying of old scores on member of another ethnic group, often against their neighbours. The weapons of choice will be not sophisticated. Militia will use surplus small arms and what ever comes to hands has killed many individuals in places as diverse as East Timor, Balkans and Rwanda.

Moreover, the big challenge to traditional security forces will be noticeable deterioration in the behaviour of the aggressors towards their helpless victims. Because civilians are no longer just victims of war today, they are regarded as instruments of war like starving, terrorising, murdering, aping civilians- all these are seen as legitimate. Sex is no defence, nor is age: indeed women, children and elderly are often at greatest risk.[10]

International security

International security explicitly recognises the security dilemma and acknowledges that the security of one state is interconnected with that of others. It is important to notice is that the collective use of military power as an important instrument of policy. Moreover, this approach gives more attention to international institutions and regimes than does the national security.[11]It is second important after national security. Because, if the national security remains under control then international security becomes warm and friendly. Unfortunately, the days are being more complicated due to international conflicts. The clashes between civilizations have become a big trouble in the world.[12] Moreover, the factors most likely to influence the development of international conflict in the coming decades are the socio-economic divide, environmental constraints, refugees problems, and the spread of military technologies, not least WMD. In the next hand, this is likely to lead to conflicts involving anti-elite action from within the marginalized majority, rapidly increasing migratory pressures and conflict concerning environmental factors, especially strategic resources, all within the context of many Southern states increasingly unwilling to accept a Western hegemony. Of course, it applies not only international but also global conflicts too.

It is important to notice that the western perception that the status quo can be maintained, if need be by military means, is unsustainable, given the vulnerabilities of advanced wealthy states to paramilitary action and asymmetric warfare. It follows that it is necessary to develop a new paradigm around the policies likely to enhance peace and limit conflict. Such a paradigm should place far more emphasis on a process of common international security predicated on action to be taken to reverse the socio-economic polarisation, enhance sustainable economic development and control processes of proliferation and militirization too. Finally, the unnecessary rivalries between the inter states are more danger for international peace.Regardless of the rationale and expectations of the combatants, the immediate consequences of armed conflict in the name of identity or belief are almost all challenges for international security may be summarized as followings:

Poverty is exacerbated in the world's poorest countries where much of the armed conflict occurs, nullifying any chance of improving the already low standards of living.
Fatalities in unacceptably high numbers, particularly amongst non-combatants, that cannot be stopped without third-party intervention. Cumulative deaths in the ongoing 17-year inter-ethnic hostilities like in Sudan, for example, total close to two million.
Ethnic cleansing has been attempted recently with some degree of success in, inter alia, Chechnya, East Timor, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Sudan. Future is uncertain from this type of incidents.
Landmines take an estimated annual toll of 15,000 deaths[13] amongst those returning to their homes that attempt to cultivate areas where unmarked minefields were sown. Third world countries are more vulnerable from land mines in future.
Hunger is made worse by the inability to plant or harvest food or by the deliberate destruction of crops, to the point where natural droughts become famine in war-porn countries such as Ethiopia, Eritrea and Sudan. It will be big challenge between Haves and Haves Not nations in coming days.
Disease is spread due to the conditions under which those driven from their homes must survive, and the disruption to inoculation programs in countries such as Sierra Leone. African Continent will suffer more from AIDS.
Humanitarian Emergencies entrap a possible 250 to 300 million people worldwide. These humanitarian emergencies are not all caused by armed conflict within states, but certainly are made worse by the phenomenon.[14]It is will be more complicated in future days.
Law and Order breaks down in certain countries, as in post-1996 Chechnya, with the government unable to guarantee security for its own citizens, aid groups or other visitors, and unable or unwilling to stop the export of terrorism and crime. These areas are more vulnerable in coming decades too.
“Persons of Concern” to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) are created, numbering 22.3 million as of January 1999, an improvement on the 1995 record, which at 27 million approached the population of Canada. It may not be lesser in near future.

Trans State Security

Trans state actors are a big threat for regional and global world. They are acting in several countries. Criminal organisations, militant religious movement and sometimes-corrupted financial networks are trans nationalizing, propelled by globalisation and the burgeoning technologies of communications, computation, transportation and war fighting. It is interesting to note that some of these groups do not pose direct threats to state sovereignty or integrity like, major criminal organisations and religious and ethnic movements have demonstrated an increasing capacity of challenges directly the right and ability of the governments to govern. Moreover these groups are also developing interconnections or transitional alliances among themselves to improve their operational capabilities and to strengthen their ability to resist local government or trans state control efforts like the Colombian cartels and the Sicilian Mafia.[18]

Future Security Concern

The ungovernability countries are considered as Afghanistan, Angola, Armenia, Cambodia, Colombia, Ecuador, Mozambique, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Zaire, Georgia, Moldavia, Russia, and Uzbekistan too. Even the First world is also showing increased sign of ungoverrnability like Italy's National Politics and even the United states, Where , there is terror , crimes and other forms of insecurity. Most of the world has been suffering from globalisation; ultra nationalism, irredentist sentiments and trans state migration. Many of the analytics have interpreted that the new trans state security paradigm will base to counter as following over the next few years:[19]
Criminal organisation will continue to increase their capabilities and their ability to corrupt or challenge weakened states, as is increasingly witnessed in Central America, Russia, Colombia and Mexico.
The success of industrial states at the deterring or waging war is driving some non state actors to styles of combat against which traditional armies are less effectives or relevant. This trend will continue and likely accelerate over the next few years.
Ethnic and religious differences within states will generate violent, enduring conflicts and waves of refugees.
Conflicts and instability will undermine economic development and growth, exacerbating differences between cohesive states and increasingly ungovernable ones.
There will be interconnections among ethno religious, political and criminal groups as they share information, techniques and resources.
Terrorism will be involved within the trans state conflict. During the politically fragmented post cold war era, sub state and Trans state groups operate within and across boundaries. They have a lot of resources and able them to travel and communicate across relatively open borders. In pursuit of specific political goals, they are likely to act in relatively unconstrained way, using weapons of mass destruction (WMD).[20] Which proves from Tokyo’s sub way system in 1995, World Trade Canter bombing in 1993 and on 11 September 2001.[21]

Regional Security

In fact, the regional security is not conceptually different from the international security. It takes the same prospective but focus on other regions of the world like Latin America, Africa or South Asia.[22] In fact, the status of national and international relation is the main base for regional security. In the present context the main problem is the gap between ` Haves` and `Haves Not` countries. So that the economical balances between the regional countries should be almost in one go. Other wise, it cannot remain peace in region. For an example, European region is more stable than others. Regional security is more important for global peace and security. However, future days are not easy as per present situation. While specific threats are impossible to predict, and new threats and challenges can arise almost without warning in today's environment, over the next decade and following factors are consider as regional security challenges.

Firstly, increased anti-American violence and regional instability as Colombian insurgents and drug traffickers react to the implementation of Plan Colombia. Similarly, terrorist attack against United States interests, either at home or abroad, perhaps with a weapon designed to produce mass casualties. Terrorism remains the 'asymmetric approach of choice' and many terrorist groups have both the capability and desire to harm to Americans. Terrorism is the most likely direct threat to US interests worldwide.

Secondly, an expanded military conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir with a view to potential for a nuclear exchange. Both sides operate from 'zero-sum perspectives,' retain large forces, in close proximity, across a tense line of control. The potential for mistake and miscalculation remains relatively high. Meanwhile, both continue to pursue a wide range of WMD and missile programs.

Thirdly, worsening conditions in the Middle East. An expansion of Israeli-Palestinian violence and the complete collapse of the Middle East peace process would have numerous troubling implications.

Fourthly, dramatic changes on the Korean peninsula might occur, either a breakdown in rapprochement and a return to an increased threat of war, or, less likely, an accelerated move toward reunification whose impact catches regional powers unprepared.

Fifthly, intensifying disagreements with Russia (over National Missile Defence, the ABM Treaty, European security issues, etc.) spurred by President Putin's more assertive and potentially confrontational foreign policy. However, the latest US- Soviet relation after 11 September 2001 has signalled to improve relation between Russia and NATO.[23]

Sixthly, another outbreak of violence in the Balkans between Belgrade and Montenegro and/or Belgrade and Kosovo may occur again as these smaller territories continue their demands for increased autonomy or independence. Finally, conflict between China and Taiwan may increased pressure by Beijing for reunification or a more assertive stance from Taiwan on independence.

Global Security

It is a conceptual category seeks to broaden the security agenda beyond the military and politico-military matters to include human rights, environmental protection, economic prosperity and social developments. Moreover it carries the normative objective of replacing coercion, conflict and war in the international system with co-operation, bargaining and peaceful change.[24] But the future days will be not easy .So that the following factors are considered as main future security concerns in future.

Firstly, the asymmetric warfare. Universal security has been more worsen day by day from asymmetric warfare. Terrorist groups will try to take more advantages. Like, most of the terrorist group will recognize the information advantage and military superiority of the United States and its allies in future days. Rather than acquiesce to any potential allies military domination, they will try to circumvent or minimize allies’ strengths and exploit perceived weaknesses.[25] IT-driven globalisation will significantly increase interaction among terrorists, narcotraffickers, weapons proliferates, and organized criminals, who in a networked world will have greater access to information, to technology, to finance, to sophisticated deception-and-denial techniques and to each other. Such asymmetric approaches—whether undertaken by states or non-state actors—will become the dominant characteristic of most threats to the US and its allies homeland. They will be a defining challenge for western strategy, operations, and force development, and they will require that strategy to maintain focus on traditional, low-technology threats as well as the capacity of potential adversaries to harness elements of proliferating advanced technologies. At the same time, we do not know the extent to which adversaries, state and non-state, might be influenced or deterred by other geopolitical, economic, technological, or diplomatic factors in next few years.

Secondly, the Middle East problem. Especially, Muslims believe in high birth rate.[26]Global trends from demography and natural resources to globalization and governance appear generally negative for the Middle East. Most regimes are change-resistant. Many are buoyed by continuing energy revenues and will not be inclined to make the necessary reforms, including in basic education, to change this unfavorable picture.

Thirdly, India and its policy towards neighboring countries. India and its neighboring countries like Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan have been fragile from unrest and terrorism. Especially, Indian intention towards its small neighbors is like the relation of “Big and Small fish”.[27] It has got problem with Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Maldives too. The super powers and western world have not recognized these facts. But global trends conflict significantly in India. The size of its population—1.2 billion by next decade and its technologically driven economic growth virtually dictate that India will be a rising regional power. The unevenness of its internal economic growth, with a growing gap between rich and poor, and serious questions about the fractious nature of its politics, all cast doubt on how powerful India will be by few years. Whatever its degree of power, India's rising ambition will further strain its relations with China, as well as complicate its ties with Russia, Japan, and the West—and continue its nuclear standoff with Pakistan. Moreover the Pakistanis ties with US and its allies in Afghanistan problem have made more jealousy to India against Pakistan. Which caused state of war alert recently between two countries. British Prime Minister Toney Blair visited to settle the dispute quite recently.

Fourthly, the rising super power, China. The sweeping structural changes required by China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the broader demands of economic globalisation and the information revolution will generate significantly new levels and types of social and economic disruption that will only add to an already wide range of domestic and international problems. Estimates of developments in China over the next decade are fraught with unknowable. Working against China's aspirations to sustain economic growth while preserving its political system is an array of political, social, and economic pressures that will increasingly challenge the regime's legitimacy, and perhaps its survival.[28]Moreover, the hostile concepts between China and India are another aspect to be reviewed.

Fifthly, setting super power Russia. We can predict that within one decade, Moscow will be challenged even more than today to adjust its expectations for world leadership to its dramatically reduced resources. Whether the country can make the transition in adjusting ends to means remains an open and critical question, according to most experts, as does the question of the character and quality of Russian governance and economic policies. Moreover, the most likely outcome is a Russia that remains internally weak and institutionally linked to the global system primarily through its permanent seat on the UN Security Council.[29] In this view, whether Russia can adjust to this diminished status in a manner that preserves rather than upsets international and regional stability are also uncertain. The stakes for both Europe and the United States will be high, although neither will have the ability to determine the outcome for Russia in a decade. So that we can predict as Russian governance will be the critical factor

Sixthly, the economic giant Japan. It is interesting to note that the first uncertainty about Japan is whether it will carry out the structural reforms needed to resume robust economic growth and to slow its decline relative to the rest of East Asia, particularly China.Similarly, the second uncertainty is whether Japan will alter its security policy to allow Tokyo to maintain a stronger military and more reciprocal relationship with the United States. Experts agree that Japanese governance will be the key driver in determining the outcomes in next decade. Finally, the growth of national radicalism and the appearance of religious sects to Aum, which used chemical agent in Tokyo in 1995.[30]

Seventhly, Criminal Challenges. International criminal activity of all kinds will continue to plague global stability. We have to be very concerned about the growing sophistication of criminal groups and individuals and their increasing potential to exploit certain aspects of globalization for their own gain. The potential for such groups to usurp power, or undermine social and economic stability is likely to increase. International drug cultivation, production, transport, and use will remain a major problem. The connection between money laundering, drug cartels, corruption, and outright insurgency will likely increase (witness Colombia) as drug money provides an important funding source for all types of criminal and anti-government activity.[31] The Opium trade of Taleban government in Afghanistan earned billion of Dollars and used in internal and global terrorism.[32] Emerging democracies and economically strapped states will be particularly susceptible. The drug trade will continue to produce tensions between and among drug producing, transport, and user nations.

Eighthly, the refugee and migration problem. The refugee problem has been started from intra state and inter state conflicts. Which has been affected global sociology and economy. Similarly, migration arises from a greater likelihood of increased human migration for economic, social and environmental motives.[33]This movement will focus on regions of relative wealth and is already leading to shifts in the political spectrum in recipient regions, including the increased prevalence of nationalist attitudes and cultural conflict.

Ninthly, the environmental issue. The environmental problem has been developing on a global scale also rose to prominence, including desertification, deforestation – that had an immediate effect in terms of soil erosion and flooding - and the Stalinization of soils, especially in semi-arid areas.[34] Other forms of resource depletion became evident, most notably the decline in the resources of some of the world’s richest fishing grounds. Problems of water shortages and water quality are already severe in many parts of the world. Around half of the population of Southern Asia and Africa (especially Middle east) does not have access to safe drinking water, from which 80 per cent of diseases in these areas stem.

Finally, terrorism. Terrorism may be the modus operandi and big challenge for future days. It is effective, easy and less costly than conventional warfare. It may be more in trans national rather in neighbouring nations. Ultimately, it is threat for global security. Means of terrorism can be keep on changing to achieve surprise against conventional armies. So that chemical, biological and nuclear (less likely) weapons can be used.[35] Because these are easy to carry for mass destruction. Moreover, future enemies may not be recognized by border or boundary. Similarly, there may not be distinction enemy in uniform. They may be hidden within the civil populace and makes difficulties to react them for traditional security forces as well as may not be conventional battle front lines .It is possible the absence of conventional battles and may not have choices of weapons to use against future enemies due to its’ asymmetric characteristics.[36]

Corporate Security

It is the security of commerce, business and information sectors. . Especially, the cyber threat of inter net worked environment are also increasing within and outside the corporation. Day by day, the increase in the use of automated attack tools, the growing from viruses, and the threat from competitors too. Many organisations are becoming increasingly alarmed about the frequency of hacker attacks.[37] Global network security threats and counter measures are including tools and techniques that hackers use to breach the corporate network, denial of service attack and viruses. Similarly, the risks of remote access like telecommuter security and enterprise security are another big challenges. The cyber-criminals, who attempt to exploit the electronic underpinnings of the global financial, commercial, and capital market systems, and nationally based 'mafia' groups who seek to undermine legitimate governments in states like Russia and Nigeria.[38] Globally, criminal cartels are becoming more sophisticated at exploiting technology, developing or taking control of legitimate commercial activities, and seeking to directly influence through infiltration, manipulation, and bribery in local, state, and national governments, legitimate trans national organizations, and businesses. Increased cooperation between independent criminal elements, including terrorist organizations, is more likely in future days.

The New Paradigm of Security

It goes without saying that economy is main thing for every body or every nation. The attack of September 11 made two factors possible in economical aspect for future as globalisation and human nature. Neither is likely to change much. As long as we live in an open, accessible, interconnected world and as long as there are evil men and women, we will face the spectre of international terrorism. Even, if Al-Qaeda is destroyed, even if other terrorist group are disrupted, even if their state sponsors are punished, we will live with knowledge that it can happen again. The technical revolution, free trade, the information super high way, all these wondrous aspects of the open world economy make it easier than ever before to penetrate and disrupt it. As we have painfully discovered, one explosion strategically placed can caused massive harm.

If we look back it the 1990s produced a paradigm through which to view the world as globalisation. It held that capitalism, trade and technological revolutions were transforming the mind –sets.[39] Global capitalism was the only game in town and countries had to play by its rules or be left behind more far behind. But after September 11 we seem have been looking at world using a new paradigm. Politics is back, military might is back, culture is back, ideology is back and above all government is back. Other changes wrought by the attack will pass but one shift that is likely to persist is the renewed centrality of government. After a decade of the dominance of military might, business, economics and entertainment, government is still back. Because it is needed to fulfil its fundamental role, which is the provision of security for its citizens. Over the next few years we will see governments counter terrorism aggressively, shifting from a law enforcement approach to a national security one. They will also watch, monitor and regulate area of life that were considered untouchable, like the inter net. The speed, openness and accessibility of the 1990s will give away to checks and counterchecks.

We can find many changes around the world. After September 11. The new security of governments will not be compatible with a free society or free economy. The US government has been operating at constant high alert, ramping up its inspections and controls of goods and people at its border. Similarly, countries that felt particularly threatened, like Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt moved to state of virtual emergency. Which caused blocking travel and slowing trade. Beijing passed a law prohibiting any nationals from Arab countries from entering China.[40] Which highlights that the dangers of road we are now on. There is a better way as one that blends together the smartest element of the two paradigms: good information and global cooperation.

Moreover, security system must not depend on the formal security bodies only. The front line of defence against terrorism largely involves the commercial agencies. It involves airline security, financial institutions, traditionally loath to reveal details of account in tracking down suspected terrorist founds.[41] It is corporate effort. So that, the first requirement is that goods service and people who are legitimate be cleared in advance so that border inspectors can focus their energies on the smaller set of unidentified objects coming in. Which means when you bye an airline ticket you submit your passport number and get pre cleared. A similar procedure can be used for goods. However, this intelligent use of information and identification system will not relive the chock points at national borders. It goes with out saying that a new global system is needed, in which all countries like from people and goods leave as well as those where they enter have to share information’s and adopt similar standards of random inspection. Obviously, Counter terrorism measures are urgently needed. It is not an easy job. So that following points are considered after the incident of 11 Sept.

Firstly, diplomatic, legal, political, financial, military and humanitarian aspects must adopt as multifaceted approach. It should be maintained as morally strong and determined political leadership, which permits no surrender to terrorists and absolute determination to defeat terrorism within the rule of democratic process and no deal with concession. Similarly, an intensified effort to bring terrorist to justice by prosecution and conviction before courts of law. Moreover, there should apply tough measure to take preventive measures, penalize the state sponsors to terrorism who provide safe haven, explosive, cash, moral and diplomatic support.

Secondly, it is global problem so that it should be synchronized at the national and international level. The media is very strong power for popular support. So that there should be balance between over-reaction and under- reaction as well as must utilize at all times its criminal justice and law enforce mechanisms. Counter terrorism is the acid test of soldiers/security organisations. Of course, it must deploy highly trained rescue commando type forces and use of intelligence collection teams. Intelligence is the eye and ear of security forces so that must place high emphasis on high quality intelligence. The world has become smaller due to scientific revolution. For this reason it needs a global coordination and intergraded operation among military, airlines, intelligence agencies, customs, immigrations, police, other emergency services, donor bodies, NGOs, International Organisations, local leaders of particular future or existing hot spot of terrorism, people of the nation, media, banks and diplomatic figures too.[42] Finally, I give emphasis again in national, international, regional and global cooperation to:

Strengthen legal system
Improve detection and monitoring capabilities
Share intelligence on need to know basis
Improve law enforcement capabilities
Coordinate international enforcement operations
Try to avoid asylum system for any types of criminals. Which has become as harbouring camp for international terrorists
Criminalize money laundering and
Establish an international military intelligence organisation.

Similarly, the Global poverty is another major problem to be considered. Half the people on earth are not part of the new economy system, yet. Because half the people on earth live on less than two dollars a day, a billion people, less than a dollar a day, a billion people go bed hungry every night and a billion and a half people – one quarter of the people on earth – never get a clean glass of water. One woman dies every minute in childbirth. So that we exactly cannot define the term global economy, half the people are not part of it. So the developed nations should help to poor countries to provide food and education.[43]

The next problem is, the global environment. The oceans that provide most of our oxygen are deteriorating rapidly. There is already a huge water shortage. Global warming another big problem for coming decades. If the climate warms for next 50 years at the rate of the last ten, we will lose whole island nations in the pacific that will be flooded by the rising water tables as the south pole and north pole get smaller. United Nations, supra regional organisations and powerful nations should enforce to implement the Montreal Protocol and other earth lover plans.[44]

Israel Palestine problem must be settled at any cost. It is the biggest trouble in the world since 1948. Moreover, it is the main root of terrorism since 20th century. Every nation knows the root cause of the problem unfortunately; it has been biased to solve this problem. Frankly speaking, it is the main cause of American trouble. Similarly, the Kashmir problem is the base of terrorism in South Asia. This is also to be solved according to the UN decision. But it has been told as bilateral problem between India and Pakistan. It never solves if UN and super powers do not work in reality.

Middle East is the strategically important place for natural resources like oil and gas. Similarly, it is important from military point of view too. America and western countries have been relied on its physically unsecured resources and there is rivalry between power nations to control this region. But the people between Middle East and Western have clashes in civilization. So that, US and western nations should have alternate physically secured resources for fuels.[45]

US foreign policy. Of course, US are the only super power in the world. But the event September 11 changed its paradigm. Because it is the era of global cooperation and many hands need to make big clapping. It must review its policy towards Middle East and other African and Asian countries. It should leave the fortress mentality with “Americans the only civilized people”. Moreover, it should never give support to any antigovernment organisations in the world. Which develops terrorism and it is double-edged weapon. Which can cut either side. Obviously, European nations have great role to check to US policy. European Union (EU) must play the role of check and balance.

Obviously, it is not easy to keep the balance of security against threat, especially in this super terrorism arena. However, a nation should be capable, at least to challenge against its external conventional threats, in general situation. If the protector is small, the asset is big and the threat is bigger then big problem arises. In this situation, the nation could go to join either into any alliance or it may try to get WMD as its compulsion of national security. The example:

S= security, F= function, A= Asset (country, vulnerable point and vulnerable area) P=protector (security capability), T=threat (capability x intent of adversary) and SI= situation.

For an example, in South Asian context the same theory could be applied to Pakistan. If India, the giant of South Asia behaves as “might is right” and does not try to solve the Kashmiri problem honestly. Otherwise, nuclear rivalry may be continuing as a chronic disease in South Asia. But Pakistan needs to be honest as well in Kashmir dispute. The model applies to the imbalanced security situation between India and Pakistan as follows:

Nuclear weapons (P) do not protect the asset (A) against the threat (T) either nuclear or conventional, because in this case there is more possibility of nuclear rivalry in South Asia. It is not only the case of Pakistan but also the other SAARC countries may have same situation for the protection of their sovereignty against asymmetric military might.

To conclude, obviously, we cannot change new security paradigm hundred percent from pre September 11security plan. It is not easy and possible too. But it must be reviewed and re-planned according to the development of threats. The analysis suggests that the new security agenda is hardly more complex - a deeply divided world faces environmental constraints, poverty, civilization clashes and unless the divisions are healed and sustainable development is at the core of that process, we face a deeply unstable and potentially conflict-ridden world in the early decades of this century. There are two main obstacles to facing up to this challenge. The first, and by far the most substantial, is that the necessary response will involve considerable limits being placed on the wealth and power of the elite global minority, requiring radical economic and political changes that are substantially greater than anything experienced in the last half century. The second is that most Western thinking and writing on international security is deeply ethnocentric and conservative. With few exceptions it seems incapable of rising above a narrow concern with Western elite security and well-being, yet this paradigm shift has to take place if the new thinking on security is to be embraced and developed.

Finally, the event of September 11 has proved the importance of effective global intelligences. Future security paradigm can not be effective without sharing the integrated intelligences and joint efforts among military, intelligences agencies, police, airlines, customs, immigrations, the emergencies services, donor bodies, non-governmental organizations, international organizations, media, banks and diplomatic movements.

[1] Max Taylor and John Morgan, The Future of Terrorism,(London: Frank Cash Publisher, 2000),pp. 8-9.
[2] Christopher Bellamy, “The Dawn of Asymmetric Conflict” The Independent, Friday 21 Sept 2001.
[3] Christopher Bellamy, ` Tools of ill-omen`: the shifted conflict paradigm and the reduced role of conventional military power, Cambridge International affairs, Vol.15. No. 1, April 2002, pp. 1-11.
[5] Max Taylor and John Morgan, Op.Cit.,p.136.
[6], p.4.
[7] Richard H. Shultz, Jr. Roy Godson and George H. Quester,Security Studies For The 21st Century,(Washington:Brassey,s 1997),p.2.
[8] Ibid.,pp.11-18.
[9] Dan Smith, The State of War And Peace Atlas,(Oslo: International Peace Research Institute, 1997),p.14.
[10] Mary Robinson, “There Must Be Accountability For East Timor`s Ordeal” International Herald Tribune, September 9, 1999,p.12.
[11] Richard H. Shultz, Jr. Roy Godson and George H. Queste,Op.Cit.,pp.2-3.
[12] Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash Of Civilizations and the Remarking of World Order,(New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996), pp.13-18.
[13] A.J.Jongman, “Downward Trend in armed Conflicts Reversed”PIOOM Newsletter, Winter 1999/2000, Vol.9, No. 1, p.29.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Richard H. Shultz, Jr. Roy Godson and George H. Quiester ,Op.Cit.,pp.81-82.
[16] Ibid,p.87.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid,pp. 87-88.
[19] Ibid.pp. 82-83.
[20] Mark Mazzetti,” How to Fight in the Future”The World In 2002,( London: The Economist,)pp. 55-56.
[21] Max Taylor and John Morgan, Op.Cit.,pp.135-137.
[22] Richard H. Shultz, Jr. Roy Godson and George H. Queste,Op.Cit.,p.2.
[23] Michael Hirsh, “ Farewell to Isolation” Newsweek” December 2001-February 2002,p.p.18-22.
[24]Richard H. Shultz, Jr. Roy Godson and George H. Queste,Op.Cit.,p.2.
[26] Francis Fukuyama, “ The Real Enemy” Newsweek, December 2001=February 2002, pp. 58-63.
[27] One of the small nations, Sikkim has been already merged into India from this policy.
[28] file://A/: Central Intelligence Agency Global Trends 2015.htm
[29] “ Dare Terrorists Use The Nuclear Wildcard?”, Eye Spy, Issue- Six 2001, p. 19.
[30] Nadine Gurr and Benjamin Cole,The New Face of Terrorism,( New York: I.B.Tauris and Co. Ltd., 2000),p.15.
[31] According to the handouts given by Lt. Col.Tom Maley in the class MSc GS at Cranfield University.
[32] “Missed Intelligence” Eye Spy, Issue- Six 2001, pp.28-29.
[33] According to the class lecture of Martine Wright ( Editor of Green Future) in the class MSc GS at Cranfield University.
[34] Bill Clinton, “ The Struggle for the Soul of the 21st Century”, p.3.
[35] Nadine Gurr and Benjamin Cole, Op.Cit., pp. 14-15.
[36] Bruce Hoffman ,Inside Terrorism,( London: Victor Gollancz, 1998), pp. 200- 205.
[37] According to the class note of Professor Christopher Bellemy in the class of MSc GS , Cranfield University.
[39] Fareed Zakaria, ` A Plan for Global Security` Newsweek, December 2001,pp16-17, (17)
[40] Ibid.
[41] Christopher Bellamy,Op.Cit., Vol.15. No. 1, April 2002, p.5.
[42] According to the class notes of Professor Christopher Bellemy, MSc, GS , Cranfield University.
[43] Bill Clinton,Op.Cit.,pp.3-5.
[44] Martine Wright, Op.Cit.
[45] Ibid.


File://A; Central Intelligence agency Global Trends 2015.htm.
Gurr, Nadin and Benjamin Cole.The New Face of Terrorism,New York: I.B. Tauris and Co. Ltd, 2000.
Hoffman, Bruce. Inside Terrorism,London: Victor Gollancz, 1998.
Huntington, P.Samuel.The Clash Of Civilisation and Remarking of World Order, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.
Ogata, Sadako.Funding and Donation, UNHCR.
Shultz, H. Richard and Friends.Security Studies For 21st Century, Washington:Brassey,s,1997.
Smith, Dan.The State of War and Peace Atlas, Oslo: International Peace Research Institute, 1997.
Tayler, Max and John Morgan.The Future of Terrorism, London:Frank Cash Publisher, 2000.


“Missed Intelligence” Eye Spy, Issue-Six, 2001.
”Dare terrorists Use The Nuclear Wildcard?”Eye Spy, Issue-Six 2001.
Bellamy.Christopher.”The Dawn Of Asymmetric Conflict”, The Independent,Friday, 21 September 2001.
Bellamy.Christopher.”Tools of Ill-Omen:The Shifted Conflict Paradigm And The Reduce Role of Conventional Military Power”Cambridge International Affairs,Vol. 15 No.1, April 2002.
Clinton, Bill.” The Struggle For Soul of the 21st Century”
Fukuyama, Francis. “The Real Enemy”Newsweek, December 2001-February 2002.
Hirsh, Michael. “Farewell to Isolation” Newsweek, December 2001-February 2002.
Jongman, J.A..”Downward Trend in Armed Conflict Reversed”PIOOM Newsletter, ,Vol.9, No.1, Winter 1999/2000.
Mazzetti, Mark.” How to Fight in The Future”The World in 2002, London: The Economist.
Robinson, Mary.” There Must be Accountability For East Timor,s Ordeal,International Herald Tribune, September 9,1999.
Zakaria, Fareed.”A Plan For Global Security”Newsweek, December, 2001.