CITO

Last week, John Edwards proposed the creation of a new multilateral organization he would call CITO, the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization:

Every nation has an interest in shutting down terrorism. CITO will create connections between a wide range of nations on terrorism and intelligence, including countries on all continents, including Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe. New connections between previously separate nations will be forged, creating new possibilities.

CITO will allow members to voluntarily share financial, police, customs and immigration intelligence. Together, nations will be able to track the way terrorists travel, communicate, recruit, train, and finance their operations. And they will be able to take action, through international teams of intelligence and national security professionals who will launch targeted missions to root out and shut down terrorist cells.

The new organization will also create a historic new coalition. Those nations who join will, by working together, show the world the power of cooperation. Those nations who join will also be required to commit to tough criteria about the steps they will take to root out extremists, particularly those who cross borders. Those nations who refuse to join will be called out before the world.

I think this is a very good idea. As Edwards says, "it's important to note that CITO is not a panacea, nor will it be perfect." Indeed, as he doesn't say, it's even possible something like this would be a huge flop. But it's also a pretty promising idea. And best of all, I like the basis of the thinking behind it, namely the idea that the rise of transnational terrorism can and should be a locus for increased levels of international cooperation. Here, for example, we see a proposal for a new multilateral organization that it would be perfectly reasonable for Russia and China to enthusiastically join (unlike a Concert of Democracies) and where countries like Japan, Germany, India, and Brazil would have a chance to step up and take a leading role in the world stage in a way that would also be a constructive one.

This is a much more appealing vision of America's relationship with the world than you tend to see nowadays -- one's that's optimistic and looking for opportunities, rather than one seeking conflict and sowing fear.

Comments

"This is a much more appealing vision of America's relationship with the world than you tend to see nowadays -- one's that's optimistic and looking for opportunities, rather than one seeking conflict and sowing fear."

You're an un-American liberal traitor pussy because you don't think that sending of American soldiers to die makes your penis bigger.

Posted by Reality Man | September 11, 2007 3:39 PM

Seems like a sensible idea, probably one of the more obvious things we should have done in response to 9/11. That this is just an "idea" and not a reality today is just one example of how far we've been led astray.

Posted by JJF | September 11, 2007 3:41 PM

"John Edwards narrowly averted death today when a well-disguised al-Qaeda cookie bomber handed him a box of plastic-explosive gingerbread, which fortunately failed to ignite."

Posted by James Gary | September 11, 2007 3:42 PM

I would think it might highlight the old "terrorist vs. freedom fighter" issue with respect to Uighurs in China, democracy activists in Central Asia, and so forth. But that might be a good discussion to have out in the open, too.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 11, 2007 3:49 PM

CITO will create connections between a wide range of nations ... including countries on all continents, including Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe.

Well actually, you forgot Antarctica.

Posted by drjimcooper | September 11, 2007 3:51 PM

it sounds like empty faff to me. We already share intelligence ect. with our allies. I dont see how making it a formal club will inspire asshole nations to be less assholey.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | September 11, 2007 3:54 PM

Edwards' idea is what I thought, six years ago, we would be doing. Instead, we got what we got: Beauty, unfathomable loss and the beginning of the Forever War.

Posted by Madison Guy | September 11, 2007 3:56 PM

Does this count as a new idea? From a Democrat?

Posted by Brandon Claycomb | September 11, 2007 3:58 PM

I like the idea in principal, but I'm not sure it's workable. One drawback is what to do with countries whose gov's are officially against terrorism but who are the source of lots of actual terrorists, e.g. Saudi Arabia. And would we really be willing to give intelligence to Russia or China? Also, if Israel is a member, will any arab or muslim countries want to or be permitted to join? All in all, I see CITO having a lot of the same downsides as the concert of democracies in that you'd end up with only the countries the US considers to be "good guys" as members. I'd like to see the idea fleshed out more.

Posted by Led | September 11, 2007 4:13 PM

Yo CITO!

Eh, close enough.

Posted by Senescent | September 11, 2007 4:22 PM

I don't think that this makes much sense.

First of all, there is a considerable amount of co-operation in the field of intelligence and counter-terrorism already. It's a loaded term, but, at least in the real GWOT, the "coalition of the willing" is not a chimera. I can't see why it would be real progress to institutionalise this co-operation and to put a shiny new label on it.

Until now, this cooperation is completely voluntary and unoffical. But obviously, this new organization is supposed to "name and shame" those states who do not join, especially non-western ones. But the likely result will be that CITO will be smeared as nothing more than just another instrument of American dominance by those who do not want to join, and that governments wll not join because they are afraid that their anti-American populations will denounce them as America's puppets (think of Musharrafs bull-ride in Pakistan).

And given America's inclinations towards unilateralism, there's a good chance that America will only co-operate if it deems this in its national interest (thus, will not share intelligence if deemed too sensitive), but will loudly complain if anybody else fails to meet American expectations and standards set by Washington. And thus, the whole thing could become yet another political football in DC, just like the UN.

No, co-operation in this field is a very shy horse. We should keep it inofficial and low-key.

Posted by Patrick | September 11, 2007 4:33 PM

Such an organization could probably get brought into existence so long as Halliburton got the contract to supply it pencils and drinking water.

Posted by steve duncan | September 11, 2007 4:42 PM

I'm a little bit queasy about this being an international "intelligence" organization. More spooks makes me think of the darker days of the CIA. I would rather see putting resources into international law enforcement which in democracies (one would hope) must at least pay lip service to civil rights. If it doesn't have one already, create a counterterrorism unit in Interpol. Then of course there are all sorts of tools available through the United Nations if we would stop sending weenie waggers and Neanderthals to represent us there.

Posted by justawriter | September 11, 2007 4:56 PM

"Halliburton"? Ha,ha! LOL!!!! You get it? Halliburton! So funny...

Now that hilarity has ensued, thanks to Steve Duncan, on to the substance of the Edwards's idea, such as it is:

Pimphand points out the superfluity of the idea, and Brooksfoe and Led point out the problems in expanding and formalizing it into an international organization. The reality is that we already cooperate with allied nations on terrorism, as we do on anti-proliferation (via the Proliferation Security Initiative). If we try to expand this to a maximum number of countries, we run into the problems Brooksfoe and Led mentioned. Some countries would be quick to label as terrorist their separatist ethnic minorities, and other countries would be averse to labeling as terrorist terrorists whose struggles they back.

Posted by Fred | September 11, 2007 5:04 PM

Shorter right wing: War is a last resort, but all our other resorts are perpetually exhausted.

Posted by Steve | September 11, 2007 5:08 PM

Why do politicians always have to create a new agency to justify their existence? Why not simply retool Interpol? Or maybe just give it more funding? I really don't see how this new agency will do anything that Interpol couldn't do or is already doing. What's the point of creating a new entity to replace an entity which already performs this function?

Posted by fostert | September 11, 2007 5:12 PM

Matt should try posting ideas like this without identifying their sources, so people like Fred don't know how to react.

(And yeah, I do think it's a (potentially) really good idea with some potential pitfalls.)

Posted by Tom Hilton | September 11, 2007 5:16 PM

Fred is correct in his denunciation of my Halliburton jest. The federal government never participates in an international initiative wherein there's a hidden agenda to line the pockets of contributors or corporate benefactors.

Posted by steve duncan | September 11, 2007 5:26 PM

Yes, but Matt is forgetting that John Edwards has hair, and has a big house.

Posted by El Cid | September 11, 2007 5:27 PM

Matt is also forgetting the Edwards doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination. It's all for shit...a waste of bandwidth.

Posted by El Viajero | September 11, 2007 6:03 PM

Victor Comras, co-author of Terrorism Financing and State Responses, had a nice post on the idea at the Counterterrorism Blog that explained why CITO would be useful, and why existing organizations aren't up to the job. Here are the first two paragraphs of his post on the issue:

John Edwards’ proposal for a new international Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO) deserve serious consideration. Edwards has put his finger on the single most important shortcoming in the war on terrorism – the serious lack of international cooperation and coordination in efforts to grapple with terrorism on a world wide scale. The United Nations, and the various terrorism related committees established by the Security Council, have simply failed to carry out this important function. (see my numerous blogs on this topic: (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) here, ). This has left a void that the United States and certain other countries have sought to fill by establishing various ad hoc bilateral arrangements, and this process has produced only limited, and very uneven, success.

While intelligence sharing and cooperation between the United States and certain European countries, directly, and under the auspices of the Roma-Lyon Group, has borne some fruit, other bilateral cooperative arrangements have proved sterile, and in some cases, even counter-productive. Numerous countries have complained that counter terrorism intelligence cooperation with the United States is too often a one way street, with US intelligence agencies proving overly reluctant to provide detailed intelligence to overseas agencies. Most acknowledge that the US has acted quickly to help foreign governments thwart imminent terrorist attacks, but, they complain that follow-up information upon which to base prosecution and continued incarceration, is frequently lacking. And US intelligence officers have also often complained of the spottiness and unreliability of information flowing to the US from foreign intelligence agencies. Without an ability to pool information, and compare notes, terrorist activists, including those recruiting and funding terrorists, and planning and carrying out terrorist attacks, often escape prosecution, or otherwise fall through the cracks.

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/09/a_new_international_counterter.php

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | September 11, 2007 6:09 PM

Touché, Steve Duncan. I forgot how devious the American government can be in crafting foreign policy to funnel cash to favored companies. I should have remembered though. It was the Bush administration's idea to give Halliburton business. The Clinton administration never gave any contracts to Halliburton. They gave infrastructure contracts to liberal companies like Ben & Jerry's* instead.

*Before those lefties sold out to a big multinational, of course.

Posted by Fred | September 11, 2007 6:14 PM

Isn't Interpol suppose to do this?

Posted by D. | September 11, 2007 6:43 PM

And as for the picture: "Edwards wins another New Hampshire supporter by sharing his stash of weed"

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | September 11, 2007 6:48 PM

So, can I just clarify. All of you who support CITO are happy that U.S. intel, including intel about U.S. citizens, would be shared with all members of this organization?

Posted by pt | September 11, 2007 6:53 PM

I second D's comment: we already have such an organization- it's called INTERPOL !

Posted by Lars | September 11, 2007 8:01 PM

So, can I just clarify. All of you who support CITO are happy that U.S. intel, including intel about U.S. citizens, would be shared with all members of this organization?
Posted by pt

No, you have it reversed. By joining up with Edwards spiffy new organization, we would get access to intelligence on US citizens legally compiled by foreign entities like Israel, China, UK, and Russia listening in to our "chatter".

Edwards just wants a new multinational organization to layer on top of whatever inherent flaws make other multinational organizations ineffective at combating forces of chaos, with the same systemic flaws - veto powers, nations working against other outvoted nations interests, "free riders" there to vote or get aid but not contribute.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 11, 2007 8:06 PM

"through international teams of intelligence and national security professionals who will launch targeted missions to root out and shut down terrorist cells."

Ahem, small problem with this. How do you get "international teams" to "launch targeted missions"?

You're saying that a bunch of German GSG9 guys plus some Delta Force plus some Pakistani SI guys are going to parachute into Pakistan and take out Al Qaeda?

I think NOT!

This is just James Bond hand waving.

You might be able to persuade various countries who ALREADY get along to enhance their information sharing provided everybody gets the needed funding. But it's a long way from that to setting up an extraterritorial counter-terrorist force that can actually deal with the larger terrorist groups located in "lawless" areas.

SMALL terrorist groups can ALREADY be dealt with by local law enforcement forces.

"Victor Comras, co-author of Terrorism Financing and State Responses, had a nice post on the idea at the Counterterrorism Blog that explained why CITO would be useful, and why existing organizations aren't up to the job..."

Uhm, if you read that post, he doesn't EVER explain WHY the EXISTING agreements never worked. He just says a NEW organization WOULD work. Why do we assume that any NEW agreements along these lines would work any better than the OLD agreements?

The fundamental problem is that terrorism exists because of specific geopolitical problems. Terrorism also has "safe havens" in various "lawless" areas such as Waziristan - and now in Iraq to some degree. These havens are not amenable to control by either the governments of the countries hosting them or governments outside those countries.

NEITHER of those facts are addressed by this vague notion of some "supranational anti-terrorism agency".

Without a STRATEGY to deal with the two primary facts of terrorism, there can be NO progress in combating terrorism other than small local successes.

There's nothing basically wrong with the notion of enhancing intelligence sharing and the like. It's just that suggesting a new agency does not address the problems that plague the CURRENT agencies.

It's just hand waving.

Matt seems very susceptible to hand waving.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 12, 2007 1:10 AM

After hearing Interpol's last album, I don't know if they're quite up to the challenge.

Posted by Trevor | September 12, 2007 10:31 AM

I found this via Crookedtimber, where I commented

As it is, this kind of information sharing has had to go through the various nations’ executives, which has produced the disasters of Aznar lying to the Germans about Spanish intelligence on the Spain bombing, Condi Rice blowing the cover of an investigation in the UK, and now the sad spectacle of Mike McConnell being contradicted by both the Germans and his own staff as he tries to sell new US spying laws based on a phony timeline.

Feh. Enough.

Seems to me like CITO might be a way to take these idiots out of the loop and let law enforcement do its job.

The politics of policing terrorism has been a sick joke for years. If CITO is the answer to the present danger that NATO was, then go for it.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | September 12, 2007 1:03 PM

How would this be different from the already existing GCTF (Global Counter-Terrorism Forces) structure that the Bush administration has set up? As near as I can tell, the only difference is in acronym, with Edward's choice an echo of NATO. (Here's hoping it would work better than SEATO or CENTO did.)

Posted by A Nonny Mouse | September 13, 2007 8:55 AM