1. Aviation, border surface transport, maritime, cyber and food supply chain have a commonality being borderless and are more prone to attack by terrorists. They present opportunities for countries to interact and terrorists may use this as a loophole to carry out their terrorist activities. The three travelling modes have been used in the past by terrorists to harm unsuspecting citizens through their agendas. The UN identifies this and criminalises any attempt to use cyber or aviation to hijack aeroplanes to carry out terrorism activities.
The fight of terrorism faces challenges such as gaining full support from all countries. Some appear to abet the activities of terrorism, a political stance has attracted disagreements among countries. The case in example is the case of North Korea, Pakistan , Iran and Iraq that were named sometimes back by the USA as “axis of evil”. Some countries have that ratified UN Treaties on terrorism have violated the very laws they once upheld.
Another challenge is that of finding effective means of fighting some types of terrorism that are hard or difficult to monitor. Cyber in particular is difficult to control or monitor given that terrorists can access and use Internet to advance personal objectives, like any well-meant person would. Homeland policy makers face the challenge of identifying and criminalising activities of some citizens, without infringing on human rights. The rights may include the rights to privacy, treatment of all persons with integrity and respect, freedom of expression, etc (OHCHR, n d). It is difficult to isolate suspected cases before resulting in violation of human rights. The challenge is that regardless of policies and instruments of detection put in place to counter terrorism, they always have a way of getting through as they are not impermeableto terrorists.
2. Pay riding is the act of some nations act in retaliation to sell or reduce offer of a public good, that is offered by others with the aim convincing terrorists to attack elsewhere. In this case, ally members cooperate with the United States while having something of value of the terrorists. Fratiani (2005) gives an example of Saudi Arabia which supports antiterrorism campaign by USA but is a home to Wahabism, a terror organisation.
In the case of free riding, the countries do not incur any cost in effect to the international policy of antiterrorism but instead concentrate in its own national security affairs or ignore completely the policy and proceed its own objectives (Masclet, Mirza, Montmarquette, 2011).
It is cost effective to spend millions of dollars to fight terrorism, even if they are few individuals. The effect of terrorism is far much greater than the as they progress with their activities unabated. They are not limitless to the geographical borders of USA alone but where citizens of USA have an interest of any nature, social, political or economic. When they attack these supposed allies of USA, they disrupt normal functioning of economic activities of the countries besides the physical loss of property and lives. Due to the activities, countries such as Australia, Turkey, Kenya, Egypt, Greece etc suffer from loss of tourism-generated revenue. They widen the gap of globalisation because of fear of people resuming their normal economic development activities. People fear to fly, travel in underway cars, trains, because previous attacks on these infrastructure. Economic loss from these could be multiple and difficult to quantify, hence the need to use resources available to counter these terrorist activities.
3. Hardened border paradox is the borders between countries become so congested with physical barriers to counter terrorism but ironically do not achieve the aim and somehow, they become permeable. Examples include the Great Wall of Chin and the USA-Mexico border, Berlin Wall (Thurston, nd).
Open border paradox on the other hand is the effort by the United States to keep its borders, particularly the Southern border, and enhancing bilateral relations to keep the off illegal activities such as drug smuggling and terrorism. The paradox is such that while the country makes little effort to guard its borders, they do not experience the attacks. On the contrary, when they increase surveillance and close off the borders, the military experience more attacks and borders become more penetrable by terrorists and like groups.
For different reasons and at varying scales USA has always been at war, either directly or indirectly. The reason is by default rather than design. The country is a symbol of freedom, power, democracy, and equality. They defend these principles regardless of the cost and because of these firm belief, they find themselves opposing those opposed to it directly or indirectly. As a world superpower, the country feels it has the moral obligation to stand against anything that opposes basic human rights of survival and security. Its opposition to communism as was witnessed in Korea where they supported free economy as opposed to communism was an example of economic freedom that it upholds. World problems are many and solving them makes it seem like a normal duty for USA. Therefore,” we have come just to know that 56% of the time, we are at war.”S
References
Fratianni, M. (2005) New perspectives on global governance: why America needs the G8. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
Masclet C, N. D., Mirza, D. &Montmarquette, C. (2011), “Global Securitypliciesagainat terrorism and the free riding problem: An Experimental Approach”. Journal of public economic theory, 13: 755–790. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9779.2011.01519.x
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet32EN.pdf
Thurston, M (nd) Post-9/11 “Security Policies On The Northern Border: Who Is At Fault?”http://mthurston.hubpages.com/hub/Post-911-Security-Policies-On-The-Northern-Border-Who-Is-At-Fault
UN Action to counter terrorism, http://www.un.org/terrorism/instruments.shtml
