The CIA and KGB Come Together to Combat the Threat of Terrorism

Both U. S. and Soviet leaders agree that a new Arab-Israeli war would be a disaster and terrorism could be the catalyst. While joint efforts to prevent terrorism must be part of the peace process, such cooperation could, ironically, generate a violent reaction from terrorist groups.

Thus it makes little sense to talk about superpower counterterrorism unless deeds match words. These are some of the conclusions reached by a group that met at the RAND Corp. last week. Following up on a January session in Moscow, U.S. and Soviet experts on terrorism--including former high officials from the Central Intelligence Agency and the KGB--made important progress in laying the groundwork for U.S.-Soviet collaboration to meet the challenge of terrorism.

This could hardly be possible without perestroika, the Soviets’ exercise in national introspection that implies a comprehensive reconceptualization of past history, of internal as well as foreign policies. This newly acquired vision of itself makes the Soviet Union look for an active role in conflict resolution, limitation of regional arms races and prevention of terrorism.

A single terrorist act may have global ramifications. The Soviet Union learned this the hard way in 1988, when a busload of Soviet school children was held hostage by robbers-turned-terrorists--who released the children in exchange for a jet they hijacked to Israel.

Israeli authorities extradited them to the Soviet Union--despite the fact that the two countries do not maintain formal diplomatic relations. The incident dramatically demonstrated the importance of international cooperation in combatting terrorism.

Soviet concerns are accentuated by the proximity of the Middle East to its borders and the apprehension that unrest and violence in the region may inspire imitation within the Soviet Union. There is also an understanding that local conflicts, as well as acts of terror, may compromise U.S.-Soviet rapprochement on issues central to the developing bilateral relationship.

The new Soviet approach in the Arab-Israeli conflict was revealed last fall, when the Soviet Union coached the Palestine Liberation Organization to adopt the statements that, among other things, led to the beginning of a U.S.-PLO dialogue. Soviet diplomatic contacts with Israel have intensified and many experts feel that resumption of full diplomatic relations are only a matter of time. The Soviet Union has rejected the use of force as a means to achieve Palestinian self-determination and has bluntly told Syria it cannot use military force to resolve its disputes with Israel.

In accordance with the Non-proliferation and Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaties, Moscow set clear limits to its arms transfers to the Middle East, particularly in the areas of nuclear, chemical and long-range missile technologies.

Soviet diplomats have recently been active in attempts to end the vicious cycle of murder and terrorism in Lebanon. The Soviet Union actively participated in quelling the recent hostage crisis in Lebanon: After the murder of Lt. Col. William R. Higgins by Shiite extremists in Lebanon, the Soviet foreign minister’s intervention may have helped to save the lives of other Americans still held captive.

Unfortunately, as the two superpowers nudge toward a new Middle East perspective that abandons the old “zero-sum game” thinking--where one side’s gains were seen as the other side’s loss--radical groups within the Palestinian movement and in Israel are likely to intensify their efforts to derail the peace process.

Terrorist acts could be the trigger for widespread conflict. If Arab extremists managed to kill a large number of Israelis, the Israeli response would be violent and dramatic. Alternatively, if Israeli extremists use sensational violence against Arab targets, the impact would be devastating. In 1984, an elaborate plot by Gush Emunim extremists to blow up the Dome of the Rock mosque in Jerusalem was aborted by Israeli security forces. If a similar action were to succeed, passions would be unleashed on both sides. Many Arab voices would call for attacks on Israel. Even Egypt, now at peace with Israel, might not be able to withstand the pressure to break relations.

New technologies and prevailing military doctrines could also increase the prospects for preemptive war. To this extent the Arab-Israeli conflict is unique. In other regional conflicts--such as the still simmering war between Iran and Iraq--the inclination of the superpowers would be to stay aloof. This would not happen in the Arab-Israeli case, where ties with regional clients and the logic of geopolitics find the two giants enmeshed.

For these reasons--and the fact that U.S.-Soviet cooperation may inspire terrorism--efforts to contain it must be seen as a key part of the peace process. This means taking a number of practical steps. The developing dialogue between Moscow and Washington must be expanded. International cooperation to combat terrorism has often been stymied by fundamental disagreements about when political violence may or may not be justified. The promise of the U.S.-Soviet dialogue is that the two sides now agree that certain acts of violence are impermissible--no matter what the cause, the group or the underlying political claims.

The two sides are now in a position to provide--through the force of example and collaborative action--a platform of increased international cooperation. Now that Moscow and Washington are beginning to speak the same language about terrorism, the prospects are bolstered for putting some real teeth in international law to deal with these criminals.

One significant outcome of last week’s discussion was a decision to conduct a simulation exercise designed around a terrorist incident that involves both superpowers--for example, a hijacking of the joint Pan Am-Aeroflot operation that carries thousands of passengers weekly between New York and Moscow. Assuming high-level officials take part, the two sides can learn to anticipate dangers and difficulties and debug procedures.

Other areas of cooperation might include intelligence-sharing and curbing the transfer of technologies--such as plastic explosives or portable surface-to-air missiles.

Portable missiles that could wreak havoc on civilian air traffic must be removed from the covert international arms market. It is possible to envisage U.S.-Soviet efforts to repurchase or “reacquire” weapons previously transferred to certain militant groups.

Practical steps toward superpower collaboration undermine and delegitimize terrorism as an instrument of policy. Our goal must be to deny terrorists sanctuary and eliminate the economic and political conditions that provide a nurturing environment for heinous acts of violence.