Threat Analysis Questions
Question 1
The threat is the attempt of subject A to have an impact on B, which is perceived hostile by object B, and such threats may be constituted by both state and non-state actors. Thus, if a non-state actor is anything else except a state, such actors can take any form and threat to either one country and several ones. For instance, Islamic extremists recently have staged a series of terrorist attacks in different European countries: Belgium, France, and German. Even domestic terrorists, like Sovereign Citizens Movement, can span borders and propagandize their anti-governmental ideas and promote paper terrorism tactic around the whole world through the Internet. Thereby, as a very broad range of threats falls within the concept of non-state actor threats, these threats can be addressed to any number of targeted countries.
State actors can threat to several other countries as well as non-state actors. State coalitions often have emerged because several countries perceived hostile the attempt of one country X to influence them. For instance, such alliances were established in the 1940s, when Germany constituted a significant threat to national security of dozens of other countries. These alliances against any traditional threat may be compared with the United Nations Anti-Terrorist Coalition or with a particular set of countries, which support sanctions against countries that sponsor extremists as non-state actors (in fact, these sanctions are aimed at weakening a non-state actor). Meanwhile, the issue of sanctions, as well as the entire anti-terrorist cooperation of states, requires close international cooperation, which has its own difficulties.
Byman states that international cooperation on the issue of non-traditional threat, which can affect several countries, can bring the most unexpected challenges. He divides countries into three types: hawks, pigeons and limited. Hawks are countries, which tend to strictly respond to non-traditional threats regardless whether they are international or domestic; pigeons tend to bargain with both internal and international non-state actors; and limited decide to respond strictly only to domestic threats. Non-state actors are most likely to go global if they come from strong “hawk” state and plan to attack limited or pigeon-style state. “Hawk” host-state tends to be more reluctant to expose “their” terrorists and collaborate with other countries. Thereby, if any non-state actor has such a combination (hawk+pigeon or limited) and enough resources and motivation, his chances to become international and threaten simultaneously to several actors rapidly increase. Byman also adds that a bad relationship between targeted and host country (it is the state from which non-state actor comes) also gives incentives for non-traditional threats to span borders. Thereby, characteristics of targeted, neutral and other countries influence the decision of non-state actor whether to go global and increase the number of targeted states or not. Meanwhile, such factors as stability, the presence of adherents in neighboring countries, and their type of political regime can also give additional motivation to non-state actors to become international.
International cooperation in the fight …
