Milstein Criminal Justice Policy Forum: The Increase In Ungoverned Space

8/9/2019 Milstein Criminal Justice Policy Forum: The Increase In Ungoverned Space

1/34

Remarks by Sir Jeremy GreenstockIntroduction by Howard P. Milstein

November 13, 2006

THE INCREASE IN

UNGOVERNED

SPACE

MILSTE

INC

RIMIN

ALJU

STICE

POL

ICY

FORUM

Citizens Crime CommissionOF NEW YORK CITY, INC.


2/34

THE MILSTEIN

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

POLICY FORUM

Since 2002, the Cit izens

Crime Commission of New

York Ci ty has presented

a series of Criminal Justice

Policy lectures sponsored by

Edward L. and Howard P.

Milstein through the Milstein

Brothers Foundation. Each

event features a nationally,

or internationally, prominent speaker who addresses the

Commission on such issues as crime, criminal justice or

terrorism. The formal remarks are followed by a question-

and-answer period. Each meeting is open to the media.

Attendance is l imited to 150 invited guests drawn

from the top ranks of the New York City business and

law enforcement communities. Each lecture is printed

and distributed to top business, civic and law enforce-

ment leaders.

The Cit izens Crime Commission of New York City

is an independent, non-profit organization working to

reduce crime and improve the criminal justice system

in New York City. The Commission is supported by the

business community; its board of directors is drawn from

top corporate executives and members of major law

firms. The Commission was established in 1978.

Howard and Edward Milstein are prominent New York

bankers and real estate owners. They have a long record

of working with the New York City criminal justice system

to create and support innovative programs. They are also

active in national crime prevention issues.

HOWARD P. MILSTEIN


3/34

Introduction by

Richard Aborn

T

hank you all for coming. We reallyappreciate it. Youre always stead-fast supporters of this organization,

and that means a lot to us. I get to doagain today what I get to do so very fre-quently, and its an ongoing testament totheir civic involvement, and that is tothank Tom Moran and Mutual America.

They have hosted forums in this space,breakfasts, lunches and dinners, for a longtime now. And I can tell you, as we weregetting started today, and I thanked EdKenney whos here on behalf of Tom for

once again hosting us, he said, Anytime. And thats just wonderful. So Ireally appreciate that, and we thank yougreatly for that.

I thought what I would do, which is abit of a deviation from what we normallydo is just maybe set the stage a bit for thetalk today, which I think is actually a veryimportant talk in this trans-Atlantic forumthat weve been having on terrorismissues. You will all remember that wevehad three men come in and talk about ter-rorism within their own context. The firstwas our own commissioner, CommissionerKelly, who described, as you may recall,

what the NYPD was doing. And how thecommissioner was increasingly concernedabout terrorist acts that would be launchedfrom here, and how he found it necessary tostart sending NYPD officers abroad. And

were all very familiar with that discussion.

I wont say its the first time the NYPDdid it, because its not. But its certainly thefirst time in recent memory, and it is

1


4/34

absolutely the most sustained program thatthe NYPD has done. He was followed by

Sir Ian Blair the Commissioner of ScotlandYard who made two very broad points.

The first point was that communitieshave got to be engaged with this issue. In

other words, community policing. Howironic it is that Bin Laden may have donemore to revive community policing thanalmost anything, how ironic, but how nec-essary. He also made another point whichwas that the U.K., for the first time, was

beginning to feel the threat of homegrownterrorism, much more so then terrorism

being delivered, or organized rather, fromthe Middle East. And he said that separat-ed the U.K. from the United States.

I dont like to disagree with Ian, but Imust say I respectfully disagree. And unfor-tunately much more importantly, our thirdspeaker, Director Mueller of the FBI, came

in and said during that speech, that now theFBI was more concerned, or equally as con-cerned about homegrown terrorism, as theywere about terrorism coming in from for-eign shores. This collective issue, the issue

of homegrown terrorism, raises numerousconcerns and numerous questions.

If homegrown terrorism is one of themajor threats that this nation and theUnited Kingdom face, are the interventions

limited to law enforcement? And as wethink about law enforcement, for the firsttime at least the first time that I can thinkof how does the foreign policies of thesetwo respective nations affect what happens

domestically on the crime front. Its a veryimportant issue and one which were goingto have to be very careful to examine.Because we will feel the direct impact ofwhat happens here in this country.

2


5/34

And fortunately, or unfortunately,depending on your perspective, the rhetoric

around this is becoming very sharp, verysharp indeed. The term Islamo-Fascismis gaining currency in the United States, Idont know about in the U.K., but certainlyin the United States. Is it a good term, or

is it a term that alienates some of the verypeople that we are trying to work with?

Also, in the same rhetorical question,what are we doing (as Ive talked about before) to support moderate Muslims?What are we doing to engage in this jointresponsibility that we have, to resistthose Muslims that would radicalizeIslam? Are we doing what we can to sup-port the moderate Muslim community?

Again, equally important questions.

And these are occurring at a time whenthe ground is really shifting. Were seeingenormous changes taking place. In the last

ten days alone, just think about whatshappened. In London, the head of MI-5stood up, and in a speech that certainly inthe four years that Ive been working withthe London police services, Ive never

heard, she stood up and said that the U.K.was facing as much as 30 investigating asmuch as 30 homegrown terrorist plots.Thats an astonishing number, and thatswhat shes publicly saying. This was apublic statement by the head of MI-5, whorarely to my knowledge speaks out.

Were hearing this noise out of Palestinefrom Hamas. Nobodys really quite surewhat theyre saying during these past 72

hours, but theres something moving there.When the Prime Minister offers to resign,what does that mean? What does it meanwhen the Palestinians start talking about aunity government? Still not subscribing to

3


6/34

the three conditions laid down, but thereis some movement there. Now the Arab

League is starting to make some move-ment there, what is that all about?

The Iraqi government is talking abouta shift in its cabinet. This is all in the last

ten days. A shift in the cabinet, realigningthe cabinet post, trying to bring in a greaterpolitical cohesiveness. In the U.K. there will

be a change in the Prime Ministership atleast I think by no later then next sum-mer, perhaps a bit earlier. What will thatmean in terms of labor policy, and whatwill it mean in terms of greater policiescoming out of the U.K.?

And certainly the thunder clap heard in

the United States last week, heard aroundthe world when there was a shift in thepolitical spectrum in this country. These areall important things that are taking placethat as much as they will impact what hap-

pens abroad, will certainly happen here.These will have profound implications.

So those are the kinds of things thatwere going talk about today. And Imactually delighted that Sir Jeremy has beenable to join us. In order to introduce Sir

Jeremy, Im going to introduce HowardMilstein, which is an absolute pleasure forme to do.

Howard is part of the Milstein BrothersFoundation. Howard and his brotherEdward, the other half of this dynamicduo, has brought vision and resources andgenuine commitment to the pressing

issues of our time. Not just on crimeissues, but theyve been very concernedabout crime issues for a long time, andhomeland security is a particular focus oftheirs right now.

4


7/34

It is no secret that we have to fight ter-rorism and maintain order. It is the first

and foremost responsibility of many of thepeople in this room. But perhaps equallyand more importantly, it is the responsibili-ty of all citizens. And Howard has taken alead in trying to promote that very notion.

Howard believes that the private sector, the business community and the citizenry atlarge, must lend a firm hand to assist lawenforcement and sure up the nationagainst this potential threat.

He believes that systems and structuresneed to be created that encourage peopleto take part in safeguarding their commu-nities and to share the responsibility forpromoting local, state and national security.

Howard has a quote, which Howard I hopeyou dont mind, Im going to steal fromyou because I think its a wonderful line.He says, We are a nation of optimists anddoers. We always have been and we

always will be. But now is not the time forfear or complacency, now is the time foraction. Now is the time for us to get onwith things.

Howard doesnt just talk. He has putpart of his money there. Over the past tenyears and I must say over the past tenyears, in other words before 9/11 and

before the July bombings in London, hesput over $4 million into law enforcement

efforts and into crime prevention. Let mejust give you three of the bullets of thingshes done. For many years, again before9/11, he was helping the NYPD toupgrade their computer and surveillance

systems. He was raising money for sub-way security. Providing pro bono expertadvice of an IT company to assist theNYPD in upgrading its MIS systems. Andhe has also provided substantial funding

5


8/34

for NYPD officials to attend conferencesall over the U.S., and I think abroad, to

attend conferences on technology andincreasing the efficiency of local policing.

Cities, I believe, thrive because theyhave the deep commitment of the civiccommunity. And I think Howard, in manyways, personifies, and he has for manyyears, that commitment. Ive knownHoward for 15 years, I consider him a dearfriend. And Im very happy to invite you tothe podium to introduce Sir Jeremy.

6


9/34

Introduction by

Howard P. Milstein

Thanks, Richard. Has it been 15 yearsalready? Im proud to say that wevedone some good things together

over those years. My brother Edward andI are pleased to continue our support of theCitizens Crime Commission, under yourleadership, Richard. As with all that youdo, you put your own special stamp onthis work.

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.In recent months weve expanded thescope of this lecture series to include aglobal dimension. As conventional street

crime and other threats of the past havereceded, terrorism has quickly risen to thetop of the law enforcement agenda. As weknow all too well, terror threats arent con-fined by national borders, they are bred by

a myriad of interlocking organizations thatnow span the globe. So this is the righttime to change our focus here as well.

New Yorkers, those of us in businessand those of us involved in crime fighting,need to begin to think globally about ter-rorism, its roots, the ways in which itspreads and how it impacts so many coun-tries around the world. At our last forumSir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of theMetropolitan Police, shared many impor-tant insights about these questions with us.Now as we continue to be bound together

by the events of 9/11 and 7/7, we againlook toward our allies in the struggle for

additional answers.

Todays speaker, Sir Jeremy Greenstock,is well positioned to offer them. Afterstudying at Harrow and Oxford University,

7


10/34

Sir Jeremy spent most of his eminentcareer working for the British Diplomatic

Service. Among his many foreign serviceposts, he served for five years as Britainspermanent representative to the U.N. herein New York. He later worked for theForeign Service in Washington D.C.

From these two important posts Sir Jeremy came away with a profoundinsight into the special relationship thatexists between the U.S. and the U.K. Sir

Jeremy also gained a great deal of experi-ence in Middle Eastern affairs during hisyears in the foreign service. He studiedArabic at the Middle East Center forArab Studies in Lebanon, and spent severalyears posted in Dubai and Saudi Arabia.

Following his work at the U.N., he wasnamed the U.K. Special Envoy for Iraqwhere he served until 2004.

In Iraq Sir Jeremy got a first hand look

at the hurdles faced by both us and GreatBritain, as they seek to transform a wartorn, authoritarian regime into, we hope,a stable democracy. It remains a dauntingchallenge. Today Sir Jeremy is Director

of the Ditchley Foundation, the renownedinternational affairs institution founded inthe 1950s to promote serious discourse

between Great Britain and America onissues of important mutual interest. Sincethen, the foundations focus has been

broadened to include the participation ofmany countries around the world. Please

join me in extending a warm welcome toSir Jeremy Greenstock.

8


11/34

Remarks by

Sir Jeremy Greenstock

T

hank you for being one of my leastdiplomatic audiences this year, to talkto. I want to go into what I would call

the big picture that surrounds your busi-ness, as the practitioners in, and the sup-porters of the Citizens Crime Commissionof New York. And from what Ive heardfrom Richard and from Howard, I under-

stand that what you do, what you are tryingto do, the reaching out that you achieve isan exact parallel with what Im trying to dowith the Ditchley Foundation. Which is totalk about those things that are not well dis-cussed, debated or analyzed publicly. Andwhich need civil society, people beyondgovernment, to understand if the problemsof the world are to be solved.

Im going to talk to you about what I call

the increase in ungoverned space. And letme explain that quote. In an article earlierthis year, Ambassador James Dobbins ofRand wrote about the U.S./E.U. relation-ship and the limits on unilateralism in a

changing world. And he briefly describedthat change. He said, Across the globe, thecontinued fragmentation of nation states,the increase in ungoverned space, and theunwanted immigration, disease, crime andterrorism that these conditions breed con-tinue to compel attention.

Perhaps we all feel nervous that theidentifiable foundations of stability andcohesion in our societies appear to be erod-

ing. That is one of the effects of the vastand rapid changes that Richard was justtalking about. I want to talk briefly about anumber of factors in this trend, relate themto our defenses against organized crime

9


12/34

and terrorism and not so much draw someconclusions, as point to some work that

now needs to be done so that we under-stand the reactions to these trends that weneed to take up. And then I hope that wewill have a discussion.

Let me quickly, and perhaps a little bitcrudely give you my view of whats hap-pening in the world in terms of geopoliticsand the big trends. And I start with one veryimportant tension. Globalization, which wetalk about endlessly, covers a number ofthings but it doesnt cover everything.Were seeing globalized exchange, in termsof commerce and economic activity, andinformation and technology and travel andcommunication and individual connectivi-

ty. And that is immensely important.

But what we are not seeing is the glob-alization of political structures or of cul-tures. What we are seeing in politics and

culture is polarization, partly as a productof globalization. We are not globalizing ineverything, we are dividing in somethings. Part of this is due to the spread offreedom. Let me just explain the paradox

that comes from the spread of freedom anddemocracy that has been promoted aboveall, and Western Europe is particularly inthe debt of the United States for this, comesfrom the American people and the valuesthat they stand for.

But in spreading freedom, you are tosome extent, diluting traditional power,

bringing more people into freedom ofchoice. Allowing a wider spread of people

to express themselves in ways that mayinclude disagreement with, or even hatredof the United States. You have opened upthat possibility through your spread offreedom. But at the moment you are

10


13/34

expecting too much in terms of gratitudefor that, from the peoples who have bene-

fited from it. It is not necessarily going tohappen that way.

In fact, with freedom, if you feel stabilityand security and prosperity around your

own space as an individual, as a familyman, as a corporate man, as a professional,as a citizen, you also narrow your horizons.If you dont need big government to keepaway big enemies, your identity narrowsits horizons to the people you really identi-fy with, the people you live with, you meetfor lunch with, you work with, occasional-ly but not that often, the people you votefor, your identity narrows. That is part ofthe polarization Im talking about.

And with this spread of opportunityand freedom of choice that comes withglobalization and the values your countryis transmitting, come new sources of

power. If power is spreading out, there arenew people grabbing hold of it, in econom-ic terms, in communication terms, in hardpower terms in the building of armies andnew weaponries. And some of that power

is expressed in symmetrical forms that wefind it quite easy to deal with, because wehave the structures for that. But some ofthat power is being expressed in asymmet-rical forms, which we do not readily under-stand and which we do not easily relate toor react to.

Another absolutely familiar theme toyou, but let me just before I get into therest of what Ive got to say mention one

important aspect of asymmetrical powerthat comes from small groups or criminalsor fanatics or terrorists. That power doesnot choose to fight on your battleground.We, the West, NATO, the U.S. /U.K. Alliance,

11


14/34

are brilliant at fighting on the big battle-field, with big platforms, with technology,

with highly trained soldiers, police, agentsof other kinds. We are very good at it. Theyare not going to choose to meet us head-onon our battlegrounds. They are going to gosomewhere else, and Ill come back to that

as I get through my remarks.

Theres something else about globaliza-tion and the spread of our values and ourfreedoms, and that is that government isgetting harder. The monopoly that the statehas, in history, normally had in humanaffairs, monopoly over the use of force andthe carrying of arms (although of course, Irecognize that that is not necessarily thecase in the United States) the monopoly

over information, or certainly official infor-mation, the monopoly of leadership in thecommunity is leaking away from govern-ment, leaking away from what we normallyregard as the head of the state institutions.

With that the relationship between governedand their government is changing.

The spread of individual freedom andchoice and individual capacity to act, and

the availability of knowledge and of infor-mation makes people think that they canlook after themselves without paying somuch attention to government. And forthose who are less enamored of what isgoing on, the capacity to express anger andto show resentment is that much greater inmodern society. Small non-state groupshave access to those things for which statehad a monopoly, particularly to lethalweaponry, but also to instruments of propa-

ganda, communication and information.

And the response to that, frankly, hasbeen quite slow. Government is not adapt-ing, constitutions are not adapting, meth-

12


15/34

ods of seeking political power or of puttingtogether political parties are not changing.

And its my view that politicians and elec-torates and democracies are drifting apart.Politicians and peoples in non-democra-cies are beginning to drift apart and thinkdifferently. Leadership and followership

are changing and politicians are not neces-sarily realizing how much theyre changing.

Ill just give you one example in a non-democracy, and Ill come back to one ortwo facets of the Middle East, but we can

discuss this later. The rise of Hezbollah inLebanon and indeed elsewhere, and theenormous popularity of Sheik Nasrallahthe leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon is indi-cating that the fed-upness of peoples with

their governments, their ineffective, self-serving, unchanging governments in theMiddle East is leading ordinary people tolook for other sorts of champions. And if aprivate sector champion, like Hezbollah,

comes into the scene and has money tospend, and seems to represent values betterthen their government does, then youve gotan alternative pole of government, which isvery difficult to bring into government, as

the discussions in Lebanon over the pastweek have shown.

This is a very important new phenome-non and the Hezbollah example will not bethe last one that you witness. So that you

can see with these remarks about govern-ment, Im beginning to describe ungovernedspace, space that governments cant reachto. People think they need government less.Now most people, those who respect the

law, take the advantages and the opportuni-ties from globalization, from freedom, fromincreased prosperity, and they feel moreempowered, and they feel reasonablysecure for a while. But those who dont

13


16/34

respect the law have found that theyve gotan advantage. Theyve got a greater choice

of channels to use to pursue their ownobjectives. They have a wider range and amore powerful range of instruments. Theyhave more hiding places then they mighthave done in previous society.

And the lawmakers and law enforcerswho are reacting to that can also, of courseadapt their powers and their methods, butthey do so later, because they do it as areaction and they do so slower. The peoplewho tend to get at the open spaces whenthere is change, are those with the mostintense motivation to profit from thoseopen spaces. They tend to be criminals andfanatics, before the law abiding people and

the law abiding structures get there. So justin time of reaction to change, the criminalsand fanatics get there quicker, move faster,innovate and are more effective in execut-ing what theyre trying to do.

Before I give you some examples of that,let me just say a quick word about the reac-tion to the U.K. government in particular, tothe trends that Im talking about. A very

popular government that came in in 1997,that won two subsequent elections by largemajorities, a very compelling central figurein Tony Blair, but theyve come up againstthe resistance of the British people to theirgiving the priority to exactly the things thatIm talking about. Theres been a very bigdebate, as Im sure there has in the UnitedStates, about the balance between freedomand security.

But what happened in the U.K. was thatthe government, a very centrist, soft leftgovernment, wanted to react very firmly.They have legislated massively in this areaand in the area of business and corporate

14


17/34

responsibility, when the criminals have also been quite active over the past decade.

More legislation, in terms of the pages ofit, have been enacted in Britain in the lastten years, then in all the statutes fromParliament in history up to 1997. That is theamount of legislation that has come out of

the British system as a reaction to nationaland international change.

Weve also become, as you may haveheard, the number one surveillance societyin the world. We cannot move for more thenfour minutes, outside our houses in theU.K. without being on camera somewhere.Big Brother has really hit us. And most peo-ple think, Well thats quite a good thing,

because we dont mind being filmed, the

criminal does. Well catch the criminal.And to some extent that has happened. Butwe have become a surveillance society, andits beginning, just beginning to be resented.

Government then complains that the peo-ple dont seem to understand that the firm-ness of reaction that were putting in place,and the need to survey that we are puttingin place is absolutely essential for the indi-

viduals interest. No, thats not what peopleare thinking. They do not want their socie-ty changed so much that the risk of vio-lence is brought down to zero. They do notwant to change as they see their interestsspread, at this moment.

And as a result the government losespopularity, loses legitimacy to some extent.And they end up less able to control thespace then they were at the beginning. Its

a very strange phenomenon when all theway through government has been hon-orably acting in the citizens interest. Theexamples of what Im talking about areabsolutely clear in your minds in the pro-

15


18/34

fessions that you represent in this gather-ing. They are of course, in the increasing

crime figures, across the range of crimethat crosses borders, drugs, money laun-dering, other sorts of trafficking, smallarms trade, explosives, embezzlement andfraud, proliferation of weapons of mass

destruction. The figures in all of those aregoing up, although the capacity to controlthese areas should also have been going upin this period.

Juvenile crime, on which Richard haswritten recently, is also rising alarmingly.As young people who are disaffected fromtheir society, who dont feel that they havethe same interests as the older generation,look for the opportunities to suit their own

interests in their own way. And some of thatis criminal. In new territories that break upthe Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, we haveclearly seen the criminals and the exploitersget there before the law enforcers, and the

law abiding people. Absolutely clear exam-ple in those two places.

It is also of course happening in Iraqand in Afghanistan. And Im not going to

go into Iraq. Im absolutely delighted, foronce, not to be talking about Iraq. But ifthere are questions later, lets get into that.Iraq is going to go further downhill

before if ever it repairs itself.

And of course talking about hidingplaces, an increasing number of states areunable to govern themselves. Where thegovernment is too weak for the size ofterritory, or the number of tribes, literallyor metaphorically, that there are in thatnation. Then the opportunity for hidingthere, for developing new groups there, inSomalia or in the Great Lakes region, or inSierra Leon or in Sudan, as far as Africa

16


19/34

is concerned, in Indonesia, in Philippines,elsewhere, you know the countries where

this has been happening, in Latin Americato some extent.

The environment for globalization andfor these changes is global. But the individ-

ual pieces of trouble that come to hit ourinterests and our societies are coming outofsome local area in these places that Imtalking about. And the Middle East, ofcourse, is one of them or concepts and reli-gious extremism thats flowed from theMiddle East, or has to do with politics inthe Middle East must be included in thisconversation. But the source of each ofyour particular problems, whether itsAl Qaeda, whether its Colombia drugs,

whether its poppy growing in Afghanistan,or whether its criminal gangs in the cau-cuses, come from a particular locality, for aparticular reason.

Terrorism has, to some extent, mutatedinto a global phenomenon. But terroristsare local. And you will not eradicate ter-rorism, or these other sources of crimeunless you persuade the populations

where they had, that they must not toler-ate these people in their society. That theymust not tolerate violence within theirsociety. Of course we need the homelandsecurity, the military defense, the diplomat-ic instruments, the government-to-govern-ment exchanges. But I learned, as chair ofthe U.N. Counter-terrorism Committee, thatunless you persuade each people in eachlocality that they must not allow the law to

be broken on their territory, or it will comeback to haunt them. This is an absolutelynecessary part of constructing a globalcoalition against terrorism. And if we leavethat part out of it, if we leave the engage-ment, the persuasion, the diplomacy, the

17


20/34

relationships out of our defense againstterrorism, we will not be able to eradicate

this particular scourge.

So what should governments do? I thinkthat the number one requirement ongovernment is to analyze correctly what is

going on. All sorts of things flow that areof no use to our interests, if governmentsfail to analyze exactly what theyre dealingwith. And remember that age old humanphenomenon, those in power do not wantto admit that the context for their power ischanging. They are conservative to theextent that they want things to go on asthey are. And they can very easily get intoa state of denial that theyre changing. Andyet adaptability is very important part of

holding on to power.

Governments also have to focus resourceson to those areas that are affected. Thatsometimes happens, it sometimes doesnt.

The military always think in terms ofhitting the enemys center of gravity. Ihavent yet heard a debate that has clearlyexplained to me where the center of gravityis for the terrorist group, or the potential

terrorist or criminal enemy whom weredefending against. If you just think of thatterm, where is his center of gravity? Youstart thinking differently about what youredefending against, and where your stilettoneeds to reason.

The third thing that government has todo is to explain to the citizens what isgoing on. Unless people understand thattheir interests are caught up in the trends

that are being correctly analyzed by gov-ernment, if that is the case, then they willrespond properly. They have to have thesethings explained to them. In the UnitedKingdom, there is actually a great accept-

18


21/34

ance of the need for government to havepower in their interest, and to do certain

things. But it has to be done in a waywhich is honestly explained and transpar-ently explained, and does not seem to beconnected to the business of holding on topower politically. That does not always hap-

pen in our societies.

We have to improve, domestically, theintra-national coordination of all the agen-cies and actors who are dealing with thesethings. Going beyond the military and theparamilitary into the societies that dealwith the particular groups inside a country.Intra-national coordination has been okayin the United Kingdom, we tend to be teamplayers. I dont know enough about the

United States to know where its been a par-ticular strength of the U.S. system. But mysuspicion is that intra-national coordinationis only just beginning to improve from apretty low base in this country.

Its not for nothing that the BritishEmbassy has access in Washington.Because it has learned how to take informa-tion and advice and analysis from one

department of state to another, becausetheyre not talking to each other. Its veryoften the British government official whotells one government department whatanother government department is doing.It seems to me that intra-national coordi-nation, in the United States, can go onimproving.

But it is particularly important to haveinternational coordination. Going beyond

the easy coordination with allies, and goingthrough to work with people who arenot easy to talk to, about the threatwhich we actually share, and about whywe should be cooperating. There are of

19


22/34

course limits to rational explanation in allof this. People will remain complacent if

the bombs arent coming through theirwindows. Short-termism is a feature ofdemocracy and strategic planning is at apremium in our countries. Nevertheless,leadership on these things is vital and long

term planning is absolutely vital.What were beginning to do on climate

change, to give clean air and water to ourgrandchildren, has also to be done in termsof strategic planning and explanation, in

the area of security, crime, terrorism andthe bringing together of communities. Andthe individual, what should he and she do?Four things. Understand the importance ofthe state, dont underestimate the impor-

tance of the state. Second, look for andelect strategic leadership. It really mattersto you as an individual. Thirdly, invest ineducation in society, and get the education-al field and civil society institutions filling

some of the gaps of ungoverned space.Government cannot do it all, even if yourespect government. And fourthly, cooper-ate with government in cracking down oncriminality and violence in your commu-

nity, wherever you are. And that should bethe outreach message also, from govern-ments to their allied governments and

beyond. Dont just leave it to government,they cannot do it all. You must contributeas an individual.

So I leave you with three or four under-analyzed trends which this group, I believe,should be investing in the taking forwardof. First of all, the disaffection between gov-

ernments and the governed. Almost a taboosubject, it really matters. Where is loyalty tothe state in the modern age? What is thestate that we are loyal to in our own minds?What are our children going to under-

20


23/34

stand from loyalty to the state? Its not aquestion that is often asked.

Secondly, understand the limits of hardpower. There has to be hard power. TheEuropeans are too wedded to soft powerwithout hard power, there has to be both.

Hard power passes the asymmetricalenemy by on the other side.

Thirdly, we have to analyze the capacityof people to understand the limits of free-dom. The need to adapt and allow our gov-

ernments to exercise power without resent-ment. But there has to be explanation andtransparency.

Fourthly, and if there was ever a taboo in

this society it may be this one, constitutionsare not necessarily fully adapted for themodern age that Ive been trying to describeto you. Be brave about constitutional evolu-tion to suit yourselves, not as a rebellious

republic, but as a single super power. Thistoo now needs some discussion within yourown community.

Space is better if its governed. The ele-ments Ive been trying to bring to you and

to explain to you are the elements of a soci-ety that understands why and how space isto be governed. And we all have to con-tribute to making that possible. Thank youvery much.

21


24/34

Questions & Answers

Sir Jeremy Greenstock

RICHARD ABORN: Sir Jeremy I thinkmaybe just delivered the 21st century ver-

sion of Broken Windows. And if GeorgeKelling were here, hed probably name itBroken Governments, so its something tothink about. Sir Jeremy has kindly offered totake questions, should you have any. Who

can I call on first. Howard?

Q. I was curious as to how the end of theCold War influenced the new terrorism that

youre talking about. bi n N N :N v:O

A. The end of the Cold War brought ina period of huge relief, redirection ofresources and heightened expectations.The most important of those three, in

terms of the evolution of geopolitics since,and of the nature of societys reaction,to the peaceful world they live in, has

been heightened expectations. Its essentialfor human societies to understand that

although there are not going to be any moreworld wars, there is no end to violence.

We have to tolerate, in one sense, in ourminds and not be fazed by the continuationof violence at some moments in our socie-

ty. I fully understand, I was in New York atthe time, the fully shocking phenomenon ofthe collapse of the Twin Towers. I watchedNew York put itself together in the monthsafter that, in a way that Londoners even

Londoners admired. But I worry for theUnited States if something like that orworse happens again. The absorptioncapacity of American society to understandthat is going to happen now and then, and

22


25/34

society is bigger then that, and we mustcount and bless the dead and rememberthem, but we must move on without react-ing as our attackers want to react, has got to

be part of the modern American, modernBritish, modern French, modern developedsocieties.

We thought when the Cold War ended,that it was the end of history. It was the

beginning of another history in which anew form of violence and a much moredifficult one to defend against, is actuallygoing to be what we worry about. Russiais currently not much help in all of this.Russia has gone introspective. I dont criti-cize them for that. The European Unionhas gone introspective. But there is regres-

sion in Russia, as far as the democraticevolution of the Russian Federation spaceis concerned.

Theyre worried about keeping the fed-eration together more then theyre worriedabout the expansion of the economy or theengagement with the outside world. Andsome stories have worried them Kosovoand Iraq and NATOs outward reach andweapon systems have given Russia quite a

difficult time over the past ten years. Wehavent always handled them as well aswe might have done. But Russia is puttingRussia and Russianness first, and that isuncomfortable for us, and will be for some

time to come.

Q. You spoke about the role of Hezbollahand Lebanon, and you touched upon where

we can anticipate Hezbollah type of organi-

zations taking over from legitimate govern-ments who may have lost the confidence of

their people. Can you elaborate on that and

tell us where were going and what we have

to look forward to?

23


26/34

A. What is happening in non-democracies,in some ways is running in parallel withwhat is happening in democracies in thedevelopment of civil society. But if youdevelop civil society, institutions, in a non-democratic context, and those institutionshave very narrow and quite extreme objec-tives, the process can be the same, in termsof the appeal to society, because civil societysupplies, in a sense, what government doesnot. But the results can be very different.And the people who should be worrying

most about Hezbollah are the governmentsof the countries where Hezbollah or like-minded institutions are beginning to form.

I think were in for a generation of quite

considerable trouble in the Middle East. Atthe moment, the feelings of frustrationamongst the Arab peoples for example, who

believe that their real potential as human beings is not being fulfilled is against the

outside world, those who invented global-ization and increased wealth around them,without giving them any. And when youare talking with them, when we are talkingwith them they will direct their anger to the

outside. But when youre not there, whentheyre talking together, when theyre athome with lights on and eating their sup-per, theyre talking about whats happeningin their immediate community and howtheyre not getting what they need fromtheir own immediate government.

And that is where the real tension is, between the stagnant old, and the newlymotivated movement within Arab and

Islamic societies. Theyre looking for some-thing else, theyre looking for a champion.They are, if you look, spectators or mem-

bers of a football club whose club hasntscored a goal in the last 50 years, let alone

24


27/34

won a match. They are angry, they wantmanagement change, they want changes

in circumstance. Hezbollah are picking onthese motivations, these psychologies, and

beginning to feed them.

And of course the aftermath of the

Israeli-Hezbollah war in Lebanon was anatural opportunity for Hezbollah. Itsbeginning to happen with the Iranian proxymovements in Iraq. Its beginning to hap-pen within Syria and Jordan, and societiesfear in Saudi Arabia. Although, the Saudisecurity system is much tighter then insome of these other countries. And so,were beginning to see, in that context, oneof the examples of governments losingpower, losing their persuasive legitimacy,

and its going to lead to change in theMiddle East.

Ideology plays a role in the appeal of theextremist movements like Al Qaeda, to the

radicals coming in, that there are two moti-vations. One is, that an already radicalizedyoung mind will want to find a group to

join. The other is that an empty youngmind will want to find something to do,

will want to find a captain to follow, achampion to follow. They dont really mindwhat it is, but they hate being unemployed,inactive and undervalued. They want tofind a place where they are valued, even iftheir value is to be expressed by blowingthemselves up and becoming a martyr.

Its the emptiness that I think we shouldbe addressing as well as the already radical-ized, hostile criminal if you like because

theyre potential assassins, psychology. Itsnot actually our job to affect these people,its their own peoples business. Its theirgovernment, their families, their education-al systems, theyre all deficient if they are

25


28/34

not giving each individual an opportunityto play a valued role in society that is with-

in the law rather than outside it.

The governments who are responsiblefor that have largely tried to turn this accu-sation outwards on to the United States, on

to the U.S./U.K. coalition, on to the peoplewho support Israel against Palestine, on tothe people who invaded Iraq. But actuallythose are labels and excuses. What is hap-pening in their societies is something thatwould be happening even if there werentthose instances to point to. Its the fact thattheir societies have not given them some-thing valuable within the law to pursue.

And that is becoming very dangerous

for us, because although the origins of theirmotivation are local and political and social,within their own tribe or their own commu-nity, globalization is exploding that outthrough awareness of what the Great Satan

is doing to Iraq, or what the great superpower is doing with Israel. In their mental-ity its transferred outwards so their angerand their capacity to do harm is globalizing,

but what they really want is local. And

weve got to make the connection betweenthose two, and help the governments either,frankly to change or to do what theyshould be doing in society, without our helpand with our understanding. Indeed with a

deeper understanding then were showingat the moment.

Q. Sir Jeremy, you made reference to theneed for communities which shelter terror-

ists, themselves to be convinced that thatsunacceptable within those communities.

And Im wondering whether there might be

a model in Northern Ireland, where grass-

roots religious leaders negotiated ceasefires

26


29/34

with the IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries,

by convincing them that this violence would

not be should not be accepted within theirown communities, at the grassroots. Is

there a model there that can be used by

extension, in other areas of armed conflict?

A. You answered the first bit of yourquestion, with your second bit. Because Iimmediately said, I must bring inNorthern Ireland to this one. The Britishmilitary could not, and the Northern

Ireland police, could not eradicate vio-lence in Belfast in Northern Ireland, inSouth Amma until the Irish people, theNorthern Ireland community, the Catholicsin that community, the women in that com-munity started to say, Were exhausted byviolence and this is not right. Violence isnot bringing the answer. We do not wantour children just brought into this culture ofviolence.

For 25 years before that happened, from1969 through to 1990 it was really impossi-

ble to eradicate a violence that was so deter-mined to take up the cause, that each newrecruit would follow any particular arrest.

And that is happening in spades in Iraqand in Afghanistan, the Taliban are begin-ning to come back. The societies in thesetwo places, and there are also many others,have not yet decided that theyre exhausted

by violence. And you will not eradicate vio-lence in Iraq until the people themselveschoose to decide theyre exhausted by it.And by that analogy, theyve got 20 years torun in Iraq before they become exhausted.

Q.You invited a question about Iraq. Imnot sure we can let you leave without asking

it. There is no question that within the next

six months, maybe the next six weeks, the

27


30/34

continuation of coalition forces in Iraq will

be front and center on the political stage.

This is really a hotly debated issue. In termsof the impact on terrorism, I wonder it

seems to me there are two core ideas. One

is that if we withdraw if the United States

and the U.K. withdraw from Iraq, that may

take the wind out of the sails of terrorists,because theyve removed one of the moti-

vating factors, one of the incentives, one of

the acts of encouragement by which other

terrorists can be recruited.

The other argument is that much like the

Mujahideen in Afghanistan with Bin Laden

there, and maybe Hezbollah in Beirut

experience a surge in activity, because they

tasted victory. They felt, in the case of

Afghanistan, that theyve chased out thesuper power. I wonder if you have any

thoughts about should the U.S. and the U.K.

start to withdraw, how that will impact

terrorist recruiting?

A. Ill say straight away that I am not anadvocate of withdrawal, and Ill tell youwhy. There are two things that will follow,two main categories of things that will

follow, from a defeat in Iraq and a with-drawal by the coalition forces. One is thatthe violence and the sectarian divisions inthe Iraqi community will immediately getworse, even worse then it is now. And the

place will break down, not into threeparts, its not possible to partition Iraq intothree parts and see it stay at three stableparts. It will go on breaking down in thelocalities under the local militia, under the

local political boss, under the local gang.Each street will look for its own protectorin a way in which we havent really seenin our society since the anarchies of themiddle ages.

28


31/34

But saying that wont actually preventthat happening, except in a much slower

time. And therefore there is a rationale forwithdrawal, because there is a reactionwithin society against the presence of coali-tion troops. But theres another category ofconsequences and that is that the icon of

defeat that withdrawal would be, and themotivation of those who have wanted to dous harm and continue to want to do usharm in our territories, from what theyvelearned against us in Iraq and from the

space they will have to occupy for trainingand for grouping and for launching terroristattacks outside Iraq, is directly against ourinterests. Both the motivation and the prac-titioners opportunity that will be increased

by withdrawing from Iraq is a directU.S./U.K. coalition, national interest.

And that is why we must not withdrawfrom Iraq, unless we do so in staged agree-ment with the elected Iraq government. If

they want us to go, if theyre ready to takeover, if they will help to deal with a phe-nomenon of non-Iraqi terrorism in Iraq,then were ready to leave. If we leave

before that we will double the cost of our

defeat.

Q. My question is what advice do you havefor responsible global business, in light of

the movements and forces youve talked

about?

A. One of my part time jobs is specialadvisor for the BP Group who I advise ongeopolitical trends as well as on political in

the Middle East and elsewhere. And thereare all sorts of answers to give to yourquestion, according to the nature of your

business. But there are two or three thingsthat I think are worth saying. Expect this

29


32/34

next period, we cant look forward I sup-pose, much further then ten years, but

expect this next period to be very disturbed.Make sure that you have the reserves tohold your breath if youre doing business inthe particular community, in the particularpart of the world that is likely to be part of

the disturbance.

Secondly, that the economic opportuni-ties will go on growing. There is a reasonto be in business, theres a reason to beactive, so long as you understand the con-text within which youre working. Andthirdly, particularly for big business, forthe big multi-nationals, create your rela-tionships beyond your immediate business.Know whats going on in particular capitals

through having country heads who under-stand the political environment aroundyour business. Business has to be linear,you have to have a bottom line, and that iswhat most executives are working for.

They often leave it to the C.E.O. himself,the big boss, whoever he is, to have theglobal understanding and the rest of usare just there to deliver to the boss. Thats

not good enough any longer. Everybodysgot to be aware of what is happening later-ally, because the crosswinds are going to bevery strong.

Now whether that means, in your busi-

ness diversify or hedge or get out orwhatever, is entirely up to you. But youvegot to analyze how these disturbances, howthe pace of change is going to affect you.Because there is one new element in power

in this age, whether youre a government ora business with commercial power, adapt-ability is part of that power. You will losethe power without adaptability. Im not try-ing to be gloomy about this, Im just trying

30


33/34

to be sensible about the capabilities whichdecision makers need to have both in the

public sector and in the private sector. Andawareness and adaptability and relation-ships have to be part of our business.

RICHARD ABORN: Well Sir Jeremy I knew

you would be an enlightening speaker, youfar exceeded my expectations. That was justwonderful. And I cant thank you enough.Thank you very much. I

31


34/34

Citizens Crime Commission of New York City, Inc.

217 BroadwayNew York, New York 10007

Documents

Milstein Criminal Justice Policy Forum: The Increase In Ungoverned Space