Keynote Speech Prof. dr. David Baldwin of Princeton University: There are seven basic questions to ask about “security.” Although the answers to these questions change as situations change, the questions are the same for all situations:

1. SECURITY FOR WHOM? There is no single “right” answer to this question. One may want to focus on the security of a single individual, a country, or the whole planet.

2. SECURITY FOR WHICH VALUES? In international relations the traditional answer to this question has been security for the political independence and territorial integrity of the nationstate, but other possible answers include security for economic welfare, for a sustainable ecosphere, etc.

3. HOW MUCH SECURITY? Although some have insisted that security is not a matter of degree, one can and should conceive it as a matter of degree. There are large and small security threats, and it is important to keep them in perspective in order not to overreact.

4. SECURITY FROM WHICH THREATS? In international relations, other actors—state or nonstate—have usually been regarded as the source of security threats. But some have suggested the inclusion of natural disasters—floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.—as security threats. One might even add what might be called threats from “not-sonatural” disasters—e.g., damage to the atmosphere caused by humans.

5. BY WHAT MEANS? The traditional means for pursuing security in international relations has been described as the “threat, use, and control of military force.” Indeed, the field of security studies is frequently defined as the study of the threat, use, and control of military force. This is unfortunate, since there are an infinite variety of means available for the pursuit of security.

6. AT WHAT COST? Although this question is often overlooked, it is one of the most important. The costs of security are not all measureable in monetary terms. There are also moral and political costs. This is a particular problem for liberal democracies, since threats to civil liberties can undermine the very foundation of liberal democracy. The important thing is not to maximize security, but rather to optimize security.

7. IN WHAT TIME PERIOD? Security threats can be immediate or long-term. One of the problems with climate change is that it has a rather long time horizon. Thus, even though President Obama has described climate change as a security threat, the topic never came up in the American presidential debates.

Liberty and Security CEPS paper, November 2015

The paper examines the EU’s counter-terrorism policies responding to the Paris attacks of 13 November 2015. It argues that these events call for a re-think of the current information-sharing and preventive-justice model guiding the EU’s counter-terrorism tools, along with security agencies such as Europol and Eurojust. Priority should be given to independently evaluating ‘what has worked’ and ‘what has not’ when it comes to police and criminal justice cooperation in the Union. Current EU counter-terrorism policies face two challenges: one is related to their efficiency and other concerns their legality. ‘More data’ without the necessary human resources, more effective cross-border operational cooperation and more trust between the law enforcement authorities of EU member states is not an efficient policy response. Large-scale surveillance and preventive justice techniques are also incompatible with the legal and judicial standards developed by the Court of Justice of the EU. The EU can bring further added value first, by boosting traditional policing and criminal justice cooperation to fight terrorism; second, by re-directing EU agencies’ competences towards more coordination and support in cross-border operational cooperation and joint investigations, subject to greater accountability checks (Europol and Eurojust +); and third, by improving the use of policy measures following a criminal justice-led cooperation model focused on improving cross-border joint investigations and the use of information that meets the quality standards of ‘evidence’ in criminal judicial proceedings. Any EU and national counter-terrorism policies must not undermine democratic rule of law, fundamental rights or the EU’s founding constitutional principles, such as the FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS and the Schengen system. Otherwise, these policies will defeat their purpose by generating more insecurity, instability, mistrust and legal uncertainty for all. READ THE WHOLE COMMENTARY.

FACT SHEET: The White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism

This week, the White House is convening a three-day summit on Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) to bring together local, federal, and international leaders – including President Obama and foreign ministers – to discuss concrete steps the United States and its partners can take to develop community-oriented approaches to counter  hateful extremist ideologies that radicalize, recruit or incite to violence.  Violent extremist threats can come from a range of groups and individuals, including domestic terrorists and homegrown violent extremists in the United States, as well as terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and terror groups (ISIL) operating in the Levant area.

Understanding “Countering Violent Extremism”

CVE encompasses the preventative aspects of counterterrorism as well as interventions to undermine the attraction of extremist movements and ideologies that seek to promote violence.  CVE efforts address the root causes of extremism through community engagement, including the following programs:

• Building awareness—including briefings on the drivers and indicators of radicalization and recruitment to violence;countering extremist narratives—directly addressing and countering violent extremist recruitment narratives, such as encouraging civil society-led counter narratives online; and

• Emphasizing Community Led Intervention—empowering community efforts to disrupt the radicalization process before an individual engages in criminal activity.

U.S. Government Policy to Counter Violent Extremism Here at Home

In August 2011, the White House released Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States, the first national strategy to prevent violent extremism domestically.  The underlying premise of the approach to countering violent extremism in the United States is that (1) communities provide the solution to violent extremism; and (2) CVE efforts are best pursued at the local level, tailored to local dynamics, where local officials continue to build relationships within their communities through established community policing and community outreach mechanisms.  The Federal Government’s most effective role in strengthening community partnerships and preventing violent extremism is as a facilitator, convener, and source of research and findings. 

Since the release of the Strategy, local governments and communities around the United States have developed prevention frameworks that address the unique issues facing their local communities.  Three cities—Greater Boston, Los Angeles, and the Twin Cities—with the leadership of representatives from the Federal Government, have created pilot programs to foster partnerships between local government, law enforcement, mayor’s offices, the private sector, local service providers, academia, and many others who can help prevent violent extremism. 

Federal departments and agencies have begun expanding support to local stakeholders and practitioners who are on the ground serving their communities.  Each city created an action plan tailored to addressing the root causes and community needs they identified.  The pilot framework developed by these three cities emphasizes the strength of local communities with the premise that well-informed and well-equipped families, communities, and local institutions represent the best defense against violent extremist ideologies and offers three overarching components.

The Federal Government is supporting these efforts in a number of important ways. In conjunction with the Summit, we are announcing new steps to advance our whole-of-nation CVE efforts, including by:

• Appointing the first-ever senior level, full-time CVE Coordinator at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS);

• Establishing, in partnership with the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles-based Office for Strategic Engagement and committed on-the-ground dedicated staff to facilitate information sharing, engagement with local partners, strengthening of community and law enforcement partnerships, and the local establishment of prevention and intervention frameworks.  Due to the successes in Los Angeles, DHS on-the-ground engagement staff will be expanded in 2015 to Boston and other municipalities across the country;

• Seeking $15 million in appropriated funding for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to support community-led efforts to build resilience and counter violent extremism in the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2016;

• Awarding nearly $3.5 million in National Institute of Justice research and evaluation grants to address domestic radicalization to violent extremism for the third year;

• Leading a workshop with the creative arts community and community leaders in Los Angeles to develop innovative, scalable and implementable programs and tools to counter violent extremism.  In 2015, these new programs and tools will include film training for disadvantaged youth and a “CVE Hub” that will be a non-governmental organization to connect, network, organize, and drive community groups, funders, academics, and the tech sector towards long-term, sustainable, creative, and nimble solutions for domestic CVE;

• Sponsoring a joint DHS and DOJ symposium for local partners to collaborate and share best practices on intervention and prevention framework development and implementation in 2015; and

• Joining Canada and the United Kingdom to bring together researchers from four robust and comprehensive research programs to deliver practical, timely and plainspoken results to practitioners. This international compilation will ensure the best results are validated and shared with those who need them most.

U.S. Government Policy to Counter Violent Extremism Globally

The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA):  At the United Nations in September 2014, President Obama called on member nations to do more to address violent extremism within their regions. He also asked that they return in 2015 with concrete steps taken to address “the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism.”  The White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism is the first of many events leading up to UNGA in September 2015, through which the United States and its partners will develop actions to counter the most immediate threats, including ISIL, and stop the spread of violent extremism.

Ministers from nearly 70 countries, the UN Secretary-General, senior officials from other multilateral bodies, and representatives from civil society and the private sector will gather during the Ministerial segments of the Summit to develop a comprehensive action plan against violent extremism.  They will also chart a path for progress that will include regional summits, aimed at taking concrete steps to prevent violent extremism in the lead up to UNGA 2015.  This week’s Summit offers an opportunity to approach CVE in a comprehensive way and build upon the framework of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, which encourages the UN and other multilateral bodies to intensify efforts to identify and address the local drivers of violent extremism.

Focusing on Foreign Fighter Recruitment:  CVE is also a key component of the U.S. Government’s strategy to combat foreign terrorist fighters.  Internationally, there is an unprecedented flow of foreign terrorist fighters to Syria and Iraq, with more than 20,000 foreign fighters from more than 90 nations traveling to Syria since the beginning of the conflict, including at least 3,400 from the West. 

To complement the CVE discussions to prevent terrorist and other extremist recruitment and radicalization and implement other aspects of UN Security Council Resolution 2178, the Resolution that emerged from the Security Council session President Obama chaired last year, the Department of State is hosting an Information Sharing Ministerial on the margins of the Summit. The Ministerial is focusing on actionable steps to disrupt foreign terrorist fighters travel to and from conflict zones. 

Additionally, the United States next week will host the Global Counterterrorism Forum’s Foreign Terrorist Fighter Working Group workshop “Raising Community Awareness to Address the Foreign Terrorist Fighter Phenomenon” to focus on ways in which communities and governments can develop specific programs and efforts to address the issue of foreign terrorist fighters.

Widening the Global Base of CVE Stakeholders

Social Media Solutions:  The U.S. Government, in partnership with foreign governments, civil society, and the private sector, is working to weaken the legitimacy and resonance of violent extremist messaging and narratives, including through social media.  The Summit will identify concrete ways to build upon ongoing initiatives aimed at countering extremists' perverse message and new and innovative solutions to the challenges posed by violent extremists, especially online.  For example:

• The United States is partnering with the United Arab Emirates to establish a digital communications hub that will counter ISIL’s propaganda and recruitment efforts, both directly and through engagement with civil society, community, and religious leaders. 

• The State Department is launching a Peer-to-Peer Challenge to empower university students in the United States, Canada, North Africa, Middle East, Europe, Australia, and Asia to develop digital content that counters violent extremist messaging.

• The United States and our partners in the private sector are organizing multiple “technology camps” in the coming months, in which social media companies will work with governments, civil society, and religious leaders to develop digital content that discredits violent extremist narratives and amplifies positive alternatives.  The Summit will provide an opportunity to explore further collaboration with the information technology industry on empowering moderate voices and undermining violent extremists.

• The United States has designated a Special Envoy for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications at the Department of State to drive U.S. Government efforts aimed at discrediting terrorists’ propaganda and degrading their ability to disseminate messages and recruit fighters, with a particular focus on ISIL. 

Religious Leaders and Faith Community Engagement:  The United States works with religious leaders and faith communities around the world to address both religious and non-religious causes of violence and extremism, including by working with religious leaders on projects emphasizing peace, tolerance, and coexistence at the community level and training religious leaders on outreach to at-risk youth. 

Civil Society:  In September 2013, President Obama launched Stand with Civil Society, a global call to action to support, defend, and sustain civil society.  Working in partnership with other governments, the philanthropic community, and multilateral initiatives, the United States is fostering supportive and permissive environments in support of a vibrant civil society and identifying innovative ways to inject technical, financial, and logistical support into this space.  The Summit will explore opportunities for civil society to be a still more active partner in efforts to build local partnerships against violent extremism.

Youth Engagement:  The United States is supporting young leaders in the Middle East and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, including through projects that provide youth a sense of belonging, as well as technical skills and vocational training, scholarships, opportunities for civic engagement, and leadership training.  As part of these efforts, the United States trains, mentors, and provides seed funding to young leaders, for example, who are working to counter extremists’ narratives, reintegrate former violent extremists, and promote tolerance and non-violent dispute resolution. 

Tonight, I addressed the nation from the Oval Office on my top priority as President: Keeping the American people safe.

It weighs heavily on the hearts and minds of all of us in the wake of the terrible tragedy in San Bernardino. Fourteen Americans -- dads, moms, daughters, sons -- were taken from us as they came together to celebrate the holidays. Each of them a public servant. All of them a part of our American family.

The FBI is still gathering the facts about what happened in San Bernardino, but here is what we know. We have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home. But it is clear that these killers had embraced a perversion of Islam, stockpiled assault weapons, and committed an act of terrorism.

But over the last few years, the threat has evolved as terrorists have turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all-too common in our society. For the past seven years, I have confronted the evolution of this threat each morning. Your security is my greatest responsibility. And I know that, after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.

So, tonight, this is what I want you to know: The threat of terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Here's how:

Second, we will continue to provide training and equipment to Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens. In both countries, we are deploying Special Operations forces who can accelerate that offensive.

Third, we are leading a coalition of 65 countries to stop ISIL's operations by disrupting plots, cutting off their financing, and preventing them from recruiting more fighters.

Fourth, with American leadership, the international community has established a process and timeline to pursue cease-fires and a political resolution to the Syrian civil war. Doing so will allow the Syrian people and every country to focus on the common goal of destroying ISIL.

That is our strategy -- designed and supported by military commanders, counter-terrorism experts, and countries committed to defeating these terrorists. And we constantly examine further steps needed to get the job done. That is why I have ordered the Departments of State and Homeland Security to review the visa program under which the female terrorist in San Bernardino originally came to this country. And that is why I will urge high tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice.

Here at home, we can do more together to immediately address this challenge.

To start, Congress should act to make sure that no one on a No Fly List is able to buy a gun. What possible argument can be made for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measure, but no matter how effective our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, we cannot identify every would-be mass shooter. What we can do, and must do, is make it harder for them to kill.

Next, we should put in place stronger screening for those who come to America without a visa so that we can know if they've traveled to war zones. And finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, then it should vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists.

This is what we should do. But I'd like to also say a word about what we should not do.

We should not be drawn once again into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria. That's what groups like ISIL want. We also cannot turn against one another by letting this fight become a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want. ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers, and account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims around the world who reject their hateful ideology.

If we are to succeed in defeating terrorism, we must enlist Muslim communities as our strongest allies in rooting out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization. It is the responsibility of all Americans -- of every faith -- to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It is our responsibility to reject language that encourages suspicion or hate. Because that kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values, plays into the hands of groups like ISIL. We have to remember that.

I am confident America will succeed in this mission because we are on the right side of history. Even as we debate our differences, let's make sure we never forget what makes us exceptional: We were founded upon a belief in human dignity -- the idea that no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what religion you practice, you are equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law.

Let's not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear. That we have always met challenges -- whether war or depression; natural disasters or terrorist attacks -- by coming together around our common ideals. As long as we stay true to who we are, then I have no doubt that America will prevail.

Thank you,
President Barack Obama

6-12-2015

How Fragile/Stable is the Global Nuclear Order? Is the global nuclear order more stable, or alternatively more fragile, than it was at the beginning of the 21st Century?  Is the web of agreements, institutions, and actions that has constrained the spread and use of nuclear weapons be as tenuous today as the political landscape of the Middle East was in December 2010—when most intelligence agencies, investors, and experts expected the decade ahead to be more or less like the decade that had proceeded it?  Could it be as fragile as the Euro is today?

Because of the NSS's, a timeline was prepared, that provides a comprehensive overview of key events in nuclear history. It traces the long legacy of nuclear security threats and policies and puts these developments in a broader context. Events covered span a wide range of fields, including scientific developments, nuclear power, (non-)proliferation efforts and safety and security issues.

The global dimension of contemporary terrorist threats has raised the demand for resilient transatlantic cooperation and boundary-crossing interventions to combat radicalization and terrorism. It is about security, stability, freedom and democracy and therefore we refuse to be intimidated by an enemy. In the context of the third Nuclear Security Summit in 2014, there were also meetings in which integral and specific attention was given to the theme and agenda of the NSS. Internationally renowned experts took care of keynotes and there were colleges 'Nuclear Security & Diplomacy', ' Nuclear Security & Global Governance' and ' Nuclear Security & Decision Making. However, for purposes of assessment, the following should be considered:

• relentless advance of science and technology and accelerating diffusion of nuclear know-how
• growing specter of "megaterrorism"
• North Korea's expanding nuclear weapons program
• Iran's success in crossing successive red lines as it develops its nuclear weapons options
• Pakistan's ticking nuclear time bomb
• eroding confidence in non-profileration regime
• mounting evidence for those who believe nuclear weapons enhance their security
• continental risk of "loose nukes"; weaponsand materials
• potential "renaissance" in nuclear energy production
• wildcards: failure to imagine unknown unknowns"

• how many nuclear weapons states 25 years ago? How many today?
• Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction: Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Russia
• Nuclear Security Summits: Washington, Seoul, and The Hague
• 52, 38, 25, X
• Al Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan decimated
• Iran: best prospects for agreement in a decade
• resilience and adaptation of guardians of the global nuclear order
• Ukraine as an example

Since the shocking events 10 years ago (UNSC res. 1368), the international security environment has been subject to constant change. Support of the rest of the world, including Russia, is therefore appreciated. Security is not only military, but it is also embedded in social life. To work for a better world, a more secure place for everyone we have to focus the achievements on partnership in the area of security. We have to look back if we will look forward. Not only the political map of the world changed ten years ago, but the impact did also change ourselves.

The response is focussed on prevention and a comprehensive response. The resistance movement diminished as far as an unimportant small group and concerning tab, there is hope the world will be freed of it in the future. It can be said that the negative impact has failed: muslims too has become victims.

• meeting support to member-states, creating networks, establishment of several agencies (e.g. Europol, Frontex, PNR (passengers name record) and TFTS (Terrorist Finance Tracking System);
• agreements achieved in the matter of an European Arrest Warrant, an Evidence Warrant, data-collection and US_EU Joint Declarations 21 January 2010 on Aviation Security and 3 June 2010 on Counterterrorism.
• infrastructure, transport, border.

Having a counterterrorism strategy is vital. Investing in more and more creativity in preventing terrorism before it happens with respect for human rights and law is a facet. We should for instance also reinforce data collection and data protection and invest in more public private partnerships (PPP's), develop better research in the field of security, including cybersecurity, work on better integration of internal and external aspects of security. EU_US cooperation on counterterrorism is necessary. After all, there were links between Amsterdam, Detroit, Hamburg with foreign fighters.