DOCSLIB.ORG

The Fight Against Terrorism Cost of Non-Europe Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Fight Against Terrorism Cost of Non-Europe Report The fight against terrorism Cost of Non-Europe Report STUDY EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Authors: Wouter van Ballegooij and Piotr Bakowski European Added Value Unit PE 621.817 - May 2018 The Cost of Non-Europe in the fight against terrorism Study Abstract In the wake of recent attacks, surveys show that combating terrorism while respecting individual freedom, remains one of the key concerns of EU citizens. The EU helps to fight terrorism through supporting national measures and exchanges to prevent radicalisation and recruitment, stronger measures against terrorist financing and the possession and acquisition of weapons and explosives, and strengthening security at the Union's external borders. It also supports operational cooperation between national law enforcement authorities, as well as harmonising terrorism related provisions in criminal law and procedure. This includes active cooperation with third countries and international organisations. This Cost of Non-Europe report identifies a number of gaps and barriers regarding accountability, oversight and the evidence provided to support policy and law-making, including counter-radicalisation programmes, the scope of action related to the disruption of terrorist financing, information sharing between Member States through various EU and national databases, the use of judicial cooperation tools and the capacities of EU agencies. EU action could address these effectiveness and fundamental rights protection gaps by developing an evidence-based EU criminal policy cycle involving the European Parliament and national parliaments. It is also argued that the effectiveness and fundamental rights compliance of counter-radicalisation programmes should be further monitored; the framework for countering terrorist financing needs to be further refined; and that finally, a European law enforcement culture should be fostered. Further EU action in the area is imperative since, besides the impact on victims and their families, terrorism has a negative effect on the wellbeing of the population as a whole, affecting people's life satisfaction, happiness, health, and trust within communities. It is estimated that since 2004, terrorism has cost the EU about €185 billion in lost GDP and around €5.6 billion in lost lives, injuries and damages to infrastructure. It also harms trade, foreign direct investment, and tourism. At the same time, certain measures taken to combat terrorism have had a disproportionate impact on suspects and wider groups within society, in violation of fundamental rights, as well as being counterproductive. EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Cost of Non-Europe Report AUTHORS The initial analysis was undertaken by Wouter van Ballegooij, of the European Added Value Unit, and Piotr Bakowski, of the Members' Research Service, both in the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS). The annexed paper was produced by RAND at the request of EPRS. ABOUT THE PUBLISHER This paper has been drawn up by the European Added Value Unit of the Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value, within the Directorate–General for Parliamentary Research Services of the Secretariat of the European Parliament. The authors would like to thank Berten Kempen for his assistance. LANGUAGE VERSIONS Original: EN DISCLAIMER The content of this document is the sole responsibility of the authors and any opinions expressed therein do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. It is addressed to the Members and staff of the EP for their parliamentary work. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy. This document is available on the internet at: www.europarl.eu/thinktank Manuscript completed in May 2018. Brussels © European Union, 2018. PE 621.817 ISBN: 978-92-846-2949-7 DOI:10.2861/550497 QA-01-18-524-EN-N 4 The fight against terrorism Table of Contents Background and methodology 2 Executive summary 5 1. State of play, gaps and barriers in EU action and cooperation in the fight against terrorism 8 1.1. International standards 10 1.2. EU action and cooperation 13 1.2.1. Counterterrorism in post-Lisbon environment 13 1.2.2. The EU policy and legislative framework on counterterrorism 15 1.3. Barriers and gaps identified in effective fight against terrorism 18 1.3.1. Gaps in accountability, oversight and evidence-based policy and law making 19 1.3.2. Gaps in the evidence base for anti-radicalisation programmes 21 1.3.3. Barriers to disrupting terrorist financing 23 1.3.4. Lack of operational cooperation between law enforcement authorities 26 1.3.5. Lack of cooperation with EU agencies 29 2. Impacts of terrorism and counterterrorism measures 32 2.1. Impacts of terrorism 33 2.2. Impacts of counterterrorism measures 40 3. Options for action and cooperation at EU level that could address the gaps and barriers 44 3.1. Developing an evidence-based EU criminal policy cycle 44 3.2. Strengthening the effectiveness and fundamental rights compliance of counter-radicalisation programmes 46 3.3. Further refining the framework for countering terrorist financing 47 3.4. Moving towards a European law enforcement culture 49 Annex I - Research Paper on the Cost of Non-Europe in the Fight against Terrorism 55 List of tables Table 1: Impacts of terrorism and counterterrorism measures....................................... 33 Table 2: Estimated human and physical capital cost of terrorism in the EU-28 ............ 34 Table 3: Estimated GDP cost of terrorism in the EU-28................................................ 37 Table 4: Estimated total human capital, physical capital and GDP cost by EU Member State.................................................................................................................. 42 List of figures Figure 1: International passenger traffic flown by European airlines ............................ 39 1 Cost of Non-Europe Report Background and methodology The notion of the 'Cost of Non-Europe' was introduced by Michel Albert and James Ball in a 1983 report commissioned by the European Parliament. It was also a central element of a 1988 study carried out for the European Commission by the Italian economist Paolo Cecchini on the cost of non-Europe in the single market.1 This approach was revisited in a Cost of Non-Europe in the single market report of 2014.2 In the latest Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-making, it was agreed that analysis of the potential 'European added value' of any proposed Union action, as well as an assessment of the 'cost of non-Europe' in the absence of action at Union level, should be fully taken into account when setting the legislative agenda.3 Cost of Non-Europe (CoNE) reports are designed to examine the possibilities for gains and/or the realisation of a 'public good' through common action at EU level in specific policy areas and sectors. They attempt to identify areas that are expected to benefit most from deeper EU integration, and for which the EU's added value is potentially significant. On 4 October 2016, coordinators of the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) requested that the European Added Value Unit within the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) produce a report on the Cost of Non-Europe in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. In response to that request, the European Added Value Unit is preparing a report that will give an overview of the current state of play in the main policy areas covered by the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) within the competence of the LIBE Committee. The report will map the current gaps and barriers and estimate their impacts in terms of both economic impacts and impacts on individuals in terms of protecting their fundamental rights and freedoms.4 Finally, in accordance with the Treaties it will provide options for action at EU level to address the identified gaps and barriers together with an estimation of their potential costs and benefits. 1 Commission on the European Communities, Europe 1992, the Overall Challenge, SEC (1988) 524. 2 Zsolt Pataki, The Cost of Non-Europe in the Single Market, Cecchini Revisited, An overview of the potential economic gains from further completion of the European Single Market, EPRS, European Parliament, September 2014. 3 Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making, OJ L 123, 12 May 2016, p. 1–14. 4 Cf Claude Moraes, A Europe of Costs and Values in the Criminal Justice Area, EUCRIM 2016/2, p. 88. The author notes that 'Nowadays, in the context of global economic and humanitarian crises, many voices are questioning the role and the very existence of the Union. It is therefore time to look back on Professor Cecchini's report and reflect on the cost of non-Europe in the area of freedom, security and justice in order to calculate its economic value – not always an easy task – and the cost to citizens in terms of their fundamental rights and freedoms'. 2 The fight against terrorism The following areas will be covered in the report: 1. Asylum, migration, border control; 2. Police and judicial cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism; and 3. Fundamental rights. A number of relevant studies have already been published covering the added value of an EU mechanism to monitor and enforce democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in the Member States and within EU institutions;5 the benefits of further EU action and cooperation to ensure free movement within the Schengen Area;6 enhanced police and judicial cooperation in the fight against organised crime and corruption;7 procedural rights and detention conditions;8 as well as equality and the fight against racism and xenophobia.9 A briefing summarising the interim results was produced in October 2017.10 This Cost of Non-Europe report specifically focuses on EU action and cooperation in the fight against terrorism.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 10 Years of Eu Counter-Terrorism
    A DECADE OF EU COUNTER-TERRORISM AND INTELLIGENCE: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION Dr Javier Argomaniz (University of St Andrews), Dr OldrichBures (Metropolitan University Prague) & Dr Christian Kaunert (University of Salford & European University Institute Florence) The Treaty on the European Union (EU) stipulates that one of the key objectives of the Union is to provide citizens with a high level of safety within an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). Given the fact that the fight against terrorism is a prominent aspect of this general objective, it is remarkable that, in spite of its political relevance and decade-long history, it has only relatively recently received due attention in the academic community1. Only a handful of post-9/11 edited volumes and special issues have focused on specific aspects of the EU counterterrorism efforts2 and initial monographs on the subject have only been relatively recently published by the three editors behind this special issue: Argomaniz3 has produced a theoretically informed assessment of the coherence of the EU response, Bures4 has examined the extent to which the EU can offer an added 1 A selection of relevant contributions would include: Monica den Boer and JörgMonar, ‘Keynote Article: 11 September and the Challenge of Global Terrorism to the EU as a Security Actor’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40/4 (2002), pp. 11-28; John Occhipinti, The Politics of EU Police Cooperation: Towards a European FBI?(Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2003); Edwin Bakker ‘Differences in Terrorist Threat Perceptions in Europe’, in DieterMahncke and JörgMonar (eds.) International Terrorism.A European Response to a Global Threat? (Brussels: P.I.E Peter Lang, 2006); Daniel KeohaneThe EU and counter-terrorism (London: CER, 2005); DoronZimmermann, D., “The European Union and Post-9/11 Counterterrorism: A Reappraisal”, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 29/1, (2006),pp.
    [Show full text]
  • From Criminals to Terrorists and Back?
    FROM CRIMINALS TO TERRORISTS AND BACK? KICK-OFF REPORT www.globsec.org AUTHORS Kacper Rekawek, Head of Defence and Security Programme, GLOBSEC Policy Institute Stanislav Matejka, Junior Research Fellow, Defence and Security Programme, GLOBSEC Policy Institute Martina Babikova, GLOBSEC Policy Institute Tomas Nagy, Research Fellow, Defence and Security Programme, GLOBSEC Policy Institute Jakub Rafay, GLOBSEC Policy Institute Design by Peter Verček, GLOBSEC The following distinguished partners were consulted in the process of preparation of this report. The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. • Austria - Daniela Pisoiu • Bulgaria - Rositsa Dzhekova, Nadya Stoynova • France - Olivier de France, Damien Saverot, Pierre Colomina • Germany - Matenia Sirseloudi • Greece - Eleni Fotou • Ireland - Orla Lynch • Italy - Marco Lombardi, Giovanni Giacalone, Nicolò Spagna • Netherlands - Jessica Sciarone, Bart Schuurman • Spain - Fernando Reinares, Carola García Calvo, Álvaro Vicente • United Kingdom - John Morrison, Aleksandra Łojek The project is funded under PMI IMPACT, a global grant initiative of Philip Morris International to support projects against illegal trade. GLOBSEC is fully independent in implementing the project and has editorial responsibility for all views and opinions expressed herein. CONTENTS PROJECT SUMMARY 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 FROM CRIMINALS TO TERRORISTS AND BACK? 10 INTRODUCING CRIME-TERROR NEXUS 10 RESEARCHING THE CRIME-TERROR NEXUS: CHALLENGES 12 RESEARCHING THE NEXUS: WHAT IS NEXT?
    [Show full text]
  • Iran, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
    Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 31:169–181, 2008 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1057-610X print / 1521-0731 online DOI: 10.1080/10576100701878424 Iran, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction DANIEL BYMAN Center for Peace and Security Studies Georgetown University Washington, DC, USA and Saban Center for Middle East Policy Brookings Institution Washington, DC, USA This article reviews Iran’s past and current use of terrorism and assesses why U.S. attempts to halt Iran’s efforts have met with little success. With this assessment in mind, it argues that Iran is not likely transfer chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons to terrorist groups for several reasons. First, providing terrorists with such unconventional Downloaded By: [Georgetown University] At: 15:20 19 March 2008 weapons offers Iran few tactical advantages as these groups are able to operate effectively with existing methods and weapons. Second, Iran has become more cautious in its backing of terrorists in recent years. And third, Tehran is highly aware that any major escalation in its support for terrorism would incur U.S. wrath and international condemnation. The article concludes by offering recommendations for decreasing Iran’s support for terrorism. Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran has been one of the world’s most active sponsors of terrorism. Tehran has armed, trained, financed, inspired, organized, and otherwise supported dozens of violent groups over the years.1 Iran has backed not only groups in its Persian Gulf neighborhood, but also terrorists and radicals in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Bosnia, the Philippines, and elsewhere.2 This support remains strong even today: the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligence, Emergencies and Foreign Policy the EU's Role in Counter-Terrorism
    essays Intelligence, emergencies and foreign policy: The EU’s role in counter-terrorism # Hugo Brady about the CER The Centre for European Reform is a think-tank devoted to improving the quality of the debate on the European Union. It is a forum for people with ideas from Britain and across the continent to discuss the many political, economic and social challenges facing Europe. It seeks to work with Intelligence, similar bodies in other European countries, North America and elsewhere in the world. The CER is pro-European but not uncritical. It regards European integration as largely beneficial but recognises that in many respects the Union does not work well. The CER therefore aims to emergencies promote new ideas for reforming the European Union. Director: CHARLES GRANT ADVISORY BOARD and foreign GIULIANO AMATO.............................................................................................. Former Italian Prime Minister ANTONIO BORGES..................................................................................................... Former Dean of INSEAD NICK BUTLER .................................................................. Senior Policy Adviser to Prime Minister Gordon Brown IAIN CONN ................................... Group Managing Director and Chief Executive, Refining & Marketing, BP p.l.c. LORD HANNAY.................................................................................... Former Ambassador to the UN & the EU policy LORD HASKINS .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Secrecy Reigns at the EU's Intelligence Analysis Centre
    Analysis Secrecy reigns at the EU’s Intelligence Analysis Centre Chris Jones The Centre's reports are widely distributed within the EU and have a direct bearing on political decision-making despite an alarming lack of operational transparency and democratic accountability. The EU Intelligence Analysis Centre (INTCEN) is the most recent name for an institution that has existed in a number of forms since 1999. It monitors events both inside and outside the EU in order to provide “intelligence analyses, early warning and situational awareness” to EU institutions and Member States in the fields of security, defence and counter-terrorism. While it remains relatively small and lacks a clear legal basis, the agency’s size and remit have expanded over the years. INTCEN’s work often influences political decision-making, raising questions over whether the secrecy surrounding the institution’s work is acceptable. History of INTCEN INTCEN became part of the European External Action Service (EEAS) in 2010, but has a far longer history. Its origins, as “a structure working exclusively on open source intelligence,” lie in the Western European Union (WEU), an intergovernmental military alliance that officially disbanded in June 2011 after its functions were gradually transferred over the last decade to the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy. [1] The exact date that INTCEN’s predecessor organisation began its work within the WEU is unknown. With the establishment of the European Security and Defence Policy in 1999 it was transferred to the EU along with the EU Military Staff (EUMS) (the EU’s “source of military expertise” [2] which is responsible for organising “concepts, doctrine, capability planning and capability development including crisis management exercises, training, analysis and lessons learned.”) [3] Some years later, the EUMS Intelligence Division began to work with INTCEN.
    [Show full text]
  • The Refugee Crisis Is Being Blamed for the Terrorist Attacks in Europe. by Nolan Rappaport PEW RESEARCH CENTER SURVEY Connection
    The refugee crisis is being blamed for the terrorist attacks in Europe. By Nolan Rappaport PEW RESEARCH CENTER SURVEY Connection between the refugee crisis and terrorism. According to a recent Pew Research Center (PEW)1 survey,2 the refugee crisis and terrorism in the European Union (EU) are very much related to one another in the minds of many Europeans. In eight of the 10 European nations surveyed, 50% or more of the people who participated in the survey believed that letting refugees into the EU had increased the likelihood of terrorism. 3 Increase in migration to EU countries. In 2015 alone, more than a million migrants applied for refugee status in the EU. Most of them came from primarily Muslim countries, such as Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.4 When the survey asked specifically whether these Muslim migrants supported extremist groups like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), most of the people surveyed responded that they did not think such groups had widespread support in the Muslim communities. On the other hand, in no country did a majority say “very few” Muslims supported ISIS; and in five countries, a quarter or more said many or most Muslims did.5 No correlation was found between fear that refugees were bringing terrorists with them and the number of refugees coming into a country. Poland only has had a few thousand refugee applications in the past year, but 73% of the people surveyed in Poland said refugees were a major threat. In contrast, Germany has had several hundred thousand applications, and just 31% of the Germans surveyed were concerned about the refugees.
    [Show full text]
  • International Terrorism and Europe
    Chaillot Papers December 2002 n°56 International terrorism and Europe Thérèse Delpech In January 2002 the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) beca- me an autonomous Paris-based agency of the European Union. Following an EU Council Joint Action of 20 July 2001, it is now an integral part of the new structures that will support the further development of the CFSP/ESDP. The Institute’s core mission is to provide analyses and recommendations that can be of use and relevance to the formulation of EU policies. In carrying out that mission, it also acts as an interface between experts and decision-makers at all levels. The EUISS is the successor to the WEU Institute for Security Studies, set up in 1990 by the WEU Council to foster and sti- mulate a wider discussion of security issues across Europe. Chaillot Papers are monographs on topical questions written either by a member of the ISS research team or by outside authors chosen and commissioned by the Institute. Early drafts are normally discussed at a semi- nar or study group of experts convened by the Institute and publication indicates that the paper is considered by the ISS as a useful and authoritative contribution to the debate on CFSP/ESDP. Responsibility for the views expressed in them lies exclusively with authors. Chaillot Papers are also accessible via the Institute’s Website: www.iss-eu.org Chaillot Papers December 2002 n°56 The original French version is also available International terrorism and Europe Thérèse Delpech Institute for Security Studies European Union Paris The author Thérèse Delpech is Director for Strategic Affairs at France’s Commissariat à l’Energie atomique, Commissioner at UNMOVIC (UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission for Iraq) and associate researcher at the Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches internationales (CERI).
    [Show full text]
  • Mental Health and Terrorism
    Combating Terrorism Center at West Point Objective • Relevant • Rigorous | January 2017 • Volume 10, Issue 1 FEATURE ARTICLE A VIEW FROM THE CT FOXHOLE Mental Health and Peter Edge and Terrorism Wil van Gemert U.S. Immigration and Customs Is there a link between Islamic State terror and mental illness? Enforcement Acting Deputy Director Emily Corner and Paul Gill and Europol Deputy Director FEATURE ARTICLE 1 Is There a Nexus Between Terrorist Involvement and Mental Health in the Editor in Chief Age of the Islamic State? Paul Cruickshank Emily Corner and Paul Gill Managing Editor INTERVIEW Kristina Hummel 11 A View from the CT Foxhole: Peter Edge, ICE Acting Deputy Director, and Wil van Gemert, Europol Deputy Director EDITORIAL BOARD Paul Cruickshank Colonel Suzanne Nielsen, Ph.D. Department Head ANALYSIS Dept. of Social Sciences (West Point) 17 Fighting the Long War: The Evolution of al-Qa`ida in the Arabian Peninsula Michael Horton Lieutenant Colonel Bryan Price, Ph.D. Director, CTC 23 Drone, Counter Drone: Observations on the Contest Between the United States and Jihadis Brian Dodwell Don Rassler Deputy Director, CTC 28 Sub-Saharan Africa’s Three “New” Islamic State Afliates Jason Warner CONTACT Combating Terrorism Center U.S. Military Academy The deadly attack at Fort Lauderdale airport earlier this month by an indi- 607 Cullum Road, Lincoln Hall vidual claiming to have been influenced by voices he heard and to have acted on behalf of the Islamic State has renewed attention on the nexus West Point, NY 10996 between terrorism and mental health. In our cover article, Emily Corner and Paul Gill explore what Phone: (845) 938-8495 they argue are complex and often misunderstood links.
    [Show full text]
  • Right-Wing Violent Extremism and Terrorism in Europe – an Overview
    Seventh meeting of the Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group on Europol – video conference, 28 and 29 September 2020 Memo: Right-wing violent extremism and terrorism in Europe – an overview I. Background In October 2019 the Justice and Home Affairs Council agreed to work on four priority issues, namely creating a better situational overview, continuing to develop and share good practices for strengthening the prevention, detection and addressing of violent extremism and terrorism, addressing the spread of unlawful right-wing extremist content online and offline and cooperating with key third countries. At the present time there is no EU-wide uniform definition of violent right-wing extremism and terrorism. The present legal position is that Europol assists member states in combating right- wing extremism and terrorism, particularly by promoting analytical capacity and exchanges of information through the European Counter Terrorism Centre (ECTC). Member states also use the Europol analysis project Dolphin for providing relevant data on right-wing extremism and terrorism. Operational meetings are also held on various areas of activity. In addition, the Europol Information System (EIS) remains available to provide instant information and highlight international aspects of criminal police cases. II. The present situation According to the latest EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report, dated 23 June 2020, three EU member states provided information on a total of six right-wing terrorist attacks in the EU in 2019. One of these was completed (United Kingdom), one failed (Lithuania) and four were foiled (three in the UK and one in Poland). Germany, the report states, also reported two attacks carried out by right-wing extremists, but these were not classifiable as terrorism in German law.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament
    Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Annual Report 2016–2017 Chair: The Rt. Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Annual Report 2016–2017 Chair: The Rt. Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP Presented to Parliament pursuant to sections 2 and 3 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 20 December 2017 HC 655 © Crown copyright 2017 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/version/3 Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at isc.independent.gov.uk Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us via our webform at isc.independent.gov.uk/contact ISBN 978-1-5286-0168-9 CCS1217631642 12/17 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office THE INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE OF PARLIAMENT This Report reflects the work of the previous Committee,1 which sat from September 2015 to May 2017: The Rt. Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP (Chair) The Rt. Hon. Richard Benyon MP The Most Hon. the Marquess of Lothian QC PC (from 21 October 2016) The Rt. Hon. Sir Alan Duncan KCMG MP The Rt. Hon. Fiona Mactaggart MP (until 17 July 2016) The Rt. Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • What the Terrorist Campaign in France and Belgium Tells Us About the Future of Jihadist Terrorism in Europe MTI Report 12-02 December 2012 December 12-02 MTI Report
    MTI Trains, Concert Halls, Airports, and Restaurants—All Soft Targets: Funded by U.S. Department of Services Transit Census California of Water 2012 Transportation What the Terrorist Campaign in France and Belgium Tells Us About the Future of Jihadist Terrorism in Europe MTI ReportMTI 12-02 December 2012 MTI Report WP 12-10 MINETA TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE MTI FOUNDER Hon. Norman Y. Mineta The Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) was established by Congress in 1991 as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act (ISTEA) and was reauthorized under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century (TEA-21). MTI then successfully MTI BOARD OF TRUSTEES competed to be named a Tier 1 Center in 2002 and 2006 in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Most recently, MTI successfully competed in the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011 to Founder, Honorable Norman Joseph Boardman (Ex-Officio) Diane Woodend Jones (TE 2016) Richard A. White (Ex-Officio) be named a Tier 1 Transit-Focused University Transportation Center. The Institute is funded by Congress through the United States Mineta (Ex-Officio) Chief Executive Officer Principal and Chair of Board Interim President and CEO Department of Transportation’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), University Transportation Secretary (ret.), US Department of Amtrak Lea+Elliot, Inc. American Public Transportation Transportation Association (APTA) Centers Program, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and by private grants and donations. Vice Chair Anne Canby (TE 2017) Will Kempton (TE 2016) Hill & Knowlton, Inc. Director Executive Director Bud Wright (Ex-Officio) OneRail Coalition California Transportation Executive Director The Institute receives oversight from an internationally respected Board of Trustees whose members represent all major surface Honorary Chair, Honorable Bill Commission American Association of State transportation modes.
    [Show full text]
  • JIHADIST TERRORISM 17 YEARS AFTER 9/11 a Threat Assessment
    PETER BERGEN AND DAVID STERMAN JIHADIST TERRORISM 17 YEARS AFTER 9/11 A Threat Assessment SEPTEMBER 2018 About the Author(s) Acknowledgments Peter Bergen is a journalist, documentary producer, The authors would like to thank Wesley Je�eries, John vice president for global studies & fellows at New Luebke, Melissa Salyk-Virk, Daiva Scovil, and Tala Al- America, CNN national security analyst, professor of Shabboot for their research support on this paper. The practice at Arizona State University where he co- authors also thank Alyssa Sims and Albert Ford, who directs the Center on the Future of War, and the co-authored the previous year’s assessment which author or editor of seven books, three of which were forms the basis of much of this report. New York Times bestsellers and four of which were named among the best non-�ction books of the year by The Washington Post. David Sterman is a senior policy analyst at New America and holds a master's degree from Georgetown’s Center for Security Studies. About New America We are dedicated to renewing America by continuing the quest to realize our nation’s highest ideals, honestly confronting the challenges caused by rapid technological and social change, and seizing the opportunities those changes create. About International Security The International Security program aims to provide evidence-based analysis of some of the thorniest questions facing American policymakers and the public. We are focused on South Asia and the Middle East, extremist groups such as ISIS, al Qaeda and allied groups, the proliferation of drones, homeland security, and the activities of U.S.
    [Show full text]