INTRODUCTION:

For several decades, the U.S. government has sought to improve the counterterrorist capabilities of foreign governments. Two of the most prominent initiatives in this area include the Antiterrorism Training Assistance (ATA) program, first launched in 1983, and the counter-terrorism financing (CTF) assistance program, which began after the 1998 African embassy bombings and was expanded after 9/11. Because interagency cooperation has been especially critical to the successful and timely provision of foreign counterterrorist training, an examination of the management and organization of these initiatives is highly relevant to the Project on National Security Reform (PNSR).

STRATEGY:

Systematic procedures guide the management and implementation of the ATA and CTF programs. The Department of State (DOS) is the lead agency for coordinating, supporting, developing, and implementing all U.S. government policies and programs aimed at countering international terrorism. Within the DOS, the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism (S/CT) provides policy guidance and coordinates the activities of the relevant foreign capacity building initiatives. Through participation in the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) Training and Assistance Sub-Group (TASG), S/CT oversees the operation of the ATA program, which is implemented in the field by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS). To select participant countries, S/CT develops a three-tiered list of priority nations based on the potential terrorist threats to that state, the extent of U.S. interests at stake, the extent of the country’s current anti-terror capabilities, and the political will of its government to advance counterterrorism initiatives. Once a participant country has been identified, DS and ATA officials conduct an assessment of its anti-terrorism training needs. They then draft a comprehensive country plan, which outlines a specific program of training courses for the given country. The actual training is provided by ATA experts as well as personnel from other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, police associations, and private security firms.

CTF assistance is developed, coordinated, and implemented by the Terrorist Financing Working Group (TFWG) which reports to the CSG TASG. Established after the 9/11 attacks and co-led by the State Department’s Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) and S/CT, the TFWG is an interagency body whose participants include the Departments of Justice, Treasury, and Homeland Security, among others. To build comprehensive anti-money laundering and counterterrorist regimes, the TFWG: prioritizes countries’ needs based on intelligence and law enforcement judgments; dispatches interagency Financial Systems Assessment Teams to assess countries’ current CTF capabilities; drafts formal assessments and training plans; implements training; and promotes burden sharing with allies as well as international financial institutions. 

INTEGRATED ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER:

Interagency tensions have, at times, frustrated coordination of U.S. counterterrorism programs. In ATA’s formative period, for example, agencies sometimes provided training without coordinating with the State Department. Similarly, interagency conflict initially complicated the development and delivery of CTF capacity programs due to rivalries between the Departments of State and Treasury. In addition, though both State and Treasury fund CTF capacity building, to date the departments have not typically coordinated budget requests.

Overall, participating agencies work well together in implementing counter-terror training. ATA cooperation improved after the creation of TASG in 1986. With regard to CTF assistance, officials note that cross-agency tensions eased as informal interagency relationships became better established.

EVALUATION:

Interagency mechanisms, manifested in the CSG, its TASG, and the TFWG, have effectively designed, deliberated, and deployed anti-terror capacity-building programs. Increasingly regular contact among officials has helped facilitate coordination to an extent that may have been difficult when agencies’ representatives met only on an ad hoc basis. Consistent attention at high levels, especially among S/CT leadership, is also critical for ensuring that program guidance does not drift and that other agencies do not offer training without coordination. ATA performance also depends on Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and congressionally approved budget appropriations. State Department leadership has not always been entirely successful in securing additional funding.   The complexity of accurately measuring the effectiveness of ATA programs has exacerbated the difficulty of procuring budget requests. ATA and CTF resource limitations make adequate staffing a challenge, especially for CTF, as financial expertise is handsomely rewarded in the private sector. A lack of centralized funding for CTF capacity building has also engendered agency rivalries.

RESULTS:

The available evidence indicates that ATA and CTF endeavors have supported and defended U.S. security interests by improving the operational effectiveness of foreign counterterrorism officials. The ATA has achieved notable successes, training and assisting more than 60,000 foreign security and law enforcement officials from 161 countries. CTF capacity building has also directly contributed to counterterrorist operations and helped reduce terrorist financing. In addition, the programs have established beneficial working relationships between U.S. officials and their foreign counterparts. 

CONCLUSION:

The achievements of capacity building initiatives demonstrate that a clear, institutionalized interagency coordinating structure can administer small interagency programs effectively. Within this structure, informal working relationships and individual leadership remain key components of programmatic success.