Government response to terrorism - Essay Example

Government response to terrorism Introduction Terrorism is a political concept which involves employment of violence by one party in order to exert coercion on other parties. Terrorism entails all coercive acts of violence and intimidation intended to cause fear and harm. In order to qualify as an act of terror, a violent act must be perpetrated for ideological and political purposes. In addition, use of coercive violence for religious purposes constitutes an act of terror. One similarity of all terrorist attacks is that violence employed as a means of coercion affects both combatants and civilians. War differs from terrorism because bombardments and missile launches by one army targets combatants of the enemy. However, terrorism indiscriminately affects both combatants and civilians. According to Fraser and Staniforth (2012), common users of terror strategies include political parties, revolutionaries, religions groups, nationalists and even governments. All these groups use violence as a means of furthering their political objectives. As acknowledged earlier, one constant characteristics of terrorism entails indiscriminate use of violence to murder and injure both combatants and noncombatants. Legitimacy of Terrorism There have been numerous controversies surrounding legal definition of terrorism. Left-wing critics claim that use of a nation’s armed forces in crushing an opponent’s political progress amounts to terrorism. In this context, a ruling government which uses indiscriminate violence to destroy an opponent’s progress engages in terrorism. Apart from a ruling government, terrorism comprise of violent activities used by nationalists fighting an oppressive regime. In fact the late Nelson Mandela was once branded as a terrorist by the white government in South Africa. This means that these controversies undermine existence of a definite boundary between justifiable uses of violence for political progress. Fraser and Staniforth (2012) says that from a legal perspective, UK law defines terrorism as any act of violence that causes or threatens to cause indiscriminate loss of lives, property damage and create a serious risk to health and safety of the public. The UK government takes any such form of violence which seeks to influence governmental institutions or the public as acts of terror. Latest Terrorism Profile in the UK Terrorism is not new in Britain. In the last decade, British security forces arrested approximately 1800 people in connection to terror related cases. Most of these individuals arrested are British citizens involved or associated with accomplishing assistance roles in extremist activities. Demographics show that a substantial portion of those arrested are radical youth lured by perpetrators towards a path of violent extremism. Over the same period, over 50 international organizations were blacklisted as perpetrators of terrorism. Among the blacklisted organizations include Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. Currently, most organizations involved in terror acts are Islamic militant groups. With respect to terrorism incidents over the past two decades, UK has not been exempted from being targets by violent extremists. Fraser and Staniforth (2012) say that in 2001, a suicide bomber detonated a car bomb outside BBC’s news offices, injuring 1 worker. In June 2007, an Islamic extremist group called Jammat Ul-Furquan conducted a bombardment mission in Glasgow International Airport, which injured only the suicide bomber. Last year, a terrorist named Pavlo Lapshyn detonated an explosive device outside a mosque in Tipton. Origin of Islamic Terrorism In the past, UK used to battle with terrorist groups from Ireland and those from Central European nations. However, the UK government now worries more about Islamic terror groups than radical extremist from other European nations. Islamic terrorism started in the late 1960s as a result of overflowing Israeli-Palestine conflict. In 1968, a terrorist group called Popular front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) successfully hijacked a plane on route to Rome, Italy. The airline attack was directed towards coercing the Israeli government into giving in on some political demands. After the incident, Western Alliances including the UK joined an operation to support Israeli forces in fight against terrorism. Consequently, sympathizers of Palestine, especially extremist groups from other Islamic nations started siding with Palestine. In addition, radicals inside Europe started aligning with Islamic extremists in order to coerce and intimidate European governments. Currently, Pakistan and Afghanistan features as the two epicenters of Islamic terrorism activities. Current State of Terrorism The UK government did not intensified responses to terrorism until after the 9/11 attack on World Trade Center. In the past, terrorist groups were small extremist organizations engaged in small time bombing of cars and few carriages in train stations. However, terrorism has evolved into state sponsored political strategies. Currently, certain states finances, train and protect militants involved in terror activities. According to Fraser and Staniforth (2012), relationship between these militants and the sponsoring state is based on mutual political interests. For example, Iran is currently engaged in development of a nuclear program. However, the West opposes Iran’s advances; thus making Iran and Western countries political enemies. In this context, Iran may side with a terrorist organization like Al-Qaeda in order to carry out coercive attacks against Western powers. State sponsored terror like the 9/11 attack proves effective because extremists have enough resources and technological tools supplied by the sponsoring state. With rapid advancement in technology coupled with increasing political differences between Islamic nations and the West, terrorism is likely to evolve into a serious threat to democracy and national security. U.K. Government’s Response to Terrorism Prior to the 9/11 attack, UK government still adopted legislations and preventive measures for violence developed during the cold war era. Undeniably, Cold War revolved around definite conspiracies about nuclear exchanges between superpowers. Response mechanisms were conventionally prepared to handle any eventuality from nuclear-related disagreements. However, terrorism today involves the fight against technologically unpredictable suicide bombers from third-world nations targeting civilians. Benjamin and Nadine (2009) mentions that in most cases, suicide bombers carrying out actual acts of terror possess elevated level of determination, adaptability and commitment to their cause. Such unpredictable and dedicated acts of violence fall contrary to standard operating procedures used during the cold war. This means that Western governments had to restructure their security protocols in order to respond effectively to terrorism. Legislations During the 1990s, laws on terrorism observed almost all basic human rights, including a right to an attorney and use of arrest and detention warrants. However, emergence of state sponsored terror pushed legislators to amend and tighten terrorism acts. In 1998 after a bombing of a pub in Birmingham which killed 21 people, members of Parliament did not hesitate to pass laws that explicitly abridge civil rights. After the 9/11 attack, other tougher legislations were enacted by the UK parliament. In October 2001, the nation’s Terrorism Act accorded UK security forces the right to arrest and detain individuals suspected of engaging in terror activities. Blunkett, who was the Home Secretary in November, 2001 introduced a new Anti-Terrorism bill. The bill expunged the right to liberty and allowed detention without trial on individuals suspected of perpetrating terrorism activities. During the legislative debate, Blunkett clarified numerous issues which lied contrary to the European Union Civil Rights Convention. The bill stated that any individual suspected of conducting or planning to conduct terror activity will be detained indefinitely without trial. During detention, suspects would not be granted visits from attorneys or relatives. Moreover, suspects would be locked up for 22 hours a day, and never allowed to see sunlight throughout the detention period. According to Fraser and Staniforth (2012), the bill was not clear on the use of torture as a means of extracting information from suspects. However, one thing mentioned was that in case of death during detention, the body of a suspect will not be given back to their families, or deported back to overseas countries. Surprisingly, the secretary’s bill was passed with 323 members accepting its contents against 79 who showed disapproval. Covert Operations and Surveillance Programs Apart from amendments to anti-terrorism laws, UK government also responded by adopting the use of direct surveillance and spy operations on suspected extremist settings. British police started conducting covert surveillance operations in vulnerable public places. Security forces used private cars and surveillance vans to gather and record intelligence on any potential threat to public security. These surveillance missions are not limited to public places. Fraser and Staniforth (2012) mention that government security agencies engage in regular intrusive surveillance through observation of suspected individuals inside their private premises. Surveillance also extends to use of undercover personnel to acquire information on any impending incident of terror. These undercover personnel are either police officers or members of the society involved in community policing programs. During investigations, security agencies intercept communications and acquire previous phone conversation from subscribers. With respect to covert operations, UK government agencies strive to establish the causes of radicalization in British societies. Most individuals arrested for terror related activities are British citizens, mostly youth below 30 years. Investigation indicates that non violent Islamic organizations are responsible for radicalizing the youth. According to Great Britain Home Office (2011), these organizations cannot be attacked directly because they use principles of non-violent extremism in luring young Britons into terrorism. Regularly, security forces conducts covert spy operations in communities suspected to host potential recruits for radicalization. Information gathered from those operations is stored in databases for later retrieval. In the past decade alone, numerous potential terror attacks have been thwarted with the help of information and intelligence gathered from these covert operations and surveillance programs. National Security Strategy The two response actions mentioned above, legislations and surveillance programs are broad strategies adopted by the UK government in its fight against terrorism. However, all details relating to the government’s actions in national security features within the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy called The Contest. In 2010, the National Security Council held a convention which led to the publishing of National Security Strategy, preferable referred to as The Contest Strategy. This strategy is actually a report documenting terrorism threats faced by UK citizens both at home and abroad. Apart from acknowledging those threats, Contest Strategy outlines numerous measures that will enhance success in the war on terror. According to Great Britain Home Office (2011), National Security Council realized that direct crushing of terrorism through surveillance programs only offers short term solution. According to Fraser and Staniforth (2012), trends from security report on terrorism indicated that more British youth were being radicalized than before. Therefore, the Security Council had to strategize on ways of discouraging radicalization; hence providing a long term solution to violent extremism. The Contest Strategy Contest Strategy aims at reducing terrorism related risks for UK citizens. Contest Strategy strives to create an environment where UK citizens can conduct their lives confidently without fear of extremist attacks. Contents of the Contest are derived from numerous terrorism related facts in the world today. First, Al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan seems to be growing weaker, especially after its leader was killed. However, Al-Qaeda related groups like Al-Shabaab in Somalia are gaining ground. Apart from Al-Qaeda related organizations, numerous small groups sympathetic to Al-Qaeda’s aims are joining in the execution of violent extremism. According to Great Britain Home Office (2011), these small groups continually mushroom in different parts if the world, even in the UK. After deliberation on modern progress in terrorism, it is evident that certain factors play a significant role in growth of extremism ideologies. These factors include political instability, radicalization and advancement in technology. Despite the weakening of Al-Qaeda, the UK still faces threats of indiscriminate violence from these numerous sympathizers and radicals. In this regard, the contest strategy aims at addressing emerging aspects of terrorism. Components of Contest Strategy Technically, the strategy does not seek to ensure improvement of security by violating fundamental human rights. Objectives of Contest strategy is to pursue terrorism, prevent terrorism, protect people and prepare for terror attacks. The strategy’s mission involves protecting UK citizens by employing measures that are consistent with international rule of law. The strategy only authorizes the use of measures that are proportionate to the risk posed by terror activities. Every measure included is committed not only towards preservation but also advancement of civil rights, both inside and outside the UK. In order to ensure transparence and the respect of law, the government provides periodic account of all activities conducted together with resources used in carrying out those tasks. As acknowledged earlier, Contest Strategy does not address only short term threats. It extends towards providing long term solution to terrorism. At this juncture, one should appreciate the fact that Contest does not work in isolation. The strategy is interrelated with other government programs of counter-terrorism. The four objectives of Contest Strategy are discussed below. i. Pursue Pursuit of terrorism revolves around detection, investigation, disruption and stoppage of terror attacks. In 2013, British police arrested and detained 11 suspected Muslims who were involved in plotting an attack in Pittsford. This incident features among other numerous occasions where police have successfully aborted terrorist attacks in the UK. According to Benjamin and Nadine (2009), subsequent goals of pursuit in Consent Strategy involve prosecution and sentencing of perpetrators. In this case, one technique used in facilitating pursuit of terrorism includes presence of an effective judicial system for swift suspects’ prosecution. The UK government has set aside several courts involved in prioritizing prosecution of people charged with terrorist-related offences. Great Britain Home Office (2011) mention that apart from timely court cases, the UK’s judiciary has the logistical capacity to ensure that all sensitive proceedings and material evidence presented during court sessions remains secret for purposes of national security. The objective to pursue terrorism also manifest in form of disruption of terror activities. Relevant policing authorities have the requisite personnel and technological tools that enable early detection of an impending terrorist attack. Upon detection, use of advanced logistical tools will enable objective investigation and subsequent abortion of attacks, both in the UK and in overseas areas of UK’s interest. In order to enhance investigations, British security agencies are working closely with other foreign agencies like FBI and the CIA. According to Benjamin and Nadine (2009), such interrelatedness of security agencies enhances reliability of intelligence collected during investigations; hence a high chance of preventing attacks. Currently, UK government collaborates actively with international partners in an effort to expand the capacity to detect, investigate and prosecute terrorists. ii. Prevent As the old saying goes, prevention is better than cure. It is not within the best interest of UK’s government to jail its young citizens who are brainwashed into joining extremist associations. Trends suggest that radicalization is at its highest level today. This means that mere arrest and prosecution of terrorists will not yield long term solution to the problem in subject. According to Benjamin and Nadine (2009), it is undeniable that Al-Qaeda evolved into using non-violent extremist groups in radicalizing individuals. Unfortunately, most non-violent extremists operate within the confines of UK laws, specifically the freedom of speech. These extremists use the mentioned freedom in spreading radical ideas, thus creating a favorable environment for terrorism. In order to prevent radicalization, the government challenges extremist ideas through open debates. Open debates facilitates social mobility and creates a level playground where social values can be harmonized. In addition, these debates give members of the society, especially the youth a chance to test the credibility and rationality of extremism ideologies. According to Great Britain Home Office (2011), actual preventive measures include provision of informed advice to the youth, reduction of financial support on terrorism, isolation of extremist ideologies from mainstream conventions and incorporation of anti-radical ideas in learning institutions. The main purpose of prevention is to appropriately advice youth vulnerable to radicalization. Education institutions are the most suitable settings for delivering such preventive advices. In addition, open debates mobilize communities through objective deliberations; hence creating a sense of wrongfulness towards terrorism. iii. Protect In case prevention does not succeed, police forces in the country must be able to protect citizens from harmful consequences of terrorist attacks. Presence of effective protection strategies reduces vulnerability of civilians. After the 9/11 attack, it is undeniable that terrorists are committed to using weapons of mass destruction. Targets of terror attacks are crowded public places like recreation parks and business buildings. Therefore, the UK government, through the relevant security agencies, seeks to make crowded places secure. According to Fraser and Staniforth (2012), police can achieve this by installing metal detectors in entrance of buildings. In addition, detrimental effects of bombings like collapse of buildings can be prevented by improving resilience level of UK’s infrastructure. Apart from securing crowded places, UK security agencies must be able to screen and account for every individual entering and leaving the country. Police can achieve this by strengthening the UK border security. Finally, reducing the overall vulnerability of transport systems like airlines and railway networks will play a significant role in enhancing the protection objective of Contest Strategy. iv. Prepare Despite adoption of all the three strategies above, terrorist attacks cannot be totally prevented from happening. The purpose of preparation objective is to address any eventuality resulting from a terrorist attack. Typically, preparative actions aim at aiding recovery through saving of lives and prevention of further damage. One method of improving preparation involves setting up emergency response and paramedical units close to potential terrorist attack sites. During the 2012 Olympic Games, the UK government adopted appropriate measures to ensure security of spectators and participants in stadiums. According to Fraser and Staniforth (2012), preparations for the Olympics included training all personnel on basic Counter-Terrorism Exercise Programs. In addition, the government invested heavily in purchase of advanced defense systems and emergency equipment. Effectiveness of Contest Strategy and other Government Policies In the past four years, UK has been significantly safe from terrorist-related activities. Adoption of effective counter-terrorism measures is responsible for the high level of security observed during the 2012 Olympic Games. Among the several components of counter-terrorism measures include the Contest Strategy. All the four objectives of Consent Strategy have been effective in promoting overall security of UK citizens. Periodical reviews on the strategy shows that all projects conducted meets or even exceeds pre-determined benchmarks. Performance indicators agree that the relevant authorities have executed Consent Strategy in an open and transparent manner. In terms of legislations, the Terrorism Prevention and Investigations Measures act 2011 has been effective. This act plays a crucial role in facilitating detection and prevention of overseas terror activities that pose a threat to UK’s interests abroad. Despite the success of the government’s policies in responding to terrorism, some civil rights activists are quick to assert that approaches used by security agencies undermine fundamental freedom of civilians. Through the prevent measure of Contest Strategy, the government seeks to reduce funding and financial assistance to sympathizers of terrorist organizations. According to Mosaddeq (2013), one of the associations identified as sympathizers of terrorists include a South London organization called Strategy to Reach Empower and Educate Teenagers (STREET). Beneficiaries of this organization comprise mainly of young Muslims who seek for education outside mainstream learning institutions. The government cut funding to such youth groups because they are labeled as radical gangs. In this context, activists are of the opinion that government strategies for counter-terrorism cause stigmatization and alienation of Muslim communities in the UK. Conclusion In conclusion, it is undeniable that terrorism poses great danger to national security in the UK. Specifically, Islamic terrorism emerges as the leading threat, with influence of Al-Qaeda infiltrating into the youth population in Britain. In order to prevent harmful consequences of violent extremism, UK government has passed laws and adopted strategies that pursue, prevent, protect and prepare for eventualities resulting from terror attacks. Objective appraisal on effectiveness of those strategies and legislations shows that they have been successful in fighting terror. However, human rights activists arguing on basis of social justice still oppose the use of Contest Strategy and other counter-terrorism measures. References Benjamin, C. & Nadine, G. (2009). The New Face of Terrorism: Threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction. New York: Cengage Learning. Fraser, S. & Staniforth, A. (2012). Routledge Companion to UK Counter Terrorism. London: Routledge Publishing. Great Britain Home Office. (2011). CONTEST: The United Kingdom’s strategy for countering terrorism. London: The Stationery Office. Mosaddeq, N. A. (2013). UK’s flawed counter-terrorism strategy. Le Monde diplomatique. Accessed March 13, 2014 http://mondediplo.com/blogs/uk-s-flawed-counter-terrorism-strategy Read More