Terrorism is defined as politically motivated violence, and/or credible threat of imminent violence, against civilians and non-combatants. Whether it is the work of states, groups or individuals, acts of terror must be totally rejected1.
But Terrorism is a serious issue today. Indeed, as was stated in the excellent document The Brussels Consensus:
If terrorism is seen in terms of its victims, it is easy to underestimate its gravity. As pointed out above, terrorism has caused a fewer number of deaths than poverty, disease, malnutrition or genocide and conventional war. The real danger of terrorism is that it causes policy disruptions. It functions as a catalyst of destruction by diverting policy attention and resources and thereby contributing to poverty and war. A country facing terrorism often organizes its entire policy framework to combat terror. Further, governments curb civil liberties and some tend to use terror as an excuse to justify authoritarianism. This results in the discounting of the Democratic principle. Thus, the comprehensive impact of terrorism cannot be measured in quantitative terms alone, as it always exceeds the apparent costs.
The impact of international acts of terror is not confined to psychological warfare. They can lead to real wars, as in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many analysts fear heavy US reprisals in the future, if a major American city were attacked by groups engaging in terror, especially if the attack involves use of dirty bombs. (p.7)
Twelve important factors:
Terrorism is not new. But there are reasons to believe that it is becoming more important as a destabilizing force in the globalizing world of today. The conditions of failed states or conditions of widespread anarchy (e.g. Somalia, Afghanistan, and Lebanon during the civil war) allow terrorist networks to develop and then strike out their branches in cells located in the relatively open societies of the west. And within the developing countries, resorting to terrorist tactics against unresponsive governments is becoming easier and more attractive as an option.
There are at least twelve factors that contribute to making terrorism a more attractive option for marginal or oppressed groups and for lone sociopaths. They also help explain the increasing damage that can be done by terrorists today, and they also contribute the rising importance of global terrorism as a scourge of the new century:
The increasing density of human settlements. With so many people in such small geographic areas, the likely impact of a terrorist act in terms of claiming lives and maiming people is considerably larger today than it was three decades ago.
The increasing value of property, makes that comparable catastrophes a generation or two ago would cause much greater losses in monetary terms today. This is evident in the increasing value of the damage caused by hurricanes in the US and by floods in Japan.
The availability of modern mass transport, both nationally and internationally, means that terrorists can move around much more easily and much less noticeably than they could half a century ago, and that the vehicles of such transport -- planes, trains and underground rail -- are themselves potent targets of terrorist attacks. This was sadly shown in 9/11, Madrid and London.
The specific vulnerability of certain extremely important industries to disruption by terrorist acts. This includes petroleum exports (witness Iraq), Tourism (Bali and Egypt), and banking… for capital, honest capital, is notoriously cowardly: it moves away from perceived danger to safe havens elsewhere.
Globalization and the information and communication revolution make it very easy for terrorists to plan their activities halfway around the globe, finance it from another part of the planet, assemble to strike somewhere and be gone to the four corners of the world within hours. The permeable world of the Internet, international mobile phones and 24 hours a day global financial transactions coupled with easy travel require an unprecedented level of cooperation between the police and intelligence agencies of the countries of the civilized world.
The widespread availability of enormous amounts of weapons and explosives of all types for clandestine sale all over the world, especially after the end of the cold war, makes it likely that terrorists with even moderate funding can acquire very lethal weapons indeed.
The extreme effectiveness of small light weapons that can be moved easily against large unprotected civilian targets adds considerably to the risk of successful attacks. A shoulder fired Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) can easily hit a plane on takeoff or landing. Well aimed, it is equally deadly against a bus or a train.
New forms of terrorism such as cyber attacks against our data banks, the essential tissue of our hyper-digitized societies, keeps cyber-security experts in a constant race against the potentially lethal attacks of well informed and well placed terrorists.
Nuclear proliferation and the availability of large quantities of weapons grade material make the need for additional security measures on the stocks of such materials extremely important for global security.
Bioterrorism, is a real possibility. This is in addition to the more thought of chemical attacks (such as the sarin attack in Japan), and the much-feared nuclear threats. Notwithstanding the weakness of the anthrax attacks in the US, a well-placed and well-timed release of an airborne lethal pathogen with a significant incubation period of even a few days makes its control very difficult. Old enemies like smallpox and new deadly biological pathogens and the risk of epidemics or pandemics they can cause, cannot be ignored.
The ubiquitous international mass-media: Within hours, terrorists can have their message reach millions of people world-wide. Local incidents can be magnified, and thus bring their perpetrators the attention that they want to have for the cause that they are trying to promote by terror.
But above all, there is the ideological fervor of the suicide bomber. It is far harder to guard against the danger of a killer who kills himself with his victims than it is to guard against one who is planning to escape the scene of the crime. This phenomenon needs tackling at the base of the recruiting and indoctrination that feeds the terrorist ranks as much as at the stage of the attempted terrorist actions.
Response Strategies:
So what can be done? I believe that we can help the fight against terrorism in three ways:
- Redress the perceived grievances that feed the anger of vast populations and make for ripe recruiting possibilities. Chief among these is solving the political problem of Palestine.
- Assist in the development of the economic opportunities for a rising tide of young people by promoting joint ventures in the middle-income countries and supporting homegrown reform efforts. Prosperity and well-being are not absolute guarantors against terror: witness the ideological threats of the Baader-Meinhof and the Red Brigades in Europe several decades ago, and more recently the Oklahoma City Bombers, or the lone Unabomber in the USA. But improved socio-economic conditions do considerably help.
- Cooperate in the creation of a multilateral international framework aimed at increased security. As explained earlier, current developments require an enormous and unprecedented level of cooperation between all countries. In addition, this security cooperation must be structured around an internationally agreed legal infrastructure that is broadly recognized around the world.
- Put in place well-thought-out contingency plans to deal with various forms of terrorist attacks. Different threats will require different plans.
This last topic deserves a few additional words here.
Unconventional types of terrorist attacks:
Conventional terrorist attacks, usually involving explosives or the use of lethal weapons (rifles, RPG or other similar weapons) or hijackings have been experienced by most governments in one form or another, and many reasonably effective counter-measures are in place, and they will therefore not be further discussed in this paper.
However, we need to recognize the emergence of less conventional and potentially more devastating forms of terrorist attacks: chemical, biological, nuclear or radiological. In addition, another form of attack would be electro-magnetic disruptions of the increasingly digitized data systems on which almost all modern societies increasingly depend.
Biological Attacks:
- Where do biological agents originate?
- What's the difference between "infectious" and "contagious"?
- How long after exposure will symptoms appear?
Chemical Attacks:
- What are the different origins of toxic chemicals that could be used?
- How do chemical toxicities vary?
- What are the practical steps to take if there's a chemical release?
Nuclear Attacks:
- What is radioactive fallout, and how is it dangerous?
- What are the short term and long term effects of radiation exposure?
- What is the likely size of a nuclear explosion from an attack by terrorists?
Radiological Attacks:
- What are radiological dispersal devices, a.k.a. "dirty bombs"?
- How are they different from nuclear bombs?
- What are their physical and psychological health effects?
ICT Attacks:
- EM pulse attacks
- Hacking updated: worms, viruses, Trojan horses and other threats
- Security revisited: neural nets and the sensitive nodes
- Security redefined: from individual institutions to entire countries
These are different types of questions than those we addressed a moment ago. Yet they are needed to answer the questions pertaining to preparing meaningful contingency plans to respond to terrorist attacks using these less conventional means. Some of the excellent work, that I am aware of, includes the work done by the US National Academies and the NRC on exactly these types of questions; provide excellent and up to date reviews of the state of our knowledge. However, even armed with scientific answers it does not mean that we would be in position to mount an effective response. To prepare for these unconventional terrorist attacks will require not only international cooperation between countries, but unprecedented preparation within each country. This is especially true of the developing countries.
Indeed, again, as was also mentioned in the excellent document The Brussels Consensus:
The costs of terrorism are much higher for developing countries than for North America and Western Europe. Currently, only MITP-Rand database is known to be maintaining comprehensive record of acts of terror on a global basis. Their statistics shows that only 20% of all terror acts in the last decade were committed in North America and Western Europe. Out of the 20,000 odd attacks in the decade, only 10% were of international nature. The rest were essentially domestic. In terms of the number of deaths, again 20% victims belonged to North America and Western Europe and the remaining 80% to the developing world. About a third of all deaths have resulted from international acts of terror and the remaining two-third from domestic attacks. The empirical evidence shows that terrorism is predominantly a domestic problem for the non-Westerns countries, undermining economic development, political liberties and social tolerance. (p.11)
When one recognizes that the bulk of terrorist attacks and deaths occur in the developing world, it becomes clear that the degree of preparation for the devastating effect of unconventional terrorist attacks is woefully inadequate. I suggest, however, that these fascinating questions be the topic of a separate and different seminar, where they could benefit from the extensive discussion that they require.
Conclusions:
For the time being, therefore, let me get back to the main topic of this workshop: Global extremism, terror and response strategies, which I read to be more response strategies to the emerging extremism rather than to the technical aspects of different types of terrorist attacks.
Here I am certain that you will be dealing with the widening divide between the west, especially the US, and the Arab and Muslim worlds. You will also have to address the forces in society that promote insecurity and paranoia, as opposed to openness and tolerance. You should address the issues of the culture of peace, and how to change the public discourse, the religious discourse and the image of the other.
I have written much about these themes, though I treated them as political issues within a socio-cultural framework. That is undoubtedly correct, and I hope that you will address some of these themes in the same way in your upcoming discussions. However, when actions cross the line into terrorism, including state-sponsored terrorism, we need to be also aware of the kind of issues that I raised with you this morning.
The excellent program that has been organized for this workshop should lead to many excellent insights. I hope that you will have an enriching and constructive experience in the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, an institution devoted to non-violence, rationality, openness to the other, dialogue, learning and understanding.
Thank you.
1 SFG’s The Brussels Consensus, 2005, pp.7-11, points out that: In October 2004, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1566 delegitimised the use of unjust means irrespective of the legitimacy of the cause noting that, “criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international Conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature”.
The United Nations Secretary General In Larger Freedom (March 2005), endorsed the view presented by the High Level Panel that politically motivated violence against civilians and non-combatants constitutes an act of terror and that it must be totally rejected. While this definition is gaining wider acceptance day by day, it has yet to be formally endorsed by the General Assembly.
|
