Anti-terrorism: ‘Contest Two Strategy’…

NEW UK STRATEGY

From the desk of MD

UNDER the government’s new anti-terrorist strategy, known as Contest Two, British citizens are to provide their own layer of counter-terrorist security by being encouraged to confront people who “threaten democracy”. Tens of thousands of shop, hotel and service industry staff are to be trained in dealing with terrorist threats.

Contest Two is billed by government ministers as the most comprehensive approach to tackling terrorism by any government in the world. Unveiled by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, the minister warns that Britain is under a continuing threat from al-Qaeda inspired groups and networks. Ms Smith also says that the UK is at “extreme risk” of a terrorist attack by chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons.

According to the Home Office, the general nub of the strategy is more emphasis towards a civic challenge to radical Islamism, but does not essentially represent a departure from traditional strategy. Whilst blurred, in terms of how civilians have been used before, the Home Office was at liberty to point out that it is reviewing its approach and contacts with Muslim communities in Britain, and those organisations that claim to represent them.

… Where people may not have broken the law but nevertheless act in a way that undermines our belief in this country, in democracy, in human rights, in tolerance, and free speech, there should be a challenge made to them, not through the law but through a civic challenge.

… We should argue back, we should make clear that those things are unacceptable. And I think that the vast majority of communities from all different religions and other backgrounds support those shared values.

The Home Secretary said that 30,000 workers had already been trained in responding to a terrorist attack as part of the strategy, and said that the programme was to be extended in covering a further 30,000 people, yet to be trained.

Whilst denying that the plan amounted to “snooping”, Jacqui Smith says:

… If terrorists want to target crowded places I think its right that we put in place, as we have done, a programme of training for the people that manage our shopping centres, pubs, restaurants, clubs and hotels. That’s what we’re doing to help people be vigilant of the threat from terrorism and to deal with a terrorist attack were it to happen. That’s not about snooping, that’s about the widest possible range of people helping to keep us safe in this country.”

 

THE CONTEST TWO STRATEGY has four strands – Prevent, Pursue, Protect and Prepare. These cover preventing radicalisation of potential terror recruits, disrupting terror operations, reducing the vulnerability of the UK and ensuring the country is ready for the consequences of any attack. There has been criticism that the government has had limited success in discouraging extremism and radical Islamist preaching in the UK in recent years.

COMMONS STATEMENTS

IN the House of Commons, the Home Secretary described Project Argus, the civilian training scheme as a sensible measure:

… It is about enabling people to be vigilant about what is going on maybe outside a nightclub, about training people to lead people to safety in the event of a terrorist attack. It is pretty sensible advice for people to play a role in keeping other people safe.

In response, Chris Grayling, the LibDem Shadow Home Secretary, raised questions about control orders and called for a “measured and proportionate response” to terrorism and said that the 28 day pre-charge detention period should be dropped.

Former Home Secretary, David Blunkett MP, warned of the dangers of cyber-attacks that would have a devastating effect on the UK economy. John Reid MP, another former Home Secretary, welcomed the emphasis on citizen participation. John Reid, now Chairman of Celtic Football Club, said the “resolve and spirit of ordinary people of Britain” were key to resilience against terrorist attack.

OPINION

THE TERM “Contest Two” is ambiguous because the Home Office document released is its third attempt at an anti-terrorist strategy since 2003. However, this new terror strategy appears to be a signal that the Home Office is learning from past mistakes.

Part of the problem up until now has been government ministers repeatedly giving warning about the terrorist threat from al-Qaeda or its splinter groups. Often, ministerial statements have been given without detailing the nature of that threat or, specifically, how public support was meant to be recruited in meeting with that threat.

We should remember, too, that this is the same government that presided over the killing of Charles de Menezes and assured us that the former Iraqi despot, Saddam Hussein, possessed long range weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Both those incidents were assessed on the basis of faulty intelligence; public scepticism has, since, largely been justified.

If anything, Contest Two represents a notable and welcome change of tone and approach. The new strategy outlined by Jacqui Smith reveals more of government position on the nature of the threat facing the UK. For many commentators, al-Qaeda is ostensibly defunct; others, like me would argue it has merely fragmented into splinter groups that are becoming very difficult to trace and detect. David Blunkett, for instance, makes reference to the term “cyber attacks” in the House of Commons. Consider, also, Pakistani based organisations clearly adhering to al-Qaeda ideology and methods, that of individual British jihadists and self-contained groups of religious zealots who seem to exist for one purpose. These types of cells will continue to pose a significant risk, particularly as their methods of operation and where they operate from likely change.

Of more significant concern, though, is the very real danger that such terrorists will gain access to unconventional weapons – chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. That risk is increasing which contains the potential for terrorists to contaminate large areas and by spreading public unrest and panic.

 

A FORCE of just 3000 police counter-terrorism officers cannot be expected in countering this menace alone. That, no-doubt, is the government’s premise as to why it is moving quickly given current risks and threats in training some 60,000 UK civilian workers, aimed in responding to terrorist threats in public locations. Put subtly, the demand and need for an ‘amateur army’ in responding to terrorist incidents – particularly given the outrages in Mumbai and in anticipation of the security needed in the run up to the 2012 London Olympics – is unanswerable. The requirement for effective evacuation and crowd control should not be underestimated.

General Charles Guthrie, former Chief of the Defence Staff, said:

… We must tackle extreme ideology to stop Islamist terror

Strategically, the use of the same people to spot and report suspicious patterns of behaviour does raise some important questions. Vigilance is a key word; it is incumbent on everyone to be alert and to report suspicious unaccompanied packages. That is equally important, today, as it was during the IRA mainland bombing campaign. Could an army of amateur-sleuths become an administrative burden by continually swamping the security services and police with low-grade and spurious alerts that risk distracting attention and resources away from legitimate targets?

 

IN ELOQUENT use of language by the Editor of the Herald on the dangers associated with a “snitch state”, writes:

… American McCarthyism and the East German Stasi should act as potential reminders of the corrosive effects of the snitch state.

… The targeting of law abiding British Muslims could be dangerously counter-productive, alienating the very community that the government needs to support intelligence gathering. [sic] – Editorial, Herald: Wednesday, March 25, 2009.

A presumptive to be followed, therefore, is that the value and credibility of any civilian support force must depend on the quality and sophistication of training methods employed and guidelines issued.

Whilst the government’s new approach in dealing with future terrorist threats and attacks is welcome, overall it has to be said that Labour’s anti-terrorism strategy has failed in its attempts to undermine and remove those individuals fostering hatred and extremism. Peddling perverted versions of Islam, which will inevitably always stir up tensions, has no place in modern day Britain, or for that matter anywhere else. The new standards and strategy being set in dealing with terrorism in the UK should be a model that others around the world should monitor. The threat of terrorism, when and where it might strike, knows no borders.

Legally proscribing (i.e. barring) such individuals and organisations risks scoring an own goal when the charge against them is one of seeking to undermine our shared values of democracy and tolerance. The notion that Britain is multicultural, ethnically diverse and tolerant could be twisted to suit individual circumstances. That’s something worth bearing in mind. Overarching,  is the need to find a comfortable balance by allowing democracy to be open and at the same time being safe for people to go about their normal lives. A clear and positive anti-terrorist strategy that is proactive and informed can only be a useful weapon in the fight against those who remain adamant in pushing fundamentalism within these shores. The emphasis in Contest Two on doing more to challenge extremist ideology does suggest that the Home Office is moving in the right direction in how radicalism should be dealt with. 

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

Copyright is the currency by which information may be exchanged in certain instances. If you are unsure of your rights relating to digital communications in partial or complete form you should seek independent legal advice.

This site is governed by the Laws of Scotland.