Counter-terrorism: Is the US sending the right message?
Jan 12, 2010
THE events of September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in the United States served as a wake-up call not only to the US but to all nations, for the need to better manage risks posed by terrorists. The magnitude of the attack had social, political and economic effects globally with businesses, both public
By Suleiman Otieno
THE events of September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in the United States served as a wake-up call not only to the US but to all nations, for the need to better manage risks posed by terrorists. The magnitude of the attack had social, political and economic effects globally with businesses, both public and private, having to invest in security and safety than ever before.
As reported by The New York Times of December 7, 2009, US President Barack Obama on Thursday last week directed the Homeland Security Department to accelerate the installation of $1b in advanced-technology equipment for the screening of passengers that include body scanners at American airports and to work with international airports to see that they upgrade their own equipment to protect passengers on flights headed to the United States.
The recent botched terror attack by a Nigerian man, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab left many puzzled in what turned out to be a lucky escape for passengers on board a Nothern West Airlines Flight 253 enroute to Detroit, Michigan from Amsterdam, Netherlands on December 25. According to the media, if it was not for a courageous passenger who subdued Abdulmutallab, as he tried to detonate explosives sewn into his underwear as the plane prepared to land, the fate of the 278 passengers and 11 crew members could have been worse.
Post-September 11, 2001 events continue to pose major security challenges globally as world leaders and security agencies try to come up with counter-terrorist attacks. Consequently, security decisions directly linked with post-September 11 seem to have engaged the first gear in their outlook.
What many people must be questioning, however, is the effectiveness of the counter-terrorism methods employed by different nations – as the fear of being victims of terrorist attacks distress global citizens. Over the weekend, the US announced a list of 14 countries it considers “state sponsors of terrorismâ€, comprising five African countries—Nigeria, Algeria, Libya, Somalia and Sudan. The list also includes Cuba, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
The United States has championed the war on terrorism on all fronts with allies like the UK and many other countries resulting in the formation of anti-terrorism Acts by different governments to combat the situation, apart from adopting several policies aimed at tightening security in airports and boarder points.
Furthermore, the UN Security Council, in its resolutions 1368 and 1373 (2001), adopted almost immediately after the aftermath of September 11, attacks and expressly recognised the right of self-defence to respond to the terrorist attacks of September 11, and to combat all forms of terrorism in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations. This in a way strengthened Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations, particularly when some suspected terrorists were subjected to harassment and unfair trial, and even detained without trial.
The September 11 events accentuated the high cost of terrorism, which the Institute of the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS) estimated at $2 trillion as financial costs due to loss of jobs and damage to properties, not including the cost of the fall of global markets. With such costs, there is no doubt that governments and organisations must take stern steps in countering terrorism. However, what is equally important is the need to carefully analyse methods that work and those that do not.
The profiling of nations as was done by the US recently is a step in the wrong direction in the war against terrorism. It can be argued that the events of September 11 and how nations reacted ignited the hatred and victimisation of suspects.
And the trend seems not to have changed even with President Obama at the helm in view of the recent developments in counterterrorism. What is not clear is how the list was arrived at—a major challenge that could work against efforts to fight terrorism. It thus begs the question: Is it not targeting the wrong people if the actions meant to identify terrorists end up labelling an entire nation as “prospective terrorist�
If the US has already acknowledged Yemeni government commitment to fight terrorism, is it justifiable to profile the nation and many others that have cooperated as “state sponsors of terrorism†simply because some of their citizens have ties with terrorist organisations? Many might also ask why, for example, countries such as Indonesia and India (for the sake of having a watch list) are not included yet they have had major problems with terrorist activities in their countries.
There is no doubt that terrorist groups and those who support terrorists must be dealt with but if whistleblowers are being subjected to stricter scrutiny for offering information is this not counter-productive? For example, the father of Abdulmutallab personally warned the US about his son’s radical stance and disappearance—information that was available to the National Counter Terrorism Center and the Central Intelligence Agency. How then can the US justify putting Nigeria on the list of countries sponsoring terrorists? What message is the US sending to people like Abdulmutallab’s father?
Again, are countries not on the US list less safe from terrorists? With Barack Obama ordering improvement of security and adopting a hard stance in dealing with terrorism, what remains to be seen is whether his approach is any different from his predecessor, George W. Bush. As noted by Dr. Susan Moeller (2004), a specialist in US and global media and public policy in reference to the Bush administration after 9/11: “In quick order, with everyone watching (but few paying attention), the 9/11-initiated war became a war to create the new moral order articulated by President Bush and his ‘Vulcans’â€.
According to Professor Martha Crenshaw (Zalman, 2009), terrorism remains an intrinsically political rather than cultural phenomenon and, as such, the terrorism of today is not fundamentally or qualitatively “newâ€, but grounded in an evolving historical context.
Crenshaw explains that the idea of a “new†terrorism is often based on insufficient knowledge of history, as well as misinterpretations of contemporary terrorism.
Possibly a more realistic way would have been to strengthen the ties and sharing of intelligence with countries that have problems with terrorists rather than profiling them—which in many ways sends a wrong message.
Terrorism is a problem that needs inclusive input (as it affects all countries) rather than profiling individual countries which might be interpreted as finger-pointing. Profiling countries and collaborating with them at the same time may send conflicting messages.
The writer is a marketing executive with a private university in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
THE events of September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in the United States served as a wake-up call not only to the US but to all nations, for the need to better manage risks posed by terrorists. The magnitude of the attack had social, political and economic effects globally with businesses, both public and private, having to invest in security and safety than ever before.
As reported by The New York Times of December 7, 2009, US President Barack Obama on Thursday last week directed the Homeland Security Department to accelerate the installation of $1b in advanced-technology equipment for the screening of passengers that include body scanners at American airports and to work with international airports to see that they upgrade their own equipment to protect passengers on flights headed to the United States.
The recent botched terror attack by a Nigerian man, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab left many puzzled in what turned out to be a lucky escape for passengers on board a Nothern West Airlines Flight 253 enroute to Detroit, Michigan from Amsterdam, Netherlands on December 25. According to the media, if it was not for a courageous passenger who subdued Abdulmutallab, as he tried to detonate explosives sewn into his underwear as the plane prepared to land, the fate of the 278 passengers and 11 crew members could have been worse.
Post-September 11, 2001 events continue to pose major security challenges globally as world leaders and security agencies try to come up with counter-terrorist attacks. Consequently, security decisions directly linked with post-September 11 seem to have engaged the first gear in their outlook.
What many people must be questioning, however, is the effectiveness of the counter-terrorism methods employed by different nations – as the fear of being victims of terrorist attacks distress global citizens. Over the weekend, the US announced a list of 14 countries it considers “state sponsors of terrorismâ€, comprising five African countries—Nigeria, Algeria, Libya, Somalia and Sudan. The list also includes Cuba, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
The United States has championed the war on terrorism on all fronts with allies like the UK and many other countries resulting in the formation of anti-terrorism Acts by different governments to combat the situation, apart from adopting several policies aimed at tightening security in airports and boarder points.
Furthermore, the UN Security Council, in its resolutions 1368 and 1373 (2001), adopted almost immediately after the aftermath of September 11, attacks and expressly recognised the right of self-defence to respond to the terrorist attacks of September 11, and to combat all forms of terrorism in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations. This in a way strengthened Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations, particularly when some suspected terrorists were subjected to harassment and unfair trial, and even detained without trial.
The September 11 events accentuated the high cost of terrorism, which the Institute of the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS) estimated at $2 trillion as financial costs due to loss of jobs and damage to properties, not including the cost of the fall of global markets. With such costs, there is no doubt that governments and organisations must take stern steps in countering terrorism. However, what is equally important is the need to carefully analyse methods that work and those that do not.
The profiling of nations as was done by the US recently is a step in the wrong direction in the war against terrorism. It can be argued that the events of September 11 and how nations reacted ignited the hatred and victimisation of suspects.
And the trend seems not to have changed even with President Obama at the helm in view of the recent developments in counterterrorism. What is not clear is how the list was arrived at—a major challenge that could work against efforts to fight terrorism. It thus begs the question: Is it not targeting the wrong people if the actions meant to identify terrorists end up labelling an entire nation as “prospective terrorist�
If the US has already acknowledged Yemeni government commitment to fight terrorism, is it justifiable to profile the nation and many others that have cooperated as “state sponsors of terrorism†simply because some of their citizens have ties with terrorist organisations? Many might also ask why, for example, countries such as Indonesia and India (for the sake of having a watch list) are not included yet they have had major problems with terrorist activities in their countries.
There is no doubt that terrorist groups and those who support terrorists must be dealt with but if whistleblowers are being subjected to stricter scrutiny for offering information is this not counter-productive? For example, the father of Abdulmutallab personally warned the US about his son’s radical stance and disappearance—information that was available to the National Counter Terrorism Center and the Central Intelligence Agency. How then can the US justify putting Nigeria on the list of countries sponsoring terrorists? What message is the US sending to people like Abdulmutallab’s father?
Again, are countries not on the US list less safe from terrorists? With Barack Obama ordering improvement of security and adopting a hard stance in dealing with terrorism, what remains to be seen is whether his approach is any different from his predecessor, George W. Bush. As noted by Dr. Susan Moeller (2004), a specialist in US and global media and public policy in reference to the Bush administration after 9/11: “In quick order, with everyone watching (but few paying attention), the 9/11-initiated war became a war to create the new moral order articulated by President Bush and his ‘Vulcans’â€.
According to Professor Martha Crenshaw (Zalman, 2009), terrorism remains an intrinsically political rather than cultural phenomenon and, as such, the terrorism of today is not fundamentally or qualitatively “newâ€, but grounded in an evolving historical context.
Crenshaw explains that the idea of a “new†terrorism is often based on insufficient knowledge of history, as well as misinterpretations of contemporary terrorism.
Possibly a more realistic way would have been to strengthen the ties and sharing of intelligence with countries that have problems with terrorists rather than profiling them—which in many ways sends a wrong message.
Terrorism is a problem that needs inclusive input (as it affects all countries) rather than profiling individual countries which might be interpreted as finger-pointing. Profiling countries and collaborating with them at the same time may send conflicting messages.
The writer is a marketing executive with a private university in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia