Terrorism: What have we learnt?

Dushy Ranetunge in London

DEBATE: The famous reinsurance house Lloyds in the City of London was the venue for an important live terrorism debate conducted to assess risk to global business from Terrorism last Tuesday.

The debate attracted some of the key figures in the field of terrorism, particularly in relation to the United Kingdom and we were treated to a rare insight into policy and strategy of the British political and security

 establishment at the highest levels in relation to terrorism.

There are remarkable similarities in relation to the Sri Lankan conflict and also contradictions.

Lord Levene, The Chairman of Lloyds made the welcome address and the event was chaired by John Simpson, the legendary BBC world affairs editor. Among the speakers was Dr Rohan Gunaratne (head of the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore), Mike Bowron (Commissioner for the City of London Police), Peter Clarke (Deputy Assistant Commissioner Metropolitan Police, Head of the Counter Terrorism Command, also known as SO15 formed by the merger of Special Branch and the Anti-Terrorist Branch. He is also the National Co-ordinator of Terrorist Investigations), Sir Richard Dearlove head of MI6 from 1994 to 2004 (MI6 is Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service) and Sir Richard Mottram (Permanent Secretary, Intelligence, Security and Resilience, Cabinet Office).

For obvious reasons this article will be cautious in identifying certain statements to particular individuals serving in office and the reader should not attempt to do so, unless specifically mentioned.

A brief description of the latest developments which have taken place in the evolution of Islamic terrorism were highlighted and that Al Qaeda is not an organisation, but a movement, an ideology, which has increasing support among young muslims.

It was highlighted that Iran had detained several key Al Qaeda activists including a son and two wives of Osama Bin laden. This position of Iran may change if the West’s relationship with Iran deteriorates.

It was stated that the epicentre of Islamic terrorism has moved 1500 miles closer to the West from Afghanistan to Iraq and that if the allies withdraw from Iraq, they will have to return in 2-3 years time, because Iraq would be used as a launching pad for various global Jihadist groups to attack the West.

This was a point unanimously mentioned by all the speakers mentioned above. The participants were reminded that after the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan, the country became the home for numerous terrorist groups who were targeting the West.

The value of intelligence in combating these groups was stressed. Dr Gunaratne informed the participants that when he was studying for his Phd at St Andrews University in Scotland a few years ago, he was able to meet in Britain, the representatives of approximately 40 terrorist organisations.

There was evidence that these groups operating in Britain communicated and co-operated with each other.

Mike Bowron, Commissioner for the City (Banking and Insurance district) of London told the audience of an initiative known as operation Griffin, where private security guards employed by private companies in the city are trained by the Police using short courses so that they could be used as an auxiliary force by the City Police during a crisis to protect premises where they are assigned to.

The city (the banking and Insurance district) in London is protected by what is known in law enforcement circles as the ring of steel.

It was highlighted that every business should have a business continuity plan and a business survival plan in preparation of a terrorist attack. The need to regularly change procedures so that terrorists will not be able to establish a pattern of behaviour was emphasised.

Richard Fenning, CEO of a specialist risk assessment company called Control Risks informed the audience that the threat to business is no different to the one that existed 100 years ago and said that this is a golden age for risk takers and if Britain did not take the risks, the Chinese, the Japanese and the Koreans, will simply step in and reap the rewards.

Peter Clarke head of SO15 disclosed that there were patterns in relation to terrorist actions that these would lead to long term disruption. Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of the Secret British Intelligence Service MI6 stated that terrorism was an extreme act of political communication.

He stated that this makes our (British) reaction to it important, and the British response to terrorism takes into account that it is an act of political communication.

He referred to 9/11 as a defining moment and that within a few hours after the attack he flew to the United States with a team in excess of 30 British officers from MI6 and offered their assistance and support to the United States.

In commercial language he spoke of the success of the “branding” of Al Qaeda and inquired as to where this brand goes next? He spoke of a need for a strategy to make the Al Qaeda brand obsolete.

There was regular references made to the success in Northern Ireland, where the IRA wanted Northern Ireland severed from Britain and united with Ireland (Irish Republic). In the long term strategy of defeating terrorism and making the “brand” obsolete it was necessary for us to always retain the moral high ground.

Questions were asked about morality of rendition, illegal wiretaps and Guatanamo bay. Rendition is abduction of terrorist suspected who are flown to countries such as Ukraine in US military aircraft’s via US military bases for torture by proxy. After negative publicity such actions have been severely curtailed.

Sir Richard stated that he understands the US compulsions in the post 9/11 era in using tools such as rendition, but that in his opinion, on the balance of probabilities, such actions damage the long term goal of achieving the moral high ground and defeating terrorism and recruiting informants.

Maintaining the moral high ground was repeatedly emphasised by the speakers in the long term strategy of defeating terrorism, recruiting informants and interacting with muslim elite.

The longer it takes to create a cohesive long term strategy, the worse it will get. The strategy should be formulated to isolate the Al Qaeda branding, rather than allowing it to become the mainstream resulting in easy recruitment for Jihadists.

It was revealed that according to the head of Afghan law enforcement, they estimate that there are approximately 5,500 trained foreign Jihadists in Afghanistan. This number was questioned as to its veracity.

The importance of Pakistan and its secret intelligence service ISI was discussed and the need to enter into intelligence alliances with other nations and the need for raising the intelligence capabilities of other nations in the war against terrorism.

It was stated that Al Qaeda successfully mutates to responses and successes, and as a result it is now out of intelligence reach. In relation to war on terrorism, the worst possible thing to do was to keep strategy in the same place. Strategy needed to be revised according to circumstances.

The problem of being an ideology, cannot be defeated by war. The reserves of ideological fuel were not running out. The emphasis was on long term strategy. The roots of the problem was not Iraq or Afghanistan, but a crisis within Islam.

Many had forgotten the attack on the grand mosque in Saudi Arabia in 1971. There was a need to understand the roots of the conflict.

It is a conflict primarily between moderate Islam and radical Islam. There were early indications that radicals trying to impose their ways on the moderates are resulting in a backlash. In Iraq, Sunni’s are increasingly mobilising against the radicals.

It was disclosed that according to Iraqi law enforcement there were 12,000 trained foreign Jihadists operating in Iraq. It was stated that the Iraqi suicide bombers were delivering their message to the voters in the United States and Britain.

Other than Iraq and Afghanistan Jihadist activity was spreading to Lebanon and Somalia. It was disclosed that things were going badly for Al Qaeda in Indonesia.

The use of WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) was discussed and that while blast technology was what was being used widely at present, it was disclosed that Al Qaeda had already deployed Chlorine bombs in Iraq.

In Britain they were expecting an incident sooner, rather than later and they were hoping that it will not be serious. Sir Richard Mottram from the cabinet office stated that their risk assessments have determined that terrorism is not the biggest risk to Britain. The biggest risk is pandemic influenza which could result in 700,000 deaths and cost 2% of GDP.

He stated that a civil servant had got into trouble by stating that climate change is a bigger long term risk than terrorism. He asked the participants not to get fixated on terrorism.

It was highlighted that the 3 F’s, floods, foot & mouth disease and fuel strikes were the greatest risks to the supply chain in recent times in Britain. Like the others Sir Richard Mottram stressed that in relation to terrorism we were facing a battle of ideas, an ideological struggle and referred to the earlier statement by the ex-British spy chief that terrorism is an extreme form of political expression.

As such, he stated that the British government always seeks a response to terrorism which is proportionate, because we don’t want our country to be an unpleasant place to live in.

He stated that equal concern is given to 7/7 in London and attacks in Bali, Indonesia because the lives of British citizens were put at risk in both incidences.

He stated that to deal with terrorism effectively there is a need to desegregate terrorism into different components rather than aggregate. There is need to address the “prevention” component as much as the component of “pursuing” terrorism. He stated that there is a need to look at the community dimension and that terrorism has to be defeated in partnership with the community.

There was evidence of home grown terrorists having contact with their “HQ” in Pakistan. He stated that there is a need to understand what it is, that is radicalising UK citizens.

Sir Richard Mottram stated that Britain was not against muslims, but that Jihadists were selling an ideology that Britain is against muslims in order to facilitate their recruitment.

He stated that this ideology has been successful and that there is a need to address it if terrorism is to be defeated. Before the event commenced, in a private room at Lloyds, John Simpson, the BBC world affairs editor informed this writer that he would be concentrating more on Afghanistan now, because 61% of the Americans were against the war and there is not much more to be done in Iraq.

I got the impression that like most of the British public and the BBC, John Simpson may not be in favour of the continued allied military commitment in Iraq.

After listening to speaker after speaker from the highest levels of the British security and political establishments (not politicians) stating that a withdrawal from Iraq would lead to Iraq becoming a springboard for attacks on the West, I observed John Simpson in a reflective mood.

Despite significant British public opposition, and domestic and international political unpopularity, the British government continues in its military commitment to Iraq and Afghanistan because of national security concerns.

The outgoing British Prime Minister, Tony Blair continues to tell the British public “my hand on heart, I did what I thought was the best for Britain”. He went on to say “what is right for Britain is not necessarily popular”.