Opinion - News Analysis   

U.K.'s response to terrorism makes things worse

Dan Plesch

What is needed now is an effective counter-terrorism strategy.

POPULAR TRUST in government is a necessary foundation of a society's defences against terrorism. We need to believe we are being told the truth and that our government is acting in good faith.

The alleged plot to attack aircraft and passengers announced by Scotland Yard on Thursday obviously concerns us all and, for the time being, we have to take it at face value. There have so far been some modest successes by the security services in bringing terrorists to trial. But the British Government's actions have also been marked by misinformation and false scares. The supposed ricin poison plot, the raid in Forest Gate, east London, in which two brothers, one of whom was shot, were arrested and then later released without charge and the "padded jacket" Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes never wore when he was shot dead by police in south London last year come immediately to mind.

More important for public safety are the false government claims made after last summer's London bombings that the attacks were made by people unknown to the authorities. It is now known that some of the attackers had been under observation and that at least one member of the public was ignored when he did what the government asked and acted as its eyes and ears. We badly need effective counter-terrorism tactics and strategy. The threat is real both at home and abroad. But the problem is not that his critics "don't get" the terrorist threat, as Britain's Home Secretary John Reid has put it, but that the Government has, with the United States, abandoned all the principles of effective counter-terrorism. These were practised by the British against countless insurgencies. Whether or not you agree with the historian Niall Ferguson about empire, it is instructive to review the five key principles that — usually — allowed imperial rule with minimum force.

First, ensure good coordination between security services and police. Karen DeYoung's indictment of the failure of the U.S. security services to talk to each other in this week's Washington Post is truly damning. By refusing to communicate, the U.S. services render their, and by extension the U.K.'s, services less effective. We now know that U.S. officials have a routine seat at Britain's joint intelligence committee, a fact that one of its former chairmen told me makes it hard for the British state to think independently. Do U.S. officials also sit in on the U.K.'s counter-terror organisations, and if so how do they relate to the myriad, non-communicating services detailed by The Washington Post?

The other four principles are to deny the enemy a base, secure your own base, keep the political and moral high ground, and address your opponents' grievances.

In the U.K. our leaders say there are no grievances to be addressed, despite the fact that the London bombers said they were motivated by the Iraq war and that U.K. security services warned that the occupation of Iraq would increase the terrorist threat. Our moral high ground is preserved by a U.S. Attorney-General who was promoted to this office after sanctioning the Guantanamo detention camp and the practices used at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The Islamist terrorists still have a base in Pakistan and Afghanistan. By shifting attention to Iraq after 9/11, we gave Al-Qaeda and the Taliban a respite for which British troops are now paying the price. And more people are prepared to provide tacit support to those fighting the U.S.

Our own base is now less secure than before 9/11, based on the number of actual and alleged threats, while our continued unnecessary dependence on oil makes our home base hostage to adverse regime change abroad. There are indeed those who do not get the terrorist threat. Principal among them are the British Prime Minister and his supporters.

- Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

(Dan Plesch is a research associate at the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.)

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Terror and the Pakistan connection
Tackling chikungunya
Nuclear deal: why avoid sense of Parliament?
German townsfolk in fear of neo-Nazi rallying point
Corrections and clarifications
India, Pakistan need to move ahead
U.K.'s response to terrorism makes things worse
Lebanon the real victim
Foiled attempt
Unedifying behaviour
Natwar's comment
Reclaiming feminism
Noble gesture

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu