Cost of terror

The tragic events in Paris last Friday have left Europe reeling. Politicians have been clamoring to denounce the atrocity and by chance announce their latest round of measures to tackle any such threat in the future.
Social media has been inundated with people declaring their solidarity with the French. Others though have criticised the outpouring of emotion as a colonial attitude which should have been just as strong when a suicide bomber in Beirut murdered more than 40 people, or Islamic State allegedly brought down a passenger jet leaving Sharm el-Sheik.
Why have people not been so quick to share their sympathy? Of course there is the sad fact that many people do only care about things which happen on their doorstep . They know where France is and therefore it means more to them  This is not the reason for so much emotion over one event and not the other. The sad fact is that a suicide bomber in Beirut or a passenger jet being blown out of the sky aren’t shocking any more. We have become inculcated against the emotion response that they should engender.
This is a terrible fact to acknowledge and it has even more terrible consequences. As we become more used to a wider variety of terrorist actions then the terrorists will have to start becoming even more extreme if they want to maintain the same level of fear among the population.
Terrorism isn’t new. It isn’t about religion, ideology, politics, hate, or any of the multitude of different reasons which are trotted out. It has little to do with an influx of refugees, aside from acknowledging that these are the same people they are fleeing from. It is down to individuals. Individuals who believe that they are somehow better than other people. They may use religion as an excuse  it Islam has as little to do with IS as Christianity does with the Klu Klux Klan.
Terrorists have been around for hundreds of years and over that time their actions have evolved as people become less affected by what they see and hear. Their objective rarely shifts though and it is this which really should cause the fear.
Even in their deluded minds IS members probably do not imagine that they will be parading down the mall as part of the conquering army. If they are to bring down governments then they will do it be crippling the economy.
The bombing of the Russian airliner has already started a chain reaction which will see holiday resorts lose millions as tourists stay away for the time being. The attacks in Paris merely highlight to potential holidaymakers that they aren't safe anywhere and would be better of staying at home.
The full impact this will have on trade and currency is yet to be realised, however, the markets are already seeing the affect as stocks drop in value.
Meanwhile governments, already suffering from economic woes and looking to make cuts, are forced to expend more money than budgeted on increasing security, even though they know that this is mostly for perception rather than practical reasons.
Terrorism is a criminal rather than military action. To call then soldiers or declare war against them elevates them in people’s minds and increases the threat. They are murderers and thieves. If viewed as this then their impact starts to be diminished. Their effect on the economy minimised. It is only when we allow the fear they want to spread that they can harm us. Their greatest fear is that we unite, not just French and English, European and American but everyone, Syrian, Iraqi, Russian. We need to work together to create a strong global economy and remove their only hope of ever achieving close to their ambitions.

A terrorist by any other name

IT HAS become apparent in recent weeks, if it wasn't already clear enough, that in the fight against international terrorism Turkey is caught between a rock and a hard place.
On one side there is the so called Islamic State (IS), known throughout the world as a terror group which has spread across Syria and Iraq with close ties to groups within Yemen, Nigeria and Somalia, where a terror attack on Sunday by one of its affiliates Al Shabaab destroyed one of the key hotels for journalists, diplomats and expats in the capital of Mogadishu.
On the other is Turkey's long running enemy the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK). Since 1984 the campaign for an independent state launched by the PKK has left approximately 40,000 dead, most recently with two Turkish police officers last week.
Where Turkey faces a serious issue however is how these two terrorist groups are perceived beyond its boundaries. Kurdish fighters in Iraq are proving to be the front line of combat operations against IS, while Turkey has repeatedly refused to commit ground forces to the battle. Many believe that the Kurds importance in the battle, and the support for their semi-autonomous state in Iraq, have given a renewed credence among international players to demands for an independent state in Turkey.
In response to this dual threat Turkey called a meeting of NATO allies to discuss operations to protect itself from further attacks.
Ankara may find support limited among its allies though. Accusations have already been levelled at the government for allegedly using airstrikes in Iraq as a cover for also attacking Kurdish units. Recent reports from the area have suggested that Turkish tanks may have deliberately fired across the border into Iraq targeting Kurdish units.
For many Western nations the threat from IS is an overwhelming fear and they are prepared to forge the dirtiest of alliances to combat it, while also keeping their hands as clean as possible by allowing any else to carry out ground offensives on their behalf.
With a startling lack of understanding about the harm which the PKK has caused to Turkey, and the threat it poses to the country's long term security, it seems likely that many NATO countries will prefer to obfuscate and leave Turkey trapped between two evils rather than risking a fighting ally.
Turkey's resistance, not completely unreasonably, to see a difference between two terror groups threatening its sovereignty may place it add odds with the self interests of states looking for an easy end to the IS conflict.

Language of terrorism is Schrödinger's Cat of security

THE announcement by the Nigerian terror group Boko Haram that is has aligned itself with the self proclaimed Islamic State has led to dire warnings by experts but how seriously should we take it?

The announcement, as with most issues surrounding terrorism, is a speech act with little impact other than that which we bestow upon it. Until Boko Haram made the announcement it may or may not have been allied to IS, it took a public statement for it to happen. A speech act is the Schrödinger's cat of securitisation, it may be both or neither until it is spoken at which point it becomes a reality.

This works both ways. For Boko Haram they can now claim allegiance to a vast terror network. The reality of the situation is that it will make very little difference though. In the 70's and 80's groups such as the Irish Republican Army were suspected of training in Libya and allegedly supplied weapons by the then Soviet Union. The IRA didn't need to pledge allegiance to Gaddafi to gain support they just had to have mutually beneficial aims. The same is true for Boko Haram and IS. Neither side needed to pledge allegiance to the other. They both are drawn from the same pool and are already likely to have been providing support where applicable.

The news has however given those on the right of the political spectrum a field day in spreading their own element of fear for their own ends.

 “By Boko Haram pledging to the Islamic State, Shekau has secured a safe haven for Boko Haram's leadership. Even if the current Nigerian offensives are to succeed, a temporary escape could be made to another IS stronghold from where Boko Haram's life cycle can be maintained irrespective of distance,” claimed Veryan Khan, editorial director of Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium (TRAC), speaking to the American right wing Fox network.

Here lies an example of how a speech act can be used to promote what is known as securitisation, the concept that something is a security issue. The pledge doesn't in itself give IS or Boko Haram a foothold in the other's territory. By changing the perspective of the situation however this is what Khan has managed to allow without IS even having to accept it. Terrorism is about ideology, twisted as it may be, ideology is spread by words, the violence is just there to back them up. These words have very little power in and of themselves until they are given credence. 

By using particular language those who claim to be fighting the idea of terrorism are able to achieve their own ends and launch further military actions, as was seen by the disastrous intervention in Iraq, which rather than stabilising the Middle East directly led to a rise in Islamic fundamentalism. 

Likewise Boko Haram is no more likely today then it was last month to work with IS. Now they have said that they will, rather than doing so anyway, they have created a security issue which was already alive it was just still in its box.

A threat to journalists is a threat to freedom

BRITISH Prime Minister David Cameron is set to chair a meeting of the government's emergency response committee COBRA in the aftermath of the brutal murder of another journalist.

A video purporting to show the beheading of 31-year-old American journalist Stephen Sotloff has created anger across the world. It follows the video released last month of the killing of fellow journalist James Foley.

Mr Cameron released a statement following the release of the video:  “I’ve just seen the news. It’s an absolutely disgusting and despicable act and I will be making a statement later.”

At the end of the video the masked terrorist warned that a British journalist would be next unless the United Kingdom stays out of the battle in Iraq and Syria against the group, which calls itself the Islamic State.

In the video entitled "A second message to America" the man, believed to be the murderer of Mr Foley, threatens to continue killing unless the United States ceases airstrikes against IS terrorists in Iraq.

"I'm back, Obama, and I'm back because of your arrogant foreign policy toward the Islamic State ... despite our serious warnings," the fighter says. "So just as your missiles continue to strike our people, our knife will continue to strike the necks of your people."

The video highlights the risks to foreign correspondents posed by terrorist groups. By utilising social media outlets the group has been able to maximise the impact of the killings has had, and subsequently made them seem more attractive to terrorist organisations.

Michelle Stanistreet, National Union of Journalists general secretary, released a statement in a August in which she warned of the dangers faced by journalists around the world.

"This summer's events in the Middle East, Ukraine and Africa have produced a dangerous and lethal climate for foreign correspondents and journalists in the field reporting on bloody conflicts and for the local journalists recording events in such dangerous territory. It is deeply alarming to see that journalists are becoming direct targets and their lives are being put at risk...

"It is a simple fact that freedom of the press and free expression are not possible where journalists face extreme violence for doing their job."

Playing on public opinion and feelings of horror allows the criminal gangs spreading bloodshed to feel that they are able to prevent governments from intervening to prevent further substantial losses of life.

It is the bravery of journalists such as Mr Sotloff and Foley who refuse to be cowed which undermines their insidious aims. Through the threat of death many more are still operating, reporting the news and bringing the publics attention to the very acts which the killers want to be allowed to continue.