Maritime Terrorism and the United States

The Rise And Countering Of Maritime Terrorism By The United States

Since the maritime environment is so open there is plenty of opportunity for maritime terrorism. Many terrorist organisations like Al Qaeda, the Chechen rebels, Hezbollah, and Hamas participate in maritime terrorism. Maritime terrorism is the act of terrorism in the maritime environment, using boat vessels or seaports. One of the most interesting types of maritime terrorism is the targeting of cruise ships for the purpose of mass casualties, and the hijacking of larger vessels like oil tankers. The goal of most maritime terrorism is economic, to kill, or shift foreign or domestic policy. Vessels like US navy ships and vessels are attractive targets because they symbolise American power

In the early 2000s, there was a spike in terrorist attacks in the sea. Fear that more transnational terrorist organisations are going to move their tactics to the water was high in the west. Many planned strike attacks were planned by Al Qaeda, including an attack on the USS The Sullivans in January 2000

Maritime Terrorism Solutions

The future of countering maritime terrorism needs to focus on offensive and defensive options for the long-term solution, not just the short-term. The problem is the long-term solution to maritime terrorism is not as feasible as the short-term. Typically when the US sees a quick solution like combat or prevention policy making we hop on it very fast. War is a very easy way to defeat an enemy, just going in and attacking them. 

Cruise ships, ferries, and cargo ships are targets for maritime terrorism because they offer mass casualties and even economic harm. The US is currently on the front lines on trying to combat maritime terrorism, they have created the container security initiative, the International ship and port facility security code, the proliferation security initiative,  and the customs trade partnership against terrorism. Washington has been active in investing in these initiatives because the US gives counter-terrorism the highest priority.

Counter-Terrorism Initiatives

These initiatives are on the defensive side of countering terrorism but are only short-term. These initiatives are for prevention purposes and crisis management. The pros of this type of defence are that the US is being active in countering the attack. The cons of these initiatives are that these only go so far. The US should enforce a maritime security collaboration that conducts high-level maritime threats. The Maritime industry should also be increasing their communication with each other, in order for the security of the water to be in a good position to combat or prevent an attack. 

Another tactic that the United States use in order to combat maritime terrorism is the war model. The US began to attack terrorist organisations in order to dismantle them, prevent them from spreading their ideology, and protect ourselves from future attacks. The problem with the war model is that it is very short-term. Just removing terrorists, is not going to end terrorism. The pros of the war model are the intelligence that we collect on terrorism through the military, which we can use to learn about terrorism and use the intelligence to de-radicalise or take terrorism down in another way. 

Conclusions and Recommendations

At any time there are tens of thousands of vessels traveling the ocean and employing people from all over the world. The ocean is a highway for a huge international market. Maritime terrorism has the potential to paralyse global maritime commerce. Many terrorist organisations do not have the skill or resources to successfully carry out one of these attacks, but those who do pose a major threat that is constantly growing. The debate that is going on about maritime terrorism is about conserving resources that the West has. Should we be spending money on combatting maritime terrorism when it is rarer than land terrorism? The problem with this argument is that, once a major terrorist attack happens on the water it could ruin global maritime commerce. We can not wait for an attack to happen, we should be prepared for the possibility of the attack. 

Terrorism in the Philippines: Can Increased Maritime Security Help Stop the Flow of Foreign Fighters?

While the thought of ISIS typically brings to mind violence in Iraq and Syria, their pervasive ideology, coupled with the ability to reach a broad audience, creates a large swath of global sympathizers. These sympathizers may range from an individual who has yet to be radicalized but resonates with their message, to full-blown sleeper cells. Southeast Asia has received attention in the past year due to what appears to be a rise of ISIS-supporting rebels. In fact, in 2016 ISIS chose a Filipino rebel as its emir in Southeast Asia.

ISIS gaining grip in Philippines after being driven out of the Middle East, photo by Paul Toothey

According to Pew Research Center, Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world. While they have escaped the majority of the protracted violence that has plagued the Middle East, Voice of America reports that Indonesia is known to have sleeper cells of ISIS sympathizers.

Indonesia and the Philippines, large islands in close proximity to one another, are Southeast Asia’s most populous countries. In 2017, the Philippines experienced a five-month war fought by ISIS inspired rebels. Officials have confirmed that Indonesian sympathizers traveled to the Philippines to support the battle that killed 1,127 people. Bibhu Routray, a visiting security and counter-terrorism professor from Murdoch University asserts that 40-50 foreign rebels in Marawi had traveled from Indonesia in response to the call from ISIS. Although this particular battle has ended, the overall terrorist threat remains.

The Guardian (31 March 2016) featured a story headlined Brighton Boys: How four friends fell into Jihad.

Now, the Philippines and Indonesia are coming together to halt ISIS sympathizers from crossing the sea that separates the two countries. While the two countries did not explicitly state how they will control the flow of terrorists into the Philippines, Voice of America reports that analysts have pointed to the vulnerability that stems from a lack of patrols in the Celebes Sea.

Historically, porous borders have been exploited by terrorists. The Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan have allowed terrorists to travel between countries and seek safe havens due to the challenges of patrolling the difficult terrain. The Celebes Sea is a 285,000 square-kilometer body of water which has been described as a “serious maritime black spot” by Jamestown Foundation.

ISIS’s ability to mobilize foreign fighters has contributed to its power and reach. According to the Soufan Group, many fighters who join ISIS in the Middle East come from Europe – particularly from France – [1] Not only do foreign fighters provide ISIS with a mass of people willing to go to battle, but an equal threat is that these fighters often return home with radical ideas. Cooperation between Indonesia and the Philippines to enhance maritime security may prove to be a positive step in stemming the flow of fighters to the Philippines, but also in preemptively stopping the return of hardened militants, thereby contributing to the denial of ISIS’s desired global expansion.

The island geography of these countries provides them with a unique border unlike the physical terrain borders of other countries dealing with foreign fighters. A limited number of points of entry exist on an island. With well thought out security protocols and excellent cooperation, Indonesia and the Philippines could use their island geography to their advantage.

ISIS flag captured by the Philippines Armed Forces, June 1, 2017

 

[1] http://soufangroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/TSG_ForeignFightersUpdate3.pdf