United Kingdom

United Kingdom
 by Chris Ynclan Jr

The State of Terrorism in the United Kingdom

Terrorism within the United Kingdom, over the past decade, has encountered many critical threats that have challenged its security. While the island nation is not unique in the threats it faces, it serves as a useful case study to analyze upcoming trends affecting its allies for the foreseeable future. By doing so, the United Kingdom and its allies can better understand emerging challenges and better support transatlantic security. To complete this aim, policymakers must investigate the history of terrorism within the United Kingdom and newer hazards to British society.

Challenges of the 20th Century

In the 20th century, one of the United Kingdom’s greatest threats was insecurity derived from Irish separatism threatening its territorial integrity. One of the earliest incidents of this insecurity occurred over a century ago during the Easter Rising of 1916. During this event, a coalition of Irish groups hoped to demand greater autonomy for Ireland while the United Kingdom was preoccupied with fighting the First World War. Although initially taken aback, British forces overwhelmed those involved in the rising. When the dust had settled, hundreds had died from the fighting and the event leaders were sentenced to death.

The Easter Rising would be a pivotal moment in Irish political history because it drew the Irish public’s support for their cause. Consequently, the rising would also inspire future generations of Irish separatists to use violence for a united Ireland.

The most infamous terrorist group which the Easter Rising would inspire was the Irish Republican Army (IRA). The group traces its heritage to the first organization to hold that name which fought the British Army during 1919. Ireland would be partitioned two years later and serve as a backdrop for the worst fighting between the IRA and loyalist paramilitary groups.

The IRA truly became infamous during the period known as the Troubles, which lasted from the 1960s to the 1990s. The sectarian violence claimed the lives of thousands and ended in signing the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. The agreement created several integral institutions such as the Northern Ireland Assembly providing lasting peace in Northern Ireland.

Critical Threats in the 21st Century

In the new millennium, the United Kingdom’s primary threat to their national security stemmed not from Irish separatism but from Islamic extremism. This was made clear after the July 7th London bombings which killed 52 civilians. For much of the 2000s, al-Qaeda was the group responsible for either perpetrating or inspiring attacks in the United Kingdom. However, this changed with the rise of ISIS, which grew in capability and resources to inspire attacks. By the end of the 2010s, ISIS garnered attention with the 2017 Manchester bombing.

During 2022, the United Kingdom still faces an acute threat from Islamic extremism, but it also faces a rising challenge from right-wing extremism. In January 2022, a 17-year-old in the United Kingdom was arrested on suspicion of wanting to commit violence against members of the Muslim community and kill thousands of others. The head of MI5, Ken McCallum, stated that his agency is seeing young teenagers radicalized through the internet.

Policy for the Future

While the rise in right-wing extremism is not exclusive to the United Kingdom, it must understand the conditions causing this rise. In the present century, there has been a proliferation of technology designed to create a global public square and enable democratization of knowledge. Instead, the generations who have grown up with this technology have become increasingly isolated and have fewer friends than previous generations.

Many individuals have scoured the internet in search of companionship and comradery but instead are preyed upon by extremist groups who have grown in capacity to do so. Furthermore, the country which they find themselves in is also expected to become more ethnically diverse over the coming decades. Such conditions have compounded to create an environment rife for British youth to be wrangled into right-wing extremism.

To combat such developments, the United Kingdom should institute initiatives to alleviate the isolation which their youth face. The United Kingdom should also bolster its security through increased engagement in Northern Ireland and its domestic Muslim community; both areas could become sources of unrest.  Brexit and the increased capacity for ISIS recruitment efforts following the withdrawal from Afghanistan are both sources of increased unrest.

Moreover, they should also bolster their cybersecurity capabilities as competition will intensify in the coming decades. The United Kingdom will be subject to attempted penetrations in cyberspace by foreign governments to ascertain sensitive information. Should they back a harder line on authoritarian governments, there will also be efforts to weaken their resolve to do so. By taking initiative, the United Kingdom can be prepared for the upcoming years that will certainly present a challenge to their security.

 

Christopher Ynclan Jr., Counter-Terrorism Research Fellow

in Europe / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
Liverpool
 by Ahmad Mohibi

The Liverpool Attack: A Need for Community-Based Counter-Terrorism Efforts

The Liverpool bombing on Remembrance Sunday has once again raised questions about the U.K. Counter-Terrorism Prevention Program. The alacrity with which these attacks have occurred in recent times has once again highlighted the rise of extremism in the Western world.

Just before the national two minutes of silence commenced on Sunday, November 14th, a taxi exploded outside the Liverpool Women’s Hospital.  The taxi driver, who locked the taxi doors before the attacker could escape and prevented him from entering the hospital, has been released from the hospital.  The attacker, Emad al-Swealmeen, has been declared dead.

Four men have been arrested under the Terrorist Act but have since been released from custody. Counter-Terrorism Police detectives have stated that they are keeping an open mind so far.

Home Secretary Priti Patel has confirmed that the United Kingdom’s threat level has been raised to “severe;” indicating that an attack is now judged to be “highly likely.” The Liverpool bombing closely follows another incident that rocked the country last month when conservative MP David Amess was stabbed to death in a shocking event described as a terrorist incident.

A miasma of uncertainty and fear surrounds the United Kingdom. Four people have been arrested on suspicion of being connected to the Liverpool bombing, while Ali Harbi Ali has been charged with the murder of Amess. Ali has also been accused of preparing terrorist acts.

The Rise of Islamist Extremist Groups in the West

In the last 20 years, various Islamist extremist groups have sought to spread their message through various ways, with radicalisation being the prime intention. The West has been accused of slowly malforming the culture and the religion, and this has further radicalised lone-wolves.  In addition, the extent of social media and various online platforms carries with it certain banes, and terrorist groups have found it easier to convey their message through such platforms.

The Liverpool attack has once again sharply brought the focus onto the United Kingdom’s Counter-Terrorism Prevention Program. Despite various new initiatives and strategies to counteract terrorism (including the Prevent scheme as part of the Contest strategy), the U.K. continues to act as a hotbed for consistent terrorist activities.

In 2005, four coordinated attacks were carried out by Islamic terrorists in London, which killed 52 people. This was the country’s first Islamist suicide attack, the impact of which continues to reverberate to this day. In 2017, an Islamic extremist detonated a bomb that killed 23 people following an Ariana Grande concert.

The Militarisation of Counter-Terrorism and the Neglect of Community-Based Approaches

However, the Liverpool bombing has once again revived the discussion around the impact of U.K. counter-terrorism programs.

The U.K. response to the rise in extremist attacks has been met with efforts to train and equip a Counter Terrorist Police Force in the hopes to meet terrorist attacks with immediacy. However, the elite group of firearms officers portrays a militarised approach to counter-terrorism. While this may be effective in deterring attacks when they happen, they do little to address the push and pull factors of radicalisation.

In May of this year, Al Jazeera released a report assessing a mental health program run by the U.K. Counter-Terrorism Police. Disturbing facts have been revealed in that report. The “Vulnerability Support Hubs,” as they have been termed, were utilised as a way of tracking and accessing sensitive medical information on certain people. As a result, Muslims with poor mental health have come under heavy scrutiny.

An additional argument regarding the U.K.’s approach to counter-terrorism is that it could do more to be proactive, rather than reactive. The West Midlands Counter-Terrorism Unit documents that 80% of their investigations connected to seized weaponry stem from Islamist extremists. Far-right extremists comprised a fifth of their investigations. However, in the last two years, far-right extremism has been rapidly increasing. Should this trend continue, the U.K. must act promptly to implement effective counter-terrorism policies across various religions, socio-economic groups, and ethnicities.

Origins of extremist behavior need to be analyzed and combatted before meeting the point of seizing weaponry.  The U.K. must raise active involvement by civil society, religious communities, their respective leaders, teachers, and doctors to preemptively recognizing and addressing extremist behaviors.

The U.K. must steer clear from inflammatory rhetoric, evidenced in areas of Europe, in an effort to avoid alienating certain minorities, thus risking the loss of their cooperation.

The Need to Build Trust and Confidence

The U.K. must put more thought into building trust and confidence between its wide range of communities and counter-terrorism units. There is no denying that every program will have its setbacks and challenges. The aim should be to educate the masses and build trust. There should be an emphasis on a more open counter-terrorism program that offers civil-society a chance to approach counter-terrorism units with independent research and recommendations to compliment the law enforcing element, as opposed to militarizing it entirely.

Abhinav Anand, Counter-Terrorism Research Fellow at Rise to Peace

Carla Bilson, Counter-Terrorism Research Fellow at Rise to Peace

Ahmad Shah Mohibi, Founder of Rise to Peace

in Europe / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Vasileia Kioutsouki

Far-Right Versus Islamist Extremism: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Sonnenkrieg Division (SKD) is one of the many extremist far right groups that operate in the United Kingdom, but only the second to be proscribed as a terrorist organization. More often than not, the threat posed by the far-right is neglected, especially in comparison with Islamist extremism. There is a general tendency to minimize far-right extremist incidents and the media seem to be rather reluctant to link such incidents to terrorism. This is somewhat disquieting as the far-right has been identified as the fastest growing terrorist threat in the UK, as well as in other liberal democratic countries.

According to new research, those convicted of Islamist extremist related crimes receive prison sentences three times longer than those affiliated with the far-right in the UK. For instance, Islamist extremists convicted of online crimes receive an average of 73.4 months compared to the right-wing extremists who serve approximately 24.5 months. This disparity is due to the failure of the Home Office to ban right-wing extremist groups as terrorist organizations. As well, the UK’s counter-radicalization strategy has been severely criticized for its focus on Islamic extremism although right-wing referrals have exceeded those related to religious extremism.

In the same way, there is disproportionate academic research on far-right terrorism, as indicated by Bart Schuurman study at the University of Leiden. More precisely, a review of the nine leading academic journals within the field of terrorism provided clear confirmation of something suspected all along, namely that far-right extremism is neglected not only by the government and policy makers, but also by academia.

Serious concerns over the proliferation of right-wing ideology worldwide and the lack of attention paid to it by intelligence and security services were raised following a series of high-profile far-right inspired attacks in 2019, primarily those in New Zealand, Texas and Germany. However, despite the 300% increase of far-right terrorism over the past five years, Islamist extremism continues to be the dominant threat in the UK.

Having said that, far right and Islamist extremism could be considered as being two sides of the same coin. Despite their diametrically opposed positions, they seem to reinforce each other. The rapidly growing Muslim community is essentially perceived as a threat to those that espouse far-right beliefs, therefore provoking a violent reaction. At the same time, Muslims in liberal democratic countries feel oppressed and deprived. They seek to participate proactively in the broader struggle against the oppression of Muslim people for that reason.

Notwithstanding their opposing views, both rightists and Islamists share certain common ideological characteristics, such as the anti-Semitic rhetoric and a belief in conspiracy theories. They also pursue objectives of similar nature. Far-right extremists seek to create a homogeneous society exempt of immigrants, or people of different races or religions, likewise, Islamist extremists aim at creating an Islamic Caliphate across the world with no ‘infidels’, namely people of a different religion. In addition, they are both opposed to globalization: Islamists under the fear of losing their cultural identity and right-wing extremists under the risk of losing homogeneity.

What emerges from the above is that despite all their differences, the threat posed by these two types of extremism is of equal importance. Both Islamist and right-wing extremists deserve specific attention and impartiality is an essential ingredient in the strategy of counter-radicalization. A policy which puts a disproportionate emphasis on one could be considered biased and ineffective, therefore making it difficult for experts to tackle either of those. By neglecting or over-emphasizing only one side of the problem, policymakers risk any attempt to effectively respond to such types of extremism.

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Rise to Peace

Will the United Kingdom’s Online Harms White Paper Curb Extremism but Allow Expression?

On April 8, Theresa May turned to Twitter to make a bold statement. Upon the release of the United Kingdom’s Online Harms White Paper, a tweet noted, “The era of social media companies regulating themselves is over.” The 102-page policy document urges the establishment of new regulations which will hold all social media companies liable for harmful and extremist content. Is this a sensible way to deal with digital extremism?

Social media companies and platforms have a part to play in making the internet a safer place. In order to combat harmful content, the United Kingdom seeks to hold companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter responsible. Authorities in the United Kingdom plan to enforce penalties for harmful content, which would be a fine of 4% of global turnover or 20 million euro ($23 million), whichever is greater.

In addition to the fines, the United Kingdom aspires to create a regulatory body, and enact bans and restrictions on user content, limiting what citizens can view. Regulations on internet freedoms and bans will undoubtedly anger citizens. Countries such as Russia and China have similar authoritarian beliefs. Liberal democratic nations adopting parallel legislation potentially legitimizes such restrictions and can be viewed as a victory for extremists.

Overreaction by the government of the United Kingdom has extremely detrimental consequences. Changing online regulations and censoring citizens is a flawed legislative move. Passing this particular law encourages extremists because it shows their actions initiate socio-political change and cause legislative action. Further, it provokes pessimism in financial markets by causing a greater risk for tech startups.

Proactive responses to digital extremism and hoping to make the internet a safer place are at the core of the United Kingdom’s argument. The May government is correct in its mission, but its execution needs more work. Fining social media companies and censorship of user content seems more like a punishment rather than a solution.

The United Kingdom is faced with a few considerations should it proceed with the proposed White Paper. Public safety is of the utmost importance, as is the ability of free expression. Fining companies for the negligence of extreme content is justifiable. As extreme content lingers, it continues to spread. Thus, social media platforms are directly responsible for stopping hateful and extremist messaging.

Major social media companies — Facebook, Twitter, YouTube — must update their Terms of Service and ask all users to act as moderators. If content appears to be approaching an extreme or violent conclusion, it should be reported by the community. False reports regarding extreme content should have penalties as well, in order to ensure users are being responsible. This avenue permits millions to help protect cyberspace on their own terms. It would allow citizens to come together to combat online hate, which presents a powerful message against extremism.

If the UK plans on changing its online usage and how its users interact in online spaces, the people should have a say. The solutions in the United Kingdom’s Online Harms White Paper need to be more focused. The 12 weeks of consultation have begun and will end July 1st.

Currently, the resolutions to the proposed issues are very broad and seem severe. The best way to ensure a safer internet space is to create a unified community of users. Group accountability will help ensure the internet is a safer place as the people of the United Kingdom define it. This could be the beginning of a safer internet and a model for other countries.

in EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Kate Kleinle

No-Deal Brexit: Implications for Transnational Security

Anti-Brexit demonstrators wave EU and Union flags opposite the Houses of Parliament, in London, Britain, June 19, 2018. REUTERS/Henry Nicholls

 As the threat of a no-deal Brexit looms closer, it is becoming increasingly clear that such a scenario would significantly hamper counterterrorism efforts in both the United Kingdom and Europe.

As an EU member, the UK is party to European institutions such as the European Arrest Warrant, a system of warrants valid throughout the European Union, and Europol, the EU-wide law-enforcement body that combats terror and organized crime. The UK also receives additional European data including fingerprints, DNA, and passenger flight information. Should it leave the EU without a deal establishing a continued partnership on such initiatives, it will lose access to European intelligence and risk becoming unaware of potential terrorist threats within their own borders.

This will adversely impact Europe as well. For every suspect arrested on a European Arrest Warrant, British authorities arrest eight EAW suspects from other states, so the benefit to European countries from British forces is huge. Given the extensive travel between Europe and the UK, it is critical that the two cooperate on intelligence so that no criminal may slip through borders unnoticed. Should this cooperation end, it is likely dangerous individuals will cross between Britain and Europe without notice.

If no deal codifies the partnership between British and European law enforcement, then both the EU and the UK are in an extremely risky position. To avoid the possibility of turning the UK into a de facto safe haven for European criminals, a no-deal Brexit must be avoided, and the UK must negotiate a continued partnership with the European Union.

in EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments