Critically Evaluate the Requirements and Challenges Associated With International Co Operation in Counter Terrorism

Terrorism in the contemporary society - UK

Terrorism is a serious issue in the contemporary society and the international public is actively involved in fighting it through a wide range of channels, both organized and improvised. While terrorism was previously regarded as being a concept with a lesser felt presence in the West, recent decades have proved otherwise and have made it possible for the masses to understand that they are exposed. The September 11, 2001, events in particular changed the way that the masses looked at terrorism in general. People understood that it was a real problem and that they were no longer as safe as they previously thought they were.

The September 11 events made the whole world turn its attention toward the U.S. It seemed that terrorism had chosen the country as a main target and that the American authorities needed to provide a rapid and effective response. The situation, however, had become much more complex than that -- in addition to worrying about Americans, the rest of the world also needed to acknowledge the terrorist threat at home. Countries that were allies of the U.S. in particular would have to support the American government in its decisions, especially when considering its involvement in the Middle East.

One of the biggest problems related to terrorism is the concept itself and its definition. The media world managed to shape the way that the masses understand this respective idea and made it difficult for some to understand the correct response to terrorism. This word is often used when people try to describe immoral behaviors and horrific actions in general. In some extreme cases even politicians use it with the purpose to undermine their opponents. In other cases the word is controversial because it describes people who actually resort to acts of violence with the purpose to put across their convictions and because this is their only solution. In order to gain a better understanding of the multitude of ways people use the word terrorist, one would have to look at the Syrian civil war. The government claims that all rebels fighting against it are terrorists while rebels say that they are actually freedom fighters wanting to save people in the country from an abusive leadership. Furthermore, particular rebel groups have either grown into or associated with world renowned terrorist organizations. It can thus be very confusing for someone to differentiate between the idea of a freedom fighter and a terrorist. "Some so-called 'post-modernists' reject the concept of terrorism on the grounds that it is purely 'subjective', implying that there are no independent objective verifiable criteria to enable us to distinguish terrorism from other forms of activity." (Wilkinson, 4) With people also understanding the fact that they are exposed, many are likely to be paranoid with regard to what happens around them. These respective people can thus be inclined to put across wrong attitudes with regard to individuals they consider terrorists.

Considering recent events occurring throughout Europe recently, Europeans have once again acknowledged that they are exposed to terrorism. The threat is real and society needs to get actively involved in fighting it through all means available. When considering the UK in particular, things are critical due to the complexity of the Muslim population there. In addition to that, there are somewhat domestic terrorists in the region as a result of IRA-like groups wanting to emphasize their perspectives. This makes it increasingly difficult for the authorities to implement programs meant to discourage terrorism and to encourage the masses to play an active role in fighting the concept. In some cases implementing a program meant to combat terrorism can be difficult because of the large number of people affected by it. The authorities cannot simply target individuals simply because they belong to a certain religious group or because they come from a country where there are large numbers of terrorists. Likeliness cannot be applied in a situation involving human beings, as one cannot simply be likely to be a terrorist because of the way that the person dresses, the religion he or she follows, or because they promote their cultural values.

The Terrorism Act 2000

Deaths resulting from terrorist acts in the UK are relatively rare, as a combination of factors made it possible for people in the British Isles to stay relatively safe from terrorism. "Were it not for a determined and well-resourced police and security response, it is also the case that many more people would be suffering violent deaths and injuries as a consequence of Northern Ireland-related terrorism." (Anderson, 5)

The UK's relationship with terrorism mainly emerged as a result of high tensions in Northern Ireland throughout the second half of the twentieth century. The Terrorism Act of 2000 was created with the purpose of devising a more complex agenda regarding terrorism. Acts addressing terrorism in the UK previously focused on the idea of violence performed with political aims. The new act expanded this idea to involve political, religious, or ideological violent actions. "Action is defined as including: violence against a person, damage to property, serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public and behaviour designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system." (Terrorism Act 2000) More powers were introduced in the state as a consequence of the act, with the police being able to detain people suspected of terrorism and the secretary of state being provided with the ability to exclude certain organizations believed to be function in agreement with ideas leading to terrorist acts (Terrorism Act 2000).

A multitude of MPs considered that the Terrorism Act of 2000 could create a precedent for the government to abuse its power. The authorities were basically presented with the power to ban political protest. This also meant that individuals would no longer be able to support or to associate themselves with groups that had been proscribed (Terrorism Act 2000).

The Terrorism Act of 2000 was addressed throughout the twenty-first century in a series of occasions. One of the most notable is the Terrorism Act 2000 (remedial) Order 2011 -- "an urgent remedial order concerning exceptional counter-terrorism powers to stop and search without reasonable suspicion." (Great Britain: Parliament: Joint Committee on Human Rights, Stationery Office (Great Britain)) The Order was implemented due to the fact that the Terrorism Act of 2000 was no longer considered effective, as it prevented the authorities from being able to stop and search without reasonable suspicion. The Order did not receive wide spread support and in some cases it was actually condemned for supporting discrimination against certain groups. In Gillian and Quinton v UK, the European Court for Human Rights claimed that the order violated the right to private life, as it could interfere with people's lives in spite of them having nothing to do with terrorism (Great Britain: Parliament: Joint Committee on Human Rights, Stationery Office (Great Britain))

In some extreme cases, legislators believe that terrorism acts can seriously interfere with the well-being of certain communities. Some argue that if the Terrorism Act 2000 (remedial) Order 2011 were active in Margaret Thatcher's years conditions would have been critical for individuals supporting Nelson Mandela. People supporting the overthrow of a regime can actually be heroes in some cases and with the existence of such acts things can be especially difficult for them.

Fighting terrorism can be an intricate mission, taking into account the wide range of variables involved. The authorities need to have a complex understanding of the idea of a terrorist and it can be difficult and almost impossible for each and every law enforcement agent to have the experience needed for him or her to differentiate between a terrorist and a perfectly normal individual. He or she needs to refrain from discriminating and they need to be particularly discriminatory at all times given the tense state of affairs in the contemporary society. The nation as a whole would have to play an active role in fighting terrorism, as this fight cannot just involve law enforcement officers.

Terrorist recruitment groups

While counter terrorism agencies have evolved significantly in recent years, they have merely provided a response to complex terrorist groups developing both in the Middle East and across the world. "In his case study of the UK-based al-Muhajiroun movement, an Islamic activist movement dedicated to establishing a caliphate wherever members live, Quintan Wiktorowicz says that the group's objective in the early stages of recruitment is to have the prospective jihadist assume personal ownership for the choice to delve more deeply into Islam." (Springer 136) Many terrorist groups thus have a great understanding of how human psychology works and thus concentrate on recruiting individuals without putting any pressure on them. By being encouraged to believe that their recruitment is mainly due to their convictions, terrorists-to-be are more probable to act in agreement with their group's legislations, regardless of how horrific they might seem.

The 7/7 2005 London bombings

While aware of the terrorist threat and while able to foresee that it too had been exposed due to its collaboration to the U.S. in the Middle East, the UK had not been able to predict what would happen in London on the 7th of July, 2005. Measures had been taken in order to ensure that Homeland security in the UK would be ready for a potential terrorist threat: "UK spending on "public order and security" grew from roughly $40 billion in 2001 to $53 billion in 2005." (Levy, 34) Even with this, these actions could not possibly prevent a series of organized suicide bombers targeting the public transport system in central London on July 7, 2005. The bombings caused the death of fifty-two people and the injuring of several other hundred.

The London Underground can be described as a 'soft target', taking into account that people usually gather there in large numbers, especially during rush hours. The authorities have a very difficult challenge when considering the security of the city's infrastructure. The large number of people in the city means that a wide range of agents need to be dispatched across London and that the monitoring system needs to be specially designed to identify potential terrorist threats. "The introduction of a new, simplified system of threat levels for the UK has already been mentioned, and this will go some way toward ensuring that security professionals involved in making London's transport infrastructure as safe as it can be post-7/7 have a clearer understanding of the terrorist threat." (Forest, 237) In order to gain a better understanding of the situation, the authorities have gotten actively involved in collaborating with transport agencies that can provide more information regarding the system's vulnerabilities.

In contrast to the London Underground, air transport agencies have a much more complex form of dealing with terrorist threats. One can consider that it would be perfectly normal for conditions to be this way, as the idea of a plane being controlled by a terrorist is certainly terrifying. In contrast, the idea of a bus or a metro being taken over seems less scary in spite of the fact that the masses would surely agree to it being one of their worst nightmares. While it seems natural for the authorities to want to have a record of people leaving and entering the country, it is certainly intriguing to consider the way that public transport is generally ignored in the context of terrorism.