Risk Management of Terrorism in the UK: A Strategic Framework

Introduction

The UK is under threat from both domestic and foreign terrorism (Wilkinson, 2007). A proper risk assessment reveals that the concept of terrorism is itself a dynamic term, finding unique expression across various factions spread throughout the world and within the UK. From animal rights extremists to the IRA to al-Qaeda and ISIS, threats are manifest in myriad sectors. Not only do these threats need to be understood on a cultural level — in order to better educate the public and the government as to how to identify them and how to prevent them from escalating to violence — but they also need to be understood on a technical level. In an age of total war, when warfare is taken to civilian populations and conducted against populaces rather than against armies on the battlefield, the need to properly assess risk levels and their determinants is essential. The aim and purpose of this study is to provide a conceptual framework for managing the risk and threat of terrorism in the UK from both domestic and foreign enemies.

The framework for responding to terrorism at the national level in the UK is based not on reaction but on prevention. If reaction is merely the synthesis of strategic planning and preparation, then the mitigation of risk is not the objective but simply a coordination of disaster relief methods. Risk management is about preventing and/or limiting risk. To this end, some of the key explanatory aspects of the strategic management of terrorism at the national level aim at understanding the risk. The UK has years of experience in dealing with both domestic and foreign terrorist threats. Going back to The Troubles in Northern Ireland in the latter half of the 20th century, the lessons learned may be applied to the critical assessment needed today. The collection, analysis, and sharing of intelligence in order to combat the enemy was part of the understanding strategy.

Other key explanatory aspects include the deterrence and disruption of enemy operations, protection against terrorist networks (capabilities, actors, and conduct), the prevention of the spread of terrorism and extremism (curbing radicalization processes), and interaction with communities so as to better monitor and establish the protocols listed above. These key aspects serve as the framework for the risk management of terrorism in the UK. A closer examination of these protocols is discussed in the following sections of the main body: first, the Contextual Assessment provides an overview of the various risks that the UK faces; second, the Components of Risk Management are identified and analyzed.

Contextual Assessment of Threats Facing the UK

The context in which this profile of risk management is situated is global in nature, not merely domestic or national, though the effects felt in the UK are national and constitute a threat to national interests abroad. In terms of contextualizing the threat, it must be understood in all of its segments. The threat of violent Wahhabist terrorism — descended from the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, transferred to Saudi Arabia, then to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and now manifesting within the ISIS framework's control of Syrian oil supply — is a complex system supported and funded by foreign governments and agencies. Both Turkey and Saudi Arabia are believed to be players in this funding and in the propagation of extremist literature, and it is estimated that certain Western agencies are also supportive.

Other threats exist as well, such as the threat of Irish nationalism re-igniting in Northern Ireland not long after the political peace effected in the preceding decade. There is also the threat of violent radicalism in other spheres, such as among animal rights activists, environmental activists, and other socio-anarchic groups that advocate the dismantling of government. Each of these groups represents a significant risk to the UK's social, political, and economic infrastructure in the 21st century (Forst, Greene, & Lynch, 2011).

Components of Risk Management

Risk identification is the strategy of identifying the factors that present risk and/or threats to UK security and stability among these diverse groups and ranking them in terms of severity. This ties into risk analysis and risk evaluation, both of which seek to establish the nature of the threat and its likely manifestation. Risk treatment is the strategy of contending with these threats and mitigating or limiting them, while risk reporting, monitoring, and review each deal with the gathering, collecting, and analyzing of intelligence.

At the same time, there is a need to understand the ways in which guarding against terrorist threats resembles guarding against disaster, and what this means for UK society as a whole — a society that feels the impacts of both the application and the absence of risk management strategy. The social repercussions of any implementation are not to be dismissed as irrelevant; on the contrary, a very vocal and critical public response to government methods can develop over time, as was seen throughout The Troubles. It is therefore important to include in any understanding of terrorism the expectations of the public, since risk management is ultimately designed to safeguard it.

Conclusion and Recommendations

In conclusion, the UK faces a number of threats domestically and abroad. The implications of this assessment are that the UK must develop a cogent risk management framework. It is first necessary to assess the context of the threat — in this case, threats exist in various forms, whether Islamist extremism, animal rights extremism, Irish nationalism, or others. Second, it is necessary to identify the components of risk management and the challenges faced in their implementation. Third, it is necessary to educate the public about the steps being taken by the government to protect them. Finally, it is recommended that the UK look beyond its then-current situation as an EU member and develop a comprehensive strategy for defending its interests in the wake of a potential European rupture of order. This would allow for the mitigation of risk in such a worst-case scenario.

It is recommended that a balanced approach be taken by the UK government towards its diverse citizenry so that anti-Islam, anti-Irish, or anti-animal rights activist mentalities are not cultivated. While surveillance and the use of informants are accepted behaviors in today's world, animosity can still be bred in circles of ignorance. As Ciftci (2012) notes, it is important to remember that the higher the level of education an individual has, the less likely he or she is to demonstrate Islamophobia or any other form of nationalist hatred. The "unprecedented levels" of Islamophobia in the UK following terror attacks (Ciftci, 2012, p. 307) are due primarily to a lack of understanding about Muslims and the actual identities of the terrorists linked to groups like al-Qaeda and those who support them. Education of the public should be the number one priority in any risk management strategy. This allows the government to keep the public informed of its decisions and actions and the reasons behind them, and ensures that rational discourse remains at the forefront of the initiative rather than emotional hysteria and paranoia.

It is further recommended that the UK reconsider its relationship with and role in the EU. With the flood of refugees shaking EU nations to their cores, a rising tide of nationalism is increasingly apparent across the continent. How should the UK react? What steps should it take if the EU unravels? These questions must be asked in order to mitigate the after-effects of the terrorist threat that has now permeated the whole of the West, if not the world (Zaeef, 2010). Preparing for the unimaginable is part of the challenge of national security risk management, but it also provides some of the greatest benefits and is ultimately a best practice recommendation. If the EU unravels, Europe will be fragmented; however, nations able to support themselves and direct their own affairs will assume positions of leadership rather than becoming submissive to external pressures within the deeper state. The UK's desire to curb the massive influx of migrants and to manage the legal obligations that come with accepting them is one that places national interests at the fore. Accordingly, attention must be given to an international political policy that assesses the macro-situation regarding the UK's relationship with the EU and what a possible dissolution could mean in terms of dealing effectively with terrorism.

References

Ciftci, S. (2012). Islamophobia and threat perceptions: Explaining anti-Muslim sentiment in the West. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 32(3), 292–309.

Forst, B., Greene, J., & Lynch, J. (2011). Criminologists on terrorism and homeland security. Cambridge University Press.

HM Government. (2011). CONTEST: The United Kingdom's strategy for countering terrorism. The Stationery Office.

Halliday, F. (1999). 'Islamophobia' reconsidered. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22(5), 892–902.

Jigyasu, R. (2005). Defining the definition for addressing the 'reality'. International Research Committee on Disasters.

Kirk-Smith, M., & Dingley, J. (2009). Countering terrorism in Northern Ireland: The role of intelligence. Small Wars and Insurgencies, 20(3–4), 551–573.

Moch, S., Poole, P., Chapple, G., & Kitteringham, G. (2011). Good practice guide for security risk management. The Security Institute.

Modood, T. (2007). Multiculturalism: A civic idea. Polity Press.

Moran, J. (2010). Evaluating Special Branch and the use of informant intelligence in Northern Ireland. Intelligence and National Security, 25(1), 1–23.

Sheridan, L. (2006). Islamophobia pre- and post-September 11th, 2001. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(3), 317–336.

Wilkinson, P. (2007). Homeland security in the UK. Routledge.

Zaeef, A. S. (2010). My life with the Taliban. Hurst and Company.