London Bridge’s Chinks

MI-5’s rising workload has jeopardised the UK’s successful anti-terrorism project

Written by Vappala Balachandran | Published:June 6, 2017 12:10 am
london terror attack, bridge attacks, terror attacks in london, london attack analysis, indian express editorial page, latest news, indian express Part of the reason for Britain being able to prevent attacks between 2013 and 2017 was the success of its controversial ‘Channel’ programme under the counter-terrorist policy known as ‘CONTEST’, originally unveiled in 2003 and amended later. (Source: Reuters)

The London Bridge-Borough Market killings on June 3 have to be analysed in the background of some disturbing signs in the war on terrorism. The new challenges faced by global security agencies pertain to their frequent inability to prevent attacks by terrorists — even when they are on the radar of these agencies.

This trend was first noticed in America, when it could not prevent the November 5, 2009 “Fort Hood” killings by Major Nidal Hasan, although the FBI had monitored his contacts with hate preacher Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. From then on, a number of serious killings have occurred in the US, France and Belgium by radicals who were “known” to counter-terrorist (CT) agencies. The CT agencies have been accused of gross inefficiency on the one hand, while on the other hand, there is reluctance by all in strengthening their legal powers.

On March 22, Westminster was attacked by Adrian Ajao (aka Khalid Masood), who had an old criminal record. MI-5 had enquired into his alleged role in the attempted Luton bombing in 2010. Then came the Manchester concert attack on May 22, in which suicide bomber Salman Ramadan Abedi killed 22 persons. Soon after, there was a report that MI-5 was alerted thrice over Abedi’s extremist views — but it could not prevent the incident.

This led to the startling revelation that MI-5 has a list of nearly 20,000 “Islamic jihadi suspects”, of whom only 3,000 could be monitored closely. Reports said the MI-5’s system of assessing and managing risk “is coming under immense strain, given the service’s unrelenting and rising workload”. This has now led to a political slugfest during the election campaign and there are allegations that the Conservative government has risked national security by cutting police and secret service budgets.

In fact, MI-5 has been publicly conveying that the problem of surveillance was getting beyond its capability. In 2009, the then-MI-5 chief, Jonathan Evans, told the British Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee that they could only “hit the crocodiles nearest the boat”. In 2015, MI-5 chief Andrew Parker publicly revealed the “growing gap between the increasingly challenging threats and the availability of capabilities to address it”.

Still, Britain has had a very good record in preventing jihadi terror on its soil. There were no incidents from the 22 May, 2013 “Lee Rigby” killing till the Westminster attack in March this year. During this period, other European countries like France and Belgium were subjected to several serious incidents.

Part of the reason for Britain being able to prevent attacks between 2013 and 2017 was the success of its controversial “Channel” programme under the counter-terrorist policy known as “CONTEST”, which was originally unveiled in 2003 and amended later. This strategy has four strands called “Four Ps”: Prevent, Pursue, Protect and Prepare. “Channel” is under “Prevent”. “Counter-narratives” to respond to insidious jihadi propaganda is attempted through this.

In 2009, the scope of this programme was enlarged to include local councils, community groups, businesses, hospitals and emergency services. The Counter-terrorism and Security Act 2015 is the seventh such law in the UK since 9/11, widening the responsibility to sectors other than the police — although, in the process, the government has been blamed for using its entire machinery for “spying” on Muslims.

Strangely, the philosophical justification for this came from a person in America who was opposed to widening the surveillance powers of the security services. In his piece in The Huffington Post on May 5, 2015, Mathew Harwood of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) claimed that research into 119 “lone actor” incidents in the US and Europe had found that the perpetrators often expressed their “extremist beliefs, grievances and sometimes their violent intentions to others — mostly friends and family or online communities”. He felt that this might be a way to tackle the problem, not by more intrusive surveillance.

In India, only Maharashtra has attempted to widen the responsibility of “counter narratives” to other wings of the government besides the police. This was done under the personal initiative of Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis. It is still at a nascent stage. There is no other alternative to this if we intend to wean away our misguided youth from insidious propaganda by the Islamic State and others.

The writer is a former special secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, and member of the two-person High Level Enquiry Committee to examine the police response to the 26/11 terror attacks

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App

  1. S
    SP
    Jun 7, 2017 at 4:46 am
    Only solution is for UK is to ban Islam.Everythung else will be half measure.
    Reply
    1. P
      Prasenjit Biswas
      Jun 7, 2017 at 7:45 am
      UK is still not run by a gobarment. Once that happens there will be ban for cow.
      Reply
    2. E
      Employ Ment
      Jun 6, 2017 at 4:09 pm
      💲💲मुफ्त रोजगार योजना💲💲 ✔मोदी जी द्वारा चलाए गए डिजिटल इन्डिया से जुड़े और कमाए हर महीने 15,000 - 50,000 रुपए ✔अब कोई नही रहेगा बेरोज़गार और नही करेगा कोई बेरोज़गार आत्महत्या ✔क्योंकि अब आ गई है 21वीं सदी की सबसे बड़ी रोज़गार क्रांति ✔हमारा सपना पूरे भारत को ही नही पूरी दुनिया को डिजिटल इंडिया से जोड़ना 💲सबका साथ सबका विकास💲 ➡शुरुवात कैसे करे ✔C.h.a.m.p`C.a.s.h को प्ले स्टोर से इन्स्टल करे, और साइन अप करे, $1 डॉलर बोनस स्पौन्सर ID: 468942 ➡चैलेंज को पूरा करे ➡और इंकम करनी शुरू करे 👇🏻इसे जरूर नोट कर ले👇🏻 स्पौन्सर ID: 468942 ........................ Hvfujdkjdix
      Reply
      1. K
        Kabir Kabir
        Jun 6, 2017 at 12:31 pm
        As the Muslim population in the UK increases, it is inevitable that there will be more "radical" Islamists wanting to express their hatred for the liberal lifestyle of the West. Islamic culture (especially from places like Pakstan and North Africa) is just so fundamentally different from the mainstream culture of the European people; it is not really surprising that there will be conflicts. And when you have the Imams in mosques constantly preaching Islamic supremacy to their followers, there will be people who will want to ert this "supremacy" through violence.
        Reply
        1. P
          Prasenjit Biswas
          Jun 6, 2017 at 7:52 am
          This essentially means Islamophobia and its spread through the government. Many of such Intelligence concepts are unconstiutional both in UK and India. Therefore, stopping an actual attack remains a failure, as much of the efforts and energy go in identifying suspects and profi individuals and groups than remaining present and alert during the attack. Eyewitnesses recounted how during Manchester and London Bridge incidents, response time was half an hour for the police, which in practical terms would mean that the attackers get the time to go away from the spot. The intransparent ways in which Tory government keeps such attacks only as a matter of Agency's concern and does not allow public debate on their policy of 'dirty wars' that they fight at home and abroad show a bigger conspiracy angle in the midst of rising popularity of Labour. This imaginary number that out of 20000 suspects only 3000 are monitored umes a large Panoptican State.
          Reply
          1. P
            Prasenjit Biswas
            Jun 6, 2017 at 7:46 am
            This essentially means Islamophobia and its spread through the government. many of such Intelligence concepts are uncons utional both in UK and India. Therefore, stopping an actual attack remains a failure, as much of the efforts and energy go in identifying suspects and profi individuals and groups than remaining preent during the attack. Eyewitnesses recounted how during Manchester and London Bridge, response time was half an hour for the police, which in practice terms would mean that the attackers get the time to go away from the spot. The intransparent ways in which Tory government keeps such attacks only as a matter of Agency's concern and do not alow public debate on their policy of 'dirty wars' that they fight at home and abroad show a bigger conspiracy angle in the midst of risiing popularity of Labour.
            Reply
            1. Load More Comments