The Counte-Terrorism Policy of the UK Government - Case Study Example

Counter terrorism in UK: Politics of panic Terrorism has now become a global phenomenon. Terrorism has no boundaries; it is equally lethal in Asia, Europe and in the American sub continent. It is invariably not associated to a single religion, politics or culture. Altogether it is asocial menace particularly to peace loving generations. Terrorism has caused wide ripples in the UK society in the last few decades. The UK society and government was affected initially by the Irish republican terrorism and later by Islamic terrorism. It is often seen that UK tastes its own medicine. Many are of the view that terrorism in UK was due to the unpopular political decisions taken by respective governments over years. Even though the Irish republican army was suppressed by the UK government, its repercussions are now started to develop. Moreover the government is also faced with a challenging task to tackle the rising Islamic terrorists. The armed forces of UK have gained valuable experience and expertise in counterterrorism activities through three decades of fighting the Irish republican army. This involvement was quite surprising because the understandable preoccupation with terrorists in Northern Ireland diverted the attention of British intelligence agencies from international terrorism. Before the bombing of the Pan Am flight over Lockerby, the British agencies were only engaged in dealing with the Irish nationalist. But after the indictment of two Libyan nationals, the agencies reach and scope has drastically widened. During the mid 1990’s, the UK intelligence agencies and the police were quite sure that their land was used as a base by individuals and groups for promoting, funding, and planning terrorism. However these individuals were not found by the agencies as a threat to UK. Therefore they were left to continue their activities. This policy caused wide spread anger among many foreign governments including allies of the UK government. By giving low priority to international terrorism, the British authorities did not fully understand the threat from Al Qaeda. The failure of the British intelligence agencies including that of other western agencies led to the 9/11 attacks on US soil. The Al Qaeda with its deadly networks has caused headaches for the UK authorities in recent years. The threat from AL Qaeda has increased because of the participation of UK in Afghanistan and Iraq. The UK intelligence agencies have also played a major role in destabilizing the networks of the terror organization as well as blocking its funding. The counter terrorism policy of the UK government is complicated due to the dangers of terrorism from both the hardliners and moderate activists of terrorism. This includes hard lined Irish groups and moderate animal right activists. However the threat from Al Qaeda has seen now as the major preoccupation of the authorities of the UK. The main objective behind the UK government’s war against terrorism itself is to prevent Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network from undertaking terror activities as well as to ensure that Afghanistan ceases to give protection and shelter to terrorists.1 Now the UK government considers investment in counter terrorism as a priority and has invested nearly 775 million pounds following the9/11 attacks in the US. The UK government has further allocated an additional 85 million pounds to enable new capabilities to be developed as well as to enable increased capacity in the area of counter terrorism. It is estimated that the annual spending will touch 2 billion pounds by 20112. 1. Security, Terrorism and the UK.2005 Online. Retrieved April, 17. 20082 2. Countering International Terrorism: Broader issues.2009 Online .Retrieved April, 17 2010 UK has much longer relationships with terror groups that its allies. It had troubles with Irish nationalists during 1969 and 1999. But very little anti terror legislation was passed in UK during this period. However after the 9/11 attacks many new legislations was passed in UK against terrorism. The terrorism act of 2000 which was passed by the labor government was considered as the first major bill to deal in international terrorism. This act imposed a ban of around 45 established international groups’ in UK. This act also brought in the detention before trial system for terrorists. To match the patriot act imposed by the US government, the UK government passed the Anti terror crime and security act of 2001. This act expanded the police powers in order to cut funding for terror groups. Under this act detention before trial was expanded to 14 days. Despite the passing of such major anti terror acts, the UK government faced one of the worst terror attacks in its soil in July 2005 where 52 people were dead and many injured by suicide bombing by Islamic terrorists. These attacks were in retaliation against British led coalition in Iraq. The response from the UK government after this attack was passing a more severe legislation against terror. This was the prevention of terrorism act of 2006. This act was criticized by many citing that the government was trying to appear proactive but they appear complacent during the event of a terror strike. The main focus of this act was to create new criminal offences related to terrorism. The act widened the search powers of the police as well as extended the detention without trial period from 14 to 28 days. However another move to raise the period to 90 days was defeated in the House of Lords and commons. These acts were passed by the UK government just to please its ally, the US. There were wide spread public dissent over these acts because of the denial of civil liberties perceived in these acts. Based on the passing of these acts, many have questioned the UK governments policy that only a stricter stand on terrorism was taken after the 9/11 attacks. The governments soft approach towards terrorism before the 9/11 attacks was questioned. It was also quite clear that the initial stand of the government that was soft towards terrorists could be a major cause towards increase in terror activities from UK’s soil.3 A general feeling shared by Muslim immigrants in UK with regard to collaboration with the authorities in counter terrorism measures is that that it would create a negative impact on the disenfranchising large sections of the Muslim community. This situation has occurred because UK war on terror has weakened the rule of law. Moreover the situation is created to instigate fear as well as to cerate a police state. Many including the Muslim community living in UK believe that any sort of alignment with the counter terrorist policies of the UK government will be seen as a tacit acquiescence of such policies mainly in the light of the continuing immoral and unlawful detention of terror suspects in UK without any particular charge on them. Some Muslim community leaders even believe that the collaboration with authorities is only incidental to the larger strategies of the government. However it is very much important for the sake of the accused victims as well as for the community that there should be full separation from collaboration with authorities on such counterterrorism issues. 3.Sim,P. Counter-Terrorism Legislation in the UK. 2010. Online. Retreived April 17,2010. 4.The Cageprisoners Team. 2009. Gloucester: Cageprisoners. Even the official statistics relating to the governments counter terrorism strategies highlight that the persons affected by it is continuously growing and some communities are suffering and deteriorating. The statistics points out that during September 11 2001 and 31 march 2007, there have been over 200000 stop and searches conducted by the authorities. Moreover some 1228 arrests have been made. Out of these only 132 people have been charged and 41 convicted. Some of these convictions are questionable. These statistics have not been updated by the government but evidences suggest that the numbers are alarmingly growing. In UK thousands of immigrant Muslims are traumatized by these policies. They are becoming increasingly fearful. The negative impact of such a situation is that there is a strong chance of polarization in the British community and dissatisfaction towards the government. Many human rights activists and organizations are accusing the UK government for using the threat of terrorism to advance the governments own draconian agendas. All those policies framed on the basis of counter terrorism has created an impact in the minds of people that UK is becoming a state which does not recognizes the rights and liberties of its people. Many strongly believe that UK is surely becoming a police state. Counter terrorism policies in UK has affected Muslim and non Muslim communities in UK. According to the opinion of a former head of intelligence. The people are now living in fear about the impact of the laws inflicted upon them in order to put constraint in their lives. They think that association to such policies would alienate them from their own community. The British government justifies its anti terror policies citing the reasons that its policies for the Irish republicans was mature and the same could be used to counter islamic terrorism. But such justifications do not hold any ground and is truly disrespect to the memories of Irishmen who have lost their lives during the counter terror activities of the government. The counter terrorism policies of the government using today to counter Muslim fundamentalists are more severe than that was against the Irish people. This has also prompted the community from staying away from the authorities. Counter terrorism policies accompanied by brutal torturing methods by the police have created ripples in the civil rights and liberties system in UK. Many victims were brutalized for their plight. They were tortured irrespective of their race or religion. Many suffered everlasting injuries due to the brutality of the authorities. The government through these policies is not only creating hysteria but also promoting such unlawful acts. This has prompted some communities to take anti government stance.4 . Due to the continued resistance from different sections of the community, the government in tis report on counter terrorism and human rights has recommended that in future the counter terrorism powers would be made reviewed from time to time through primary legislation. 5 4.The Cageprisoners Team. 2009. Gloucester: Cageprisoners. 5.Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights(Sixteenth Report):Annual Renewal of Control Orders Legislation 2010. Online. Retrieved April, 17 2010. Counter terrorism activities of the government are supported by the media also. Some blindly support them and others support only the good steps while criticising the other. However a notable point to this is that the media should analyse the facts before they are presented to the public. In UK many reports were presented so that it created fear hysteria among the public. 6 Interaction with the government and the media in respect to counter terror activities is of utmost importance in UK. The media supports the government by providing media alerts about terrorists strikes. But there are many problems related to this. The main among them is that the government is influencing the media to justify its wrong deeds. If these are not solved, it would definitely create vulnerability in the society. Hence the counterterrorism activities of the government would succumb to pressure and non cooperation. 7 The contemporary present environment in UK is dominated by great complexity and also uncertainty. There is clear misunderstanding of relationships between politics and events. The policies of the government are unable to generate enthusiasm that has long term implications.8 It is quite easy for the authorities and leaders to view suspects as alien to the culture. But all these measures are totally illiberal as well as create destabilisation not only in UK but internationally.9 6.Chermak,S.Marketing Fear: Representing Terrorism After September 11.2003.Online. Retreived April 17 2010 7.Archetti.C & Taylor. P.M.Managing Terrorism After 9/11: the War On Terror, the Media and the Imagined Threat. Online. Retrieved April, 17 2010. 8. McCormac. T. Britain’s national insecurity strategy. 2010. Online. Reterived April, 17 2010. 9.Rothschild. N.A pants response to the terrorism threat. 2010. Online. Retrieved April, 17 2010 New researches conducted by the University of Warwick suggests that even radical leaning Muslims does not have any real personal knowledge and understanding about terrorists. They just rely on stereotypes projected by the mainstream media. Unpopular counter terror policies of the government would make them more attached to the jihadists or terrorists.10 From the evidences collected and facts analyzed, it has been clear that the counter terrorism policies of the UK government are far from a mature response to terrorism. This counter terrorism policy is marred by a bloody history of abuse, torture as well as unlawful detention. More over many were forced to think that collaboration to such policies would definitely hinder the efforts of those who are engaged to help the victims of counter terrorism. Counter terror policies of the UK government should be aimed to tackle effectively the bloody fundamentalist and ultra nationalist so that the peace loving people in UK can live longer in honor.4 10.Dunn,P. Even radical Muslims rely on bearded stereotypes and BBC to understand Jihadists. 2009. Online. Reterived April, 17 2010 4.The Cageprisoners Team. 2009. Gloucester: Cageprisoners. Bibliography: Archetti.C & Taylor. P.M.Managing Terrorism After 9/11: the War On Terror, the Media and the Imagined Threat. Online. Retrieved April, 17 2010. Chermak,S.Marketing Fear: Representing Terrorism After September 11.2003.Online. Retreived April 17 2010 Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights(Sixteenth Report):Annual Renewal of Control Orders Legislation 2010. Online. Retrieved April, 17 2010. Countering International Terrorism: Broader issues.2009 Online .Retrieved April, 17 2010 Dunn,P. Even radical Muslims rely on bearded stereotypes and BBC to understand Jihadists. 2009. Online. Reterived April, 17 2010 McCormac. T. Britain’s national insecurity strategy. 2010. Online. Reterived April, 17 2010. Rothschild. N.A pants response to the terrorism threat. 2010. Online. Retrieved April, 17 2010 Sim,P. Counter-Terrorism Legislation in the UK. 2010. Online. Retreived April 17,2010. Security, Terrorism and the UK.2005 Online. Retrieved April, 17. 2008 The Cageprisoners Team. 2009. Gloucester: Cageprisoners. Read More