Current Threats to the UK Security - Essay Example

____________ ID: ________ _________ Current threats to UK Security The most significant threats to which UK is confronted today started in 2002 when the UK's Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) realized the presence of security intimidations in 'International' as well as 'Northern Ireland Domestic terrorism'. It has been more than three decades that the UK's police and military forces are involved in counter terrorism in order to suppress terrorism not only on International basis but also in the Northern Ireland to demolish the grounds of terrorism. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the Security Service, the police force and the military all claimed a share of the anti-PIRA campaign, with the attendant effect that their respective roles, missions, and functions frequently conflicted, overlapped, and blurred. (Chalk & Rosenau, 2004) On the British mainland, the police were responsible for all intelligence operations against Irish Republican terrorism work through the Special Branch (SB) of the Metropolitan Police Service. However, a series of high-profile terrorist incidents in London in the early 1990s, including a mortar attack on Number 10 Downing Street, prompted the British government in 1992 to take appropriate actions against terror by giving the Security Service lead responsibility for all intelligence gathering related to Irish extremism. Britain was then followed by significant terror attacks from 1988, when the country suffered with the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. The terrorists found to be two Libyan agents. When British counter-terrorism efforts were busy concentrating on the IRA's bombing campaign, Britain was again confronted to the terror attacks, which resulted in the outcome of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. At last it was clear to the UK's intelligence agencies and military police that London is being continuously used as the grounds for terrorism attacks for individuals that promote, organise and fund terrorism. It was found that such individuals belonged from Middle East and related nations. Britain at that time was either over confident of the national security or may be it did not consider the terror attacks and International terrorism due to which it made a mistake of ignoring threats from Al-Qaeda. Even the 9/11 attacks remain unable to gain attention of the British intelligence community. But the suicide terror attacks after 9/11 in London, made the forces realise to take appropriate considerations against terrorism. Today Al-Qaeda is considered to be the most dangerous form of terrorist threat not only in Britain but also to the whole International system. Among the most traditional terrorist groups formed, Al-Qaeda is the most modernized form of terror as its aim is to promote mass killing through every possible means. It is considered to be the most perilous of all the groups because it plans and implements those plans beyond killing. 'Brainwashing' is its most significant characteristic, which leads to suicide bombing. It plays with the morals of the young generation thereby convincing and brainwashing them with the advantages of suicide bombings. The UK is confronted towards the risky situation of threat due to some reasons. First it is the closest ally of the United States, which is the most precarious enemy of Al-Qaeda. It has deployed armed forces in the military campaigns to bring down the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and Iraq, and has played a leading role in the cooperation against Al-Qaeda. (Gregory Frank & Wilkinson Paul). Al-Qaeda has not stopped sending threatening messages to the UK, which are to some extent still ignored by the military forces. The extremists have succeeded in taking advantage of the current circumstances where they assume UK to be an easy meal for them as they are very well aware that their deployment within the UK territory is not a big deal and in particular circumstances where there is a new threat of 'suicide bombers', it is a lot more easier for them to harass UK. According to Gregory Frank (University of Southampton) "The attacks on the transport system in London on 7 July 2005 represent precisely the nature of the threat from international terrorism that the UK authorities have been concerned about since 9/11. Furthermore it is known that the Al-Qaeda network has been actively seeking the materials and expertise to acquire chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) weaponry, and that their track record shows that they would have no compunction about using this type of weapon to cause large numbers of civilian deaths." (Gregory Frank, "Riding Pillion for tackling terrorism is a high-risk policy") According to ISP/NSP July 2005 the key issues regarding the security threat in the current scenario of UK fall within eight broad categories: The role of military force The role of international law, international organizations and security regimes Economically-driven security challenges Technological aspects of security Gendered dimensions of security Security and civil society The media and psychological dimensions Human security. (ESRC, Economic & Social Research Council) The UK's Strategic Defence Review (SDR) has started concentrating on a broader range of threats to British 'security' than had been the case (1999 Defence White Paper. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office 1999) throughout much of the Cold War period. It has drawn attention away from 'hard' security threats to the UK's sovereignty and territorial integrity and, instead, focused more upon 'the consequences of the break up of states' and 'ethnic and religious conflict, population and environmental pressures, and crime' as fundamental sources of insecurity. This represented a broadening of the term 'insecurity' to encompass 'instability' posing a threat to the British economy, multiculturalism and wider British interests. Furthermore, the removal of the all-encompassing threat posed by the USSR did not lead the UK into either a form of isolationism or an overriding sense that threats to security in geographically remote areas are now in some ways divisible from threats to UK security. The SDR clearly reinforced this: "Britain's place in the world is determined by our interests as a nation and as a leading member of the international community. Indeed the two are inextricably linked because our national interests have a vital international dimension". British security policy has increasingly and overtly recognised the general need of recognising terrorists indivisibility of systemic and British security and appears firmly to underwrite the idea that the UK should be 'willing and able to play a leading role in terrorists eradication on a global basis and internationally'. Furthermore, it identifies that the UK has an important wider interest in supporting international order and in promoting freedom, democracy and prosperity. British policy therefore appears to recognise not only a broader definition of the term 'security' but also a general commitment to international regimes, organisations, norms and principles that promote systemic and broader aspects of regional stability. Both the SDR and the 1999 Defence White Paper recognise continuing broad commitments to NATO, the UN and a wide range of other institutions that have a major part to play in the development and reinforcement of European security and the maintenance of international order and in promoting freedom, democracy and prosperity. (Smith, 2001) Since 9/11, International terrorism has been a dilemma for not only United States but also to the British community. Its impact has been embedded deep into the roots of the European community. It has been observed that terrorists' objectives are limited in their reach and had relatively confined political objectives. London bombings and the recent trend of suicide bombings are the best-known examples of current security threats today. Although the general perspective regarding terrorism still remains unchanged that 'terrorists believe it is both right and necessary to use terrorism to achieve their aims' although the nature of the current threat is different and varies but again the methodology today's terrorists have adopted remains the same. Accessible from Unskeptically, Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have dominated the headlines, but the point to be considered is that threat does not come from one person or one brain, it is a hierarchical network consisting of umpteen Bin Ladens, many devotees and an unlimited young generation who are victims of brain washing. It works as a coherent organisation with thousands of brains working in analyzing and implementing several aspects of the best possible ways to spread terror, which is readily identifiable as an opponent. The coherence of the threat rather lies in the ideas which people like Bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri have propagated, and which are taken up trans-nationally by others who find them compelling and attractive, and who can use the tools of globalisation to realise their aims, such as the internet, mobile communications, the media, the easy covert international movement of people and funds, opportunities for identity theft. As a result the threat has become fluid, global, and relatively unpredictable. Accessible from < According to Gregory Frank "Notwithstanding the attacks in London on 7 July 2005, the UK has rightly placed a major response emphasis on intelligence-led action to disrupt potential terrorists or terrorist networks. The recent convictions for possessing materials to cause an explosion and in the rising case are examples of successful intelligence led disruption. However, trained surveillance personnel are a scarce resource and maintaining an adequate pool of such expertise within the police and the security and intelligence services is a continuing challenge. This problem applies both within the UK and overseas for the protection of UK nationals and interests. Where the surveillance is platform-based, as in the case of UK naval deployments in the Gulf, it is also of concern when the planned deployment is to be reduced from two frigates/destroyers to one". (Gregory Frank, "Riding Pillion for tackling terrorism is a high-risk policy") Another security threat to the UK refers to the terrorist actions particularly by the 'new' terrorists' religious Muslim fundamentalists. Christian white supremacists are also likely to become increasingly frequent and violent. Whereas secular terrorists are likely to exercise constraint, and to avoid killing many when killing a few suits their purposes, religious fundamentalists are unlikely to feel any moral constraint about killing very large numbers of people. In fact, mass killing by Weapon Mass Destruction (WMD) may fit well into the Armageddon and apocalyptic visions of some religious groups, some of which believe that they are under divine instruction to maximize killing and destruction. The likelihood that terrorist violence by fundamentalist groups will escalate to indiscriminate mass killing is the greatest future terrorist risk, the main consequence of increasing religious terror and decreasing radical political terror. (Barnaby & Holdstock, 2003) The best way the new terrorists can achieve their objective is to use a WMD. This is a clear danger that new terrorists will acquire, or develop and fabricate, and use WMDs' chemical, biological or nuclear. Recent experience for example, the use of nerve agents by the Aum Shinrikyo in Tokyo and of anthrax in the United States shows that biological and chemical weapons are unpredictable and difficult to use effectively, that is, to cause a large number of casualties. Effective dispersal of both biological and chemical weapons is very difficult, so these weapons may not well serve the purposes of the new terrorists. To fulfil their aims, therefore, it is often believed that future new terrorists are more likely to make nuclear attacks; these are not only more likely to succeed, but their Armageddon nature is likely to appeal to fundamentalists. (Barnaby & Holdstock, 2003) Nuclear terrorism may be the most likely future use as well as future threat of nuclear explosives, replacing the spread of nuclear weapons to countries (nuclear-weapon proliferation) as perhaps the most serious threat to national security. (Barnaby & Holdstock, 2003) The success of recent attacks against Britain targets indicates that nuclear weapons do not deter terrorism by protecting countries armed with nuclear weapons. Nuclear deterrence has no role in dealing with the new terrorism. The ideological struggle of the cold war is over, but cold-war thinking and the doctrine of nuclear deterrence are very much alive, still masquerading as the ultimate guarantee of security. That is, until 11 September 2001, when the United States discovered its own vulnerability and inability to deter terrorists with its nuclear arsenal. Be it United States or United Kingdom, the continued possession of nuclear weapons makes the diversion of nuclear materials or nuclear weapons into the hands of terrorists more likely. Terrorists cannot be deterred by the threat of nuclear retaliation, as a nation would. The only policy that can reduce the danger of nuclear terrorism is abolition, because abolition alone can impose a comprehensive prohibition on nuclear-weapons technology. References Accessed from Accessible from Barnaby Frank & Holdstock Douglas, 2003. "The British Nuclear Weapons Programme, 1952- 2002": Frank Cass. Place of Publication: London. Chalk Peter & Rosenau William, 2004. "Confronting The Enemy Within: Security Intelligence, the Police, and Counter terrorism in Four Democracies": Rand. Place of Publication: Santa Monica, CA. Smith A. Martin & Timmins Graham, 2001. "Uncertain Europe: Building a New European Security Order": Routledge. Place of Publication: London. Read More