The Government Strategy - Report Example

Introduction UK is no stranger to terrorism having faces Irish rebellion during the 1970s and 1990s. However, the 7/7 London bombings and failed 21/7 attacks of July 2005 highlighted a phenomenon in Britain concerning home-grown participants in terrorism acts. According to the UK National Security Risk Assessment, terrorism is ranked as a Tier One risk. In order to combat terrorism, the UK administration set up a counter-terrorism strategy known as CONTEST. CONTEST aims to reduce any terrorism risks to the UK and its interests overseas so as people can go about their lives freely and confidently. The Prime Minister put the Home Secretary in charge of CONTEST under the Office for Security and Counter-terrorism (OCST) (The Prevent Strategy: A Guide for Local Partners in England 2008). CONTEST is built on a four-part framework and these are Prevent, Pursue, Protect and Prepare. Prevent seeks to stop terrorist and violent extremist acts before they occur, Pursue seeks to stop terrorist and extremist acts by detecting and prosecuting those involved, Protect seeks to guard assets within the country and overseas while Prepare mitigates impact of terrorist invasion when they occur. This paper seeks to discuss the Prevent strategy, its aims and inherent challenges using relevant underpinning knowledge and evidence; the role of partnerships and communities; an assessment of the impacts of the strategy providing evidence for progress and ongoing barriers to effective implementation and also offer suggestions for improved delivery of official responses from the perspective of partnership and community based approaches. Aims of Prevent strategy Prevents sole purpose is to discourage if not completely eliminate possible terrorism and extremist acts from occurring. It is based on information war or counter-intelligence and the Research, Information and Communications Unit (RICU) established in 2007 is in charge of the strategy (Counterextremism.org 2013). Prevent works on eliminating potential recruitment of UK citizens by violent extremists. This is because radicalization of the youth by extremist groups spreading their propaganda by finding sympathizers has been witnessed over time. Prevent has policies to increase community cohesiveness as a counter measure against violent extremism. It also addresses grievances of community members in a bid to reduce involvement in acts of terror or joining terrorist groups. Challenges Youth radicalization Religion is powerful tool and influences choices made by people every day. Al Qaida, a Muslim violent extremist group, its affiliates and supporters are considered a big terror threat. UK targets its Muslim community members especially in matters regarding terrorism citing that terrorist groups are mostly Muslim and since they share religion are likely to relate to the propaganda they spread (Pursue Prevent Protect Prepare: The United Kingdom's Strategy for Countering International Terrorism 2009). Internet Websites and online communication structures used by violent extremists and terror groups are often hosted in foreign countries. In order to counter these messages and communication lines, UK needs to use its affiliates in these foreign nations. Community dynamics Local police target Muslim communities when spreading messages on preventing Muslims from joining or assisting terror groups. The Muslim community is subjected to random searches and questions which undermines their freedom as citizens of the UK. Local police are not aware of dynamics of various communities. Essex police states that there are no stereotypes when it comes to violent extremism but still lean toward Jewish and Muslim communities and view them as at-risk individuals sparking an issue of cultural diversity that is yet to be addressed (Essex.police.uk n.d. ). Role of partnerships and communities Prevent Violent Extremism Programme formerly known as Prevent Extremism Programme is a community-led approach to help counter admission of at-risk persons into terror and violent extremism groups. PVE works is administrated under the Department of Communities and Local Government and uses voluntary organizations to assist. Revisions on PVE were introduced throughout 2007, 2008 and 2009. PVE’s policy is based on the ideology of ‘stopping people from becoming bad.’ Terminology ‘Prevent’ has also been questioned because it focuses mostly on Muslim communities almost suggests that their lies a potential for terrorism in most Muslims that can be prevented or contained. Due to concerns in terminology, Leicester City Council rebranded their branch to ‘Mainstreaming Moderation’ but still support the same ideology (Prevent Strategy 2011). MI5 Behavioural Science termed British Muslims of all class, localities, gender and age as potential at-risk individuals because there was no ‘typical pathway’ to violent extremism. According to an article by Travis (2008) in the Guardian, PVE aims to find out political and religious views of people, information on sexual health, mental health and other sensitive information about people. Counter-terrorism police have also been embedded in local services which may cause Muslims to avoid participating in PVE not out of their support of violent extremism but as a result of concern for their privacy and democratic rights violation. Birmingham City Council has however denied spying on their citizen terming their operations as transparent and overt with no secrecy whatsoever. Channel Programme is another community based initiative that uses existing partnerships between police, local authority and community to identify vulnerable persons and offer them support to prevent them from joining terror groups or violent extremists. This mutli-agency approach provides at-risk individuals with services in health and education also offering mentorship and diversionary activities like sports in a bid to reduce their involvement or participation in extremist violence. Channel is a programme for both adults and children that is aimed at early intervention and diversion of potential risks. Activities are also concentrated overseas in the Middle East, Pakistan and East Africa where radicalization of the youth has heightened and poses a threat to the UK. Channel relies heavily on coordinated activity at the local level utilizing existing collaboration between police, local authorities and statutory partners such as social services, education sector, offender management services and youth services plus the local community (Channel: Protecting Vulnerable People From Being Drawn Into Terrorism 2012). At-risk individuals are identified along with the nature and extent of risk then a support plan is developed. A multi-agency panel is required alongside information sharing structures to get assistance for at-risk individuals. Multi-agency panels are significant in managing affairs and safeguarding those at risk. Panels involved are Children and Adult Safeguarding panel and the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. The panel is chaired by local authority and requires the involvement of a police practitioner and other relevant agency representatives. Panels can opt for bespoke which are tailored according to individual needs or existing panels that have already formed structures to avoid creating them anew and avoiding continuous panel meetings regarding the same. Individual vulnerability is assessed in three dimensions namely engagement which is involvement with an ideology, group or cause, intent to cause harm and capability to cause harm (Channel: Protecting Vulnerable People From Being Drawn Into Terrorism 2012). Prevent Strategy and Delivery Plan is an Association of Chief Police Officers’ initiative that provides leads and plans on how to tackle violent extremists. It consists mainly of police staff and seconded police officers and is managed through the Terrorism and Allied Matters (TAM). This initiative seeks to disrupt individuals or groups that promote violent extremism, develop Prevent related research, analysis and intelligence and also support vulnerable individuals of violent extremism (House of Commons 2015). Impacts of Prevent strategy Prevent strategy has mobilized many ‘at risk’ youth to shun violent extremism successfully but has also failed too. Radicalization theory is arguably a flawed concept because first it is vaguely explained both to authorities and communities. Empirical evidence is lacking in supporting of radicalization as it is based on ‘conventional wisdom. Muslims are being labeled as at-risk individuals based on their religious basis and at risk of joining extremist groups. This poses potential risk to increase alienation and in turn counter-productive if not detrimental to the Prevent strategy. There is an assumption that Muslims are aware of the problem that has led to the rise of violent extremism and may possibly have the solution. This has created a view of Muslims almost as a ‘suspect community’ regardless of their involvement or interest (Casciani 2014). Local authorities through implementation of government policies have created a ‘suspect community’. In areas with Muslim communities greater than 2000 persons are funded highly in a bid to curb radicalization. In Birmingham, 72 hidden CCTV surveillance cameras were discovered creating an issue of distrust with local authorities as this is viewed as disregard of human freedom and labeling Muslim community members as ‘suspects’. Barriers to effective implementation of strategy Changing phases of terrorism Terrorism and extremist groups have invented newer ways of reaching people for instance mobilizing family members or using religious sentiments such as jihadi ideologies to push their agenda. Spreading propaganda of how the Muslim community is clearly a minority and spread of Western beliefs is clearly influencing Muslims the world over as a basis of their extremist actions. The internet is a blessing and a curse in spreading information about terror. Newer media of communication with coded lingo and encrypted messages being relayed openly or hidden is sent via the internet daily. Though some of this information is accessed and destroyed with perpetrators being caught and prosecuted, there is still a whole wave of information yet to be deciphered and in turn helping terrorist and extremist networks to grow (Matrix Group International 2012). Lack of a broader strategic vision Prevent strategy seeks to gather intelligence and act on possible terror threats to avoid damage and potential loss. Using community members to access information is potentially harmful as community members are spies and this may set them up against issues. Mistrust among neighbors breeds animosity leading to counter-productivity of Prevent strategy. Regardless of personal conduct, information forwarded to authorities may lead to prosecution and investigation of individuals causing a rift between individuals and even a larger rift with authorities. Lack of a wider vision for the strategy may lose organizing principle of societies (Durodie 2015). Limit genuine dialogue Continued engagement of particular groups from specific communities and pointing out issues with relation to their religious affiliation may do more harm than good in growing participation. Most individuals may take the matter personally as a government strategy through immediate authorities to undermine their beliefs and self-conduct. Groups may identify themselves with a form of oppression created by this conversations and label persons as Islamophobes. Domestic cultural confusion created by religion in today’s society that in Durodie’s words serves as a motif other than a motive. All Muslims are viewed as at-risk individuals to extremists groups though not all Muslims are regarded as terrorists (Durodie 2015). Though youth radicalization is stated as a challenge in tackling terrorism, the Prevent strategy is yet to identify the exact scope in which radicalization lies. Lack of empirical evidence citing possible radicalization efforts by extremist militants is making it seem as more of a theory than an imminent threat. Muslim communities are hardest hit by Prevent strategy policies. This has led to a form of stigmatization which may in turn lead to young British Muslims feeling alienated (Thomas 2009). In turn alienation may breed animosity with authority and persons silently supporting terror and extremist acts without necessarily breaking the law. Instead of singling out neighbourhoods with large Muslim population, the strategy could be made efficient to watch over entire communities. Assuring community members regardless of religious affiliation that they are being watched over for their own safety can build trust angles for the police and local authorities to work with and forthwith influence people to cooperate. Initiatives to help prevent extremist and terror attacks need to be branded in a manner friendly but still commands authority. Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE) for instance has raised questions concerning its name and mono-cultural focus on the Muslim community (Thomas 2010). It can be renamed so as to provide user-friendliness to it and not see individuals are projects awaiting de-radicalization and diversion initiatives. The Muslim factor still comes into play considering that most at-risk individuals are from the Muslim community shows them as being potential terrorists undermining their individual freedom to faith. Creating a ‘suspect community’ may lead to societal constraints making information gathering on potential threats near impossible. Not all Muslims are potential or at-risk extremists because they are victims just other community members. Ideologies other than religion need to be exploited in order to find the basis for recruitment because converts to the Islamic faith have been involved in extremist acts. This shows that ideology may have spread way before they converted to Islam and that is used as an excuse to commit extremist acts. Conclusion Terrorism is a major threat to co-existence all over the world with terror attacks rising by the day.UK has had its fair share of terrorism threats from the 1970s to 7/7 2005 London bombings. Muslim communities have unfortunately been subject to criticism and surveillance following the Al Qaida history and ISIS crisis. Prevent strategy created under CONTEST’s four way framework has had its fair share of positive and negative contribution. In a bid to curb violent extremism and possible growth of these extremist networks, Prevent has set up programmes and initiatives such PVE and the Channel programme. Both programmes have made their impact but more revision needs to be done in terms of policies and community involvement to ensure both authorities and communities are on board. References Casciani, D 2015 ‘Analysis: The Prevent strategy and its problems’ - BBC News. Available from: . [22 Apr. 2015]. Channel: Protecting Vulnerable People from Being Drawn into Terrorism (1st edn) 2012, London, Crown, pp. 4-9. Available from: [22 Apr. 2015]. Counterextremism 2013 Counter Extremism: Research, Information and Communications Unit (RICU), Available from: . [22 Apr. 2015]. Durodie, B 2015, ‘Prevent: a very risky strategy’ Spiked-online March 2015. Available from: . [22 Apr. 2015]. Essex Police n.d., PREVENT. Available from: . [22 Apr. 2015]. Gardner, F 2015 ‘Prevent strategy: Is it failing to stop radicalisation?’ - BBC News April 2015. Available at: . [22 Apr. 2015]. House of Commons (eds) 2015, Preventing Violent Extremism: Sixth Report of Session 2009-10: Report, Together with Formal Minutes, Oral and Written Evidence, The Stationery Office, London, pp.186. Available from: HM Government E-Books [22 April. 2015] Matrix Group International, V 2012, ‘Reflecting on the United Kingdom “Prevent” Counterterrorism Strategy’ – Police Chief Magazine. Available from: . [22 Apr. 2015]. Prevent Strategy (1st edn) 2011, The Stationery Office, Belfast, pp.11-18. Available from: . [22 Apr. 2015]. Pursue Prevent Protect Prepare: The United Kingdom's Strategy for Countering International Terrorism (1st edn) 2009, The Stationery Office, Belfast, pp.7-22. Available from: . [22 Apr. 2015]. The Prevent Strategy: A Guide For Local Partners in England (1st edn) 2008, HM Government, London, pp.4-10. Available from: . [22 Apr. 2015]. Thomas, P 2009, Between Two Stools? The Government's ‘Preventing Violent Extremism Agenda, The Political Quarterly, vol. 80 no. 2, pp. 282-291. Thomas, P 2010, Failed and Friendless: The UK's ‘Preventing Violent Extremism’ Programme. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, vol. 12 no. 3, pp. 442-458. Travis, A 2008. ‘MI5 report challenges views on terrorism in Britain’, The Guardian. Available from: < http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1> [22 Apr. 2015]. Read More

Community dynamics Local police target Muslim communities when spreading messages on preventing Muslims from joining or assisting terror groups. The Muslim community is subjected to random searches and questions which undermines their freedom as citizens of the UK. Local police are not aware of dynamics of various communities. Essex police states that there are no stereotypes when it comes to violent extremism but still lean toward Jewish and Muslim communities and view them as at-risk individuals sparking an issue of cultural diversity that is yet to be addressed (Essex.police.uk n.d. ).

Role of partnerships and communities Prevent Violent Extremism Programme formerly known as Prevent Extremism Programme is a community-led approach to help counter admission of at-risk persons into terror and violent extremism groups. PVE works is administrated under the Department of Communities and Local Government and uses voluntary organizations to assist. Revisions on PVE were introduced throughout 2007, 2008 and 2009. PVE’s policy is based on the ideology of ‘stopping people from becoming bad.

’ Terminology ‘Prevent’ has also been questioned because it focuses mostly on Muslim communities almost suggests that their lies a potential for terrorism in most Muslims that can be prevented or contained. Due to concerns in terminology, Leicester City Council rebranded their branch to ‘Mainstreaming Moderation’ but still support the same ideology (Prevent Strategy 2011). MI5 Behavioural Science termed British Muslims of all class, localities, gender and age as potential at-risk individuals because there was no ‘typical pathway’ to violent extremism.

According to an article by Travis (2008) in the Guardian, PVE aims to find out political and religious views of people, information on sexual health, mental health and other sensitive information about people. Counter-terrorism police have also been embedded in local services which may cause Muslims to avoid participating in PVE not out of their support of violent extremism but as a result of concern for their privacy and democratic rights violation. Birmingham City Council has however denied spying on their citizen terming their operations as transparent and overt with no secrecy whatsoever.

Channel Programme is another community based initiative that uses existing partnerships between police, local authority and community to identify vulnerable persons and offer them support to prevent them from joining terror groups or violent extremists. This mutli-agency approach provides at-risk individuals with services in health and education also offering mentorship and diversionary activities like sports in a bid to reduce their involvement or participation in extremist violence. Channel is a programme for both adults and children that is aimed at early intervention and diversion of potential risks.

Activities are also concentrated overseas in the Middle East, Pakistan and East Africa where radicalization of the youth has heightened and poses a threat to the UK. Channel relies heavily on coordinated activity at the local level utilizing existing collaboration between police, local authorities and statutory partners such as social services, education sector, offender management services and youth services plus the local community (Channel: Protecting Vulnerable People From Being Drawn Into Terrorism 2012).

At-risk individuals are identified along with the nature and extent of risk then a support plan is developed. A multi-agency panel is required alongside information sharing structures to get assistance for at-risk individuals. Multi-agency panels are significant in managing affairs and safeguarding those at risk. Panels involved are Children and Adult Safeguarding panel and the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. The panel is chaired by local authority and requires the involvement of a police practitioner and other relevant agency representatives.

Panels can opt for bespoke which are tailored according to individual needs or existing panels that have already formed structures to avoid creating them anew and avoiding continuous panel meetings regarding the same.

Read More