EWI’s Annual Worldwide Security Conference

I've just registered for this conference and hope to report throughout the next three days. The first session is entitled "How good have we been at fighting terrorism?"

Gijs de Vries, EU Counter Terrorism Coordinator who gave an overview of CT (Counter Terrorism) activity and made the point that he didn't like discussing causes as it suggests a 'linear' relationship or progression. However he felt that there were contributing factors including insecurity and violence in some parts of the world, but he didn't feel that poverty per se was a major factor. He claimed that in the EU there were 200 Terrorist networks involving 1,600 people and 30 'priority plots' though who or what a terrorist or plot was undefined.

Al Qaeda is now regrouping and using the internet. Terrorist methods were changing and adapting and the role of converts is increasing. He offered several suggestions for CT: Need to prevent radicalisation Information exchange, esp of databases - a recent experiment in opening databases up between Germany and Austria had 1,500 hits in the first week.

He stressed the importance of Muslims to reclaim Islam and for non-muslims to support them. But the key suggestion was the need to resovle 'festering conflicts' and the number one long term strategy to defeat terrorism is to uphold human rights. The Universal declaration of Human Rights is cross-denominational and has common values, but we MUST respect these values and safeguard them: Human rights are the best defence against terrorism

Dame Neville-Jones ex Chair Joint Intelligence Committee was critical of CT efforts saying 'How well have we done? Not very. Although we have had some success at countering the threat, that wasn't the same as dimminishing it. Activity in EU is high, Al Qaeda is regrouping, but surprisingly it hasn't become a 'brand' or inspiration but there is evidence of real organisation and of links to other groups. In the last year Al Qaeda has made 58 videos. These are not just propaganda but also show training in new techniques, such as shaped charges. These techniques are being used by geographically seperate groups.

She covered what she called The Iraq Effect: Even conservative figures show that there have been a massive increase in attacks (up by 700% since May 2003 compared to 2001-2003), 50% in Iraq, 25% in Afghanistan. Terrorism is not insurgency. Iraq is not just a recruiting sargent for al Qaeda and similar groups but it where they are being trained, learning new techniques against a more sophisticated military than they have previously encountered. We are facing 'formidable techniques and motivation'. Al Qaeda has weaknesses; Most of their victims are muslim and there is no support for them or their desired Caliphate and an overwhelming majority of muslims have no time for them.

A CT strategy must be based on policies that we practice at home as well as abroad. We need to protect but Security resides in civil liberties and we must prevent terrorists from achieving their aim of increasing inter-communal tension.

"...in the EU there were 200

"...in the EU there were 200 Terrorist networks involving 1,600 people..."

So 8 people are a 'network'? Are we getting back to the old, "anymore than two Scotsmen/Indians walking down the street constitues a war party"?

"How good have we been at

"How good have we been at fighting terrorism?"

Having created 'terrorism' and used it to train our troops in, for example, Ireland we're certainly better at 'fighting' it than we used to be. As a population we are now more receptive to the 'police state' mentality; troops on the streets, biometric chips, cctv, satellite surveillance,tagging etc etc.
However until we get rid of the antiquated 'eton-sandhurst' system the 'terrorists' will always be one step ahead.
It might also be worth looking at a system that supplies the 'soon to be terrorist' with weapons with fresh eyes?
The Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan situation together with Israel and those states that surround it will ensure that terrorism stays a growth industry for the foreseeable future.

Of course I may be wrong and those who are 'running the show' and have done since time immemorial may just be totally incompetent and didn't want to achieve the society that now exists.
It may also be the case that our political leaders may believe the policies they have been and are following are aimed at reducing terrorism.
That Blair and his ilk are incompetent must surely be a matter of fact so the reasonably conclusion must be they are unwittingly providing a world which suits their puppetters.

"Terrorism is good for business, my boy"

Give him his due, Gijs de

Give him his due, Gijs de Vries - possibly feeling a little freer now he's at the end of his mandate - is coming as close as he can to saying that current Islamic terrorism does have a number of concrete, identifiable causes.

He can't go further than that for two reasons :
1) if a cause is concrete and identifiable, it is capable of solution given sufficient political will
2) you are not, repeat not, allowed to say that the 2 Middle East conflicts - Palestine AND iRAQ - are the principal concrete and identifiable causes.

Poverty by itself is not a cause. If it were, we would have experienced 50 years of African, Indian, Pakistani, Bangla Deshi etc terrorism. Povert causes these people to try and (illegally) emigrate to Europe, not to blow themselves up.