Ihsan Bal Head of USAK Science Committee printable version send your friend

Friday, 19 August 2005

As global terrorists are constantly hitting new targets, the risk of possible new threats is accordingly increasing. What the last attacks proved in reality is that the capability of terrorists access to subways which are considered to be surrounded with protective measures. Despite the fact that it is relatively less important than 9/11 attack, the symbolic influence is really crucial. All the attacks that come out as the results of global terror confuse our minds with new questions. These questions are much harder to answer with new attacks that cause new questions rather than answers for the current problems.

What are global terrorists trying to achieve and when are the countries struggling against global terrorists right or wrong in their attitude towards them? Is it true that the global terrorists started their attacks, as alleged, just for the sake of provoking wars between cultures and religions? It is quite difficult to answer these challenging questions explicitly with certain evidences. Yet, starting our investigation with London bomb attacks, thus analysing the behaviours of state administrative units and media, which were tested in a way during these events, it is highly possible to shed light upon them with a perspective that favours anti-terrorism.

London bomb attacks serve as a milestone for our understanding of what terrorists are trying to accomplish? Hence, it is beneficial to understand which messages the terrorists are giving with the help of deceased bodies.

This contribution proposes to answer how to take initiative against global terrorism all around the world.

Findings on global terrorism and the target London

7th July London attacks occurred in four different points, three of which were planned for subways. The remaining one happened double-bus which is considered to be the symbol of London . While the traumatic effect of these events on English society continued, second attacks on 21st July occurred again with the same symbolic targets in London. The inability of explosive substances not to get fired was seen as a fortune for the whole society. However, the police had the opportunity to reach the crucial information as a result of explosive substances that did not blow up. As to the 7th July attacks, when compared with 21st July attacks, officials have not yet reached the detailed information regarding the participants and substances used for the attacks at a sufficient level.  Moreover, the police arrested suspects according to the information provided by the photos of the accused. If the accused ones were really perpetrators, this would be the second event whose actors were explicitly determined and captured after attacks that happened on 15-20th November in Istanbul. Among others, this event is crucial on the grounds that it will help to develop new strategies against global terrorism with the assistance of testimony of the arrested. The operations after terrorist attacks in
London will help the police to get detailed information about the actors of terror, thereby enabling to see the background behind the curtains of terrorist attacks.

London attacks seem to be the manifesto of groups that united under the roof of AL-Qaeda. Every single new information and evidence about the participants of these events will make terrorism debates acquire new perspectives.  The reason for which has been chosen as a target is of special importance. According to the data acquired, the question above can be answered with three possible explanations. First of all, is the most closest ally of US both against global terrorism and Iraqi War. The second important reason is that is an international actor that has policies favoring in Middle East
politics.

The third reason is that is seen as an actor which has played the key role in annexation of Islamic World by the West with tyranny and torture, also exploiting the resources according to the arguments put forward by global terrorists.

Consequently, has become the most important target of terrorists resulting from both by its historical heritage and current policies followed by the decision-makers.

It may be claimed that the choice of came out as a surprise in a way since is a sheltered place with its natural feature of being an island. Furthermore, it has the experience of struggling against terror for long years. Therefore, it is a risky situation to attack such protected country, and despite the fact that Al-Qaeda showed as a target for specific periods, London attacks on 7th July were not regarded as an imminent threat even by British Intelligence Service. The reason why officials of this security organization considered these attacks less probable is that they expected such attacks abroad since Muslim community living in saw this country as the center of freedom and a secure habitat for people according to the English security units. They also regard that any attempt that violates peace will be to the disadvantage of Muslim population. Such analysis may be claimed as coherent, yet the discovery that the attacks were done by the fanatics living in Leeds came out as a big shock. The important point English Intelligence Service overlooked is that even in limited numbers, some fanatics may exist in every society and these fanatics may cause big destructions with the assistance of current technology. Why were English security units mistaken? Why could not they differentiate the fanatics within the big Muslim population living there?

Most crucially, is Islamic society face to face with a strong and secret enemy that tries to capture their own children with such an allure and cause them to be out of control? It is impossible to answer these questions with an absolute “yes” or “no”. The only way that leads to the real answer may be found at a certain level if all the participants of the attacks occurring not only in London, but also in various places of the world are successfully arrested.

London attacks and crisis management

London attacks on 7th July and the failed one on 21st were helpful to have the important experience for countries to manage such crisis. The action plans hereafter the attacks serve as crucial lessons for the future. However, the killing of a Brazilian civilian just for his clothes and color, thus arousing suspicion and disregarding the “stop” warning of police after second attacks is the most debatable issue during the events and afterwards.

London attacks also contain crucial lessons for the growing impact after terrorist actions. The first impact of a terrorist action is in itself, and ones directly affected by the attack inevitably respond emotionally. This is of course the natural damage of terror at the very beginning. We may also call it as the first tremor or shock at the spot of event. In the first attacks in London, 52 people were killed and about 300 ones were injured. These attacks had their own important psychological consequences for relatives of dead people, witnesses and the injured. Therefore, what officials around the crisis management table could do is quite limited from this perspective. The duties contain sequentially taking the injured urgently to treatment services, avoiding any further loss of life and property, protecting evidences, keeping the suspects under surveillance and ending the chaos immediately.  We may say that these duties were successfully realized at a certain level. However, the real success lies in the effects after the attacks. The real damage that all terrorist attacks cause is the trace of chilling fear that stays in people’s minds. This situation can be described as the second wave impact of terror on massive parts of public on a large scale. The second wave impact of terror is realized by the media. Informing public about the events without refining and taking all sides into consideration is of vital importance to terrorists` achieving their ultimate aim. In addition to this, if a terrorist action does not cause fear and horror massive parts of public, it can even be disregarded as a terrorist action because of its inability to create the desired consequences.   This expression is generally used to explain the content and functional model of terror. In terrorist actions, the large effect on public can be realized benefiting from the acquired terror fear arising from terror. For this reason, these actions are remembered with fear and the feature of the action may be defined as the propaganda by deed.

In our daily life, many people lose their lives due to various accidents, but they are perceived as the natural parts of life. We all know that the number of people killed in traffic accidents  outweighs the one in terrorist attacks. However, we do not give up driving because of traffic accidents. Taking this and similar examples into account, we may say that the possible deaths do not intrinsically cause large influences. Their effect depends on their relative rate of provoking fear on societies` memories and style. Terror events are completely established on the grounds of the instinct of fear. This instinct should be stimulated intensively with propaganda tools. The peaceful manner of crisis management staff compared with the strategy of terrorists relying on fear portrays a picture of struggle between these two groups for the interaction of individual and collectivist memory. After the exact time point of 11.45, the security officials did not give detailed information regarding the number of the killed and the injured for the whole two hours following the London attacks. They announced that two people were killed after two hours. Meanwhile, all the scenes that appeared on new agencies contained pictures of state forces. The main actors were the police, fire brigade, health service officials, first aid staff and transportation officials, which symbolize that state forces control the event. Yes, the terrorists realized an action, yet what stays in our minds is not the explosive bombs, smashed bodies, wild, terrific scenes. On the contrary, we remember the coloured clothes and the tools of the ones who were responsible to maintain the order. This shows the predominant strategy of crisis management staff that consciously emphasize trust, peace rather than the fear strategy of terror on dead bodies.

London crisis management is recognizant of the psychological influence of terror and     with this principle in mind, they tried to give their own messages to their own public and the whole world following the events rather than the messages of terrorists. On this line, the prime minister issued his speech later 2 hours 15 minutes than that of the minister of domestic affairs during the G8 summit in . The Prime Minister Blair and other leaders proposed to give the impression that is thoroughly strong in alliances with all other countries against terrorists. Blair succeeded in giving the message that England was much more stronger than the terrorists who wanted to create an atmosphere of hate and fear with their relatively small population, which was described by the prime minister as “weak and marginal groups’’. In addition to this pejorative description of terrorists, he implied that symbolized the truth and justice. Emphasizing that they gathered to find crucial solutions to the problems such as health and starvation in Africa, he stated that it was mercilessness that the terrorists chose such a meaningful day, yet they will go on with struggling for the sake of good deeds all around the world. This also indicates that London
was successful in propaganda war of crisis management for the part of the prime minister. All the propaganda campaigns throughout the first day of the crisis were managed by the initiative of the state forces, not by the terrorists themselves.

Moreover, London bomb attacks are also noticeable since it proved that the initiative to control the whole process could be taken from the terrorists. The degree to what extent terrorism gives the maximum damage does not only rely on the number of the dead, but  mostly on the panicky atmosphere that dominates in all organizations and administrative units of the state, especially the ones such as security services and the media, whose anxiety mostly affects the public. It can be said that after the events, security forces were calm and their relationship with the media did not go beyond rehearsal and practice. Sir I.Blair,   the London Metropolitan Police Chief, gave the impression that he knew what he had to say in front of the cameras word by word, namely by heart. In his first speeches after the event, he especially tried to control  the behaviours of the public. Blair,  expressing his expectations from the public, said that the public must sequently do several things such as not evacuating London unless it is urgent and necessary, not using the means of transportation and the line of emergency calls with emphasis on their control over the whole matter. They persistently gave their own desired by insisting on dismissing the questions of media representatives such as the number of the dead and the injured, the name of the terrorist group or any other question that will increase the prestige of the terrorists. This is the successful application of crisis management to the security field. With the help of media, the feeling of security was created  along the principle “ minimum panic and maximum security”, which was issued on a program prepared beforehand. What is important here is that the crisis management staff had the ability to know what they would do beforehand and acted accordingly; and therefore the plan worked much properly. This is clear in measuring of damage and decreasing the panic after the trauma. Meanwhile, the media was responsible enough to act according to the plans of the crisis management and did not disrupt the plans with broadcasting in accordance with the aims of the terrorists.

The Crisis Management after the London Attacks (The Scenario of Christian- Muslim Clash)

An important lesson   the attacks taught was in the issue of   probable Christian- Muslim clash. Terrorist actions are planned violent events that had certain aims. The application of the dose of violence is consciously planned and brutality and wildness is completely varies with the aim. Therefore, it is important to understand the attacks and see the background for the purpose of good crisis management and foreseeing terrorist attacks and developing strategies and tactics according to it.  There are many reasons for the attacks in London; yet, certainly, the most important one is creating animosity between groups and societies on the basis of the feeling “hate” and getting various interests from this.

If the method of terror whose ultimate face is filled with disarray, surprise, the pieces of deceased bodies and blood is reflected to the public directly, the public may react emotionally and may look for responsible parts for such cruelty. Of course, it can not be expected that the public, acting as a professional organization, can find out the actors of the event, and deal with them. The reflex of the society shows itself in hatred towards the community on whose behalf the action is done. Even though the British State Television BBC succeeded in handling the issue with a great care initially refining the news to a great extent, it can be observed that attacks on Muslim community increased greatly. It is impossible to say that these attacks were the result of rational calculation beforehand, yet it is true that the ones instigating the terror predicted such developments. From this perspective, both the English government and the security units gave important speeches to avoid social disintegration and animosity. Despite the all assurances of responsible foundations and authorities, a survey carried out in shows that a great part of Muslims living in want to leave the country. In spite of the all successes of the crisis management, they could not prevent the handicap of keeping different parts in peaceful coherence. Especially, the killing of a foreigner (Brazilian) by the police, just because of the suspicion that arises from color and clothes damaged the prestige of the police greatly in the eyes of the public.

The security forces, which are expected to be the calmest ones and calculate all the details, do not have the privilege to make mistakes. Security members are regarded as the ones who are least likely to make mistake and know how to behave most properly. But, this most basic principle was violated after second London attacks by a panicky policeman who shot a dubious innocent man. Due to this event, Muslim community living in wanted justification from the state, and the president of London Police expressed his sorrow, giving his apologies and assured that they may again shot other accused ones in similar situations and events. It is clear that this and similar events may cause big clashes in the struggle against terror. However, such kind of comments encouraged fanatical extremists and nationalists for attacking Muslims, who were accused of being   guilty from the very beginning by fanatics.

Terrorist organizations are not structures, which are strong with their own capabilities. The solidification of these groups depends on the wrong reactions to their deeds.  Terrorist organizations act with the purpose of speeding up societal disintegration and decomposition and at this point, they have to follow a strategy that completely contradicts with that of state forces.  In the case of England, Tony Blair`s approach is here important, since he expressed that the attacks were just the embodiments of terror, and the terrorists were not regarded as the representatives of any ethnic, religious, and national groups.

Tony Blair`s description of terror is a rational step that shows terrorists as marginal groups and tries to isolate the responsible since Al-Qaeda and other groups that are with the same principles strive to prove  the support of Muslims.  It is a desired consequence that Muslims, despite their lack of support, are seen as the other, humiliated and left alone because of attacks in various places of the world, thus becoming radical due to the behaviors of the countries. What Al-Qaeda proposes is exactly the victimization of Muslims to the aims of terrorists. The events during the process after the bomb attacks were much more influential than that of the bomb attacks. If the process goes hand in hand with the aims of terrorists, it is inevitable that discrepancies among communities arise. Moreover, Al-Qaeda or other groups that act on behalf of it progressed to a great extent.  Each attack all around the world, especially in the West, challenged the ways of life of Muslims. Following the
London attacks, many attacks exceeding one thousand cases against Muslims occurred   just only in . From now on, , a country which was proud of its heritage of tolerance and multi-culturalism, can not candidly defend such principles as it did in the past.

The , the forerunner of democracy and liberalism had its own drawbacks such as Ebu Gureyb and Guantanamo. The human rights reports that are traditionally issued by the are not regarded seriously and the credibility of this country decreased to the bottom. According to the public opinion polls carried out in shows that the positive image of the is day by day decreasing. From the perspective of the growing global terror, every attack makes Muslims live in a difficult situation. They are caught in the trap of terror and the society they live in. They are forced to account for the attacks, for which they are not responsible directly or indirectly. This creates the basis for ones desiring for the clash of civilizations and new bomb attacks are expected impatiently. Since every bomb attack is much more hurting, they depict Muslims living collectively with other communities as the accused ones sitting on the chair of the guilt. It takes along time to change this scenario and requires calmness and patience.
London bomb attacks must drive all the parts think again, but it is a difficult scenario to make mind go ahead of feelings when violence is at its climax.

Conclusion

London bomb attacks give important clues to our understanding of global terror and preventive measures against it. It is possible to classify these clues into three main groups: in the first group, the duties of state officials, in the second group, the duties of the public and in the third group, the deeds of terrorists.

First of all, it is beneficial to understand the third group, since it is in directly proportional to first and second groups` plans of actions and their methods. In connection to this, terrorists resort to brutal forces violently without distinction, do not obey the laws, do consciously choose the innocent as targets, benefit from the weaknesses of the publics and the states and make propagandas from these. Terrorists cause sedition between societies and these seditious seeds bring terrorists up. Terrorists exploit the existent tensions, impulsive behaviors and anger. They do all of these actions consciously with plans beforehand to create polarities within societies and thus disseminating their illegal and immoral war to massive parts.

London attacks show that although global terrorists were not successful at the first stage, they gained the importance after it. People in the English society, which was composed of individuals from different religions and races, can not look at each other with the same thrust as they did in past without having no problems. This is a general trend whose popularity is increasing all around the world and even a radio announcer in suggested killing all Muslims, while a senator claimed that it was normal to bomb Mecca, if the conditions were mature enough. It would not be an exaggeration to say that people who put forward this and similar thoughts were considered as the insane that must be treated.  In short, global terrorists are successful enough to achieve their aims. It is also important that these attacks gave the necessary conditions to test the efficiency of state administrative units. To be calm at the first stage of the crisis proved to be important in the crisis management. State authorities` not showing masses as targets can be regarded as a crucial step to avoid sedition and polarity that are planned by the terrorists. Though English officials gave calm messages, it is true that they did not try to be as sufficient as possible for this matter. The gravest    mistake of the English Police was to shoot a foreigner due to suspicion and consequent explanation of the president that claims the event as normal application. This claim was responded much more harshly than the killing itself. Choosing wrong subjects as the targets for global anti-terrorism struggle constituted the basis of terrorists` propaganda.  However, the crisis management by English authorities was a valuable success in terms of crisis management, which assisted preventing the arousal of annoyance. When evaluating from the perspective of the public, its participation to the struggle of global terror was not really heartening. The struggle against the terror should not be the job of only one part of the society. The intelligent services for the possible attacks could be provided by the various walks of life in the society. Yet, the basic rule to realize this aim can be obeyed only by the reciprocal thrust within the all groups and state authorities. This feeling of thrust was shaken greatly by the wrong attitude of the police and the attacks of the English nationalists and fundamentalists against Muslims. If the thesis that terrorists are the fanatics among Muslim population as claimed by the English Police, who say that they were the radicals in Leeds, the information that has the value of intelligence is gathered from the society in this situation. Yet, the atmosphere of thrust is disrupted day by day both by the police and the searching and surveillance means of them and the seditious behaviors of the local folk against Muslims.

Finally, it can be said that both, societies and states must do what they are required to do, search for their responsibilities, and look at the other side of the mirror after each bomb attacks. If there is a growing trend of global terror and the clash among different cultures and beliefs is increasing, the terrorists are responsible for this picture. Yet, to consider only the terrorists responsible and swear or condemn them can not be a way that leads us to the success. The people of the part struggling against terror must not disintegrate and must develop collective measures. Struggle against terror requires sincerity. The first condition is to remove the double-standard among countries. To realize this, disregarding the boundaries, countries must act collectively. We must take into our minds that terrorism is a fact that can be manipulated despite its origins, actors and places. At this point, the thought that “your terrorist” or “my terrorist”, namely the concept of possessiveness, should be avoided and the issue should be looked at from the general framework. Perhaps, strategies against terror will not change after London attacks; yet global terror attacks will make international cooperation in the international arena as an inevitable fact.

Trn. by Zeynep SENGUL

 

19 August 2005

 

Ihsan BAL:

Assoc. Prof. Dr.

, Head of the

ISRO

Center

for International Security, Terrorism and Ethnic Conflicts. ibal@usak.org.uk