Click:Automatic tea bag packing machine

Aftermath of Paris Attacks: police officers control vehicles in Lyon. Demotix/ serge mouraret. All rights reserved.Today,
counterterrorism, or the whole national and international system of responses designed
to combat terrorism, includes a variety of tools, ranging from diplomacy,
international cooperation and direct engagement to physical security actions,
economic sanctions, covert action and military force.

Terrorism is both a global phenomenon and a pressing political
problem. As such, it requires maximum international cooperation. In the meantime,
there are crucial policy challenges. In a CRS Report for Congress from January
2007, these are presented as conflicting goals and courses of action: (1)
limiting the freedom of individual terrorists, terrorist groups and support
networks to operate unimpeded in a relatively unregulated environment; versus
(2) maintaining individual freedoms, democracy and human rights.

These conflicting goals are now visibly turning into increasingly hard
dilemmas. Perhaps the most powerful expression of the intellectual, as well as
practical dilemmas facing our democracies comes from Isaiah Berlin’s two
apparently contradictory sentences, written in his book, The Power of Ideas, in 2000:

“Freedom
for you is the living of life, for me it is its condition”… and  “Liberty and equality, security and
spontaneity, happiness and knowledge, mercy and justice – all these are supreme
human values when regarded separately; however, they are incompatible, cannot
be all fulfilled; there are choices to be made and  tragic losses pursuing one preferred supreme
goal.”

The global tread today means an increasingly open space, open
social networking, open commerce and open attitudes (tolerant, as well as
non-tolerant). One question takes on more and more meaning: doesn’t an enhanced
security environment, as a result of counterterrorism measures, play, to some
degree, into the hands of the terrorists, i.e. since their central aim is to disrupt
our democratic systems?

It is also important to see that, in all democratic countries, a substantial
majority strongly holds that no compromise of constitutional rights is
acceptable. A direct consequence of this prevailing opinion should be that combating
and condemning terrorist activity, as well as the extremist and violent
ideology that accompanies it, is by no means anti-Islamic.

However, it is very difficult to preserve and continue to affirm
our democratic principles of religious tolerance when confronted with the
horror of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). ISIS seeks to create a
“pure” Sunni Islamist state governed by a brutal interpretation of sharia. This
brutality is designed to augment the image of its strength, to exhibit raw
power and a sheer propensity towards of revenge. ISIS is not concerned with
religions arguments and does not seek a reputation for religious legitimacy.

Only a few years ago, the reports on the future of terrorism did
not foresee the fact that organized terror could take the shape of ISIS. For
instance, in 2007, the US Department of State was more concerned about “a new
form of non-state warfare that resembles a form of global insurgency.”

To conclude these introductory words, I would use Herbert
Marcuse’s concept of “the limit which drives the revolution beyond any
accomplished stage of freedom: it is the struggle for the
impossible.” Under the principle of freedom, no society can ever enjoy freedom
on a permanent basis. Freedom, in order to become a reality, must lay claim to
an ongoing transformation of any society. No institution – either singly or in
concert  – could ever solve all the
conflicts of the world.

Acknowledging culture and people; knowing the enemy

My wish to
contribute to the debate on terrorism was prompted by a single sentence from France on Fire, by Mark Lilla (New York
Review, March, 2015). He said:

“What is
entirely out of a government’s control – out of anyone’s control – is what
happens next in the larger Muslim world.”

Terrorism is a global issue, mainly related to the actions perpetrated
by radical/extremist Islamic groups. When politicians insist on differentiating
those criminal groups from the core values of Islam, they are trying to arouse
the consciousness of human solidarity. This consciousness is nothing less than
attesting the value of culture in solving the issues of civilization.

Because of the big gaps existing between developed and developing
or undeveloped nations, to have joint projects on issues other than health or
education is rare. Instead of producing wealth, it is poverty – its opposite –
which currently gives substance to projects. Terrorism should be treated as a
joint interest, precisely because it is essentially a destructive project. It
is propelled by a destructive energy of a very special kind, because it cannot
be brought into the service of life, as it is always in the service of death.

At the same time, it is also wasting and consuming the future of
nations and people. Dividing the world along cultural lines is a recipe for the
terrorist to thrive. We should cultivate cognitive flexibility. “For the Muslims,
their assimilation into the Western societies is a sign of disavowing their
civilization, their profundity, i.e. the religion and the civil right based on
their religion…I’m worried that, some day, we could have a religious war we
certainly do not need. Islam risks to be violently projected towards an uncertain
future” wrote the great French historian Fernand Braudel, in 1966, in his book The World Today. Braudel was convinced
that “Islam has to modernize itself at any cost” and “ it will adopt a great
part of the Western technologies, a fact that, today, constitutes the
foundation of global life.” He did not agree with those historians and analysts
that viewed Islam as “impermeable” and “uncompromising”. To support this, he
refers to the intimations of the Prophet and concludes that:

“The effort of personal interpretations, the Ijtihad, will play a considerable part in the future development of
Muslim thinking”. But he also warned: “Islam can also be fooled, allow itself
to be fooled”.

More recently, in 2002, in a book meant to explain the demise of
Islam, What Went Wrong, Bernard Lewis
wrote:

“The Muslims brought their own scripture, in their own language and
created their own state, with their own sovereign institutions and their own
holy law…”. “It was bad enough for Muslims to feel weak and poor after
centuries of being rich and strong…to be reduced to the role of followers of
the West.”

In 2011, in his book Civilization,
Neil Ferguson raised a very interesting point:

“Maybe the ultimate threat to the West comes not from the radical
Islamism or any external source, but rather from our own lack of understanding
of, and faith in, our own cultural heritage.”

However, bearing all this in mind, we are confronted with the fact
that terrorism is becoming increasingly violent and tries to destabilize the
existing order on an ever-widening basis. For instance, ISIS attracts followers
not only for the sake of religious righteousness but also for “adventure,
personal power and a sense of the self and the community” (Audrey Kurth Cronin,
“ISIS is Not a Terrorist Group”, March 2015).

This is a new stage, if not era, of both terrorism and
counterterrorism. We have to focus on protecting, serving and winning the
support of the people suffering from terror, alongside combating extremist
groups and individual terrorists. Knowing the enemy is essential in evaluating terrorist
intent and terrorist capability to act.

To conclude, I might use Herbert Marcuse’s line (“The Aesthetic
Dimension”, 1977):

“Solidarity and community have their basis in the subordination of
destructive and aggressive energy to the social emancipation of the life
instincts.”

Public diplomacy

The
use of diplomacy in general and, in particular, to help create a global
anti-terror coalition does not need to be demonstrated. Face-to-face diplomacy,
at all levels, but above all in the Arab world, where personal relationships
are culturally important is much less expensive than security operations, not
to speak about the military ones, and it may substantially contribute to improve
anti-terror cooperation.

The
horrific terrorist attack in Kenya made it even more obvious that public
diplomacy is needed to win ‘hearts and minds’ and to mobilize the media in
countries where international cooperation in law enforcement is not yet very
successful. Sometimes, the battle for hearts and minds seems to be just nice
talk. The dramatic reality is that in many countries in the Arab world, the
western democracies  – the US above all –
are not currently winning this battle. The national security interests of the western
states often collide with their commitment to promote democracy and human
rights by losing the ‘cold war of ideology’, as coined in a CRS Report in 2007,
meaning that a growing proportion of the Muslim youth could embrace extremist
views.

Ultimately,
this could lead to an increase of terrorism. To ameliorate the root causes of
the process of terrorism and to deter recruitment of terrorists, public
diplomacy on the international arena deserves to be well-funded. Let us
remember that, in the Arab world, the activity and publicity efforts of terrorist
groups are well funded and have produced tangible results in the acceptance of
extremist views. Democratic leaders coming from all democratic countries in the
world, or from the battlefields in the non-democratic, authoritarian countries,
have the capacity to raise the awareness of the people and media on the
necessity of international cooperation in anti-terror issues.

They
have the experience, the mental power to direct powerful thoughts, the ability
to gain people’s trust and to express purpose and determination. Depression, in
the form of “everything is awful here” or “the world situation is appalling,
yet appears to be deteriorating” should never be allowed to prevail in the
analysis of terrorism. Yes, there are devastating images of recent terrorist
spots in ISIS-dominated zones, in Paris, or Kenya. However, as we have the conviction
of our principles, a general and permanent way of existence that we consider
the most appropriate – in the ancient meaning of virtuous – we can also grow
certain and knowledgeable in matters of counterterrorism.

Aristotle
was right:

“The
judgment of a single man is bound to be corrupted when he is overpowered by
anger, or by any other similar emotion; but it is not easy for all to get angry
and go wrong simultaneously.”

Cybersecurity versus privacy

Intelligence
activity is crucial to provide advance warning and to mitigate new threats. In
a recent report to the US Congress on the FBI strategy, the necessity “of
building a capability to produce strategic and all-source intelligence assessments
that will guide planning and decisions and will help FBI to anticipate the tomorrow
threats”, is underlined. Its centerpiece is simply the ability to understand
what is happening in a given area by using all the sources available. Whereas
the management strategy is considered satisfactory, the allocated resources are
obviously unsatisfactory. And, if sharing relationships at the level of
institutions such as FBI, CIA, NSA, DOJ, DOD or the Joint Terrorism Task Force
does not rest on a solid foundation (unfortunately not yet mature) the relationships
with the private sector may be good, but they are still potentially fragile.

In the
meantime, the FBI has made cybersecurity a top national-security priority. The
problem today is “to rebuild constructive partnerships with the private sector
as well as with the general public, in the wake of the Snowden revelations.” In
the same congressional report it is stated that there is inadequate
understanding of the value of intelligence collection and of domain analysis,
and this is attributed to “the lack of sufficient leadership.” Legislative
initiatives to incentivize stronger partnerships with the private sector are
needed. The prevailing expectations of privacy is reflected  in the response of Apple when they said, “Our
commitment to customer privacy doesn’t stop because of a government information
request.” On the other hand, the FBI director said that the bureau was
“struggling to maintain its ability to actually collect the communications it
is authorized to collect.”

Clearly,
the most important task is to rebuild trust between the two. The danger, as perceived
by the public is that the data gathered by the security institutions are not
protected from being used by policy preferences. Is it possible to turn privacy
and security into a positive sum game? Is it possible to guarantee both? The
category of professionals working under the requirements of the law becomes a central
factor in order to avoid abuses and intrusions into privacy.

The
known risks are perceived as less dangerous than the supposed ones. But uncertainty
in this very sensitive domain can be mitigated through a larger public
acceptability of the consequences, versus the improved capacity of prediction regarding
terrorist threats.

It is
very significant that the recent anti-terrorism bill proposed by the French
Prime Minister to its Parliament was strongly criticized in a New York Times editorial. The bill
“would open the door to excesses in France, similar to those revealed by
Snowden in the US…. There is no doubt that the French government has the duty
to protect the nation from terrorist violence and Jihadist recruitment. Yet,
the Parliament has the duty to protect the citizen’s democratic rights from any
unduly expansive and intrusive government surveillance.” It is also clear that
such laws can have a negative impact on the freedom of the press. The
complexity of this issue is exemplified by a report on the persons suspected of
Islamic extremist activity in the US between January 2009 and April 2011. Out
of the 104 persons subjected to law enforcement, 34 were born in the US and 35
were younger than 24 years of age. The conclusion was that “no one,
all-encompassing profile can be made of the individuals.”

The
problem in general lies not only in the amount of information collected from the
internet but also in the algorithms which are the basis of the functioning of internet
and computers. The algorithms decide what results you see with any internet
search and if you are a potential or valid target for the intelligence
services. So concerns may also arise if, at some point, algorithms could fall
into the hands of terrorist cells.

Mass-media impact

Mass-media
is essential for gaining mass appeal for democracies, as well as for terrorist
organizations. Today, exploring media coverage is a norm for terrorists. Their
success is often measured by the ability to cause a dramatic effect of fear and
uncertainty. The psychological impact of terror on a target audience is an end
in itself. This is especially true for ISIS. As pointed out by Audrey Kurth
Cronin in his argument that ISIS is a new and more powerful form of
terrorism,  in ISIS Is Not a Terrorist Group  – “Washington has found it much harder to
counteract ISIS’ more visceral appeal, perhaps for a simple reason: a desire
for power, agency and instant results also pervades the American culture.”

The
major media compete for ratings because their best revenues come from increases
in their audience size. Sensationalism is also played up by the terrorists to
increase the impact of their horrific actions. We can easily sense the tension
– in the media – between the need to stick to a fair, accurate presentation of
facts and the imperative to tell a dramatic story, as encapsulated by this  header from the New York Times, “2 maxims at odds: Tell a story and tell the
truth”. This can be problematic: “Can we still trust what we are watching?”

Social
networking is, of course, yet another instrument in the hands of terrorist
organizations. A report of the Brooking Institution in Washington has found up
to 70.000 accounts on Twitter that seem to support ISIS; in this respect, the
message of ISIS to all its followers on-line was clear: the Jihad on-line is
not less important than the jihad on the battle fields.

“We are
living in an era where the media war is stronger than the sword.” wrote a group
attached to ISIS. It must be noted that the presence of ISIS supporters on
Twitter is also a real source of intelligence. So, this is another dilemma: to
expel or not the ISIS Twitter accounts.

The
media can and should be a way to understand the world as a complex interaction
of political, cultural, economic, social and environmental systems. The large
diversity of the ways of thinking is not an impediment for the media to perform
successfully. This pluralism should favor  counterterrorism.

Final remarks

After
the July 22 meticulously planned massacre in Norway, a great majority assumed
that it was a Jihadist attack. The killer turned out to be a Norwegian
“lone-wolf”, not an Islamic extremist.

In his
statement, Mr. Stoltenberg, the Norwegian Prime Minister, was very courageous:
“We will not allow the fear of fear to silence us. More openness, more
democracy. This is us. This is Norway.” Yet, when the Norwegians found out
about the serious flaws in the response of the security forces, they voted the
Prime Minister out of office.

In many
European countries, the anti-immigration parties are on the rise, because they
are constantly warning against the “Islamicization” of the West. Anders
Breivik, the Norwegian killer, used the same argument as a justification for
his murderous action.

Anti-terror
policy has to be more and more a long-term strategy capable of fighting
terrorism on many fronts, as the eradication of terrorism may not be achievable
for a long period of time.

Being steadfast
in our defense of our freedoms and civil rights does not mean that we are constrained
by conventional thinking. That is indeed us. But it is a very delicate and tightrope
balance that must be maintained between the freedom to react and that of existing.
We should never accept submission to the blind, brutal force embodied by
terrorism. And yet, when privacy and freedoms are under constant pressure from
the necessities of counterterrorism, we have the feeling of being in exactly
the position that complies with the terrorists’ wishes.

Lawmakers
can place sensible limits on surveillance and require a considerable amount of
proof, before privacy is limited by intelligence and security interventions. The
salvation of our democracies lies, I hope, not in painful trade-offs between
collecting information and saving freedoms, but in finding synergies, common
goals and compatible opinions. We should in particular worry about problems
whose solutions are neither well defined nor objectively measurable.

There is an acute and growing tension between the concern for safety and the protection of our freedoms. How do we handle this? Read more from the World Forum for Democracy partnership.