Anti-terror push and surveillance

In the wake of the deadly attacks in France that took place two weeks ago, the United States and Britain vowed to take a hard line on “Islamist” extremism.

In a press conference with President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron said: “We face a poisonous and fanatical ideology that wants to pervert one of the world’s major religions, Islam, and create conflict, terror and death.”

Thus far, Western leaders made a clear distinction between Islam as a religion and terrorist attacks carried by radical Islamists.

Not only does this distinction accurately depict reality, it also helps create common grounds with Muslims around the world. Moreover, this distinction deprives those — Netanyahu in particular — who seek to equate Islam with terrorism from further aggravating the situation.

And yet, Western leaders have not yet raised the logical question about why this tiny minority among Muslims resorts to violence.

By raising this point, I am not trying to justify their deeds. On the contrary, I believe that understanding what motivates them is a key part of the solution.

Obviously, the security approach in dealing with this phenomenon should be complemented by a different approach that addresses the root causes of violence, extremism and terrorism.

Western leaders must be aware of this fact, but they are more interested in quick fixes for a situation that cannot be fixed overnight.

While many observers understand the need to deal with homegrown extremism, they might differ on the most effective way to do that.

Some urge governments to monitor and censor the Internet. Cameron flew to the US to warn Obama that they must do whatever it takes to deprive terrorists from using Internet as a platform for communication.

In an interview with Channel 4 News, Cameron asked Facebook and Twitter to cooperate in monitoring terror suspects.

“The companies themselves have all sorts of interests, but one of those interests is they don’t want to be the platform that becomes safe for terrorists to talk to each other and plan appalling outrages on. We saw with respect to the terrorist outrage on the streets of Woolwich that companies don’t want to play a role in bad things that can happen,” said Cameron.

Obama is more concerned about how to strike a balance between surveillance and civil liberties. In other words, Obama and Cameron agree that terrorists must not be allowed to use the Internet as a means of communication without being monitored by the intelligence agencies, but Obama’s concerns are linked with the need to not compromise civil liberties.

And yet, the two leaders are not necessarily in agreement on all issues.

Implicit in Obama’s words is criticism of the way Europe deals with its own Muslim citizens.

He urged European leaders not to “respond with a hammer” and called on them to follow the US model of assimilation.
Obama believes that his country has successfully assimilated its Muslim citizens.

Casting aside the minor differences between Obama and Cameron, the two leaders agreed to establish a joint group to explore ways of enhancing their abilities to counter violent extremism.

This group will examine various issues, but mainly it will look at what causes radicalisation, how to deal with the risk of foreign fighters, and how to work closely with Muslim communities in order to promote moderate voices.

I am sure that if the two countries follow up on the recommendations of the joint group, they will help improve the security situation. But this does not mean that they will manage to defeat terrorism once and for all.

Terrorism and violence predate the emergence of the Internet and social media.

Therefore, Western leaders should focus on what motivates violence and try to come up with a remedy to the root causes, rather than deal with the symptoms.

Short of doing that, any success will be both modest and may not last for long.

[email protected]