Counterterrorism strategies between formulation mechanisms and challenges

Ahmed Kamel al-Beheiri

The Egyptian state faces one of the highest terrorist waves in half a century in terms of the scope of targets as well as the type of arms used by terrorists.

Terrorist attacks in this regard raise a number of questions. Answering these questions is important for the formulation of a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy. It is also important to define the role of each state institution in the implementation of this strategy.

To formulate this strategy we need to answer the following three questions:

1 – Who are we facing?

We are badly in need of understanding the terrorist groups we are fighting and having full knowledge about their organizational structure.

2 – What are the agencies responsible for formulating the counterterrorism strategy?

3 – Who will implement this counterterrorism strategy?

The first part of this study will dwell on the mechanisms necessary for the formulation of counterterrorism strategies. The second part will focus on the challenges facing the implementation of these strategies.

First, counterterrorism strategy formulation mechanisms

Counterterrorism strategies differ from one country to another. Differences are caused by the mechanisms of formulating these strategies and also the stages of their formulation. Some governments get support from their advisors in formulating their counterterrorism strategies. Other governments form specialized committees that work separately, together or in tandem with parliament and society to formulate the strategy. Some countries get inspiration from the experiences of other countries to formulate their own counterterrorism strategy. Nonetheless, these countries tailor the strategies to the enormity of dangers they are facing, their vision of their role and their resources.

An analysis of the counterterrorism strategies of western countries shows similarities and differences between these strategies in terms of their formulation methodologies and also the division of their contents.

The American counterterrorism strategy, for example, is built on five main pillars, namely the threat, counterterrorism regulations, strategic objectives, geographic areas of operations, and risks.

Four of these five basic points in the strategy are general. Nonetheless, American action on the international stage achieves almost 25% of the goals of the strategy. This is based on an American policy of keeping dangers outside national borders. The US believes that it has to face dangers wherever they are before they threaten American territories.

The fact is that the scope of American interests is very wide. The US also has leverage everywhere in the world. This leverage gives American administrations massive freedom of movement.

The British counterterrorism strategy, which covered the period between 2010 and 2015, represents a different model. This strategy was based on four important pillars, namely implementation; prevention; protection, and preparedness.

The strategy aimed to prevent terrorist attacks from happening and preventing British nationals from backing terrorism or being radicalized. It also aimed to beef up measures for the prevention of terrorist attacks and increase preparedness in case the attacks take place.

The Canadian and Australian strategies are a bit similar. The Canadian strategy is based on three internal elements, namely risks, main objectives and mechanisms for preventing terrorist groups from carrying out attacks.

The Australian strategy is based on the state’s responsibility for preventing terrorism and responding to danger. There are details to each of these two points.

Here are the similarities between the counterterrorism strategies of most countries:

1 – Danger

This is the basic part in any counterterrorism strategy. Determining the danger is the most important part of this strategy. There are two types of dangers, namely general dangers and special dangers.

General dangers are those which threaten the security of the citizens of the state and the gains of this state.

Special dangers are those posed by specific groups or organizations.

National security strategies are usually profounder than counterterrorism strategies. Counterterrorism strategies deal with specific terrorist threats facing states.

2 – Objectives

Most counterterrorism strategies aim to fulfill the following objectives:

1. a)     Prevention

This aims to prevent potential terrorist attacks inside countries or attacks against their strategic interests abroad. The prevention usually happens through investigation and discovering the terrorist threat before it translates into action. It then aims to bring those planning the terrorist attack to court.

To be able to prevent terrorist attacks, security agencies need to be empowered enough and given the tools they need to achieve this objective. Officials at these security agencies also need to have full understanding of their role. State agencies need to learn to work together and exchange information to be able to achieve the final goal of the counterterrorism strategy.

1. b) Response

In this, states deal with terrorist attacks that have already happened to mitigate their effects. Police and intelligence agencies cooperate to end attacks by fighting their perpetrators and reduce their consequences. Most counterterrorism strategies have sections for preparedness for attack and emergency in the case of these attacks. The same sections contain information on means of managing attack situations. To deal effectively with attacks, security agencies and emergency teams need to have the necessary tools and work together.

1. c)     Continuous

In this, states work to prevent the formation of terrorist incubators in them, prevent terrorist groups from recruiting members and prevent these groups from drawing in sympathizers.

Generally speaking, all these actions must happen within the framework of the law. This will be tackled in the second part of this study along with the challenges that face the implementation of counterterrorism strategies.

References

• “2010 to 2015 Government Policy: Counterterrorism”. UK Government, Published 7 May 2015
• “Building Resilience against Terrorism”, Canada’s Counterterrorism Strategy, the official website of the Canadian Government
• “Review of Australia’s Counterterrorism Machinery”, Jan 2015, Australian Government- Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
• “National Strategy for Counterterrorism “, Jan 2011, the official web site of the White House
• United Nations, General Assembly, 62nd session agenda item no. 118. 15, September 2008