Paris terror attacks should mean bolder thinking about security

As an exercise in stating the obvious, it is hard to fault the G20 meeting in Turkey . Terrorism, world leaders concluded, is not only a threat to peace and security, it also does economic harm . Terrorists should find it harder to cross borders and to raise money .

Countries with information about terrorists should share it more readily.

This blandness is striking given that barely hours before the meeting convened, terrorism claimed scores of lives in Paris, Beirut and Baghdad.¹ Those murders were committed in the name of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant . Yet world leaders had next to nothing to say about what should be done to put an end to Isil s crimes, many of which are orchestrated from the territory it holds in Syria.

“So far, responses to Paris, both international and national, have been wearily familiar, following the pattern of earlier atrocities . Without bolder thinking, it is a pattern we may well repeat again.”

As David Cameron acknowledged, that is largely because of the gulf of opinion between the West and Russia over the future of Syria s egregious president, Bashar al-Assad .

That he is a murderous dictator is beyond doubt . But equally clear is that while leaders debate if, when, and how he should leave office, decisive action against Isil is delayed.

Much attention focuses on the use of air power against Isil, but more thought should be given to ground operations . That need not mean Western or Russian boots on the ground .

Better to bolster regional forces . It would be good for Muslim nations near Syria to do more about Isil (especially since the majority of its victims are Muslims), but realistically this means the stateless Kurds, who have recently reclaimed ground from Isil in Iraq and are pressing the militants in Syria.

Helping the Kurds would antagonise both Turkey and Iraq, who strongly oppose Kurdish independence . Trying to resolve that impasse is surely deserving of greater international diplomatic effort, and might usefully be considered by the United Nations Security Council meeting President Francois Hollande of France has requested to discuss the atrocity in Paris.

Of course, there are always limits to what international bodies can do .

National security is primarily the job of national governments . Here, it is worth scrutinising the response of Britain s politicians to events in Paris . Those responses have so far been familiar, all sides rehearsing the arguments about Syrian intervention and state surveillance they made before the atrocity.²

Jeremy Corbyn in particular appears both callously unmoved by the bloodshed in Paris, and negligently dismissive of the threat to Britain and the responses required .

Conservative ministers, wary of offering knee-jerk responses, have carefully stuck to their pre-Paris script; Mr Cameron, wary of defeat, still hesitates before asking MPs to vote on Syrian intervention.

Events in Paris demand a wider British debate about security . We should ask how and if our response would have differed had the attacks taken place here . Notwithstanding big differences between Britain and France on counter-terrorism and community relations (comparisons largely in Britain s favour) that is far from impossible to imagine .

Consequently, we should think more broadly about our response to Islamist extremism.

Many of those who commit terrorism (or attempt to) are citizens of European nations who travel to Isil territory for training . Current views of international law prevent countries such as Britain rendering such people stateless by removing their passports, meaning they are free to return to the countries they seek to harm . The legal consensus here should be challenged to allow their exclusion.

Spending decisions should also be reassessed .

More money for intelligence agencies is welcome, but what about cuts that reduce police manpower ? Is there more scope for using the skills of Britain s Armed Forces against domestic threats?

And what about Islam ? Theresa May told MPs recent attacks have nothing do with Islam .

Creditably, she wishes to avoid inflaming social tension .

But the relationship between Islam and terrorism must be discussed more fully than her position allows.

So far, responses to Paris, both international and national, have been wearily familiar, following the pattern of earlier atrocities .

Without bolder thinking, it is a pattern we may well repeat again.

telegraph.co.uk³

Follow @telegraphnews⁴ How we moderate⁵

References

1. ^{^} terrorism claimed scores of lives in Paris, Beirut and Baghdad. (www.telegraph.co.uk)
2. ^{^} all sides rehearsing the arguments about Syrian intervention and state surveillance they made before the atrocity. (www.telegraph.co.uk)
3. ^{^} telegraph.co.uk (www.facebook.com)
4. ^{^} Follow @telegraphnews (twitter.com)
5. ^{^} How we moderate (my.telegraph.co.uk)

The post Paris terror attacks should mean bolder thinking about security appeared first on News4Security.