This article was originally published on 30 June 2017 by UK online newspaper iNews.
Earlier this week, Swedish daily newspaper Expressen published a series of interviews with former jihadis, focusing on their struggle to find work on their return to Sweden. Particular challenges included explaining long gaps on their CVs, and the ease with which potential employers could find undesirable photos of them online.
As was quickly pointed out, they are not the first group of 20-somethings to wrestle with these challenges, even if explaining away a photo with an AK-47 and dead Syrian soldier is slightly trickier than most ‘gap year’ returnees.
Unsurprisingly, they have attracted little sympathy. Youth unemployment in Sweden (as in much of the rest of Europe) is high; surely individuals who provided military support to a barbaric terrorist organisation should be at the bottom of the list? And more obviously, why aren’t they in jail, rather than complaining about their employment prospects?
Unfortunately, the reality of prosecuting returning foreign fighters is far from straightforward.
Firstly, there is often a significant gap between what intelligence agencies know about an individual, and what they can prove in court – reports from human intelligence assets or technical intercept are typically inadmissible as evidence. Secondly, foreign fighters have become savvier about what they share online, and about ensuring they leave behind electronic devices before returning to the West. And finally, even where a returnee slips up, it often only provides evidence of travel to Syria or Iraq, not involvement in terrorist activity.
As a result, Sweden, like the UK and much of the rest of Europe, is faced with a large number of returned foreign fighters but somewhat limited options when it comes to immediate prosecution. In the UK for example, approximately 400 foreign fighters have returned, each of which potentially has the skills and battlefield experience to pose a significant terrorist threat.
In parallel to attempting to build a prosecution case, authorities have two options, monitoring and rehabilitation.
As we’ve so painfully discovered since March 2017, there are limits to the number of individuals that law enforcement and intelligence agencies can monitor at any one time. Due to the inflated threat they pose, returnees will typically be near the top of that target list. But with new leads or threats emerging on a daily basis, monitoring is a resource-intensive threat management tool, not a solution.
Which is why countries across Europe – notably Denmark, Sweden and Germany – are combining prosecution and monitoring with returnee rehabilitation programs, offering returnees an exit strategy from violent extremism. Central to which, are employment opportunities.
The logic behind these programs is clear – reintegrating foreign fighters into society is cheaper than the alternatives of ongoing monitoring or a costly prosecution. And if done well, they theoretically provide a long-term solution, not a temporary band aid.
It is still too early to assess the success of most of these programs, but that remains a very big ‘if’. And despite the potential benefits from both a resources and risk perspective, this story illustrates that any attempt to operate them at scale is likely to face significant (and understandable) opposition.
The weekend before last, UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd did the rounds on the Sunday morning political chat shows, in the wake of the Westminster terrorist attack. Her comments around encryption, tech companies and their role in the fight against extremism and terrorism have (as she no doubt intended) dominated the news cycle and shaped the public post-mortem into the attack.
In response, I tweeted some initial thoughts, which I’ve included below in a slightly less condensed format:
As many have observed, Rudd’s comments appear opportunistic at best, given what we know about London attacker so far. Most obviously, as he wasn’t under active investigation, access to What’s App or other encrypted services would have been irrelevant in his specific case.
Her comments and the reaction to them are however, yet another example of the simplistic debate that surrounds the encryption issue, and help to conflate different aspects of the problem.
Access to encrypted communications differs pre, during & post investigation. In the context of the Westminster attack, only the latter appears to apply. The battle between the FBI and Apple over the iphone of the San Bernadino attacker also falls under this category. However, Rudd’s reference to ‘terrorist communications’, presumably therefore refers to those under investigation.
Few would argue that the UK authorities should be able to access these communications. But in terms of approach, accessing the communications of known terrorists is very different to making an assessment of potential leads. In the former example, the authorities have options beyond direct warranted access; these aren’t easy, they require significant resource, and most importantly, they are not available to all agencies, most notably law enforcement bodies.
But given the range of powers in the IP Act, and how recently it was passed, it is hard for Rudd to argue that the UK is ill-equipped to counter the threat of known terrorists. Read the rest of this entry »
This was originally published on 24 March 2017 by the Lowy Institute for International Policy, Australia’s leading think tank.
Yesterday’s tragic attack in London was both predictable and widely predicted.
Since August 2014, the UK terror threat level has been ‘severe’, meaning that an attack is highly likely. The UK Government had repeatedly and very publicly warned of the likelihood of a terror attack, while preventing at least a dozen attacks over the last year alone. And a series of similarly low tech attacks across Europe over the past 12 months highlighted the deadliness of this attack methodology. This attack had been imminent for quite some time, postponed by the best efforts of the UK authorities.
And yet, the target and timing of the attack resonated. This was an attack in the heart of London at the home of British politics. With much of the UK media in attendance, news coverage was instantaneous and comprehensive.
What was immediately evident was that while the attack came as a surprise, UK authorities and emergency services were well-drilled and well-prepared. Carefully worded statements were quickly released to the media. Transport plans kicked in, minimising disruption across the capital. And most obviously, the attacker was swiftly incapacitated. By early evening, a visitor would have found little out of the ordinary beyond an increased police presence, frequent sirens and temporary cordons around Westminster.