The threat is more complex and diversified but the response has also evolved
THE AUTHORITIES in Brussels believe Europe is less vulnerable now to terror attacks than after 9/11 but say Islamic militants still pose a significant danger.
Counter-terrorism officials argue that the Arab Spring protests in the Middle East and North Africa show a lack of appeal for al-Qaeda’s ideology. They warn, however, that the emergence of any power vacuum in the wake of the revolts could stir support for militant rhetoric and lead to opportunistic attacks.
After the events of 9/11 shook the world, the Madrid train bombing in 2004 and suicide blasts on London’s transport network the next year demonstrated how al-Qaeda and its followers could strike deep in Europe with deadly consequences. The threat has evolved, with the killing of Osama Bin Laden and some of his top lieutenants putting further pressure on a weakened al-Qaeda.
However, al-Qaeda continues to inspire potent “franchise” networks.
“We are still faced with a threat which is much more complex and much more diversified than it was 10 years ago where we were really confronted with a very sophisticated organisation,” says EU counter-terrorism chief Gilles de Kerchove.
Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is perceived to pose the greatest risk. It was behind the foiled plot to bomb an aircraft in Detroit on Christmas Day 2009, and an attempt last year to send bombs to the US on cargo jets.
De Kerchove also sees risk in the possibility of links between this group and al-Shabab, the Somali-based Islamist militants.
Further dangers are posed by “foreign fighters” – trained in jihadist hotspots, and unknown to European police – and attackers who are radicalised at home.
Still, de Kerchove argues that the days when al-Qaeda could mount a complex assault on the scale of its 2001 attack on the US are over.
“I think we can say today where an attack of the scale and the sophistication as the one we had on 9/11 probably is no longer possible,” he told reporters yesterday.
“Does it mean that we are completely out of the threat? I don’t think so. Unfortunately, the threat has evolved.
“But I have this week and in recent times been asked whether we were safer today than before. I can also say: ‘Yes, of course,’ because our response in Europe, in the member states and I would also say worldwide, has significantly improved.”
De Kerchove attributes this to improved global co-ordination between security and intelligence agencies.
He questions the failure to close the US detention camp at Guantánamo Bay and prosecute suspects through the justice system. The prosecution of the Madrid bombers was more much effective, he argues. “They have been treated like the criminals they are and not like ‘fighters for a noble cause’ like the detainees of Guantánamo . . . By using the criminal justice paradigm you deglamorise the jihad.”
De Kerchove says the experience of the Arab Spring shows how al-Qaeda failed to grasp the imagination of the protesters.
“The fact that people were peacefully demonstrating in the streets to get rid of autocratic governments, to ask for more democracy, more freedom, for respect for human rights, for the reduction of corruption and not using violent means, without any reference to al-Qaeda, is in itself a sign of the complete failure of al-Qaeda rhetoric.”
But the revolts are not without risk, he adds. The looting of arms and ammunition and the freeing of jailed jihadists carries danger. In particular, Tunisia and Egypt need help to rebuild the security services dismantled when the Ben Ali and Mubarak regimes were overthrown.
“We might be confronted with more opportunistic, small-scale attacks [rather] than a sophisticated one,” warns de Kerchove.
