05/07/2013
Rogelio Alonso, tenured lecturer of Political Science, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos
It's the 8th anniversary of that July 7, 2005 in which four terrorists blew themselves up in London, killing 52 people. The terrorists chose a symbolic date, attacking a day after the capital was chosen to host the 2012 Olympic Games. Today, the terrorist threat remains, as we are recalled by the recent attacks and arrests taking place in the UK or in our own country. This persistent threat requires the design of prevention and control strategies, but also the implementation of initiatives that provide them with actual content. Political will is essential to articulate and implement a multifaceted anti-terrorist strategy that addresses the different dimensions that feature the terrorist phenomenon. Their diversity is precisely what gives particular complexity to this part of the anti-terrorist policy, thereby requiring considerable efforts in different areas of government.
Thus, for example, although the increase in intelligence capabilities and improved coordination have been remarkable since the bombings in Madrid and London, the response to jihadist terrorism still shows significant gaps. Although the political discourse always stresses the prevention of terrorist radicalisation, the fact that this process also requires addressing nonviolent ideological extremism is often ignored. Certainly not all radical ideas lead to violence, but it should not be ignored that terrorism requires extremist ideologies which make fanatics out of those who justify and perpetrate terrorist acts. Although ideological extremism is the root of violent behaviour, it is difficult to confront because radical thought is a legitimate manifestation in democratic systems. However, experience shows that radical ideas have consequences, and it is necessary to act in that nebula between beliefs and violent actions. If intervention is avoided in an area as sensitive as necessary, the response against terrorism is delayed and impaired.
It is for this reason that the response to the jihadist terrorist threat will be incomplete without counteracting religious extremism, both violent and nonviolent, which can trigger the change to terrorism. This recognition does not imply the demonization of legitimate religious beliefs, but it should not be ignored that the seeds of violence are sowed in their most radical interpretation and their instrumentalisation. The most radical expressions of ideologies such as nationalism or Islam contribute to political and religious fanaticism by demolishing the moral inhibitors that stop violence. Because of these radical ideologies, the most macabre crimes acquire rationality and justification, in the logic of the fanatic.
This dimension of counter-terrorism strategy is often underestimated because of the complexity it involves. The urgent need to avoid terrorist attacks may induce us to focus on the police and legal response underestimating an area where the results seem less obvious. However, extremist ideologies pose risks that can degenerate into threats if they do not get timely response. Terrorists kill because they hate; and they hate because they embrace radical and violent ideologies which must also be confronted.