The early years of the twenty-first century have seen the revival of an old challenge to international peace and security, that of violent extremism and terrorism. States and the international institutions that form the international system have been confronted with the need to develop effective and coherent policies to counter that threat. Expectedly, this has proven to be a difficult task.1
Terrorism is an aggregate expression which describes, in a single word, a variety of political, ideological or religiously-motivated forms of violence. The purpose of terrorism is to engender immense fear in order to destabilize a certain social environment, and to achieve specific political or related goals. Thus, terrorism is not and cannot be something monolithic. It is most often, though not always, linked to violent extremism, an ideological base that breeds violence as a legitimate means of action in society.
Terrorism is a form of combat; it is a tactic. It has its starting point in a political, ideological or religious idea, which those who believe in this idea wish to realize through terrorist actions. It has been proven many times throughout history that terrorism does not ensure political success. However, it is also often the case that terrorist groups and individual terrorists are neither prepared nor able to acknowledge this. Recent history attests to many tragic examples.
The twenty-first century started with the particularly ominous terrorist attack in the United States on September 11, 2001. Subsequently, “September 11” became ←35 | 36→a synonym for the most devastating terrorist attack that produced a series of shock waves. The immediate shock was caused by the loss of life: almost three thousand people were killed in a single attack on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. Additional psychological shocks were triggered by the understanding of the missed opportunities to prevent this heinous act and the vulnerability of a modern society.2
The level of solidarity expressed by the international community to this tragic event in 2001 was unique. However, it could not last and will probably not re-emerge in a long time. This is partly due to the many subsequent repressive strategies declared as counterterrorism which were proven inefficient. Some of these strategies, moreover, were disingenuous.
Much of the rhetoric in the “war on terror” used in discussions in the aftermath to 11 September 2001 was misleading – both as a slogan for political mobilization and as an organizational principle of anti-terrorist activities. Many abuses of human rights including incidents of torture resulted from this rhetoric. In addition, the rise of a variety of private security companies intended to combat terrorism by military means has become a problematic new phenomenon. “The war on terror” has also adversely affected the international law system as well as the meaning of national sovereignty, not to mention the financial consequences and the general damage to society, with regard to human lives and the destruction of infrastructure.
A carefully coherent set of strategies is necessary to develop efficient and wise counterterrorism activities. Repressive measures are only one element, which must not predominate. There ought to be policies to address the causes of terrorism, causes such as social injustice and discrimination. It is important that counterterrorism does not lead to human rights violations.
In the past two decades there have been some positive achievements reflected in the adoption of international conventions which have brought international legal regulation closer to a universal definition and condemnation of terrorism. In addition, the closer cooperation of intelligence, security, police and judicial authorities, particularly in the area of intelligence sharing, represent an example of the progress made. The introduction of specialized working bodies for counterterrorism within regional organizations and within the United Nations is also an improvement.
Progress made at the international cooperation level, however, cannot eliminate the threat of terrorist action completely. Terrorist attacks are always accompanied by an element of surprise. On July 22, 2011, a single terrorist, Anders Breivik, killed 77 young people gathered at a political event on the island of Utoja in Norway. That attack shook and awoke Europe and the world to the threat of terrorism. It ←36 | 37→has also raised several questions regarding European and international policies on preventing terrorist threats to society. The fact that terrorism is a global phenomenon, from which no country is absolutely protected, was demonstrated again.
Breivik’s terrorist attack posed a significant challenge to countries and their law enforcement authorities. How can we prevent terrorist acts that are carried out by groups or individuals that initially appear non-threatening, and how can this be done without infringing on human rights? While modern society encourages the free flow of persons, capital, goods and services, this makes it more vulnerable from the security point of view. After each terrorist attack, both experts and the general public rightly question the efficiency of national security systems and indirectly, also of the broader international security community.
The terrorist attack by Anders Breivik was followed by the realization that there is a greater diversity of terrorist threats than previously believed. Until then, Islamic radicalism and fundamentalism had received most of the attention in counterterrorism activities. Although European right-wing radicalism and extremism was constantly present, it was underestimated, which meant that national authorities and the international community paid too little attention to them. The social and political frustrations characteristic of the economic and social crisis in Europe at the time was an ideal environment for the spreading of extremist ideas.
The world witnessed yet another wave of Islamic violence in the years following the terrorist attack in Norway. The protracted armed conflicts in the Middle East have produced periodic waves of terrorist activities, most recently and most dramatically, the ones committed since 2014 by the fighters belonging to ISIS/Daesh, the self-proclaimed “Islamic Caliphate”. While the political and territorial base of ISIS was practically destroyed by 2019, the danger of their terrorist attacks, committed by individual members or the remnants of ISIS, continues.
It is important to understand that security is not a given, and that a state of complete security can never be achieved. Terrorism has a complex history and it would not be realistic to expect it to be eliminated. Terrorism requires constant attention and caution. National security services must be efficient enough to successfully identify terrorist plans and prevent terrorist acts. But security can be strengthened without reducing human rights standards.
Experience has taught us that in a period of global interdependence, it is impossible for any country to avoid the terrorist threat. The Norwegian example is an important warning to all countries. It is difficult to estimate with certainty in which direction future security risks and threats associated with violent extremism and terrorism will develop.
Violent extremism is destroying the hopes of men and women across many countries. Although 82 percent of these acts of violent extremism take place in ←37 | 38→just five countries, the effects are felt the world over. In our globalized world and instant communication era, the effects of terrorist crimes and violent extremism in general are our common, global concern.
Governments, civil society, thought leaders and, indeed, all concerned citizens in the world need to strengthen their efforts. Some of the building blocks of effective counterterrorist activity are not new. In fact, there is no better protection against chaos and human tragedies than maintaining social cohesion, good governance, territorial integrity and political independence in sovereign states. In our era, the protection of these basic conditions of statehood must be earned. It involves good governance, responsibly exercising state sovereignty, accountability of the government to the people, in other words, constant efforts on the part of the state to uphold its legitimacy. Preventing and countering violent extremism requires a genuine commitment to practicing the values of accountable government, respect for minority rights, as well as other values of good
