Terror Zone

Security, like privacy, is a relatively modern concept. It is an idea that morphs depending upon human needs, habits, intentions and assumptions. But it is always based upon a single factor: the ability to anticipate events based upon contextual and ambient intelligence.

This requires three sophisticated capabilities. First, an intimate knowledge of what is happening all around us at any given moment, second the means to precisely interpret these events with their associated dynamics, and third the capacity to map both the intended and unintended consequences.

In other words security is dependent upon what we ‘know’ and what we can then ‘do’ armed with that knowledge. The problem is that very few things are certain. Most knowledge is temporary. For example:

• 3000 years ago we were certain the world was flat, and democracy had yet to be invented
• 300 years ago the horse-drawn carriage was the most popular method of transport, smallpox was the greatest killer, but nobody had heard of cancer, AIDS or even anesthetics
• 30 years ago we were only just figuring out that Nelson Mandela was not a terrorist to be feared, and the Chernobyl disaster was about to change our minds about the relative safety of nuclear energy.

But times change, as the saying goes. Today we know different things. Our ways of knowing, too, have become more sophisticated. So-called ‘facts’ that appeared to be so compelling, so obvious, yesterday have turned out to be wrong, or only partially true. Other knowledge has become obsolete as we discover things we had never imagined possible.

Actually new knowledge is escalating exponentially. The amount of original technical information being generated is doubling every few days. Someone recently postulated that a week’s worth of the New York Times probably contains more information than a person was likely to come across in a lifetime during the 18th century. Purely anecdotal of course, but helpful in giving us an impression of the speed of change.

What will we know in 20 years time? Nobody knows for sure. To that extent the future is uncertain. While uncertainty holds our attention, it also traps us in beliefs and practices that are antiquated. Security threats are changing and conventional responses are inadequate at best.

We are not at all ready to deal with organised ecoterrorist activities, nor with spontaneous acts of bioterrorism using toxins like sarin gas, anthrax or ebola. We have not fully grasped the power of the individual to disrupt society, least of all interconnected criminal networks. We still tend to look outside our own communities for potential terror threats, conveniently ignoring the fact that most acts of terror are perpetrated by our own. We still have not accepted the root causes and emergent power of global terrorism. Still less do we comprehend how to deal effectively with cyber attacks on vulnerable systems. Yet all of these factors set the scene for tomorrow’s security landscape.

In this environment, the nature of security is not a product but an evolving and highly fluid process. In the past, security was a relatively simple formula in which intelligence and technology combined to protect military and industrial secrets, scarce resources and powerful elites. This was usually undertaken in the best interests of nation states and wealthy individuals. Today’s context is vastly different. Poverty, and the politics of envy, technological innovation, and the fact that we are fast running out of energy, are today’s real threats to security. Terrorism is but one symptom of these underlying factors.

But even this context is not static. Already the emphasis has changed to more global theatres. Climate change, access to nutritious food and clean water, social networking, artificial super intelligence, and third generation technologies where digital and genomic code merge, are the driving forces of change in the coming decades.

Our reliance on interconnected systems means there can be no doubt we will be called upon to confront bioterrorism, ecoterrorism, cyber and neuro warfare. The new weapons are invisible, silent, easily transportable, hard to detect and relatively cheap. Furthermore, they know no boundaries.

For these reasons nation states will need to be intensely cooperative. They are not geared up for that. Intergovernmental collaboration will need to replace the current appetite for competition at any cost. They are not geared up for that either.

Empathy and mutual respect matter far more today than they ever did in a world where competitition and protective trade policies seemed more appropriate. As a consequence, traditional security issues will need to be balanced by the need to share scarce resources, protect each other and the planet, and ensure the rights of the commons. In the future we will need to use wisdom as well as intelligence. We are certainly not geared up for that!

Prior to 1979 the US government had agreed that Iran, one of its closest allies, would need nuclear power. This view was also shared by Britain, Germany and France. Yet 30 years was all it took for Iran to change from being a trusted ally to an independent and proud nation electing to govern its affairs the way it wanted. After decades of struggle against the Shah’s dictatorship and foreign domination, Iran suddenly became (in US parlance) a ‘rogue’ state. Today the US and its allies denies Iran the nuclear capability it previously accepted.

So what is the truth? Perhaps the real enemy is within. Perhaps our most important security challenge is to re-examine our own belief systems based upon new realities rather than phantoms of the past. Perhaps we need a profound change in the way we see, understand and approach strategic intelligence.

In spite of Western fears, Iran does not need nuclear weapons to protect its regional interests. It has good relationships with its neighbours and has remained within the confines of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty since the late 1960s. It does however need nuclear energy. Iran’s defence capability has only expanded because of the war-like rhetoric from the US and Israel. But Iran has not invaded any country in the past 250 years. The US does not have such an unblemished record.

The zero-sum thinking of conventional military strategists still dominates global geopolitics. The ‘war on terror’ continues to be the imprudent and naïve rationale for maintaining a cold war mentality and supporting strategies of pre-emptive war and regime change that have intensified insecurity, instability and international terrorism. Given recent events regarding anti-American regimes in North Korea (until now protected by China) and Syria (protected by Russia), exacerbated by President Trump’s impulsive reactions to crude sabre-rattling by these states, this thinking is a real worry. Yet we are not geared up to think differently.

Most international experts agree that we have become less prepared and less capable of dealing with today’s security threats than we were 30 or even 20 years ago. As the world has become far more complex, too many of us are still wedded to ideas that have become irrelevant: ideas that are propelled by hubris and fear, replete with unfounded accusations, double standards, and moral inconsistencies.

I have no doubt most people want to lead peaceful lives. To that end there is real danger in allowing convention and inflexible mindsets to persist. Too many people in the security industry remain in thrall to the past. When present experiences are ignored, and the past remains a reality instead, it becomes impossible to embrace the future.

In this regard I recall St Augustine who in his effort to become celibate and devote his life to God prayed, “Lord, help me to remain celibate. But not just yet!”

My greatest fear is that the West may decide to continue bombing their perceived enemies, and pray “Lord, help us to see the new reality. But not just yet!”