Clik here to view.
We've made progress fighting 'blame al-Qaida syndrome', but the search for new threats creates another dangerous disorder
In the last week there have been two good examples of a very familiar malaise that periodically affects governments around the world. Let's call it "blame al-Qaida syndrome". In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks there was a particularly acute outbreak of blame al-Qaida syndrome, which threatened to reach epidemic proportions. Many deeply unpleasant administrations around the world suddenly decided that deep-rooted domestic campaigns of Islamic militant violence were nothing to do with decades of repressive misrule and everything to do with a newly discovered, for most people, group led by Osama bin Laden. Al-Qaida was, of course, responsible for the September 11 attacks in America but it was not active in Uzbekistan, western China, the Philippines, Algeria, Chechnya or indeed in Saddam-controlled Iraq.
Last week the syndrome was back. Officials in the Lebanese and the Syrian governments spoke of al-Qaida elements fomenting trouble. In another outbreak of the malady, the late Colonel Gaddafi did too. The claim by the Syrian authorities that car bombs last week were the work of the organisation was a particularly egregious bit of misrepresentation.
There is also a related condition, less severe but also deeply concerning nonetheless. It is the constant search for the new danger posed by militant Islam, repetitive threat disorder. That there is still a threat from violent Islamic extremism is obvious. There is a steady drumbeat of low-level plots and bigger "spectaculars" are still very much an ambition of the battered but still capable al-Qaida senior leadership. And naturally the instability that has succeeded the various Arab uprisings also poses a potential threat in security terms.
But there seems nonetheless to be a search for new, acute threats to fill the space that the now less scary al-Qaida has left. For many years, the ultimate "clear and present danger" was the prospect of militants obtaining weapons of mass destruction. It was regularly invoked when the terrifying predictions of more conventional catastrophes started looking tired. Now the focus seems to be on new geographic menaces rather than new technological ones. For a while this was the Yemen, but most recently north Africa. "Operating largely from northern Mali, [al-Qaida in the Maghreb] presents an increased threat to our security," William Hague, the foreign secretary, recently told parliament.
It's not often that someone based in northern Mali, one of the most remote, poorest and desolate parts of the world, is described as an increased threat to anyone, let alone the UK or Europe, and it is difficult to really see the al-Qaida in the Maghreb organisation as one that should particularly worry the British or other security authorities. It has 1,000 or so active members at most, limited resources and almost no reach into Europe beyond a few scattered sympathisers. Its operations have been largely local and, though some of their antecedent groups in the region launched attacks in Europe, it has yet to do so.
Somalia, too, is now spoken of as a major threat. Yes, a few dozen British citizens may have travelled there but the real gravity of the menace posed by the al-Shabab group to Londoners, Parisians or New Yorkers needs to be kept in perspective.
So why is repetitive threat disorder so tenacious? Like blame al-Qaida syndrome, it is because it serves a variety of institutional interests.
Many have suggested that there is a deliberate conspiracy to maintain repressive legislation in place, scare citizens into acquiescence and maintain significant budgets for security establishments around the world. Indeed, some might draw parallels with the more grave condition outlined earlier, the blame al-Qaida syndrome. Certainly the two often go together.
However, there is little evidence of any kind of conscious, concerted effort. The conflicts of the last decade have created a huge counter-terrorist industry (of which specialist reporters and authors are necessarily a part). All wars end up generating new interest groups and beneficiaries. These are no different. For security services, threat is the guarantor of funding. For researchers, it means grants. For reporters, stories. There is a momentum here that is hard to stop.
Huge progress has been made in fighting blame al-Qaida syndrome over recent years. This is largely due to hundreds of millions of people being injected with healthy inoculations of scepticism. Some overdose and lurch towards conspiracy theories. But most do not. It will be harder, but not impossible, to fight repetitive threat disorder, too.