Andrew Carey
The media loves extremists – and extremists love the media
by admin on Mar.17, 2009, under Andrew Carey, Britain, International Security Producer, Media
LONDON, England – A few months ago I wrote a short item suggesting that radical Muslim preacher Anjem Choudary might usefully be compared with Johnny Rotten. Thinly argued - if widely slammed - as that post was, it's a comparison that retains value.
The real argument, though, as I attempted to clarify in the comments to the original article, is not over the use of the acronym "UK," but rather over the media, and the symbiotic relationship Choudary enjoys with certain sections of it.
CNN itself has not stood entirely above the fray on this, and there's an argument, of course, that this post itself is just adding to the exposure. But I don't see a way round that given the point I wish to make here.
Like Rotten and the Sex Pistols, Choudary knows the media loves nothing more than the opportunity to express outrage. The trick is then to exploit that outrage and fold it back into the greater narrative: the core message aimed at the real audience.
Punk, in its early days, traded on its outlaw status, which gained greater and greater currency the ruder and more shocking the Pistols became. The media lapped it up because they could portray it as a simple story of moral decline and social decay. It sold newspapers, which in turn helped sell records. Which then sold more newspapers, which sold even more records. Everyone was happy.
Choudary and his group, known once as Al-Muhajiroun until it was banned, play a similar game. Last year I attended two of its meetings within the space of a couple of weeks. It's not hard to get in to these events and reporters who suggest otherwise are being disingenuous.
Most, if not all, will have received an SMS from Choudary inviting them to come. Even so, some prefer to come incognito. I've had a cameraman at one event telling me he worked for Hungarian television and a reporter at another purporting to write for the Irish Times newspaper. Both later turned out to be working for British tabloids.
At the first event, held to mark the anniversary of 9/11, the message from the platform was a familiar one. The 9/11 perpetrators were described as "disciplined role models" responsible for a "great day in history." The people of Britain would "one day live under the sharia – so get used to it!" More than enough material for the assembled journalists, perhaps half a dozen in number, to get their story in the paper.
At the next event, a week or so later, this time highlighting "Muslim Youth - Spark of the Fire," those very news stories arising from the first meeting were brandished from the platform like evidence planted on a dupe: "See how they twist our words! This is not a war on terror, this is a war on Muslims!"
Choudary's expertise in all of this has come to the fore yet again with the excessive coverage given to the protest in Luton last week during the parade by British soldiers returned from Afghanistan. A small, though provocative, demonstration, which solicited an angry response from some of those who turned out to salute the infantrymen, garnered acres of coverage in the press and on TV. The Evening Standard, London's main local newspaper, even devoted three pages to an interview with Choudary, including the front-page splash "I want to see flag of Allah flying over Downing Street."
There will be plenty of winners from this. The papers, presumably, were happy with their stories. Choudary and his followers must be absolutely delighted: they can mine this one for weeks, if not months. And the far-right British National Party, the BNP, are exploiting it heavily as well: the story is all over the front-page of its Web site.
The main losers are the vast majority of people - Muslims and non-Muslims alike - who are getting a highly-skewed picture of what constitutes Muslim opinion in the UK. Because no matter how sincerely Choudary and his acolytes may hold their views, their support within Muslim communities is paltry.
Indeed, it's been suggested to me by people intimately involved in de-radicalization that Al-Muhajiroun is losing ground, its followers' heightened public presence over the last six months or so actually born out of frustration over lost momentum.
If that is indeed the case then it's surely time for the media to move on and stop over-inflating the importance of these particular proponents of division and separatism.
Northern Ireland: ‘Staring into the abyss’
by admin on Mar.09, 2009, under Andrew Carey, International Security Producer, Northern Ireland
LONDON, England (CNN) — When Northern Ireland’s police chief, Hugh Orde, warned a week ago of a heightened threat from dissident Republicans he did not mince his words.
“We are very clear,” he said, “they are determined to kill police officers going about their normal duty of keeping people safe.”
It now appears those fears have been confirmed.
The fatal shooting of a police officer in the town of Craigavon, not far from the capital, Belfast, comes just 48 hours after gunmen shot dead two British servicemen at a barracks in the province.
The Republican splinter group, the Real IRA, claimed responsibility for that attack. And no one in Northern Ireland will be surprised if they claim responsibility for this latest one as well.
Membership of the Real IRA, a rump of Republican activists who refused to go along with the main Provisional IRA, and its political partner Sinn Fein, after the 1998 Good Friday Agreement that set Northern Ireland on the road to peace, is put in the low hundreds. But as so often with violent extremists, they have a power to shape events out of all proportion to their size. Or so at least they will wish to believe.
These targets are not randomly chosen. By targeting the police, and particularly the British army, they are hitting Republican weak spots. Sinn Fein, fully signed up to the peace process and a key partner in the power-sharing government, makes no bones about the fact it wants to see all British troops out of Northern Ireland. Like it or not, Gerry Adams finds himself in a difficult position being forced to condemn an attack on the British army. Calling on Republicans to grass on those who carried it out is another, even more problematic, step to take.
What the Real IRA wants to see happen is an over-reaction from Unionists and a move by the British government to put soldiers back on the streets. Political Republicans are highly sensitive to these possibilities. Hence the sharp criticism from Sinn Fein before these attacks to news that the intelligence arm of British special forces had been called into the province to meet the rising dissident threat.
The response to the attack over the weekend suggested the consensus that governs Northern Ireland — that all sides keep dancing together in the name of devolved government and the peace process — was holding. If that changes then the dissidents will hope their shocking show of strength can win new support.
What’s worrying is where that support might come from. Paul Dixon of Kingston University points out the apparent anomaly that support for those political parties that have most readily embraced the peace process has tended to come not from the young — those, on the face of it, with the most to gain from peace — but from the older generations, those who’ve grown weary of decades of violence. The fear is that the readiness of many younger voters to support those parties who’ve taken a tougher line on the peace process might translate into a new generation ready to abandon peace altogether.
One Northern Ireland politician said after the latest killing that the province is “staring into the abyss.” It’s a frightening thought that the foundations of peace in Northern Ireland might really be so shallow.
But amid the pessimism, it’s worth recalling that previous attacks in the province have sometimes succeeded in actually embedding the peace process further, through a shared revulsion to the violence from across the communities. The challenge to Northern Ireland’s politicians, its police force, and the British government, is that they collectively hold their nerve and bring their people with them.
Lahore attack: were the gunmen planning a siege?
by admin on Mar.04, 2009, under Andrew Carey, International Security Producer, Pakistan, Terrorism
LONDON, England — Wednesday saw no dramatic developments in the investigation but instead witnessed a steady drip of reports and information about what happened and how.
Up to twenty people were arrested but none of the gunmen responsible for the attack were apparently among them.
Many have commented on the apparent ease with which the gunmen melted away into the city after the attack, and suggested this points to them receiving assistance from rogue elements within the military or the intelligence structure. While there may or may not have been collaboration of this kind, it’s a mistake to make this assumption on this piece of evidence alone.
It’s easy, for instance, to forget that the men who tried to bomb London on July 21st, 2005 were also able to make good their escape and hide undetected for days. Some of those men, remember, were escaping, unarmed, from busy underground railway stations. It was six days before the Met police had the first would-be bomber under arrest, and detectives in London had all the benefits of the city’s massive CCTV infrastructure at their disposal. Lahore, it seems safe to suggest, and notwithstanding the new video out Wednesday evening, is not quite so well endowed with surveillance cameras.
What’s more interesting is the number of reports now suggesting that the gunmen were carrying far more arms and ammunition than would be needed to execute an ambush only. Add to that the multiple reports they were also carrying dried fruit, nuts and water bottles in their rucksacks, and it does seem to point towards the possibility they had intended taking the Sri Lankan cricket team hostage. This possible scenario, of course, provides further similarities with the Mumbai attack three months ago.
Perhaps predictably, there have been growing voices blaming India for Tuesday’s attack. Hamid Gul, former head of Pakistan’s military intelligence agency, has described it as “all too obviously the handiwork of Indian intelligence.” Meanwhile, Pakistan’s serving Interior Minister, Rehman Malik, has said he does not “rule out a foreign hand.” Foreign hand is code for India, of course.
It’s not surprising that Pakistan’s government might wish to point the finger abroad. At home and around the world, it has been slammed over this security failure. Whether or not individual police officers did their duty on the day – and one can understand why suggestions they did not have hurt when six police were killed in the attack – it doesn’t seem unreasonable to suggest that the ruling party’s squabble with its political rivals might also have played a part in the failure.
Last month saw the dismissal of the provincial government in Punjab – of which Lahore is the capital – run by the party of Nawaz Sharif, the main nationwide opposition figure to President Asif Ali Zardari. Along with the outgoing administration, the most senior figures in the province’s police force were also removed from their jobs. Faced, then, with a major security challenge – policing an international cricket match – it seems some of the main men responsible were still getting their feet under their new desks.
