July 27, 2016
Since the July 14 attack in Nice, five more attacks made the headlines for similar or similarly perceived reasons: July 18 in Würzburg; July 22 in Munich; July 24 in Reutlingen; July 24 in Ansbach; and July 25 in St-Étienne-de-Rouvray. The attacks from July 18 to 24 all occurred in Germany and give the impression that terror has now reached German soil.
The proximity of the attacks may suggest that Germany and Europe as a whole are now engulfed in a flood of violence, mostly the result of Muslim or foreign attackers. However, a more critical look clearly shows that this streak began months ago and is anything but the product of Muslims and foreigners. This post aims at providing the larger picture of the mass killings and attacks in Europe over the last ten months, in order to try to understand the various factors underlying this situation.
In Germany, the attack streak began in October 2015
Though the hype surrounding mass attacks kicked into full gear only after the attack in a train near Würzburg on July 18, it was already the sixth such attack at the time, going back to the attempted murder of Cologne mayor Henriette Reker. Here is the timeline of attacks since then:
- October 17, 2015: Mayoral candidate Henriette Reker is stabbed by a far-right terrorist for her views on refugees.
- February 26, 2016: A 15 year old girl stabs a police officer in Hanover. She would later say she did it for IS.
- April 16: Two boys aged 16 and 17 plant a bomb in a Sikh temple in Essen. The blast injures three people. The boys also claimed links to IS.
- May 10: A 27 year old man stabs four people at a train station in Grafing. One victim died of his injuries. There was no political motivation behind this attack.
- June 23: A 19 year old man opens fire in a cinema in Viernheim. He was killed during the rescue of his hostages. No political motivation was behind the attack.
- July 18: A 17 year old refugee attacks passengers on a train near Würzburg, leaving five injured. The attacker pledges allegiance to IS via a video message and it was later claimed by IS.
- July 22: An 18 year old boy kills nine people in a shopping mall in Munich. There is no confirmed official information that the attack was politically motivated although some indications are emerging that the attacker may have been a far-right terrorist.
- July 24: A 27 year old refugee becomes a suicide bomber and blows himself up in Ansbach. He manages only to kill himself, but injures 13 others. The attacker renewed his pledge to IS and the latter claimed the attack.
At this point I wish to specify that the machete attack in Reutlingen on July 24 was a private affair that played out in public. While the savagery of the attack is shocking, it cannot be analysed to be put in the same category of the other attacks.
Here are the elements that stand out for all these attacks:
- All but two of the attackers (Würzburg and Ansbach) were born and raised in Germany
- Only two were committed by foreigners and refugees
- Eight of the nine attackers were under 30
- Seven of the nine attackers were under 20
- The motivations behind the attacks are very different: far-right terrorism (likely 2), non-political mass killing (2), Islamic terrorism (4)
Based on this, the main question for me is not what additional measures should be implemented, but rather why are so many under 30s and under 20s so attracted to expressing their grievances with such violence? Why is it that all sides of the political spectrum are affected by this violence? What conditions foster the need for violent political expression? Right now I have but partial answers to these questions.
Europe and North America are affected
This is not an isolated phenomenon. It is part of a much larger picture that includes the near daily increase far-right and far-left crimes in Europe; successful and unsuccessful assassination attempts on politicians; the mass riots and strikes that leave hundreds injured; and the extremist political rhetoric to match. Political extremism is indeed in the air in Europe and contributes to the conditions that foster the use of violence for political purposes or otherwise. This requires a deep understanding and a response to match.
These issues must be seen as a western problem as a whole. It is not only Belgium, France or Germany that are affected. The murder of British MP Jo Cox in the midst of a nasty Brexit referendum campaign; the shootings in Orlando and Fort Myers; as well as the very strong racial tensions in the USA, which have led to law enforcement officials being hunted as reprisal to deaths in custody, are clear signs that the current emergence of political extremism affects all. Those mostly affected are clearly the younger generations.
Decision makers and security officials in Europe must now understand that short-term measures, like increasing the number of police officers or surveillance, are only part of the solution. More police officers will not render the ideas of terrorists less attractive; more surveillance will not minimise the violent fantasies of shooters or terrorists. If anything, this streak of attacks has clearly shown that killers will use anything to achieve their goals, and deterrence does not work against suicide missions. This means providing teachers for example with proper training to help detect early signs of possible violent outbursts and not just possible radicalisation. We need to educate people and make them understand that threats like the ones the Munich attacker made to classmates are not to be taken lightly and should be reported. I understand nobody likes a snitch, but not taking threats seriously can also lead to one’s own death.
We need to deal with the problems and the symptoms by complementing all the available resources, including teachers, social workers, community leaders, activists, law enforcement, and the attention of every citizen. Only by joining forces can the tide be turned.
Also needed is that politicians start thinking long term. A populist discourse plays on fear and anger and contributes to a volatile mood. Co-opting program elements of radical parties, in order to get an edge on opponents, provide a degree of publicity and legitimacy to such positions, fueling the idea that something must be done against those that won’t listen – as seen with the attacks on Henriette Reker and Jo Cox.
The variety of profiles of the attacks in Germany clearly shows that we are dealing with a social issue, not just a security issue. It is therefore imperative to handle and treat the problems as such and come up with solutions that have the versatility and the variety required. Sadly, violent extremism appears to affect young people the most and that means everyone’s future.
5 responses
I believe it is correct to say that more than just Islamic radicalism is in play. That radicalism is a response to the dangerous ideas promulgated in Western society over the last 60 years as much as it is driven by Islamic fundamentalism. To me the chaos in EU and US society is more due to the nihilistic ideas that have come into broad acceptance in Western society in the last 50 years. There are at least two generations raised with the concepts of ‘total intellectual and personal freedom with no responsibility’—and dependence on the government for the things of life. When these young people run into reality in the form of unemployment and a perceived lack of future, (in part because of labor rules that keep older workers at the expense of younger ones) it is logical to assume turmoil in society. That turmoil appeals to totalitarians of Right and Left in both Europe and the US, which leads into a ground loop of police repression and further divisions in society. I believe we will see even greater terror and violence until the Burkean principles of individual responsibility and societal harmony are once again taught to the youth of the West. My just saying ‘Burkean principles’ will probably create discussion and dissention as well. No easy solutions—which don’t do well with the short attention spans of political life in the West today. Easier to shout and promise quick solutions.
Thank you very much much for your thorough comment. I agree with with about the “exponential” effects of violence and how it can easily become a chain reaction. It would be interesting to see the effects of social media on Hawkes theory.
I think the most difficult challenge right now is not enacting cosmetic measures just to appear to be doing something. You mentioned two particularly interesting points: Britain’s CCTV culture and the situation in the Banlieues. The former is interesting because of the issue of “deterrence” it raises. Cameras do not deter. But they have become essential to conduct investigations and so if presented as such, their use could actually be validated.
As for the Banlieues, this is an issue going on for decades and increased police presence and tighter laws have not nothing to improve the conditions. It basically comes down to screwing a lid tighter on a boiling pot with the hope it won’t explode rather than turning down the heat. We need solutions that will turn down the heat.
We need to strike a balance between deterrence and uprooting the causes of the problems. That will only be possible with a long term, multilateral and multifaceted approach to extremism. But that will be near impossible to achieve less than a year removed from elections in numerous western countries.
Thank you Yan for your article which seeks to understand the recent attacks in Europe and in the US in a more sophisticated manner than is apparent in many newspaper articles.
I agree with you that is not simply violent Muslim extremists or foreigners but a phenomenon that stems from sources as varied as IS inspired radicalized individuals, depressive youths, rightist or racist beliefs. We may add to this maybe the shootings of Police Officers in the US.
What they all have in common is that they use violence in answer to real or perceived problems and issues. One of the first answers that springs to mind is copycat behavior possibly enabled by the publicity these incidents engender.
Recently an article in the July 2016 issue of Security Management Magazine mentioned Hawkes Processes. A model devised in the 1970’s by mathematician Alan Hawkes to describe patterns of earthquakes and resulting tremors. It turns out that the model can also be applied to other processes. The defining characteristic is that it events self-excite. Each arrival of an event increases the rate of future events for a certain period of time. Simply put one event lead to a next one. Eventually the events slowly subside.
The algorithms have been found to apply also to fights between criminal gangs, wildfire hazards, even cancer tumor reoccurrences. The model has been used successfully by police to anticipate burglaries in specific areas.
Another matter is the confluence of so-called violent Islamic terrorism and the disenfranchised in their banlieues and suburbs, the petty criminals, the mentally disturbed who seek reason and recognition in public violent acts. I call it so-called violent Islamic Terrorism because it may be perpetrated in its name but is really the expression of frustration, be it socially or individually, and mental problems. It is clear that short term repressive measures alone will not provide a solution to these problems. Fortunately this is understood by many and progress is made. By academics to understand and explain these mechanisms to radicalization but also by international organizations and national governments to address the problems. The UN clearly states in one of its Anti-Terrorism Pillars that measures should be taken to address conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism. Meaning promoting dialogue, tolerance and preventing defamation of religion. All those measures that populists be they le Pen, Wilders or Trump do not understand or believe in.
Countries such as the UK with Contest, France with its 11 measures (onze mesures) and indeed most western countries have instituted measures along these lines and engage in some form of community policing to close the gap between public and police. It is a work in progress with mistakes and successes. The degree to which measures can be taken also depends on the general public, what is acceptable in one country may not be in another. The French have lived and seem to agree with far reaching judicial measures that are not yet accepted in other countries due to historical experiences and culture. Likewise CCTV in Britain is far more widespread and accepted than in for instance The Netherlands. Involving schools and teachers is one of those measures that will depend on the goodwill of a general population, now probably based on their perception of danger.
It is generally realized that our Intelligence and police services will not be able to prevent many attacks by individuals and possibly not by the Foreign Terrorist Fighters that may come back individually or as a terrorist cell. In spite of exaggerated claims by some countries that they have everything in hand because they are either present in the “capillaries of society”. Wishfully substituting luck due to absent attacks with expertise.
I do think however that some form of deterrence is possible in some places. There are places important to a country that you can protect more effectively, crowds that can be protected better instead of with one police car. Alas, the ultimate guarantee is beyond us, we shall have to live with it for the time being.
Thank you very much for taking the time to comment. It’s much appreciated.
I fully agree with your assessment and the need to include psychological factors in the analysis, as well as the solutions. It’s one of the many aspects that need to be dealt with simultaneously with other factors. I think these factors all feed off each other. There’s a story I like to tell about a former baseball teammate of mine in Germany and it embodies what we are discussing. He was a born and raised in Germany, local accent and all but with a Turkish background. To me he was German but for the German players he was Turkish, regardless of “how well integrated” he was. He simply wasn’t one of their own, consciously or not. While for that teammate it wasn’t an issue, to me it fully embodied the divisions and difficulties of many European societies. This impacts the identity, psychological, emotional and social status of many individuals, especially in the ever changing 18-25 bracket. And all set up the conditions either for radicalisation or potential triggers for violence.
I would like to react on the statement that ‘The variety of profiles of the attacks in Germany clearly shows that we are dealing with a social issue, not just a security issue.’
In my view the cause of these and other attacks by inhabitants with a non-Western (often Islamic) background must be sought in the first place in psychological factors. Imagine the complexity of the children of non-Western Muslim immigrants; they grow up in two worlds: the traditional culture of their parents and the modern Western (often urban) society. The incompatibility of the two cultures is usually taboo at home with their parents as well as at (the European) school. These juveniles face the difficult task of uniting two incompatible cultures in themselves. Those who succeed, deserve our utmost respect. Many of these youngsters however keep on struggling – on an subconscious level – with the irreconcilable contradictions between the two cultures. Islamism, jihadism and extremism can become an attractive way to get rid of that subconscious inner struggle. For children from non-Western Islamic immigrants it is therefore of great importance to discuss the attraction and repulsion between the modern Western culture in which they live and the non-Western, Islamic culture of their parents. The current integration policy in most Western countries, however, is mainly focused on the “rub” of cultural differences.