May 28, 2013
Last Wednesday, the streets of London were witness to a brutal, politically motivated murder. This was, according to its historical understanding, an act of terrorism.
The savage murder of Lee Rigby provoked three types of “general” reactions: an aggressive response from British authorities focusing on coercion; the need to describe this act of terrorism as “novel”; what went wrong and how could this have been prevented; and a more academic reaction that debated whether or not this was a terrorist attack.
While some may deem these reactions natural, the fact that terrorism is politically described as the greatest threat to Western security for over a decade should have brought about much different reactions, samples of which were seen a month ago in Boston. I will examine why these reactions are inappropriate.
Let’s begin with the debate on whether or not this was an act of terrorism. Just using the modern era of terrorism that began in the 1960s as reference, there is absolutely no doubt that last Wednesday’s attack was terrorism. The target was not some random civilian. He was a soldier, a government representative, a representative of the so-called legitimate “monopoly of violence”. This makes him politically symbolic and in the eyes of terrorists, a legitimate target. The man killed was not Lee Rigby, human being, but Lee Rigby, government symbol. This is how terrorists dehumanize their victims, through symbolization. People are no longer human beings but objects. Note that Adebowale did this in response to “Muslims killed” by the British government, another form of symbolization. Using these very basic criteria, there is no doubt that this horrific murder was terrorism.
What went wrong? Truth is, nothing went wrong. Yes, MI5 had information on Adebowale and he was monitored. But this was as basic as it gets to attacking someone without using bare fists. The attackers went out, picked their target and attacked him with a machete. Except for a pre-emptive arrest, there’s no way this attack could have been prevented. And as experience has shown us over the last decade, pre-emptive arrests or powers are highly contentious, especially in the UK, on so many levels that instituting them for such cases would only create more problems than it would solve.
This is not to say nothing went amiss. Emergency response was 13 minutes, an absolutely ghastly length of time for emergency services. Compare the 13 minutes to the imposed response time for fire fighters: 4 MINUTES! They have four minutes to be on site and begin saving lives. So the real question is: why did it take so long to respond? Had the terrorists decided to flee after their attack rather than wait, that would have given them an eternity to find shelter and perhaps escape justice. If the British government is to properly react to this attack, it should not be with more coercive measures but rather improved effectiveness for its emergency personnel.
Perhaps one of the most ludicrous discussions over the last few days has been about labelling this as a new form of terrorism. It is not. In fact, it’s the oldest form of terrorism, used in the Antiquity and made famous by the Hashishin (assassins) during the Ottoman empire. Additionally, the targeting of soldiers has been a staple of tactics of the modern age of terrorism (1960s on). This type of attack was used by the IRA, the RAF in Germany, ETA in Spain or by Palestinian terrorist groups. Attacking representatives of political power with any means at hand is much older than the concept of terrorism itself (220 years old). What these young men did on May 22 is not new. It is as basic as it gets.
As for the authorities’ reaction to this attack, there is no doubt that the terrorists achieved their goal. Their deed and message were broadcasted world wide and given attention they probably never hoped for. After all, Bruce Hoffman’s decades old assessment that terrorists want attention, not blood, still rings trues. Although David Cameron’s rhetoric following this attack was superb, avoiding a vengeful tone and aiming at unity, many of his peers favored a discourse closer to what followed 9/11 or 7/7. A discourse bent on demonstrating power and capacity for coercion rather than the ability to deal with and solve problems. Despite Cameron’s reaction, the last week has shown that the UK could indeed be rattled and intimidated, and the exposure is likely to embolden terrorists rather than dissuade them.
The British government should have denounced this horrific murder as a savage act and minimize its impact by strategically refusing to label it terrorism. This would have reduced the appeal of the attack and the message all while showing strenght and composure under duress. Instead, it added fuel to a weak fire.
The attack on Lee Rigby is to be denounced and harshly condemned. Regardless of what label it is given, the savage murder of a human being deserves the harshest of penalties. This is why the penalties for murder are always the toughest. Until 2001 many countries refused to use special legislation for terrorist murders, relying on their existing criminal laws and denying any special status. It may be worth looking at this approach again.