Acclaimed Scottish professor Richard English talks to our Writer at Large about why terrorism happens, how to combat it and the ways politicians make extremism worse
RICHARD English has spent decades around terrorists and the men and women who fight them. Studying terror is his lifeâs work. This thoughtful Scottish professor is an expert on the ways societies divide and fall into the grip of extremism and political violence.
So his sober, balanced warning to Scotland should be heeded. Beware growing polarisation, he says. That way hell lies.
Englishâs cautionary call comes at the end of a wide-ranging conversation about terrorism and how itâs shaped our world.
He has just brought out an acclaimed new book Does Counter-Terrorism Work? â the definitive text on political violence and how states should respond. English was the longstanding director of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at St Andrews University.
Today, heâs director of the Institute for Global Peace, Security and Justice at Queenâs University Belfast, and remains an honorary St Andrews professor.
We canât understand history or our societies unless we understand the effects of terror, he says. After all, âit was a terrorist assassination in 1914 which triggered the First World War and changed everything. The decolonisation of empires â Britainâs included â often involved violence, sometimes terroristic. That shaped the map of the worldâ.
He adds: âThe atrocity of 9/11, and the responses, changed the world in ways weâre stilling feeling.â
The Hamas atrocities, and Israelâs war in Gaza, are, English says, changing the world right now in ways weâve yet to comprehend. So many of our laws are shaped by terror. âEven who gets to be a popular politician is often down to their responses to terrorism,â he says. âReactions to terrorism determine the politics of the world.â
Â
Professor Richard English
Â
Atrocity
Terrorists often want to provoke self-damaging actions from their targets. Think of how Bloody Sunday was an IRA recruiting sergeant. Or how Americaâs response to 9/11, with the establishment of Guantanamo, cut moral ground away from the USA.
âOne depressing aspect of counter-terrorism is how liberal democracies can degrade themselves in their responses. Thatâs something which is there in Israelâs response to Palestinians, and Britainâs response over different generations in Ireland. You give gifts to opponents if you self-degrade.â
English adds that people will long remember âAbu Ghraib and the mistreatment of Iraqi prisonersâ by American soldiers.
Terror changes us on a personal level. Following shocking acts of terror âmuch of what happens is about revengeâ. Societies become âpolarisedâ. English says: âYou saw that after 9/11. Youâve seen it in Israel repeatedly. In Northern Ireland, violence made sure communities were further divided. People get angry, they feel hatred, they need to hit back.â
Once society reaches that stage âitâs very difficult to break the cycle of escalating violenceâ. He adds: âThings intensify â your side hits mine, my side hits back. Getting that flame turned down is much more difficult than turning it up. Terrorismâs long-term effects corrupt so much. Violence is more likely to produce polarisation than achieve the high-sounding goals used to justify it.â
Despite the distorting effect terrorism has on societies and individuals, English says âmost people who turn to terrorism are perfectly normalâ, adding: âOccasionally thereâs psychopaths, as in any area of human activity, but theyâre the exception rather than the norm.
âMostly [terror groups] are composed of ânormalâ people who feel terrorism is the best, or only, way of bringing about essential change. They may be wrong in thinking itâs justified â and usually are â but my experience of engaging with people involved in terrorism is that overwhelmingly theyâre normal.
âThatâs rather disturbing. Itâs easier to see them as evil. But in some ways the normality provides ways out of terror. If people are normal, they can be persuaded that violence isnât working, maybe theyâre open to normal persuasion and pursuing politics by different means.â
Armed Irish republicanism is a perfect case study. The IRA realised violence wasnât achieving its political goals. Sinn Fein took control, and now holds the post of Northern Irelandâs First Minister.
Those who turn to terror, says English, do so to achieve political goals â perhaps related to nationalism or religion, or even economics as with 1970s Marxist terror â which they believe âpeaceful methodsâ failed to advance. That failure legitimises violence âin their eyesâ, he adds.
âThat cycle is seen repeatedly with Palestinians. Before the state of Israel was set up, it was seen with Jewish terrorists who felt terrorism was justified to establish the state. Terrorism is normal politics pursued through abnormal, brutal and callous means. âDoes it work? Normally it tends not to produce its central strategic goals. It does on occasion, but normally no. But that doesnât mean it achieves nothing. Unquestionably, it gets greater publicity for the cause people are pursuing.â
Northern Ireland, is a âgood exampleâ of how political compromise could have stopped terror. Had the reasonable demands of Northern Irelandâs civil rights movement been met, history may have been different.
Â
Â
Compromise
âWHERE we are in Northern Ireland now could have been achieved without anybody being killed. If people had pursued compromise on all sides, we could have avoided any of those tragic deaths. Unfortunately, all sides pursued victory and all sides used violence.
âIt has lessons for us if we look at other crises where people often exaggerate what military means can do. We see that [in the Israel-Palestine conflict] now. Losses on all sides involve people hitting back and terrorism being reinforced.â
He points again to Britainâs military overreaction in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. âThe exaggeration of what you can do through military methods often makes things worse. Pursuing compromise âdemonstrating that non-violence can produce results â is the best way forward politically. People sometimes say thatâs giving in to terrorists. I think the opposite. Itâs often producing things which stop terrorism.â
Again, political compromise with the Northern Irish civil rights movement would have strangled the IRA. With counter-terrorism, Britain repeatedly fails to learn from its mistakes. âThe lessons learned in Ireland in the 1920s [during the War of Independence] â the dangers of an over-militarised response
â had to be learned again in the 1970s in Northern Ireland.â America also relied on an over-militarised response to 9/11.
âItâs a misdiagnosis. Rhetoric about completely getting rid of terrorism is unrealistic and helps nobody.â
Successful security strategies âcontain terrorismâ and try to âmaintain normal livesâ for the civilian population.
However, English understands itâs a big ask expecting governments and populations not to overreact. Politicians seen as âsoftâ after terror attacks clearly risk losing votes. Thatâs been seen in Britain, America and Israel. âThe short-termism of democracies is part of the problem,â English says. Often security forces want long-term effective solutions, which conflict with the electoral concerns of politicians. âThey have different imperatives,â English adds.
Poor journalism feeds this problem. If the press screams for immediate action, politicians can make bad choices.
âResponsible journalistic debate prompts people to think more calmly. Iâm afraid some newspapers have inflamed things with demands for extreme reaction. That can play into the hands of terrorists. Politicians underestimate voters. People are prepared to hear something put calmly but they need journalists to do that.â
Politicians caving in to demands from the public or press for militarised vengeance âcan make matters worseâ. After the October 7 attacks, âclearly Isreal had to do something to protect itself. Hamas had committed appalling atrocities. But looking at whatâs happened in recent months, itâs not clear that the long-term effects for Israel will be greater stabilityâ.
Â
People gather around the wreck of a car used by US-based aid group World Central Kitchen, that was hit by an Israeli strike the previous day in Deir al-Balah in the central Gaza Strip on April 2
Â
Middle east
AFTER the American-led invasion of Afghanistan, âterrorist incidents actually roseâ. However, taking a hard line over terror often leads to politicians getting electoral ârewardsâ. He says: âTheyâre not just countering terrorism, theyâre thinking about their careers. What we need to look at is minimising human suffering in the long termâ.
Historically, counter-terror is most effective when thereâs ârestraint and proportionâ. That sophisticated approach isnât an election-winner, though, English admits.
The best chance of peace in the Middle East would involve Israel embracing the âtwo-state solutionâ, English believes. Nobody thought peace in Northern Ireland stood a chance until Britain shifted its policy towards terror, he notes.
Britain got on top of The Troubles when it moved to âintelligence-led policingâ â involving infiltration and subversion of terror groups to contain violence â rather than âmilitary methodsâ.
âYou wouldnât have had the peace process without the containment of the IRA, and you wouldnât have had containment of the IRA without agents and informers in the organisation.â
The problem, however, then arises that double agents working within terror organisations â like the infamous British army spy inside the IRA, Freddie Scappaticci codenamed Stakeknife â need to continue operating as terrorists to keep their cover and access to top-grade intelligence.
So while intelligence-led counter-terror is more effective, it âinvolves ugly choicesâ. Counter-terror becomes a utilitarian numbers game in which the state must decide if its actions save more lives than are lost.
In Northern Ireland, containment did save lives but the policy existed in a morally âgrey zone. For counter-terrorism to be most effective, it should be the most ethical it can. Making judgments at the âcleaner endâ of grey is probably the best youâre going to get in these ghastly situationsâ.
To save lives, the state must enter âthe murky worldâ of terrorism. That means âaccountabilityâ of intelligence services must become paramount.
No state fighting terror comes out clean. All that can be hoped for is âmaking life better rather than worseâ.
In terms of terrorism, Tony Blairâs decision to invade Iraq âwas disastrousâ. There were no weapons of mass destruction. âIraq became a magnet for terrorists and a justification used in attacks on Western countries.
âThe long-term effect was also disastrous. It undermined the credibility of Britain and America when they talked about terrorism. People thought âwell, I remember what you claimed about Iraq and that turned out not to be trueâ. If governments lose credibility when talking about counter-terrorism, theyâve lost half the battle. Iraq has done lasting damage to Britain and America.â
Without the Iraq War, there would be no Islamic State. The âchaosâ which tore through Syria âwas partly triggered by [Western] responses to 9/11â and the war.
Dealing with Syria became âmuch more difficultâ for Britain and America due to the same doubt fostered by Iraq.
Americaâs eventual flight from Afghanistan empowered not just enemy states like Russia but also terrorist organisations. âSome think âwell, the one thing weâre confident of is America wonât want to put soldiers into conflictâ. Thatâs alarming for the world.â
That âclumsyâ approach to Jihadist terror has limited how the West is able to âreact to the atrocity of Ukraineâ. Western action alienated many nations, whose support now would assist Ukraine.
Â
Russian President Vladimir Putin
Â
Far-right
TODAY, far-right terror is shaping international politics. âOne irony of the war on terror after 9/11,â says English, âis that it focused overwhelmingly on Jihadism. The biggest threat Americans now face is from the extreme right â domestic American terrorists who have conspiracies and lots of guns.
âAs we face into a feverish presidential election, the tensions are being dialled up. We all need America in good shape, but things seem more polarised than ever.â
American writers now discuss âcivil warâ. The US is âon edgeâ, English says, and we should be alarmed. Armed militias, who âfeel wrongly the last election was stolenâ, escalate tensions. Americans are âgetting more angry, more inflamed, more conspiratorialâ â that threatens âliberal democracyâ. English adds: âI find it really scary.â
He says, however, that Norwayâs response to far-right atrocities by the extremist Anders Breivik was a textbook example of how to respond to terror. Norway acted with âdemocratic dignity, the legal process was maintainedâ. He compares this with hyper-militarised operations by Sri Lanka against Tamil insurgents, which lead to an estimated 80-100,000 dead.
English notes itâs questionable if Norway would have behaved so rationally if there had been a spate of attacks. âItâs an important aspect of counter-terrorism in democracies that we donât allow terrorist provocation to make us what weâre not.â
He speculates that Norwayâs response might have been less measured if the killer was named âMohammed Breivikâ rather than a âChristian-heritage terroristâ. When threats are âpresented as externalâ, thatâs when âemotions polariseâ. America has a long history of âChristian-heritage domestic terrorismâ â most notably the Ku Klux Klan â which the US seldom considers.
Far-right violence must be seen as âinternational terrorismâ, as extremists around the world are connected. With the âdiminution in the jihadist threatâ, however, Western intelligence agencies are now paying more attention to far-right terror.
âWe need to be honest about this threat that comes from within,â English says. âItâs an intensified version of conservative politics, but it should be demarcated from the perfectly legitimate politics of parties on the right which adhere to liberal democracy.â
He is concerned that as the climate crisis worsens, migration into Europe will rise, fuelling far-right terror. It leaves him âpessimisticâ.
Political and media failure lie at the heart of this threat too, as âwe seem unable of having a calm debate about immigrationâ.
English adds that âatypical terrorist actors from within a wider communityâ can be used to demonise everyone connected to that group. âAfter the 7/7 atrocity in England, the polarisation between Muslims and non-Muslims became much worse, despite most Muslims having the same view of terrorism as anyone else. The number of news stories focused on Muslim people and terrorism was utterly disproportionate to the relationships between Muslims and terrorism.â
Politicians can gain support by âheating up hostility to immigration and linking it to terrorism. It misrepresents reality. The overwhelming majority of immigrants have nothing to do with terrorismâ. Britain needs âan honest conversationâ about what voters want in terms of immigration regarding âappropriate numbersâ, rather than fearmongering, English feels. âDo politicians who engage in inflammatory rhetoric gain rewards? Unquestionably. Are they making things more difficult for us all? Unquestionably.â
Â
The House of Commons
Â
Yet some politicians instinctively tamp down political violence. Nelson Mandela was instrumental in preventing racial violence in South Africa, despite being repeatedly described as a terrorist by the Thatcher government. Mandela chose âcompromiseâ.
The word âterroristâ, says English, can be used wrongly to demonise. The Nazis described acts of resistance â âbombs in cafesâ â as âterroristic. People denounced as terrorists during the colonial period now have buildings named after themâ.
Terrorists are always early adopters of technology. Dynamite changed casualty numbers. Live TV increased public attention. Social media means terrorist manifestos are âon everyoneâs phoneâ immediately. Yet technology like drones and digital surveillance is also key to counter-terrorism.
Conspiracy has always been part of terrorism. Hitler used anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to whip up hatred. Today, political violence is linked to the QAnon conspiracy in America. Itâs another reason why âintelligent journalismâ is so necessary.
Scotland
ENGLISH turns his attention to Scotland and polarisation. âUnfortunately, in Scotland â and in Britain, Ireland and America â compromise seems not to be where weâre heading. Thatâs one of the things Iâm most saddened about regarding terrorism, counter-terrorism, and wider politics.
âFinding what you share across divisions, finding ways of working together, increases human flourishing. Polarisation, aggression and turning to violence makes most of us losers. Turning towards more constructive political relationships would do us all good.â
He adds: âAt the time of the 2014 independence referendum, what was wonderful was this major debate about the future happening largely in a very peaceful way. It struck me as an enormous achievement.â
By contrast, in Ireland, the issue of the union was âblood-stainedâ. However, English âalso found that over the years in Scotland there was increasing polarisation in terms of what was being said and the tone of the debate. Social media didnât help. âItâs important to make sure that where people disagree, they do so in ways that allow for respect and peacefulness. Threats and things that inflame are never helpful. You canât take for granted what a wonderful thing it is to have major debates around the constitutional question, and political disagreement, in a peaceful and respectful way. Itâs so important for us to defend in Scotland and elsewhere.â
Referencing Northern Ireland, English said Scotland âshould learn from those places where things have gone wrong, from places even quite close where things got out of controlâ.
Â
Is the union too broken to repair?
Â
Key to maintaining control is âhow we disagree over important political questions, and engage with others on the basis that you respect them and their right to speak and be listened to. Thatâs a big part of what liberal democracies, including Scotland, need to defendâ.
Referring to America, he said Scotland âshouldnât underestimate how quickly things can become so divided and aggressiveâ.
Scotland is lucky that only a few on the âmaverick fringe have felt violence would be justifiedâ regarding the constitution. âThatâs enormously precious and must be maintainedâ.
English added: âOver the years, it more and more became the case that the constitutional question was involved in almost every debate. It became more pervasive. In that sense, itâs more like Northern Ireland than it used to be in that everything is refracted through the national question.
âThereâs no basis in Scotland at the moment for any sense that youâre going to originate troubles of the kind that were tragically in Northern Ireland. What I do think is important is that everybody involved in these very sharp divisions should be conducting themselves with respect. In Scotland, as in other parts of the UK, thereâs been a shift away from calm, respectful politics towards a more divided and inflamed rhetoric.
âThe more you disagree courteously, the more you protect the possibility of ongoing peaceful politics which has been such a crucial legacy in Scotland and something to be proud of.
âIf we respect each otherâs views, weâre guaranteeing that the peace weâve had in the past in Scotland will continue. There are enough examples around the world of disagreement turning to violence to reinforce our commitment to those peaceful ways of disagreeing.â
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.Â
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.Â
That is invaluable.Â
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalistâs job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readersâ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readersâ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the âreport this postâ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel