The fight against terrorism (Part 3)

  But to repeat it, even the wiser strategies for aid, development and democratization could not be imposed by force. The development and the democratization, the modernization and the model of state system should be recognized by the people to whom they are proposed, so that they could accept them as the better alternative and without fear that their identity, sense, culture and traditions are endangered. Only such strategies, such modernization projects, are efficient for the backward societies. We need a global culture of solidarity, compassion and mutual aid. The tsunami-disaster (2005) showed rudiments of such culture. But it consists not only of help in case of disasters, of clothes, food and medicaments, but of modernization of the lagging regions and efforts for treating the political, social and ecological ailments as well.
  19. It is necessary to create the conditions for a dialogue, for an Alliance of Civilizations (initiated by Spains Prime Minister José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, and co-sponsored by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey in 2005).
  The Alliance of Civilizations is aimed to stimulate the contacts between the different ethnic groups, cultures and religions, to educate in the spirit of forbearance and tolerance, and not a clash between the civilizations. To build up confidence between the civilizations, however, we should comprehend life not according to our views, stereotypes and prejudices, but according to the reality; we should hear through the ears and see through the eyes of the others with more ethnic and religious, ethic and cultural sensitivity. If we don’t want the idea of Alliance of the Civilizations to remain just a propaganda thesis, we should do quite a lot so that there could be at least relative parity in this Dialogue and at least relative equality in this Alliance.
  20. Thank goodness, those who think that Islam is “a pregnant with terrorism” religion.
  Positively, the thesis that no religion in itself and basically, in its substance is “doomed” to give birth to terrorism and preach violence, prevails. The religion is a delicate thing, you can not tread with boots on the bare nerves of the believers, and we should respect every single religion which in its deep essence is humanistic, so such is Islam as well. At the same time, however, we should not turn a blind eye to the religious elements in the motives and actions of the Islamic terrorists. An analysis is needed, but inside this great, humane religion- why there occur reasons it to be used in such a way?
  More over, we should acknowledge that there is not religion unaffected by violence, there is not religion historically “virgin” with respect to violence. Actually, one of the functions of every religion in its origination is to give simple solutions, and simple explanations of what is happening, and to reduce partially the uncertainty. This promotes the incipience of huge energy and passion to realize these simple solutions, as soon as possible, namely, before it turns outwards and tries to change the world; every religion should turn inwards, because probably the answers it is searching are there as well.


  Bulgaria can not stand aloof from the fight against terrorism and however, everything is a matter of calculations, capabilities and opportunities. But yet our country is small, it undergoes complex reforms and it has a limited financial and human potential and it would not have the powers to bear responsibilities, which go beyond the foremost concern for national security and are more related to the global scale and global security processes.
  Countries that require a greater role in global security should bear greater responsibilities as well; they should draw serious conclusions from the split between the partners from the two sides of the Atlantic, from their drawing apart, and from the “widening” of the Atlantic Ocean. So Bulgaria, as a European country, as a State, entering the EU***, should learn to synchronize its positions with those of Europe, inclusively on the issue with the fight against terrorism as well. More Europe is needed in this fight, and we should give us and account for the changing Security-Defense relation. Every country should find its precise balance between security and defense. Defense is becoming an increasingly shrinking element of security of the country and therefore every government should consider thoroughly what resources it would allocate to the separate institutions, such as to the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the special services and the Civic Defense. The response to every single terrorist threat should be not chaotic and intuitive, but integrated (in optimal coordination and maximum collaboration between the institutions) and in a timely manner.
  It exists the fundamental problem inherent to the interaction between the different institutions in the national security system (everywhere it is called “a system”, whereas in Bulgaria they speak more about “a sector”), and to the coordination between them and the control over them. The fashionable thesis is: “Implementation Decentralization and Coordination Centralization”.
  The process of reforming and modernizing the Bulgarian national security system during the past four years (2001-2005) has stopped or is nearly not moving from the freezing point. They let the coordination problem go its own way. As in every backward (“feudal”) system, the lack of a centralized authority led to a struggle on the lower levels to acquire more powers. In the ensuing vacuum, it was just a matter of time for a charismatic person to appear, who not quite constitutionally and not quite in concord with the laws of our country to establish himself as an undisputed chief coordinator of all the agencies.
  It is necessary a careful reading of the internal-organizational culture of every single structure as well as developing a new type of culture of common and synergic interaction among the different structures in order to achieve the optimal management, coordination and control. Last but not least, in the management of the processes is, of course, the leadership: strategic, operational and tactic.
  The quality of the leadership is a factor of foremost importance. That is why it is emphasized on the necessity of the leaders to be surrounded not by always assenting with them, singing them odes singers, helpers and advisors, but before everything to be surrounded by analytically and critically thinking people. The coordination is required on both the high management levels and the lower management levels, i.e. both on the top and the war field.
  Priority attention should be paid to strategic planning and properly developed counteraction policies, separating the reasons from the consequences (and not as it was done as a rule during the Plague, that the people were killing cats rather than rats). This could be result only of the multi-factor analysis of the goals, the means for their achievement and the resources allocated to them. In order to prevent the occurrence of the case in which we have splendid so called “platforms”, i.e. frigates, planes and helicopters, but at the same time we are lagging in the modern communication equipment of the army (a key anti-terrorist unit has only one GPS and it is a tourist GPS, so we could imagine how would the soldiers communicate if they have to conduct a mission in real combat situation), or that the army will be proud of its new scores of helicopters, while the Ministry of Internal Affairs doesn’t have even one. And what is more, in a couple of years there won’t be a single fire truck without an expired term of exploitation and unreached run, and the gas helmets of the Special Anti-Terrorist Unit had “seen Lenin with their own eyes”, whereas should have gone out of use 15 years ago.
  A special attention should be paid to those which should firstly react in time of a crisis (“the first responders”). They should be well equipped, they should be food team workers and they should have the most modern communication facilities, because their actions are those that – to a great extent – determine the scale of the consequences in the case of natural calamities and terrorist attacks.
  In the fight against terrorism the role of the special services is extremely important. The investment in them has a high level of return. Among the main criteria for the efficiency of the special services is the quality of the information gathered by them and the analyses made by them, and with the special services the decentralization of information gathering is important and simultaneously with the centralization of its analyzing and in addition the civil control over the special security services.
  The terrorist networks are horizontal, dispersed, with a greater mobility and better adaptability, while the structures of the state are vertical and centralized, unsusceptible to reformation, relying on the routine. A lot of countries exert efforts to change this horizontal-vertical discrepancy, but often the result is cover resistance by the bureaucracy, trying to become mimetic, mutate and adapt itself, due to which is decreased the efficiency of the system. Therefore, priority is given to people from outside the system with the intent to lead to the processes and to conduct the reforms of the power institutions. This is exactly what is happening in the USA with the appointment on key positions in the national security system: John Negroponte, as a director of the national intelligence; Mrs. Michel van Kleeve, as a head of the National Counteintelligence; Porter Gos, as a Central Intelligenge Agency director and Michael Chertoff, as a Domeland Security Secretary.
  The terrorism victims need special cares and attention, including the creation of a Global Fund for their timely and rational compensation. The number of terrorist attacks victims inevitably will grow. To a great extent this would be innocent people, whose families (children, parents and spouses) will collapse in a tough social situation due to the death, physical or psychical mutilation of the victims. Such a National Fund for helping the terrorist victims and their families we should create in our country as well. By using it we could reimburse damages caused by terrorist acts, aimed at different objects (public and private buildings, logistics and infrastructure, etc.).
  Terrorism could not be eradicated in the foreseeable future, but it could be restricted and put to a bearable minimum. They really show that terrorism is appealing, the people find sense in it and it is a hope for them. That is why we should make it less attractive and devaluate it in the minds of those for which it is not the last, as they reckon, but actually the first tool in their efforts and fight. Some chronic conflicts (as the Arabic-Israeli one for example) will continue to generate terrorism and therefore they have to be attacked in a priority way, using common efforts and without applying any double-standards. The most successful projects elaborated during the Cold War were the Marshall Plan and the Helsinki Process. Today, the other regions are in desperate need of a modern Marshall Plan of the developed countries for treating the defects, the recovery and development of the lagging behind regions, whereas avoiding the prophecies for a clash of the civilizations and the counteraction against terrorism require a new Process, analogical to the Helsinki one, which then did so much to decrease the fatal confrontation between the two antagonistic systems.
  In the fight against terrorism we don’t have enough time to heal slowly, methodically, gradually the world ailments, to attack only the reasons that generate terrorism, because until we treat or at least alleviate these ailments, the terrorists could inflict a devastating strike on our civilization. For that reason, we have the calling to crush with all our force all the hearths of this pestilence and those who spread it. But we also can not fight terrorism only with force, methodically, on the actual spiral: “The more we fight, the more mistakes we make and the more we err the more we fight”. The point and the problem are that these actions should be done simultaneously and exactly in this is our dilemma and tragedy… Despite everything, in the fight with terrorism, we should emphasize on the prevention. The efficient prevention will allow us, fighting side by side, with synergic collaboration and common will to be one step, one idea, and one move ahead of the terrorist, to take the initiative, to act anticipatory and to paralyze them.
  A constant and wise effort with a high efficiency level is so that to engage the moderate politicians and parties in the political process, to negotiate with them, not to create conditions for them to radicalize; preferred is the inclusion, not the exclusion. Indubitably, one of the measures for making terrorism devoid of legitimacy, for society alleviation and reconciliation is amnesty. But such a measure should not be allowed to create impunity feeling. It is necessary to make a distinction between these who fought with the military and those who attacked civilians; between those whose hands are bloody and those whose hand are blood free. The most efficient decision is that amnesty should be personal, not mass, and formal.
  As previously mentioned, the terrorists act through network structures, cores, nuts, cells and clusters. In our fight with these formations we should do our best to dissuade and discourage people from entering into terrorist groups (much more serious researches are needed on the motivation and the compactness in the social networks, on the role of the group, and on the group identity and compassion; the group identity and cohesion). We should sow the seeds of discord in the groups; we should create an eroding trust environment, we should destroy the feeling of group identity and compassion, we should wipe out the collectivization, we should erode the group solidarity; we should discredit and tarnish the image of their leaders (however, a distinction should be done between leaders and common followers); we should facilitate the process of quitting the groups; we should strengthen the resistance of the nations against terror and violence and diminish the psychological and stress vulnerability of societies; they and the State institutions should get used to living with the terrorism risks; we should teach the common people to act in times of crisis, not to allow a panic and fear to overwhelm them, to show compassion and consolidation.
  With the fight against terrorism, the contribution of our country is not necessarily proportional to its power. In this fight, there are no big and small nations, there are no indispensable (the United States were called “indispensable” by Madeline Albright once acting as Secretary of State) and insignificant nations, there are no good and bad religions. As Kofi Annan says, in our intersected and mutually dependent world, let us not think that some threats concern only some of us. We share a common responsibility related to security. That is why we should work together for a more democratic and more secure world, consolidating others’ security, we safeguard our own security.