Saturday's police raids in Melbourne provide further proof that terrorism is inside Australia's house, not at its doorstep.
Could an earlier and softer intervention strategy result in a more positive and cost-effective outcome?
At 4am, on April 18, Australian Federal Police and
Victorian Police apprehended five teenagers allegedly planning an
Islamic State-inspired attack at a Melbourne Anzac Day event.
No
Australian should be surprised that would-be terrorists might target
ceremonies commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Gallipoli
landings, given their cultural significance. A successful terrorist
attack on an Anzac Day ceremony would have great symbolism for IS.
These early-morning raids are a success story for our police and
spies. Good intelligence, combined with co-operation between police
forces, reiterated that the federal government's investment in
counter-terrorism capabilities is money well spent.
The intelligence, surveillance and police bill for this operation will, no doubt, run into hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The ongoing monitoring, management and prosecution of these five teenagers over time will likely run into millions of dollars.
While
our police and spies need to be appropriately resourced, could an
earlier and softer intervention strategy result in a more positive and
cost-effective outcome?
Australia's moderate Islamic leaders,
scholars and religious figures need to be invited to actively contribute
to and manage our nation's deradicalisation programs. And the
overarching case management system for terrorist offenders needs to
integrate deradicalisation programs into our justice and intelligence
strategies.
Deradicalisation is a security priority, a government
policy focus point, but, ultimately, the Islamic communities'
responsibility.
The deradicalisation of young Muslims should be an
activity supported by the government, but delivered by Australia's
moderate Muslim scholars and leaders.
The five teenagers were
known "associates" of Numan Haider, the lone-wolf terrorist who was
killed while attacking two police officers in September 2014.
What
if in the days after the Haider attack, police and the relevant Islamic
leaders, scholars and religious figures had met to discuss intervention
strategies for the dead man's associates?
In the weeks after the
attacks, this panel could have appointed case officers for each of the
five teenagers. These case officers could have worked with the five
teenagers to understand why they were so angry, and drawn to the IS
dogma.
If these representatives had worked with police and health
practitioners, they could have developed intelligence-led and
individually tailored intervention strategies. This would have given
these five young people a chance to back away from IS before they
committed any criminal offences.
In the event that the deradicalisation strategy was not working, these case officers could have advised police.
I
suspect this alternative approach to deradicalisation would have led to
a better result for the teenagers, their families, their communities,
and Australians more generally. I also suspect the cost of this approach
would have been significantly less than that expended on the
investigations.
The terrorist threat in Australia is becoming more
dangerous by the day. Young Australians continue to be radicalised,
with some showing a willingness to commit acts of terrorism.
Our
security and law enforcement agencies are now regularly thwarting
terrorist plans, but this successful intelligence and police work is not
curbing home-grown violent extremism.
Operational successes such as the latest Melbourne arrests do not result in the deradicalisation of offenders.
The
government's national disruption group, community engagement programs
and diversion and monitoring team have great potential. But they do not
sufficiently partner members of the communities that are on the
frontline of countering radicalisation.
The name of the game here
is to prevent terrorism. But how much more effective would our national
counter-terrorism strategy be if it focused on preventing the
radicalisation of Australians.
If we are to get serious about
deradicalisation, it is time for government to move its engagement with
communities from a consultative to a partnership model.
Written By:
John
Coyne
Senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy
Institute. Formerly, he worked for the Australian Federal Police,
specialising in national security, counter-terrorism and transnational
serious organised crime.
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment