Dear Sirs,
Please submit the result of your research here.
Regards,
Yuline
Negotiating with terrorist? (DA Class A)
February 12, 2009 at 1:37 am (DA Class)
February 12, 2009 at 1:37 am (DA Class)
Dear Sirs,
Please submit the result of your research here.
Regards,
Yuline
Colonel Aang Suharlan said,
February 12, 2009 at 2:37 pm
The future of negotiations of Political turmoil in Myanmar
Burma, officially the Union of Myanmar, is the largest country by geographical area in mainland Southeast Asia, or Indochina. The country is bordered by the People’s Republic of China on the northeast, Laos on the east, Thailand on the southeast, Bangladesh on the west, India on the northwest, and the Bay Bengal to the southwest with the Gulf of Martaban and Andaman Sea defining its southern periphery. One-third of Burma’s total perimeter, 1,930 kilometers (1,199 mi), forms an uninterrupted coastline.
Burma’s diverse population has played a major role in defining its politics, history and demographics in modern times, and the country continues to struggle to mend its ethnic tensions. Its political system remains under the tight control of the SPDC, the military-led government, led since 1992 by Senior General Than Shwe. The military has dominated government since General Ne Win led a coup in 1962 that toppled the civilian government of U Nu. The country’s culture, heavily influenced by neighbours, is based on Theravada Buddhism intertwined with local elements.
Burma is governed by a strict military dictatorship. The current head of state is Senior General Than Shwe, who holds the posts of “Chairman of the State Peace and Development Council” and “Commander in Chief of the Defense Services” as well as the Minister of Defence. The current Prime Minister is General Thein Sein, The majority of ministry and cabinet posts are held by military officers, with the exceptions being the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Labour, and the Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development, posts which are held by civilians.
Major political parties in the country are the National League for Democracy (NLD) and the Shan Nationalities League for Democracy, although their activities are heavily regulated and suppressed by the military government. Many other parties, often representing ethnic minorities, exist. The military government allows little room for political organizations and has outlawed many political parties and underground student organizations. The military supported the National Unity Party in the 1990 elections and, more recently, an organization named the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA)
In 1988, the army violently repressed protests against economic mismanagement and political oppression. On 8 August 1988, the military opened fire on demonstrators in what is known as 8888 Uprising and imposed martial law. However, the 1988 protests paved way for the 1990 People’s Assembly elections. The election results were subsequently annulled by Senior General Saw Maung’s government. The NLD, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, won over 60% of the vote and over 80% of parliamentary seats in the 1990 election, the first held in 30 years. Since then, the ruling regime has repeatedly placed her under house arrest. Having United States and Western countries’ supports, Aung San Suu Kyi calls international sanctions against Myanmar which have been imposed since 1990. On the other hand due to some interests Myanmar gains support from major regional powers such as India, Russia, and, in particular, China.
Despite a direct appeal by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to Senior General Than Shwe and pressure by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the military junta extended Aung San Suu Kyi’s house arrest another year on 27 May 2006 under the 1975 State Protection Act, which grants the government the right to detain any persons on the grounds of protecting peace and stability in the country. It is clearly states in Government propaganda poster: “Tatmadaw and the people cooperate and crush all those harming the union.”
The junta tries to get the legitimatization by launching Myanmar roadmap toward democracy and national reconciliation. The Burma’s army-drafted constitution was overwhelmingly approved (by 92.4% of the 22 million voters with alleged voter turnout of 99%) on May 10 in the first phase of a two-stage referendum. It was the first national vote since the 1990 election. Multi-party elections in 2010 would end 5 decades of military rule, as the new charter gives the military an automatic 25% of seats in parliament.
NLD spokesman Nyan Win, inter alia, criticized the referendum: “This referendum was full of cheating and fraud across the country; In some villages, authorities and polling station officials ticked the ballots themselves and did not let the voters do anything.” The constitution would prevent Aung San Suu Kyi, from public office.
Conflict between the junta and NLD represented by Aung San Suu Kyi has been mediated by the UN Secretary General’s special envoy Ibrahim Gambari. Despite of many efforts by the UN, the differences between the Junta and NLD has no signal to be compromised. NLD set out conditions for talks which are the release of all political prisoners; a review of constitution, dialogue must involve the separatist group and call the People’s Parliament which was ignored by the junta. On the other hand the junta stands firmly that it will not risk the unity and sovereignty of Myanmar. Moreover the junta considers NLD in particular Aung San Suu Kyi as provocateur by encouraging people to stage protest to the junta. The Junta leader General Than Shwe said that he would not meet Aung San Suu Kyi unless she dropped her calls for sanction against Myanmar
To conclude a dramatic change in the country’s political situation remains unlikely, due to unwillingness of the junta and Aung San Suu Kyi to compromise. The junta buying time in order to win 2010 general election and to weaken Aung San Suu Kyi supporters.
Agus Rustandi said,
February 13, 2009 at 12:03 am
TERRORISM IN SOUTH KOREA
After Korean War was over in 1953, Korea Peninsula was divided into two states, North Korea or Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), which allied with Russia and South Korea or Republic of Korea (ROK) which had a strong relationship with America. Since that time, two nations went to a long conflict until today. Therefore, in ROK’s point of view, terrorism should relate to DPRK to whom America has concern. Indeed, there is no agreed definition of terrorism; at least there are three aspects that ROK agreed an act classified as terrorist activity. There are aspect of violence, terror and ideology.
According to Department of Emergency South Korea, South Korea has experienced more than 30 suspected terrorism-related events since 1958, including attacks against South Korean citizens in foreign countries. The most common types of terrorism used have included bombings, shootings, hijackings, and kidnappings. Prior to 1990, North Korea was responsible for almost all terrorism-related events inside of South Korea, including multiple assassination attempts on its presidents, regular kidnappings of South Korean fisherman, and several high-profile bombings. Since 1990, most of the terrorist attacks against South Korean citizens have occurred abroad and have been related to the emerging worldwide pattern of terrorism by international terrorist organizations or deranged individuals.
The 1988 Seoul Olympic Games provided a major stimulus for South Korea to develop a national emergency response system for terrorism-related events based on the participation of multiple ministries. The 11 September 2001 World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks and the 2001 United States of America (US) anthrax letter attacks prompted South Korea to organize a new national system of emergency response for terrorism-related events. The system is based on five divisions for the response to specific types of terrorist events, involving conventional terrorism, bioterrorism, chemical terrorism, radiological terrorism, and cyber-terrorism.
South Korean does not have any experience in negotiation with terrorist, except South Korea and North Korea have intention to unify their countries to be one nation just like in the past. Therefore, they have started to negotiate since June 2000 when the first North-South summit held in Pyongyang, North Korea. This effort may be successful in the future because the US or Bush’s administration removed North Korea from terrorist blacklist in October 2008.
In conclusion, South Korea may define terrorist as enemy of the state who try to change ideology of the nation by using violence and terror. Hence, South Korea may agree with Bush’s statement that North Korea is one of “axis of evil”. But, having removed North Korea from terrorist blacklist, South Korea would certainly continue to negotiate with North Korea in terms of nation unification program.
Hilman Hadi said,
February 13, 2009 at 2:49 pm
TERRORIST IN THE PHILIPPINES
In Order to combat terrorism, the government of the Republic of the Philippines has addressed Philippines Anti-Terrorism Bill which is “AN ACTDEFINING TERRORISM, ESTABLISHING INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS TO PREVENT AND SUPPRESS ITS COMMISSION, PROVIDING PENALTIES THEREFORE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”. In this bill states that “terrorism” is the premeditated, threatened, actual Use of violence, force, or by any other means of destruction perpetrated against person/s, property/ies, or the environment, with the intention of creating or sowing a slate of danger, panic, fear, or chaos to the general public, group of persons or particular person, or of coercing or intimidating the government to do or abstain from doing an act. Also in the bill defines that terrorism is committed by any person or group of persons, whether natural or juridical, who, with intent to create or sow danger, panic, fear or chaos to the general public or a group of persons or particular person, or to coerce or intimidate the government to do or to abstain from doing an act through the premeditated, threatened, or actual use of force, violence or oilier means of destruction.
There are four major terrorist groups active in the Philippines today: The Moro National Liberation Front, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, Abu Sayyaf and the New People’s Army. The first three are Islamic groups that operate primarily in the south of the nation, where most of the country’s Muslim minority live. The Communist New People’s Army operates in the northern Philippines.
Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF)
Emerging in the early 1970s, the MNLF sought an independent Islamic nation in the Filipino islands with sizeable Muslim populations. In 1996, the MNLF signed a peace agreement with Manila that created the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), an area composed of two mainland provinces and three island provinces in which the predominantly Muslim population enjoys a degree of self-rule. MNLF chairman and founder Nur Misuari was installed as the region’s governor but his rule ended in violence when he led a failed uprising against the Philippines government in November 2001. He is currently in jail and MNLF leader Parouk Hussin took over as ARMM governor in 2002. Nur Misuari reportedly still has a small band of followers who remain actively opposed to the current arrangement.
Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF)
The largest Islamic extremist group in the Philippines, the MILF split from the MNLF in 1977 and continues to wage war against Manila. Headed by Islamic cleric Salamat Hashim, the MILF seeks a separate Islamic state in the southern Philippines. Although it signed a peace agreement with Manila in 2001, MILF-sponsored violence has continued. Manila accuses the MILF of responsibility for the March 2003 Davao City airport bombing that killed 21 people, and for harboring members of the small militant Pentagon gang accused of kidnapping foreigners in recent years.
The MILF has an estimated strength of 12,000 members.
Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) The smallest, most active and most violent Islamic separatist group in the southern Philippines, Abu Sayyaf (Bearer of the Sword) emerged in 1991 as a splinter group of the MNLF. Its founder, Abdurajik Abubakar Janjalani, was a veteran of the Islamic mujahideen movement in Afghanistan and was killed in a clash with Philippine police in 1998. ASG’s current head is thought to be Janjalani’s younger brother Khadafi Janjalani.
New People’s Army (NPA)
The NPA is the military wing of the Communist People’s Party of the Philippines (CPP). Founded in 1969 with the aim of overthrowing the Philippines government through guerrilla warfare, the NPA strongly opposes the U.S. military presence in the Philippines and publicly expressed its intent to target U.S. personnel in the Philippines in January 2002, warning that any American troops who enter their stronghold areas will be considered “legitimate targets.” The NPA primarily targets Philippine security forces, politicians, judges, government informers and former NPA rebels. The NPA’s founder, Jose Maria Sison, lives in self-imposed exile in the Netherlands and reportedly directs operations from there.
After combating the terrorists for a long time, recently, the Government of the Republic of The Philippines negotiates to the terrorists in considering to be better life for the people of the country. President Arroyo reiterated her administration’s commitment to the early resumption of the peace talks to finally end the decades-old conflict in parts of Mindanao. he President added that the newly-reconstituted government peace panel is ready to talk with facilitators and the MILF leadership for the substantive aspects of the peace negotiations, such as ceasefire-related issues, new terms of reference for the International Monitoring Team (IMT), and development projects for Mindanao.
But the President reiterated that government would not talk peace under the barrel of the gun, and that the new policy on the peace process is focused on dialogues with communities. The dialogues shall consider all sides and other stakeholders who would help formulate the enhanced roadmap for the peace process, including ideas on substantive issues like how disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) would be carried out to strengthen the final outcome of the peace agreement in Mindanao. Besides, in handling New People’s Army (NPA), the government gives P20,000 cash assistance upon their surrender for a total of P4.5 million. The livelihood assistance and cash grants to rebel returnees are part of the Social Integration Program (SIP) implemented by the government to reintegrate former rebels into the mainstream of society pursuant to Administrative Order no. 172 issued by the President on March 23, 2007.
Hendrikus Joko Rianto said,
February 14, 2009 at 4:17 am
Australian Government outlook on Terrorism, policy and strategy
By. Hendrikus Joko Rianto
The terrorist attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001 turned out to be the watershed of new era for the world facing the threat on terrorism. Since then, the global war on terrorism and efforts to combating terrorism including its idea become the first priority by the countries around the world. The impact of that war, not only formulates thousands definitions about terrorism based on their own understanding and interests, but also creates and develops policy, include strategy in order to protect the people and country or prevent any possible action that could be taken related to terrorism. This essay will explain to the Australian government outlook related to the terrorism.
A ‘terrorist act’ is defined under Australian law as an act or threat, intended to advance a political, ideological or religious cause by coercing or intimidating an Australian or foreign government or the public, by causing serious harm to people or property, creating a serious risk to the health and safety to the public, or seriously disrupting trade, critical infrastructure or electronic systems. This definition actually has been enlarge based on Criminal Code Act 1995, then adapted to the Anti-terrorism Act 2002. Since, then Australian government has made some amendment through some section of the Anti-terrorism Act.
Under the law, there are two ways for an organization to be categorized as a ‘terrorist organization’s. Either an organization may be found to be such an organization by a court as part of the prosecution for a terrorist offence, or it may be specified in regulations, known as “listing”. For a listing to be effective, the processes set out in the legislation must be followed. Before an organization can be listed, the Australian Attorney-General must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the organization is directly or indirectly engaged in, preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act. The listing of an organization ceases to have effect two years after its commencement, or if the Minister ceases to be satisfied that the organization is directly or indirectly engaged in, preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act, whichever occurs first. When a court has determined, or by regulation it is determined, that an organization is a ‘terrorist organization’, it is an offence to direct the activities of the organization, recruit persons to the organization, receive training from or provide training to the organization, receive funds from or make available funds to the organization, provide support or resources to the organization.
It is also include an offence to be a member of any listed terrorist organization and to intentionally associate with a person who is a member or who promotes or directs the activities of a listed terrorist organization where that association provides support that would help the terrorist organization to continue to exist or to expand. There are 18 organizations officially listed since 2002 up to 2008, they are Abu Sayyaf Group, Al-Qa’ida in Iraq (formerly listed as Al-Zarqawi and TQJBR),Al-Qa’ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Ansar al-Sunna (formerly known as Ansar Al-Islam), Asbat al-Ansar, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Hamas’s Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hizballah External Security Organization, Islamic Army of Aden, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Jamiat ul-Ansar (formerly known as Harakat Ul-Mujahideen), Jemaah Islamiyah, Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), and Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Referring to the global war against terrorism, and experienced dealing with terrorist attacked, known as Bali bombing in 2002 which more than 88 Australian die, and bombing at Australian Embassy in Jakarta on 2004. Australia has been declared the policy that the Terrorism remains a serious threat to Australia’s security. Therefore, establishing solid cooperation between the Commonwealth, State, Territory and local governments is vital to countering this threat. Besides, the broader Australian communities also have an important role to reduce or eliminate any idea of radicalism within people. Furthermore, to ensure that Australia’s security framework continues to reach the aim of protecting Australia from terrorism, the Australian government realizes that it must also be supported by appropriate resources and international cooperation. Therefore, Australia has interests that countering terrorism through international relationships must be included as a priority in its foreign policy. However, by maintaining Australia’s relationships with neighboring and international partners will play an important role in protecting Australian people, assets and infrastructure from terrorism.
It is well known, that there is actually no internal disputes related to terrorism within Australia’s territory, but Bali bombing in 2002, 2004 and bombing at Australian Embassy in Jakarta on 2004 can be examples on how Australia dealing with terrorists organization at neighboring countries, such as Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippine and so on. The strategy is by implementing quick response and opening international network led by Australian Federal Police and Intelligence Agencies. Since then, Australia has set up more than 80 officers in 33 posts across 27 countries. For the Australian government this strategy is effective up to now, means that, by opening of international network Australia’s can get access directly to local law enforcement agencies. Besides, it will not only increasing regional understanding of the nature of the terrorist threat, but also access to identify terrorists and deny their operating environment to plan and execute attacks, disrupt terrorist networks and strengthen the counter terrorism capabilities together with international partners and allies.
In conclusion, war on terrorism seems to be the longest war while it is related to the ideology of terrorism. In fact, fighting against terrorism itself can not be achieved by destroying physically the groups of terrorist and supporters, but the most important is by understanding what the nature of terrorist is. The using of soft approach could be alternatives chosen to eliminate the way of thinking and life of terrorist supporters. Therefore, strengthen the counter-terrorism capabilities with international partners and allies should also be provided with the capabilities to neutralize the spreading of terrorist ideology.
References :
1. Australian National Counter-terrorism plan 2005
2. Australian National Security; What governments are doing-Listing of terrorism organization.
Col Fadjar Prasetyo said,
February 15, 2009 at 2:17 am
Counterterrorism in Malaysia
In the peace-loving, moderate and progressive country of Muslim-dominated
Malaysia, violence generally is alien to the culture. Terrorism initially took shape during the post-independence, communist era by jungle recalcitrant actions. In recent years, this has been superceded by a more internationally related trend of violence. Only very few incidents were based locally, while the majority were linked to international groups or organizations abroad, including the Kumpulan Mujahidin Malaysia (KMM), Jemaah Islamiyah ( JI), and the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG).
However, the spate of ongoing events of mass destruction such as the conflict in Israel/Palestine, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the World Trade Center and Pentagon tragedies of 11 September 2001, and the Bali bombing in Indonesia, remain as great concerns to Malaysians. Both the government and the people of Malaysia abhor such unjustified uses of terror, and take every measure to curtail them. The National Security Council policies of Arahan No. 18 and Arahan No. 20 detail specific roles and responsibilities of various agencies in managing terrorism and disasters respectively, while the use of the stern Internal Security Act that allows indefinite detention without trial, evidently has been an efficient intelligence and security apparatus.
In mid-May 2002 Malaysia’s former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad, openly criticized Islamic terrorists after September 11, including Palestinian suicide bombers. In a show of appreciation for his cooperation in the U.S. anti-terrorism campaign, Mahathir was invited to Washington, DC, and met with President Bush. During that visit the United States and Malaysia signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on counter-terrorism. The text of that document became the basis for a subsequent declaration on counter-terrorism that the United States and ASEAN signed at the August 2002 ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) meeting.
The Bush Administration also has decided to downgrade U.S. human rights concerns over Malaysia’s use of its Internal Security Act (ISA) to imprison political opponents without trial, especially since he has employed the ISA against suspected members of Jemaah Islamiyah and the Kampulan Mujahidin Malaysia (KMM). Mahathir’s successful visit to Washington, DC, in May 2002 symbolized the fundamental change in the U.S. posture toward him since the September 11 attack.
With more recent developments of terrorist events regionally and globally,
Malaysia continues to face an ongoing threat from such activities.
Various measures have been and will be actively undertaken both by government and non-governmental agencies in facing these challenges.
Ltc Erry Herman said,
February 15, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Terrorism in Spain
Ltc Erry Herman
Overview:
Founded in 1959, ETA traces its origins to the Basque nationalist group EKIN, which was started by a group of student activists. The overall structure of ETA is not known, but it is believed to be non-hierarchal with members operating in small, independent cells. A group known as the Koordinadora Abertzale Sozilista (KAS) is thought to direct or influence ETA operations.
In 1976, Madrid granted regional autonomy to the Basques, as well as a parliament with control over education, taxation and cultural issues. This did not satisfy ETA, which advocates full independence. Former President Felipe Gonzalez attempted to combat ETA by establishing the para-police Antiterrorist Groups of Liberation (GAL) in the mid-1980s. GAL is said to have killed dozens of alleged ETA members. ETA is believed to be shrinking due to waning support in the Basque region and pressure from government counter-terrorism measures. Still, continuing attacks through 2008 indicate that the group has the capacity to conduct isolated, lethal attacks.
Spain definition of terrorism
The common elements of terrorism, “the use of, or threat to use, violence”; “the goal is to attain political objectives”; and “the targets of terrorism are civilians”. “The term ‘terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”
Government Policy and negotiation chronology with ETA.
ETA’s strength and activity level have varied in the years since its founding. The group has declared multiple cease-fires in the negotiation, including several that lasted more than one year. However, The group eventually returned to violence each time
Group Chronology:
1959
Basque nationalist group EKIN was transformed into ETA.
1961
ETA’s first military action involved a failed plot to derail a passenger train traveling to Donostia carrying Spanish Civil War veterans.
1968
The group began an assassination and bombing campaign against government, judicial and security officials.
1973
December: Gen. Francisco Franco’s likely successor, Prime Minister Adm. Luis Carrero, was assassinated by ETA.
1976
Basques were given regional autonomy, but ETA intensified attacks against security forces and politicians.
1978
Herri Batasuna, ETA’s political wing, was founded.
1980
ETA killed 118 people in one of its bloodiest years.
1992
Summer: Spanish police foiled an attempt by ETA to shoot down a helicopter carrying Spain’s King Juan Carlos with a surface-to-air-missile at the Summer Olympics in Barcelona.
1994
August: French police detained Maria Idoia Lopez Raino, also known as “the Tigress,” an ETA operative held responsible for the deaths of 17 Spanish Guardia Civil officers between 1980 and 1986.
1994
November: Basque police successfully attacked and disrupted ETA’s Vascaya Command cell.
1995
French and Spanish authorities disrupted another plan to kill Juan Carlos. Also that year, ETA attempted to kill opposition Popular Party leader and (subsequently) President Jose Maria Aznar.
1997
July: After ETA kidnapped and murdered Basque councilor Miguel Angel Blanco, some 6 million Spaniards publicly protested against the group.
December: Twenty-three Herri Batasuna leaders were jailed for seven years for collaborating with ETA.
1998
September: ETA announced its first indefinite cease-fire.
1999
November: Blaming a lack of progress in negotiations with Aznar’s government, ETA announced an end to the cease-fire.
2000
January and February: ETA resumed its violent campaign with bombings in Madrid and Vitoria.
2001
August: ETA leader Ismael Berasategui Escudero successfully escaped from La Sante prison in Paris by switching places with his brother.
2002
August: The Spanish government banned Herri Batasuna for three years because of suspected ETA ties.
October: Spanish and Italian authorities discovered an alleged link between ETA and the Italian Mafia. ETA was said to deliver drugs to Mafiosi in exchange for anti-aircraft missiles.
2003
May 30: An ETA package bomb detonated in Sanguesa in northern Spain, killing two police officers.
July 23: Two bombs exploded simultaneously at hotels in Alicante and Benidorm, Spain, injuring 13. ETA called in a bomb threat prior to the explosions, and the hotels were largely evacuated.
September: Police in northern Spain launched a sweep against ETA, arresting six members of the group. They also seized weapons and bomb-making equipment.
Nov. 19: Spanish police arrested 12 ETA suspects in Guipuzcoa and Navarra provinces, as well as in the city of Seville. The arrests brought the number of arrested ETA suspects in 2003 to 167, according to the Interior Ministry.
2004
Feb. 18: The ETA declared a truce for the first time since the end of a 14-month cease-fire in January 2000.
March 11: Terrorist bombings were carried out in several passenger trains in Madrid, killing some 200 and wounding about 1,400. The Spanish government, among others, suspected the involvement of ETA, though subsequent investigations did not bear out initial suspicions, and eventually focused on Moroccan Islamists.
September: After months of maintaining a low profile following the Madrid train bombings, the ETA vowed to continue to use violence rather than political means to gain an independent homeland.
Oct. 3: Suspected ETA political leader Mikel Albizu and ranking female member Soldedad Iparraguirre were captured along with around 19 other members in southeastern France. French authorities also uncovered several weapons caches, including two SAM missiles, in the series of raids.
2005
Dec. 11: The ETA expelled a half-dozen former senior members who had called for abandoning violence. The former leaders, serving prison sentences in Spain on terrorism charges, had signed a letter in August 2004 stating that violence was no longer justifiable. Their behavior was “a clear breach of discipline,” according to an internal ETA publication.
2006
March 22: In a video statement that reportedly surprised the Spanish government, ETA declared a permanent cease-fire. The truce was meant to “stimulate a democratic process in the Basque country and build a new framework in which our rights as a people are recognized,” said the communique. “The end of the conflict, here and now, is possible. That is the hope and will of ETA,” said the video.
June 21: French and Spanish anti-terrorist police rounded up a dozen suspected ETA members during raids. Those arrested include Julen de Madariaga, one of the founders of ETA, and Angel Iturbe Abasolo, a senior member in charge of ETA’s finances.
June 30: The Spanish government announced it would hold formal peace talks with ETA. “The government is going to begin a dialogue with ETA, maintaining the binding principle that political issues are only resolved with the legitimate representatives of the will of the people,” said Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.
Aug. 18: Peace talks between the Spanish government and ETA were said to be “in a clear situation of crisis,” according to an ETA statement. ETA accused the Spanish government of hounding Basque nationalist politicians, threatening to take reprisals.
Sept. 25: Militants claiming to speak on behalf of ETA announced that the group would “keep taking up arms” until the Basque region gained independence. “Until we achieve independence and socialism in the Basque country, we reaffirm our commitment to keep taking up arms firmly,” the statement said. “The fight is not a thing of the past. It is the present and the future.” The statement made no mention of ETA’s March 22 cease-fire announcement.
Oct. 26: ETA operatives kidnapped relatives of the manager of a French arms warehouse near Nimes, forcing him to open the facility so they could steal 350 pistols.
Dec. 23: ETA supporters opposed to the peace agreement hurled gasoline bombs at a Spanish navy building and set a bus on fire in the Basque region.
Dec. 30: A bomb exploded in a parking garage at Madrid’s international airport, killing two people and injuring at least 26. The deaths were the first in an ETA attack since 2003. ETA claimed responsiblity but said it was still holding to the cease-fire. The Spanish government subsequently suspended peace talks.
2007
Feb. 13: The Spanish Supreme Court reduced the sentence of convicted ETA killer Jose Ignacio de Juana Chaos, who had been on a hunger strike since November.
March 1: In critical condition, de Juana Chaos was transferred to detention in a hospital in the Basque region to recover from his prolonged hunger strike.
April 8: ETA declared a renewed commitment to peace, but warned that “current conditions” would force it to continue its armed struggle with Spanish authorities. If the Spanish government halted its “attacks” against the group, a “scenario with no more violence” could proceed, said ETA.
June 6: ETA declared an end to its cease-fire. “The minimum conditions for continuing a process of negotiations do not exist,” said a statement from the group, also indicating that ETA “will defend Euskal Herria (the land of Basque speakers) with arms on all fronts.”
Aug. 24: ETA was blamed for a large explosion that occurred outside a police barracks in the Basque country town of Durango. Two police officers were wounded by flying glass. No advance warning was given.
Oct. 5: Spanish police arrested 23 members of the banned Batasuna party in Basque Segura, where the group was holding a supposedly clandestine meeting.
Oct. 9: ETA militants were blamed for a bomb in Bilbao that severely injured the security guard for a government official. The attack was in apparent retaliation for the arrest of 23 members of the ETA-related Batasuna group on Oct. 5.
Dec 1: ETA suspects killed two Guardia Civil policemen who were working undercover in southwest France. The event marked ETA’s first such assassination since December 2002.
2008
Jan. 14: Spain’s Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero ruled out any chance of peace talks with ETA and said the group’s only option was unilateral surrender.
March 7: Isaias Carrasco, a former councilor for Spain’s ruling Socialist Party, was killed in the Basque country two days before a national election. Both main parties blamed ETA for the killing.
May 20: The government detained Xavier Lopez Pena, the suspected leader of ETA. He was apprehended with three other suspected ETA members in an apartment raid in Bordeaux, France.
June 27: The Basque parliament approved a plan for a regional referendum on self-determination. The central Spanish government condemned the referendum as illegal.
Aug. 2: The government released Jose Ignacio de Juana Chaos, an ETA militant jailed in 1987.
Sept. 21: Spain’s Interior Ministry blamed ETA for detonating an explosion outside a police station in the Ondarroa section in Basque. The blastinjured 11 people.
Oct 6: A Spanish court said that Basque regional President Juan Jose Ibarretxe would stand trial in January 2009 for meeting members of Batasuna, a party banned for its links to ETA. Ibarretxe and two members of Spain’s governing Socialist Party – Patxi Lopez and Rodolfo Ares – were charged with illegally making contact with Batasuna at various times in 2006 and 2007.
Nov. 11: A Spanish court issued an arrest warrant for Jose Ignacio de Juana Chaos. The court charged that Chaos wrote a letter publicly calling for Basque separatists to “continue the armed struggle” and “use violent and criminal means” to achieve Basque independence.
Donny Ermawan said,
February 15, 2009 at 10:48 pm
BRAZIL AND TERRORISM
So far, Brazil has not had a terrorist attack conducted by Islamic radical. However, it does not mean that Brazil is free from terrorism acts. People in Brazil are often terrorised by excessive criminal acts conducted by organised crime groups prevalent in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paolo. Therefore, Brazil focuses on the distinction between ordinary crimes and crimes considered to be terrorism acts. This essay will describe what Brazil’s definition on terrorism and how Brazilian government try to suppress terrorism.
In 2008, Brazilian government tried to introduce new bill regarding criminal and terrorism acts. The new bill was introduce to suppress increasing criminal acts in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paolo. However, the bill did not specifically define terrorism but lists a series of crimes that spread terror. Among the crimes listed in the new law were bombs or shooting attacks against seaports and airports, bus and train stations, airplanes, ships and public transportation vehicles. In other words, crimes committed to instil panic and insecurity in society or intimidate the government were considered to be terrorism acts.
In 2007, criminal acts were extreme and frequent in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paolo. In December, gang members attacked police stations and burned buses in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil’s second-biggest city. Some 19 people were killed, including eight who were burned alive in a bus after criminals robbed passengers. Similar attacks against police stations, prisons, government buildings, banks and public buses rocked Sao Paulo, Brazil’s biggest city in May, June and July 2007. The attacks left 200 people dead, including police officers, prison guards, jail inmates and bystanders.
Under the new bill, Brazilian government had more power in suppressing extraordinary crimes. The sentence given to perpetrators was harder hard then the one under the previous bill.
In conclusion, Brazil faced a high number of extraordinary crimes. To overcome those extraordinary crimes, Brazil introduces a new bill, which distinguishes between ordinary crimes and terrorism acts. The new bill considered any crimes that initiate panic and security or intimidate government as terrorism acts. The introduction of the new bill was considered to be strong effort of Brazilian government in combating terrorism.
nurchahyanto said,
February 16, 2009 at 12:05 am
TERRORISM IN UNITED KINGDOM
By
Ltc. Nurchahyanto
Introduction. Terrorism is not new, and even though it has been used since the beginning of recorded history it can be relatively hard to define. Terrorism has been described variously as both a tactic and strategy; a crime and a holy duty. Obviously, a lot depends on whose point of view is being represented. Terrorism has often been an effective tactic for the weaker side in a conflict. Due to the secretive nature and small size of terrorism organizations, they often offer opponents no clear organization to defend against or to deter. That is why preemption is being considered to be so important. In some cases, terrorism has been a means to carry on a conflict without the adversary realizing the nature of the threat, mistaking terrorism for criminal activity. Because of these characteristics, terrorism has become increasingly common among those pursuing extreme goals throughout the world.
In many years The United Kingdom conducted war on terrorism in order to counter the Irish Republican Army (IRA). The Irish Republican Army (IRA) is a terrorist group committed to ending British control of Northern Ireland. IRA is this with the goal of separation from existing entities through independence, political autonomy, or religious freedom or domination. The ideologies separatists subscribe to include social justice or equity, anti-imperialism, as well as the resistance to conquest
The Difinition of Terrorism. The definition of terrorism that used by The British Government is the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public, in fear.”
The UK’s Policy in countering terrorism. Prior to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, counter-terrorism programs in the United Kingdom focused mainly on the Irish Republican Army (IRA), a militant group committed to ending British control of Northern Ireland. In December 2001, British Parliament passed the Anti-Terrorism, Crime, and Security Act. The law allowed authorities to detain suspected terrorists for up to six months without filing charges and for additional six-month periods after reviewing the suspect’s case. It also retained provisions that made it a crime to fail to report information on terrorist activities. In order to allay fears of civil-rights advocates, a provision was added to limit the powers of police and other security services from looking through confidential records. Suspected terrorists could also be deported from England to Northern Ireland. Whereas the counter-terrorist campaign against the IRA relied on military force, surveillance, and other covert and overt measures.
The negotiation between UK and IRA. In 1997, United Kingdom made a significant step in the direction of stemming sectarian strife. The first formal peace talks began on Oct. 6 with representatives of eight major Northern Irish political parties participating, a feat that in itself required three years of negotiations. Two smaller Protestant parties, including extremist Ian Paisley’s Democratic Unionists, boycotted the talks. For the first time, Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, won two seats in the British parliament, which went to Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams and his second-in-command, Martin McGuinness. Although the election strengthened the IRA’s political legitimacy, it was the IRA’s resumption of the 17-month cease-fire, which had collapsed in Feb. 1996, that gained them a place at the negotiating table. A landmark settlement, the Good Friday Agreement of April 10, 1998, came after 19 months of intensive negotiations. The accord called for Protestants to share political power with the minority Catholics, and it gave the Republic of Ireland a voice in Northern Irish affairs. In turn, Catholics were to suspend the goal of a united Ireland—a territorial claim that was the raison of the IRA and was written into the Irish Republic’s constitution—unless the largely Protestant North voted in favor of such an arrangement, an unlikely occurrence.
As a result of the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, a new coalition government was formed on Dec. 2, 1999, with the British government formally transferring governing power to the Northern Irish parliament. David Trimble, Protestant leader of the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) and winner of the 1998 Nobel Peace Prize, became first minister. The government has been suspended four times since then; it has remained suspended since Oct. 14, 2002.
Conclusion. Basicly, a terrorist group, IRA, has no longer exsist in Northern Ireland because they has signed a peace agreement with The United Kingdom. But, in fact, the terrorism action still happened in the United Kingdom territory. When the leaders of IRA adopted a policy of negotiating with British authorities, several splinter groups emerged, and they remain committed to removing British influence from Northern Ireland and sabotaging the peace process through violence.
Ltc.Hotman Sagala said,
February 16, 2009 at 12:14 am
TERRORISM IN SINGAPORE
Counter-terrorism in Singapore is a series of measures implemented in Singapore to detect and prevent terrorism, and to minimise damage from such terrorist acts should they occur. These measures involve all levels of society, including defence, internal security, border and infrastructure security, civil defence, medical readiness, and psychological preparedness. Singapore also participates actively in international counterterrorism efforts. Singapore has not experienced terrorism since 1991.
These are the events related to terrorism and counter-terrorism in Singapore. Also listed are major terrorist incidents in the world and in Southeast Asia that have influenced counter-terrorism policies in Singapore.
1965 10 March – MacDonald House bombing by Indonesian saboteurs killed 3 people, during the konfrontasi period.
1974 31 January – Laju incident
The Laju Incident occurred on 31 January 1974 in Singapore, when four armed men attacked the Shell oil refinery complex on Pulau Bukom and later hijacked the ferryboat Laju.
On 31 January 1974, four men armed with submachine guns and explosives attacked the Shell oil refinery complex on Pulau Bukom, a small island lying south of Singapore. The terrorists were two members of the Japanese Red Army (JRA) and two members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). Their goal was to disrupt the oil supply from Singapore to other countries, especially South Vietnam. On 1 February 1974, a PFLP spokesman made a statement in Beirut that the attack was a warning to all monopolistic oil companies on one hand and imperialism in general on the other – especially the perceived oppression of the Arab masses in the Middle East.
At the beginning of their operation, the terrorists’ boat ran aground on a coral reef. They managed to reach the shore of Bukom after convincing an unsuspecting boatman to tow them towards the island. As they headed towards a gate of an oil tank farm, they fired shots at two passing vehicles although no one was injured. A sentry at a security post managed to escape and raise the alarm.
The terrorists were able to detonate 3 of the 12 explosives they were carrying, but they caused little damage. To escape, they then hijacked the ferryboat Laju at the Bukom jetty and held 5 crew members hostage. This led to a chase and Laju was quickly surrounded by marine police boats and navy gunboats at the Eastern Anchorage.
This was followed by a few days of intense negotiation, during which two hostages managed to escape by jumping overboard in the middle of the night. The terrorists later agreed to release the other crew members in exchange for a party of “guarantors” for their safe passage to the Middle East. This 12-men party consisted of 4 commandos from the Singapore Armed Forces and 8 other government officials. The party was led by the Director of Security and Intelligence Division at the Ministry of Defence, S R Nathan, who later became the President of Singapore and Mr Tay Seow Huah, the first Director of Security and Intelligence Division.
On the night of 7 February, the group was transferred from Laju to the Marine Police Headquarters and then to the airport. After they freed the remaining three hostages, the four terrorists left Singapore on 8 February at 1:25 am, accompanied by Nathan’s team on a flight to Kuwait.
1984 Concept of Total Defence is introduced.
The Singapore Special Operations Force (SOF) is formed in secret.
1990 May – The elite Disaster Assistance and Rescue Team (DART) is formed
1991 26 March – Four Pakistanis hijack Singapore Airlines Flight 117 and demand the release of Pakistan Peoples Party members from Pakistani jails. 27 March – Members of the Singapore Special Operations Force storm Singapore Airlines Flight 117, killing all hijackers and freeing all passengers and crew members.
1992 10 September – Special Operations Command (SOC) is formed, combining the Police Tactical Team (PTT), Police Tactical Unit (PTU) and Police Dog Unit under one wing.
200111 September- September 11 attacks in the United States
9 December – 15 militants of Jemaah Islamiyah are arrested for the Singapore embassies attack plot [1]
2002 August – Singapore arrests another 21 members of Jemaah Islamiyah.
12 October – Bali car bombing by Jemaah Islamiah kills 202 people in the Indonesian island.
2003 17 January – Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Explosive Defence Group conducts Exercise Diamond Shield to demonstrate chemical and biological defence capability.
March – Chemical Verification Laboratory is certified by Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) as a designated laboratory for the testing of chemical warfare agents
11 August – Riduan Isamuddin (Hambali), leader of Jemaah Islamiyah, is arrested in Thailand.
14 August – Air Marshal Unit is formed to counter terrorism threats against civil aviation [2]
1 October – The first Special Rescue Battalion of the Singapore Civil Defence Force is formed [3]
2004 27 February – SuperFerry 14 is bombed in the Philippines by Abu Sayyaf, killing 116.
11 March – Coordinated bombing of commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, kills 191 people and injures more than 1,500.
21 March – Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi leads UMNO to a resounding victory in the General Elections, checking the advance of Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS) that aims to establish Malaysia as an Islamist theocratic country.
6 May – Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong delivers a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C. titled “Beyond Madrid: Winning Against Terrorism”. [4]
2005 7 July – London suicide bombings on one double-decker bus and three London Underground trains, killing 55+ people and injuring over 700.
15 August – The newly established Police MRT Unit begins operational patrols on the Mass Rapid Transit network to enhance the security of Singapore’s public transport
15 August – Singapore hosts a multi-national maritime interdiction exercise, codename Exercise Deep Sabre as part of the Proliferation Security Initiative.
25 August – French investigating magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguière singles out Singapore along with Tokyo and Sydney as potential terrorism targets of the Al-Qaeda. [5] Ministry of Home Affairs later denied receiving any specific information on imminent terrorist threat.[6]
1 October – A series of explosions kills at least 23 in resort areas of Jimbaran Beach and Kuta in Bali, Indonesia.
21 November – 25 – Singapore hosts the Regional Special Forces Counter-Terrorism Conference.
2006 8 January – Exercise Northstar V, a large scale civil defence exercise, is held in Singapore.
Arrest of Jemaah Islamiah members
The main terrorist threat to Singapore is from Jemaah Islamiah (JI), which has links to al-Qaeda and Abu Sayyaf. Jemaah Islamiah is known to have carried the Bali bombing in 2002, which has killed 202 people, as well as the Jakarta bombing in 2004 outside the Australian embassy, killing 11 people.
After the 11 September 2001 attacks on the United States, an informant revealed to the Singapore Internal Security Department regarding Muhammad Aslam Yar Ali Khan, a Singaporean of Pakistani descent, who was a member of a group partnered with Al-Qaida. Muhammad Aslam Yar Ali Khan was placed under surveillance by Singapore Internal Security Department, after which he left for Pakistan on 4 October. This man was captured by Afghan Northern Alliance forces in Afghanistan. His interrogation led investigators to more Jemaah Islamiah members in Singapore.
On 9 December 2001, 13 suspects were arrested. Soon after that, a video found in an abandoned house in Kabul, Afghanistan showed a narrator in Singapore describing how to attack Americans using explosives. Investigators found similar tapes at the residences of the arrested men. In all, 33 men were arrested in relation to this plot.
In August 2002, another 21 members of Jemaah Islamiyah were arrested, demolishing JI’s Singaporean cell. Arrests were also made in Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand. As of 11 November 2005, 36 alleged members of JI or the Moro Islamic Liberation Front were being detained under the Internal Security Act.
However, Singapore believes that Jemaah Islamiyah remains active in Southeast Asia and is recruiting new members.
On 25 August 2005, French investigating magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguière singled out Singapore along with Tokyo and Sydney as potential terrorism targets of the Al-Qaeda. The Ministry of Home Affairs later responded that it had not received any specific information on imminent terrorist threat against Singapore, but added that security measures have been taken to strengthen security at borders, key infrastructure and iconic buildings.
Homeland security
The Singapore Police Force has in recent years enhanced security at various locations in the country.
On 15 August 2005, the newly established Police MRT Unit began operational patrols on the Mass Rapid Transit network to protect the public transportation system. Personnel from the Special Operations Command (SOC) and the Gurkha Contingent (GC) have also been deployed to complement other police officers on patrol. In addition, the Police Coast Guard (PCG) stepped up its effort to inspect ferries and other vessels in Singapore territorial waters.
On 26 October 2005, Deputy Prime Minister and Co-ordinating Minister for Security and Defence S Jayakumar announced that Singapore was developing an early warning system, called the Risk Assessment and Horizon Scanning, to identify and assess new emerging threats to national security. The system, developed by the National Security Coordination Secretariat, will be put in place by mid-2007.
Counter terrorist specialised units
At the forefront in the fight against terrorism are specialised military, law enforcement, and civil defence units, namely:
Singapore Special Operations Force,
Special Operations Command,
Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Explosive Defence Group
Additional power to military
In May 2007, the parliament passed an amendment to the SAF Act, giving additional powers to the Singapore Armed Forces. A selected group of about 2,000 SAF personnel will be trained to perform security operations in designated areas. These personnel, identified by a Military Security identification card, will be able to search, detain and use reasonable force against terror suspects.[2]
Northstar V
On 8 January 2006, a large scale emergency preparedness exercise was conducted. Codenamed Exercise Northstar V, it involved 22 agencies and 2,000 emergency personnel. An additional 3,400 commuters also participated in the exercise. The exercise involved a simulated terrorist bomb attack on four MRT stations and one bus interchange. There were 500 mock casualties suffering from “injuries” caused by the “explosions” as well as chemical agents. The exercise is the largest civil emergency exercise ever staged in the country.[3]
Objective of Exercise Northstar V is part of the counter-terrorism effort in Singapore, aiming to test the readiness, effectiveness and coordination of the relevant agencies in responding to civil emergency, in particular a large scale multi-location terrorist attack. The exercise also aimed to raise the psychological preparedness of the public in the event of a terrorist attack.
The exercise is prompted by the recent terrorist attacks on public transport in other countries, namely the 7 July 2005 London bombings and the Madrid train bombings on 11 March 2004, which raise security concerns in public infrastructure. Singapore was the target of the foiled plan by Jemaah Islamiyah to bomb embassies and other installations.
The scenario of the exercise is similar to the London bombings with near-simultaneous bomb blasts in the trains and a bus. Earlier, officers from the Singapore Police Force were sent to London to study the British responses to the bombings.
The public were pre-warned that the exercise would be held during a weekend in January 2006 and the participating agencies were given as many as six months to prepare. However, the exact date, time and locations of the exercise were not disclosed until 15 minutes before the drill commenced.
However, there were some public complaints of authorities’ overzealous enforcement of rules. One recent example involved airport security officers detaining a family of four for using the word “bomb” in Singapore Changi Airport. The family later published an account of how they were detained wrongly online and it sparked a public controversy.
Conduct of the exercise
The exercise started at 6:25 am local time on 8 January 2006, a Sunday, and lasted about three hours. To avoid public panic, announcements were made at the affected train stations as well as on television and radio, just before the exercise began.
Mock explosive devices were detonated near-simultaneously in subway trains and station platforms at four MRT stations (Dhoby Ghaut, Toa Payoh, Raffles Place and Marina Bay) and in a double decker bus at Toa Payoh Bus Interchange. A chemical agent attack was then simulated at Dhoby Ghaut MRT Station at 6:45 am. An undetonated mock bomb was also placed at the Raffles Place MRT Station. About 3,400 commuters who were on board the subway trains were evacuated during the drill. Services at 13 MRT stations were temporarily disrupted and roads within the vicinity were also closed to traffic. Shuttle buses were used to ferry commuters affected by the exercise.
Thunderflashes, smoke generators, and fire simulators were used to simulate the explosion and 500 simulated casualties were deployed to test emergency rescuers at the scene. These mock casualties carried tags to provide paramedics information on the extent of their injuries and these includes injuries related to bomb blasts, such as open wounds and burns. There were also some with injuries related to chemical agents. Dummy mannequins were also used to simulate casualties. 7 hospitals and 2 polyclinics were also involved in the drill as they received the mock casualties. In two hospitals, Singapore General Hospital and Tan Tock Seng Hospital, healthcare workers donned decontamination suits as they prepared to treat victims of chemical agents suspected to be sarin gas.[4]
Officers from the London Metropolitan Police and the British Transport Police, including Chief Constable Ian Johnston, were present to observe the exercise and to provide feedback to the authorities.[5]
Social cohesion
Jemaah Islamiyah aims to exploit racial and religious issues to create instability in the region, and to stir up conflict between Singapore and Malaysia, as part of its goals. Following the liquidation of the JI cell, then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong held dialogues with the leaders of the Muslim community, which makes up 15 per cent of Singapore population. Details of the investigation were shared to explain that the arrests were not targeted at the Singapore Muslim community, or Islam. In schools and workplaces, inter-racial confidence circles were formed to promote better inter-racial and inter-religious understanding between the different racial and religious communities.
Islamic scholars and counselors in Singapore participated in the rehabilitation of the detained JI members, giving the Muslim community a role in the ideological front of Singapore’s counterterror efforts. Singapore’s housing and education policies continue to ensure that the Muslim community in Singapore is integrated with other communities in schools, housing estates and the workplace.
The Group Representation Constituency concept was introduced in 1988 to ensure minority representation in the Parliament of Singapore. In the Cabinet, Yaacob Ibrahim holds an office titled Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, who looks into issues pertaining to the Muslim community. This ensures that Muslim sentiments are heard at the highest level of government.
Gamal HP said,
February 16, 2009 at 12:38 am
Terrorism
1. There is no agreed definition of terrorism. The practical problem with defining terrorism is that one government’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. Indeed, it is possible to move person from terrorist to freedom fighter and even to head of government. Soekarno was a good example. Soekarno was regarded by Dutch as a terrorist and held in prison many times; finally he became Indonesian hero and the first president of Indonesia. Terrorism is partly designed to provoke a harsh response, mostly because of the lack of fairness and oppression by the government or community. But in general, terrorism is any act intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to non combatant with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an International organization to do or abstain from doing any act.
2. Target country policy. The lack of generally accepted definition could help explain the inconsistent pattern of government practice regarding terrorism. It could be argued, however, that the worst terrorist in this decade were Al Qaeda net work. Pakistan has been using the balance of force, soft power as well as hard power, the effective way to fight terrorism. First able, the government try to accommodate the aspiration of her people whatever they are, secondly, government raise the standard of living and the level of education so the people will not easily influence by certain groups, On the other hand, Pakistan have no excuse to Taliban that tried to make terrorism act, they used their armed forces strength to eliminate the movement of terrorist. However the government has to emphasize in preventing terrorism act by raising the welfare and building tight intelligence cooperation net work.
3. My experience negotiates with terrorist. I don’t have any experience dealing with terrorist but since I was a Military District Commander before, I do have some experiences to prevent terrorism act in my territory, Klaten. Klaten has been known as raced of Noordin M Top, the most danger terrorist founded in Indonesia. He was guessed to be there because the people of Klaten are very fanatic and some of militants’ movement was there. I had to anticipate the movement and influence of Noodin M Top in Klaten by intensively educated people not to be easy cheated by him through intensive Champaign and scattered intelligence net work. Beside this, I also made a lot of activity like fun bike race, murals, sports competition, various arts competition, etc, to keep people busy and as a bridge to communicate the danger of terrorism and the important of the unity of Indonesia and the spirit of nationalism. The result not only the stability but also the quality of achievement of the people in many circumstances has appeared. The key word is ‘seriousness’, if there is a will, there is a way. Sincere will assist you to accomplish any mission; God will help you through ungues way.
Col Gamal
Victor said,
February 16, 2009 at 1:22 am
Terrorism Profile – South Africa
When the events of September 2001 were taking place in the United States, South Africa was already recovering from an intense debate regarding its Anti-Terrorism Bill. In fact since 1996 the country has been trying to establish an anti-terrorism law.
Schönteich (2002) said that South Africa already has a number of laws dealing with internal security, developed in the apartheid era. The 1962 General Law Amendment Act criminalized sabotage to include tampering with any property. Detention laws were created through the 1960s, including the power of ‘preventing detention’ for up to 12 months at a time. This was geared towards individuals suspected of having committed or intending to commit sabotage or possessing information about such an offence. The Terrorist Act of 1967 created the crime of participating in terrorist activities, and allowed detention without a time limit.
He further added that, in 1996 the new South African legislature passed the Safety Matters Rationalization Act that repealed a number of the more problematic security statutes. A new policy was devised shortly thereafter that promotes a strategy that upholds the rule of law, does not resort to any form of general and indiscriminate repression; defends and upholds the freedom and security for all; and acknowledges and respects the country’s obligations to the international community. In 1998 the South African law Commission began reviewing South African security legislation.
The Anti-Terrorism 2000 bill was introduced to deal with urban terror problems in the Western Cape, involving repeated bombings. In 1999 the South African Police Service drafted an Anti-Terrorism Bill that was then submitted to the Law Commission for review, which then came forward with a draft Anti-Terrorism Bill in 2000. It implemented into law the idea of ‘terrorist acts’ and ‘terrorist organisations’. It then implemented powers to stop and search vehicles and person, detention for the purpose of interrogation of individuals suspected of withholding information.
The South African Human Rights Commission came out against the bill arguing that the definition of terrorism was ‘too wide’ and could be used against road blockades and trade union activities. The Human Rights Commission also argued that the law involved excessive powers and could infringe civil liberties. One of the most controversial powers in the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2000 was the detention clause, which allowed for detention without trial for up to 14 days.
The terrorist attacks in the U.S. were seen as an opportunity to make the bill into law. According to the Minister of Safety and Security, one of the larger problems with the state of South African law was the failure to acknowledge terrorism as a crime.
Munusamy (2001) argued that “While the world unites to condemn those dastardly acts in the United States, we have to skirt around the issue. We go around making promises to cooperate with everyone but as our law stands, we cannot deal with terrorism. We are the only country that refuses to look terrorism in the face as a unique crime.”
The Minister was insisting that the bill was required for South Africa to join the global fight against terrorism. If South Africa did not pass such a law, government ministers warned that the country would become a safe haven for international terrorists and fugitives.
The Law Commission revisited the situation in light of the terrorist attacks, as well as due to the renewed international focus on financing. The Commission also made use of “numerous precedents set by other countries which have passed legislation since September 11, 2001. In August 2002 South African Legislative released a review and a draft bill (in a 1000-page report, incorporating consultation and comparative studies), submitted to the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development.
The Commission argued that existing laws were inadequate or too narrow to combat terrorism effectively. Also, South African law needed to be made consistent with international conventions, while also providing for extra-territorial jurisdiction. But the Commission removed the ‘detention for interrogation’ power from the 2000 bill and opted instead for the Canadian model of investigative hearings, which the Commission argues “closely resemble the procedure contained in section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977 in order to obtain information from a person suspected of being in possession of information on terrorist acts.” A brief period of detention is possible but legal representation and bail may be granted.
The bill also copied directly from the Canadian Anti-Terrorism bill the definition of ‘terrorist activity’, that excludes activity “taken as a result of lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work.” This is despite the fact that the Canadian bill was changed to prevent its application against union activities and ‘unlawful’ protest. The Law Commission selected the earlier and more problematic language
Between 2003 and 2004 a number of organizations and experts came forward with their concerns regarding the proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill.
In June 2003, Business Day reported that veteran human rights lawyer George Bizos declared the bill vague and unconstitutional. He questioned why the draft bill had been changed after the Law Commission review of August 2002. The commission draft had given detailed definitions of what constituted an act of terrorism and a terrorist organization, by these had been changed, Bizos said.
The lawyer who spoke on behalf of the Legal Resources Centre questioned the procedures behind declaring an organization “a terrorist organization”. According to the bill, an organisation can be proscribed by the Minister, but organisations may then question that decision. The Centre argued that “[t]his effectively shifts the onus of the potentially proscribed organization and calls upon it to defend itself after it has effectively already been found guilty.”
According to the Mail & Guardian, the LRC argued: “Vagueness and ambiguity in legislation is an invitation for abuse.”
The South African national Editors’ Forum (Sanef) took the vagueness point even further by stating: “The danger with the legislation, as was the case with apartheid era security legislation, is that it is deliberately vague and ill-defined, making it an ideal instrument for selective application against perceived foes by the authorities of the day.”
At this same time, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) submitted its own comments on the draft bill. “If enacted in its current form the Bill is likely to make serious inroads into Constitutional rights and freedoms. The broad definition of what constitutes a “terrorist act” poses a serious threat to our hard won democracy, allowing for legitimate mass action by workers or other social movements at some time in the future to be demonised and categorised as ‘terrorist’. For example the bill defines any activity that might result in the “disruption of essential public services” as a ‘terrorist’ act. For unions in the public sector, this is a worryingly vague clause. Would the threatened wildcat strike in Johannesburg’s emergency services be classed as “terrorism”? Cosatu called for a parliamentary review and a review conducted by the South African Human Rights Commission.
There was also an increasing concern that the law included a clause that allowed detention without trial, ‘through the back door’. In the original bill there were provisions for detention without trial but that was removed by the Law Commission. And according to Business Day,“Justice Minister Penuell Maduna is on record as saying that SA’s history of detention without trial meant the new democratic order would never countenance provisions allowing its practice.”
But then during the hearings regarding the bill, the chairman of the Parliament’s justice committee told the committee that there was a little clause allowing detention without trial. A professor of international law at the University of SA concurred. “Special bail procedures apply that in effect bring back detention without trial through the back door, which is another instance of particularly devious legislative drafting, especially because a lot of media hype was created about the alleged dropping of detention without trial in the new bill.”
In this situation, the accused are required to provide exceptional circumstances for his or her release on bail. “The onus rests on the accused to prove a position rather than on the state to prove bail should be denied.”
Free speech concerns also arose. According to the South African Chapter of the Media Institute for Southern Africa (MISA-SA), “[Firstly], it’s unconstitutional; secondly, the definition of terrorism is extraordinarily broad. Anything you do in terms of demonstrations can be construed as an act of terrorism, and reporting on such an act could be construed as an act of terrorism according to the bill, because a reporter could be construed as aiding and abetting ‘a terrorist organization’.”
On the investigative hearings, the organization stated that they are “far-reaching in the powers they give the authorities to bring people before a hearing – journalists as well as ordinary citizens – [and compel them] to tell what they know about any ‘terrorist organization’. [Giving them the choice to either] comply or go to jail for two or more years”. “[A similar apartheid-era law] was used extensively by the apartheid regime against journalists [to compel them to reveal sources or go to jail], but this is worse. It is much more far-reaching, [and] there are fewer protections for journalists.”
They further added that “[The bill] will erode the confidential relationship between journalists and their sources, upon which the credibility of the media and security of journalists is maintained, by imposing a duty to supply information of ‘terrorist’ acts or ‘terrorist’ organizations, therefore eroding the media’s ability to fairly, safely and impartially provide coverage of political conflict in the public interest, in accordance with its constitutional responsibility.”
The Freedom of Expression Institute echoes these concerns, claiming that this was again modeled from the Canadian statute, without regard to the fact that this power was also modeled on Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which was used repeatedly against journalists in the past.
At the end of February 2004 the bill was temporarily set aside after strike threats from Cosatu.
South Africa’s Vice President on the discussion with Cosatu and Press stated that the important that measures have been taken with other countries to prevent the usage of fraudulently obtained South African official documents. Fraudsters who try to use such documents in other countries face certain arrest and prosecution in those countries. Justice Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) is also finalizing an overarching strategy on border control to prevent the entry of terror suspects into our country. And he added that our anti-terrorism bill is awaiting the signature of the President to be promulgated into law. This law will give more strength to our efforts of fighting terrorism.