Chewing on the Wires; The Gap in Olympic Security?

It would be hard to deny that the military and security build up seen for the coming Olympic games does not provide a strong and determined image of deterrence for any would-be attacker or perpetrator of terrorist attacks. A frigate on the Thames, larger number of troops than currently in Afghanistan and batteries of Surface to Air missiles surrounding London; all contribute to a coherent and planned security effort. But is there a gap?

Theoretically this build up could be bypassed by extremely well planned and covert terrorism or a determined strike by a foreign aggressor, but realistically and thankfully this seems highly improbable. Defence Minister Philip Hammond MP has said that there is no specific threat and that the military will be in the background as 'ultimate reassurance'.

The gap then could be exposed in a much more mundane and frustrating way; low level disruptive acts carried out by those not wishing to kill or maim, but those wishing to damage credibility, cause disruption and generally hamper the success, image and idea of the games, host country and  the capitalist ideals that accompany the former.

The reports of threats from anarchist groups such as the Informal Anarchist Federation, wishing to cause low level warfare against the Olympic games points to the kind of threat in which little can be done in preparation for.

If we consider the disruption and problems caused by the theft of cable from rail infrastructure, an idea of some of the available tactics become apparent. To speculate even more, the options for a determined anarchist to cause low level damage, they need only find important cabling, electricity or communication points to damage and there would be a small but disrupting effect. If one casts their mind to any large transport, sports, leisure or shopping area it is easy to remember seeing points where an individual seeking to annoy and disrupt could cause problems.

The flip side of this consideration is that any low level disruption can be dealt with at a low level, quick repairs, contingency plans and fast responses are all tools in reacting to such disruptive tactics. Such a view however overlooks the main aim of such attacks; credibility and symbolism being damaged.

Consider for a moment the national and international grief, sympathy and response to a (highly unlikely) coordinated terrorist attack; similar sympathy would not be felt to repeated low level disruption that would hamper attendees, events and infrastructure. Such tactics would embarrass organisers, hack off spectators and further annoy Londoners who would be already combating congestion, crowds and delays.

I find the idea of a large terrorist attack highly unlikely to materialise and even less likely to succeed, yet the idea of groups undertaking disruptive acts are much more likely. These acts would probably only be defeated with quick responses and back up infrastructure. The efforts of those to annoy, hamper and disrupt may then highlight the only real 'gap' in Olympic security.

Predicting the Unpredictable

Though I am no fortune teller and am wary of anyone who tries to guess at future trends without lengthy research and analysis, it would be remiss of me at this early point of the year to not suggest a few areas of that may be of interest in the coming year of International Relations. These are not predictions; more issues which I believe will be key parts of the security agenda in 2012.

After the Spring...

2011 was dominated by the Arab spring, as millions around the world turned their eyes to the various revolutions which changed the Middle East. Libya was the most bloody of the struggles and surely 2012 will see a growing stream of stories of heroism, horror and thought provoking observations which will accompany the aftermath of the Gaddafi regime. Whilst Syria will dominate the headlines in the coming months, the countries which changed the Middle East will be ever present in renewed security assessments of the region. Will military dominated countries like Egypt allow a smooth transition of power to more democratic governance? Will the armed groups who toppled various regimes be content with the inevitable mistakes that will be made in the birth of democratic process? And what of those who will not be content under new governance, those who form the basis of the alternative security dialogue?

Pirates...

The alternative security dialogue forms the basis of another area that will surely still be a focus of security concern in 2012, the continued presence of pirate activity off Somalia, the ‘country’ that remains an example of an alternative security discourse; somewhere that creates its own idea of security in what western orthodox views would see as anarchy and chaos. Increased pressure on the region has seen a large UK, EU and US navy effort in combating piracy, yet hijackings and hostage taking continues to take place. These actions and this region will surely continue to be the focus of security issues throughout 2012, yet will this be a continuation of the status quo or a change in the way this region affects the world.

Security of Sport...

2012 has dominated the sporting agenda in Britain since the announcement of the 30^th Olympiad in London on July 6^th 2005, the day after the announcement, the attacks of 7/7 set the current security agenda of the UK. Though the two events are linked only by date, the celebration of one is still linked with the fear of the other. Though the security operation surrounding the Olympic Games is a massive one, with huge numbers of police and military personal involved, there is perfectly rational thought process which identifies the games as real target for terrorism. Historically the Munich Olympics shows an example of opportunities for terror, but the presence of London land marks, the tube and huge crowds, presents a target never before seen for current portrayers of terrorism. I am not being overly pessimistic, as I believe and hope that such a plot would not succeed, yet in our conscious to conceive such acts we raise other questions of how securitised do events like this and others have to become now and in the future?  Does our ability to think up deadly scenarios linked to both huge events at day to day lives point at a success by terrorists, the creation of fear? Furthermore how much security is justifiable, when is there too much or too little and is the only way of knowing this gained through an unthinkable failure?

Korea Change...

The Death of Kim Jong-il and ascendancy of Kim Jong-un will be further investigated throughout 2012. Will the relatively unknown leader seek to rule in a continuation of his father’s style, will North Korea change under his rule or is his position weaker than we think? The closed country offers little information to the outsider, yet as with any new regime or leader, there is a risky period following their assuming of office. If he has to prove himself as the country’s Supreme Leader, will he do this through a show of military force in the region or will his methods be more inward looking? Could it be possible that he is the puppet of more hard-line (or equally modernising) generals and figures who will use him as a front for their own actions? I feel it may be likely that we see more sabre rattling in the region, but at the least, the future of North Korea will undoubtedly be shaped by events and actions in the coming year.

UK Military...

After a year which saw the UK military be part of heartfelt number one Christmas number one, the future of the UK military will again be forming news and security commentators’ headlines in 2012. Has the social-military nexus reached its peak with pop music success, or is there more to be had out of the new status of the UK military? Will the new found fame undermine the service’s record of silent service or will those who oppose UK foreign policy and military deployment use this as ammunition? Job cuts will surely bring questions of the UKs future deployments and role to the forefront of debate as will any discussion on Scottish independence and their role in UK foreign policy. Needless to say 2012 as with many years previously will see active discussion of the UK military and its roles.

Doomsday...

Do not fear I have no intention of turning this post into an agreement of those who believe 2012 heralds the end of the known world. However it may be worth considering that there are those who believe this Mayan prediction and it is possible that these believers could bring security risks of their own. It is hard imagine the pre-9/11 world, but it should be remembered that leading up to 2000 there was a genuine fear and risk posed from millennial and apocalyptic cults. These cults where envisioned as posing a conventional, chemical, biological or even nuclear threat in the years leading up to the millennium. Famously Aum Shinrikyo were semi successful in their Tokyo Sarin nerve gas attack of 1995 and it was “with Aum Shinrikyo, the world probably came as close as it has to true nuclear terrorism”(1). Theirs, and other groups’ motives revolved around neo-religious or apocalyptic perceptions of the year 2000 and any possible actions would have not been constrained by the same restrictions that apply to terrorist organisations such as Al-Qaeda (regional aims, alienating support, constituents, future actions etc.) These groups failed to materialise into anything more than a threat and were ultimately overshadowed by events in 2001, yet in the late 1990s there was genuine analysis of these cults. If cults like this were going to experience resurgence it would have begun several years ago, but considering the amount of cults in the USA alone it is possible that some event or issue may arise in 2012. I do not suggest these is going to be a surge of cult activity in 2012 but it may be an area worth paying attention to, a wild card in the possible events and issues of 2012.

The Unexpected...

So what about everything else? There is bound to be some issue that reaches the security agenda in 2012 that nobody will predict. Could it be renewed tension round the Falklands? A super power re –affirming its place in the world? Or a completely new threat arising? No doubt some topic that none of us would suggest in the early days of 2012 will become a major talking point, and memorable feature of this year.

The above and many other issues will contribute to the security and conflict agenda, 2012 like the years that have precede it will have unique events and continuing developments, the key question is whether what transpires will be a predictable continuation of current trends, or the start of a new direction for global security?

(1 )FROST, R. 2005. Nuclear Terrorism after 9/11. Adelphi Papers. 45 (378).