The manhunt for Anis Amri, which ended in a shootout in Milan, closes another chapter in Europe’s struggle against terrorism, but it also highlights the difficulties of protecting large democracies against resolute combatants like IS. Prior to his horrific assault on the Berlin winter market, Amri served time in Italian jails (he was moved around because of ‘bad behaviour’, according to the Italian Justice Ministry) and his propensity for violence was well known. He should have been deported to Tunisia on more than one occasion but was spared because they could not be sure he was Tunisian.
When he moved to Germany he was monitored by the intelligence agencies, but the surveillance ended a few weeks ago, after he moved to Berlin – apparently because of a lack of coordination within Germany’s security establishment. His application for asylum was denied, and he was due to be deported, but proceedings were delayed because his identity could not be established.
The German public reacted to the killings in Berlin and the subsequent wave of false news and speculation – initially a Pakistani refugee claimant was held, mistakenly, close to the scene of the attack – with impressive restraint. Chancellor Merkel praised the “level-headed” response but would have been well aware of the political pressure she now faces to take a harder line on refugees and asylum seekers, especially in the run-up to elections next September. Mean-while, the US president-elect treated the attack as vindication of his attitudes towards Muslims, even as the current President scrambled to dismantle a Bush-era intelligence gathering programme that would allow the Trump administration to establish a “Muslim registry”.
Terrorism cannot achieve its larger goals unless it provokes overreactions. The September 2001 attacks on America cost al-Qaeda about one million dollars to prepare, but they goaded the US into two multi-trillion dollar military campaigns which have caused enormous strategic and political complications and frustrations, ever since. Mindful of his predecessor’s misjudgements, President Obama kept the US at arm’s length from the civil war in Syria, despite excruciating pressure to engage. His tragic view of foreign policy accepted that sometimes there are no good solutions to a proxy war with multiple actors – each with diverging interests. His caution cost Obama dearly, and the resulting human catastrophe may completely overshadow his legacy, but it did keep the US out of another potentially disastrous Middle Eastern conflict.
How long the US can remain detached from similar turmoil under the leadership of its incoming president is a trillion dollar question that will likely induce groups like IS to risk further provocations. Two months ago the head of Britain’s MI5 told the Guardian that: “There will be terrorist attacks in this country.” US intelligence has almost certainly reached similar conclusions. What matters then is how intelligently the targeted nation responds. Both Germany and France have withstood savage attacks with great maturity; it remains to be seen if other countries can follow their lead.
Aside from a military overreaction, democracies must withstand the temptation to curtail fundamental freedoms when confronting terrorism. There is always the urge to dispense with citizens’ privacy, to detain suspects without due process, or to mistreat them once in custody. Here the post 9/11 record is generally discouraging, not only within the US but also among its “Five Eyes” allies who willingly collaborated on mass surveillance of their populations. As a result of this overreach, in less than a month the Trump administration will inherit a national security apparatus with the power to undermine some of America’s key constitutional freedoms.
One indication of how the new president might wield these powers could be the fact that the first world leader he spoke to after winning the election was Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, the leader of Egypt’s military coup. If that, and the many compliments that Trump has paid to President Putin are anything to go by, the next four years may prove to be a gradual reckoning with the true cost of compromising democracy in order to fight terrorism.
