The Views of Canadian Scholars on the Impact of the Anti-Terrorism Act

8. JAMES STRIBOPOULOS Faculty of Law, University of Alberta (continued)

8.2 What emerging trends in terrorism do you foresee and what threats do they pose to Canada? In discussing these trends and threats, please describe what you consider terrorism to be.

For the purposes of my response I will accept the definition of “ terrorist activity ” now found in s. 83.01(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. By design, terrorism defies categorization and prediction. The very object of the enterprise is surprise. To employ varied tactics, to use unexpected operatives, to select disparate targets and geographic locations. All of that said, the one discernible trend that seems to have emerged since September 11 is to strike so-called “ soft ” targets. Crashing passenger planes into the World Trade Centre Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania in September 2001, bombing a nightclub in Bali in October 2002, bombing the English consulate, a bank, and two synagogues in Istanbul in November 2003, a series of bombings in the Philippines in 2002 (many directed at shopping malls).

In light of their goals, the decision of terrorists to focus their efforts on civilian targets is understandable. If your object is to instil fear in a population, the uncertainty created by the sheer randomness of a terrorist attack assists in realizing this end. It is the prospect that terrorists could strike anywhere, at anytime, and against anybody, that makes the threat they pose so terrifying. If terrorists were to restrict their attacks to government targets, the psychological impact on the population would be diminished. In addition, a government target normally carries with it increased risks, given a greater likelihood of security measures and personnel. In contrast, a civilian target is almost always entirely free of any danger of detection and armed resistance. In addition, many non-governmental targets, like office buildings, nightclubs, and shopping centres, carry with them the added incentive of a very high number of potential victims concentrated in one location.

Undoubtedly, like any other nation, Canada is not immune from the threat of terrorism. The Air India bombing taught us that difficult lesson long ago. Today, it should not be forgotten that Canada, like many American allies, is amongst the nations specifically threatened by Osama bin Laden on the tapes that he has purportedly recorded and released since September 11 (See Peter Cheney, “ Terrorist Tapes Name Canada ”, Globe and Mail, July 15, 2002). As a result, it would be naive to ignore the danger that terrorists might choose to attack Canadian targets abroad, or even here at home. It would seem, however, that the threat is probably greatest abroad. I say this because I believe that if terrorists actually manage to make their way to Canada, their preference, assuming that they are able to cross the border, would in all likelihood be an American target. I think the case of Ahmed Ressam, the so-called “Millennium Bomber”, best illustrates this point. As a result, I think Canada's vulnerability is greatest overseas. If terrorists ultimately become focussed on harming Canada, I suspect that one of our embassies or consulates will prove the preferred target.

All of that said, if our experience with terrorism over the last two-and-one-half years has taught us anything, it is that the behaviour of terrorists cannot be accurately predicted. The bitter lesson of September 11 is that terrorists are capable of great ingenuity in conceiving of ways by which to destroy us. Prior to the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the idea of crashing commercial airliners into buildings was completely unimaginable, even to those writing Hollywood screenplays. The larger lesson from this experience is that we should expect to be shocked again in future, to see attacks that are entirely unprecedented in both their method and their target. As we go forward, there is very little about terrorism that we can meaningfully predict, other than that we are destined to see more of it in future. As Hannah Arendt noted:

It is in the very nature of things human that every act that has once made its appearance and has been recorded in history of mankind stays with mankind as a potentially long after its actuality has become a thing of the past. No punishment has ever possessed enough power of deterrence to prevent the commission of crimes. On the contrary, whatever the punishment, once a specific crime has appeared for the first time, its reappearance is more likely than its initial emergence could ever have been (Hannah Arendt, Eichman in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (Markham: Penguin Books, 1977) at 273).

8.3 How should our country respond to these trends and threats? Please feel free to include measures at any level, such as social, economic, political, or legal or a combination of these levels.

The trend in terrorism toward striking “ soft ” targets increases our vulnerability, and makes our potential exposure so vast that it is nearly impossible to talk of reducing the threat without also directly addressing its causes. There is, however, very little consensus on what in fact causes terrorism, and therefore how to go about stopping it.

In one camp, for example, are people like Alan Dershowitz, who see terrorism as a rational, goal-seeking behaviour. In Dershowitz's view, terrorism has worked because we in the West have encouraged it. In order for terrorism to be eradicated, he claims that we must change how we respond to it. He argues that we need to adjust our international and domestic policies and practices. Principally, we must stop rewarding terrorism and ensure that it carries significant disincentives. In effect, he argues that a disciplined and unrelenting zero tolerance approach, if employed consistently over time, will serve to deter and eventually eradicate terrorism. (See Alan Dershowitz, Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002)). In effect, Dershowitz offers us an approach that promises continued confrontation, with a promise of some distant final victory. Since September 11, the United States has committed itself to this war-paradigm in dealing with the threat of terrorism.

A competing perspective comes from those who speak of the “ root ” causes of terrorism. This camp argues that understanding what causes of terrorism requires coming to terms with the larger implications of globalization. Most importantly, the increased polarization between the developed and the developing world. On this view, terrorism can be traced back to the economic and cultural alienation of developing nations that have been left behind by the globalization movement. This is the environment in which extremism will take root, gain momentum, and in time, transform into terrorist activity. This view of terrorism is controversial in the West, especially in North America. For example, when former Prime Minister Chrétien made the connection between terrorism and global disparities in wealth during an interview, he was strongly criticized both in Canada and the United States for blaming the victim (See S. McCarthy, “ Fox Hounds P.M. Over Remarks ”, Globe and Mail, September 13, 2002; T. Nichols, “ Chrétien's State of Denial Is Dangerous ” National Post, September 25, 2002; R. Fife, “ Chrétien Soft on Terrorism, Wall Street Journal Readers Told ”, National Post, September 27, 2002).

Sound observations about terrorism have been made by those in both camps. As is often the case in life, the truth would seem to be somewhere between the extremes of both perspectives. As Professor Toope has perceptively noted,

… I do not subscribe to a facile 'root causes' argument that would seek to 'explain' terrorism with reference to the various good reasons that diverse people have to feel angry and frustrated. Terrorism is wholly immoral and unjustifiable. My point is rather that there are many reasons for various people around the globe to hate some of what America and its Western allies stand for. We must somehow come to understand the sources of that hate, and not to dismiss it as 'envy' or 'fundamentalism' or any other neat label. Part of our security lies in our understanding of the threat we face, a threat that we have sometimes fed through the heaping on of bitter grievance (Stephen J. Toope, “ Fallout From '9-11': Will a Security Culture Undermine Human Right? ” (2002) 65 Sask. L. Rev. 281 at 293-94).

In this light, the best approach for Canada would seem to involve a combination of efforts. On an international level, we should be working towards reforming institutions that serve to aggravate the disparities that fuel the alienation that feeds terrorism. To be effective, this will require reforming the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, supporting debt relief, and increased aid to countries in the developing world. In addition, we must continue to support the international legal order, and work consistently at counselling the United States against unilateral action. The global war on terrorism must be completely reconsidered, in light of the lessons learned in Iraq. If we want to reduce the risk posed by terrorism, we will have to transform the current war of arms into a war of minds.

In the interim, we must also take steps to minimize the threat posed by terrorism, appreciating always that we can never truly eliminate it. On an international level, remaining vigilant about security at our embassies and consulates would seem sensible. And, despite the fact that the dangers are not as great on a domestic level, there are important steps that we can take at home to reduce the potential impact of a terrorist attack should it occur. Unlike largely symbolic legislative efforts, real protection will require a significant and sustained dedication of resources. We must invest heavily in those key aspects of our infrastructure that are integral to the protection of human life. A number of examples spring to mind. Given the obvious implications of a nuclear disaster (think of Chernobyl), no effort or expense should be spared in safeguarding our nuclear power plants. Similarly, as the Walkerton disaster demonstrates, contamination of our water supply, especially in a large urban area, could exact a considerable toll in lost lives. As a result, we must also invest in safeguarding our water purification facilities. This requires more than just securing facilities; it means that we must also ensure that adequate resources are dedicated to protecting the integrity of water purification and testing procedures. Finally, as our recent experience with SARS demonstrates, we require federal oversight over a national infectious diseases policy. We must invest in our health care system, to ensure that there are adequate facilities, and trained health care professionals, to effectively contain any infectious disease outbreak that terrorists might one day unleash on us.