|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Français | |
Contact Us | |
Help | |
Search | |
Canada Site |
|
|||||||||
|
About CSIS | |
Priorities | |
Publications | |
Newsroom | |
PSEPC |
|
|||||||||
|
Home | |
FAQ | |
A-Z Index | |
Site Map | |
Careers |
|
|||||||||
|
 |
|
 Print
View
|
|
|
Backgrounder No. 8Counter-TerrorismRevised August 2002
IntroductionFor more than half a century, terrorists have sought to bring about political change, along with other aims. During that period, the world’s democracies have had broad experience with the threat and realities of terrorists and learned much about the motivations, tactics, strategies and goals of a diverse range of terrorist organizations. Much has been learned about how to respond to the threat, as well. By their very nature, democracies are susceptible to terrorist activity. Openness, respect for individual rights and freedoms, and the rule of law rightly place limits on the ability of democratic societies to curb individual expressions of opinion - including potentially damaging acts through repression. Advanced technologies, improved communications and the ease of modern travel provide extremists with the tools and access to carry out violent acts. Viewed from the perspective of a potential terrorist, democratic states present attractive targets for aggression, precisely because their openness makes them vulnerable. The extraordinary geopolitical developments of the 1990s, which seemed to hold such promise, have created additional dangers for democratic governments around the world. Without the constraining discipline of superpower rivalry, many regions have become unstable owing to intense nationalist and related pressures. Internal conflicts with ethnic and religious dimensions are commonplace and will continue to produce instability, disruption and terrorism. In the past, Canadians could have been forgiven for believing that terrorism was something that happened to other people far away. While some Canadians have been victims of terrorist attacks - most notably in the 1985 bombing of an Air India flight from Toronto - , Canada, as a country, has not often been specifically targeted for attack. However, at 8:46 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time) on September 11, 2001, when the first of two aircraft crashed into the World Trade Center in New York, the rules changed fundamentally and, maybe, irrevocably. Not only were there a number of Canadians among the approximately 3,000 victims of the attack but, because of Canada’s solidarity with the United States in pursuing those responsible, our country - along with other western democracies - has now become a potential target for terrorist activity. In response to this unprecedented attack, western nations have enacted stringent anti-terrorist legislation, and joined the United States in carrying the fight against terrorism to Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden, the leader of the network held responsible for the September 11 attacks, was sheltered by the Taliban government. PART ITHE THREAT ENVIRONMENTCurrent SituationThe attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were two of the most significant events in history of escalating terrorist violence over the past decade. According to data published by the US State Department, there were 346 international terrorists attacks during the year 2001, including some 3,547 casualties; the highest annual death toll from terrorism ever recorded. Until the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, however, the figures for 1998 remain the highest on record. In that year, 741 were killed and 5,952 injured. Terrorist groups motivated by ethnicity or religion have become prominent actors in incidents of international terrorism in recent years, and they dominate high casualty incidents. Domestic terrorism continues in many countries and is often the product of political tensions involving some combination of territorial disputes, ethnic or religious conflict, or regime instability. In addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks, the following are examples of terrorist incidents which occurred during the past six years:
Trends in TerrorismTerrorism is not a phenomenon unique to the modern era. Viewed from a historical perspective, examples of terrorist behaviour abound. The Jewish Zealots conducted a campaign of terror against the Romans in the first century A.D.; a Shia Muslim sect known as the Hashshashin, which gave us the English word “assassin,” systematically murdered those in positions of leadership and influence in the eleventh century. Modern terrorism as we know it began in the early 1960s, with 1968 marking the beginning of international terrorist incidents. With the worldwide explosion of extremist groups and incidents in the 1970s, terrorism assumed a much higher profile in international media and, therefore, in the consciousness of people in countries that, to date, had not been directly touched by it. In our time, the use of serious violence continues to find practitioners within established terrorist organizations as well as in new and evolving groups. Enmities remain, like those in the Middle East, Turkey and the Punjab, as do associated terrorist groups, sponsors and international links. The growth of Islamic extremism, hostilities in the Balkans, conflicts a number of former Soviet republics, and turmoil in other areas represent some of the factors spawning recent terrorist threats. Since the early 1990s, secular terrorists have given way to religious nationalists attacking foreign citizens and the agents and symbols of secularism in their own country and, increasingly, taking their campaigns of violence abroad. Terrorism today is complex and fluid, with reduced emphasis on a formalized group structure typical of terrorist insurgents in the past. This is particularly true of Islamic extremist groups identified in the majority of incidents described above. Individual terrorists are now more security-conscious, better funded and more resourceful than in the past. Equally worrisome, they are also less predictable and less tied to one group. We have seen that they are not as hesitant as previously about forging alliances of convenience with other factions or even with rivals, in pursuit of world-wide terror. State sponsorship of terrorism persists, providing much-needed logistical support for terrorist groups. Terrorist training centres continue to exist in Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. Terrorist methods continue to become more sophisticated, both in the use of technology and in exploiting public opinion and media channels. Terrorists today are globally mobile and knowledgeable about communications technology, computers and explosives. In addition, they have contacts around the world. Their activities and targets are difficult to predict. The use of technology, more than ever a part of the terrorist arsenal, has been enhanced by encryption and the Internet to facilitate communications and reach a wider audience. As well, intense media interest has resulted in the diffusion of images of terrorism well beyond the sites of the attacks themselves, providing added exposure to their cause. In early March, 2002, the New York Times, citing unidentified government officials in the United States, reported that hints of Al Qaida’s regrouping in Pakistan came from intercepted e-mails and other Internet traffic. The growing dependence of states on computer-based communications and technologies is leading to a world in which future conflicts could involve activities in cyberspace and attacks on a state’s information infrastructure - now commonly referred to as information operations. Canada is concerned about its vulnerability to this threat because it relies heavily upon information technologies. Given that teenage hackers can compromise networks using basic skills and tools available on the Internet, the concern centres on what can be accomplished by terrorist groups or states possessing information far greater resources and motivation. We are already seeing indicators of the changing threat environment in this area. An IRA Web site openly discussed ways it could use information operations to attack British interests. In the summer of 1997, a group linked to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) claimed responsibility for an attack on the e-mail systems of the Sri Lankan embassy in Washington and its mission in New York. If a Web site is successfully hacked into, its data can be manipulated. For example, the CSIS Web site was hacked and a few words changed on the home page. On the World Wide Web, distance is not a factor. Canada’s geographic location in North America, far removed from most homeland conflicts, provides no protection against these types of attacks. We are as vulnerable as any other country and have more assets at risk than most. The technology of terrorism is becoming more accessible, but the gun and the bomb retain their favoured status in terrorist attacks. An emerging concern, however, is the possibility that weapons of mass destruction could be obtained or built by terrorist groups, including chemical and biological agents or nuclear weaponry. Terrorists have never had so many options to inflict death, injury and destruction on a large scale as they do today. In 1995, the Aum Shinrikyo religious cult attacked the Tokyo subway system, using sarin nerve gas, killing 12 and injuring 5,500. This attack was seen as the crossing of a threshold, opening the possibility that other terrorist groups may resort to attacks using weapons of mass destruction or may plan attacks to inflict maximum casualties. Intelligence suggests that leading terrorist groups have as yet been unable to create effective chemical or biological weapons. However, the threat of such weapons is already having a psychological impact. The heightened fear created by recent cases of anthrax sent by mail in the United States demonstrated that the panic that follows such a scenario is just as effective a weapon as the actual biological / chemical attack itself. Although ideologically driven terrorism has subsided, it is not a thing of the past; left-wing groups with a history of terrorism remain active in some countries. Right-wing extremism is also of concern, with its doctrine of race hatred and attempts to feed on economic dislocation and patterns of migration. The Current Canadian PictureTerrorism in Canada can be divided into roughly four categories: religious extremism, with various Sunni Islamic groups being the most serious threat at present; state-sponsored terrorism; secessionist violence, which encompasses Sikh extremism, and separatist movements in Sri Lanka, Turkey, Ireland and the Middle East; and domestic extremism, including some anti-abortion, animal rights, anti-globalization and environmental groups, a small but receptive audience for militia messages emanating from the United States, and white supremacists. The bombings, kidnappings and subsequent murder of Quebec Cabinet Minister Pierre Laporte by the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ) in the late 1960s and early 1970s represent the most violent period of domestic terrorism in Canada. However, during the 1980s, Canada was subject to a spillover of violence from conflicts abroad when Armenian and Sikh extremist groups carried out several terrorist operations on Canadian territory. A domestic left-wing extremist group (Direct Action) was implicated in a number of bombings in the early 1980s, but the perpetrators were arrested and sentenced to lengthy jail sentences, effectively ending the group’s existence. As well, the bombing of an Air India flight from Toronto in 1985, an act blamed on Sikh terrorists fighting for an independent homeland in India, resulted in 329 deaths. Most victims were Canadian. There have been fewer terrorist incidents on Canadian soil during the 1990s, but domestic and international extremist groups and their supporters remain active.
Canada continues to be affected by the spillover of violence from conflicts abroad. Some examples follow:
Countries where the incident and casualty totals from serious political violence run into the hundreds each year could envy Canada’s recent record. Certainly, there are historical reasons why Canada has not been as vulnerable as other countries. We are not a superpower, we are generally seen as a moderate country, and our political system has done better than most to absorb and accommodate difference. In addition, the intelligence, law enforcement and security communities work in close cooperation, which makes it more difficult for terrorists to operate in this country. Our borders are long and unique among developed countries - we have a common border with the United States, one of the world’s pre-eminent terrorist targets. Our openness and respect for human rights and freedoms make Canada an attractive place to live and do business, not just for the hundreds of thousands of legitimate immigrants who come here each year, but also for members of terrorist and criminal organizations. While the vast majority of immigrants and refugees have no greater priority than to be productive members of a peaceful and prosperous society, others slip through and are bent on using Canada as a base from which to support terrorist activities. With the possible exception of the United States, there are more international terrorist organizations active in Canada than anywhere in the world. This situation can be attributed to Canada’s proximity to the United States which currently is the principal target of terrorist groups operating internationally; and to the fact that Canada, a country built upon immigration, represents a microcosm of the world. It is therefore not surprising that the world’s extremist elements are represented here, along with peace-loving citizens. Terrorist groups are present here whose origins lie in regional, ethnic and nationalist conflicts, including the Israeli-Palestinian one, as well as those in Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Northern Ireland, the Punjab, Sri Lanka, Turkey and the former Yugoslavia. By way of example, the following terrorist or front groups acting on their behalf have or had supporters in Canada: Hizballah and other Shiite Islamic terrorist organizations; Hamas; the Egyptian Al Jihad and various other Sunni Islamic extremist groups from across the Middle East and Maghreb; the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA), the Tamil Tigers (LTTE), the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), and all the world’s major Sikh terrorist groups. Some supporters of the international Islamic Jihad cause are also present in Canada, with a few of them possibly linked to Al Qaida. Most terrorist activities in Canada are in support of actions elsewhere linked to homeland conflicts. These activities include providing a convenient base for terrorist supporters and may involve using the refugee stream to enter Canada, or immigrant smuggling. In recent years, terrorists from different international terrorist organizations have come to Canada posing as refugees. Other activities include:
PART IITHE RESPONSE
The Domestic SituationThe threat to public safety from international terrorism imported into Canada has long been a major concern for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Indeed, public safety has been and continues to be the Service’s number one priority. Prior to the events of September 11, Sunni Islamic extremism was already the lead investigation within CSIS’s Counter Terrorism program, and has been for a number of years. The events of September 11 did not change this focus; they only intensified existing investigations against Sunni extremists in Canada. To this end, the Service is committed to:
On the wider front, Canada, along with other Western democracies, introduced anti-terrorist legislation (Bill C-36). Canada’s Anti-terrorism Act created measures to deter, disable, identify, and prosecute those engaged in terrorist activities or supporting these activities. The intent of the legislation makes it an offence to knowingly support terrorist organizations, whether through overt violence, or by providing support through documentation, shelter or funds. One integral part of the Anti-terrorism Act requires the publication of a list of groups deemed to constitute a threat to the security of Canada and Canadians. International MeasuresCanada is an active participant in a variety of international fora established to fight terrorism. In August 1995, Canada participated in a conference on terrorism held in Buenos Aires, together with the United States, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Brazil and Chile. In December 1995, Ministers from the G-7 and Russia (G-8) countries attended a conference in Ottawa to discuss ways of combatting terrorism. The conference culminated in the Ottawa Declaration, a series of “guidelines for action” intended to increase international collaboration in combatting terrorism that committed member countries to:
In 1996, Canada reaffirmed its commitment toward greater cooperation between states in the fight against terrorism and participated in conferences on counter-terrorism in the Philippines in February, the Summit of the Peacemakers in Sharm El Sheik, Egypt, in March, and another G-7 and Russia (G-8) conference in Paris in July of that year. Canada was also a signatory to the United Nations action against terrorism, the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism Bombing Offences, opened for ratification beginning in 1998, and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted by the General Assembly in December, 1999. This is the most recent of 12 counter-terrorism conventions, and Canada was the first of the G-8 states to ratify the first ten. In addition, the passage of the Anti-terrorism Act provides concrete action by Canada in support of the United Nations Security Council resolution 1373, adopted by the Security Council on September 28, 2001, aimed at international terrorism. In future, persons knowingly providing support for terrorism, whether through overt support, or by providing funds, materiel or shelter, will be deemed criminals. The meeting of the G-7 in Quebec City in 2001 further underlined Canada’s commitment, with an agenda focused on national security. Meeting for the first time since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the leaders attending the June 2002 G-8 Summit in Kananaskis, Alberta discussed the many challenges of fighting terrorism. Canada confirmed its commitment to sustained and comprehensive actions to deny support or sanctuary to terrorists, to bring them to justice, and to reduce the threat of terrorist attacks. In addition, Canada and its G-8 partners agreed on a set of six non-proliferation principles aimed at preventing terrorists - or those who harbor them - from acquiring or developing nuclear, chemical, radiological and biological weapons, missiles, and related materials, equipment or technologies. The Role of CSIS
CSIS has a mandate to collect information in Canada and abroad, and to advise government about activities that may constitute a threat to the security of Canada. This includes anyone who advocates the use of violence to further political, religious or ideological objectives. In 1984, when CSIS was created, the ratio of operational resources devoted to the Service’s Counter- intelligence and Counter- terrorism programs was 80% to 20% in favour of Counter-intelligence. This ratio has now tilted substantially in favour of Counter-terrorism, making public safety - the protection of Canadian lives - the number one priority of CSIS. CSIS uses the full force of the Act that established its duties and functions, and has developed new techniques and approaches within its Counter-terrorism Program to help ensure that Canada does not become a focus of terrorist activity. The purpose of this program is as follows:
CSIS ProgramsThe primary responsibility of CSIS is to forewarn and advise, through the provision of accurate, relevant and timely information and analysis to government decision-makers. 1) Threat AssessmentsThe Service prepares and disseminates time-sensitive evaluations about the scope and immediacy of terrorist threats posed by individuals and groups in Canada and abroad. Assessments are made of threats against Canadian VIPs travelling in Canada and abroad, foreign VIPs visiting Canada, foreign missions and personnel in Canada, Canadian interests abroad, public safety and transportation security, and special events such as the G-8 meeting in Kananaskis, Alberta, in June 2002. During 2001, the Threat Assessment Unit in the Counter-terrorism Branch produced 544 threat assessments. In the past five years, CSIS has provided the government with comprehensive threat assessments relating to special events such as the Pan-American Games in Winnipeg, the Francophonie Summit in Moncton and the trade Ministers of the Americas Meeting in Toronto, all during 1999, the Commonwealth Finance Ministers Meeting in Ottawa in 1998, the Commonwealth Games in Kuala Lumpur in 1998, the Asia-Pacific Economic Conference in Vancouver in 1997, the Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta in 1996, and the June 2002, G-8 meeting in Kananaskis, Alberta. 2) Community InterviewsThe Service conducts interviews within communities to assess the likelihood of violence taking place in response to international political developments. The interviews provide community members with a forum to make their concerns and opinions known, to assist CSIS in determining whether there are threats to particular communities, and to sensitize them to the role and mandate of CSIS. 3) Security ScreeningUnder its Government Screening program, the Service provides a legislated security screening service to various government institutions in accordance with guidelines set up in the government’s Security Policy. Clearances may be needed for public sector employees, whose numbers may increase as more staff are hired to meet Canada’s enhanced security response, or for private sector contractors. CSIS performs this function for all federal departments and government institutions, except the RCMP. In future, it is possible that CSIS will be asked to provide the same service to provincial governments. In response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, Canada gave greater powers and resources to the CSIS Security Screening process. Bill C-11, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, provides for front-end screening intended for Citizenship and Immigration those in the refugee stream who may be security risks and allow for their early removal from Canada. In addition, the legislation strengthened Canada’s ability to detect and refuse entry to suspected terrorists by:
CSIS also assists Citizenship and Immigration Canada by participating in the process of screening Canadian visitor visa applicants and prospective immigrants. The first line of defence against terrorism is to prevent terrorists from entering Canada. CSIS maintains liaison offices in a number of Canadian missions abroad. Applicants and prospective immigrants whose background presents security concerns are subject to more in-depth examinations. During 2001, the Service reviewed a total of 233,206 applications (69,448 immigration cases; 163,858 citizenship applications) from Citizenship and Immigration Canada, over three times as many as five years ago.
4) Assistance to EnforcementCSIS provides input to the Enforcement Information Index, an automated system administered by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, that acts to alert Immigration and Customs officers abroad and at ports of entry about the threat to national security posed by suspected and known terrorists seeking admission to Canada. CSIS information enables Canadian immigration officials to refuse applications from individuals suspected of involvement in terrorist activity, effectively barring their entry to Canada. Despite efforts made to identify and intercept suspected terrorists, a limited number still manage to enter this country. In recent years, terrorists from different groups have come to Canada posing as refugees - a partial listing includes members of the Tamil Tigers, the Islamic extremist group Hizballah, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, the Palestinian Force 17, the Iranian intelligence Service and supporters associated with the Al Qaida network. CSIS continues to take the initiative to launch formal judicial proceedings, in cooperation with Canadian Immigration authorities, to have removed from Canada persons found inadmissible on national security grounds. Security certificates are issued jointly by the Solicitor General and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and reviewed by the Federal Court, after which terrorists may be deported. The assessment is a lengthy process, leading many who are under investigation to leave voluntarily instead of waiting to be deported. Since 1992, 18 security certificates have been upheld by the courts - resulting in the deportation of 14 terrorists. Each case was carefully selected because the person was deemed a major threat. It is indicative of both the potential threat this country now faces and the success of the joint efforts by the intelligence and enforcement communities that prior to 1992, no such deportations took place. Ongoing exchanges of information between government departments and agencies in Canada are of prime importance in fighting terrorism. Owing to its violent underworld nature, terrorism is frequently tied to other criminal activity. In the course of its investigations, CSIS often obtains ancillary information regarding criminal matters, which is turned over to law enforcement agencies. Extensive and timely liaison with the RCMP and other police authorities has helped to apprehend criminals. 5) Liaison and CooperationCooperation and coordination are essential in managing terrorist threats or incidents. In this regard, CSIS works closely with other government departments and agencies at the federal, provincial and municipal levels, including law enforcement. The prime example of this integration and coordination can be found in the National Counter-terrorism Plan (NCTP), which provides for a central coordination of Canada’s Counter-terrorism Program in connection with threats or incidents. CSIS, along with more than a dozen departments and agencies of government, has a role to play under the NCTP. With respect to terrorist incidents occurring within RCMP jurisdiction, it would respond to the incident in accordance with its operational response plan and the NCTP. As recently as 1995, CSIS provided 60 briefings to law enforcement and other agencies. By 2001, CSIS had delivered over 800 briefings to a variety of communities including law enforcement and security intelligence, academia, various government departments and institutions, and the public at large. International cooperation enables CSIS to be in a better position to analyze global terrorist trends and incidents which may or do affect Canada. In the era of globalization, isolation is not an option for the intelligence service of a democratic country, but rather a recipe for failure. CSIS has long-standing and extremely close relationships for exchanging information with its traditional allies and has established cooperative dialogues with countries in, for example, North Africa and the Middle East, South Africa and South America. Currently, the Service has some 250 cooperative relationships with more than 125 countries and is, as a result, in the unique position of having access to information which might not be otherwise available to other departments and agencies of the Canadian intelligence community. 6) Advice to GovernmentOne of the primary values of intelligence-gathering is the timely delivery of accurate and relevant information to policy-makers. The Service produces reports, studies and briefs on specific issues, including issues relating to public safety. The Service’s analysis occurs at two levels: operational and strategic. Operational analysis combines intelligence gathered by the Service with information from other sources, including government agencies and other intelligence services. The result is a finished evaluation which lends context to, and weighs the significance of, the original raw information. Strategic analysis aims to develop comprehensive, policy-relevant intelligence assessments. The intelligence assessments appear either as stand-alone documents, produced by the Research, Analysis and Production Branch, or in conjunction with assessments from other agencies in Canada’s intelligence community. These latter documents are published collectively by the Intelligence Advisory Committee, an interdepartmental committee under the auspices of the Privy Council Office.
|
|
|
||
|
Date modified: 2005-11-14 |
|
|
|
