How do the UK and US compare?
The UK’s revised Counter Terrorism Strategy (CONTEST) was published in June 2018.
The importance of working closely with the private sector, including the insurance sector, in counter-terrorism was highlighted as a theme across the four pillars, and Pool Re was recognised as an excellent example of how Government and industry can work together to mitigate the effects of a terrorist attack in the UK.
CONTEST was first published in 2003 to reduce the risk to the UK and its interests overseas from terrorism, so that people can go about their lives freely and with confidence. Sixteen years after the original report, Pool Re asked Sir David Omand, who was instrumental in developing the original strategy, for his thoughts on the success of the strategy and its latest edition.
As well as working closely with the private sector, the UK has deep ties with its allies in counter-terrorism. To compare the approaches of UK and USA counter-terrorism strategies, Pool Re has compared Sir David’s thoughts with those of Ali Soufan, a former FBI agent and CEO of The Soufan Group, including on the US’s counter-terrorism strategy.
UK | Sir David Omand
Q. What are your thoughts, 16 years after the original CONTEST, on the 2018 revised strategy?
Looking back, I am very glad to see the strategic continuity between then and now, with the same underlying strategic aim of maintaining normality in domestic society in the face of a continuing terrorist threat. During the 16-year duration of CONTEST we have already seen four Prime Ministers of different political persuasions embrace it, and no less than eight Home Secretaries and seven Foreign Secretaries. You cannot have effective strategy at national level that changes with each change of political personality. Sometimes major changes of direction in public policy are called for, that is the direct product of our democratic system of government. But there is a price to be paid for the discontinuity of effort whilst the efforts of the very many organisations involved in any major public policy are reoriented to the new direction of travel. That has not happened with counter-terrorism and we are all safer as a result.
What has ensured the continuity of approach, which is essential, is the strategic logic of CONTEST. Of course there have been course corrections along the way, and shifts of emphasis not least as the threat has mutated under pressure from the security forces. But the underlying aim has not wavered, and that makes it much easier to generate an “all of nation” effort and to garner support from all the communities affected by terrorism.
The CONTEST strategic aim of reducing the risk from terrorism so that people can go about their lives, freely and with confidence, in other words to maintain conditions of normality is certainly still right. The new version of CONTEST, however, sensibly widens the definition of threat to include the extreme right. The important qualifiers of the strategic aim, freely and with confidence, are also still there (freely meaning that the citizen has not had to give up essential freedoms and individual rights to achieve the objective; with confidence meaning that the citizen trusts the authorities to manage the risk, aviation and public transport including the London underground are used, tourists still visit the UK, there is inward investment, the public is not in fear of the terrorist).
The operationalization of the aim through keeping the 4Ps, Pursue, Prevent, Protect and Prepare is sensible since that connects implementation of the strategy directly to the well-understood original risk management logic of CONTEST. The risk from terrorist attack is the product of likelihood, by vulnerability, by initial impact if the terrorists get through our defences, and the duration of any period of disruption the attack causes. Each of those factors can be influenced by government, the private sector and the public working together thus reducing the overall risk. Of course, the detailed measures under each P will change as programmes are completed and new needs arise, as we see with the latest work on Prevent.