The ghastly New Zealand mosque attack has once again brought to the fore the vulnerability of the state to terror activities. The lone wolf style of attacks are even more difficult to prevent. It usually requires a big state apparatus specifically dedicated towards the task of preventing terror attack. Not many countries can afford it, and very often, chances are it may be misused or abused, like the United States National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance scandal.
To put it in simple words, states are bound by the laws they help implement while terrorists do not have any such restrictions. It is an unequal match. For a terror actor the objective is to create fear and very often the objective is achieved whether they kill 2 or 200, the effect is the same.
New Zealand was considered relatively safe from terrorism but the motivation for the attacker was to dispel that notion. He travelled to the country with that specific objective. This only confirms the findings of a research published in 2015 stating that individuals actors will not shy away from traveling greater distances to prepare and execute terror attacks.
These types of attacks are easier to prepare for as it does not require bringing materials from outside neither does it involve planning with a group. The potency also lies with the unpredictability. They can occur at any place, at any time and have far reaching consequences.
ISIS inspired attacks have given rise to the right in Europe and the US. In 2017, Unite the Whites rally that took place in Charlottesville (US) is a stark reminder. At the rally Nazi flags were openly unfurled and racist chants reached a crescendo. At the same time, a peaceful protest in the same city against the far-right rally was targeted by an individual, who previously had supported neo-Nazi and white supremacist beliefs, by driving a car into the crowd. A everyday travel object like a car was weaponised.
Similarly, the mosque attacker claimed to have acted against the “invaders” (Muslim immigrants) in New Zealand. In his manifesto, he has spewed poison against the Muslim community. He has praised US President Donald Trump as “a symbol of renewed white identity.” The manifesto’s theme is a struggle between people of European descent and Muslims. Some of the names on his guns refers to military leaders who fought in the Crusades and against the Ottomans.
The attacker has achieved his objective, he has made people of New Zealand very insecure and disturbed the country’s social fabric. The attacker is on his way to becoming a hero to the white supremacists and that is the unfortunate truth of this incident.
However, there are a few questions that will remain unanswered. The first being, how can the state prepare to deal with such problems? Can we hold accountable those who inspire such people? What are the limits of free speech?
These questions may sound simple but their answers are very complex. Even though it is a time to mourn and empathise with the victims and their families, the governments across the globe need to go beyond and sit together in an attempt to
find answers.
