Sunday 18 May 2014

Beef up security for major sports events

By Sulastri Osman And Joseph Franco, Published The Straits Times, 17 May 2014

SINGAPORE'S aspiration to be a key centre for international sporting events reaches new heights with the scheduled opening of the $1.3 billion Sports Hub in June.

Billed as a premier sports, entertainment and lifestyle destination located at the Kallang waterfront, the Sports Hub is a 33ha-complex comprising venues such as the new 55,000-seat National Stadium, the 13,000-seat Singapore Indoor Stadium, and the 6,000-seat Aquatic Centre.

Major sports meets such as the SEA Swimming Championships and the Rugby World Club 10s are set to kick off, and with community sporting facilities also onsite, the Hub will see activities all year round.

Such a collection of sports venues also attracts the attention of non-sporting groups.

The 12th issue of Inspire, a publication of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), carried instructions on how to construct a car bomb that will cause maximum damage in "places flooded with individuals".

The magazine has gained notoriety for encouraging the use of violence and disseminating the know-how of planning attacks and assembling improvised explosives - in essence, providing the capability to complement the violent motivations it espouses.

Listed specifically as targets for attacks are upcoming sporting events such as the US Open tennis tournament, the FA Cup and English Premier League football matches in Britain, and the League Cup in France.

While it is untenable to make a claim that Inspire articles translate into attacks, dismissing the magazine as irrelevant is also imprudent.

It was revealed during the trial of Dzokhar Tsarnaev, the lone surviving suspect of the Boston Marathon bombings, that the Tsarnaev brothers had learnt to construct their improvised explosive devices from the first issue of Inspire.

Their pressure cooker bombs were similar to the device described in the article titled: "Make A Bomb In The Kitchen Of Your Mom".

Terrorism as spectacle

SUCH targeting of sporting events is not new.

In South Asia, the Sri Lankan cricket team was attacked near a stadium in Pakistan in 2009, and in 2008, a bomb went off at the starting point of an annual marathon in Sri Lanka.

Closer to Singapore, bombs exploded outside a stadium in Aceh during a football game in 2001.

Sporting events are essentially "soft targets"; they are intrinsically hard to secure given the large number of spectators and participants at a venue.

For those with ill intentions, such a dense crowd will yield more casualties with relatively simple weapons.

Moreover, there is lower risk of pre-attack detection and greater chances of post-attack evasion amidst a panicking crowd.

That said, a more potent reason behind choosing to target sporting events is that such events provide terrorists with a captive audience for their violent spectacle.

Terrorism is, after all, an act of political signalling - of affecting social behaviour and government policies through the deliberate targeting of civilians. Attackers may claim that the attacks are an end in themselves to wear down the capabilities of security forces.

Such tactical goals, though, serve the strategy of projecting an image of strength and undermining confidence in the authorities.

Hardening potential targets

THE traditional response of governments and security authorities is to "harden" potential targets: installing physical barriers and surveillance equipment, limiting access to sporting sites, and deploying security forces.

This was evident in the run-up to the highly tense 2014 Winter Olympics at Sochi, with the Russian authorities repeatedly pledging to boost security, only to be met with repeated threats from Chechen militant groups to disrupt the Games.

Six weeks before the opening ceremony, two successive suicide bombings in the Russian city of Volgograd - adjacent to the restive North Caucasus region - demonstrated the resolve and capability of militants to strike close to the Games.

Sochi 2014, fortunately, passed without incident, but also not without a costly "ring of steel" security clampdown.

Overt security measures appeared to validate the traditional approach to hardening targets.

Yet the Russian case is hardly the best example. For one, ongoing military engagement in neighbouring restive regions where rebel forces were concentrated needed to be sustained.

Following the Russian context, one would still need to deploy thousands of special operations, intelligence and local law enforcement units.

Such measures could not be more disruptive and are hardly sustainable over extended periods of time.

Constraining the movement of people and a heightened state of anxiety are also inimical to the spirit of the Olympics.

Accordingly, a key lesson is this: As much as terrorism is a form of signalling, so is counterterrorism.

A growing body of research, as exemplified by a study from the University of Sydney, has revealed how in some cases, hardening public venues can paradoxically lead to more insecurity.

On one hand, defending conspicuous targets can result in potential attackers seeking more accessible and possibly numerous other targets.

On the other hand, a hardened target can also prompt attackers to seek deadlier attack methods.

Separate research has shed light on the correlation between the increased hardness of targets and the likelihood of suicide bomb attacks.

Simply put, signalling that a target is worth defending makes it more attractive to attackers.

Strong but subtle security

IN ASPIRING to be a world-class sporting destination, Singapore can balance security with preparedness. Risk mitigation, for instance, can come in the form of physical infrastructure security. Blast-resistant glass and shrapnel-preventing structures are becoming construction staples incorporated early in the design process of new venues and facilities. There is policymaking and industry consensus that embedding security right into the physical infrastructure is less costly than when security is introduced as an afterthought.

Secure buildings and smart security designs reduce the need for overt displays of security presence at sporting events. This, in turn, reduces the perceived attractiveness of a target to potential attackers.

Sound infrastructure alone cannot offer security. This is why existing programmes such as the Security Watch Group (SWG) Scheme, which is a collaborative effort between the police and the commercial sector to tactically harden their premises against potential attacks, must continue to be enhanced.

In addition, robust but lower-profile initiatives, such as the Singapore Maritime Crisis Centre, encourage information-sharing among relevant stakeholders in the maritime community with various agencies responsible for national security.

These provide the foundation for early disruption of terrorist plots. Joint public exercises, such as Northstar VIII (2011), Heartbeat (2013), and High Crest (2013), on the other hand help stress-test existing protocols in responding to terrorist incidents.

The opening of the Sports Hub and the ever-increasing attraction of Singapore as a popular sporting venue necessitate the balancing of appropriate measures to prepare for and respond to potential threats. Examples from overseas affirm the quiet effectiveness of strong but subtle security.

Sulastri Osman is Research Fellow, and Joseph Franco, Associate Research Fellow with the Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS), at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. This commentary is a research collaboration between CENS and the National Maritime Sense-Making Group (NMSG), a component of the Singapore Maritime Crisis Centre (SMCC).

No comments:

Post a Comment