Audrey Kurth Cronin. Photo Credit: Audrey Kurth Cronin/Twitter.
In March, Audrey Kurth Cronin, professor of international security in the School of International Service at American University, sat down for an interview with Emily Traynor Mayrand and Alistair Somerville from The Europe Desk podcast at Georgetown’s BMW Center for German and European Studies. She is an expert on counterterrorism and emerging technologies and is one of only a few people to write on the intersection between these two topics. She discussed how the transatlantic alliance is responding to trends in these areas, as well as the potential threats and opportunities that emerging technologies pose going forward.
Featured here is a lightly edited section of their conversation with Audrey Kurth Cronin.
Emily Traynor Mayrand:
How are EU and American approaches to counterterrorism similar, and how do they differ?
Audrey Kurth Cronin:
Emily, that is a very big question because you’re talking about hugely different histories, institutions… different approaches. So I’ll go through each of those separately. The histories: The United States has some experience with terrorism, but much less when it comes to terrorism on the homeland. Many of the primary countries, especially Germany, France, the UK and so forth, have very deep experiences with counter-terrorism and a long history, particularly in counter-terrorism and various kinds of other actions taken by people who come from countries where they were colonial powers. So, there’s a very different experience in both the populations and also in the broader histories of the governments. Their institutions are quite different. The United States has more freedom for federal power, much more ability, particularly after September 11th, to focus upon federal measures. The EU is much more diverse. They tend to be far more focused upon member states, particularly when it comes to national security, because national security is still reserved to each of the governments, which means that you can have a lot of bilateral relationships. You can have a lack of ability to work together because they don’t have those kinds of authorities, that oftentimes the United States is able to draw upon. And then the last thing I would point to is that the United States has a very strong tendency to emphasize military responses. This is partly cultural and partly historical in the US but culturally […] we tend to go first for the military sort of response, whereas the EU tends to be much more focused upon softer tools like economic measures, judicial measures, social changes, cultural changes, countering violent extremists programs, deradicalization programs. Many of those exist in the United States, but we don’t go there first. So, those are three big areas where we differ. Now there are areas where we are the same though. And one is that we’re both faced with the threat of Islamic jihadist extremism and we’re both seeing the rise of right-wing terrorism and those two things, among other things, draw us together.
ETM:
What is the current state of transatlantic cooperation on counter terrorism?
AKC:
Tactically, the cooperation is quite good. So, in terms of terrorist screening lists and terrorist financing, efforts to cooperate against trafficking is kind of US-EU agency connections and police cooperation; those things are quite good. But with respect to the broader strategic challenges here, I see a lot of difficulty and friction. When you look at the big challenges with respect to EU, the EU on counter terrorism, the first one of courses I would say is the return of Iraqi Syrian refugees and jihadist extremists and a whole picture of Islamist extremist threat that we’ve seen quite a bit of since about 2015 in the European countries. Secondly, would be Afghanistan, exactly what the nature of the agreement will be there and what that will mean in terms of the development of a future Islamist threat. But then also the rise of far right-terrorism and for radical extremism throughout Europe, the Brexit-Northern Ireland question. And now we’re faced with retrenchment as a result of the coronavirus. So, we’re going in a whole new direction, in a whole potentially concerning direction with respect to thinking about future bio threats. And I would add all of that to the new and emerging technology threats.
ETM:
What does Brexit mean for EU security? Is it going to make the EU more or less secure? It’s losing a direct connection to a Five Eyes country, is that going to have an impact?
AKC:
I think that’s a big concern. I don’t know because these things are still unfolding. But that’s one of the key reasons why I think Brexit was a serious challenge for the UK and also for the EU.
Alistair Somerville:
Zooming back out a little bit, whether it’s counterterrorism, whether it’s on emerging technologies, where will the UK fit into that picture? Do you think, in terms of transatlantic relations, whether the UK might fall by the wayside a little bit as a result of where things are going?
AKC:
Right now, I just happened to be in the middle of […] a biography written by Jack Copeland on Turing, Alan Turing. So, if you look at the history of the development of our information age and the emergence out of code breaking the Second World War into, most of the technologies that we’re dealing with today were developed in the 1950, 60s, 70s. They were developed with, usually, government funding. It became increasingly American funding as we were a more wealthy power in the aftermath of the Second World War. But many of the ideas in cooperation between UK and US, scientists, many of the ideas emerged from the UK and sometimes at the same time as the US, sometimes the UK first and then the US benefited from them. It depends on which technology we’re talking about. But the UK has been at the forefront when it comes to developing these technologies. Historically, and the United States has been right there with them hand in glove. So, that is not going to change. And in fact, in order to understand where we should be evolving with to the future of information and digitally based technologies, there isn’t anyone smarter than American and British computer experts and thinkers on specific technologies, mathematicians, all of the different aspects of our information technologies that developed through that UK-US relationship. That was vital. So that’s not going to go away. And, in fact, the United States is going to be very, very heavily involved with the UK in trying to come up with, with new creative ideas to fix the problems that both of us together created. So, I’m not that worried about it. I think, yes, that there’s going to be a difference in the relationship. There’s going to be some tendency to go toward the EU because they have more heft now in terms of economically. But the economic side is only one small aspect of this. And we’re talking about global corporations like Facebook, Google, Microsoft… they’re not going to choose between the UK and EU either. It’s not an either-or. It may feel that way in the UK at the moment because this is a time of anxiety with Brexit, but I don’t think anyone in the United States sees it that way.
AS:
When it comes to counter terrorism, you’ve spoken mostly so far about the jihadist Islamic counter terrorism. So, I’m wondering if the focus on Islamic jihadist terrorism will make it difficult for governments to cooperate on issues say, in Northern Ireland or Ireland in general were those kinds of problems to emerge again?
AKC:
This brings us to the question of the relationship between the focus on jihadist-oriented terrorism, the focus on right-wing terrorism, and then the focus on potentially more traditional kind of separatist nationalist terrorism. And those three things are different, and they’re different for each country. So, for the, the United Kingdom, you know, the focus on, sort of separatist terrorism, if that’s what emerges, is going backwards. And the United Kingdom has considerable experience and has developed much greater… it’s much better at counter terrorism than it was, you know, 30, 40 years ago. But there will be new threats and new concerns, not least because it’s possible that those who are more engaged in attacks would not necessarily be Irish Republicans but could be, you know, paramilitaries and those on the right who are concerned about the changes just as well. So, it’s difficult to see exactly how that’s going to unfold except to say that it’s not good and it’s a top priority with respect to seeing some creative policymaking on the part of the UK government. Now that gets us to another question though with respect to the rest of Europe and that is, when it comes to right-wing terrorism and nationalism if you look at different countries, they’ve had different types of threats and most of them have been so focused on the jihadist threat that they’ve had a difficult time dealing with extreme nationalists. This is typical of many countries because it’s much harder to get governments to agree on what terrorism is when you’re referring to something that may be a part of or on the edges of potential political parties in the country. And when those parties become extreme and there’s an engagement in violence, I think it’s obvious, but it can be much more difficult for governments to identify those tendencies and to call them terrorists when they use violence. So as a result, when you’re trying to do good research on right-wing terrorism in Europe, and frankly in the United States, it’s harder to do.
AS:
Would you say that the emergence of right-leaning populist movements in Europe is only complicating the picture? Is that part of your main argument you would say in terms of labeling terrorism as terrorism?
AKC:
Yes. I personally don’t think there’s any – I don’t think there should be – difficulty because when you engage in an act, you know, if the act can be defined, it’s an objective act and that is a terrorist act. I mean, it’s like murder or any other sort of illegal act. But because you also need to get out in front of a threat, it becomes much more difficult to define any emerging threat when you’ve got a movement toward policy, populist, governments and populist, parties within countries like France, Germany, Hungary, it’s much more complicated and much more difficult. One dynamic with respect to the Islamists and right wing terrorist threat that I don’t want to leave out and I think it’s useful to consider: Not only do we have these two separate threats, but now we have a dynamic between them where you have such anti-immigration concern in many populations, and they see that immigration as being primarily from Muslim majority countries, that there is now a tendency that you’re seeing among groups for right-wing groups to attack mosques and Islamist groups to attack right-wing groups. And that’s yet another dimension that I’m concerned about moving forward in Europe.
AS:
Let’s turn to some of the subjects that have animated your most recent works and look a bit more at the issue of emerging technologies. Could you just take us a step back for a second and tell us when we’re talking about emerging technology, what exactly is it? And then how does that fit into ideas on counter terrorism?
AKC:
By emerging technologies, I mean digitally based technologies. So, everyone immediately jumps to thinking about the internet and social media. And those are definitely in the definition, but I think also consider technologies that are enabled by digital means and maybe somehow connected to the internet or sometimes not. But technologies like UABs, drones, even not just the large ones that we all think about that are engaging in remote targeting in places like Yemen, but also quadcopters, all different types of UABs across the full range. Robotics related, you have use or one type of robotics additive manufacturing, which is actually a very old technology and goes back at least to the early or mid 20th century. But what’s new about additive manufacturing or 3-D printing is that now you can download digital files and get the resources to be able to produce those objects through 3-D printing remotely. So, that’s also an emerging technology because it’s digitally connected autonomy, which is enabled by massive databases, and then that brings us all also to artificial intelligence, which is a broad term that everyone uses in a very loose way. But it essentially refers to the ability to use large amounts of data and to, in its most advanced forms, for machines to engage in their own kinds of logic and thinking. So, this is a full range from very simple technologies to technologies that we haven’t really achieved yet. Artificial general intelligence, but all of those have an impact upon what we’re doing in all kinds of conflict. And, also in terms of counter terrorism.
AS:
Do you think that there’s been too much focus on the artificial intelligence component of emerging technology as opposed to perhaps other forms of emerging technologies, on reliance on artificial intelligence, is it right? Do you think that there’s been so much focus in recent years, particularly in the policy space around artificial intelligence over some of those?
AKC:
That’s an interesting question because I think it is important to focus on artificial intelligence because the potential for changing human life, for changing humanity with respect to really the most advanced forms of artificial intelligence, artificial general intelligence that has potentially, truly existential implications for humanity. So even though I think we’re probably many decades in advance of where we need to seriously worry about artificial general intelligence, if we don’t begin to build that kind of framework of ethics and practices and human machine interaction that is beneficial to humans in the public interest, we don’t begin to build that now, artificial intelligence has its own trajectory that will just continue on its technological, vertical trajectory in a way that could truly be threatening. But the other side of your question, which I think is a really good one, is that we do have a tendency to ignore other technologies that just look cool to us now. And that seemed to be full of tremendous amount of potential for solving problems and have a lot of positive sides to them. But we downplay the negative sides. And that’s very risky for us. That’s something that I think we need to confront much sooner and now, if not yesterday.
There are also huge ethical questions. There are also legal questions and questions about the framework of our governance. And it’s hard to generalize because if you’re talking about quadcopters and how it is that you keep an individual from loading, instead of a GoPro camera on a quadcopter, they load an explosive on that quad copter and then fly it over, heaven forbid, their neighbor’s fence and caused damage. I mean that’s something that we should make impossible. You should have individuals who are able to have geo-fencing around their houses, for example. And we should be developing better technological means to protect from the downsides of humans. We humans have all kinds of flaws and tendency to carry out nefarious things or to carry out great good. And so, whatever we can do to try to reduce the downsides, the better off we are. So that’s just one example. I mean, when it comes to 3-D printing, we need to have better regulations, regulations that are more global with respect to what is allowed to be downloaded. These things are a patchwork right now throughout the world. And because of the truly global nature of many of these technologies, if we don’t begin to work together, we’re going to have far greater problems in the future.
ETM:
You have illustrated a number of examples of how social media is being utilized by terrorist actors. How prevalent though is the use of robotics and AI by organizations like ISIS? The most recent attack that happened in London, the London Bridge Attack, the attacker used knives. It might seem a little strange for people for us to be talking about emerging technology being utilized by these actors. How do these other emerging techs actually feature in or are they being utilized by these actors?
AKC:
Some are being actively utilized, some we have to look out ahead because if we don’t think in an anticipatory way and think using history, because we actually have a lot of information about how non-state actors, including terrorists, but also individuals, use new technologies. If we don’t anticipate how these technologies are going to be used, we’re going to be faced with them before, in the aftermath of the next great tragedy. I think social media is being used, [and] with tragic effect, and is also partly responsible for the contagion of right-wing groups as well as much of the Islamist-type terrorism that has arisen in more individual ways in the United States and in many European countries. So social media, we’ve seen it. Social media was, was the first wave, but a very important enabling wave for other types of technologies. So additive manufacturing was used… I hesitate to say it because the bomber in Halle Germany really was very ineffective. He only used some 3-D printed parts and he would have been more effective had he not used it. But the fact that he wanted to use 3-D printed capabilities in order to gather greater attention tells you something. Remember jihad, jihad is cool, if you will… was one of the things that ISIS was famous for. They drew people in by trying to emphasize the, the ways that they were using new technologies. And in fact they, they drew a lot of people who were much more capable technologically than Al-Qaida recruits [who] were not at the cutting edge because terrorist groups are never at the very cutting edge. But if you look back historically, they tend to come in the second and third wave of technological innovation, and we’re well into the third wave. Many of these are pretty established technologies. So, ISIS was using quadcopters to bomb civilians and they were, they were sending more than, you know, they’re using more than a hundred against civilian populations during the coalition fight against ISIS, in 2016, -17, and -18. And, you know, they weren’t effective against military forces. They were never trying to be effective against those forces with those capabilities. They were trying to intimidate the civilian population. That’s a form of, technological innovation that I think can have a huge political perfect because that’s what’s different about terrorism. You’re looking for not just military effects with equal partners on either side, but also political effects. And well we know again from the history of terrorism going back to the 19th century is that individual operatives tend to use, tools that they think will get attention. And so there’s a huge incentive for using new technologies because you’re going to get far more attention in terms of the media.
ETM:
Is emerging technology only arming terrorists, or is it giving us tools to counter terrorism?
AKC:
You’re right, it’s not just arming terrorists. I wrote the book trying to be very balanced on both sides, but you can’t be utterly balanced because you’re, you’re entering a context in which everyone is very excited. There’s huge techno-optimism, and there’s very little discussion of the downside risks. So, yes, the book talks more about the potential for non-state actors, not just terrorists. By the way, I’m also talking about small groups, private armies, individuals, mass shooters to use new technologies. But law enforcement has already really got on board with respect to using new technologies, especially things like facial recognition technology. But also when it comes to countering violent extremism and radicalization, the ability to target, and that is on social media to market to individuals and find those individuals that are more likely to receive your message, that’s enabled people who are engaging in de-radicalization to identify those who might be susceptible and, and available to listening to an alternative point of view. And that’s a wonderful use of the same exact technology. And another use is to get out a counter narrative to what’s happening with respect to right wing groups, left wing, left wing to some degree, but also jihadist groups. That’s another thing that you can use new technologies much more effectively than we are. I think we’re way behind the curve when it comes to that. And nobody’s really giving it enough attention yet when it comes to the dark web, that’s an enormous part of the internet that we’re, we’re extremely behind. So as soon as you, if you’re, if you’re trying on the terrorist side to recruit someone, as soon as you find someone who seems to be interested in your message, the first thing you do is move them to an encrypted, platform and then it becomes much more difficult to find, find you. So, so again, your question is right, it’s both sides, but there are concerns for us even on both sides. So when it comes to facial recognition technology, the debate is should everyone be able to use that technology and art? Should there also be questions of civil liberties and protections against law enforcement use.
ETM:
How do we manage the privacy concerns?
AKC:
That is the question of the 40 years. And frankly, it’s the question for your generation and we’re going to do everything we can to set things up for you. But I will be long gone by the time this question is well answered. But if we don’t start now, if we don’t start to begin to build legal frameworks, if we don’t start to begin to think about the economic incentives and, you know, work through every level, but individuals need to be more aware. For example, consumers need to be more, more aware of the degree to which they have devices that are connected to the internet of things. When it comes to the legislative levels and parliamentary level, we need to be building far greater knowledge. We need to have staffers who are working for members of Congress and members of parliaments and, and, governments throughout the world who are much more understanding of and aware of the downsides and the upsides. Because speaking only, at least for the United States, members of Congress don’t have time to become experts. So, let’s put aside the fact that they are generally not in a sort of digital native generation. It’s not a generational question. What it is is a knowledge question. Members of Congress always have to rely upon their staffers. And what we have is a dearth of ability among the staffers to really understand the problems of technology. We need to ramp that up. So, we also need to work at the international level. The UN is working very heavily in the artificial intelligence space. That’s just one example. Companies are working together, too, and all of those levels are crucial for us to be able to begin to tackle this question. And until we do, until we build those frameworks, it’s going to be very difficult to balance safety versus threat.
To hear Alistair and Emily’s full conversation with Audrey Kurth Cronin, listen to the episode (Counter-) Terrorism and Emerging Technologies on The Europe Desk. You can find The Europe Desk on Apple podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, and Google Podcasts. Follow them on Twitter and Instagram @theeuropedesk, and send feedback to theeuropedesk@gmail.com.