The ongoing global terrorist threat

Since the worst international terrorist attack on 11 September 2001 in New York, few of us were familiar with the term ‘terrorism’. For most of us, a major attack was just like any other attack as they were all carried out with some motive, whether it be personal or political. However, since that fateful day in New York when more than 3 000 people lost their lives, the word ‘terrorism’, as a definable term and as an unjust and deadly act, has become part of our daily lives as it continues to claim the lives of many people.

From the time of the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2002 and Iraq in 2003, terrorist attacks appears to have gotten worse every year. Or is it? What do the statistics say?

According to the Global Terrorism Index of the Institute for Economics and Peace, there were 73 000 terrorist attacks since 2000, which killed more than a 170 000 people.

Last year (2015) alone, 29 376 people died in terrorist attacks. Seventy two percent of these attacks took place in Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria. The terrorist groups responsible for most of these attacks (74% of the 2015 total) were ISIL, Boko Haram, Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

However, this was 10% lower than the previous year, with the decrease being attributed to successful military interventions against the terrorist groups, ISIL and Boko Haram in Iraq and Nigeria.

The attacks have certainly increased since 2001, although statistics differ due mostly to the definition of the term ‘terrorist attack’, which ultimately affect the classification of an attack as either a terrorist or an ordinary criminal attack. As a result, data from different sources differ.

There is also no clear universal definition of terrorism.  

We may never know exactly how many attacks happen every year, as some of them are also underreported in countries that lack freedom of the press or aretoo dangerous for reporters, such as for example Syria and Somalia.

This under-reporting could also skew matters and create a perception that attacks are increasing in the west, and on the decline in the rest of the world.  The media’s portrayal and presentation of terrorism has also influenced our definition of the term as most of us immediately think of a Muslim or a refugee or immigrant when we are presented with the news of a recent attack. We have also unconsciously been made to associate terrorist attacks with the terrorist groups mentioned above, because attacksby right-wing groups are simply called ‘attacks’ by the media. 

The 24 hour news cycle and social media have undoubtedly played a huge role in our awareness of terrorism around the world as we are constantly reminded of the atrocities taking place around the world every half hour. Terrorist groups have also jumped on the social media bandwagon, such as Al Qaeda and especially ISIL which uses social media to promote their ideology and uploading videos depicting the torture, rape, beheading, killing of victims and most recently the burning alive of two Turkish soldiers.

How do we fight terrorism?

A decline was beginning to be recorded as from 2007 (when the US increased its military presence), but since the Syrian civil war began in 2011, the number of attacks have shot up, with Europe feeling the brunt as ISIL continues to recruit, radicalize and train young European Muslims to carry out attacks on European soil.

This week, the world witnessed a terrorist attack in Berlin, Germany that killed 12 people and injured 48 others. In Turkey, a hotspot for terrorist attacks, an off-duty police officer shot and killed the Russian ambassador in that country for Russia’s involvement in the Syrian civil war.  He was seemingly sympathetic to the plight of the Syrian refugees as he shouted ‘Aleppo, revenge’. Later in the week, ISIL uploaded an execution video in which they burned alive two Turkish soldiers in Aleppo, Syria.

Despite the good intelligence, smart law enforcement, increased online monitoring and increased investment in security infrastructure, it is becoming a challenge to fight terrorism, especially with the increased radicalization of individuals.

It has also been reported that illegal firearms entering Europe are becoming a growing concern for the authorities as they could be used for terrorist activities.

With two lorry attacks this year, the one in Berlin and the other in Nice, France that took place on Bastille Day, killing 86 people and injured 434 others, security services are talking about setting up barriers, such as bollards to prevent lorry style terrorist attacks.

Some suggestions in the fight against terrorism include engagingdefectors of terrorist groups who could share some insights into the groups’operations and engage former jihadists who are currently fighting the recruitmentand radicalization of European and American Muslims on social media networks. There are also calls for social media websites, such as Facebook and Twitter to do more to stop the spread of terrorism propaganda by these groups.

One important key in the fight against terrorism is the investment in grassroot policing to provide for more patrolling and surveillance in local communities. The presence of law enforcement will also automatically establish a sense of safety and trust which will empowering local residents to report any suspicious activities in their neighbourhood. 

Should HIV PrEP be readily available?

In August this year, the European Commission approved the use of the drug, Truvada as a pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV. 

The drug will be available in all EU member states and it is expected to be accessible to anyone who needs it in pharmacies across the union in the coming months.

The recent approval follows recommendations by the World HealthOrganization (WHO) in 2014 for countries to provide PrEP to men who have sex with men (MSM) and a further subsequent recommendation the following year for the treatment to be provided to all population groups who are at increased risk of HIV infection.

PrEP is a treatment of drugs that can be taken by people who are HIV negative to reduce their risk of HIV infection. The only approved PrEP drug is Truvada, which is a combination of two drugs, tenofovir and emtritabine.

Truvada has been proven to reduce the risk of HIV infections. However, it should be considered as an additional prevention measure to be used in conjunction with other proven methods such as male and female condom use, HIV testing,counselling, ARV treatment for partners with HIV infection and safe sex practices, amongst others.

It should therefore be noted that PrEP does not protect the individual from contracting other sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhea, herpes and syphilis.

Although PrEP is not a new drug, the WHO recommendation and recent EU approval will surely pave the way for more countries to follow suit.

South Africa, which has the highest number of people living with HIV, announced in March this year that they plan to provide not only antiretroviral (ARV) treatment to all sex workers who are HIV positive, but also to offer daily PrEP to HIV negative sex workers to prevent infection.

Other countries that have introduced the drug include the United States of America, France, Norway, Australia, Israel, Canada and Kenya.

But should the drug be made readily available to everyone?

The PrEP treatment is relatively expensive costing an estimated US$450 to US$1000 a month, which is more than what some people earn in developing countries. It will be hard for people to access the treatment without government subsidy or medical aid/health insurance. A South African news outlet estimates the cost to be from R200 (US$14.40) to R550 (US$40) per month, but that is probably the final cost after government subsidization. 

In the United Kingdom (UK), the public health service provider, National Health Services (NHS), lost a court appeal in which it argued that it was not its responsibility to provide healthcare to people who are not infected, but that it was it was the responsibility of the local councils. It was reported at the time that the NHS had put nine new treatments and services on hold pending the outcome of the appeal. With the recent ruling, the NHS will now be responsible to provide PrEP treatment. Considering the high cost of the treatment, the NHS could delay or put the treatment on hold, in respect of other priority health services, which include hearing implants for childrenwith deficient or missing auditory nerves, prosthetics for lower limb loss, and a drug for treating certain mutations in young children with cystic fibrosis.  

Taking into consideration the high cost of the treatment, the question being asked is why the public should pay for other people’s irresponsible sexual behavior, when there are cheaper alternatives that have been proven to work effectively in preventing the spread of HIV.  Meanwhile, others who need medical assistance are being denied treatment as authorities are forced to choose and prioritize between treatment.

Other experts also believe that it could encourage continued risky sexual behavior, not just among those groups of people who are already at high risk of infection, such as men who have sex with men and men who have sex with sex workers, but also the rest of the population.

PrEP could also give users a false sense of security and as a result pass the virus onto their sexual partners, some of whom would not have been informed of their partner’s PrEP treatment.

But should we be worried about the sexual behavior of those on PrEP treatment?

My concern is not so much about the behavior of PrEP users, but rather about the public having to pay (in the case of free public health services) for the treatment or the government subsidizing the costs. Why should we pay for other people’s choice of behavior? Let those who choose this treatment pay for their own medical cost, because it is after all their choice to use it, instead of the number of affordable methods available. 

Photo source: DENIS CHARLET/AFP/Getty Images

Commemorating World Aids Day

As we commemorate the 35 million people who are estimated to havehave died of HIV/AIDS and the 36.7 million that are currently living with thevirus, we must acknowledge the many unsung heroes, especially in developing countries, who continue to work tirelessly, some on a volunteering basis, to reduce the spread of the pandemic and provide care and hope for those living with the virus. 

We have certainly made great strides since the virus came to global prominence in the 1980’s, although its history dates back almost 100 years. 

According to the World HealthOrganization (WHO), 1.1 million people died of HIV related illnesses in 2015, compared to 1.5 million in 2010. The antiretroviral therapy (ARV) has undoubtedly played a role in reducing the number of people dying from of HIV/AIDS related diseases. ARVs enable those infected to live a relatively healthy and productive life.

The number of those getting infected each year is also on the decline. In 2015, 2.1 million infections were recorded, a drop of 1.1 million from the 3.2 million infections recorded in 2010. The number is expected to decrease even further over the next 4 years to 500 000 by 2020. This is indicative of successful interventions, such as effective awareness campaigns encouraging safe sex, increased condom use and sticking to one sexual partner at a time.  

However, while we are making progress in some parts of the world, other parts are witnessing an increase, such as Eastern Europe and Central Asia which have recorded a 57% increase over the past five years.  

We obviously still have a long way to go, as it is estimated that 10.9 million people worldwide are unaware of their HIV status and are continuing to spread the virus. It is also estimated that 12.7 million who are aware of their status are not accessing treatment.

More awareness therefore needs to be done to encourage people to go for testing and access treatment to improve their quality of life. 

Photo source: screwlife.com

Trump and Brexit victory: My opinion

The world is still reeling in shock at the recent victories of Donald Trump as the President-elect of the United States of America (USA) and the United Kingdom (UK) voting to leave the European Union (EU) in what has been termed by the media as Brexit.

Despite what the political pundits claim, I do not believe that it was necessarily a vote against the political establishments, but rather to do with the uncontrolled immigration in both countries.

Supporters of Brexit and Trump have been called all sorts of things, including being racists. One could argue that some of them are considering the number of hate crimes reported after the victories in both the US and the UK.

I believe these supporters are in the minority. However, the majority feel their leaders have lost control over their borders, despite their leaders declaring otherwise.  

Sometimes our leaders are so far removed from the man in the street that they do not really know the situation on the ground of the country they have sworn to protect and make a better place.

In both countries, the ordinary citizens have been witnessing the changing population landscape of their countries, due to a rise in immigration. Although it is not a problem for people to move around and live wherever they wish to live, it should be done the legal way and in a controlled manner. What has been happening in both countries is the opposite.  Immigration is at an alarming high in the UK and there are a reported 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

Americans and British citizens have every right to be angry. Tell me a man who would not defend his private territory and then tell me a man who would not vote for a leader who promises to defend that territory from what you can call ‘gradual takeover’ of their motherland, especially with such worryingly high statistics. 

The situation is exacerbated by media reports that immigrants are being treated much better than the country’s citizen and some are allegedly abusing the welfare system in the UK. 

If it was my country where immigration got out of control, I know for sure that if a leader was to appear promising to do something about it, I would definitely vote for him or her. think all their decisions are in agreement with the majority.

I am upset about both victories, especially the outcome of the US elections, but it is democracy and the people have spoken and we have to respect their wishes.