Britain faces more complex national security threats since 9/11: MI5
What's the story
Britain's national security landscape has become more complex and dangerous since the 9/11 attacks, MI5 chief Ken McCallum has said. In a rare public intervention, he issued a "call to arms" for the government, businesses, universities, and citizens to take on national security as a shared responsibility. Writing in The Independent on the 25th anniversary of 9/11, McCallum said today's threat landscape is "markedly different" from that of 2001.
New threats
McCallum's analogy of 'dragons' and 'snakes'
McCallum likened the current security environment to a scenario where both old and new threats have returned.
He quoted former CIA director James Woolsey's description of post-Cold War threats as a fight against a "large dragon."
The "dragons" are mainly Russia and China, while the "snakes" represent continuing threats from radical Islamic extremists.
Reduced threat
Al-Qaeda threat reduced since 9/11, but still exists
McCallum said the campaign against al-Qaeda after 9/11 had succeeded in reducing the group's capabilities.
He stressed that this reduction was due to sustained international efforts and shouldn't be taken for granted.
However, he warned that al-Qaeda remains a threat, albeit with capabilities only a fraction of what they were in 2001.
New challenges
Prepare for threats beyond conventional terrorism, warns McCallum
McCallum warned against complacency after progress against jihadist groups, saying Britain must prepare for threats beyond conventional terrorism.
He pointed to state-backed aggression through criminal networks, covert interference in democratic processes, and cyberattacks on critical infrastructure.
The current terrorism threat level in Britain is severe, indicating an attack is highly likely.
New dynamics
Increased role of private companies in national security
A major difference between today's security environment and that of 2001 is that many at-risk systems are now controlled by private companies, McCallum said.
This means critical decisions during a national security crisis may have to be taken in corporate boardrooms rather than just through government structures.
He called for closer cooperation between government, businesses, and academia to identify vulnerabilities and ensure coordinated responses during crises.