Quaker Council for European Affairs looks at the

EU’s Response to Terrorism

Introduction

The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) is known as one of the peace churches. The violent acts which have become, again, more commonplace in our lives are a particular challenge to Friends because of this heritage. How do we, as a peace church, with many Friends defining themselves as pacifists, respond to the many questions which this situation raises?

In 2002, the Quaker Council for European Affairs, a small Quaker NGO based in Brussels, began a discussion about how we should engage with this issue at a European level.

It may not be totally surprising that it has taken some time for us to get to a point where we are willing to engage in public debate about this – it is so easy to strike the wrong note in this dialogue.

What have we done so far on this issue?

We have started by researching what is actually happening at a European level. We have produced a set of 9 briefing papers – which will be added to as the situation develops – which outline the main elements of the European response to this issue. They are available on our website and I have a handout with the website address and other useful links to relevant information here for those of you who want to read them.

What has that told us about the EU response?

What is clear is this:

·         Terrorism is not a new phenomenon in Europe

·         The events of 11 September 2001 have changed the debate about the response to terrorist activities fundamentally

·         The response of the EU has been less aggressive than that of the US. There are a number of reasons for this – one of them is the inability of the 25 EU Member States to come to a shared view on many issues

·         There has been huge pressure on the EU from the US externally and from the UK internally to align the EU response more with that of the US.

What is noticeable is the reluctance of some of the Member States to enhance cooperation between the law enforcement agencies of the Member States. This is at least in part due to a lack of confidence in each other’s agencies.

How is terrorism defined?

The EU has adopted a common definition of terrorism:

Any acts committed with the aim of seriously intimidating a population, or unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organization shall be deemed to be terrorist offences.

It compares with the definition adopted by the FBI:

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

In other words the EU definition is wider, is not restricted to violent acts but does not include a reference to the objectives of those committing the acts in question.

A question which we are now addressing relates to the definition of terrorism. This is because

·         There are a number of different definitions in use besides the two quoted

·         Many human rights and peace activists would not agree with those definitions

·         They broadly ignore the question of state terrorism.

Terrorism and Human Rights

One of the most fundamental concerns about the response of States and International Organisations such as the EU is the worry that some of this response may undermine the human rights of people – those committing the acts in question but also the rest of society.

So far, our research would indicate that the EU has shied away from excessive restrictions of human rights and civil liberties. However, this is not necessarily so in some of the EU Member States. And to the extent that Member States undermine human rights and civil liberties in their countries, there will be increased pressure on other Member States to follow suit in the name of enhanced cooperation among the law enforcement agencies across borders.

One of the more worrying developments in the EU is the discussion around the possibility of defining a new offence under the name of ‘apologie du terrorisme’ or apology for terrorism. If this is defined as an offence then it will become increasingly difficult to have an open dialogue about the root causes of terrorism and the possible approaches to removing them because any reference to root causes might be interpreted as an apology. It appears that at the moment one of the key aspects of work on the responses to terrorism will need to focus on lobbying to ensure that this does not get onto the statute book either at EU level or at Member State level.

What about the Response of Civil Society?

What are the challenges to civil society? I want to list just a few here – it’s not an exhaustive list:

·         How do we live with the reality of a threat to our personal safety which lies beyond what we would normally accept as part of life? The threat is real, we have to face it somehow.

·         How do we make our voices heard over the clamour of the sensationalist media? How do we make it clear that at least for some of us the deaths of victims of terrorist attacks, war, genocide and disasters in other parts of the world are as important as those in New York, Madrid and London? This message alone might be helpful in diffusing some of the anger and bitterness we are now faced with.

·         How do we communicate effectively with our governments and with decision-makers in the EU to let them know that we do not want to offer up human rights and civil liberties in return for a sense of security, real or imagined?

·         How do we communicate with all parts of the societies we live in to reduce the threat – this involves understanding why for some members of our society political disagreement turns into hatred; this involves accepting a degree of interference for the sake of security (i.e. is it reasonable to have one’s passport or ID card checked more often than normal? Do we accept longer queues at airports to make sure in so far as it is possible that we are not in additional danger?)

·         How do we maintain our own position of non-violence and respect for all people (and that includes our political leaders – whether we agree with them or not) at the same time as we are clear about our disagreement with certain policy developments?

I leave these questions with you and I would like to hear your approaches to answering them.