The Fight Against International Terrorism in EU - Essay Example

? Whether EU’s Anti –Terrorism efforts are effective and efficient? Introduction In the fight against international terrorism, EU has become one of the most significant international actors. Immediately, after 9/11 incidents, EU has perused wide range of initiatives that is being implemented in all of its member states through its three pillars strategy. This research paper will analyse the gradual evolution of initiatives against international terrorism by the EU in relation to the increasing threat. This research paper will discuss about the necessity to understand the terrorist threat on EU level, the evolution of the EU action plan since2001, the part of terrorism in the European Security Strategy, the EU Counter Terrorism strategy, the part assumed by Coordinator for EU Counter –Terrorism and SITCEN, etc. This research essay will aim to offer and evaluate the EU’s role in its fight against international terrorism. In this research paper, I wish to stress that despite all these counter terrorism initiatives, the menace from terrorism remains one of the vital European issues and challenges, and EU’s anti-terrorism strategies are to be overhauled completely. (Prezelj 2007:16). Whether EU’s Anti –Terrorism is effective and efficient? - An Analysis Terrorism is not a new phenomenon, and it is a technique customarily used by a weaker section or actor against mighty or stronger one. Terrorism can referred as a by-product of the growth of democracy, as governments and leaders became subject to public pressure. The terrorism was first known to be used in the context of the French Revolution, and later it became very famous on 11 September 2011 happenings. With the establishment of the Terrorism, Radicalism, Extremism and international Violence group (TREVI group) in 1975 and with the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism (ECST) of 1977, the source of European co-operation on counter-terrorism can be recognised in the 1970s. (CEDAT: 115) There are many elements that make terrorist actions as unacceptable and unfair among them, the clandestine nature and the fact that the terrorists do not show themselves engage in open dispute and do not show themselves openly. The most abhorrent issue is killing of non-combatants or innocents. When killing an Israeli, a Palestine terrorist may argue that they are involved in a fight against all Israelis, including women and children as they would claim that they are involved in a battle against all Israelis. The same could be true for other terrorist groups, be they in Chechnya, Spain, Sri Lanka or Northern Island. (Mahncke & Monar 2006:14). EU has defined terrorism as the principal menace to European security, Terrorism is characterised as global in its scope and associated to aggressive religious extremism. Europe is both a base for terrorism and a potential target. The menace of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was also within the EU’s terrorist context. The most worsening scenario is if a terrorist group obtains and employs weapons of mass destruction, then the outcome will be of devastation. (Prezelj 2007:21) The real fact is that Anti-terrorist measures in EU are not supported by all member states, mainly due to differences in threat perception. For instance, UK and Spain may want to place terrorism as the core issue of the EU agenda and to arrive at an anti-terrorism measure that they conceive to be significant. However, for non-Spanish and non-British policy-makers, this may not be relevant and could be costly and far-reaching like the idea of data retention. (Mahncke & Monar 2006:40). Divergence in threat perception may also help to assist to demonstrate the difference in cooperation and speed in implementing EU-level anti-terrorism cooperative agreements. EU member states that does not visualize terrorism as a significant issue lags behind in implementing and approving new cooperation agreements and laws contrasted to nations where government witness populations that feel more intimidated by terrorism. Thus, it appears that speedy introduction of EU-oriented anti-terrorism initiatives is impossible without a concrete terrorist threat. Thus, one can conclude that direction and speed of EU antiterrorism policy depend upon the terrorist rather than on politicians. (Mahncke & Monar 2006: 61). Before 9/11 incidents , EU had open borders with its member states and Europe’s varied legal setup facilitated criminal and terrorists to freely move around and escape from probable arrest and prosecution. For instance, at the time of 9/11 incident, the majority of EU member nations did not have anti-terrorism legislation in force or even have a legal definition of the phrase “terrorism.” Terrorists or their vehement supporters were frequently able to avoid arrest in one EU nation by fleeing to another with varied criminal codes and laws without strong evidence that a suspect had committed a crime common to all nations. Another hurdle is that though the terrorist’s suspects could travel among EU nations quickly, but it is likely to take months or years to process their extradition request. (Bretherton and Vogler 2006:15) In December 2003, the European Security Strategy was perused, which placed the terrorist threat to European security on the top priority list. (Prezelj 2007:16)Immediately after 9/11 incidents and London and Madrid bombings, EU policy-makers have methodologically drawn policy to maintain or to create momentum for a pan-European fight against terrorism. This connotes that no EU member state can efficiently safeguard its citizens without a pan-European strategy to fight terrorism. The perpetrators of London bombings, 9/11 attacks and Madrid bombings have made use of European diversity in laws, the abolishment of border controls and anti-terrorism capabilities. All EU member states should be aware that a pan-European measure is needed to fight against terrorism. (Mahncke & Monar2006: 62). EU member states had agreed in December 2005 on a new tactic to combat terrorism, and it has four elements. a) To hamper terrorist activities by addressing the root causes of terrorism, b) to safeguard infrastructure and its citizens c) to peruse anti-terrorist measures like comprehending and prosecuting terrorists, d) to respond to terrorist attacks. The EU’s new strategy to combat terrorism is based on the UK’s national counter-terrorism policy which is famously known as “4 Ps.” (Pursuit, prevention, protection and preparedness). (Mahncke & Monar2006:64). We have to analyse the threat from terrorism to European security and to formulate the background of the EU’s counter-terrorism activities. It is to be noted that not all the EU member states are having a terrorist threat and some EU member states like UK, Spain, France, Germany and Italy are facing a higher terrorist threat on the global level than any other EU member nations. The treaty of Lisbon with the EU renewed its commitment to prevent crime as an important ingredient to the progressive formation of an Area of Freedom, Justice and Security. This measure will hamper contemporary feature of present criminal activities beyond borders of Member States. Thus, with the principle of conferred powers and with the pillar structure of the EU, the cross border crime needs a cross border retort. The estimation of the values supporting the provinces of freedom, security and justice is necessary so as to protect the internal security of EU. Issues like terrorism, drug trafficking and organised crime also incubates outside the EU. Thus, it is crucial to foster a stratagem to involve with third nations worldwide to combat these crimes. (Eckes & Konstadinides: 284). Thus, it is to be noted that one of the significant changes brought by the Lisbon Treaty is that it eliminates the third pillar by combining its provisions with the other provisions in the FSJ province into one single Title “the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (Title V of the TFEU).” (Piris 2010:177). The present EU counter-terrorism “action plan” is currently having about 175 measures thereby offering greater significance to a raft of EU law for preventing terrorism-oriented crime. The EU anti-terrorism strategy is a hefty plan as it is containing more than fifty pages with covering host of policy areas like asset freezing and anti-money laundering laws, European judicial and police cooperation, border –security and transport arrangements and to help EU member states vital services like water supply , health , food , in the eventuality of terrorist attacks. (Mahncke & Monar2006:64). EU is daunted with ethno-nationalists, Islamists or separatist and anarchist or left wing terrorism. The present terrorist groups aim at third-country target or a member state target whose representatives or facilities are situated in EU or to offer either financial or logistical support for terrorist activities outside the EU. For instance, in 2006 alone, EU was traumatized by about 500 terrorist’s attacks, the majority of which were of minor in nature resulting in restricted material damage and not intended to kill. In 2006 alone, 706 individuals were arrested for terrorism –related offenses in 15 member nations. More than fifty percent of those who arrested in2006 for terrorism related offenses were from Islamic world and hence Islamic terrorism is presently the gravest threat to EU. (Prezelj 2007:17). The neighboring states of EU namely Western Balkans which is traditionally the least stable area in the past in Europe as the region Kosovo, Herzegovina and Bosnia and Macedonia are well known to be a polygon for military and training activities of Islamist fundamentals with inflows from Iraq and Afghanistan and some stay in Bosnia and some searching for political asylum in Western Europe. The region is also famous for many attempted and tried out political assassinations, with this also being a special type of terrorism. (Prezelj 2007:17). Various Counter Terrorism Measures by EU. For ensuring a comprehensive counter-terrorism approach, EU has adopted a multi-pillar activity whereby all pillars are given equal important. EU placed high reliance on the second pillar despite the major portion of counter-terrorism activities are grouped in the third pillar. The basic philosophy is the conviction that European security chiefly depends upon securities in nations beyond EU frontiers, whereby the CFSP can indirectly or directly attribute to counter-terrorism. The sequence of various EU security enhancements towards anti-terrorism can be illustrated as follows: “Initiatives against the” production of Mass Destruction weapons” was first initiated. In 2004, immediately after Madrid bombing, 2004” Declaration on Combating Terrorism” was initiated by EU. In June 2004, EU initiated the revised EU Plan of “Action to Combat Terrorism “was perused. Cohesion Programme on the Outcomes of Terrorist Attacks and Threats is also perused. In June 2004, the EU adopted “the Hague Programme on Strengthening Freedom, security and Justice.” EU also introduced the concept of the “EU Counter-terrorism Co-Ordinator. A revised version of” EU Action Plan on Combating Terrorism” was adopted in February 2006. The corner stone of EU’s operational activities can be termed as the introduction of” EU Joint Situation Centre – SITCEN “as it assesses and monitors the situations and events on a global level on a 24-hour basis. EU Council approved it aim to propose a” European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Warning Information Network (CIWIN).” EU commission in November 2005 adopted the Green Paper on “European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection (EPCIP). “(Prezelj 2007:25-30). EU’s strategy for Combating Radicalisation and Recruitment to Terrorism The main goal of this EU strategy was to frame an aggregate response to prevent radicalization and terrorist recruitment. This EU’s strategy stresses the significance of terrorism unleashed by Al-Qaeda and extremists daunted by Al-Qaeda. This strategy has the following three goals: To find out the individuals and the network activities that recruit people into terrorism, which includes the stopping of traveling to these conflict provinces for the purpose of terrorist training? To make sure that voices of mainstream opinion triumph over those extremisms and validation of violence must be overruled by its condemnation. To promote justice, security, democracy and chances for all more vigorously. (Prezelj 2007:30). EU, in November 2011, published a communication thereby placing the EU Internal Security Strategy (ISS) into action. One of the main goals of the ISS is to prevent terrorism in EU. As per TE-SAT 2010 report, the EU’s Terrorism Situation and Trend Report released in 2009 stated that UK reported 124 attacks in Northern Ireland, and 6 member states reported that an aggregate of 294, foiled, failed or successfully maneuvered terrorist’s attacks. (Europol, TE-SAT 2010 PP6-8). France in 2009 reported about 89 separatist attacks, only one Islamic attack was accounted in UK, whereas Spain reported about 148 separatist attacks. The next largest division of attacks was under the style “Left Wing” with reporting of 23 cases in Spain and in 15 in Greece. Thus, the majority of terrorist acts reported by the member states pertain to different separatist groups, which were active mainly in specific parts of the vulnerable member states. Surely, there exists violence in EU, but a sole common strategy is not likely to picture the specificities of both the local and the national scenarios. Further , terrorism in EU is a common issue that impacts less than one third of the member nations which raises issues about the aptness of EU budgetary expenses .( Guild and Carrera 2011:6). The European Union, on July 26 2010 espoused a communication that conceptualizes the major achievements of the EU Counter-Terrorism action since its implementation immediately after 9/11 incidents. The above communication recognizes the twin aspects of recruitment and radicalization as grave issues that pose an important threat to stability and security in the EU provinces. Further, the above communication acknowledges that crisis administration and response at the EU stage result in a grave confront for the EU and will prolong to be like that in the near future also. (Coolsaet, 2008:45). The above communication offers the following accomplishments of the EU in the province of counter-terrorism initiatives: Strict monitoring the strategy of terrorists involved in the usage of the internet for recruitment, training, fund raising and dissemination of their ideology. EU has established the Framework Action Plan in 2008, which includes fifty concrete initiatives to eradicate the menace of attacks with explosives by terrorists. An endorsement made in November 2009, which created an EU Action plan on Biological ,Chemical or Radiological / Nuclear Materials, which includes 130 specific actions to be initiated for the stoppage and finding out and response to the incidents involving hazardous materials. Creation of the EU Civil Safeguard Mechanism, which is intended to make sure an organized response to any variety of crisis, forms natural disasters to terrorist’s attacks. To have a vibrant cooperation with the international associates like USA. (Law Library of Congress 2011). CONCLUSION There is an inconsistency in the EU’s part in counter-terrorism initiatives. On the one side, the European member states give their consent that cooperation at EU level is the need of the hour since the cross-border nature of the terrorist menace. On the other side, these member nations were very slow to vest the Union with the authority to investigate and to prosecute and to allocate resources like finance that it would require to be truly effective. This is mainly because as the security policy like safeguarding the citizens – belongs to the core of national sovereignty and hence , EU member nations are hesitant to offer the EU with more power that could encroach their internal laws and national security practices. (Archikck 2010:14). The present initiatives of EU anti-terrorism are not falling within the anticipated safeguard demarcation and there is a further need to strengthen it. There is a necessity for a consistent stratagem between all communication players in EU and efforts in the area of home affairs. EU should further strengthen its restrictive asset-freezing measures against terrorist activities. (Spence 2007:135)It is suggested to implement the following: To create a data protection structure applicable to “Common Foreign and Security Policy.” To peruse the global and a comprehensive strategy to ensuring in the province of asset freezing restrictive initiatives. There is a need to establish Privacy and Data Protection Impact Assessment and competent data protection officials are appointed on a timely basis to enhance the system. To make sure that enough safeguards when personal data are interpreted in the contour of global cooperation while encouraging the growth and the implementation of data protection principles by third nations and international organizations. (Vermeulen 2010). List of References Archick Kristin. (2010). U.S –E.U Cooperation against Terrorism. New York: Diane Publishing Co. Bretherton Charlotte & Vogler John. (2006). The European Union as a Global Actor. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. CEDAT (2008).Legal Aspects of Combating of Terrorism, Volume 47.New York: IOS Press. Coolsaet, R. (2008). Jihadi Terrorism and the Radicalisation Challenge in Europe. New York: Ashgate Publishing. Eckes Christina & Konstadinides. (2011). Crime within the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: A European Public Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Guild Elspeth and Carrera Sergio (January 2011). Towards An Internal (in Security) Strategy for the EU? [Online] available from < www.ceps.eu/ceps/download/4099> [accessed on 23 April 2011.] Law of Library of Congress. (2011). European Union: Highlights of Counter-Terrorism Policy, [Online] available from < http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205402124_text [accessed on 23 April 2011.] Mahncke Dieter and Monar Joerg. (2006). International Terrorism: A European Response to a Global Threat? New York: Peter Lang. Prezelj, Iztok. (2007). The Fight against Terrorism and Crisis Management in the Western Balkans. London: IOS Press. Piris, Jean –Claude. (2010).The Lisbon Treaty: A Legal and Political Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Spence David. (2007). The European Union and Terrorism. Michigan: John Harper Publishing. Vermeulen Mathias. (25 November 2011). EDPS on the EU’s Counter-Terrorism Policy. [online] available from accessed on 23 April 2011]. Read More