Brussels, 16/02/2006 (Agence Europe) - On the occasion of the second conference of the Royal Institute for International Relations (IRRI) on international terrorism, in Brussels on 13 February, the European Union's Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, Gijs de Vries, recalled that the role of the EU when it comes to combating terrorism has grown in importance although this remains an area that “is and will remain primarily under the responsibility of the national authorities”. Today, he noted, terrorism is at two levels, international and local, and “must therefore be countered at both these levels”.
After the attacks of 11 September 2001 in the United States, terrorism was seen by Europeans as a phenomenon that has its origins in fanaticism from abroad. With the attacks in London in July 2005, the EU was hit on its own soil by young second generation immigrants who had been educated and had grown up in the United Kingdom, and who spoke fluent English. Although Europe's response to the attacks on 11 September pertained solely to security, Gilles de Kerchove, Director of the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union, explained, the response to the attacks in London sought to cover several aspects: social, economic and external relations. In December 2005, the European Council thus adopted an overall strategy - “modest but realistic” - accompanied by an Action Plan “that does not seek to limit terrorism to a religious phenomenon and recalls that the first victims are the Muslim populations outside Europe”, Mr de Kerchove recalled. Here too, the principle of subsidiarity is fully applied, with the EU simply creating a framework in order to allow better coordination between Member States. Javier Rupérez, of the United Nations Secretariat, felt that “there is no short term solution. Europe must set valid strategies in place (…) and not lose its strong moral base”. It must fight against “indoctrination and brainwashing, which are at the heart of the Jihadi terrorism problem”, as shown by the London and Madrid attacks, he stressed.
Placing the debate in the context of the ruckus over the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, Professor Olivier Roy of the FNRS (Fondation nationale pour la Recherche stratégique) deplores the fact that Muslims in Europe are still being considered as bridgeheads for the Middle East. This is a mistake, he challenged, saying that young radicals today are no longer fighting for a territory but for a global vision of the world to defend the community of all Muslims. According to Professor Roy, they are therefore misunderstood. Many of them are brought up in the West without basic religious teaching and speaking a European language better than their own supposed language of origin, “but we are so anchored in our clichéd idea of cultures that we do not understand that young people who become radical can also be modern and western”. Islam must therefore be made one of Europe's religions, like any other and “the Muslims of Europe must no longer be linked to the conflicts in the Middle East”, he stressed.
Professor Martha Crenshaw of Wesleyan University in the USA, considers for her part that it is a mistake to make a distinction between old and new terrorism. It is “the evolution of a phenomenon rather than a radical break with the past”, she corrected. There are differences, however, between the past and modern day when it comes to: - objectives: the terrorists of the seventies and eighties had political objectives and negotiable demands whereas the terrorists of today do not necessarily have any concrete goals “apart from the wish to destroy”; - methods: before 1990, terrorists showed measured violence, intended to attain their goals, whereas today they use weapons of destruction to cause maximum harm; - organisation: from centralised organisation obeying orders from above, we find a more disorganised phenomenon similar to a 'network based on the inspiration of the moment”. “But the hypothesis of new terrorism is dangerous as it tends to make the real causes of terrorism disappear, such as the environment in which it is born”, Ms Crenshaw concluded, saying that one of the other misunderstandings is to believe that terrorism is solely a religious phenomenon, when religion is just one component of terrorism.
Finally, Gerhard Baum, former German Interior Minister, noted that the fight against terrorism has always been at the expense of human rights. This is all the more true today when terrorism has become “anonymous”. “We target millions of innocent people and touch their private lives” by collecting and posting up information on their identity, Mr Baum protested. “Activists are killed without having the right to any kind of trial or inquiry” and countries such as Libya and Russia, hitherto criticised for their violation of human rights, have become allies of the West in countering terrorism, he pointed out indignantly, before going on to conclude that “the fight for human rights has really been placed in the background”.