Political Discourses ont the terrorist Threat in the post september 11 era

Statements associating the terrorist threat with immigration

These statements rely on the assumption that the nexus terrorism-immigration poses a major threat to the internal security of the EU countries.

«Europe is going to have to understand that security must take priority over abolishing controls at borders and elsewhere» (Berthu, NI, extraordinary formal sitting of 12 September 2001)

«We call upon the European Union to think again about whether it needs to establish effective border controls, even suspending Schengen temporarily» (Muscardini, UEN, sitting of 19 September 2001)

[The Council should] «undertake an immediate examination of all the texts, particularly those which relate to the movement of people, from a security point of view rather than the perspective of the systematic abolition of checks ... if necessary, [we must] abolish all the provisions that may be used to establish and develop terrorist networks in our countries, whether they relate, for instance, to Community transit, border controls, family reunification or application for refugee status» (Souchet, NI, sitting of 19 September 2001)

«We need to strengthen control at the European Union’s external borders if we want to combat the menace of terrorism effectively» (Borghezio, NI, sitting of 6 February 2002)

Statements associating the terrorist threat with the free electronic communication

These statements express the wish to establish an efficient control of the users of the web, the freedom of which has already been the object of many criticisms, insofar as it has been associated with the development of several criminal phenomena (paedophilia, racism, etc.)

[there is a] «call for regulation of the use of the Internet, for rules to be established at last, for [...] the lack of rules governing the use of the Internet make it easy for terrorism to gain support and operate at international level» (Muscardini, UEN, sitting of 19 September 2001)

Statements associating terrorism with the open society

These statements rely on the assumption that democratic regimes are attractive to terrorists due precisely to their liberal political system. Democratic openness and tolerance are identified with permissiveness.

«Such arrangements [the Europol agreement with the USA on the exchange of data] have previously foundered on our making our data protection provisions into the measure of all things. Our protection of data has therefore been of more use to the terrorists than it has to their victims» (Nassauer, PPE-DE, sitting of 19 September 2001)

«Due to its liberality and its tradition of welcoming political exiles, Europe has become a place of refuge for numerous radical and terrorist groups [...] These extremists take advantage of the facilities made available to them by the democratic systems, organise themselves, find funding, recruit new members and plot attacks against targets on our continent and throughout the world» (Queiró, UEN, sitting of 23 October 2002)

[we should prevent terrorists from using] «the free and open society with its facilities to quietly prepare terrorist acts which they commit elsewhere» (Oostlander, PPE-DE, sitting of 23 October 2002)

Statements on the tension between security and civil rights and liberties

These statements rely on the assumption that the human rights value is opposed to the security one. An excessive protection of the one will thus inevitably provoke the weakening of the protection allowed to the other, and vice versa.

«We must guard against upsetting the delicate balance between the needs of security and the civil liberties» (Watson, ELDR, sitting of 19 September 2001)

[the EU authorities must] «ensure that a suitable balance is struck between the protection of privacy and the needs of the investigative authorities» (Neyts-Uyttebroeck, President-in-Office of the Council, sitting of 19 September 2001)

«What is currently at stake in the fight against terrorism is not only the protection of our principles, it is, first and foremost, the protection of our fellow citizens» (Vitorino, Commissioner, sitting of 23 October 2002)

«Terrorists should not have the freedom to repeat the atrocious crimes that they have committed, but, at the same time, we need to ensure that the fundamental freedoms which we all hold dear are also respected» (Neyts-Uyttebroeck, President-in-Office of the Council, sitting of 28 November 2001)

«the anti-terrorist legislation [...] is designed to strike a balance in which we, on the one hand, respond to terrorist crimes but, on the other hand, also promote and defend legal certainty in the process» (Hedkvist Petersen, PSE, sitting of 12 March 2003)

[the present situation requires that] «the right balance [is] struck between the basic rights guaranteed in democratic societies and the need to fight terrorism» (Schreyer, Commissioner, sitting of 12 March 2003)

[the future EU counterterrorism policy should become] «a giant step forward in complying with the Tampere agreements and in creating a European area of freedom, security and justice, [...] respecting the balance between freedom and security» (Cerdeira Morterero, PSE, sitting of 28 November 2001)

Statements on the respect of human rights and the rule of law

These statements denounce the introduction of emergency rules in the European counterterrorism policies as threatening to the legal system of any democratic society. This threat is situated at two interdependent levels related respectively to the legal structure of the delimitation of the exercise of the state power towards the people (rule of law) and to one of the major materialisations of this delimitation with regard to the people (civil rights and freedoms).

«The tools used [in this fight] should be the tools of justice, that is, not by suspending the rule of law or suppressing liberties, but on the contrary, by maintaining them» (Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso, NI, sitting of 19 September 2001)

«The best way to combat the scourge of terrorism is precisely to do so on the basis of our system of values and with the law behind us» (de Miguel, president-in-Office of the Council, sitting of 6 February 2002)

[the terrorist’s] «chief target is the open society. That is why we must not, in our eagerness to combat terrorism, undermine the heart of democracy. The rule of law must never be sacrificed on the altar of our drive to act. Special rules, military tribunals and unclear reasons as to why an individual or group has found its way onto a certain list are unacceptable [...]. We must not become enemies of the open society ourselves» (Malmström, ELDR, sitting of 23 October 2002)

«When, as we must, we combat terrorism, we must do so by employing, rather than weakening, the Rule of Law» (Sjöstedt, GUE/NGL, sitting of 6 February 2002)

«In the EU, we are very aware of the fact that the combating of terrorism must not involve infringements of human rights. Just as the end must not justify the means and can never legitimise terrorism, so the end must not justify the means in our fight against terrorism» (Haarder, President-in-Office of the Council, sitting of 23 October 2002)

«Any measure that is taken cannot and must not call into question full respect for, assurances of, and the promotion of the fundamental and human rights that have always underpinned European construction [...] Combating crime must be done in full compliance with the rule of law and not call citizens’ rights into question. [...] our fight for security cannot and must not undermine freedom [...] we cannot allow the principles of law and civic rights to become victims of this combat [...] any fight that forgets these priorities [principles of law and human rights] will ultimately constitute an unjustified acceptance of barbarity and a step backwards in terms of civilisation» (Coelho, PPE-DE, sitting of 12 March 2003)

«Under no circumstances should [the fight against terrorism] serve as a pretext for gagging our fundamental rights and democratic freedoms» (Boumediene-Thiery, Greens/ALE, sitting of 28 November 2001)

«We will not stamp out this scourge by restricting democratic freedoms» (Krivine, GUE/NGL, sitting of 23 October 2002)

«The rule of law and human rights must not be undermined in the process of carrying out this important fight [...] under the shadow of 11 September, there is a risk of fundamental rights being neglected in the fight against terrorism» (Theorin, PSE, sitting of 23 October 2002) «The determination to eradicate terrorism and the urgent need to set up new and effective instruments to achieve this cannot, under any circumstances, disproportionately affect individual rights, freedoms, and guarantees. It is the affirmation of the intangibility of fundamental rights that underpins a public authority’s legitimacy to use force in democracies» (Sousa Pinto, PSE, sitting of 23 October 2002)

Statements denouncing the securitization of social issues

These statements rely on the assumption that the adoption of emergency rules cannot possibly prevent terrorists from committing attacks on Western countries for this behaviour results from the despair of many poor, oppressed, and powerless third-world people. Therefore, the adoption of an emergency legal framework shows nothing more than the political will of national governments to further strengthen the securitarian aspect of their policies implemented with regard to various social issues.

«The war on terror has little to do with combating terrorism and instead has as its primary objective the erosion of fundamental rights in the EU [...] The anti-terror legislation [...] does not, in any sense, serve primarily to combat terrorist activities; above all it gives the EU greater power to conduct investigations through, for example, the Schengen Information System II and the European arrest warrant [that means] a greater intervention by the modern civil state and a weakened right of defence for the accused, whoever they may be» (Schröder, Ilka, GUE/NGL, sitting of 23 October 2002)

[the Watson report is a text] «which, in the name of the fight against terrorism, merely seeks to place the most basic democratic freedoms in jeopardy» (Krivine, GUE/NGL, sitting of 6 February 2002)

«Many European governments are using the criminal terrorist action of 11 September against the United States as an excuse to issue further legislation curbing freedoms which has nothing to do with combating terrorism [while] their objective is to curb and control growing political opposition to a world social and economic order which is unfair and inhuman» (Di Lello Finuoli, GUE/NGL, sitting of 28 November 2001)

«On the pretext of combating terrorism [this resolution] actually seeks to criminalise social demonstrations [...] the various European governments are in the process of developing a real arsenal to curb freedom. It is now common to draw parallels between immigrants, young people, delinquents and terrorists» (Krivine, GUE/NGL, sitting of 23 October 2002)