1TerrorismintheEU by IDIA

The Institute for Domestic and International Affairs

European Union Terrorism in the European Union Rutgers Model United Nations 16-19 November 2006

Director: Marina Shuty

ÂŠ 2006 Institute for Domestic & International Affairs, Inc. (IDIA) This document is solely for use in preparation for Rutgers Model United Nations 2006. Use for other purposes is not permitted without the express written consent of IDIA. For more information, please write us at idiainfo@idia.net

Introduction _________________________________________________________________ 1 Background _________________________________________________________________ 2 Current Status _______________________________________________________________ 6 Key Positions _______________________________________________________________ 12 The Big 5 _______________________________________________________________________ 12 Members of the European Union ___________________________________________________ 13 France ________________________________________________________________________________13 United Kingdom ________________________________________________________________________13 Spain _________________________________________________________________________________14 Germany ______________________________________________________________________________14

The Media ______________________________________________________________________ 14 Baltic States _____________________________________________________________________ 15 Non-European Union States _______________________________________________________ 16 Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) __________________________________________________16 The United States of America ______________________________________________________________16

Summary___________________________________________________________________ 17 Discussion Questions _________________________________________________________ 18 Works Cited ________________________________________________________________ 19

Rutgers Model United Nations 2006

Introduction The terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 against the United States left a deafening impression around the world regarding the dangers of terrorism, and the possibility of a terrorist attack occurring anywhere, particularly true for states in Europe. While these states may individually be taking actions to secure their borders and protect their citizens, this is often not enough. Several bodies and organizations participate and assist in terrorism prevention, including the European Union (EU), an organization that works with its member states to prevent future terrorist attacks, as well as rebuild areas that have already been affected by this issue. The EU and its member states have been affected by terrorism since the 1970s, whether it is local groups voicing political concerns or dissident minorities within a state. These terrorist actions included bombings and the injury of civilians, and have affected almost every member of the EU, as well as several other states, particularly in Central Europe. In the past it was simple to deal with such groups through the use of local law enforcement, and legislation was enacted to guarantee the safety of European citizens, however often this legislation was very vague and therefore did not accomplish plans that are necessary in modern day. The issue of terrorism and its prevention has become much more complex within the European Union. Since the terrorist attacks in London in 2005 and Madrid in 2004, the United Kingdom and Spain as well as the EU as a whole, have taken serious measures that would avert this type of terrorism from ever occurring again. The European Council as well as other leaders within the EU have worked together to establish legislation and frameworks in order to improve the intelligence on terrorism within the EU. Moreover, a variety of measures have been proposed which enact harsher punishments and criminal proceedings on those being prosecuted for possible terrorist activities. There are numerous groups and individuals who have an impact on the outcome of legislation and action taken both in favor and against terrorism, including the media. Its portrayal of terrorists and governments can easily sway public opinion, which can

Rutgers Model United Nations 2006

influence the decisions legislators may make. This ability to persuade states to act in a certain way can also affect states looking to join the EU, as they will likely alter their policies to accommodate a smooth entry into the treaty organization.

In addition,

individual governments hold key positions on the decisions that are currently being made in the EU. Regardless the history of terrorism and its suppression, the fear of terrorist attack exists in present day. Given the nature of the EU and the lack of internal borders, each member state needs to develop not only its only policies regarding terrorism, but must also participate in a consensus with the rest of its membership. While there have been several disagreements on policies in the past, particularly pertaining to human rights and privacy, these issues must be resolved with EU policy.

Background Terrorism has haunted Europe for decades in various forms of crime, backlash, and protest. People who use terror as a tactic in order to achieve their political agendas, or who are simply part of some type of movement or plan have existed in almost every member state of the European Union, leading to specific legislation in each state. In the 1970s, Europe experienced a variety of what was known as homegrown terrorism. At this time Greece, Germany, and Italy all suffered levels of leftist and rightwing terrorist attacks.1 Terrorism was also prevalent in Western Europe. During this time, left-wing, anti-capitalist groups such as the pro-Palestinian Action Direct and the Communist Combatant Cells, both of which affected Belgium and France, initiated acts of terror. Moreover, there was rebellion by terrorists in Greece, with the bombing of several busses in the 1970s.2 A day in 1972 became known as “Bloody Friday” because of violent attacks carried out by the Irish Republican Army (IRA), resulting in the deaths of eleven people, and six more, ten days later.3 A similarly named event known as 1

Alan Riding, “Europe knows fear, but this time it’s different.” Late Edition, 2004, Pg. 1 Erich G. Frankland, “Turning Chaos into cooperation.” Military Review, 75, 1995, Pg. 40 3 “The Global War on Terrorism: A Chronology” Dept. of State, Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs http://www.globalspecialoperations.com/terchron5.html. 2

Rutgers Model United Nations 2006

“Black September” occurred when terrorists seized eleven Israeli athletes from the Olympic village in Munich Germany.4 As a result of this active form of terrorism, in 1977, the Council of Europe (CoE) adopted the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism in order to develop cooperation between states in order to combat terrorism.5 This convention was drafted to aid in the expatriation of suspected terrorists from states. Further, it listed the prohibition of violent acts, and of several weapons and items such as bombs, grenades, and increased protection and safety measures for aircraft. One major weakness to this convention was its lack of a definition of the term “terrorism.”6

Undefined even by the United Nations, terrorism by some can be

considered a fight for independence by others. In the case of the United Kingdom’s tenuous relationship with Ireland, the British considered Irish loyalists, most notably the Irish Republican Army, as terrorists, whereas the Irish considered them to be patriots in their cause. In addition to the Convention, European states also played a proactive role in dealing with these attacks through the use of police and secret services, which effectively eliminated most these groups by the 1980s.7 Although many homegrown terrorist groups were eliminated in the 1980s, areas in Europe were still at risk for crime and terror. More specifically, at this time it was Central and Eastern European states that were a focus for dissident and terrorist groups. There were also several isolated incidents of terrorism throughout Europe that brought attention to the necessity for permanent monitoring and assessment of risk due to terror.8 Europe has also undergone a variety of separatist and ethno-nationalist movements that often resulted in terrorist acts. Separatist efforts are those that seek independence from a state given particular political beliefs. The region of Cataluña, Spain seeks 4

Ibid Rob Zaagman, “Terrorism and the OSCE: an overview.” Helsinki Monitor, 3, 2002, Pg. 204. 6 Ben Saul, “International Terrorism as a European Crime: The Policy Rational for Criminalization.” European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law, and Criminal Justice, 11, 2003, Pg. 339. 7 Nadia Alexandrova-Arbatova, “European Security and International Terrorism: The Balkan Connection.” Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 4, 2004, Pg. 374. 8 Rob Zaagman, 207. 5

Rutgers Model United Nations 2006

independence from the rest of the country as it feels its views are not effectively represented in the national assembly. In the northern Basque region of Spain, a group with a unique ethnic background also seeks independence from Spain, not based primarily on political reasons, but instead due to its belief that it is being subjugated by the Spanish government.9 While professing the desire for a peaceful resolution to these disputes, frustration has often led these movements to use terrorist acts to achieve their goals. In addition, radical terrorism also often occurred, with instances included bombings of Italian trains.10 In 1984, several terrorist attacks were carried out in the United Kingdom, sponsored by the Libyan People’s Bureau and the Muslim Brotherhood. That same year eighteen people were killed and eighty-three people were injured when Hezbollah detonated a bomb inside of a restaurant in Torrejon, Spain.11 Then, in 1985, a Trans-World Airlines flight was hi-jacked on its way from Rome to Athens by Hezbollah terrorists. Eight crewmembers and 145 passengers were held for more than two weeks, and were not released until 435 Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners were released from Israel.12 The United Kingdom was affected the following year, in 1986, when a British airbase was bombed in Cyprus.13 In 1988 a bomb planted by Libyan terrorists exploded on Pan-Am flight leaving Germany, killing 259 people.14 The 1990s, expected by many to be a time of peace after the conclusion of the Cold War, actually heralded a time when terrorism became an increasingly popular form of protest.15 In 1992, during a period which would become known as titled “Black September,” there was a large number of “wandering terrorists” in Europe, who had come from Algeria. These terrorists established bases in France, Germany, Italy, and Belgium, and built working relationships with groups such as the Armed Islamic Group 9

Erich G. Frankland. 39. Ibid 41. 11 “The Global War on Terrorism: A Chronology” 12 Ibid 13 Ibid 44. 14 Ibid 15 Alan Riding, 2. 10

Rutgers Model United Nations 2006

(GIA) and the Islamic Jihad. In 1994, Islamic Jihad made plans to fly a hijacked plane into the Eiffel Tower in France, but French Special Forces intervened before this attack could be carried out.16 In addition, the early 1990s were a time of turmoil in Turkey, when in June 1993, the extremist Kurdish Workers Party carried out a series of bombings in Turkey.17 In 1995, in response to an increase in terrorist attacks, the European Council met in Madrid and declared that terrorism should be viewed as a danger to democracy and to the “free exercise of human rights and economic and social development.” Moreover, they determined that it “operates on a transnational scale”, meaning that states need to work on a common, rather than an individual level to defeat it. Overall, Spain has experienced the largest number of terrorist attacks over the past century from groups such as the Antiterrorist Liberation Group, the Basque Spanish Battalion, and a series of attacks in the 1990s by ETA, all groups that were committing acts of terror in order to fight for their independence.18 Attacks were also carried out in the French subway system, in Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Great Britain. While supported by different groups, all of these acts of terrorism can be attributed to separatist movements. Acts of terror followed Europe into the 21st Century. Many groups, such as the Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA), continued to terrorize the Europeans as a result of separatist goals. ETA is an organization created out of commitment to the Basque nationalist movement in the 1950s, which pushed for a state independent of France and Spain that would be run by a socialist government for and of the Basque people. Recognized by much of the First World as a terrorist organization, ETA has been using tactics such as assassination, kidnapping, and bombing since the 1960s in order to push an agenda that has shifted from the aforementioned hope of independence to the maintenance of an independent culture in Basque regions.

In March 2006, ETA

announced that it would no longer use violent actions to fight for its cause, and has expressed its commitment to participate in the political process as a means of sustaining 16

Nadia Alexandrova-Arbatova, 374. Erich G. Frankland, 43. 18 Ibid 40. 17

Rutgers Model United Nations 2006

the organization. This declaration by the ETA was similar to that of the Irish Republican Army, which agreed to disarm, and to engage the political process through its Sinn Fein political arm. Other groups continued using terror tactics through the turn of the century. A car bombing in 2000 in Iturreta, Spain destroyed significant infrastructure.19 In 2003 Eastern Europe experienced an outbreak of violence through terrorism, when a truck bomb detonated by a suspected Al-Qaeda group in Chechnya, killed fifty-four people. Also in Chechnya, in 2003, two suicide bombers attacked during a religious festival, killing fourteen people and injuring forty-three.

Current Status While Europe has experienced acts of terror over the decades, various legislative efforts that it passed concerning terrorism did not have the desired affect. Soon after the attacks of 11 September 2001, the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) council in Europe took specific action, such as adopting new legislation, improving technology, and implemented the EU Action Plan to Fight Terrorism. In recent times, this effort has taken form in six areas that include judicial and counter-terrorism cooperation, intelligence on financing of terrorism, and border controls.21 That same year, the European Union established the Anti-Money Laundering Directive, which seeks to terminate, or at least complicate, funding to terrorists.22 The European Union is a large governing body, with several councils such as the JHA, which govern and overlook various areas. However, because of the significant threat that terrorism poses to states in Europe, and due to the amount of intelligence needed for preventative and defensive methods, in 2002, a European Council framework decision created Eurojust, an independent legal body, the purpose of which is to coordinate any investigations in member states. 19

Agencies such as the European Law Enforcement

Ibid “The Global War on Terrorism: A Chronology”. 21 “EU counter terrorism efforts in JHA field.” Rapid, 2004, Pg. 2 22 Ibid 6. 20

Rutgers Model United Nations 2006

Organisation (Europol) and Eurojust have been heavily involved in anti-terrorist work, creating data systems that are easily accessible by all nations, however states in Europe have clarified that there will not be a super-national CIA-type organization in Europe.23 The members of the European Union have made extensive commitments in the fight against terrorism. An action plan with more than 150 measures was initiated, including agreements to include biometric information on passports, meaning that they will allow for facial scans and finger printing to be digitally included in these travel documents. In addition, plans have been suggested to halt illegal financial transfers, and easing the traceability of explosives.24 More specifically, in 2002, the European Council decided that if necessary, member states can establish joint investigation teams for limited terms, and recommended the use of “multi-national ad hoc teams” in order to open communication on terrorist and criminal investigations.25 Such efforts include the “Situation and Trends Report on the Terrorist Activity in the EU” (TE-SAT) which is compiled by Europol on a yearly basis, as well as the Terrorist Working Group (TWG), which reviews the level of terrorist threat bi-annually, identifying the most significant groups and individuals.26 While the ad hoc groups have been at work establishing new criteria and evaluating potential threats, in 2003, the European Council drew up a framework on the combat of terror, which involves the close alignment of criminal law in all member states in order to prosecute terrorists properly as well as cooperation with lesser and least developed states in order to prevent terrorist attacks.27 Although preventative legislation and actions were being taken in Europe, particularly in response to the attacks of 11 September 2001, in 2004 there were several arrests on potential terrorists in Britain, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Lebanon, Belgium, France, and Spain.28 A terrorist attack succeeded in March 2004 bombing the Spanish rail system, and was carried out by ETA, a group no longer recognized as a terrorist 23

The Fight Within. Economist, 376, 2005, Pg. 1 Ibid. 25 “EU counter terrorism efforts in JHA field.” Rapid, 2004, Pg. 4, Emphasis added. 26 Ibid 5. 27 Ibid 3. 28 Sean Gregory, Europe’s War on Terrorism. Time, 166, 2005, Pg. 1. 24

Rutgers Model United Nations 2006

organization. This attack killed more than two hundred people, injuring more than one thousand. In response to this continued threat, the European Union threatened nations throughout the world that if they did not cooperate with the EU with regard to security and intelligence efforts to prevent terrorist attacks, the EU would refuse further economic development funding to these states.29 Moreover, the JHA and European Council took further action and established the European arrest warrant, which guarantees a speedy judicial “system of surrender” in order to prosecute terrorist and criminals.30

This

warrant simplifies the extradition process in the EU, making transnational persecution of suspected terrorists much less involved. Unfortunately, states in Europe have been slow to fully implement this warrant. The European Council’s Counter-Terrorism Coordinator is Gijs de Vries, a Dutch politician, has made several statements regarding the progress of the EU relative to the terrorist threat. He has stated that the

Gijs de Vries

three main priorities of the anti-terrorism tactics in the EU are to ensure the that twelve counter-terrorism conventions are ratified within the United Nations, to offer assistance to other states to help prevent terror and crime, and to establish a team of experts on terrorism and anti-terror strategies.31 After the acts of terror on the Spanish railways, European governments came together to discuss methods of prevention, including increasing the number of police, the improvement of intelligence and border cooperation.

Other issues up for discussion were the large

numbers of Muslim immigrants. Methods such as ID cards and immigration regulations were also mentioned.32 de Vries has also proposed that there be a permanent fund in the EU to assist terrorism victims. He also suggests the creation of a program to “protect critical infrastructure from attacks,” with finance from member states from the EU. 29

Stephen Castle, “EU to cut aid to third world over terrorism.” The Independent (London), 2004, Pg. 20 Mar Jimeno-Bulnes, “After September 11th: the fight against terrorism in national and European law” European Law Journal, 10, 2004 Pg. 250 31 “EU rejects the idea of a ‘clash of civilizations’”. Iran News Agency, 2004, Pg. 2 32 Arthur Waldron, Europe’s Crisis. Commentary, 119, 2005, Pg. 2. 30

Rutgers Model United Nations 2006

In 2004 in response to these recommendations, European leaders held a terrorism prevention exercise, in which they simulated a nuclear terrorist attack in Belgium. After this drill, the leaders determined that the best possible way to reduce the chances of an attack of this type is to prevent terrorists from getting access to fissile materials such as plutonium.33

Later that year, the European

Union also established new security measures for those leaving and entering EU. All those traveling to and from the EU must declare any

Fissile Materials: A specific set of nuclear materials, such as uranium-235 and plutonium-239 that may be used in making a nuclear explosive for a weapon. It does not include fissile materials present in spent nuclear fuel or irradiating targets from reactors. Source: web.em.doe.gov/bemr96/glossary.html

amount of money over 10,000 Euros (USD $13,000), and any finances not declared will be confiscated. This policy was enacted to ensure that Europe could not be used as a host for terrorist cells, or for money laundering purposes. Anyone suspected of transferring or carrying money for terrorist purposes will be turned into the Financial Intelligence Unit, Europol, and entered into a database.34 The precautions taken after the Madrid bombings were necessary but were to become insufficient relative to the persistent threat of terror. The year 2005 was a painful one for the United Kingdom, as it experienced a series of deadly terrorist attacks in London in July. British Islamic extremists carried out these attacks on the London transportation system. The European Commission replied soon after, as they proposed a new counter-terrorism plan, suggesting a pilot program geared to prevent and react to terrorist attacks. The commission has requested funding of USD $8.4 million for this program.

It also proposes a data retention system, which would monitor

telecommunications throughout the continent.35 Additionally, later in 2005, the Council of Europe held a conference in Warsaw, Poland where representatives decided to focus on special techniques for investigations, on witness protection systems, and to foster

Morten Bremer Maerli and Lars van Dassen. Europe Carry your weight. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 2004, Pg. 19 34 “EU puts squeeze on terror finance.” U.P.I, 2005, Pg. 1-2 35 “European Commission presents counter-terrorism package.” Xinhua News Agency, 2005, Pg. 1-2/

Rutgers Model United Nations 2006

discussion on the financial aspect of terrorism. All of these objectives aim to fight terror without the infringing on human rights.36 Further highlighting the issue of border control in Europe, the recent August 2006 arrest of more than 20 suspected terrorists involved in plans to blow up airliners over the Atlantic Ocean has put even more pressure on the EU to strengthen its border-related policies. While Britain may have strict control of its borders, it and other members of the European Union are vulnerable to terrorist infiltration when said terrorists are able to easily enter the continent because of other European states’ less stringent border policies. Once in Europe, it is much easier to travel from one country to another than it would be traveling from a non-European country into Europe, and thus states such as Britain have much to gain in promoting stricter border control throughout Europe. Prior to the news of the foiled terror plot in Britain, 2006 had already been an eventful year for action taken against terrorism in Europe. Thus far, the justice and interior ministers of the EU enacted a new counter-terror strategy based on four pillars, including “cutting the supply of terror recruits, protecting citizens and infrastructure, pursuing and investigating suspects, and responding to the consequences of an attack.” While these pillars are progressive, the ministers encountered problems with applicability, as not every member of the EU views as terrorist attack the same way. Moreover, while agreeing on the necessity of certain anti-terror strategies, the ministers did not come to a consensus on the specifics of some of these efforts, unable to determine program management and funding.37 Because of the considerable attention this issue has received, various bodies, commissions, and governing body have put forth their suggestions and recommendations. After a conference between Justice and Home Affairs ministers from the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, France and Germany, the ministers came to various conclusions with regard to terrorism. 36

First, they believe it is necessary to develop fingerprint

“Council of Europe moves to fill gaps in fight on international terror.” Agence France Presse - English, 2005, Pg.

“Europe adopts counter-terrorism strategy, but divisions remain.” Agence France Presse – English, 2006, Pg. 1-2.

Rutgers Model United Nations 2006

databases and tracking systems in order for states in Europe to share intelligence. Moreover, they feel that Europol should prioritize research on terrorist financing.38 Similarly, commission reports on counter-terror suggest that it is crucial to have EU-wide access to data, ranging from e-mails to telephone conversations. Others have suggested the shutdown of extremist websites on the Internet, however there has not been an agreement to this by all states because of concerns over privacy rights and the freedom of speech.39 The European Union has proposed a union-wide database for terrorist and criminal records. The European Parliament has opposed the United States having any type of access to this database.40 In the past, the European Parliament has also rejected other ideas such as the creation of a forum for victims of terrorist attacks, as well as suggestions to allow the International Criminal Court jurisdiction over terror.41 Some have been critical of the EU’s reactions to terrorism, such as Amnesty International, which has stated that a problem with the counter-terrorism strategy in Europe “lacks concrete human rights safeguards.” The non-governmental organization (NGO) suggests that member states of the EU “re-think” their definitions of terrorism to make it more specific to ensure that counter-terror efforts cannot infringe on free speech.42 Scholars have speculated the reasoning behind terrorist groups in Europe, including efforts to affect politics or assert religion, while others are only driven by profit. These groups often receive funding through illegal methods, such as the terrorists behind the bombings in Madrid who completely funded themselves through drug trafficking. Other methods of finance include smuggling, fraud, car theft, counterfeit, or pirated CDs and DVDs.43 Other reasons for terrorism in Europe is likely related to economic status. States such as Great Britain harbor a vast amount of immigrants from North Africa. 38

These immigrants and their families are often isolated in poor

“European co-operation to secure borders.” Home Office, 2004 Pg. 1-2 Geoffe Meade, “EU countries condemned for lax-anti terror measures.” PA Europe, 2005, Pg. 2 40 “EU proposes terrorist database.” The Information Management General, 2004, Pg. 17 41 “European Parliament Recommends Counter-Terrorism Policies to Council.” European Report, 2005 Pg. 2 42 Lucia Kubosova, “EU under fire for anti-terror measures.” EUObserver, 2005, Pg. 1 43 David E. Kaplan, Paying for Terror. Economist, 139, 2005, Pg. 2 39

Rutgers Model United Nations 2006

neighborhoods, feeling alienated from their communities, and therefore engage in criminal activity and terror.44 Many of the problems that arise in the prevention of terrorism are connected with the difficulty some states show regarding cooperation. This cooperation can be reflected through laws and ordinances passed by the European Union, as well as other governing bodies in Europe. While some states such as the United Kingdom and Germany remain committed to preventing terrorism, other states such as France are more reluctant to cooperate because of fear that the European Union may infringe on their own sovereignty claims. Ironically, the United Kingdom is unwilling to participate in the Euro over sovereignty concerns, however they are willing to overlook sovereignty in the case of national security.

This is just one of the difficult areas when working with an

organization based upon the willingness of members states to surrender some of their sovereignty rights for the benefit of union.

Key Positions The Big 5 Although the European Union is comprised of several able-bodied states, it is the Big 5, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and the United Kingdom, that dominate in policy and power. These states have been working in cooperation with India, which has decided to work together to prevent recruitment into terrorist groups.45 In addition, they have slowly begun to collaborate with states such as the United States and Mediterranean countries.46 Thus far, six member states, Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, and the United Kingdom have enacted stiff counter-terrorism laws. Moreover, states such as Germany and Italy have remained firm in their positions that the use of force will not be effective in regards to terrorism, as terrorists typically represent non-state actors.47

John Cloud, Rush Hour Terror: 3 Lessons from London. Time, 166, 2005, Pg. 2 Harbaksh Singh Nanda, “India, EU join forces against error.” U.P.I, 2004, Pg. 1 46 “EU hopes for UN counter-terrorism strategy.” Xinhua General News, 2005, Pg. 2 47 Indalecio Alvarez, “Madridd to urge new strategy on terrorism.” Agence France Presse – English, 2004, Pg. 2 45

Rutgers Model United Nations 2006

Members of the European Union France French officials are constantly working in order to prevent terrorist and criminal attacks from happening in their territory. Thus far, they have stated that their objectives include increasing military capabilities, and developing ad hoc committees and organizations to ensure safety within its borders.48 In addition, in 2002 French police arrested and detained suspects attempting to plan a “shoe-bomb attack” on a flight from Paris to Miami.49

United Kingdom In response to what it foresaw to be an increasingly dangerous environment, the United Kingdom enacted the Anti-Terrorism Act in 2000. In recent times, they have considered adding identification cards, providing police with new powers of interrogation and detainment, and revoking several judicial rights of travelers refused entry to the United Kingdom. While these measures are still proposals, many are advocating that actions such as these would violate people’s civil liberties.50

In 2001, the United

Kingdom Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act was enacted, closely resembling the USA Patriot Act.

Main provisions include the extension of powers for reporting

information to public authorities, and the allowance for the indefinite detention of a suspected international terrorist, with no judicial intervention.51 After the attacks in London in 2005, officials proposed security measures such as ID cards, or even a dramatic shoot-to-kill policy of suspected terrorists, previously unsuccessfully used in Israel.52 More recently, the foiling of the airline bombing plot in August 2006 may not have been possible without the passage of the Prevention of 48

Neil Winn, “Towards a common European Security and Defense policy? The debate on NATO, the European Army, and Transatlantic Security.” Geopolitics, 8, 2003 Pg. 56 49 Vivienne Walt, “Terrorists spread all over Europe.” USA Today, 2002, Pg. 4 50 Lucian Kim and Matt Hilburn, “Attacks energize Europe on fight against terror.” Christian Science Monitor, 93, 2001, Pg. 7. 51 Mar Jimeno-Bulnes, “After September 11th: the fight against terrorism in national and European law” European Law Journal, 10, 2004 Pg. 243 52 Adel Darwish, Angering hearts and losing minds. Middle East, 359, 2005, Pg. 2.

Rutgers Model United Nations 2006 Terrorism Act of 2005.

This legislation expanded the powers of the UK’s Home

Secretary to place “control orders” on a suspected terrorist, authorizing British police to prevent them from speaking to certain individuals, from traveling to certain places, and from other traditionally free activities, allowing the Home Secretary to determine if there is enough evidence to bring charges against the individual while ensuring that the public be kept safe from acts of terrorism.53

Spain In response to the terrorist attacks in the United States in 2001, Spain revised a number of its laws in order to fight terrorism and protect its citizens. These revisions include an amendment in the Spanish criminal law that raises the maximum limit of punishment in regards to terrorist crimes from twenty years to forty years, and a quicker trial and prosecution system in order to expedite the criminal charge process.54

Germany In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel, as well as the vast majority of the population is in support of more stringent security laws. The cabinet aims to eliminate abuse by extremist group of religious freedom as a cover for terrorist activities, and to enforce tighter border controls, and improvement of security in airports. In addition, in various areas of the state random screening of Arab students in Germany has been enacted.55

The Media The media is a key example of the effects that non-governmental players have on the issue of terrorism, particularly in Europe. First and foremost, media coverage of terrorist activities and terrorist groups offers attention and publicity to terrorists. More specifically, George Habash, leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, 53

“Restrictions that UK suspects may face,” BBC News Online, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4212431.stm, Accessed 18 August 2006. 54 Mar Jimeno-Bulnes, “After September 11th: the fight against terrorism in national and European law” European Law Journal, 10, 2004 Pg. 243-244 55 Lucian Kim and Matt Hilburn, “Attacks energize Europe on fight against terror.” Christian Science Monitor, 93, 2001, Pg. 7.

Rutgers Model United Nations 2006

explains, “we force people to ask what is going on.”56 This attention is one of the objectives of many terrorist groups, and is something that the media provides for them. Moreover, the media allows an outlet for leaders and groups to voice their concerns and reasoning for attacks or criminal plans. Several world leaders have stated that this opportunity impedes governments from properly negotiating for safety from these groups. In addition, because media provides attention and publicity to terrorist groups and leaders, this provides these people legitimacy and respectability.57 This, too, can hinder criminal investigations and prevent the safety the European population.

Baltic States The Baltic States, consisting of Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia are all geared towards providing high levels of security within their borders as well as within Europe, as members of the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Within these bodies, the Baltic States have committed to programs such as the European Rapid Reactions Force, which works to strengthen security in Europe, especially with regard to threats along borders.58 In addition, Baltic States such as Lithuania have consistently voiced their concern that the United States be used as a partner in promoting the safety in Europe, as well as using the United States as a link between the European Union and NATO.59 Interestingly, much of the European Union is reluctant to cooperate fully with the United States, as the EU seeks to establish itself as a power comparable to that of the U.S. Overall, the prevention of terrorist and criminal activities in the Baltic States is a high priority, one that aims to be met through the use of the cooperation between states and governmental bodies.

Brigitte L. Nacos, “Accomplice or Witness? The Media’s Role in Terrorism.” Current History, 2000, Pg. 176 Ibid 177. 58 Linas Linkevicius, “Lithuanian National Plans and Priorities before the Prague Summit.” Baltic Defense Review, 6, 2001, Pg. 41 59 Ibid 41. 57

Rutgers Model United Nations 2006

Non-European Union States Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) is an autonomous organization consisting largely of former Soviet states, including Russia, the Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan,

Armenia,

Georgia,

Kazakhstan,

Kyrgyzstan,

Moldova,

Tajikistan,

Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. While these states are not members of the European Union, many of them are seeking membership and therefore cooperate however they can in European police and security matters. The CIS has its own counter-terrorism unit known as the Anti-Terrorism Center (ATC), which is a permanent specialized agency that works to gather and analyze information and intelligence from each individual member state, as well as working with larger bodies such as the United Nations.60

The United States of America European reaction to the events of 11 September 2001 has not only caused the EU to strengthen its anti-terrorism policies, but also to strength its relationship with the U.S. and its anti-terrorism agencies.

Representatives from the EU and U.S. have met

numerous times since those attacks to discuss how to improve communication and intelligence sharing as well as how to adopt common definitions of terrorism and terrorist activity.

The EU-U.S. agreement on extradition and mutual legal assistance provides

numerous provisions easing the difficulty of extradition and expanding the ability for law enforcement agencies to share information and access.61 The European Union has grown wary of American anti-terrorism efforts, including its use of extraordinary rendition, and its use of the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba as a prison facility for suspected terrorists.

“The Anti-Terrorist Center of the Member Countries of the Commonwealth of independent states and its competence.” Statues and Decisions, 40, 2004, Pg. 91. 61 “The EU's relations with the United States of America,” External Relations, http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/us/intro/peace2.htm, Accessed 18 August 2006.

Rutgers Model United Nations 2006

Summary Terrorism is an extreme fighting tactic which has become a more prevalent strategy to affect political change in the last few decades. Still, it has existed in prior times, leaving almost every state in Europe in fear at one point or another. In the past, terrorism existed on a much smaller scale, allowing local police forces and federal governments to deal with controlling it. While smaller-scale solutions may have been effective in earlier times, modern day terrorism presents a new dilemma. Since the attacks on 11 September 2001 in the United States, terrorism around the world and particularly in Europe has increased. Attacks in Spain and London have increased awareness all over Europe about the vulnerabilities each state faces. Discussions have taken place on the level of security each state should enact, as well as what actions the European Union and its member states as a whole should take. Measures proposed have varied, ranging from identification cards to the tracking of financial system.

Various problems exist, however, because since each state has

sovereignty over its own legislative process, it is difficult to enact uniform laws from state to state, therefore prohibiting the type of security necessary. Moreover, many have brought up the debate over privacy and human rights. This too, hinders the process of deciding on a security policy in Europe because a single law or piece of legislation cannot be agreed to. Regardless of what solution is chosen, one objective remains clear: as terrorism increases, both homegrown and international, each European state is in danger of experiencing a tragedy on its land. As a result, it is necessary for the European Union to guide its member states to create, implement, and manage a policy and security framework to protect its citizens from acts of terror.

Rutgers Model United Nations 2006

Discussion Questions • Has your state been affected by terrorism? How? How did it respond? • What individual policies has your state enacted in order to prevent terrorism? Have they ever been used? • Which policies proposed by the European Union has your state sponsored or supported? Why or why not has it made these decisions? Are there concerns regarding sovereignty? • What policies do you propose be adopted? Why or why not? • How do you propose an overall policy be enacted without violating a state’s right to sovereignty? Is this possible? Why or why not? • Consider the relationship between anti-terror laws and those protecting free speech and human rights. Can the EU effectively pass anti-terror legislation while ensuring the protection of these important rights? If not, which is more important? • What impact do you believe the media has had on the perception of terrorism within Europe? Is this beneficial or harmful? What can be done to continue or change this? • Should Europe have an active role in fighting terrorism outside of the EU? Is the American policy of fighting terrorists “over there” a more effective strategy than responding to terrorist attacks? • What affect does the lack of internal border crossings in Europe have on the ability to track and detain suspected terrorists? As the EU looks to bring in new members, does the expansion of the external border make Europe more vulnerable to attack? How does the need to expand relate to the need to ensure security?

Rutgers Model United Nations 2006

Works Cited Alexandrova-Arbatova, Nadia. “European Security and International Terrorism: The Balkan Connection.” Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 4, 2004. Alvarez, Indalecio. “Madrid to urge new strategy on terrorism.” Agence France Presse – English, 2004. “The Anti-Terrorist Center of the Member Countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States and its Competence.” Statutes and Decisions, 40, 2004. Castle, Stephen. “EU to cut aid to third world over terrorism.” The Independent (London), 2004. Cloud, John. Rush Hour Terror: 3 Lessons from London. Time, 166, 2005. “Council of Europe moves to fill gaps in fight on international terror.” Agence France Presse – English, 2005. Darwish, Adel. Angering hearts and losing minds. Middle East, 359, 2005. “EU counter-terrorism efforts in JHA field.” Rapid, 2004. “EU hopes for UN counter-terrorism strategy.” Xinhua General News, 2005. “EU proposes terrorist database.” The Information Management General, 2004. “EU puts squeeze on terror finance.” U.P.I, 2005. “EU rejects the idea of a ‘clash of civilizations’”. Iran News Agency, 2004, Pg. 2 “Europe adopts counter-terrorism strategy, but divisions remain.” Agence France Presse – English, 2006. “European Commission presents counter-terrorism package.” Xinhua News Agency, 2005. “European co-operation to secure borders.” Home Office, 2004. “European Parliament Recommends Counter-Terrorism Policies to Council.” European Report, 2005.

Rutgers Model United Nations 2006

“The Fight Within.” Economist, 376, 2005. Frankland, Erich G. “Turning Chaos into cooperation.” Military Review, 75, 1995. “The Global War on Terrorism: A Chronology” Dept. of State , Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs. http://www.globalspecialoperations.com/terchron5 Gregory, Sean. Europe’s War on Terrorism. Time, 166, 2005. Jimeno-Bulnes, Mar. “After September 11th: the fight against terrorism in national and European law” European Law Journal, 10, 2004. Kaplan, David E. Paying for Terror. Economist, 139, 2005. Kim, Lucian and Hilburn, Matt. “Attacks energize Europe on fight against terror.” Christian Science Monitor, 93, 2001. Linkevicius, Linas. “Lithuanian National Plans and Priorities before the Prague Summit.” Baltic Defense Review, 6, 2001 Lucia Kubosova, “EU under fire for anti-terror measures.” EUObserver, 2005. Maerli, Morten Bremer and Van Dassen, Lars. Europe Carry your weight. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 2004. Meade, Geoffe “EU countries condemned for lax-anti terror measures.” PA Europe, 2005. Nacos, Brigitte L. “Accomplice or Witness? The Media’s Role in Terrorism.” Current History, 2000. Nanda, Harbaksh Singh. “India, EU join forces against error.” U.P.I, 2004. Riding, Alan. “Europe knows fear, but this time it’s different.” Late Edition, 2004. Saul, Ben. “International Terrorism as a European Crime: The Policy Rational for Criminalization.” European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law, and Criminal Justice, 11, 2003. Waldron, Arthur. Europe’s Crisis. Commentary, 119, 2005. Walt, Vivienne. “Terrorists spread all over Europe.” USA Today, 2002.

Rutgers Model United Nations 2006

Winn, Neil. “Towards a common European Security and Defense policy? The debate on NATO, the European Army, and Transatlantic Security.” Geopolitics, 8, 2003. Zaagman, Rob. “Terrorism and the OSCE: an overview.” Helsinki Monitor, 3, 2002.