CONFRONTING TERRORISM NIJHOFF LAW SPECIALS VOLUME 56 Netherlands Institute of International Relations 'Clingendael'
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CONFRONTING TERRORISM NIJHOFF LAW SPECIALS VOLUME 56 Netherlands Institute of International Relations 'Clingendael' Confronting Terrorism European Experiences, Threat Perceptions and Policies Edited by Marianne van Leeuwen KLUWER LAW INTERNATIONAL THE HAGUE /LONDON 1 NEWYORK A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 90-411-1960-4 Published by Kluwer Law International, P.O. Box 85889,2508 CN The Hague, The Netherlands. [email protected] http://www. kluwerlaw.com Rebecca Solheim, Linguistic Editing Kitty I'Ami, Lay-out Printed on acid-free paper All Rights Reserved O 2003 Kluwer Law International Kluwer Law International incorporates the imprint of Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Printed in the Netherlands. Preface Marianne van Leeuwen This book is the product of a project on terrorism and counter-terrorism in Europe that was initiated by the Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’ in The Hague in the early spring of 2001. Twelve specialists have written for this book in a period when, even more than usual, claims were being made on their time, their attention and intellectual skills. I am truly grateful to them all for their willingness to participate and for sharing their knowledge and insights. Working with them has been a learning experience for me. As editor, I am responsible for the overall concept of the work. Responsibility for opinions and interpretations presented in the individual chapters, however, rests with the authors. The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs has very generously supported the Clingendael project financially. I have, moreover, benefited from the continuous encour- agement and suggestions given by a number of the Ministry’s staff members. The Hague, Autumn 2002 v Miss Page Contents 1 Confronting Terrorism Marianne van Leeuwen 1 2 Policy Options and Priorities: British Perspectives Clive Walker 11 3 Irish Experiences and Perspectives Dermot Walsh 37 4 Democratization and State Responses to Protracted Terrorism in Spain Fernando Reinares 57 5 The French Approach: Vigour and Vigilance Nathalie Cettina 71 6 Terrorism in Italy: Receding and Emerging Issues Giuseppe de Lutiis 95 7 Terrorism in Germany: Old and New Problems Stefan Malthaner and Peter Waldmann 111 8 The Mysteries of Terrorism and Political Violence in Greece Mary Bossis 129 9 The Netherlands: Structuring the Management of Terrorist Incidents Erwin Muller 147 10 Swedish Experiences: Countering Violent Networks Malena Rembe 165 vii viii contents 11 The EU Counter-Terrorism Wave: Window of Opportunity or Profound Policy Transformation? Monica den Boer 185 12 The United Nations: Towards a Comprehensive Convention on Combating Terrorism Bibi T. van Ginkel 207 13 Democracy versus Terrorism: Balancing Security and Fundamental Rights Marianne van Leeuwen 227 About the Authors 235 1 Confronting Terrorism Marianne van Leeuwen The idea for this book was born in early spring 2001, when the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York were still standing tall. At that time, terrorism was considered to be a major issue in only a few European countries, for the obvious reason that most countries, even those like Germany and Italy that had been shaken by repeated terrorist outrages in the 1970s and 1980s, had been spared terrorist attacks for quite some time. Only in Spain had the ETA become active again after a period of self-imposed rest, while in the United Kingdom, the threat of attacks by extremist splinter groups continued even as the difficult ‘peace process’ with the IRA was beginning to bear fruit. Perhaps as a consequence, relatively few European scholars felt inspired to write about terrorism. Veterans in the field had turned to different subjects, such as the study of juvenile crime in major cities. In the United States, by contrast, concern about terrorism and political violence had risen during the 1990s, again for an obvious reason. Major attacks had been launched against American citizens, both on US soil (the first attack on New York’s World Trade Center in 1993; the attack by Timothy McVeigh on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995) and abroad (attacks against US military personnel in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996; attacks against the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998; attack against the USS Cole in 2000). The Clinton administration had therefore placed the fight against terrorism prominently on its security agenda. After the attack in March 1995 by members of the Japanese AUM sect on the Tokyo metro, the admin- istration took the threat of terrorist use of ‘unconventional’ (biological, chemical, nuclear and radiological) weapons particularly seriously and initiated studies to analyse terrorist threats, scan existing counter-terrorist policies, and propose countermeasures in case of ‘catastrophic’ attacks. Such initiatives were given bipartisan support in Congress. Substantial funds were allocated to programmes to improve the management of terrorist crises. American scholars also showed intense interest in issues of terrorism and counter- M. van Leeuwen (ed.): Confronting Terrorism, pp. 1-9 © 2003 Kluwer Law International. Printed in the Netherlands. 1 2 Marianne van Leeuwen terrorist policies, and particularly in catastrophic threats. As a consequence, literature on terrorism during the 1990s was dominated by American studies. The original idea for this book was to provide more input of European expertise in the international public debate on terrorism by making a comparative study of a number of European countries, covering their recent experiences with terrorism (of a national and/or international nature), their threat perceptions, and the counter-terrorist policies that they were pursuing, as well as the causal links (or lack of them) between these three elements. Chapters were also planned on threat perceptions and policy-making in the European Union, and on European contributions to policy-making at the level of the United Nations. Then came 11 September 2001. Arguably, the terrorist outrages of that day made most European experiences of the past ten years look pale. For a while at least, the attacks functioned as a great equalizer within Europe as far as threat perceptions were concerned. Public awareness of the pernicious potential of terrorism increased sharply, dramatically so in countries that had not had truly traumatic problems with terrorism on their own soil for some time. The attacks also triggered a re-evaluation by governments, parliaments and specialized organizations of threat perceptions and legislative, judicial and investigative policies to fight terrorism in many European countries as well as in the European Union. In New York, terrorist issues rose to urgent prominence on the agenda of the United Nations. EU member states actively participated in the decision-making processes in the UN. In the light of these events, the outline of the book needed adjusting. In particular, the authors of the country studies were asked to analyse the effects of the attacks on two main issues raised in all the chapters: the evolution of threat perceptions; and changes in policy-making. The authors of the chapters dealing with the European Union and the United Nations also included relevant ‘11 September effects’ in their chapters. A Few Notes on Defining Terrorism: An Elusive Concept It is standard procedure for studies on terrorism to start with the issue of definitions. Some readers may consider this issue tedious, but the tediousness does not detract from its relevance. I should like to stress that the following notes reflect my personal views. The authors in this book do not necessarily share my arguments, although I believe that many of them agree with most of my assumptions. They have not been asked to work with one ‘consensus’ definition, as that would have detracted from the authenticity of their arguments and complicated their analyses of the positions of various governmental positions. Readers are not left in the dark, however. Authors have commented on definitional matters in their chapters when they considered this necessary or useful. I shall not try to add a definition of my own to the impressive collections already existing. I shall merely discuss a number of common and important difficulties in coming to grips with the concept of terrorism, partly by presenting some suggestions to discrimi- Confronting Terrorism 3 nate between ‘terrorism’ on the one hand and various different forms of violence on the other.1 I argue here, first of all, that the concept of terrorism is essentially value ridden. It cannot be completely neutral. If this thesis is correct, then it is impossible to capture ‘terrorism’ in universally accepted laws and rules. Valiant attempts at breaking down the problem of definition into important components of the terrorist phenomenon have led, and may further lead, to impressive and much needed results, but sooner or later inter- pretative differences are bound to (re-)emerge. Thus, it will not be possible to define a universally accepted distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters trying to implement their right of self-determination. In the absence of universal consensus on the concept of ‘terrorism’, implementing a prohibition of membership of or support for a ‘terrorist’ organization will become subject to interpretative arguments. The debate within the EU on the status of the Kurdistan Workers Party is a point in case. Motivations and Aims Terrorists go into action because they want to change the political and/or social order. Radical religious aims are also to be categorized under this heading. Three major motivational trends may be discerned: nationalistic/ethnic, extreme left- or right-wing ideologies, and religious extremism.