ACCOUNTING FOR THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC IN DEMOCRATIC STATES’ COUNTERTERRORISM POLICIES: A COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ANALYSIS OF SPAIN AND THE UNITED KINGDOM A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts By MEGAN R. CRONENWETT B.A. International Studies, Wright State University, 2007 2011 Wright State University WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES 10 March 2011 I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY Megan Cronenwett ENTITLED Accounting for the Role of the Public in Democratic States’ Counterterrorism Policies: A Comparative Case Study Analysis of Spain and the United Kingdom BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Arts. ______________________________ Donna Schlagheck, Ph.D. Thesis Director ______________________________ Laura M. Luehrmann, Ph.D. Director, Master of Arts Program in International and Comparative Politics Committee on Final Examination: ___________________________________ Donna Schlagheck, Ph.D. Department of Political Science ___________________________________ Liam Anderson, Ph.D. Department of Political Science ___________________________________ Vaughn Shannon, Ph.D. Department of Political Science ___________________________________ Andrew T. Hsu, Ph.D. Dean, School of Graduate Studies ABSTRACT Cronenwett, Megan, M.A., Department of Political Science, Wright State University, 2011. “Accounting for the Role of the Public in Democratic States’ Counterterrorism Policies: A Comparative Case Study of Spain and the United Kingdom”. Democratic states are more susceptible to terrorist attacks and yet have the most responsibility to ensure their counterterrorism responses are in accordance with democratic principles. Respect for the rule of law and the freedoms of speech and press are just a few of the principles ingrained in democratic philosophy and likewise, by the very nature of a democracy, democratic states must be held accountable to their citizenries. These factors, however, can be a cause of dissention and can lead to a dangerous overreaction or a disproportionate response by democratic states in their counterterrorism policies, including leading to the very undemocratic response of restricting civil liberties. This thesis researches and analyzes the counterterrorism policies of Britain and Spain and applies the theory of Moral Panics to evaluate how Moral Panics has influenced their respective counterterrorism policies to account for the discrepancy found between the British and Spanish state responses to terrorism. Key Words: Terrorism, counterterrorism responses, fear and terrorism, disproportionate response, overreaction, terrorism and public opinion, Moral Panics theory iii Table of Contents: Introduction 1-26 Chapter 1: Public Opinion Data 27-38 Chapter 2: Action Group Data 39-55 Chapter 3: Statements of Heads of Government and Opposition 56-69 Chapter 4: Editorial Data 70-97 Chapter 5: Security Forces Data 98-124 Chapter 6: Legislation Data 125-143 Conclusion 144-162 Table 1: Moral Panic Indicators in Spanish Data Sources 163 Table 2: Moral Panic Indicators in U.K. Data Sources 164 Appendix I: List of Action Groups 165-168 Appendix II: List of Counterterrorism Legislation 169-174 Appendix III: Editorial Translations 175-257 Bibliography 258-275 iv List of Tables Table 1: Moral Panic Indicators in Spanish Data Sources 163 Table 2: Moral Panic Indicators in U.K. Data Sources 164 v Glossary/ List of Foreign Terms and Abbreviations . La Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos del País Vasco – The Pro Human Rights Association of the Basque Country . La Asociación del Víctimas del Terrorismo – The Association of Victims of Terrorism (AVT) . Audencia Nacional – Spanish National Court . Batallón Vasco-Español – Basque-Spanish Battalion (BVE) . Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas – Center of Sociological Investigations (CIS) . Cuerpo Nacional de Policía – National Police Force . Ertzaintza – Basque Police Force . Etarra – member of ETA . Euskadi – The Basque Country . Euskadi ta Askatasuna – Basque Homeland and Freedom (ETA) . La Federación Provincial de Asociaciones de Vecinos – The Provincial Federation of Neighborhood Associations . Fundación Colombia Herida – Wounded Colombia Foundation . Gesto por la Paz de Euskal Herria – Gesture for the Peace of the Basque Country . Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberación – Anti-terrorist Liberation Groups (GAL) . Grupos Especiales de Operaciones – Special Operations Groups (GEO) . Guardia Civil – Civil Guard . Herri Batasuna – the so-called political wing of ETA (HB) . Instituto Opina – Opinion Institute . Partido Popular – Popular Party (PP) . Partido Socialista Obrero Español – Spanish Socialist Worker‘s Party (PSOE) . La Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas – The Spanish Magazine of Sociological Investigations . Sociedad Española de Radiodifusión – Spanish Society of Radio (SER) . Unidades Antiterroristas Rurales – Rural Antiterrorist Units vi Introduction Section I: Statement of the Problem A. Introduction It is well known that terrorism is not a new concept, however, the ways in which democratic states deal with the threat of terrorism today and considerations of the implications of their counterterrorism policies are relatively new. Regarding a state‘s counterterrorism policies, democratic states face an important dilemma regarding how to find the right balance between maintaining state security and upholding civil liberties, and how to address any imbalances between the two. The focus and intent of this thesis is to explore how and attempt to explain why Britain and Spain, both being European democracies having had very similar experiences with both domestic and international incidents of terrorism, have enacted quite different counterterrorism measures. This thesis includes key concepts in the history of terrorism in both Britain and Spain, discusses the existing literature, and presents the research question and the methodology utilized to analyze this comparative case study through the application of the sociological concept of Moral Panics. The theory of Moral Panics is introduced below, and justification is given as to why this theory has been chosen in the attempt to explain the divergence in Britain and Spain‘s respective counterterrorism responses, but, first, a few alternative explanations are addressed that could explain this difference. Firstly, one could hypothesize that the difference between the British and Spanish counterterrorism responses could be explained through the nature of the most recent terrorist attacks committed in their respective states and the subsequent threat perception. In the Spanish case, the response 1 to the terrorist attacks of 11 March 2004 (11/M) was reactionary. After initially blaming the Spanish terrorist group ETA1 for the 11/M attacks, the Spanish public became aware that the attacks were perpetrated by Islamic terrorists and were related to the Spanish military‘s presence in Iraq. Consequently, in the 2004 Presidential elections that followed just days after the 11/M attacks, Spaniards voted the party they deemed responsible for 11/M, the Popular Party, or PP, out of office and as such largely believed the terrorist threat to be over.2 Contrary to the Spanish reactionary response, the British response was largely forward looking; legislation was enacted that would, with any luck, prevent future terrorist attacks. This hypothesis can be ruled out due to the fact that one could attribute the (ir)rational response of the Spanish citizenry to vote the PP out of office to acting out of fear; fear for what might happen if the PP were to stay in office, which in turn, allows for the theory of Moral Panics to possibly explain the public‘s reaction. A second hypothesis one could offer as an alternate explanation to the theory of Moral Panics concerns the history of terrorism and democracy in the two countries. Whereas while the British Government did enact undemocratic policies against the Irish Republican Army, IRA, they were not as repressive as the Spanish policies, especially regarding the state-sponsored death squads used, unsuccessfully, during the Spanish dirty war to thwart ETA.3 Even if one were to argue that the Spanish tactics were less repressive than the British, this still does not account for the fact that the Spanish democracy is much younger than British democracy and, as such, confidence in the 1 Euskadi ta Askatasuna or Basque Homeland and Freedom 2 Partido Popular or Popular Party; the PP led by José Maria Aznar was deemed responsible for the 11/M attacks and, therefore, in the 14 March 2004 elections, the PSOE, Partido Socialista Obrero Español or Spanish Socialist Workers‘ Party, led by José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, was elected to office. 3 The Spanish state-sponsored death squads were the Grupos Antiterrorista de Liberación, GAL, or Anti-Terrorist Liberation Groups 2 Spanish democracy is less stable, especially in the minds of older Spaniards who still remember well the times of General Francisco Franco‘s, former dictator of Spain, rule just over three decades ago. One could offer many different hypotheses as to why the British and Spanish state responses to terrorism have taken two very different courses. However, as should be evident, the public has some role to play in these competing explanations. It is for this reason that the theory of Moral Panics emerges as having strong prospects to explain how these two very similar liberal democratic states have taken