What now?

After a decade and a half of still ongoing "War on Terrorism", the US have, with their approach – repressive answer to 9/11 and military stepping up to the Middle East by which revenge was actively sought, protected their own territory, while the EU has become one of the main potential terrorist bases and targets, which represents a reason for concern of its political and legislative bearers, national security and intelligence agencies, as well as the entire public. In any case, this state represents the largest concern to those who bring political decisions and strategy creators, who bear the most responsibility. It is therefore necessary for them to question their strategies and all measures and actions taken related to terrorism prevention because the present day testifies about their inefficiency in the cruelest manner.

Namely, Jihadism has, when viewed from geographic point of view, metastasized with this war, and Europe has become a central battlefield. Aside from the attacks in Spain and Great Britain, which are the subject of this analysis because they have taken place during the first decade of the “War on Terrorism”, the EU has continued to pay dearly for its global anti-terrorist alignment with the US. Even though all the surprises were shut out due to a comprehensive anti-terrorist prevention, which has become a part of everyday life of every European and American since 9/11, and then was intensified after the Madrid and London attacks, merciless attacks, first in Paris and then Brussels, have testified differently. It was apparent that anti-terrorist mishaps of the EU have not been removed, especially in the sense of intelligence-security vulnerability of its member countries.

Due to failures of its own anti-terrorist prevention, and especially after the double attacks in Paris, debates of efficiency and the necessity of new Security and Anti-Terrorism Strategy of the EU were well under way. As far as the Security Strategy goes, it is necessary to adjust it in accordance with the changes in global and regional surroundings considering that present day altered circumstances, as well as a new list of threats. The Anti-Terrorism strategy of the Union is also necessary to adjust to the altered circumstances in such a way to redefine its existing apparatus and implement a new, more effective one, so that the EU could face a terrorist threat more efficiently in the future. The most important role is being played by national-security and intelligence institutions of member countries, some of which have apparently not shown the ability to identify causes of their own anti-terrorist prevention laps. It should have alerted leadership a long time ago, in the mean of establishing what benefits terrorists to act in their territories, and further to remove all acknowledged failures to that those actions could be prevented in the future.

As far as the future of European opposing to terrorism is concerned, one can expect a progress via bilateral activities and a more integrated approach of member countries, but it is also realistic to expect numerous challenges, as well as upcoming problems when cooperating those activities in the national legislations, firstly considering, the diversity and complexity of the law of member countries. A big step has been taken by passing of the first European Security Strategy, which has finally shaped a security-defensive policy of the EU and put its first security operations and peace missions into actions. However, to guarantee progress, the realization and operationalization of the pre-established and authentic security policy of the Union, a further development of its foreign political strategic planning and a unanimous consensus of member countries are necessary.

At the same time, the US must question the principles of their actions and project their own goals more realistically, when it comes to the global combat against terrorism. It is necessary for them to sincerely accept a multilateral approach and revitalize the efforts of international community which had intensified the fight against terrorism after 9/11, by siding with America, but also realizing that modern terrorism threatens the safety of almost all countries. In other words, world headed by the US must be unanimous not only when judging terrorist actions but also in the fight against terrorism, because it undermines and threatens the values of modern civilization and society. Hence, international obligations, as well as the standards of the fight against terrorism are necessary to be constantly adapted to the changing structure and nature of the threat. It is evident that most countries have given adequate effort when it comes to as efficient disabling of terrorists as possible, as well as those significant results in this area have been achieved. The terrorist threat has not been removed, however, on the contrary, the modern international terrorism is constantly growing, while the war against it in its original, military form, has taken into a dimension of infinity.

A complete destruction (by military force, peace agreements etc.), that is, the elimination of international terrorism is merely an unrealistic desire of international community, lead by the US. Unfortunately, after more and more frequent terrorist attacks, which are being successfully executed in spite of the constant improvement in the efforts of international community and the measures taken in order to suppress terrorism on a global scale, we’ve realized that there is no absolute protection from it, nor there will ever be. Besides, another terrifying fact is that, thanks to the factors that are generating it, the international terrorism is being renewed and perfected on higher technological levels, and not only do the effects of this type of political violence are not being diminished, but the number of victims, primarily, the innocent ones, is constantly on the rise over the recent years, as well as the destructiveness of the attacks. In addition to that, the population is being abhorred and angry over the outcome (the aggressive brutality and non-consideration) of military interventions in the Middle East, which makes it easy for terrorist organizations to acquire followers, proof of which is the establishment of the Islamic State, as well as its development and persistence. It’s unlikely that the situation is going to improve in the near future. That is why it is necessary to thoroughly analyze and critically evaluate all anti-terrorist measures that had been implemented so far, in order to determine their effectiveness, as well as to identify the flaws of internal anti-terrorist prevention in order to efficiently remove them, primarily regarding the EU. Subsequently, it is necessary to find a way to demoralize and discourage potential terrorists from joining the terrorist organizations. In fact, aside from direct opposing and prosecution of its bearers, it is necessary to prevent terrorism, that is, to suppress the indoctrination and radicalization that lead to extremism.

Namely, it has become clear that the terrorism cannot be completely eliminated nor localized, but that it can be efficiently suppressed and put under control by significantly reducing its intensity, and hence the threat that it poses. That is why it is necessary that the response to it should be the combination of the initial American relying on military power, and the European, and later American non-violent method of resolving conflicts, which would be implemented in practice. Also, aside from efficiency, the response must be socially acceptable, that is, in accordance with the democratic principles and norms, in order to produce the adequate reaction of the whole society and public.

Accordingly, every future anti-terrorism strategy should be significantly more oriented towards multilateralism in order to create the biggest possible coalition for dealing with terrorism, and then towards identifying and elimination of its causes, as well as relying on the “soft power”, enabling military interventions only if there is irrefutable evidence about the actions of a certain terrorist organization or group. Truth be told, the terrorism isn’t only a military problem and it cannot be dealt with by using only militaristic approach, but with an entire set of political measures that can, primarily, suppress causes of terrorism, which are various social problems. The United Nations have both, the experience and global capacities for dealing with this type of problems, such as poverty, social disorders, the lack of democracy and the adequate state management, that is, they can help with building free and prosperous democratic societies. In addition to that, it isn’t necessary, and, from the point of view of international law, it shouldn’t be allowed to have preamption as a fundamental principle of government strategy in international relations, which had been referred to as the “Bush’s Doctrine”, because it’s difficult to prevent its misuse, considering that “Preventive War” is equally as pointless and misused term as the “Humanitarian (armed) Interventions”. However, thanks to the significantly altered international relations and the increase of global threat from international terrorism and the weapons of mass destruction, it can be considered that sometimes it is necessary to act preamptively, but not always, that is, unless it is an absolute necessity, and not a main mean of intervening. In fact, the preventive actions of the international community as a whole in the combat against terrorism should stop terrorists from obtaining the weapons of mass destruction.

As said before, the United Nations can be a useful instrument for combating terrorism through their approval of military actions and even more intense sanctioning of countries which sponsor terrorism, as well as through the establishment and coordination of new types of multilateral cooperation, which is why it is necessary to enhance their role by, at the same time, reforming the whole international law and security systems – equipping the institutions lead by the UN with all the means and instruments necessary for the opposing of international terrorism and the establishment of real integral safety. In other words, the UN should establish strategically-operative centre for unification and coordination of anti-terrorist combat, because they, traditionally, have the greatest international credibility, and the most legitimacy and potential for the peaceful settlement of disputes in the world. It is also necessary that the UN adopts a universally accepted definition of terrorism, because the numerous definitions and disputes over emphasizing certain causes, features and goals of this security-political phenomenon have lead to the pluralism in responses to terrorism, instead of identification of an effective practice and the establishment of effective international standards and norms for its suppression.

In spite the fact that the enemy in this global war is more of a criminal than a classic soldier, who doesn’t follow any rules of warfare (conventions) nor has any consideration, it is necessary for the anti-terrorist coalition to hold on to the defined goals of actions – discriminative powers, as well as the legal and moral bindings related to the means used for their realization. Also, special attention must be paid to human rights and civil liberties.

It is clear, from the aforementioned, that repressive anti-terrorist measures can greatly affect the country’s internal democratic system, because, in the state of emergency, its actors can greatly expand their authorization at the expense of their own people, which negatively affects that country’s democratic principles. Therefore, the key question is: can democracy, in its present form, give a democratic response to terrorism, without compromising its own nature? The response which would be in accordance with the values and principles of the 21st century, preservation of the rule of law and respect for human rights and liberties, and which would, at the same time, give concrete results in the combat against terrorism. Of course it can, but it is necessary to pay great attention on keeping the balance between the security and human rights and liberties. In fact, the security of democratic country, unlike the absolute country, must not be more important than the rights of its citizens, and let alone the condition for the civil wellbeing in general, like it is often presented. The rights of individuals are the foundation of democratic societies and the thing which makes them different from non-democratic dictatorships this war is fighting against, in which there’s no rule of law. That is why one of the biggest absurd is the expectation that the factors that are contributing to the development and preservation of terrorism will be suppressed by even greater democratization, by diminishing or eliminating socially-political causes that are enabling its renewal and expansion, while, at the same time, the repression in those countries in intensified by declaring and artificially keeping the state of emergency, then expanding authorities of country’s security apparatus, which can jeopardize basic human rights of its own citizenry.

The US anti-terrorist strategy as a whole had predicted the implementation of various, and in every way, expensive measures for combating terrorism, which had required certain reforms of the security system, the modification of old and implementation of new laws, and domestic support for the implementation of those measures. Thanks to the destructiveness and deadliness of suicide attacks in 2001, the American people had, blindly lead by the political elite, generously accepted unpopular reforms as extremely necessary and purposeful. However, they hadn’t realized their real price, nor that they would be long-term. The authorities at that time had taken advantage, that is, abused human weakness – irrational survival instinct – in which all of us, if helplessly facing major security threat that represents real threat to our existence, as modern mega-terrorism is being projected, are prepared to give up almost everything, including our own freedoms and rights that, in those moments, seem like privileges, but are also being presented that way, in exchange for a “safe” life for us and our loved ones. The fact is that an individual, whenever there are serious threats with a real chance of happening, turns, but also with real expectations, towards the state, expecting its protection. With that in mind, the White House had no doubts that, at least at the beginning of a comprehensive “War on Terrorism”, it’s citizens would be ready to disregard their rights and mutual equality due to the strong urge for revenge. That is how the state, the former protector, had been transformed into a dangerous rival of citizens and their rights and interests. This level of state’s dominance and the disregard of the rights of its own citizens only confirm that modern country – the instrument for the greatest wellbeing of the community – still represents, primarily, an instrument for the protection of ruling elite and their interests, and only after that, the rest of citizens. Conversely, the state should aspire toward the greater good – the one that is achieved if the majority of population is content regarding their own interests, and not only individuals – the bearers of authority, and only a minor part of population. That is why it had been necessary to, at the very beginning, set boundaries and establish independent, and not regime supervision authorities for the implementation of new repressive anti-terrorist measures, because the alleged violation of security and/or national interests can easily be used as a cover-up for deliberate violation of human rights, and even their total neglect, especially when it comes to civil liberties. This was not only the case with the US, whose actions had the attention of almost all of the international community during the global anti-terrorist war, which had, naturally, been completely justified, considering that the US were the initiators of that armed conflict. Similar tendencies towards the limitation of human rights that the authorities had been implementing after 9/11 had been noticed around the world. The issue in those cases is the devastating fact that those repressions, with the use of legal sanctions and measures that are relying on the police and other services, have been directed, not towards terrorist, but political opponents, then the people of different religions and nationalities, and even the refugees and the ones seeking asylum. One of the most famous international organizations that focuses on the protection and promotion of human rights, ?Human Rights Watch“, in its report from 2002, titled ,,Opportunism with a face of tragedy: Repression in the name combat against terrorism'', has published that ?aside from the US, Australia, Belarus, China, Egypt, Eritrea, India, Israel, Jordan, Kirghistan, Macedonia, Liberia, Malaysia, Russia, Syria, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe had also abused the tragic 9/11 for their dealing with political opponents, separatist and religious groups, thinking that in that situation, their practice won’t be condemned”.[1]

Unfortunately, the fact is that the American institutions have historically had the tendency of looking for fast-paced solutions for certain problems, especially the ones regarding the security and other national interests, but it is necessary for the US politicians to understand that the threat from terrorism is long-term, if not eternal, and that if Congress keeps adopting similar anti-terrorist laws, the Americans will be completely deprived of their privacy and who knows what else. The long-term strike on traditional American values is the domestic price of the official American response to 9/11. The democratic values on which the American society is based upon, including the Rule of Law, which requires strict respect of human rights together with the protection of an individual, as well as the dignifying and humane treatment of war prisoners, had been deeply betrayed.

The harmony between individual and national security, unfortunately, doesn’t seem to be important for modern state, that is, for the bearers of its authority. They are the ones who keep persuading us that with the beginning of this century, the century of expansion of terrorist threat and an almost invisible enemy, it is impossible to raise the level of security without the violation of rights and liberties of individuals. Thereby, that violation doesn’t represent only a temporary limitation of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, but a complete loss of certain rights, especially the ones regarding privacy, because there’s great possibility that these limitations will remain in effect within the eternal State of Emergency.

The state authorities, as directly responsible for the overall security of the country, citizens and national interests, are implementing, as they claim, the most efficient preventive and absolutely necessary repressive methods for protection from terrorism, as well as for the suppression of all the other criminal activities. It is expected that, nowadays, in modern liberally-democratic societies such as American, the state’s repressive measures would disappear; losing their purpose and justification, but it is evident that that will not happen in the near future. That’s because, not only that preventive and repressive measures have always been necessary, but they have complementarily and functionally been connected within the concept of social self-protection. However, what is most important, and what their correlation shows, is that it must not come to the absolutization of one or the other method of action, because that would have negative consequences, especially in crisis situations when the democracy is being suppressed and everything, even the most negative, is being authorized by the urge of revenge.

A long before 9/11 and the security measures it resulted in, Benjamin Franklin had warned his fellow citizens about the possibility and the level of risk when balancing between civil liberties and national safety. In his public address in 1759 he stated: “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both!”[2]

Therefore, there should not be any dilemma about whether the human rights are to be respected during the combat against terrorism, even though it is being posed from time to time by the seriousness of terrorist threat. As it is possible to efficiently act against other security threats, it is also possible to successfully suppress terrorism and, at the same time, keep the balance between freedom and security.

[1] Source: Opportunism in the Face of Tragedy: Repression in the name of anti-terrorism, Human Rights Watch, New York, 2002 (Internet: https://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/september11/opportunismwatch.htm, 20/01/2017).

[2] Source: Friedman S. Lauri, The Patriot Act: An Opposing Viewpoints Guide, Thomson Gale, Farmington Hills, 2006, pg. 11.