Why is EU and not the U.S. Target: a Comparative Review of the American and European Strategic Approach to Anti-terrorism

The "War on Terrorism", like any other, requires a comprehensive strategic approach. That said, the leading countries of the West along with many nations that were going through a transition in the end of the twentieth century, approached the development and implementation of national strategies in order to efficiently stand up to terrorism. It primarily included the combining of the law enforcement, security-informative and institutionally-legal means and measures on the domestic and international scale, as well as the international military operations (offensive).

The main actors of global anti-terrorist combat are the US, as a creator of modern war paradigm against international terrorism, and the EU that, even though its America’s biggest ally in this war, had chosen entirely different means. In order to determine the differences between American and European ways of combating terrorism and to identify certain similarities between them, as well as verify the achieved results, we’ve analysed anti-terrorist policy of the US and EU over the period of 10 years after terrorist attacks in the US (2001-2011). By using comparative and qualitative analysis, we’ve studied their security and anti-terrorism strategies implemented during the first decade of the “War on Terrorism”, as well as their implementation in practice, but also the initiative that preceded them, in order to point out the different security consequences of anti-terrorism combat. Aside from defining the nature of the response (strategic vision, implemented initiative, the measures that were taken, methods and instruments used) towards the growing terrorist threat, we pointed out and compared the achieved results and their possible flaws and inefficiencies.

Leading to, the ways of suppressing terrorism and the strategies the US and EU implemented are significantly different. As a matter of fact, after 9/11 the combat against terrorism gained new instruments, but the real question is: why has EU, as a biggest US ally and its most important partner in the “War on Terrorism” chosen different methods and measures? Especially considering that the difference between strategic and anti-terrorism visions and implemented measures were, in one hand, pretty much responsible for the flaws in Europe’s anti-terrorist prevention, and in the other, responsible for disabling future major terrorist attacks by Al-Qaeda and similar organizations in the US.

In fact, anti-terrorist priorities of the US and EU were practically identical, but their view on prevention of further escalation of international terrorism was different. Europeans, like Americans, believe that Al-Qaeda must be utterly destroyed. In other words, American and Europe strategic opinion doesn’t differ on what at the beginning of the 21st century represents a global threat to security – terrorism – but on the seriousness and estimation of the strength of this threat, as well as the military and politically-democratic way of responding to it. While the US sees terrorism as an existential threat, the EU’s view of it is less critical which is why it’s choice of methods and instruments of countering it is different. The prevention and protection from terrorist actions are regarded as a crucial part of Europe strategic approach towards the combat against terrorism, while the US chooses aggressively-offensive approach based on hegemony, that is the “war model” for which the rational choice is the “hard power”. The US uses all elements of national power and international influence, but relies more on the “raw power” (military interventions) than on diplomatic instruments in order to achieve victory. Unlike them, for the EU terrorism isn’t merely a military threat, nor do they consider that it should be countered solely with military apparatus, but instead they use a combination of assets in order to limit the use of armed power, that is, to condition it by dire need, as a final asset after all others (political, legal and economic) had been depleted. Additionally, the Union had adopted a firm attitude towards multilateralism, the development of functional international order and respect for human rights and civil liberties. The European approach is based on negotiations, consensus, and strict respect for international rights and acting under the auspices of the UN, while the Americans consider the concept of anti-terrorist combat based on the “soft power” non-efficient. For them the best long-term solution is the “hard power”, that is, the use of military force through preventive attacks abroad, with an intention to disable terrorists from performing their actions on the US territory and with a primary goal to completely annihilate them.

Beside the fact that the US and EU have different views of the use of force and opposing terrorism overall, they also have completely different views of the threat it poses, that EU considers it to be both internal and external. According to the EU Security Strategy, the terrorists came to the countries of EU from poor and/or ruined countries with non-democratic regimes, organized crime and corruption, as well as ethnical conflicts, and therefore it could be said that the security of EU citizens is more threatened by the neighbouring countries than it is by the countries of the Middle East. The US, however, considers that the terrorist threat comes solely from the outside, from the states that support and finance terrorism, believing that the extremist indoctrination and radicalization in the US is almost impossible and therefore negligible. The one thing on which they have the same point of view when it comes to global security is the fact that terrorism, when combined with the weapons of mass destruction, represents its biggest, that is, catastrophic threat.

Since the terrorist attacks on the US in 2001 and until the end of 2011 (the period of this research), the highest identified threat towards the security of the US and its citizens was terrorism, and the highest priority was combat against it. The second highest threat towards national security, closely related to the first one, was the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. What was identified as the highest real, although, fortunately still unrealized, threat towards the EU security and anti-terrorist strategy was the possibility of terrorists obtaining nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

The main difference between the EU and US Security Strategies in combating terrorism was the US’s decision for the preventive “War on Terrorism”, that will be fought beyond their borders, that was made under the influence of the events of 9/11. They wanted allies in that war, but were also prepared to act unilaterally, which makes it different from the EU, which emphasizes multilateralism and the prevention or appeasing of the causes of terrorism. Even though the European Security Strategy doesn’t reject the possible need for preventive actions, stating that “in the future, the first line of defense will be located abroad”, its different from the American one that downgrades the role of the UN, while the EU relies on the UN Resolutions and sets multilateralism as a main benchmark of its foreign policy.

Concerning the specific US and EU Anti-terrorist Strategies, their differences are almost identical to the ones in Security Strategies. The EU gives priority to the “soft power” and effective multilateralism, which combines diplomatic and economic measures with military assets if necessary. Unlike the EU, the US National Strategy for Combating Terrorism requires constant and direct military actions against terrorist organizations, that have a global character in order to disorganizes, degrade and finally completely destroy them. Frome the European point of view, the excessive use of force isn’t suitable for combating terrorism. While the Americans clearly force military solutions, Europeans are focused on prevention and protection from terrorist actions, responses to possibilities of successful terrorist actions in the EU in order to reduce consequences and, consequently, their performance, then on the global prosecution of those held responsible (the terrorists). In other words, the European approach is mostly directed towards internal anti-terrorist actions.

Since they represent different political communities,[1] differently consider social values and have a different national security culture, it is quite clear why the US and the EU have different foreign and security policies. Besides, they also have very different strategic perspectives of the world. While the White House in its National Security Strategies frequently states that the US is a dominant security-political subject in the world, the EU in its long-awaited Security Strategy only assumes its global responsibility. The US with its official strategic documents openly explains her plans and the ways of their development to the whole world. American approach is more direct than European, which makes it more effective. It clearly explains the ranges of US actions in international combat against terrorism, and gives precise instructions for the promotion of existing and development of new measures, mechanisms and instruments for the prevention and suppression of terrorist threat. The European way of combating terrorism isn’t that concrete, and their strategies are more of a theoretical description of long-term goals, than they are direct measures for suppressing the threat.

Regardless of the historically long strategic partnership between the US and the EU, their different points of view have naturally caused different strategic assessments and approaches towards combating terrorism. However, there’s a rightfully asked question about their efficiency, considering that terrorism still poses the highest threat and challenge both in the US and the EU. In other words, considering the increasing growth of terrorist threat in the world, even beside the huge amount of work directed towards its obviously inefficient suppression, it is justified to wonder were those efforts well-directed and what is making the terrorists active.

Our research has found that neither European nor American approach towards the suppression of terrorism is perfect, but that the American one is more efficient in repelling attacks, especially considering the fact that none of successfully carried out ones was on a high scale like the ones in the EU. It’s evident that Al-Qaeda and other similar organizations were operating around the world, but also that they weren’t operating in the US. In fact, the American combat against terrorism had resulted in raising internal security levels in that country. The success of this combat is primarily indicated through the fact that the US were spared from high scale terrorist attacks after 9/11. Many implemented strategies for anti-terrorist combat, their constant modification conditional upon the change of terrorist threat, as well as the numerous internal security measures are a clear indicator of the US’s determination when it comes to dealing with terrorists, but they also show their determination in removing flaws in their own anti-terrorist prevention. Their practice has shown that the efficient suppression of terrorism and the threat it poses is possible through implementation of all-inclusive strategic approach, which must constantly be adjusted to the variable structure and nature of that threat.

The Americans are proud of their strategy, of which efficient implementation has lead to the deprivation of freedom and processing of several thousand terrorists, stopping their planned actions in that area. This wasn’t the case with the EU, which has been targeted and intimidated by Al-Qaeda with two large attacks (Madrid 2004 and London 2005) during the first decade of “War on Terrorism”.

The US have shown good practice and continuity in implementing national strategies as well as the following documents regarding the security and terrorism suppression, which can’t be said for the EU. Unlike European, the American authorities have, considering anti-terrorist policy over the period of ten years after terrorist attacks (2001-2011), developed three National Security Strategies, three Anti-terrorist Strategies, many sub-strategies and relevant documents within department ministries and federal security agencies, many action plans that define the goals, means and models for combating terrorism, as well as the guidelines for its prevention. All those strategies, sub-strategies and action plans are based on valid National Security Strategies, known as the “Presidential Doctrines”. Therefore, the American anti-terrorist approach during the first decade of “War on Terrorism” has been based on two doctrines, Bush’s and Obama’s.

A year after the 9/11, Bush’s administration has revealed its National Security Strategy, that has been changed and amended to a certain extent four years later. The main emphasise of this doctrine was put into combat against terrorism, while the document itself represented the biggest turn in the strategic thinking and planning of the US since the Cold War – from discouraging and intimidation of enemies towards an aggressively-preamptive war against terrorism, and from reactive (defensive) into proactive (offensive) military approach. As its support, the White House issued the first National Strategy for Countering Terrorism, that was designed to process and complement its third chapter, which completely features anti-terrorism. That is how the US National Security Strategy has set up a foundation for combating transnational terrorism, and the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism issued in 2003 and changed and complemented on two occasions so far (2006 and 2011) has depicted the ways of combating it. This document, among other things, precisely defines the enemy and goals, interpreting the American need for destroying international terrorist organizations and strengthening the security of that country, as well as protection of her values and citizens home and abroad. It confirms the US determination to fight preventive anti-terrorist war with all military and other national resources available. It also depicts that the success in that unconventional war, aside from offensively-aggressive actions of the military forces that play the crucial part in it, also depends on the effort in combating ideology that “feeds” the terrorism.

Bush’s doctrine has, under the excuse that it cannot afford to wait for the enemy to strike first, as it happened on 9/11, found a solution in preamptive warfare and, if necessary, unilateral actions – independent military interventions without an authorization and support from international institutions such as the UN. Besides, its main elements are: the promotion of democratic regime changes in the world and carrying out attacks on the countries that give support and refuge to terrorists. With the publishing of his second National Security Strategy in 2006, certain changes and alterations were done on Bush’s doctrine, and have come down to weakening of certain guidelines when it comes to action and use of force, resulting in an increased diplomatic activities. However, willingness and determination to act preventative, known as the “Doctrine of Preamptive Warfare”, as a key point of both president Bush’s National Security Strategies, along with the mission of maintaining the US leading role in the world, has marked his foreign policy and became the pillar of his presidential doctrine.

Obama’s administration took over during the one of the most difficult times for the US, and the whole world. The “War on Terrorism”, even though it had started eight years before, was globally in its full swing, the America as its initiator had been losing international, as well as the support of its own citizens over time in that endless combat. Besides, the US, along with the rest of the world, had faced the massive economy crisis which was nowhere near the end, and all that had been happening in the era of multi-polar world order – the rise of Russian Federation. Aware of that and under the pressure from circumstances and the electorate, as well as his own pre-electoral promises, Obama had introduced his presidential doctrine a year and a half after he took over presidential duties from Bush (27th of May 2010).

The main characteristic of Obama’s doctrine is a significant change of American government’s focus and priorities regarding international relations and national security of that country. This doctrine describes the US international position in the recent past, present and the future, and shows reconciliation with the fact that they are no longer the only leading power in the world. Obama, through real understanding of the position of the US in the world, which credibility had been significantly damaged, calls for optimism among the US citizenry and binds the bearers of executive power to put maximum effort in the revitalization of American society and global leadership, even in those conditions of reduced economic power, in order to preserve not only American, but the global security as well.

The reason for that are the two highly proclaimed goals of military interventions in the Middle East by the former White House representatives, and those are: to completely eliminate (liquidate or arrest) terrorists and their infrastructure (bases, camps, logistics etc.) by direct military interventions, thereby completely eliminating terrorist threat from and in that area; and, the other goal, the democratization of the society. Unfortunately, even after a decade and a half of military interventions, none of those goals were entirely achieved. A logical consequence of their lack of accomplishment is a declination in international reputation of those who defined them. That is how the US position and power in the world were drastically diminished, that its president was well aware of at the very beginning of his mandate, and therefore, declared revitalization of US reputation in the world as a main goal in his first National Security Strategy.

Therefore, unlike Bush’s, Obama’s strategy is realistic when it comes to understanding of the US current and future international position, but also when it comes to the presented possibilities of engagement of American resources in order to achieve long-term national goals, especially in the global combat against more and more dangerous radical extremists. This strategy, in order to protect national values, in one hand, represents the necessity of preserving the US military supremacy, and in the other, promotes the engagement of other American social institutions (diplomatic and economic), including the private sector, giving them suggestively-binding work instructions.

As mentioned before, Obama’s administration has at the very beginning of its mandate rejected the phrase “War on Terrorism, that Bush used for ensuring global support recently after 9/11, explaining that “the term ‘war’ is too broad and all-inclusive to ever be ended”. They used the term “operations” and/or “combat”, and in addition to that, the Obama’s strategy, unlike Bush’s, didn’t generalize the enemy, but rather clearly defined it as the Al-Qaeda and its adjoined terrorists (radical extremists). The important thing is that the primary goal of anti-terrorist combat was identical in both doctrines – the destruction and disruption of terrorist organizations with global outreach, and disabling terrorists from maintaining and strengthening any possibility of planning and performing terrorist attacks anywhere in the world, especially in the US. That basically leads us to the conclusion that Obama didn’t develop his own new doctrine, but merely presented a less drastic version of Bush’s through his National Security Strategy, with the same major elements, but with more thoughtfully (realistically and balanced) presented guidelines and means of action. He had, unlike Bush, only seemingly left unilateral military approach, and emphasized diplomacy and global partnership, that is, the instruments of “soft power”. He hadn’t entirely rejected the concept of preventive warfare, but has directed the policy of offensive defence towards prevention, and considered the use of military power only as a final solution, pointing out that the basis for maintaining the US security and power was strong economy.

The similarity with Bush’s doctrine was confirmed in the practice of Obama’s administration. That is to say, even though all the possible ways of opposing terrorism and resolving other types of conflicts were formally (through relevant strategies) specified, the US continued to combat terrorism entirely with military assets after Obama took charge. Therefore, Obama had accepted Bush’s foreign policy legacy, and not only returned to the strategic fronts, in Afghanistan and Iraq, that haven’t been entirely left by the US army since the beginning of the invasion, but had rather started new warfare in Libya and Syria. To further perplex the paradox, those “hotspots” had begun after he received his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo in 2009, for the “extraordinary efforts in strengthening international diplomacy and cooperation”. There’s no wonder that the world responded negatively to that recognition, and it is justified to wonder if that recognition was earned, considering the pain and suffering that were caused and lead by the US all around the world. In fact, the general impression is that the Nobel Peace Prize was a way of presenting Obama as a peace-loving president, and in that way justifying all American military-political moves on the international plan in the early 21st century.

It is clear that the American approach had been, at least formally, adapted to the changing structure and nature of the threat, which can be seen by their constant revision and complementation of Anti-Terrorist Strategies, as well as the follow-up security documents, while the EU has issued only one Security and one Anti-Terrorism Strategy during the first decade of the “War on Terrorism”. However, it was still a large step for the EU, because its members had for the first time reached consensus on collective approach of ensuring their own safety and eliminating the danger that threatens it.

In fact, the EU had adopted its first Security Strategy that portrayed the foundation of anti-terrorist combat in 2003, and then issued its own Anti-Terrorism Strategy two years later. There’s no doubt that since it was established and until today, the EU had put more or less effort towards suppressing terrorism within its borders. The occasional terrorist attacks in some of the member states, especially Great Britain, had practically dictated the intensification of those efforts. They would result in passing proper documents, which were mostly facultative, which dictated the passing of the legislations (mainly criminal, but also material and process laws) of member countries, with an idea of strengthening their cooperation. However, these normative frames weren’t well implemented in practice because of member countrie’s unwillingness to give up sovereignty in that area until the terrorist attacks of 9/11 when they changed unbinding for binding legal instruments. In other words, the advisory practice of suggesting normative solutions, which was used for unification of national legislations, was replaced with the establishment of minimal regulations regarding integral elements of incrimination and sanctioning of terrorists, as well as their more efficient criminal prosecution in the EU.

Therefore, the responsibility for opposing terrorism in the EU has been divided between its institutions and member countries, but it became significantly more unanimous only as the result of terrorist attacks on the US in 2001, by issuing binding General Decisions and establishing normative frames for combating terrorism, making the combat against it an integral part of already efficiently developed European combat against organized crime. The EU institutions had maximized their activities regarding overall security and defence and had invested a lot of effort concerning modifying criminal law of member countries then, all of which was related to terrorism and radical changes in prosecution and managing of its bearers.

Establishing a unique legal and strategic frame to combat terrorism was enabled by the European Union when it adopted its first strategies. The European Security Strategy represents an all-inclusive strategic frame of the EU in regards to security, by which a serious step of rendering its security policy has been taken. Existing global challenges are being identified by this document and key security threats to the Europe are being analyzed, as well as the strategic goals that could be used to successfully answer them have been defined too, and political consequences that the EU may have regardless of achieving these goals or not are being analyzed. The need to modernize own means of action is also being emphasized in regards to solving security issues. At the same time, it is used to define the values on which the EU was founded as well as the principles it holds on to in foreign policy, its current international position has been clearly presented and a vision of the role in the world, as well as global security responsibility has been provided. In other words, the striving of the EU to increase its role in international relations, via developing its own political-security function, aside from previously recognized economic power were publicly displayed. Furthermore, a necessity to reduce internal tensions and to overcome the greatest political crisis thus far, which was caused by misunderstanding of country members in regards to the expansion in the war against terrorism in Iraq, all that without the support of the UN has been emphasized. That said, the strategy emphasizes the need to strengthen bilateral vision of member countries by achieving consensus about the strategic culture of the Union itself, especially when it comes to its security. As such, it represents a quality foundation to establish a coherent and steady foreign policy of the EU, as well as enforcing bilateral security and defence policy of its members.

As far as global challenges go, strategy clearly implies that a reduction of direct military threats has occurred, thus, the conflicts that are caused by poverty, energy and natural resources deficiency, and especially the lack of water, as well as misgoverning prevail. As main security threats to Europe it further defines: terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts, organized crime and country failures. So, terrorism has been branded a largest threat to the security of the EU, while the other aforementioned threats are directly linked to it, and as such do not demean it, but render the possibility of the EU to be a target of a terrorist attack real. Since the majority of that threat comes from the countries that border the Union, the Strategy lists establishing of a stable security environment as a main factor of undisturbed development as a priority.

The main characteristic of the European Security Strategy is giving the lead to non-military means of resolving conflicts, as a way to ensure security over a longer period of time. However, to protect its security and promote its values, the EU must be prepared to answer key threats with adequate means, one of which is preamptive action abroad, which requires development of its own capacities. Another one of the main strategy features is the “effective multilateralism” – solving international security issues by common efforts of international community, institutions and law. It actually represents a clear resolve of member countries to build an international order which will be founded on building a strong international society and stable institutions.

Horrifying attacks of Al-Qaeda branches in Madrid (2004) and London (2005) have initiated a more intense fight of the EU against terrorism and undertaking of a lot more concrete measures when it comes to collective defense. They have, among other things, lead to the first European Anti-Terrorism Strategy, whose main goal is prevention and protection from new terrorist actions, then securing fast and efficient responses to them, but also establishing mechanisms for efficient global pursuit of its perpetrators, as well as agitators, initiators and sponsors. Those who decide about policy in the EU and the rulers of member countries have recognized and understood that without identification of mishaps, removal of evident lacks and the perfection of its own capacities, as well as military-security and civilian, could not respond efficiently to new and constantly changing security challenges and threats that global terrorism represents.

However, even after those attacks the European approach remained “reactive” while the American, as opposed to it, was completely changed from “reactive” to “proactive”, just after 9/11. Namely, even thought the EU had finally realized that along with a long term solution or victory in the battle against terrorism, which includes removing causes and disabling radicalization through improving human dignities and freedoms through an effective democratization of societies and building of functional legal institutions in them, it is necessary to face its bearers aggressively, has remained dedicated to preventive actions, firstly using civilian means and multilateral approach, while exclusively taking care of respecting the international laws and civil liberties, respectively to the UN. It was focused on weakening the circumstances that are beneficial for its creation, development and spread within the Union itself, with the priority to suppress the terrorist propaganda as the root of ever growing problem of indoctrination and recruitment of extremists. It also continued to favorize the use of legal procedures by which the terrorists are being criminalized – arrest and bringing to justice those responsible for terrorist acts. Unlike the EU, the Americans strive for liquidation of terrorist leaders as a result of which the organization loses cohesion, and some of them are put out, which was unfortunately not the case with Al-Qaeda after the assassination of its notorious leader Bin Laden. One of the fundamental reasons for not picking up militarization is the fact that the EU does not have its own armed forces, therefore it is not prone to military solutions. Aside from that, it doesn’t even have its own intelligence or a counterintelligence agency, but the suppression of terrorism is rather being dealt with by national services of member countries, whose mishaps like those made by the FBI and the CIA in 2001 are more than evident. Since the intelligence is a sensitive area closely connected to national sovereignty, independence and state security, this area is almost completely left to members of the EU and the Union does not have any other role aside from counselling, nor does it possess any instruments by which it could, at the very least, initiate necessary reforms of national intelligence agencies like those implemented in the US.

Unlike EU, the US has taken the battle to the terrorists by complete and instantaneous militarization of the problem that terrorists represent - outside of their borders. This lead to the fall of Al-Qaeda after Bush declared war on terrorism and, after allied interventions in the Middle East, and focused on war, that is, self-defense in Afghanistan and Iraq and later Pakistan. This has lead to disabling major terrorist actions in the US on one hand, while on the other hand the “dragging” of European allies into American anti-terrorist war had actually turned them into potential targets, proof of which is the fact that the terrorists mainly focused on conducting large-scale attacks in the Union.

Another important factor that had played a significant role in ensuring a long-term internal security of the US, unlike the EU, is their financial power. Namely, after 9/11, and the “War on Terrorism”, the US has significantly increased the funding for its defense (arms and equipment, development and research) thusly increasing the already existing militarily-technological gap within the Euro-Atlantic Community.

Furthermore, the support that Bush got from his citizens as a “war president” has helped him not only to point the foreign policy in a desired direction (unilateral and preamptive military actions), but also to start the comprehensive internal reforms, which were later continued by Obama - the greatest reform and reorganization of American security agencies. With that in mind, and as a result of confirmed mishaps in the work of federal agencies with the CIA on the top, Bush has undertaken a complete reorganization of the American intelligence community by passing a law for intelligence reform and terrorism prevention in 2004 (Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004), which has significantly advanced the system for collection and inter-institutional exchange of intelligence. This not only lead to the increase of the capability of international institutions to prevent terrorist attacks, but also to reduce their effect, direct, as well as indirect, consequences. Also, a detailed and systematized long-term reform of police and security agencies has been started with FBI at the head which has minimized mishaps together with an application of more aggressive security procedures in the practical sphere of anti-terrorist prevention, raised the level of security within the country and rendered further terrorist attacks harder. This reform has never been ended, nor should it be. Namely, considering the US as a primary terrorist target, it will always have to have an efficient internal security system that will be able to answer any threat, challenge and risk at any time, perfecting of its agencies and services must remain a continuous process which will go step by step with terrorism, whose threat is being modernized over time, thus growing.

Moreover, the success of the American struggle against international terrorism in strengthening of the US security has been achieved not only by military interventions in the Middle East and beyond, but before all else, an entire line of, preventive, as well as repressive security measures on an internal plan. All-inclusive security measures (making already existing laws to combat terrorism stricter and the introduction of a variety of new laws and security procedures) and internal federal security institutional reforms, as well as establishing new ones, has removed mishaps in the anti-terrorist prevention of the US. The ability of terrorists to travel, organize and conduct assaults in America has been reduced by their implementation, which lead them to redirect their terrorist acts to less protected and more vulnerable European countries. However, in this process of making laws and security procedures stricter, the balance has been destroyed between the security and values of the American society by making the security more important than the rights of its citizens. Two reformatory repressive laws passed after 9/11 – the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act– had removed legal obstacles for investigations, firstly clandestine, but also for exchange of information, thus, at the very beginning of their implementation it had resulted in major investigations and numerous arrests of terrorist suspects, but at the same time jeopardizing human rights and civil liberties of the entire American population.

After dreadful terrorist attacks in 2001, the US undertook the most comprehensive anti-terrorist measures in their entire history. One of the biggest innovations that had been implemented into the system of national security was the adoption of the Homeland Security Act by which the US Government was expanded, that is, an entirely new eponymous ministry was formed. Additionally, the most important legal-security measure in the US certainly was the Patriot Act, adopted only two months after the attacks in New York and Washington. It was presented as a main instrument of modern American anti-terrorist prevention, broadening the authorization of federal authorities to perform secret investigations, have an unlimited private data access, phone call surveillances and a lot of other measures in order to identify and track the suspects. Via this Act, the American police had gotten such, until then unimaginable, authorities for acquiring information in investigations, while the civil rights and private life of an individual have been completely disregarded.

As such, it instantly faced negative reactions from the political opposition, NGOs, and some of the American citizens, who claimed that it disregards the Constitution, limits human rights and civil liberties and unjustly targets immigrants. This protest was completely justified, because the legally-regulative and very repressing measures taken, primarily the Patriot Act, under the auspices of an overall national mobilization for the defense against terrorism, and under the pretence of security precaution, have damaged the foundations of American democracy, which had been establishing the “force of rights” until then, and not today’s “right to force”.

The unique character of 9/11, that is, the nature and the success of these shocking terrorist attacks were sufficient proof that the most powerful country in the world must undertake comprehensive anti-terrorist measures, but within the acceptable limits. Understanding the need for instant reaction, we still think that the American Congress has made a rush decision regarding the adoption of Patriot Act. Bush’s administration has turned this Act into an instrument that would enable secret supervision and control over its own citizens and the others that are suspected to be terrorists or spies. His opponents claim, and new evidence is constantly being found, that he gave too much power to the federal government to dive deeply into the private life of the Americans and others living or residing in that country. Some critics may have gone too far, warning that under the pretence of a “Global War on Terrorism” he had created the conditions for the repressive apparatus to violate human rights of all those it desires, regardless of their real connection to terrorism. In their opinion, the Patriotic Act is based upon the classic ethnically-religious nationalism, declaring that the enemies are Islamic terrorists (Muslims), in the same manner as in the 1950’s all sympathizers of the Communist Movement in the US were declared “the enemies of the state”, and all Russians were potential terrorists. The fact is that after 9/11 Muslims, and especially those that came from the Middle East, became condemned throughout America, since they were being arrested, interrogated and deprived of freedom by the investigating authorities without any criteria. Naturally, the authorities denied their connection with racism, in spite of the fact that the FBI, through its program for systematic questioning, had interrogated around 5000 Arab males, aged 18-33, without any reasonable doubt that would directly or even indirectly connect those people to 9/11 and the terrorists responsible for the attacks.[2]

The Government is, indeed, sometimes forced to violate civil rights and liberties, like in this case, but it is also necessary to balance the relations of security and citizen protection, that is, to adjust the laws that protect national security with the ones that protect civil liberties. There may have been a justification for the reduction of civil rights in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when there was a genuine threat of Al-Qaeda’s presence in the US and the possibility of future bloodshed. In those circumstances repressive measures, the reasonable ones regarding security precaution, were somewhat expected, but only for a short period of time. However, in this case, the state of emergency declared in 2001 is still in effect, and the use of repressive measures hasn’t been decreased over time, while the ruling elite’s desire for the total control and constant supervision of the society is evermore present. It is difficult to estimate the long-term consequences of maintaining the active state of emergency on the democratic state constitution, but it is evident that that level of security preparation and anti-terrorist precaution, ensured in a repressive way, has gained traits of totalitarianism, with US becoming a more and more closed society, with a complete control and constant supervision of its citizens. Naturally, the strengthening of state at the expense of its citizens would be justified if its boundaries were clearly defined in the beginning, that is, if the violation of their rights in order to secure the safety and wellbeing of the entire community was short-term. So to speak, when the elementary human right - to be free, at the expense of fundamental right - to be safe, would be only temporarily suspended. Not only that, it would be tolerable to restrict only those rights and liberties that the terrorists were abusing, and for the purpose of limiting the space and the means of their action, and making it easier for the authorities to arrest and sanction them.

It is clear that even after a decade and a half of ongoing “War on Terrorism”, there is no guarantee that 9/11, no matter what the US does, won’t happen again, this time maybe even deadlier. But, as the breaking of laws and regulations isn’t the reason for them to not be implemented, and as the inability of different institutions to protect their citizens at all times isn’t the reason for their disbandment, thus the terrorist attacks of 9/11 aren’t the reason for the US to stop being the open society, at least up to the point it was until then. Until the 21st century, this major world power has been a beacon of world’s democracy, and the respect for human lives has been one of its fundamental principles. Today the situation is totally different. In one hand, the US foreign policy orientation towards the promotion of human rights is formally present, while in the other, the US questions those very same rights of its own citizens.

The real question for the American people is: Why is it that today, when they live in the “most democratic” society, whose system should represent a guarantee of life in prosperity and safety, they live in constantly growing fear and increasing uncertainty? This uncertainty isn’t only a result of terrorism, but of an inadequate reaction from the authorities regarding its opposing, which is harmful for the democratic processes and institutions. That exactly is the terrorist’s goal, not final or main one, but certainly an important one, and unfortunately almost completely achievable. Namely, regardless of current unaccomplishment of their grand goals, there was one goal that they had always managed to achieve, even if it was partially – many of them had claimed that they want to blow off the cover of the country which they are attacking, to force it to unveil its ugly face, especially if that country claims to be democratic. The proof of their success is the fact that life in many countries has become far less pleasant and free with the coming of the new millennia.

Once more, we emphasize that the key to battle global terrorism is a collective international effort and a complete cooperation founded on promoting knowledge and liberties, and not in obstruction of human rights. Nobody wants to live in a “police state”. Today’s liberal democracy is founded on the right to vote, but the citizens demand a lot more. They demand actual equality, the true right to a freedom of speech, a just and public trial, and before all else, a right to a life in which the interference of the authorities has been brought down to a minimum. As opposed to that, those rights have been greatly compromised by the “War on Terrorism”, so people are being arrested and detained without ever being charged, their right to the free choice of legal representation has been taken from them, and civilians charged with terrorism or espionage are being tried at court marshals, hence, all forms of audio and video communication are being tapped and all sorts of electronic communication are being surveilled. Fear of potential terrorist attacks has been and still is giving the White House a discrete right to sanction all those suspected to be perpetrators outside of standard rules and procedures up to 2001. Today, this has been legalized by the Patriot Act and an array of other laws and amendments in the branch of security, which is obvious to be one of two fundamental rights of the modern man, and was put significantly ahead the first one – the freedom.

Beside all this, the US had constantly been projecting the danger of terrorism as an uncontrolled and growing mega-threat to the entire modern civilization since 2001, by which they intend to impose a constant state of emergency in a bigger part of the world. This is why they have declared a “War on Terrorism” which is not limited in time and space, so that they could maintain this infinite global war, but for that they need an infinite threat which would cause general insecurity and uncontrolled fear, that can stretch forever and that can be adjusted to higher or lower intensity as needed. Is there a better threat than terrorism? Of course not! Its bearers are unpredictable and almost invisible enemies, who do not care about their own lives. So the showdown has become their number one priority under which auspices the Americans conduct anti-terrorist military interventions in sovereign countries, disregarding the need to legitimize them on an international level, and all this under the excuse of establishing democracy and protection of human rights. Those violent military actions, that more and more take the shape of armed aggression, are sarcastically being called “Humanitarian Interventionism” and to make the absurd even more absurd, their bearer - self-proclaimed as a world policeman tasked with alleged protection of human rights all around the world, is at the same time jeopardizing those same rights to his own citizens when combating terrorism.

Eventually, when a line is drawn with a first decade of global anti-terrorism war over, it can be concluded that the US have managed to establish a security system that successfully answers the threats and challenges of the modern age. Unfortunately, the necessity to reform its own security system, especially the part in charge of prevention, they have realized only after 9/11.

Therefore, it is undisputable that the US have had a significant success in regards to anti-terrorism in the period from 2001 up to this day, results of which are evident that the measures taken had increased the security of that country. But the fact remains that they had compromised privacy and civic liberties of its citizens in exchange for greater security. It is disappointing that those anti-terrorist measures had changed the American society which was outgoing until that point, and that they have jeopardized the rights of own citizens by passing a bill which had enabled this, and which has also enabled various security- intelligence and police services to gain new and more elaborate authorizations that delved deep into the privacy of its citizens. To put it a little differently, the White House did not pay attention to the balance between the strengthening of controlled systems within its borders and their influence to prevention of the rule of the law in the process of reform and strengthening of internal safety. This leads us to believe that the standpoints in American declarations about the importance of human rights were not attuned to actions of its security apparatus during the combat against terrorism. This further lead to the destruction of democratic foundations of this society within the US, while the European Union, on the other hand, had not compromised privacy and civil liberties of its citizens in exchange for a boost in their security within the frame of the same “War on Terrorism”.

As far as the anti-terrorist practice of the EU goes, we can conclude that even though a big step in the operationalization of its internally-defensive policy, a lack of national will to apply the aforementioned has been noticed as a difficult circumstance, by the final adoption of the Security and Anti-Terrorism Strategy along with an entire array of sub-strategies. Unfortunately, practice has confirmed that it is a lot easier to create strategies than to implement them. A core application of these documents requires consciousness and responsibility from all sides – member countries: their army, police and all security intelligence services, then securing the suitable financial resources, as well as the change of an entire array of bills and amendments related to security, so that they may be attuned to pre-determined standards and goals in strategy.

On the other hand, the US had had two approaches in its practice of combating terrorism thus far. The first one came from Bush, who declared the war, and that represented a direct military assault on the countries that were the source of terrorism from the viewpoint of this administration (Afghanistan and Iraq). The second one, not so different, but a lot more subtle approach, had been used by Obama’s Administration that achieved better results, including direct strikes to the centres and branches of terrorist networks in cutting the source of finance which eventually lead to the assassination of the supreme leader of the Al-Qaeda Osama bin Laden. The gap between the "War on Terrorism” and the protection of human rights had also been mitigated. What is clear is that 9/11 had caused a big curve in the American strategic planning and action. It has also caused the need of this country to demonstrate force directly by agitating it to aggressively-offensive action through preamptive warfare, which is also unilateral if needed.

Bush’s administration had maximized and globalized the terrorist threat as an actual arbitrator an exclusively-military approach in fight against international terrorism, a terrorist threat that, according to them, had needed to be removed from the global political scene instantly, without previously considering its causes. Not only was this approach non efficient, but it was inhumane, which was proved by the cruelty of American attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, and is the reason why Obama’s Administration focused on identifying the roots of terrorism, as well as establishing reasons that endorse the creation of an extreme, radical, anti-American and overall anti-Western mood in the Islamic world.

Therefore, in the beginning of “War on Terrorism” the establishing of the very source of terrorism and motivational factors had been put out of focus, while the use of force and military factor expansion had dominated in this war. Since it had become more and more obvious that terrorism could not be exterminated, an attempt to control it was under way, in other words, the suppression and elimination of terrorist threats. Even though the theoreticians had pointed to this at the very beginning, it took time for it to finally be understood that it is simply impossible to suppress terrorism by a military approach, but rather with a change of overall social relations through the development of democracy, but also economic subventions and the education of an entire society. The reaffirmation of basic principles on an international political relation scene is crucial, especially when it comes to smaller countries that are constantly being discriminated by the big and powerful ones. Therefore it is necessary to ensure that, even though small, they are recognized as actual subjects of international relations. Besides this, it is necessary to stop further deepening of economically-social differences between the rich and the poor countries by establishing righteous economic relations in the world. Without a healthy economy, the war-stricken countries cannot become independent nor can they provide a socially-economic improvement to their people, which is necessary to suppress a growing terrorist indoctrination in the Middle East.

[1] The US represents a mono-ethnic federal community, while the EU is a supranational political community of the European countries.

[2] Source: Sanctioned Bias: Racial Profiling Since 9/11, ACLU, New York, 2004 (Internet: https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/racial%20profiling%20report.pdf, 20/01/2017) p. 5.