Terrorism Research Blog

Countries within the Euro zone do not enforce border controls within Europe and instead focus their efforts on external borders. This Schengen Area comprises of 26 European countries that have removed passport controls and effectively any border controls. The attacks in Paris and the subsequent arrests in France, Belgium and Germany have raised some concerns on whether the Schengen agreement has enhanced or detracted from security within Europe. The European Union establishment sees the rise of this discord amongst the citizens as a threat to the long standing plans of the common union. They point out many of the security benefits that have come about with this agreement and push to further enhance powers of the EU security and government organizations. The individual countries and their citizens may not agree, but they are party to this accord – with or without the threats from terrorism.

Can Europe combat terrorists within the “Schengen Area”?

“In conclusion, European cooperation with third countries in which terrorists are likely to travel must be improved – for example Turkey and North African countries – and also with the USA. A globalised movement of police and judicial cooperation must be promoted to increase Europeans’ safety, against a movement of unrealistic and ineffective focus on national borders.

An improved application of the Schengen Area’s operating rules is without doubt possible, to enable its member countries and the EU to withstand terrorist threats. Questioning these rules does not in any way impede freedom of movement, a right granted since the Rome Treaty to all EU residents, regardless of whether or not their country is a member of the Schengen Area. Yet this would make the exercise of this right much more complex and costly, while undermining the shared responsibility that Europeans require in order to dismantle terrorist networks.” (EurActiv)

Over the last few months, we have been documenting the steady stream of (reactive) proposed counter-terrorism legislation in various countries that are chipping away at the freedoms of the respective citizens. The most recent example comes from the European Union where Spain is proposing some tough new laws that have caught the attention of Amnesty International, who have issued a warning. If this counter-terrorism law makes it through the country’s parliament Spaniards may have to watch what they say, or who they (unknowingly) associate with, countries they may have traveled to or how they use technology. Their (innocent) actions could still land them in trouble with the law. These types of draconian laws raise questions for the populations where they have to decide how they wish to live their lives.

Human rights under threat from new Spanish counter terror law

“The proposed definition of terrorism includes so many crimes that it is rendered virtually meaningless. The parliament should reject any proposals that would violate basic rights,” said Julia Hall, Amnesty International’s expert on counter-terrorism and human rights.

“It would seem that anything from certain forms of expression and association to hacking and travelling could be labelled and prosecuted as terrorism. The suggested definition is overly broad and some elements so vague that even a seasoned lawyer would have trouble knowing for certain what would constitute a terrorist act.”

“What Spain needs to fight terrorism is the exact opposite: an exact and legally precise definition of what crimes constitute ‘terrorism’.” And any new measures must be necessary and proportionate to the actual threat.” (Amnesty International)

One of the many fears of “anti-terrorism” laws being implemented around the world, is that they would be used to stifle freedom of expression, speech and used for political purposes against rival parties. These laws are often vague enough that the interpretation of what is terrorism, can be coerced to include what would be the legitimate grievances of the people. This example from Bangladesh shows how a 2009 anti-terrorism legislation could see protestors receive up to the death penalty. Bangladesh has seen ongoing political problems and related violence that has killed 66 people. But the question arises of whether arson, looting, and the deaths caused by these illegal activities are terrorism or criminal acts.

Bangladeshi government invokes anti-terror laws

Bangladesh authorities last night warned of stern legal actions like the death penalty under the anti-terrorism law against “saboteurs”, hours after opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party chief Khaleda Zia issued a statement saying anti-government protests would continue. “I am ready to face any consequences as our backs have been pushed against the wall. We have no alternative to the movement,” she said.

Immediately after her statement, the state-run Bangladesh Television warned that the saboteurs would face death penalty for activities like burning people to death by throwing petrol bombs on vehicles. Officials familiar with the government plan to enforce the anti-terror law said the cabinet preferred to activate the existing law after reviewing options to enact fresh laws to handle the unrest. (Economic Times)

The Economist magazine is by far one of the most influential global establishment publications. Its editorials should be considered a good representation of what is on the mind of the powers that be (or at least what can be divulged). They recently chimed in on the subject of “counter terrorism” as the attacks in Paris were sweeping through the policy circles across Europe and several other parts of the world. The future security policies, updated laws, changes to personal freedoms, wars, etc. may be driven by the views presented here. How will our world deal with security versus freedom? Can we fix this problem by spying on everyone? Carrot or stick? Time will tell but the Economist’s views and opinions on this matter should be of some concern to the average citizen and worth keeping track.

Economist magazine editorial on dealing with terrorism

“This week, the head of the European police agency estimated that up to 5,000 European Union citizens had joined the jihadists’ ranks, many of whom would return home as hardened fighters. Furthermore, the ascendancy of IS has presented a challenge to al-Qaeda. The brothers who carried out the Charlie Hebdo murders appear to have been operating under orders from the Yemen branch of the terrorist network, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, well-known for wanting to take the fight to the “far enemy” in the West.

The second is that commando-style assaults, such as the one in Paris, are easy to plan and thus hard to disrupt. They may not kill as many people as blowing up an aircraft, but the “propaganda of the deed” is achieved by paralysing ordinary life in a big city and dominating 24-hour news channels. Third, Western spooks say they are losing the technological edge that has enabled them to monitor the communications of potential terrorists.” (The Economist)

Pakistan may be young as a country, but it has already built up a history of political instability, rising Islamic fundamentalism and a knack of using terrorists as its pawns when it needs plausible deniability. The post 9/11 War on Terror put Pakistan under some scrutiny but the country continues to be directed by the very power military and intelligence establishments. The tragic massacre of over 100 school children by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (Pakistani Taliban) in December seems to have changed a lot of the attitudes. The country has created military courts to try suspected terrorists and prescribe the death penalty where appropriate. This type of military justice should and has, human rights organizations concerned as the tragic killings are being seen as a license to persecute those whose agendas do not align with the military and intelligence interests. Matthew Green looks at Pakistan’s most recent and previous history with violence, religion and terrorism.

Will the Pakistani government and other interests finally crack down on terrorism?

“The army has denied wrongdoing in Baluchistan and elsewhere—but the well-documented reports have done little to inspire confidence. Neither has the government’s insistence that the new military courts will only be used to hear clear-cut cases of terrorism, which seems to imply a suspect will have been effectively convicted even before reaching the dock. “It has really reversed the principle of being innocent until proven guilty,” said Zohra Yusuf, chair of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. “The military becomes jury and judge.”

Beyond ill-at-ease progressives and concerned citizens on the frontier, the prospect of military courts has stirred opposition from a less obvious corner: conservative religious political parties, which have traditionally been broadly aligned with the security establishment. Several fear wording in the amendment explicitly authorizing the courts to try cases of sectarian or religiously motivated terrorism may foreshadow moves to start hauling away students and clerics from madrassas preaching the same Deobandi sect of Islam followed by most Pakistani militants.” (Newsweek)

Terrorism Research Blog

European border security in the era of terrorism

Human rights under threat in Spain

Bangladesh: when does political dissent become terrorism?

The counter-terrorism conundrum

Pakistan’s game of chicken with terrorism