EU: Expanding the concept of terrorism?
01 August 2001
Thomas Mathiesen examines the dangers presented by the proposed EU definition of terrorism
The events which took place in the United States on 11 September 2001 were terrible. So are many of the acts committed by the United States against other states through the years. The latter actions have been part of the complex of factors causing the former.
In the shadow of these events, and at very short notice, plans have been proposed within the EU which imply a dramatic widening of what we usually understand by "terrorism".
The proposals contain two main characteristics. Firstly, if implemented they will be of marginal importance when it comes to prevention of actions such as the ones we have seen in the US. Secondly, they will be of very considerable importance in preventing legitimate but perhaps somewhat boisterous protests such as those we saw earlier this year in Gothenburg and Genoa. And I am not thinking of the actual outbursts of violence there, but the more peaceful approaches used by the large majority.
The proposals were discussed at the meeting of the JHA Council on 20 September, nine days after the events in the US. The Commission had presented two proposals for council framework decisions, drafted after 11 September - one on the issue of the European arrest warrant, and one on combating terrorism. The ministers agreed in principle on both of them, advocating their rapid adoption. My focus here will be the proposal on combating terrorism.
The core provision in the proposal is Article 3, where "terrorist offences" are defined.
"Terrorism" is a complicated concept. As far as definition goes, it is in considerable measure dependent on political view: Palestinian actions in the Middle East are defined as "terrorist" by Israel and many Western states, while they are defined as legitimate and necessary political actions by many Palestinians. Frequently, an important part of the political struggle consists of winning the battle over definition.
What is defined as "terrorist" may also change through history: The demonstrations and actions of the Norwegian labour movement in the early 1900s were frequently defined as terrorist, while in retrospect they are seen as legitimate and necessary attempts to change Norwegian politics and social structures.
Despite variations such as these, some core activities are commonly understood as "terrorist", at least by a large majority, more or less regardless of political view and historical phase. Violent and arbitrary actions consciously directed towards civilians with a political goal more or less clearly in mind constitutes such a core act (though admittedly, those who commit such acts may at the time not consider them "terrorist"). I view the mass bombing of the city of Dresden during the closing months of World War II, followed by the shooting of civilians (from fighter planes) who tried to flee from the demolished city, as such acts. Although the professed aim was to shorten the war, the war obviously coming to an end anyway, Dresden was of no military importance whatsoever, and it was a violent and arbitrary slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians. The carpet bombing and the slaughter of civilians in My Lai and other attacks on civilians during the Vietnam war and the actions against the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. on 11 September of this year, constitute other cases in point.
Though this is one core activity, other types of action may also be included, for example damage to or demolition of important institutions such as oil installations, symbolically important physical structures, or structures with important practical functions for civilian populations (Norwegian oil rigs, Buckingham Palace, WTC and Pentagon once more, and electricity - and water supplies such as those in Serbia and Afghanistan would be cases in point).
There is also an admittedly hazy "outer parameter" of the concept, comprising activitie