Common Terrorism Policy
Whatever you think of Franco Frattini, the European Justice Commissioner, you couldn鈥檛 say that he lacks ambition.
He鈥檚 proposing a host of new EU laws from collecting information on aircraft passengers, to plans to block sites on the internet that tell you how to make a bomb.
You also couldn鈥檛 accuse him of cowardice. His report on how countries are doing so far in coordinating the fight against terrorism has a go at most EU countries, including the United Kingdom.
Five years ago, the European Union鈥檚 countries agreed a common approach to laws to fight terrorism but the report from the commission is very critical of, well, most nations apart from Malta and Greece, it seems.
Outlawing websites
You might expect from the general stereotype that the commission would be saying Britain was too harsh.
Not a bit of it. Our laws are too soft evidently.
What they actually wanted is for all countries to have a specific category of terrorist offences with tougher penalties spelt out in law.
The easiest way to do this would be to have an offence of "terrorist murder" (and terrorist GBH, and terrorist incitement and so on).
This is not what happens under English or Scottish law, where the offence is already covered in some way: there is an offence of murder, and a set of guidelines, not laws, that suggests how judges should approach sentencing. The commission feels the UK along with Italy, Germany, Spain and Ireland falls down here.
Now there is a proposal for more harmonisation.
The new laws planned would make sure the European Union鈥檚 27 countries had similar and specific laws making it illegal to provoke terrorism, recruit terrorists or train them.
The internet gets some special attention, and one of the aims of the report is to outlaw sites that either exhort people to violence or tell them how to make bombs.
Tracking explosives
Probably more controversial is the Passenger Name Records scheme, which would mean that anyone travelling into the European Union from outside would have their name and other details stored, so that the information can be shared between countries.
It very much mirrors the American system, and Britain has something similar, but the government is keen on everybody else joining in. But it doesn鈥檛 apply to people travelling within the EU.
Another plan in the pipeline is an agreement with those who legally use explosives to vet those who work in the industry, keep a track of suspicious transactions, and alert others when something goes missing or is stolen.
There鈥檚 no doubt there are at least two political purposes behind this. First of all, politicians of all stripes are desperate to avoid blame (and to be less cynical, avoid guilt) if some terrible incident does happen.
They would much rather being accused of doing too much, of over-reacting, by people safe in their armchairs yelling at the TV, than being accuse of doing too little by distraught and bereaved relatives of victims.
And the European Union has a self-declared and now very obvious purpose to reconnect with its often suspicious and hostile citizens by doing something that most people regard as worthwhile. Fighting terrorism, along with climate change, comes right at the top of that list.
Loopholes
Of course, many in the UK and elsewhere dislike the fact that it is the European Commission that has the sole right to propose EU laws and dislike the fact that they nearly always end up with greater harmonisation.
That is an important political objection, and this is a case which is bound to exercise those who dislike the EU鈥檚 direction of travel. But what about the practical policies?
I can鈥檛 see many people objecting to greater co-ordination of those in the explosive industries all over Europe (although I am all ears if you think this is wrong).
The commission says its aim is to avoid terrorists using loopholes in one country to wreak havoc in another, to eliminate the weak links.
But does it make sense to have nearly identical law in the Czech republic and Spain? And should there be specific categories of terrorist offence?
If you have an offence of "terrorist murder" do you have to have similar laws of "race hate murder"? Sexual murder? Murders as a result of domestic violence? Murder of children?
And does that suggest that murdering someone "because they looked at me funny" is, if not all right, less serious than these categories? (Presumably not for the person murdered and their family and friends.)
If so why? Common sense would suggest that harsh sentences might not make a lot of difference to ideologically committed killers willing to blow themselves up, but might on the margins make a difference to someone who blows their top when their parking space is nicked.
As ever, I invite and welcome your views.
I鈥檓 Mark Mardell, the 大象传媒's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
one of the aims of the report is to outlaw sites that (...) tell them how to make bombs.
I wonder how they plan to define what would constitute a website which tells someone how to make a bomb, and how much this conflicts with basic and established human rights such as freedom of expression. For example, your very own 大象传媒 website contains , and
points out an obvious linguistic problem. I for one feel increasingly less free due to this kind of over-reaction by the politicos: all these rules are making it easier to step over some arbitrary line without knowing or intending to.
The British government is accused of using terrorism as an excuse to exert power, but the EU is one of the worst offenders. The Commission and pro-integrationalists have always wanted to give the EU a sort of federal criminal justice role. The Twin Towers had barely fallen and they were pressing again their plans for an arrest warrant and accusing dissenters (Italy, I think) of being soft.
The legislatin generally goes far beyond anti-terrorism. Also, whilst national anti-terrorism often has an expiry date, the EU power grab represents a permanent gain of jurisdiction. They are not so much interested in actually punishing terrorists, but in creating EU criminal offences with a reference to the European Court as the final court of appeal.
We already have laws against killing people. We don't need a new law against "killing someone by blowing them up" any more than we need a law against "killing someone by dropping a grand piano on their head"
It's political point scoring and pandering to public alarm.
Several EU countries have seen lots of terrorist activity in the past few decades, not least the UK. Now I'm not suggesting Diplock courts and prisoners running the jails are the way to go, but hasn't experience shown us that the "deterrent effect" of the statute book has little if any influence on terrorists. Even if some are put off by the thought of getting caught and a few years at HM's pleasure, there's plenty more where they came from. And when dealing with those willing to kill themselves in the "cause", such penalties surely have even less effect.
This is harmonisation for the sake of it - gesture politics - which will have next to no effect in stopping terrorists, but will help the jail industry. Of course, in great part the problems the Commission is trying to solve are the result of free movement, one of the EU's fundamental rights, and in particular the Schengen agreement which has done away with routine border controls.
A specific law of Terrorist murder/assault, etc., makes sense as it will show at a glance on someone`s previous convictions that they are terrorists, much in the way specifying various types of sexual offences identifies paedophiles or wife beaters for future refence. It surely won`t do any harm and may do some good.It perhaps is also time that certain laws were standardised throughout Europe-and indeed some operational practices-look at the confusing and apparently shambolic system in Portugal when dealing with the McCanns compared to the relatively straighforward and open equivalent in Italy in the recent case of the murdered UK girl.
this new suggestion on terrorism from the eu (who are not exactly famous for their good ideas) would, in my view, be following the same flawed logic as the race crime laws.
like the relatively new offences concerning 'hate' crime which serve no purpose other than to say that crime WITHIN one ethnic group should be less punishable or treated differently to crime BETWEEN separate ethnic groups, which actually sounds like institutionalised racism to me.
similarly, if someone is found guilty of bombing then lock them up for as long as possible. what does it matter whether they can be given the tag of 'terrorist' or not? it's only a propaganda tool anyway.
if someone has a gun, again, lock him/her up for as long as possible, whether they are al khaida or just from the 'staines massive' what does it matter?. after all, how many deaths and serious injuries are caused every year by the latter as compared with the former?
and we also have conspiracy laws which should be able to lock up any plotters even before they can act. it worked with guy fawkes.
having said that though, if an iraqi or afghani citizen whose country we have invaded and could therfore be assumed to be at war with, attacks this country, then wouldn't they be a prisoner of war under the geneva convention?
We need somewhere outside of EU laws where we can contain these people. A prison or detention camp where the legal status is unclear and they can be contained and interrogated indefinitely with no interference from those concerned with their human rights. As captured terrorists are not prisoners of war as defined by Article 4 of the Geneva Convention and therefore not protected by it. The more effective forms of obtaining information critical to our saftey is not allowed by our laws therefore we need a loophole to get around it.
Ah! Blocking internet sites, isn't that what undemocratic, repressive regimes do in countries, like China?
In order to fight transnational crime/terrorism we need transnational rules. I dont care if someone in Malta drops a grand piano on his mother in law but I darn well care if someone in Italy gets information from a portuguese site in order to blow himself up in Austria. This is what Frattini is talking about and it would make persecution much more coherent throughout the Union.
"The European Union has a self-declared and now very obvious purpose to reconnect with its often suspicious and hostile citizens by doing something that most people regard as worthwhile.."
Do me a favour, Mark, you are far more intelligent than this. Yet again the EUrocrats want to restrict our freedom.
The problem is that when the state makes a definition of 'terrorism' it is far more wide-ranging than the citizens' view. Hence 'cybercrime' and vandalism become include as 'terrorist' offences.
So, for example, those peace protesters who vandalised a Hawk trainer jet, which was for export to Indonesia, for internal repression, would be considered terrorists ! How ridiculous ! And you are happy for such arbitrary decisions to be made by EUrocrats who have now connection with democracy, and over whom we have not a jot of veto ? Well, you are a far braver man than I.
And why should we hand over our email address when flying ? Just in case we are discussing dangerous things like the environment and globalisation, or the lack of democracy in the 'New Europe'.
Which, if one believes what is said here about censorship on the internet sounds very much like the Old Europe of East Germany in the 'Lives of Others'.. Italy is already requesting all bloggers to register ! How soon before they start to get you to issue their propaganda for them ?
Maybe they already have ! Come on, Mark, you need to challenge this ridiculous, dangerous, unwarranted and unwanted invasion of privacy, as we won't be able to turn back the tide later on. Fight for freedom of speech - it seems to be under attack.
"it would make persecution much more coherent throughout the Union"
Yup, persecution that's the word. They'll persecute us until we're all bar-coded, biometricised, CCTV'd and they know exactly where we are every minute of the day. And if they don't they'll hold us for 90 days without charge to make sure they do.
First and foremost, global terrorism is just that, an international, global issue. As a consequence, developing a robust, continent-wide framework for tackling it would seem to be a sensible solution. Terrorism and terrorists do not respect international boarders and I agree that they will exploit whatever loopholes they can, wherever they can to achieve their objectives. The problem with this is that by developing a blanket legal framework, we risk producing something of a lowest common denominator. picking the most ridged elements from all national statues.
Perhaps this is what is required, but it deserves a note of caution. I imagine the devil will be in the detail as always. Specific Terrorist Laws may well be one approach, but as we find here, they are likely to open a veritable can of worms. Either way, the principle is one that I would support and the development of these proposals should prove interesting.
Mark, you asked, "If you have an offence of "terrorist murder" do you have to have similar laws of "race hate murder"? Sexual murder? ... And does that suggest that murdering someone "because they looked at me funny" ... If so why?"
I really do not like agreeing with the EU, but they do have a point that terrorism is a different crime. Standard murder is a crime of me against you (nothing personal). It is an individual crime of one person against a defined victim.
In terrorism, however, the people killed are a means to an end. The goal is to knock the larger society off its rails, to invoke fear in society to force them to change. It is a very different crime. Whether it is worse than your standard murder is another question, but it certainly is different and so it is logical that different laws would apply.
I am very concerned when any EU Apparatchik not elected by me starts talking about taking away my right to view blogs that he & his unelected EU cronies find "offensive".
It is laughable to say "ban websites that tell you how to make a bomb" - as ever with the EU this is just a pretext to set a precedent, & that precedent has connatations with other European invented political movements & ideologies:
Fascism
Communism
National Socialism
No, keep you ideas & your advice on the threat we face to your own continent Europe - leave Great Britain out of it. We will find our own way of dealing with the battalion of Jihadists in our midst thank you.
And who's to say the next step will be banning websites that dare criticize the EU?
They will argue that criticizing the EU is akin to aiding and abetting terrorism...
Our parliamentary democracies have already died, now they start whittling away at our freedoms too. And people ridicule me when I call it the embryonic Fourth Reich.
I wonder why you pour scorn of Frattini; after all, he is a member of Berlusconi's team that both Bush and you were so fond of
As far as the passengers identification system, he comes out of the negotiations betweeen the US and the EU on the subject. So, if you don;t like it, blame W who forced it on us after his father had caused the terrorism in the first place
by stationing American soldiers in Saui Arabia to protect Exxon, Shell and BP
And since you're supposed to cover EU matters, why don't you invstigate why Britons aren't told of the measures they can take against airlines that flout their EU-guaranteed rights (see "http//blog.johnworth.eu/")
Murder is murder whichever way you look at it.
Mr Khan above suggests that we use the 'extraodinary rendition' process the Americans apparently use. Effectively he's saying because it's illegal to torture people here, we should just kidnap them and have someone else do it. I think this misses the ethical and practical points of why we have laws against torture myself - we stopped torturing people here partly because it's barbaric but partly because torture will make people confess to anything so it's essentially, useless.
I agree with Mr Mardell that it's just not logical to set the punishment for a crime by what type of murder it is. The difference between murdering someone in the heat of the moment and plotting their death is important. I see no difference in murdering someone for profit, to scare other people or simply because that's how you get your kicks though.
Also the current wave of terrorists all believe, to a man, that they will receive eternal life in paradise for their actions. As will their family. These are educated people, capable of being rational in other areas. Their intelligence and sanity are not the problem, nor is their fear of punishment as they have no reason to be even vaguely depressed at the prospect of death (that applies to Christian and Muslim terrorists of course). The problem is their highly dubious stone age belief systems which require otherwise rational people to behave irrationally.
Watch Ayan Hirsi Ali speak about this sort of behaviour on any video site if you want to understand the mentality of these people (in so far as it's possible).
Some of these proposals are no more than common sense. Making it more difficult for terrorists to obtain commercial explosives, for example, by harmonising and tightening up regulations, is something that no-one could criticise. The IRA used a lot of stolen explosives in the 70s until control was tightened. And blocking websites that give detailed information on bomb making or glorify suicide bombers is also an obvious move. No country in Europe allows free access to firearms or explosives, so why allow instructions on home made explosives manufacture to circulate freely?
And I know enough about how the EU works to know that we aren't ruled by a cabal of unelected bureacrats - the Commission. Ultimate power in the EU rests with the Council of Ministers - who are elected - and who on the whole are in agreement on the need to fight terrorism, be it Islamic, nationalist or neo-Nazi. No guarantee that any measures they all agree will actually work, however.
Indeed. I've never actually understood why we apparently needed laws against religious incitement when we already had laws against incitement to violence. Or why a murder or assault should somehow be any worse because it was racially motivated. Incitement is incitement. Murder is murder.
The only area we might need new legislation or guidelines is where offences fall through the cracks or carry inadequate sentences for the gravity of the offence. e.g. Conspiracy to murder may not carry appropriate penalty for someone caught planning a bomb or gas attack that might kill hundreds or thousands.
To me this shows that the EU does need a firm constitution which clearly says which powers are exercised by the EU and which are exercised by member states. It makes sense for the EU to lead in foreign policy, having a much stronger voice than any individual state. But it doesn't really help to have very finite and detailed laws about categories of murder coming from Brussels when the governments of member states are more capable of producing their own relevant legislation.
Yes - it does make sence to have laws as similar as practical throughout Europe. Then you would expect me to be in favour would you not.
If you look at the number of years handed out to those found guilt of the Madrid train bombing I'm supprised Spain is not considered tough enough.
Even though I am pro-Eu in many terms, I view this newly forwarded proposal as a - possible - restriction of personal freedoms.
I agree that there could be a more collective agenda against terrorism but to be frank, following lines worry me:
"The new laws planned would make sure the European Union鈥檚 27 countries had similar and specific laws making it illegal to provoke terrorism, recruit terrorists or train them.
The internet gets some special attention, and one of the aims of the report is to outlaw sites that either exhort people to violence or tell them how to make bombs."
Well, game on. Who defines terrorism, or the provocing of terrorist acts? Today it might be the short-lived threat of islam fundamentalism, tomorrow it is already a sponteanous demonstration during another leader's visist which would have caused "safety issues". And the day after that, dissent itself does not exist and all hail to our glorious leader.
Even though I am not American, "Freedom is not for free" is something true especially while facing this threat of a media-terrorist-fear complex. In my opinion it should be interpreted as the everyday struggle to accept evalue rights earned by generations of struggle and bloodshed more than total safety and sometimes even your life rather than waging war against another nation. We all will have to accept that we cannot live in a society both equally secure and free. Those words are oxymorons and even thought there can be a free and as well quite secure society, there cannot be a liberal society stable and without any possible security breach at all, for this would mean the absolute controll of every single individual within this state. Even though it is a quite radical point of view, I myself would rather die in a terrorist attack than giving up personal freedoms. But merely starting to show as a society that we indeed do not fear but hold those rights sacred could not only boost our morale, but as well give an strong example of steadfastness and will to fight. Eventually, this whole thing can be compared with a war between nations, namely the attack on Britain by the Luftwaffe during WWII, where airstrikes were uncertain for a long time and quite similar measures were taken as today.*
My conclusion is that in case there should be restrictions, then we need someone to "watch the watcher". An example would be a stronger and independent European judiciary capable of setting the law's limits as well as an independent European institution to watch over civil and personal rights in all Europe.
The problem with the "struggle against terrorism" is indeed that it is mainly fought in the head of every citizen this terrorism is targetet at, and if we let our primitive wish for security go rampage in our societies then we soon have nothing left worthy of protection - Or worse: We become that very phantom we were fighting against.
*Please note that this is not meant to offend anybody.
The fundamental problem lies in the chicken and egg question; which comes first, mutual recognition or mutual trust (and the subsidiary question of the level of "minimum rules" required to help establish the latter)? If one accepts that all Member States are functioning democracies subject to the rule of the law (and, if they are not, what are they doing in the European Union?), mutual recognition should be the accepted norm, especially as it has been elevated to the status of the fundamental principle supposedly underpinning police and judicial cooperation.
Continental Member States, and notably Germany, are unwilling to accept its application in practice.
The proposals of the Commission are inherently silly as they fail to address this underlying problem of principle and are, in any case, built on a myth viz. that there can be an absence of "internal border controls" (Article 61.2 of Reform/Lisbon Treaty) in the present security circumstances. Any European traveller knows that individual checks have only been dropped at internal land borders, not at ports and airports.
Until European politicians reconcile rhetoric with reality, action by the European Union will lack all credibility (and such action as does take place on the basis of mistaken premises will carry considerable risk to civil liberties)
Terrorism, as we have seen here in the UK is dragging an elderly gentleman out of his seat at a Labour Conference because he shouted Rubbish.
Real Terrorism was when the bombs fell in the last war when people, young children lay with their parent's fingers plugging their ears to deaden the sound of the bombs whistling down. The people did not have their rights removed other than show a cardboard ID card every now and then. the people all worked together for the war effort, not like today's divided country, and not by any other Organisation making all the laws, removing people's rights and decided what is best for everyone.
Have any of you any idea where the loss of all the sovereignty of this Country is going to lead you to?
Wake up, for goodness sake wake-up before it is too late.
I'm troubled by the points Mark raises, especially his last point about "terrorist murders". The reason I'm perturbed is that I don't think there is a clear definition of the term "terrorism." The killing of civilians is inherently wrong and illegal. Do soldiers of EU countries fighting in any given war who commit personal "acts of terror" fall under these guidelines? In the meantime you have a democratically detached European Commission which is issuing directives and performance updates on what seems to be inherently domestic matters of law and order. Why isn't the EU playing a more prominent role in the Basque region, Corsica, Cyprus, etc? There's a total lack of constructive vision on Frattini's part.
"Should there be specific categories of terrorist offence?"
Absolutely! One should not give the same sentence to someone who
1.detonated a bomb in the underground, bus, railway station, trade center or at the airport.
2. blew up a school, hospital, bakery or barber shop.
3. Activated a bomb at the wedding, wake, religious gathering.
4.Merely attempted to blow up trains, but bombs didn't go off due to faulty fuse wirings (like in Germany)
4. decapitated just a single person.
Although, in the last case, a clear distinction should also be made between a terrorist who sawed off one's head with a chainsaw and a "freedom fighter" who humanely chopped it off with a kukri knife.
And it goes without saying that somebody who merely masterminded a terrorist operation should be aquitted, just as it happened recently in Madrid.
It is also interesting that the passenger data proposal came right on the heels of the EU promising for force member states to give piles of personal passenger data to the US (the EU, because the ECJ had ruled the EC couldn't legally enter such an agreement). What if the disenfranchised population of Europe were to feel they were giving more than they were getting. Better to violate everyone's right to privacy.
Presumably, a society that is trying to make the world appear reasonably safe, clean and healthy finds any form of unplanned death (and perhaps even life) rather shocking. Clearly, in a responsible world, any (visible) form of agression or violence becomes unpaletable. Terrorism simply doesn't fit into a consumertist lifestyle: Even though it may, unfortunately, be partly caused by the consumerist preference for a smooth untroubled life with all that is undesirably troublesome swept cleanly under the carpet.
However, would it not be trully better to deal with the injustices that fuel terrorism -or at least form a background excuse -rather than simply attack the symptoms.
Cheap consumer goods and services in the rich countries can only be created through exploitation of the poor. As we are currently seeing in Pakistan -"democracy" in the sense of "free market capitalism" is often incompatible with "free choice" when it comes to political and social systems. Military rule is becoming increasingly neccessary in order to force western lifestyles upon unwilling people who prefer their own ways -however disagreeable that may be to us. In some cases, we may soon need to impose western lifestyles (even harder) upon "western" countries.
Personally, I cannot understand why current "good policing", "good politics" and a fair legal system isn't sufficient to deal with all illegal acts -including terrorism.
A few years ago, on a high-speed train trip from Amsterdam to Switzerland, two armed thugs (in scruffy civilian cloths) boarded the train at the Dutch-German border. They went straight to one passenger and searched his luggage. Apparently without resultm -but it seems clear that his presence on the train was was known and he was under suspicion.
A few years earlier, I had taken a train from Amsterdam to Maribor in Slovenia. As a joke, I'd faxed a friend in Salzberg (who'd invited me) that I would not drop in on the way back -because I prefered to go to Amsterdam for drugs and guns. To my surprise, I was searched as soon as the sleeper crossed the Austrian border. I'm sure the searchers were equally surprised (and no doubt dissapointed) to discover that I had nothing worse than vitimin pills (and a half-eaten sandwich) in my baggage. They had obtained my passport from the conductor -and were clearly looking for me specifically. This was 1998 -long before the supposedly revolutionary 9/11.
If international train passengers were being tracked in 1998 (and apparently still being tracked in 2004) then how much are we to believe that curreent data privacy laws are being respected (and will be respected) on internal EU flights?
Why would people want to go around killing others -if not part of a struggle against injustice? That surely leaves only criminal or mental health reasons over -and our current system doesn't seem to want to concider any of these (or the possible inter-connections). Tony Blair seemed in a constant state of denial as to any possible connection between UK/US politics and terrorism -which seems rather impossible to believe (especially when many allies in the "war against terror" are themselves somewhat dubious).
One can't help wondering how much "terrorism" is actually "state terrorism" -in cause or effect.
The EU is using its age-old practice of using an issue of the day to justify its primary mission - the transfer of more powers to itself 鈥 in this case in the area of criminal law. Should it get away with creating a precedent we will for ever be hearing that there is 鈥渘othing new鈥 for the EU to legislate in the area of criminal law and the body of this European law would grow like weeds replacing not just national criminal law but also the ability of the national parliaments we elect to legislate in the areas covered by this law. The inevitable long-term consequence of this process would be the slow extinguishing of our ability to elect a government to determine the criminal law we live under.
Civil liberties in Britain have already been eroded to a greater extent than in any comparable country in the 鈥榳ar against terror鈥 but at least we may elect new government to replace current legislation should future voters judge today鈥檚 measures draconian. This will not be possible if EU criminal law is created persisting (like the CAP) indefinitely; forever beyond the influence of our votes. While the EU Commission does not threaten anyone鈥檚 life as terrorists do, the inappropriate powers and self-aggrandizing ambitions of this institution are - in practice - a greater danger to our democratic way of life and need to be resisted with vigilance.
One very good reason for a harsher penalty, specifically the death penalty, for terrorist acts is that terrorists have been known to take hostages in order to demand the release of jailed comrades.
Clearly, countries cannot surrender to such threats, but failing to do so naturally drives a wedge between the governments and those who care about the fate of the hostages. Executing terrorists prevents this from arising.
I'm all in favour of co-operation across the EU on policing and anti-terrorism but a harmonisation of laws on fighting them? How would this help other than make terrorist murder in one country the same offence in every other EU country and i assume subject to the same period of time in prison? Would that have meant that the UK would have imposed the same sentence for the 7/7 bombers as Spain did for the Madrid bombers? Also, what about European terrorist organisations in Spain and Northern Ireland. Are they covered in this as well or is it just directed at Al Qaeda and its affiliates? I would be very careful about trying to make specific laws that focus on one type of terrorist group or the fear is that the EU is seen as anti-Islamic (possibly backed up by its treatment of Turkey) and is a recruiting sargeant for the terrorists you are trying to combat. Terrorist murder is still murder and should not classified in any other way.
Smell the coffee -Times literary Supplememt:
"To her mother鈥檚 distress, the clinic refuses her treatment. Although she is indeed malnourished, there are others in a still worse state who need more urgent care. This is a coffee-growing region, and no one has enough to eat, because the farmers cannot get anything approaching a decent price for their beans.......
...........The film [Black Gold] lays much of the blame for this with the New York Trading market, a 鈥渄estructive mechanism鈥 for the coffee producers, since the market price of coffee is sometimes now set below the amount it cost to produce. The world economy in coffee is controlled by four big multinationals 鈥 Kraft, Nestl茅, Procter & Gamble and Sara Lee 鈥 who are largely able to determine the price of coffee to their own advantage. The farmers 鈥 most of whom have tiny family farms 鈥 cannot sell direct to this market, but must go through middlemen 鈥 exporters who themselves take another sizeable chunk.........
.........Many of the farmers ....... are now switching from coffee crops to chat, a narcotic plant which is banned in the United States and much of Europe. Several bemused Ethiopian farmers are interviewed about it. They don鈥檛 like chat, they say. They know that the people who chew it are addicts. But they need cash, and chat pays far better than coffee. What can they do? The economics of coffee simply make no sense for them. The concluding section of the film shows footage from the 2003 trade talks of the WTO in Canc煤n, Mexico, which collapsed, amid protests from Third World countries about the refusal of the US and European Union to drop subsidies for their own farmers, when Africa was forced by the IMF to drop its own subsidies. In this context, it is virtually impossible for African trade to compete. If Africa could increase its share of world trade by just 1 per cent, it could generate $70 billion 鈥 five times more than the entire continent now receives in aid."
Enjoy your coffeee -and don't forget to look under the table for terrorists.... One womnders how they got there.....
Until European politicians reconcile rhetoric with reality, action by the European Union will lack all credibility. [#18]
The problem as I see it is that you can't defeat murderous thugs with boy-scout methods, and that 27 EUnuchs speaking in unison are still,
well, impotent.
ExPat,
CCTV is a British obsession - you see very little elsewhere.
The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights should protect us from many of the excesses of the UK's centralised government.
This is a difficult issue. On the one hand we need border controls staffed by national law enforcement to trap criminals. On the other we need more transnational co-operation against the gangs of drug/gun/people smugglers, who do not observe national boundaries.
But at least with strong nation states we have law enforcement complying with local laws who have ownership over the detection of crime and prosecution of offenders.
If we centralise control too much, links to the 'boots on the ground' and their intelligence would be lost; certainly if trying to do so at an EU wide level where co-ordination of the command and control would be very difficult.
a thought provoking article as always Mr Mardell.
I'm American so my view is less... involved I guess you could say. I am however a native of Oklahoma where a federal building was bombed and destroyed in 1995. So I guess I could also say I have a little experience with this.
I got to say I don't see a point to having a separate charge of terrorism for this kinda stuff. When you already got a law against something you don't really need another law against it.
Just my 2 cents.
'Probably more controversial is the Passenger Name Records scheme, which would mean that anyone travelling into the European Union from outside would have their name and other details stored...'
- Most non EU citizen travelling into any EU country requires a visa ( eg Schengan Visa). Inorder to be eligible for this visa one must give his bank details,his place of accomodation in the visiting EU country, the number of stays he is travelling and his return plane ticket among other requirements. The consulate keeps record of all these data.
So,I wonder why do we need a Passenger Name Records Scheme when the govts have enough information about the passenger already!
And to call this law-'controversial' is a laugh. Personally to me it is quite tame.
Er, R. Holland @ number 5 - are you seriously suggesting that this principle should be introduced into law so that people who can't be bothered to read someone's full criminal record will be able to spot the word "terrorist" on the executive summary? And under what circumstances might that be - when they apply for a job where "conviction for murder" would be no problem, but "conviction for terrorist murder" would be the deal-breaker?
Leia at number 3 hits the nail on the head.
The point about terrorist crimes, and hate crime laws in general, is that the classification represents a two-part offence. The first part of the crime is the obvious one, i.e. murder. The second part is the terrorization of the rest of the victim's demographic group (say, all non-Basque Spaniards, in the case of ETA bombings).
If the KKK lynch a black man, they are not just guilty of an offence against the victim alone. They are also striking fear into every other black person, and it is that offence that the difference in sentencing between the offences of murder and racially-motivated murder exists to punish.
* 37.
* At 07:44 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
* Garvin Anders wrote:
"I'm American so my view is less... involved I guess you could say. I am however a native of Oklahoma where a federal building was bombed and destroyed in 1995. So I guess I could also say I have a little experience with this."
Actually, this raises an issue which has been troubling me for some time:
If I'm correct (in reading and remembering media reports) then the "Oklahoma bomber" was a (presumably patriotic) ex-marine who seriously believed that "civilian" deaths were acceptable collateral damage in the "war" he was fighting against unjust (federal) government. If true, then this would seem to imply that he was merely "bearing arms against unjust government" which appears to be his constitutional right. Howver, I have never heard of constitutional rights issues being raised in this case -which seems to imply a (possible) misscarriage of justice.
I'm not supporting his act -merely pointing out a potential legal problem. However, in the context of "global" terrorism -it is perhaps an important issue.
Of course, those who oppose European Federalism, do not automatically turn to violence -but there are frightening (potential) parallels with teh Oaklahoma bomber and nationalist liberation movements in Northern Ireland, Wales and of course the Basques, etc...
Strange that the only country in the world (as far as I know) to recognise a citizen's constitutional right to violence against unjust government -pursues people who oppose them violently with such vigour and hatred. Can anyone explain these mysteries to me?
trevor batten wrote: "If international train passengers were being tracked in 1998 (and apparently still being tracked in 2004) then how much are we to believe that curreent data privacy laws are being respected (and will be respected) on internal EU flights?"
I share your concerns Trevor. There is something slightly surreal about politicians debating things that we know they are already doing.
I was involved in non-violent political protest a few years ago, and we all knew from experience, that if we discussed a protest by phone or email, the police would be there waiting for us. We also encountered informants and plain clothes cops, fairly regularly, and anti terrorism laws were (mis)used against us. The amount of taxpayers money the state must have wasted on us beggars belief. I guess we were softer targets than the real terrorists.
Giving more information to a government should always be resisted because concentration makes inadvertant or fraudulent disclosure of personal data more likely. Note the word resisted not prevented. There should be justification given before data is collected and normally it should be held on a national basis (as with the passenger records system) with processes that permit international enquiries in a controlled way so that the entire system isn't dependent on the most corrupt or ineffective official across the EU.
To have similar legislation against international terrorism across the EU makes urgent sense in a way that it does not regarding other crimes.
This is common sense, something that has been absent for many years from the British debate on the EU.
But don't worry so much I am sure that the terrible EU will let you opt out of this one (actually, you know, governments have to decide, the UK government can always decide not to be part of something - in case you haven't noticed) and let the other countries go ahead with it. The usual.
As for the strange Portuguese legal system, as opposed to the I suppose normal straighforward and simple English legal system (or the Italian one, so many laws so much mafia), it has still resulted in a much safer country than either the UK or Italy.
Madeleine is the 8 unrecovered missing child in the last 15 years.
But if there is going to be any harmonising of law or policing in this (as in other) area of missing children it will certainly have to be through agreement at the EU level and not through British racist tabeloids dictating to Portugal what it should or should not do.
Controlling those in the explosives industry may seem like a good idea, but in practice will do little practical good. I need hardly remind you how miserably the nuclear industry has fared in accounting for relatively small bits of radioactive material.
The World does not need additional anti-terrorism laws. Terrorism can not be prevented by additional laws. There is a general histeria in the Western World over terrorism. We allow more and more errosion of our privacy and rights in the name of security. USA now demmands a list of passangers and personal info even for foreign flights overflying US airspace.
I think we ought to rethink this whole issue of terrorism. It is far to wide a nett to cast and I am not in a mood to live in a communist like system again, where I have to be carefull what I am saying and to whom, so I do not get thrown in a jail not to be heard from untill the security crowd will be reasured that I have miss spoken only. And I do not wish to be tasered for being critical of any of our domestic or foreign policy. Or just because I do not speak the language to explain my angst like that Polish tourist at Vancouver airport who was only abset over not being able to communicate and he died for it. Or that Brasilian young man in UK who got shot because he looked like someone the police thought they need to shoot. Or have a jet land in mid route to discharge me for air rage due to a simple missunderstanding. Or have my shaving creme removed when I am boarding a flight. Or have me prevented from flying because someone with a simular name is on the blacklist. And I hate to see armed to the teeth security personell walking our airports. Sad to say but it seems the terrorists have allready won!
It is time to rethink. Perhaps a wise foreign policy would be a good start. Deal with the causes. Treat the disease not the symptoms.
Both Mike Dixon (22) and Steve (32) have mentioned the sentences imposed in Spain for the Madrid bombings. These were extremely long sentences of 39,000 years or so.
It is important to observe two things about Spanish law:
Firstly, a person cannot spend more than 40 years in jail (on the trot), how ever long the sentence has been imposed for. (Some like me think a bit silly therefore to have sentences like those aforementioned, if at the end of the day those convicted will never spend a day more than 40 years).
Secondly, however, there is a difference between terrorist related offences and those that aren鈥檛: Those jailed for terrorism linked offences cannot benefit from any reduction in their sentences (for e.g. good behaviour, parole, etc.) like other offenders can. This is perhaps cold comfort, especially for victims and their families, and is hardly a deterrent for a terrorist, but at least they are punished more severely, and I must admit I do agree with that.
This is all rather frightening. The EU will be setting some dangerous precedents with these decisions.
Unfortunetly, being an American, I have my own "union" to worry about.
Replying to #34, the rhetoric is that passport controls at ports and airports in the Schengen area have been abolished when the reality is that they have been replaced by other controls (presentation of some form of identity card etc.), not to mention rigorous security controls.
If the PNR proposal from the Commission i.e. "E-borders" is to be effective (leaving aside the issue of civil liberties) it must reflect this reality and apply to controls (ticketing information etc.)between Member States and not just third countries. Logic would also demand - as pointed out by the air transport industry - that the system be subject to Union wide rules and a central point of exchange and control.
The idea of a Schengen area stretching from Rekyavik to Athens with impermeable external borders is, otherwise, simply not credible except on the existing basis viz. the pseudo-abolition of individual checks at ports and airports.
Of course, the extension of the Schengen area to the new Member States, and the abandonment of customs posts and individual controls at land borders, is to be greatly welcomed. That is a separate issue.
The wheels of commerce i.e. the European trucking industry must be facilitated.
"many in the UK and elsewhere dislike the fact that it is the European Commission that has the sole right to propose EU laws and dislike the fact that they nearly always end up with greater harmonisation."
It seems a shame to throw a misleading comment like this into your brilliant blog, especially as it reinforces the constant and ignorant remarks of Daily Mail readers that Brussels makes all our laws.
2 objections:
1) The EU Commission does not have the sole right to propose EU laws concerning areas of Justice and Home Affairs (and therefore terrorism) or Foreign Policy at the EU level. It shares this right with the Member States. The Reform Treaty will extend the sole right of the Commission in some but not all areas of JHA. In any case the UK has secured opt outs from all provisions relating to JHA.
2)More generally, even in areas where the Commission alone can propose laws, these are voted on by our governments, who not only have a right to veto on policies deemed to be more contentious(such as anything relating to terrorism), but who have already agreed to a harmonisation of policies in these areas (hence the Commission's right to propose laws in the first place). The various Presidents/PM's/MEPs may find it useful to constantly blame the 'technocrats' in Brussels for unpopular decisions, but their role in negotiating, amending and - crucially - approving the laws, shouldn't be forgotten.
J.P
Student
College of Europe
In principle fine, we can all agree Al-Queda are terrorists. The problem is with others: To the british at the time, George Washington was a terrorist, to Somoza -and also I believe british press at the time- the Sandinistas were terrorrists, to the Russians the Afghan mujahedeen/Taliban were terrorists,(Americans used to call them freedom fighters), to the Serbs the KLA was a terrorist organization and now the PKK are terrorists, but by the same token all Balkan nations revolution against the Turks would also be terrorist. I am worried about freedom of speech here and I want to remain free to think and say that no nation should have to stay by force in a
country it does not want to be in
and that all nations deserve a homeland.
#41: "Strange that the only country in the world (as far as I know) to recognise a citizen's constitutional right to violence against unjust government -pursues people who oppose them violently with such vigour and hatred. Can anyone explain these mysteries to me?"
You can't be seriously suggesting that Timothy McVeigh should be allowed to reclaim his Constitutional rights (which were not being violated, btw) by blowing up office workers and children in a daycare center. Why didn't he try the courts for grievance redress first, instead of making a truck bomb? Why did he not publish his views and run for political office, attracting supporters? And surely, if he paid attention in high school civics, he would have known that individual soldiers can't declare their own wars. Of course, you know this perfectly well. You just want to make a pointless, off-topic dig at the legal system of a country you don't like.
Europeans are the biggest hypocrites when it comes to terrorism. They have been providing the fertile grounds for terrorism by offering harbor to PKK whom they call a 鈥渞ebel鈥 group. Why are Al Qaeda and Hamas terror groups and not PKK?
"Tho趴e who would give up Essential Liberty to purcha趴e a little Temporary Safety, de趴erve neither Liberty nor Safety." - from a letter to the Governor of the Colony of Pennsylvania from Richard Jackson, Assemblyman, Nov, 11, 1755.