Norway is normally a peaceful country. This peace was shattered just over a week ago by a bomb blast in Oslo, followed shortly thereafter by a massacre on a nearby island. The atrocities on that day left scores dead and served as a reminder just how vulnerable Europe is to terrorist attacks.
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the US, Europe has become a haven for money laundering, crime and all manner of terrorist attacks. According to last year’s Europol EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report (TE-SAT), Europe is currently threatened by Islamist, ethnic and nationalist groups, left-wing and right-wing (with Marxist-Leninist and state socialist ideological underpinnings) terrorist groups, as well as activist organizations such as animal rights and environmental groups.
As the situation stands right now, there remain several major obstacles Europe needs to overcome in its anti-terror efforts.
The first of these is the common currency and inter-governmental cooperation. Anti-terrorism efforts in the eurozone are hobbled by legislation that introduced the common currency, relaxed border controls, relatively lax financial regulation and unregulated financial centers abroad, all of which have made Europe the perfect place to launder money, smuggle currency and engage in other kinds of financial activity that make things easier for terrorists.
At the same time, the EU is not a supranational state and anti-terrorism efforts have to be coordinated at the EU level, individual member state level and with the international community. The complex coordination required to achieve this further exacerbates the situation.
The next obstacle is the robust guarantees to protect human rights and basic freedoms. The European Convention on Human Rights, in both wording and spirit, places much emphasis on basic individual freedoms and rights, rendering it difficult to implement UN regulations related to the freezing of terrorist funding.
The European Court voided European Commission stipulations related to the transfer of funds to terrorists in the Kadi and al-Barakaat cases, on the grounds that the interpretation of the UN 1267 anti-terrorist organization regime ran counter to the fundamental guarantee of human rights.
In addition, European countries lack a consensus on how to fight terrorism and the eastern expansion of the EU has also introduced further complications. These conditions conspire to make it almost impossible to develop a comprehensive set of effective anti-terrorism measures. The upshot of all this is that Europe presents individuals intent on funding terrorist organizations with an opportunity that is difficult to pass up, as the EU is unable to implement consistent and far-reaching anti-terrorist legislation comparable to the US Patriot Act.
Logistics bases for al-Qaeda cells have already been discovered in the UK, Italy, Germany, Spain and Belgium. Before the group launched the Sept. 11 attacks, these European cells maintained close contact with each other, but since governments generally jealously guard intelligence, Europe’s anti--terrorist capability was severely compromised.
Because the EU lacked a unified anti-terrorist mechanism, the US has also been reluctant to work with individual European states.
Traditionally, terrorist organizations operating in Europe have had a regional, hierarchical structure and their political goals have been limited to self-autonomy. Nowadays, international terrorist organizations differ in that they cross national boundaries, have a flatter structure and are bent on killing Westerners and undermining their values. As a result, traditional responses are no longer relevant to today’s challenges.
After the Lisbon Treaty came into effect in December 2009, the EU entered a new era. The treaty clearly stipulated that the purpose of the EU was to provide its citizens with a secure, just region in which there were no border controls to hamper free travel between member states. Furthermore, within this region, freedom of movement is to be guaranteed, accompanied with a set of related measures such as external border controls for refugees and immigrants, and measures to prevent and combat crime. If this fundamental objective is to be achieved, combating international crime and especially preventing and fighting international terrorism are all the more important.
There is no single approach to fighting terrorism, as terrorist organizations and the nature of the attacks are constantly changing. The advent of globalization has also affected how terrorism is funded, within the EU, between member states and beyond its borders, especially in the US. It also cuts across the complex interaction between organized crime, money laundering and the freezing of capital flows. Now that the Lisbon Treaty has been implemented, how the EU as a whole is to deal, on the political and systemic levels, with the funding of terrorism will be one of its greatest challenges.
Lin Tai-ho is an assistant professor at the Institute of Strategy and International Affairs at National Chung Cheng University.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.