Don’t turn Europe into a militarized surveillance state

Now that some of the shock of the Paris attacks has worn off, Europe has turned its attention to security. How could such a vicious terrorist act happen in the heart of the city in broad daylight? And how can violence perpetrated in the name of Islam by homegrown jihadists be prevented — in France, Germany and the rest of Europe?

This is not the first time Europeans have addressed these questions. Shortly after 9/11 and again in the aftermath of the London and Madrid bombings in 2005 and 2006, new, tighter security measures were put in place across the continent. Now the European Union is scrambling to formulate a policy response to the threat posed by an estimated 2,500 European jihadists fighting for the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and those who have returned from the front.

It is imperative that European leaders keep a level head to avoid curbing civil liberties and exacerbating the complex and explosive dynamic at play. If fully enforced, existing anti-terrorism laws are largely sufficient to address the threat. Moreover, it can’t be forgotten that security also means the safety of Europe’s 16 million Muslims whose communities have already been targeted for the attacks in Paris.

As the experience of the U.S. “war on terrorism” amply demonstrates, an emotional overreaction only plays into the strategies of jihadists and their sympathizers. The Paris attackers sought to throw a wrench into the gears of our democracies, inflame relations between Muslims and non-Muslims and attract future generations of radicals who would take their place in a clash between civilizations. Europe’s response to Paris must not abet them.

As Europe’s leaders are insisting, one point on the agenda is the review of their surveillance mechanisms, intelligence-gathering policies and the EU’s external border controls. A review of how they’ve been implemented and why they haven’t worked is obviously in order. But planning beyond the next attack also requires thinking broadly about security with a view toward domestic policies that pre-empt exclusion and radicalization, foster integration, create jobs and invigorate a dialogue among and within Europe’s religious communities. Some Northern European countries already have effective integration programs. For example, last year Denmark introduced a rehabilitation program that offers jobs and other accommodations to returning jihadist fighters who want to quit the movement.

A Europe-wide intelligence service run by the EU would be a positive step. After all, Europe’s jihadists are transnational actors who operate across the EU and between Europe and the Middle East and northern Africa. EU nations already share some intelligence on conflicts and terrorist threats through IntCen, a branch of the EU’s foreign affairs office. But IntCen lacks authority. A real EU intelligence unit would pool independent national competencies under one regime that would enable EU states to gain a bigger picture, save money and institutionalize cooperation across the union. Perhaps a Europe-wide intelligence agency could have picked up on Hayat Boumeddiene, the wife of one of the Paris gunmen, who fled after the attacks from Paris to Syria via Madrid and Turkey.

But a European secret service is unlikely to materialize, as it would require changing the EU treaty. And realistically, the larger EU member states are unlikely to forfeit their national intelligence services willingly. Moreover, an ineffective foreign intelligence service would create a surplus level of bureaucracy that could even hinder efforts to monitor and halt jihadi traffic.  

Nevertheless, the Paris killings illustrate the importance of coordination and better information sharing among the national intelligence services in the EU at all times. This can happen bilaterally and within IntCen. Leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and France’s François Hollande, who have been advocating better coordination on fighting terrorism for years, should muster the will to finally make this happen.

European authorities are zeroing in on social media sites and platforms. In France and elsewhere, Internet providers are under increased pressure to help combat extremist propaganda and stop the spread of hatred and violence on the Web. One measure instituted in France after the Paris attacks authorizes authorities to shut down without a court order Internet sites that preach jihad. EU nations must tread carefully between effective counterterrorism and the potential violation of privacy and restriction of free speech. The United States’ anti-terrorism efforts offer an important lesson: These measures must be accompanied by rigorous judicial and parliamentary oversight.

Europe is, for example, in the process of turning a United Nations resolution on the threat posed by terrorist acts into national law, which would make traveling to conflict zones to fight alongside extremists a criminal offense. In France now “consulting terrorist websites or receiving terrorist training” carries up to 10 years of imprisonment and fines of up to 150,000 euros.  

Data retention is another area where a difficult balance must be struck to avoid eroding liberty in the name of security. In April 2014 the EU’s highest court overturned the union’s data retention law (adopted in the aftermath of the 2006 Madrid attacks), which required telecom companies to keep data about their users’ traffic and location for up to two years. The European Court of Justice ruled that the law violated privacy.

The ruling opens the door to challenges of national data-retention laws, for example in France, where such a law is on the books. In Germany and Austria the laws have already been struck down. Merkel though has underscored her support for a new EU law as soon as possible. While it will be narrower than the 2006 directive, critics say data retention on such a scale is inherently illegal and violates EU norms.

And, of course, in France the data law did not stop this month’s attacks, and it’s unlikely that new measures to monitor whole populations would be more effective. “Some of the measures under consideration are so sweeping that they would allow the state to monitor the private communications of every citizen,” Kevin O’Sullivan, the editor of The Irish Times, wrote in an op-ed on Jan. 18. “They should instead focus on targeted surveillance of those whom they have reasonable grounds to suspect are planning to carry out attacks or encouraging others to do so.” He noted that the intelligence failures that preceded the Paris shootings were less the result of inadequate surveillance than an outcome of a job poorly done by the law enforcement officials monitoring the known jihadists.

Conventional anti-terrorism measures will address only the symptoms of Europe’s fraught relationship with its Muslim communities and Islam. It must also be asked why radical Islam exerts such a strong pull on socially excluded young Muslim men in Europe’s cities and how the cycle of exclusion, radicalization and violence can be broken.

These are questions that politicians, scholars, religious leaders and civil society will have to figure out together. Part of the onus falls on Europe’s Muslim communities and their religious leaders who have been too slow in initiating a discourse in their flocks about radicalism, cultural values and tolerance. All of Europe’s democrats, including its Muslims, must underscore that the fault lines don’t run between Occident and Orient or Christianity and Islam but rather between democrats and terrorists.

In Germany the dialogue that began nearly a decade ago between the country’s Muslim community and the government in the form of the German Islam Conference must be strengthened and intensified. The initiative laid stronger foundations for training the country’s imams, promoting gender equality and helping nip radicalization in the bud. More work in this vein is required across Europe.

Most European nations already have far-reaching anti-terrorism laws and mechanisms. These need to be enforced and fully utilized. The Paris attacks show that we can never be completely safe from terrorism. Turning our societies into militarized, punitive surveillance states won’t help.