99 / 145
THE EUROPEAN UNION’S RESPONSE TO JIHADIST TERRORISM AND THE SYRIAN CONFLICT
99
such as the New Year’s celebrations in Paris,
Brussels and Munich. Maintaining unity be-
tween Member States and a strong determina-
tion to remedy both the causes and conse-
quences of terrorism whilst preserving the
values on which our societies are based is the
only guarantee of a positive outcome for the
scenario we now face.
Anti-terrorism measures: security versus
freedom
Open societies such as those in Europe which
protect personal privacy and a wide range of
freedoms (including the freedom to cross bor-
ders within the Schengen Area unhindered),
may appear to be more vulnerable to the infil-
tration of small groups or individuals capable of
committing deadly attacks. We must neverthe-
less resist the urge to blow this seeming weak-
ness out of proportion or equate the high level
of personal liberty we enjoy with a loss of secu-
rity. Doing so could lead us to recklessly restrict
the former in order to enhance the latter. Such
an error would not only undermine democratic
political principles; given that the majority of
terrorist attacks take place in countries whose
populations are subjected to high levels of gov-
ernment control such as Egypt and Indonesia, it
would also constitute a blind acceptance of a
false correlation.
The attacks committed in Europe before,
during and after 2015 –especially in cities under
a high state of alert such as Paris in November
and in Brussels in March– indicate that although
we can lower the risk of such events occurring,
it is extremely difficult to reduce the threshold
of risk to zero. The probability of future attacks
remains high and EUROPOL, the European
agency charged with preventing and fighting
terrorism, has issued warnings to this effect.
The possibility that terrorists could gain access
to chemical or radioactive weapons is another
serious concern. The level of awareness regard-
ing the threat of terrorism varies from one EU
country to another. The perception of risk is
lower in Member States that are geographically
further from the instability of the Mediterrane-
an area or have small Muslim populations, al-
though attacks in Denmark have demonstrated
that the possibility of such a thing happening
cannot be entirely ruled out. Meanwhile, preoc-
cupation in those in which the deadliest attacks
have occurred has resulted in the implementa-
tion of specific measures –some of them contro-
versial– intended to heighten security.
The best example of the latter is the reaction
of the current French president and his adminis-
tration to the November attacks in Paris, which
in some respects echoed that of George Bush to
the 11 September attacks in the United States.
Three days after the tragedy in Paris, French
President François Hollande qualified the at-
tacks as “an act of war” perpetrated by a “ter-
rorist army” and proceeded to mobilise all
means his disposal to strike back, within and
beyond the borders of France. Hollande began
by announcing the creation of 5,000 new posi-
tions in the national police force and Gendar-
merie and the recruitment of an additional
2,000 intelligence agents, but also called upon
the National Assembly to declare a three-month
state of emergency and amend the constitution
to allow the state to revoke the citizenship of
dual citizens. In January, he proposed a bill that
expanded police powers to include the arrest of
individuals returning from zones of armed con-
flict and searches and identity checks to be con-
ducted without prior judicial warrant. A draft
bill backed by the government granted intelli-
gence services greater powers to intercept