One of the most advantageous things about large sections of the EU is that citizens can travel from many countries to many others without having to deal with serious border controls (this is technically a non-EU function governed by the Schengen Agreement. Open borders are great for economic trade, and as we know from the Palestinian territory/Israel border, strict border controls can hamper economic growth. One of the ways terrorists can do damage to the West is by inspiring things like this :
France has reimposed border controls with its European Union neighbours in response to the threat of attacks after the London bombings.
The move activates a safety clause of the Schengen open-border agreement between many EU countries.
Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy announced the measure after meeting EU counterparts in Brussels.
"If we don’t reinforce border controls when around 50 people die in London, I don’t know when I would," he said.
Following the move by France, Italy’s Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu announced that his country would be reinforcing its old border zones with Austria and Slovenia, Efe reports.
…
EU interior ministers gathered for a similar summit after the 11 March Madrid bombings last year, which killed 191 people.
That meeting led to the faster implementation of the European Arrest Warrant and boosted the sharing of police information to thwart future attacks.
However, proposals to force European phone companies and internet service providers to keep records of the contents of calls and messages have led to concerns over civil liberties.
Italian MEP Lilli Gruber said: "Once you are monitored with your private telephone calls, telephone messages and private e-mails, this is a police state."
Please note that I am NOT criticizing the French for their actions in this instance. They are acting prudently given the circumstances. But the fact that such a potentially damaging thing is prudent is very unfortunate. I also don’t know what to do, but I am sure that the economic effect if this is implemented for a long period of time should be noticeable.
This is unfortunate but not without precedent.
e.g. around the G8 summit in Genua a few years ago, Italy reinstated border controls to Austria.
As you said, the question is whether it’s a temporary measure or not.
You suggest there is an economic effect from France reimposing its border controls – but a suspension of France’s membership from the Schengen agreement has nothing to do with economics or customs measures and does nothing to interfere with the free movement of trade within the European Union. It is a treaty solely designed to deal with issues surrounding immigration, visas, and the sharing of information between European police forces. By the way you also neglect to mention that Italy has also suspended its membership of Schengen and has reimposed border controls with Austria and Slovenia in the wake of the London attacks.
The principle behind the Schengen Treaty was that people within the participating countries can move into any other participating country without having to show their passports, or in any other way being checked. The Schengen Treaty also meant that participating countries would co-ordinate their external controls e.g. issuing visas. This had to be the case since a person acceptable to one country but not to another can still enter both, if one admits him. For example, immigration policy must be agreed upon as immigrants can enter through the most relaxed border and make their way to less hospitable countries once within Schengenland unless entry criteria are homogeneous.
You quote in your post that a country is permitted by the terms of the treaty to reinstate border controls for a short period if it is deemed in the interest of national security. This has happened before e.g. it occurred in Portugal during the 2004 European Football Championship and in France for the ceremonies marking the 60th anniversary of D-Day, so in that respect what France and Italy have done is not without precedent.
The Schengen Treaty also includes consent to share information about people, via the Schengen Information System. This means that a potentially undesirable person cannot ‘disappear’ simply by moving from one participant country to another as each country will know the same about the person’s background. Previously, a criminal with police in hot pursuit would be safe once they managed to cross the border, but under the agreements of the Schengen Treaty police from one nation can cross national borders to chase their target.
The Schengen Treaty intended to harmonise the laws and regulations of several policy areas, in order to minimise the extent to which criminals can take advantage of the relaxation of controls. For example, the Dutch policy on drugs differs from the French policy, and a person could buy drugs in the Netherlands and transport them to France to sell on the black market. This is much easier when there are no border controls between the two countries. As a result of this particular difference in policy France insisted on maintaining border controls on people entering France from Belgium and the Netherland for some time after the Treaty was implemented. What France has done since the London attacks is typical of the French – France comes first.
Also note that some members of the European Union did not join the Schengen Agreement, namely the United Kingdom and Ireland. In my view that was a wise move as it allowed those two countries to maintain their own border controls. There is, I think, a strong argument to suggest that a Europe without passport checks is actually a help to terrorists and all sorts of other criminals as it is easy for them to move freely on forged documentation without checks on their identity. For example one could cross the Polish border from Russia and not have your passport checked before reaching the English Channel – you will have passed, potentially, through five countries, and there will have been no checks. A good idea? I don’t think so. Everybody in Europe survived perfectly well before Schengen.
Well, the fact that terrorists are waging economic warfare in this way should be no surprise what so ever. In fact, this is what bin Laden, himself, said.
I guess we’ll have to start nuking something to counter this, eh? I mean, who are we going to invade next to solve this problem? Syria?
Quite what France reintroducing border controls has to do with London I’m not sure. The London bombers were native born, and even if it’s a question of Britain exporting terrorists, we’re not part of Schengen anyway. If they were going to do it, why not after Madrid?
Ginger,
Sarkozy wasn’t interior minister back then.
Well, the fact that terrorists are waging economic warfare in this way should be no surprise what so ever. In fact, this is what bin Laden, himself, said.
His stated goal was to bankrupt the US by drawing in into endless war, not by disrupting markets. His stated reasons are the military bases in the middle-east.
I was suprised last month that basically nobody noticed Bush’s stated goals for the US in Iraq in his latest war rally speech matched those of his supposed enemy for how the US would be defeated.
BTW the author and everyone else here knows what Europe needs to do to protect itself from al-Qaeda attacks, stop supporting the occupation of Islamic nations.
All available data and expert analysis tells you this. The only thing that suggests anything different is the “they hate our freedom” concept which really shouldn’t keep children entertained let alone educated people.
I’m having difficulty understanding the point of your post. Don’t get me wrong, it’s perfectly accurate to point out that increased border restrictions are a predictable result of a spectacular terrorist attack. It just seems to me like saying, “when terrorists attack, people are afraid”. Well, yes.
The lesson I would draw to this is that we need to critically examine our proactive and reactive approaches to neutralizing security threats, and decide on a case-by-case basis whether they’re worth the cost and downsides.
“Your”, in this case, referring to Sebastian, not the commenters.
Which Islamic nations were we occupying back in 1993? How about on September 11, 2001?
Which Islamic nations were we occupying back in 1993? How about on September 11, 2001?
I don’t agree with the sentiments to which you are responding, but I’d think UBL’s answer would be “Palestine.” (I support the existence Israel, trolls.)
I was unaware that “we” are occupying Palestine.
SCMT: no need to respond, if this is not your point of view.
Slarti,
OBL would also say (and in fact did say in his “fatwa”) that we were at that time also occupying Suadi Arabia, as we had troops permanently based there. He might even say that we were occupying Iraq, due to the sanctions and no fly rule at the time.
Troll repellant — this does not mean that our response to his attacks is to accept his version of reality. I am just pointing out the way he views the world.
I was unaware that “we” are occupying Palestine.
That all depends on who “we” are. Or maybe it doesn’t, if the operative phrase is stop supporting the occupation of Islamic nations. Then you just have to figure out what occupations we are supporting, and you get more than Palestine, you get Egypt as well.
Not by any sane definition of “occupying”, no.
What Islamic nation is being occupied, again? Saudi Arabia aside; we’re there at their invitation and pleasure.
By the way, if OBL wants to redefine what “occupy” (and all its forms) mean in this context, it ought to be made explicitly clear exactly what he means by this. Just so, you know, we don’t piss him off by granting tourist visas to parts of the world he considers sacred.
‘nother caveat: CC and SCMT, I don’t necessarily think you’re arguing counter to what I’m saying.
Saudi Arabia aside; we’re there at their invitation and pleasure.
I think you know perfectly well that the nutballs we’re talking about do not view certain ME governments as legitimate, and that they are occupying Islamic countries, with our support.
So given that they’re nutballs, it only makes sense that they’re laboring more to oppose us than the seemingly illegitimate governments of their home countries. Seems like a Rube-Goldberg-ish way for them to get their own back, though.
Railing loudly at Western Decadence ™ plays a lot better to the base than confronting the real problems at home, I’m guessing.
Come to think of it, that sounds rather a lot like the religious right’s approaches towards a whole host of issues.
But anyway.
it only makes sense that they’re laboring more to oppose us than the seemingly illegitimate governments of their home countries.
There is a certain logic to the notion that if they can get us (the ‘far enemy’) to withdraw our support, their ‘near enemy’ will fall. I wouldn’t give the strategy any chance of success in Israel or SA, and only narrow chance of success in Egypt or Pakistan. But Uzbekistan? Maybe they can back us off with a combination of (a) overreaction by the Uz government and (b) non-spectacular violence, maybe in a place like Iraq, that fatigues Americans, and brings out that latent isolationism.
Slart:
I don’t think that their actions are legitimate, but I think that they’re comprehensible. That is, these actions don’t generally strike me as insane. More’s the pity, because it means the problem is structural, and isn’t going away because of any specific person we kill. (And I think it has d*ck to do with a “Clash of the Cultures”.)
In the absence of our support, certain governments are more likely to fail. We, the West, have been d*cking around in that patch for hundreds of years. It’s not crazy for them to think we, the West, have played a major role in shaping their lives. (Just as we attribute some the … characterological? … problems that Russia is running into to X years of Communist domination.) I don’t think it was immoral for us to do so, and I don’t think it justifies their responses, but it’s silly not to acknowledge the background against which they take their actions.
was wrong of us; it just provides
Which Islamic nations were we occupying back in 1993? How about on September 11, 2001?
Saudi Arabia in both cases. This is stated quite clearly as the reason for attacks on the US in Osama’s speeches. Have a read of the transcripts and see just how frank someone can be about their reasons for war.
What Islamic nation is being occupied, again? Saudi Arabia aside; we’re there at their invitation and pleasure.
Yeah, and the Iraqi PM also says he wants US forces to remain in Iraq.
So as far as the rulers who aren’t conducting terrorist attacks are concerned there are 0 countries being occupied. As far as the people conducting the attacks are concerned the number is 2.
As far as continuing terrorist attacks in retaliation against the occupation go, one of these numbers matters and one doesn’t.
There is a small difference here that you just may want to consider: in Iraq, we are an actual occupying force: we waged war on them, we won, and we’re now retaining possession of the country until such time as is suitable for us to leave. In Saudi Arabia, we are there at the invitation of their government. I can fully believe that OBL cannot or will not grant this distinction, but it baffles me how you can agree with him.
So: either you agree that we’re occupying Saudi Arabia, or you don’t. Which one you choose will decide whether further exchanges with you are worth my time.
Slarti,
I think you need to read attriti0n’s post again, this time remembering that this is a war where winning hearts and minds of people on the other side is especially important.
Oh, I did read it. Consider my response an appeal to the minds portion of hearts and minds. Let’s not invite fallacy into the debate.
So, I wonder how many US troops OBL considers to be an occupation force? How wimpy are the Sauds, that a few hundred troops left behind as trainers can continue to dictate to an entire nation? What will be the next demand, once we completely insulate ourselves from the Arab world?
“Consider my response an appeal to the minds portion of hearts and minds.”
If you are a young person who attended a madrassa and frequently heard that the presence of based US troops in Saudi Arabia (and remember, pre-9/11, the number was in the thousands, not hundreds) was an occupation, I strongly doubt that saying that having a discussion on this point is not worth your time will change that person’s world view.
“Let’s not invite fallacy into the debate.”
It’s already there. The question is how to combat it. If you can’t distinguish between realizing that this is a concern on the part of potential future terrorists and agreeing with that concern (as your 10:05 post appears to), then you are not likely to be effective.
Which of us was raised in a madrassa?
The answer is not to welcome or even tolerate it. Why even pretend that this is a valid point of contention? I mean, here, in this thread.
“Which of us was raised in a madrassa?”
The persons who we are trying to convince mot to be the next generation of terrorists.
“The answer is not to welcome or even tolerate it. Why even pretend that this is a valid point of contention? I mean, here, in this thread.”
Because the people we are trying to reach have been brought up thinking this way, and we will not be able to pursuade them not to become terrorists by dismissing their belief system out of hand.
Which of us, Dantheman. Us, as in the people having this discussion here. If the answer is none of us, why are any of us granting that this is a legitimate point?
Slarti,
None of us are saying it is a correct view of the world. What I am saying (and I take others to be saying as well) is that the people we are trying to reach think not merely is it an arguable point, but it is correct. By dismissing their views as not “sane” (see July 19 at 10:01 AM), you are losing any chance to convince them otherwise before they strap explosives to themselves.
I am not trying to convince them, nor am I in a position to. Again, pretending that this is a legitimate concern doesn’t serve any good purpose.
“I am not trying to convince them, nor am I in a position to. Again, pretending that this is a legitimate concern doesn’t serve any good purpose.”
Since some of us believe that convincing them is the only way to ultimately win the War on Terror, I must strongly disagree.
I am not trying to convince them, nor am I in a position to. Again, pretending that this is a legitimate concern doesn’t serve any good purpose.
It’s not a matter of whether it’s a legitimate concern; it’s a question of whether “convincing them” is a possible strategy worth pursuing. What are the costs, what are the benefits. It’s certainly possible that it’s a better strategy than the “Hulk angry, Hulk smash” policy we’re following now.
You’re not disagreeing with me, because I believe that’s important, too. However, it’s entirely beside the point, because we’re not doing that here in this thread.
Slarti,
If you believe that convincing them that this view is wrong is important, why do you feel it is necessary jump down the throat of anyone who points out (without supporting) that the people we are fighting hold this view (see your 9:16 and 10:01 AM posts of July 19)? I honestly cannot see what is gained by doing so.
First, we have no assurance that they hold this view, other than their say-so. Second, granting legitimacy to insane points of view is just asking for it. Third, the pretense that OBL and his…associates holding these views entitles them to any standing at all in the matter utterly mystifies me. Fourth, as I’ve pointed out, OBL and like-minded individuals have directed their ire almost exclusively in the opposite direction of where it ought to go.
So, the entire argument being insane from just about any vantage-point, I see little point in dignifying it with even tacit legitimacy.
“Where it ought to go”, in this case, would be Saudi Arabia. Assuming that they’re in actuality pissed about US military presence in their holy cities, that is.
Slarti,
I cannot see how what you have just written, essentially again dismissing potential terrorists worldview as simply insane, comports with any desire to convince adherents of this point of view that they are wrong, much less believing that it is important to do so. However, I think we’re just going around in circles again, and will stop now.
Crap. That was poorly phrases, wasn’t it? How about we just pretend that what I meant by that was something like: assuming their stated reasons are their actual reasons may not be wise.
See, there’s this tiny difference: this, here, is you and I talking. This, here, isn’t me attempting to sway someone holding an opposing opinion to my way of thinking. Unless it is, in which case never mind.
Seeing how many times the aforementioned distinction between conversations between us’ns and…other kinds of conversations has simply caromed off of you, maybe I should have stopped a few exchanges ago. But I’m pigheaded, so:
You’re not a diplomat. Neither am I. Neither you nor I are (hopefully) currently engaging others holding opposing viewpoints in some attempt to sway opposing opinion. That aside, though, we have our own viewpoints that we wish to particularly impress upon those who agree with OBL, and that is: regardless of why you’re doing this, doing this is going to result in our forceful exertion of considerable energy toward discouraging further such activities.
“poorly phrases”. Well, I really ought to give it up.
Slarti,
You’re not saying anything new, other than casting aspersions as to which side I am on (which I do not appreciate).
News.
I did no such thing. However, since you’re vigorously disagreeing with me, I did leave the door open for you to clarify where you stand. The fact that you neglected to state where you stand in no way implies, as far as I’m concerned, where you actually stand.
Slarti,
Please explain how “This, here, isn’t me attempting to sway someone holding an opposing opinion to my way of thinking. Unless it is, in which case never mind.” is intended to be taken as anything other than an insinuation that you are not sure whether I have the same beliefs on this subject as the terroists.
“I am not sure whether you have the same beliefs on this subject as terrorists” != insinuating that I think you do have the same beliefs as terrorists. I am not sure explicitly does not presume that you do share beliefs with the terrorists, but it also doesn’t presume that you don’t. It doesn’t presume anything at all about your beliefs. It is, however, an opening into which you can choose to clarify your position, or choose not to.
Be offended if you like, but no offense was intended.
Slarti,
In a climate where all liberals are routinely accused of treason by some conservatives, I did and still do consider it offensive.
I have no control over your level of offended-ness, Dantheman, but if I make a statement that makes no assumptions at all about your point of view in the matter and that offends you, I have to conclude that you are just looking for an occasion to be offended. And in an exchange where “conservative”, “liberal” and “treason” were conspicuous in their absence, dragging that whole thing in is textbook non sequitur.
And now I’m becoming offended that you’d accuse me of such a thing. Must be catching, that.
Liberals are having the same problem that many Moslems are experiencing. All liberals are not left-wing nuts. All Moslems are not Islamofascists.
The confusion comes in to play for both groups when verbal condemnation of terrorists and of the Bush Administration’s WOT are often experessed at the same time. This leaves the listener wondering what they where really trying to communicate.
A typical convesation with someone who is catagorized in either way almost always is reduced in this way:
I don’t support terrorism, but I don’t support this administrations war on terror.
Killing civilians is wrong, but the US is killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan also.
9/11 was bad, but it was a result of US foreign policy
The US has shown support for dictators in the past, but removing Hussein from power through military means is wrong.
Since 9/11 liberals have been King of the Buts.
Did you have anyone specific in mind, blogme, or is this just a piñata?
Slarti,
I’m not making the claim that they are using the word “but” just that their statements and actions are easily reduced to that in one inteview or speech. It’s even more pronounced when trying to aggregate a liberal postition in the WOT in general.
The easist example is John Kerry.
What he first said:
Then what he later said:
Then in one invterview he makes an attempt at clarification:
Now I am sure there are many liberals out ther saying, “Well, duh! That’s exactly right.” Unfortunately for them that kind of talk doesn’t play out well in the voting booth.
It’s better to mangle your words than twist them. So if you think that is something to take a swing at have at it.
All liberals are not left-wing nuts. All Moslems are not Islamofascists.
But not all conservatives are morons.
Charley,
In some instances maybe “butts” would have been more appropriate.
I’ve never been that much of a butt man — but I have had some fine times in Butte.
Slartibartfast, you may not have intended offense, but perhaps a moment’s reflection will show why offense was taken, even if you said “I am not sure”. Your statement about Dantheman resembles Hastert’s about Soros: “You know, I don’t know where George Soros gets his money. I don’t know where — if it comes overseas or from drug groups or where it comes from.” Why would anyone be offended? After all, he specifically said he didn’t know. But maybe you also think Hastert’s statement was inoffensive. If so, I’d have to say I’m not sure whether you’re [possible rules violation omitted].
Slarti: This, here, isn’t me attempting to sway someone holding an opposing opinion to my way of thinking. Unless it is, in which case never mind.
FWIW, I read this as a wry joke (or perhaps an awry joke) and not a veiled insult, but that’s largely because I know Slarti and his background doesn’t suggest any such aspersion. Had certain other commenters — or, god forbid, GOP Congressmen — said this, I’d probably be up in arms about it too.
In short: YMMV.
Yet he still speculated, which I did not do. And even after (without looking back to count) a dozen or so exchanges, I still don’t know, and still haven’t advanced an opinion absent information one way or the other. If you want to take offense at that, knock yourself out.
And even after (without looking back to count) a dozen or so exchanges, I still don’t know, and still haven’t advanced an opinion absent information one way or the other.
Unfortunately, “I’m not sure” in the context you used it is almost guaranteed to be taken as casting an aspersion. It’s not logical, but it *is* the way the vast majority of people use the phrase. It kinda sucks if you’re really trying to say “no, really, I’m not sure, and I’m trying not to jump to any conclusions”, but them’s the breaks.
(Think of it like a double negative. Sure, logically “I don’t got no money” should mean “I have money”, but that’s not how it works in practice.)