By Federica Fanuli
Editor-at-Large, IndraStra Global
Image Attribute: Gathering at the Bourse, in honor of
victims of terrorism, Brussels 23 March 2016. Valentina Calà under a Creative
Commons License
The "Holy Week" has begun with the terrorist attacks in Brussels. The media folklore that
celebrates on-air the pain of the victims and the testimonies of those who have
survived, however, has moved away from reality the need to make a decisive
political and military position, which implies an effective European cohesion
in the field of security and defense.
For several
years, DAESH was the group affiliated to al Qaeda operating in Iraq. The rift
between the two terrorist organizations comes after a series of confrontations
generated by the rivalry between the leaders - al Zawahiri, the leader of al
Qaeda after the death of Bin Laden, and al Baghdadi - and the methods and
strategies adopted. ISIS and al Qaeda, both point to the creation of an Islamic
State on the model created by the Prophet Mohammed and his successors, the
Caliphs, but they differ on the methods used to achieve that objective.
Firstly with
Al Qaeda and then with DAESH, the Western powers have tried to monitor and
control the operations of these terrorist groups, especially in order to
safeguard its national interests. Exporting Democracy jointly with the Arab
Spring, although functional to try to eradicate the decade dictatorship, have
not favored the rooting of democratic liberalism where the Islamic culture
contemplates the merger of religious principles to politics and ignore the
universal values of democratic institutions.
On the
contrary, on the rubble of the regimes, the instability and the political
vacuum of the countries swept by revolutionary movements have accelerated the
clash between democratic liberalism and the response to that form of modern
imperialism, through which the Western powers have imposed democratic political
choices distant traditions, and other faith-based beliefs. An apt summarization
would be the clash of cultures that rides through the wave of colonial
policies, getting germinated on the seeds of hate.
In the name of
Allah, DAESH employs paramilitary guerrilla formations and miniatured cells to
carry out attacks and hit airports, theaters, metro and crowded tourist areas.
Operations supported by a careful use of the mass media, the internet, tools
that facilitate the rapid spread of jihadist propaganda, psychological war to
leverages black flags and doomsday scenarios reconstructed on video messages to
inspire fear and recruit foreign fighters, the sons of immigrants fled from the
usurped lands and welcomed from France or Belgium, perhaps to assuage a sense
of guilt that has colonial historical roots.
After Paris,
Brussels became the latest victim of suicide attacks, just few days after the
arrest of Salah Abdeslam. The attack has claimed by the Islamic State and
implemented by operating units that have deftly exploited the political
instability in Belgium, even called by some scholars "failed state"
because of the insolvency of governments.
Now there is a
talk about an European intelligence, a network of services linking together the
EU Member States to ensure an effective exchange of information and increased
readiness for action, so as to assume that the EU should be inspired by the
Israeli model. Like the Israelis, it is inevitable that sooner or later we will
have to accept the idea of having to learn to live with the daily threat of
terrorism, at the cost of giving up part of our freedom and privacy because
governments can jointly engage in the protection of our security. A debate that
leads to think that terrorism hits Europe at its weakest point, in the absence
of that European Defence Community.
During the
Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, the August 11, 1950, Winston
Churchill suggested the creation of a European army. European armed forces
would have only one uniform, not be recruited by each states but by the unified
Commissioner. The member States would be allowed to have forces only for the
defense of the President of State and for the colonies, the police and those
intended for civil protection service. The European Commissioner would have been
coordinated with the controls and NATO and at the top would have be placed the
European Minister of defense. At that time, politicians like De Gasperi and
Monnet were pointing to the military unification to reach the goal of the
United States of Europe with greater range than every single European State.
The approval of the treaty by Germany and the three Benelux countries was
rapid, less in Italy because of domestic political problems. The issue was
discussed again in April 1954 by Scelba government. France refused to ratify
the treaty. Today a European Community of defense that would have guaranteed an
effective system of intelligence and security is a missed opportunity, which
weakens the European institutions manifestly failing to face the challenges of
the new millennium.
About the Author:
Federica Fanuli was graduated with
honours in Political Science and International Relations from the University of
Salento and she has obtained a Master’s Degree in Political Science, European
Studies and International Relations at the same University. Foreign Affairs
analyst, she is Editorial Manager of Mediterranean Affairs, a project aiming to
provide analyses that cover the Mediterranean area. Columnist of the Sunday
Sentinel, she is Editorial Board Member of Cosmopolismedia.it and
Editor-at-large of IndraStra Global. She can be reached at her LinkedIn profile.
/ Thomson Reuters ResearcherID : M-9093-2015
