Counter-Terrorism in Europe: Controversies and Contradictions

Many scholars discern a marked increase in securitization on the part of European governments in response to a perceived swell in Islamist radicalism and violence, especially since 9/11 (Chebel d’Appollonia and Reich 2008; Buonfino 2004). Many scholars associate securitization with the USA and denounce its spread into Europe as a form of Americanization that unduly empowers the state to trample on individual rights in the name of defending the homeland (Chebel d’Appollonia 2015; Bossong 2013; Bigo and Tsoukala 2008; Zucconi 2004). Such scholars typically urge European policymakers to be resilient in resisting securitization and preserving Europe as a sorely needed beacon of commitment to democracy and liberty in increasingly dark times. The proposed paper argues that European governments have been sending no clear signal either for or against securitization. Instead, comparative analysis of counter-terrorism policies in the EU, Germany, France, and the UK directed at Muslim individuals and organizations suspected of radicalism reveals a jumble of ethically inconsistent and practically contradictory measures. While I attribute such policy messiness to several factors, I ultimately find the root cause to lie in profound normative ambivalence and diffidence regarding the ethical superiority of liberalism vs nationalism. There is no moral consensus in Europe regarding how best to combat radicalism and violence; rather political turmoil and strife predominate. In an effort to please and appease divided and often ambivalent voters, policymakers enact inconsistent counter-terrorism policies that wind up working at cross purposes.