New events addressing security weakness has brought up a recurrent fact that creates important ground for refreshing discussions about tightened security measures in Europe. Efforts on harmonization of legislation among EU members in terms of the struggle against terrorism, close cooperation via tightened measures on border security and airport transfer right after 9/11 and the Madrid-London bombings are striking examples of the aforementioned situation. The application of biometric passports and transatlantic cooperation on sharing passenger name records (PNR) are also substantial outcomes of the tightened measures due to increasing concerns.
However, discussions turning around reshaped measures each time due to security concerns are not only about how to overcome security weaknesses but alsoabout the effects of such measures in terms of civil or individual liberties. This is mainly because there is never a direct correlation between the consolidation of state and personal security. Particularly, it is possible that attempts to provide collective security via knee-jerk, disproportional, panicky measures result in detrimental effects on civil rights and liberties. Just as due to the increased threat perception immediately after 9/11 and the bombings in Europe, many measures taken by European governments are alarming enough particularly for third-country residents in Europe and third-country-originating EU citizens. These people have come to be viewed as potential terrorists or potential criminals. In this sense, these kinds of measures have victimized these people in terms of proportionality and effectiveness. The other face of such a reality gone awry, which creates a fact like “security for individuals despite individuals”, directly affects European citizens. The above mentioned EU-US agreement on sharing passenger name records that let the US directly obtain records of the passengers flying to the US has been under discussion for a long time. The application has created harsh discussions on the grounds that it violates civil liberties and privacy. The issue has become a case in question.In terms of such application the most questionable issue has been the privacy of the requested PNR data as part of the concerns about the lack of adequate safeguards to prevent passengers’ data from unjustifiable disclosures and potential abuses. Additionally, a possibility that data could be transferred to unrelated agencies for unrelated reasons lead to increased concerns about privacy violations as well as possible errors that could lead to legal difficulties for innocent travelers. Accordingly, these facts result in questioning the security-civil liberties balance.
Such dilemmas in the 2006-2008 agenda have been among the recent discussions in the EU once again. Discussions have been turning around re-tightening security measures in the wake of the failed Christmas day attack on a US-bound airliner. The EU is divided in two owing to the discussions on using full-body scanners at the airports. The attempted attack by a 23-year-old Nigerian man with explosives hidden in his underwear triggered the ongoing discussions since the explosives he carried were not detected by the current detection systems. This is why the debates focus on using full-body scanner technology at airports.
Aiming at strengthening airport security, the full-body scanner is a system that shows images of people underneath their clothing. For this reason, the application is debatable in terms of civil liberties, privacy and even health. Whereas on one side critics worried about civil liberties have been outspoken, on the other side some government and European officials claim that security is rather important. While English and Dutch officials are in favor of using full-body scanners, Germany seems to be divided into two in their political platform. The British government has announced that despite privacy concerns, authorities will start using full-body scanners at Hearthrow Airport in about three weeks. France gave the signal that the scanners will be put into application in some airports for testing. The Netherlands has also announced that it will immediately begin using scanners for flights heading to the United States. The Christian Democratic Union is in favor of full-body scanners in contrast to Green Party and Left Party, which object to the scanners by reason of their being detrimental to human honor.
In the harsh discussions, the European Commission, in order to discuss the usage of full-body scanners at airports, met with security experts from EU countries. At the meeting of the European Commission’s aviation security committee, the experts reached the opinion of a possible binding regulation on such applications in order to increase passengers’ security in case the Commission takes into account the issues of privacy, data protection and health. However, tough negotiations are likely if the scanners become a part of an EU-wide binding regulation. Objections have already risen within the European Parliament. The Greens in the Parliament announced there would be no increase in security if such technology were applied. Michael Cramer, Green MEP, stated that the passengers’ civil rights are being violated and nobody knows for which purpose these kinds of rules would serve. Cramer also added that it just givesa perception that the security has been provided, but the case is the reverse.
The balance between civil rights and security, in the light of the abovementioned discussions, seems to be a candidate for being a symbol of this new dilemma for the EU. Renewed discussions throughout Europe are the result of the attempts to overcome security weaknesses, and it is a fact that the security of the people is naturally taken into consideration. It is inevitable that in the case of an attack, those will be the nationals who will be damaged. However, if security could be provided despite the individual rights, it would this time mean that confidence of the nationals, for whose security the government strives, would diminish towards the government itself. Thus, in such cases that the balance is so fragile to maintain, the application of panicky measures without enough discussions will carry different discussions and questions. One such question is if the failed attack by the Nigerian man has created an appropriate or fertile ground for some European governments, via benefiting by the insecure environment, to put into effect such debatable application of scanners? Questionable…
FatmaYilmaz-Elmas
USAK Center for EU Studies
Racist Motives Behind French Armenian Bill: Is Erdogan Right?
