SYMPOSIUM
How
to fix Belgium
POLITICO
asked politicians, analysts and writers to suggest ways Belgium can
improve its response to Islamist violence.
By POLITICO
4/6/16, 5:33 AM CET
In recent months,
Belgium has found itself in the eye of a media storm. From criticism
of its week-long “lockdown” in the wake of the November Paris
attacks to mockery of the manhunt that saw Europe’s most-wanted man
captured 450 meters from his home in Molenbeek, analysis of Belgian
political and intelligence failures has been unrelenting.
The
“Belgium-bashing” became more poignant after March 22, when
Brussels became a target, with attacks on the airport and a subway
train killing 32 people and injuring hundreds. The brunt of the
criticism is that Belgium is a breeding ground for jihadists, its
intelligence system amateurishly weak, and political system is too
fractured to do anything about either.
We asked a selection
of politicians, policy analysts and writers to sort through the
criticism. What — if anything — is really wrong in Belgium? And
how can it be fixed?
* * *
Belgium-bashing
obscures reality of “foreign fighters” phenomenon
Belgium has dealt
with terrorism since the 1970s and never lacked competence. It’s
possible that mistakes were made in the ongoing police
investigations, but focusing too narrowly on the “Belgian factors”
is itself a mistake. The “foreign fighters” phenomenon is a
global one. This type of migration associated with political violence
has always existed — and unfortunately always will. The current
problem resides in its unprecedented magnitude, partly due to the
accelerating effects of social networks. While the number of at-risk
individuals is a real issue in Belgium, countries like France,
Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia face similar challenges.
Radicalization is a
highly complex process, in which political, religious, and
socioeconomic factors converge. Not everyone who feels common
grievances with the Sunni populations of Iraq has picked up arms to
fight alongside ISIL. Nor has everyone who was exposed to online
salafist propaganda, or who grew up in the ghettoized neighborhood of
Molenbeek, left their home to wage jihad. Risk factors “speak”
differently to each and every one of us, according to the way our
worldview was psychologically and emotionally shaped during
childhood.
The media has paid
too much attention to the specific threat of Islam, forgetting that
suicide bombings were perpetrated by all sides — Muslims,
Christians and communist atheists — in the Lebanese civil war
(1975-1990) that made these tactics notorious.
The psychological
factor, meanwhile, is dangerously under-analyzed. It is difficult to
propose pragmatic recommendations on how to fight terrorism on the
psychological front, but as a first step our efforts should center on
better understanding the number of sibling duos (Tsarnaev, Kouachi,
Abdeslam, El-Bakraoui, and the list goes on) who cross the threshold
and commit terrorist acts. We lack a concrete understanding of what
pushes these young men and women to extremism. The threat of terror
will not abate until we can find ways to counter the trend.
Didier Leroy is an
expert on jihadi movements for the Royal Military Academy of Belgium
and an assistant professor at the Université Libre de Bruxelles.
* * *
The obstacles are
structural: Belgium has to reform
A few weeks after
the Brussels attacks, people have for the most part returned to their
normal lives. For the city’s politicians, it will not be easy to do
the same. The attacks have forced us to confront the unfinished
business of the past.
Making Brussels
stronger in its efforts against crime and terror is a priority. The
sixth state reform refinanced the city’s government, but barely
reformed it. Money was earmarked for security and the prime minister
was given a greater coordinating role, but the basic security
architecture between the city’s 19 communes and six police zones
remained. Making sure the police maintains a close relationship with
citizens is essential. But in its existing structure, the police
clearly failed to follow up on radicalized youth next door.
At the same time,
attempts to centralize intelligence have failed. There are no less
than six institutions with some kind of intelligence brief, but there
is no hierarchy between them, no central database on foreign
terrorist fighters and far too little coordination. A temporary
measure to alleviate the issue would be to designate someone in
charge of coordinating intelligence. Next, the parliamentary enquiry
commission should propose an adjusted structure for the Belgian
intelligence and anti-terror services.
The unreformed and
overstretched judiciary is another source of concern. Brussels’
criminal investigation and prosecution services are certainly not up
to the task. The newly established federal prosecutor’s office has
substantially improved the situation but, on its own, is not enough.
It’s common in
Belgium for major crises to be followed by a parliamentary enquiry
commission. And it is clear that it, in turn, must be a followed by a
major overhaul of our security architecture.
John Crombez is
leader of the Flemish socialist party SP.A.
* * *
The problem — and
the answer — lies in the politics of the Middle East
The terrorist
murders in Brussels have been widely ascribed to a Belgian problem,
but to focus on Belgium’s shortcomings rather misses the point.
Islamist terror has occurred elsewhere and will continue to do so
until the revolutionary élan is exhausted. When this happens depends
less on the Belgian authorities than on politics in the Middle East.
But at least the
Belgian government did one thing right: it did not give in to general
hysteria, as it did after after the Paris attacks in November, when
it shut down for close to a week. Most importantly, Belgium did not
make the same mistake as France, where President François Hollande,
out of fear of looking weak, called for a state of emergency. Its new
emergency laws seem designed to further alienate and antagonize the
Muslim minorities — and play right into the hands of revolutionary
Islamist groups.
The only way to
limit acts of terror is to have better information. And the only way
to come by it is to gain the trust of the people who live in areas
where terrorists are most likely to be recruited. Most people living
in places like Molenbeek are not violent revolutionaries. They
deplore terrorist violence as much as non-Muslims do. But if they
come to regard the police, and other representatives of the state, as
hostile to all Muslims, resentment can turn into sympathy for the
extremists.
This does not
necessarily mean minorities should be forced to assimilate into the
mainstream cultures of their nation-states. In a country like
Belgium, it isn’t even clear what the mainstream culture would be.
And some of the least integrated minorities (Chinese living in
Chinatowns, for example) pose no threat to society at all.
What the Belgian
government needs to do is make sure young people can get jobs.
Without better education, and greater opportunities to work, young
people from vulnerable minorities will find it harder to establish
themselves as responsible citizens.
The Islamist
movement offers disaffected young people a ready-made cause, and a
sense of purpose and belonging. As long as our societies fail to give
them the same, the revolution will continue to pull them in. It would
be comforting if this were just a Belgian problem. Unfortunately, it
is not.
Ian Buruma is a
Dutch writer and historian. He is the author of “Murder in
Amsterdam: The Death of Theo van Gogh and the Limits of Tolerance”
(Penguin, 2006).
* * *
Give Brussels more
power to govern
The crisis we face
is not specific to Belgium, or Brussels — it extends beyond our
borders. Still, all eyes are on our city. And the situation here is
made more difficult by the federal state’s lack of solidarity for
Brussels — a product of the influence of the nationalist Flemish
party, N-VA. We’re caught in a peculiar Belgian paradox: the state
that seeks to weaken its own capital.
We need to stop
divisive debates between political groups and communities. Only
national unity will allow us to govern in an intelligent way, ensure
our security and protect our common values.
Brussels is
perfectly capable of governing itself — but only if it granted the
respect, and the monetary means, it needs.
I am not a
pessimist. We are a resilient country. What we need now is to shore
up our security and, in the long-term, invest massively in jobs,
housing, employment and culture.
We need to make sure
wealth is equally distributed and bring politics — too often
overshadowed by financial and economic interests — back to the
fore.
These issues surpass
my capabilities as mayor, but I will pursue my day-to-day duties as
before: I will meet with our citizens, listen to their concerns and
do my utmost to find better ways to live together.
Marc-Jean Ghyssels
is mayor of the Brussels commune Forest.
* * *
Europe needs
long-lasting, cross-border policy solutions
Policy responses to
terrorist attacks have too often been short-sighted. Political
support for them quickly dwindles once media attention dies down. If
we’re to prevent future attacks on the Continent, this has to
change.
Intelligence
services must cooperate and share information across borders. It was
a catastrophic intelligence failure that authorities did not root out
a network operating in Brussels itself. But law enforcement cannot do
its job without political and financial support. This is especially
true in Belgium, given the fragmented nature of its political system,
with 19 communes in Brussels alone, and six separate and underfunded
police units.
Europol must be
given the resources to effectively monitor online networks extremists
use to propagandize, radicalize and recruit freely. Social media
companies must be held accountable when they allow their platforms to
be misused.
Municipalities,
states and federal governments need to review their existing
cooperation with and funding of religious organizations to determine
whether they are actually working on integrating individuals, or if
they are entrenching segregation and the creation of parallel
societies.
We need to support
Muslims living in Europe who embrace our democratic values in a more
strategic and sustainable way. They are the credible messengers best
placed to counter Islamist propaganda in their communities. And they
are often as concerned about the increasing radicalization as
non-Muslims.
Collectively, as
European countries, we must overcome our insular habits and make the
meaningful changes that will protect our citizens from terror.
Roberta Bonazzi is
director of the Brussels office of the Counter Extremism Project.
* * *
Belgium needs to fix
its inward-looking tendencies
Belgium has been
accused of being weak, naïve, rotten. This targeted criticism
shouldn’t take the place of a wider reflection of how to improve
counter-terrorism efforts on the European and international levels.
And yet constructive
self-criticism is essential. Belgian citizens deserve to be reassured
as to the effectiveness of our counter-terrorism strategies, and we
must to do everything in our power to guarantee success. This means
ensuring our authorities cooperate, and reminding the federal
government of its responsibility to make sure our country functions
as it should.
We must also ask
ourselves how we created an environment that provided fertile ground
for radicalism. We clearly missed opportunities: for better
education, more social cohesion, visions of a common future.
There is still too
much socioeconomic and cultural exclusion in our neighborhoods. And
yes, some of our political choices undermined our goals of
multiculturalism and social progress. If we’re honest, all sides
have been excessively inward-looking.
Young people who
feel excluded from mainstream society are easy prey for recruiters of
radical Islam. Their parents’ softer approach to religion can’t
stand up to the lure of Salafi doctrine, especially since Belgium
gave Saudi Arabia free reign on Islam in our country.
To prevent our youth
from crossing over into violent extremism, we need to double down on
efforts to build an inclusive society and ensure everyone is given
the means to succeed. Education will play a fundamental role in this
effort, as will policies related to employment, professional
training, and housing.
We must also support
the emergence of a religious practice that Muslims living in Belgium
agree with and support. We cannot let a third-party country enforce
interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with our secular
society. Secularism, by guaranteeing respect for all religions,
creates a space in which we can live together despite our differences
— a space it is crucial we protect.
Rachid Madrane is
minister for youth assistance and local courts (houses of justice) in
Brussels.
* * *
Enough with
politically correct debate: Belgium needs to stand up to terror
Since the 1980s
Belgium has focused on increasing social expenditures at the cost of
other departments, notably internal affairs, justice and defense. We
are by no means a “failed state” but it’s not unfair to say
that our intelligence services have been neglected for over a decade.
Only in 2010 did we enact a law that creates a legal framework for
wiretapping.
The current federal
government has taken steps in the right direction: We’re investing
in our security forces and adopting legislation to fight terrorism
more effectively. But let’s be realistic: It will take time to
correct the mistakes of the past 25 years, especially if we want to
implement fundamental changes, and not a patchwork of short-term
solutions. It will do no one any good to hastily create a host of new
laws that will be struck down by the Constitutional Court.
We know that 100
percent foolproof security is impossible. The Paris attacks, London
bombings, 9/11 — none of these could have been prevented. Still, we
have an obligation to critically assess how Belgium has dealt with
radicalization and terrorism. That is why we are launching a
parliamentary inquiry. We urgently need to assess whether there are
structural issues that prevent us from making inroads in the fight
against Islamic extremism.
There has been a
tendency over the past years to avoid talking about contentious
subjects out of fear of being politically incorrect. We need to get
rid of the self-restraint and self-imposed taboos. Only a profound
no-holds barred debate will give us realistic solutions to win out
against terror.
Koen Metsu is
president of the Belgian federal government’s temporary
counter-terrorism commission and a member of Flemish political party
N-VA.
* * *
Belgium is fighting
the wrong fight
Belgium, an
artificial country? That’s far too easy. Despite our linguistic
differences, we share a common way of life that makes up the backbone
of this country. You’ll see it in the way we eat and drink, make
homes and families, express our views on law and immigration. At the
end of the day, the Flemish have more in common with the Walloons
than they do with the Dutch; and the Walloons are more like the
Flemish than they are like the French. We may speak different
languages, but our state of mind has been shaped by centuries of
shared history.
And yet… One of
Belgium’s greatest failures is that it does not ensure every
citizen speaks both its main national languages.
Belgium suffers from
another systemic defect. Since 1970, the state has moved towards a
federal system à deux: Flemish-speaking Flanders in the north, and
French-speaking Wallonia in the south. Of course, Brussels is
officially bilingual and there is a little German-speaking enclave in
the east, but the country’s defining dynamic sees Flanders and
Wallonia squaring off against each other. Political parties and major
media organizations are both organized along those same linguistic
lines.
And this model
paralyzes the country. The smallest issue becomes an arm-wrestling
match between the French- and Flemish-speakers.
It didn’t have to
be this way, though. In 1962 ex-prime minister Paul Van Zeeland
warned that the two-states system would lead to a “failure on both
sides.” His alternative: a federal state divided into nine
provinces.
In 1965, Antoon
Spinoy, a socialist and deputy prime-minister at the time, put forth
another idea: decentralize the state according to geography and
economic performance, not language. His plan called for the country
to be cut up into five regions, each structured around an urban hub:
Brussels, Antwerp, Liège, Ghent and Charleroi.
Neither idea was
every applied — and it’s a great shame. Today, the tug of war at
the heart of our federal system is in large part to blame for its
failure to accomplish anything.
But is it to blame
for the many failures of Belgium’s counter-terrorist efforts?
Partly, yes. The state has too often borne the brunt of the heavy
costs from compromises struck between French- and Flemish-speaking
parties. And yet it’s the federal government — penniless and
unloved as it is — that now has to finance our judicial system, our
intelligence gathering, and our police forces. If they want to
increase security and avoid new tragedies, both the Walloons and
Flemish people will have to stop staring each other down like enemies
and learn to love the home they have in common
François Brabant is
a political journalist for the daily newspaper La Libre Belgique.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário