Speech van de minister-president bij het symposium Accountability of Intelligence and Security Agencies and Human Rights, Den Haag, 7 juni 2007

Mr Frattini, Mrs Michiels van Kessenich, Mr Tjeenk Willink, ladies and gentlemen,

On behalf of the Dutch government I would like to welcome you to The Hague. Today and tomorrow, you will be discussing security, human rights and accountability. This city - the legal capital of the world - is the perfect place to do so. I would like to thank the Review Committee on the Intelligence and Security Services for organising this international symposium.

We are now in the Ridderzaal, at the centre of the Binnenhof. The Dutch parliament has been meeting in the heart of The Hague for more than four centuries. It is here that Dutch democracy grew into its present form.

This was a complex process, as it is for every democratic nation. A process that was and is driven by competing values and interests. Some of these values are central to the agenda of this symposium: security, openness, and respect for individual freedom and human rights.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Recently, a survey was conducted on the occasion of the fifth of May, Dutch Liberation Day. This year's theme was 'Freedom from fear', one of the four freedoms advocated by President Roosevelt in his famous speech to Congress in 1941.

One thousand Dutch people were asked to name the values we share in this country. The four values most often mentioned were: democracy, freedom, human rights and security.

'Not very surprising,' you might think.

But people were then asked a follow-up question: 'What would you choose? More security, at the expense of freedom? Or more freedom, at the expense of security?'

The outcome was striking. Almost half the participants chose 'more security'. Only one in five chose 'more freedom'.

It would seem that many people perceive security to be more important than freedom. That, at least, was the researchers' conclusion.

Citizens expect the government to protect them from threats and risks. Safeguarding security is a core task of government. It is a government's duty to protect its citizens when their security is threatened. The legal basis for this duty lies in the obligation to protect the right to life, set out in article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

For most of the twentieth century it was clear where the danger lay. The Cold War simplified our world view. The biggest threat came from beyond our borders.

But since the fall of the Wall and the attacks of 11 September 2001, things have changed. The biggest threat now comes from within. It lies in secret terrorist networks and shadowy international criminal organisations, operating at the heart of our society.

That unsettles people. As the English expression goes, 'Better the devil you know than the devil you don't'.

A shift has taken place in what people expect from their government. And in society's acceptance of security measures put in place by that government.

Privacy was long an unshakable norm. Not only in the domestic sphere, but also in public. Cameras in the street? Many saw that as an Orwellian nightmare.

These days, cameras are no longer questioned. In shops. At stations. In cafés. And not just in the Netherlands. Also in Great Britain, France and many other countries with a long, well-established tradition of civil rights.

Citizens sacrifice privacy in the interests of security. Many do not seem to have a problem with that. This attitude should make us stop and think.

At this time of heightened security, clear rules and good oversight are more important than ever. We must not lose sight of the balance between security and civil rights.

In order to protect our open society, we sometimes need to work behind closed doors. That is one of the great paradoxes of democracy.

When people feel unsafe, social trust and cohesion are eroded. This leads to fear, distrust, aggression and widening social rifts.

That is why, following an attack, there is always a loud call for action. And that is why security interests must always be at the forefront of our thoughts.

The European Convention on Human Rights stipulates that rights and freedoms can be limited in the interests of national security and public order. But these limitations must always be made in accordance with the law.

A democracy like ours is constantly seeking to strike the right balance between competing values. As transparently as possible. And guided by the rule of law.

Independent safeguards are vital if we are to succeed in this mission. Security services must be open to oversight and inspection. And national parliaments must be allowed to observe how they operate. Only then can there be lasting trust in the rule of law.

Maximum secrecy demands maximum accountability.

Moreover, good oversight is in the security services' own interest. It gives them a better sense of how to perform their challenging, important duties, in the interests of democracy and the rule of law.

The principles that guide domestic intelligence and security work also apply abroad. There is no reason why they shouldn't. Intelligence-gathering is a vital part of ensuring peace, security and reconstruction. But it must take place under the watchful eye of the committees established for that purpose.

We need to realise that this is a delicate balancing act. Constant vigilance is necessary. Discussions of freedom and the trade-offs between privacy and security will become increasingly common.

Last month I took part in a debate on this very subject with young people from different countries. I was struck by how much interest there was in this issue and how many emotions it stirred up.

Experts and civil society representatives are also closely involved in the debate. They rightly point to new technology for maintaining social control, storing information and exchanging data.

In the past we had filing cabinets and fingerprints.

Now we have microchips and DNA profiles.

With a press of a button we can send entire databases to the other side of the world.

The newest security gates can scan a person in seconds.

These technologies have major advantages. But there are also risks. Some warn of a police state, a Big Brother scenario.

We must take this concern seriously. At a time when most people are pressing for security, politicians need to keep an eye on the possible consequences and ensure that the right balance is maintained. Reports produced by independent oversight committees are very useful in this respect.

Ladies and gentlemen,

No single model for democratic oversight of security services works in every country. The right system for any given country is determined by its history, form of government and political culture.

National security entails national security services and national committees. But that does not mean we can't learn from each other. We need to share experiences. Exchange ideas. Discuss new developments and scientific research.

The exact choices we make may vary from country to country. But the underlying values remain the same: freedom, respect for human rights, protection of life and the rule of law.

Benjamin Franklin once said, 'Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.'

How do we find, and keep, the right balance? Only through maintaining democratic standards and ensuring that they are subject to oversight.

Your contribution to this debate is vital. I wish you all an inspiring symposium!

Thank you.