Oude Poelgeest II seminar
Officiele titel: Oude Poelgeest IIGelegenheid: seminar
Good evening ladies and gentlemen,
It is a great pleasure to address you all this evening. I know you have been here for a few days, but I would like to personally welcome you to The Hague. You have spent the past two days devising clear answers to intangible questions. This is a method that we politicians often rely on to solve the world’s intractable problems: we invite a group of renowned experts, like yourselves, put them together for three days, and keep our fingers crossed that their joint intellectual effort will lead to workable recommendations that we politicians can use. This method has been amply tested over time and it has clearly proven its value. So ladies and gentlemen, I am extremely grateful to have you here tonight. And I would particularly like to thank Nico Schrijver and Larissa van den Herik of the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies for bringing you here. And for taking good care of you during your deliberations.
In all seriousness, your studies and observations are of great importance to me. When the ‘Oud-Poelgeest’ project started, a little over two years ago, I stated that the world was united in its condemnation of terrorism. But I also said that the world had thus far failed to come up with a full, united and effective response to the challenges terrorism poses, either in the political or in the legal domain. That observation still rings true today. But it is no less urgent today that we meet these challenges. Because the problem of international terrorism is not going to go away on its own. After 9/11, there were terrorist attacks in London, Madrid, Bali and Mumbai. We know that terrorists can attack anyone, anywhere at any time. They have no regard whatsoever for the law that is a fundamental pillar of our society, or for the values that we hold dear and seek to uphold. So we must continue to work towards a full, united and effective international response. We must never let those who would harm us take the upper hand – we must not allow them to be one step ahead of us.
Of course, the international response to modern day terrorism is multi-layered. Prevention must play a leading part. The international community has learned valuable lessons in that regard. Surely, it is much more effective to prevent radicalisation and extremism than to fight them once they have firmly taken root. And in that sense, I believe we are on the threshold of a new beginning. The election of President Obama has created new momentum. Last week, in Cairo, President Obama reached out to the entire Muslim world and said that he was seeking an end to ‘the cycle of suspicion and discord’. Instead, he wanted the relationship between the United States and Muslims around the world to be based on mutual interest and mutual respect. This is welcome news that bodes well for the future of international cooperation. Dialogue is back in the toolkit. But words are not enough. President Obama also announced that the US will be spending 7.5 billion dollars over the next five years to build schools, hospitals, roads and businesses in Pakistan. And 2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on. The Netherlands is also spending sizeable sums in both Afghanistan and Pakistan in an effort to mitigate some of the root causes of terrorism. I think that President Obama’s new tone will have a great impact. His words – if followed up with action – will do a lot to repair America’s tainted image around the world. And our joint efforts will help change the perspective of the many impoverished and desperate young people around the world to whom martyrdom may now seem a viable alternative.
But a new and positive tenor alone will not put an end to the threat of terrorism, and President Obama is acutely aware of that. In that same speech in Cairo, he said that the US would ‘relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security’. And that it was his ‘first duty as President to protect the American people’.
The President has ordered the closure of Guantánamo Bay by early next year. This long-awaited decision comes as a relief to many around the world, including myself – I have consistently urged my American counterparts to close the facility. But I understand very well that closing Guantánamo will not solve all the problems. In confronting terrorism, President Obama and the rest of the world are going to face same difficulties as before. The same challenges that have kept the international community from devising a full, united and effective response so far. Because the same questions still need to be answered.
The first question is how to ensure that there is no impunity for terrorists. Guantánamo Bay and the legislation that allowed it have set the wrong example of how alleged terrorists ought to be dealt with. But we must also admit that, to this day, the international community has not reached agreement on how to bring them to justice. Without violating their human rights, of course. Torture is fundamentally unacceptable. But if states do not prosecute alleged terrorists, who will? In what court should they be tried? Who has jurisdiction over the types of crimes they have committed? And under which law should they be held accountable for their deeds? An even harder question to answer is this: what do we do with individuals who cannot be tried but cannot be released either for risk of putting the world’s citizens in danger? These are all pertinent questions on which there is no consensus. One thing is clear though: the closure of Guantánamo Bay does not relieve us of our responsibility to continue to search for answers.
Ladies and gentlemen,
This is where you come in. Over the past two days, you have been discussing ways to improve international cooperation in criminal cases. You have also thought about the use of force in self-defence against non-state actors. And you have talked about how to bring alleged terrorists to justice. Tomorrow, you will wrap up your deliberations on all these matters. Later this year, another working group will meet to discuss the final object of study: the relationship between human rights and international humanitarian law. In early 2010, a comprehensive final seminar will take place after which a coherent set of Leiden Recommendations can be presented. I eagerly anticipate the fruits of your labour, as I am confident that your recommendations will accelerate progress in several areas. I would appreciate it if you could share your preliminary thoughts with my staff, so that we have an idea of the direction your recommendations will be taking. You and I know that it is urgent that we move ahead, and not go round in circles. We should make the most of this new momentum.
With that in mind, I’d like to share my thoughts on some of the issues on your agenda. I’ll start with the issue of bringing terrorists to justice. I am appalled by the idea of terrorists who have carefully crafted and/or caused the deaths of scores of innocent people walking free. I have placed human rights at the heart of Dutch foreign policy, and impunity for monstrous acts of terrorism is not an option. We must decide sooner rather than later how to try terrorists internationally when domestic judicial processes fall short of expectations. We have seen that if the political will is there, things can be set in motion – take for example the Dutch proposal to establish a regional UN Piracy Tribunal that is currently under discussion. I expect the same sense of urgency when it comes to terrorism.
I have stated before that I believe there is a role for the International Criminal Court. Terrorism suspects can be brought before the ICC if the magnitude of their offences is such that they qualify as crimes against humanity. The Rome Statute allows for such an interpretation. I think it would be even better if ‘acts of terror’ were incorporated into the Rome Statute as such, so that the ICC’s jurisdiction in these cases would be clear-cut. The first opportunity to start the process of amending the Rome Statute will come next year in Kampala, at the first review conference of States Parties to the Rome Statute. I realise that this suggestion may be contentious, especially since there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism as yet. Defining terrorism would be an important precondition to proceeding to incorporate the offence into the Statute.
But even in the absence of agreement on a definition, I would like to put the issue of terrorism on the table in Kampala. One option is to include the concept of terrorism in the Rome Statute under article 5 listing the crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC, and agree that the Court will start exercising jurisdiction over the crime of terrorism once a definition has been agreed. Exactly the same was done for the ‘crime of aggression’, which is now also listed in article 5 paragraph 2. No provision has yet been adopted defining the crime of aggression, but at least it’s there and the intent is clear. My recommendation would be to follow the same course of action for ‘acts of terror’. I would be most interested to hear your views on this.
When it comes to international cooperation on criminal matters, it is evident that there is still a lot of room for improvement. Intelligence sharing is one area where we could do better. It doesn’t come easy, even among member states of the European Union. And there’s always the question of whether information obtained from foreign intelligence agencies can be used in national courts. It’s a delicate balance. On the one hand, we must ensure that everyone enjoys due process: this is a basic human right that should never be compromised. On the other hand, it would be terrible if people who are actually guilty of planning or committing terrorist acts had to be released because a solid case could not be built. We must mend the system where necessary and possible; your suggestions to this effect are most welcome.
Ladies and gentlemen,
The Netherlands remains firmly committed to fighting terrorism – which affects all of humankind – without losing sight of the human rights perspective. After all, terrorism is a direct attack on universal values. Terrorism and human rights are diametrically opposed to each other; they rule each other out. It is clear which side we want to be on. We embrace human rights and deplore terrorism. And thus we make a clear choice: the fight against terrorism should always be in full accordance with human rights standards. The protection and promotion of human rights ought to be an integral part of all our anti-terrorism strategies.
Terrorism is one of the biggest and most challenging threats the world faces in the twenty-first century. To meet this challenge, we will need to take a truly international approach, based on a clear legal framework and solid cooperation. The Netherlands would like to contribute constructively to developing new ideas and frameworks. This seminar is one way in which we are pursuing that goal. In this connection, I should also mention that I am grateful to Dutch MP Coskun Cörüz for his proposal to set up a counterterrorism institute in The Hague. I hope that this initiative, which we are currently working on, will constitute another Dutch contribution to mustering the expertise needed to improve the system and to combat terrorism while respecting human rights.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I don’t want to keep you from your dinner any longer. Let me conclude by thanking you once again for being here and bringing your expertise to the table. I hope you have had a very fruitful debate so far, and that your deliberations will produce valuable and feasible ideas. They will be much appreciated!
Thank you.