e-ir.info http://www.e-ir.info/2012/08/09/assessing-the-language-of-the-eus-counter-terrorism-strategy/ By Sondre Lindahl Assessing the Language of the EU’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy The Importance of Language: Critically Assessing the European Union’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy Terrorism is perceived by many as the biggest security threat of today. Even though the world has known terrorism f or centuries, the attacks on 9/11 2001 elevated terrorism to the number one spot f or security threats. The f act that 9/11 can be written without f urther explanation, and with conf idence that the reader knows what is being talked about, is further testimony to the importance of that event. The first decade of the 2000’s saw a number of terrorist attacks that has led to a range of different responses and approaches to terrorism, most notably President Bush’s “War on Terrorism”, which led to wars in Af ghanistan and Iraq. European countries have also been victims of terrorist attacks, and some of them also joined the USA in its war against terror. At the same time, the members of the European Union realized that increased cooperation was needed in order to better f ace the threat of terrorism. In 2005, the EU compiled the European Union Counter-Terrorism Strategy, an attempt to provide an important f ramework to help co-ordinate national policies, share inf ormation and determine good practice. [1] Given the ever increasing importance of the EU, what the EU says about terrorism is important, especially because it wants to provide a f ramework f or national policies. This essay will seek to critically assess the language used by the EU in its key texts regarding terrorism. Language plays an important role in making sense of the world, and this essay will explore how the language used by the EU shapes its policies. It will do so by drawing on Critical Discourse Analysis (hencef orth CDA), which takes consideration of the context of language use to be crucial. [2] Moreover, this essay will argue that there are inconsistencies that need to be dealt with regarding the way the EU addresses terrorism. This is of the utmost importance, especially if there is any interest in understanding how terrorism becomes possible. I will start by outlining CDA, and how it can be used to assess language and discourse, bef ore applying it to key EU texts on terrorism f rom the EU. Critical Discourse Analysis Scrutinizing the language applied by the EU in its counter-terrorism laws allows f or an underling assumption that words are never neutral. Words do not simply just describe the world. They are also imperative in helping us making sense of the world. [3] It has been argued that humans are discourse dependent, and that we make sense of the world through language, that which f orms the basis f or our interaction with each other. [4] Following the same line of thought, Collins and Glover argue that language shapes our understanding of the world, and that, while we do not always realize it, language acts as a determinate factor in the formation of our perceptions of the world. [5] The language applied by President Bush and his administration af ter 9/11 was particularly important in shaping the response leading to the ‘War on Terror’[6], in that politicians and media alike made it clear that evil people had launched an attack on our civilization. The language used by The Economist left the reader with no doubts about the nature of the attacks, a declaration of war, and that barbarians were behind the attack: ‘The appalling atrocities of September 11th —acts that must be seen as a declaration of war not just on America but on all civilized people’. [7] It was obvious that barbarians were behind the attacks. Only barbaric people attack civilized societies, and labelling someone as barbaric goes a long way in shaping how to deal with the people behind the attacks. Moreover, it highlights the point that words have history. ‘Evil’ does not, f or instance, drop down f rom the