You can support this petition, already submitted to the European Parliament, by copying the text below and pasting it onto the online petition form at

 http://www.europarl.eu.int/petition/petition_en.htm

However, if you do, expect to be registered as a terrorist supporter.

-------------------------------



I petition the European Parliament to legalise terrorism, and to assess each case of political violence separately.

The EU definition of terrorism - first set out in the 'Proposal for a Council framework decision on combating terrorism' COM (2001) 521 final - is a variant of the traditional liberal-democratic rejection of 'political violence'. According to the European Commission, terrorism consists of violent crimes, "committed by an individual or a group against one or more countries, their institutions or people with the aim of intimidating them and seriously altering or destroying the political, economic, or social structures of a country." The Council of Ministers of Justice, meeting on 6 December 2001, based its definition of terrorism on attempts to "destabilise or destroy" political and economic structures.

But note: conservative right-wing violence does not fall under these definitions. A political murder, committed to preserve the existing political, social and economic structures, is not terrorism according to the Commission. The stabilisation of society by political murders is not terrorism according to the Justice Ministers, The violence only becomes 'terrorism' when it is directed at changing the existing order.

This is not the first time that a fundamental conservatism is visible in a discussion about European values, in this case affecting anti-terror policy. That is why I emphasise, that innovation is not wrong. Innovation in state formation, and in the system of states, is not wrong either. New states are not wrong. Europe should promote innovation in state formation, instead of rigidly defending the existing order of nation states. The nation states are not legitimate: they themselves came into existence by force, including classic terrorism. More importantly, they have no procedures for their own peaceful dissolution. Violence is unavoidable, when a nation state is overthrown. Violence is, in reality, the only road to innovation in the system of states: European history has many examples of this reality. In fact, the historic analogy with the unification of Germany and Italy, and with the civil wars in the Soviet Union and the United States, indicate that millions of people would die, during the formation of any unified European state. Never in history has a state, equivalent in size to the EU, formed peacefully.

A prohibition of political and geopolitical force in Europe - assuming the Commission could enforce such a prohibition - implies a choice for the existing 'Europe of the Nation States'. It is a choice for conservatism, for tradition, for the past, it is a choice against innovation.


1. Innovation is not wrong.

I request the European Parliament to pass a resolution in favour of innovation as a moral value, and as a European value. This resolution would undermine the proposed anti-terror policy, and that is a good thing. Many lists of European values have been proposed, but until now innovation has been absent from the lists. The debate about European values is dominated by conservatives (christian and liberal).


2. New states are not wrong.

I request the European Parliament to declare specifically, that innovation in the system of states is desirable - and that new states based on new principles are desirable. Until now, the so-called 'new states' in Europe have been the result of nationalist secessionism, based in existing national and ethnic groups. A truly new state, in the utopian sense, would at present be impossible: an order of nation states has no place for a non-national state. I request the European Parliament to end this de facto prohibition of innovation in state formation. It is irrational: a comparable prohibition of innovation would not be accepted in other fields. A new state is not a disaster. It would be a disaster if the existing nation states continued for all eternity. that would make Europe a museum.


3. The existing nation states are not legitimate.

I ask the European Parliament to recognise, that the present nation states possess no absolute legitimacy. Under different historic circumstances they would not have come into existence, or they would have had different borders. The Netherlands, for instance, was once Spanish-Austrian (Habsburg) territory, and later part of France. The Kingdom of the Netherlands established in 1815 disintegrated in 1830, with the Belgian secession: however the province of South Limburg was at first Belgian, and joined the present Netherlands in 1839. Past history does not clearly indicate, that the present Netherlands state would exist at some later time. In eastern Europe, some border regions have changed their state five times in the last 100 years: that illustrates the fact that borders are not pre-determined by history.

The older nation states themselves came into existence by force and conquest. The core of the present Netherlands was conquered, step by step, by the Counts of Holland and their successors. Even Amsterdam, the present capital, was once an independent state. The catholic southern provinces were later simply annexed, by the troops of the Estates-General of Holland. No democratic process of any kind is visible in the formation of the Netherlands: the 'demos' of the present Netherlands democracy was assembled by force. All the great nation states of western Europe arose in this way: France was conquered from the Duchy of Orléans, the United Kingdom from southern England, Spain from Aragon and Castille. If violence is not legitimate, then these states are not legitimate. It is ethically inconsistent, that they now forbid others to change state boundaries by force.

That is even clearer in the case of the younger nation states: most of them, are the product of nationalist violence. The Republic of Ireland especially: its existence is a direct result of terrorism - classic terrorism, terrorism according to present definitions. Even in October 2001, the IRA terrorist Kevin Barry and nine of his comrades, were re-buried with full state honours. 80 years earlier, they had been executed for terrorism. I request the Parliament to note the words of the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern: his funeral oration at the re-burial is a classic defence of nationalist terrorism:

"War, for whatever cause and whatever circumstances, always has cruel consequences. But every nation, both large and small, has a right to defend and vindicate its freedom in accordance with the will of its people. If an Irish national democracy could have been established peacefully, through elections, or by passive resistance, that would have been preferable. But a realistic reading of history shows government determination to prevent that, by force, if necessary....

The 10 Volunteers executed in Mountjoy died defending and upholding the independence proclaimed by Dáil Eireann on 21 January 1919. The British government of the day...were seeking in vain to maintain their continued rule by force, long after popular consent had been definitively withdrawn.... The big powers had said that it was for the small nations that the First World War was fought. The people of Ireland were determined that the principle of national self-determination must also be extended to the Irish nation....The Irish struggle was a legitimate inspiration to national independence movements in the colonies of the European Empires..."

Of course the oration also includes a ritual denunciation of the present IRA and its splinter groups: "This State has abolished the death penalty, and lives by the rule of law. There is neither need nor excuse for the extra-judicial use of force by anyone today." That is, however, not consistent with the principle of armed struggle for national self-determination, which Ahern glorifies. The political elite in the Republic of Ireland refuses to condemn that national struggle: it is too strongly integrated in the national identity. It is therefore inconsistent for Ireland, as an EU member state, to demand a complete rejection of terrorism. It is hypocritical for Bertie Ahern to honour terrorists one day, and condemn terrorism the next. The Irish Republic was founded by terrorists, amid great bloodshed. The fact that it is now democratically governed does not alter that history. If terror is not morally legitimate, then it cannot retrospectively become legitimate. And if it is retrospectively legitimised, then why does this privilege apply to some terrorists, and not others?

4. The existing states can not disappear peacefully.

The conservatism of the existing nation states is indicated by the fact, that they have no procedure for their own peaceful dissolution or abolition. They exist under the assumption that they (and their borders) are eternal. The nation states collectively control the entire territory of the European continent. There is no institution, where I can apply to peacefully establish a new state in Europe - not at national level, and not in the EU. There is no 'Bureau of Secession" where I can ask for the Netherlands to be made smaller, or to adopt new boundaries. No nation state has such an institution: on the contrary, such activities are usually considered as treason. I request the European Parliament to abandon this nationalist approach - the nation state as eternal and immutable - and to recognise that neither the EU member states, nor their boundaries, are sacred. I request the Parliament to introduce a procedure, in which individuals can peacefully apply for the abolition of existing states.


5. Innovation in state formation means violence.

As long as there is no peaceful alternative means, the use of force to overthrow existing states in Europe is legitimate. Innovation takes priority over peace. There is no other way to establish a new state. There are no unknown and uninhabited regions in Europe, waiting to be discovered. There are no empty deserts, that an existing state might relinquish. In general that is true for the whole planet: state formation by discovery is no longer possible, and for two centuries no new state has been formed on purchased ground. Artificial islands and land reclamation have not produced any new state either. The only real 'new state' in recent history is the State of Israel, and it was formed entirely by armed force. I request the European Parliament to recognise that state formation is almost always violent, and that the greater the changes, the bloodier the conflict. (The peaceful dissolution of Czechoslovakia is one of the few exceptions).


6. The unification of Italy and Germany as an example.

I request the European Parliament to recognise, that the existing order of nation states is itself a unit: the Europe of the Nation States. The demand to renounce political violence is equivalent to a demand, to leave this geopolitical order as it is. The future of Europe is not so much a conflict between unification and division, as between different ideals of unity - 'Europe des patries', Europe of the regions, 'Europe des peuples', and also the option which is never discussed, a European Zentralstaat. Europe's history has two examples of transition from one geopolitical order to another: the collapse of the multi-ethnic empires under nationalist pressure, and the emergence of the western European nation states by internal conquest. The unification of Italy includes elements of both these processes. Italian states, recognised as legitimate at the time, were overthrown - partly by illegal combatants with foreign support. Garibaldi was, according to the definition of the Commission, without doubt a terrorist. Similarly the unification of Germany - often misrepresented as peaceful - was impossible without the military defeats of France and Austria by Prussia. Every future Europe, which replaces the existing Europe of the Nation States, is a geopolitical transition of greater impact than the Italian and German unifications. The bloodshed might be proportionately great.

In reality, the Europe of the Nation States is already prepared for a future European civil war. Although it was never emphasised, certainly not during the Cold War, the NATO is in effect an 'alliance for the preservation of the nation state'. That applies to a lesser extent to organisations such as the OSCE. Nation states sometimes threaten each others existence, but they also maintain each others existence by force. I request the European Parliament to recognise this geopolitical reality, and the role of the United States. Not only in the military alliance, but in its general foreign policy, the United States has chosen to support the Europe of the Nation States. Anyone who fights against the nation state in Europe, will in the end fight American troops. US forces would almost inevitably be involved in any future European civil war. The United States should therefore begin to withdraw its forces from Europe: there is, in any case, no legitimate reason for their presence. Until that withdrawal has commenced, I request the European Parliament to recognise military actions against the US forces in Europe as legitimate.