• Sophie Haaland Matláry

Where are the 8 points?

Updated: Jan 21, 2019

English translation at the bottom. Det skrives mye om terrorkrisen i disse dager, både i Norge og mer internasjonalt.



De fleste debatter ser derimot ut til å handle om politikk, hvor fokuset er vendt mot å finne ut av hvilket parti i regjeringen som skal ta på seg skylden for at individer i samfunnet radikaliseres, eller hvorfor staten ikke var bedre forberedt på terrorangrep.

Tilsvar til terroren

Samfunnsdebattensom vi så altfor lett deltar i, den som handler om å velge mellom «liberale, demokratiske, menneskelige verdier» eller «rasisme, populisme, frykt og vold» er utdatert — og lite nyttig. Merkel sine 8 punkter (AP 29/07/2016) er det første steget Tyskland har tatt når det gjelder å komme med et tilsvar til terroren som råder i Europa. Punktene Merkel peker på erdefølgende: Landets sikkerhetsmyndigheter skal styrkes med økt bemanning, det skal opprettes et organ for å dekryptere, overvåke samt avdekke skjult kommunikasjon på nettet, et varslingssystem for å avdekke radikalisering blant flyktninger på et tidlig stadium skal opprettes, utveksling av informasjon med etterretningsorganisasjoner skal intensiveres, asylsøkere somhar fått avslag på opphold skal sendes ut raskere og enklere, landets militære styrker skal kunne settes inn ved store terrorangrep på tysk jord, det skal gjennomføres felles antiterrorøvelser for politiet og militære styrker samt at Tyskland skal jobbe for et enda strengere våpenlovverk i EU. Disse punktene er Merkel klar på, og poengterer at de er minimale, med hensyn til krisen Tyskland og EU står overfor.

Terrorkrisen og unntakstilstanden som rammer oss alle, og som omhandler oss alle i Norge og i Europa, styrkes av at våre politikere faller for fristelsen og gjør den til en følelsesladet politisk dragkamp.

ISIL truer Europa

Istedenfor å fokusere på å finne en fornuftig, styringseffektiv og preventiv handlingsplan, velger en å kaste bort verdifull tid på å bestemme om denne krisen handler om «Islam sin posisjon i Europa», «det multikulturelle Norge», eller hvordan visse minoriteter vil reagere på at den norske stat strammer inn sikkerhetstiltak i landet. Hvor enkelt er det ikke å snakke om at mer overvåkning og etterretning splitter samfunnet, og truer nordmenns ytringsfrihet, istedenfor å finne en løsning på et problem som vi aldri før har vært borte i. ISIL truer Europa innenfra og utenfra - det kreves dermed at sikkerhetsgrep etableres for å minimere fremtidige angrep. De mer teoretiske konsekvensene av en innstramning av sikkerhetstiltak må man selvsagt ta hensyn til, men de skal ikke lede an i debatten.

I dagens debatt kan det virke som om noen individer tror at staten jobber mot dem, og ikke for dem. Å føre strengere kontroll på eget territorium - å innføre sikkerhetstiltak mot radikalisering, gjøres nettopp for å sikre egne borgere, ikke for å henge ut visse samfunnsgrupper.Den norske stat jobber først og fremst for sine borgere, og vil derfor ønske å beskytte dem i aller høyeste grad.


Where are our 8 points?


A lot can be said about the terrorism crisis, both in Norway and abroad.


Most debates, however, appear to be about politics, where the focus is shifted towards figuring out which party, or which politician from the left or from the right should be blamed if individuals in society are radicalized. Further, looking for a group in society to blame if an attack occurs also seems to be a common mode of action.


An adequate response to the terror?


The debate in which Europeans all too often choose to participate in, is the one which revolves around choosing between "liberal, democratic, human values" or "racism, populism, fear and violence". This debate is in my opinion outdated — and not very useful when it comes to solving the problem we have with terror and terrorism in the EU. Terrorism is a highly active political expression and thus requires an appropriate and instant political mobilization.


Merkel's 8 points (Aftenposten on the 29/07/2016, a set of policy points which Merkel refers to when talking about how to hinder terrorism in Germany) is the first step Germany has taken in order to respond to the terror that prevails in Europe. The policy points that Merkel made were the following: The country's security authorities should be strengthened with increased staff, an IT surveillance body should be created to decrypt, monitor as well as uncover covert communication on the web, a warning system should be invented in order to reveal if radicalization occurs among refugees at the earliest stage of their asylum applications, the exchange of information with intelligence agencies in the EU should be more straightforward and frequent, asylum seekers that have received a rejection to their application should be deported back to home countries with much more ease, Germany’s army should intervene in case of an attack along with the police, anti-terrorism trainings with both police and army should be frequent, as well as achieving stricter weapon laws in the EU. These points seemed clear to the Chancellor, as she pointed out that they are ‘minimal’ in regards to the crisis that ‘is occurring in both Germany and in the EU’.

The ‘crisis of terror’ and the state of emergency concerns us all, both in Norway and in the EU. However, this crisis is made more difficult to handle as our politicians are not acting proactively in an attempt to solve it, and instead focus on creating emotional and heated political debates between the far right and the left - failing to focus on the actual issue at hand and failing to appropriately react to the crisis.


ISIL is treathens Europe


Instead of focusing on how to find effective, preventive and cost-efficient plan of actions, politicians choose to waste valuable time debating if this crisis revolves around ‘the position of Islam in Europe’, ‘the multicultural Norway’, or how certain groups of minorities will react if Norway decides to tighten its security measures. How easy is it not to talk about how intelligence and surveillance measures can create divides in society, and can threaten the Norwegian people’s freedom of speech, instead of finding a solution to a very difficult problem we never have encountered before? ISIL is threatening Europe both from the inside and the outside, and we therefore need to come up with security measures that we have not yet seen anywhere in the EU, to prevent further attacks. The more theoretical consequences of an intensification of such security measures should not lead the debate, even if they are to be considered after what I call 'state of emergency policies' have been implemented.


In today’s debate on the issue, it seems that some individuals think that the government is working against them, and not for them. Implementing stricter control and surveillance on the Norwegian territory – by implementing stricter measures against radicalization, is done with the sole purpose of securing the country’s citizens and not in an attempt to humiliate or sideline certain groups. The Norwegian government is first and foremost working for its citizens, and the state’s primary duty is to secure its population in a time of crisis – in the same way as Merkel does in Germany. The difference is that in Germany they do not waste time asking how they will react to such a crisis, instead they simply act, Norwegian politicians have to take note.

©2018 by Matlarysophie. Proudly created with Wix.com