MEPs debate the fight against terrorism - a new EU anti-terrorism co-ordinator?
Article in: EP-Press-Service, Justice and home affairs - 05-09-2007 - 12:19
MEPs debated the fight against terrorism with statements from the Commission and the Council. The debate focussed on whether current EU legislation and data-sharing between the Member States should be fully assessed as to its effectiveness. MEPs also questioned whether the Council should appoint a new EU anti-terrorism co-ordinator following Mr de Vries decision to step down in February 2007. The House will vote on a resolution on the issue during its plenary session in October.
EU Member States must go on co-operating in their implementation of counter-terrorism measures, so as to ensure they respect fundamental rights and freedoms, stressed Mr Manuel Lobo Antunes Minister for European Affairs, speaking for the Council.
Terrorism is a scourge that must be fought at both national and international levels - it is a global threat that needs a global answer, he continued. Efforts to improve information exchange and co-ordination with third countries are under way in international fora, led by the United States, and also closer to home, e.g. through dedicated Euro-Mediterranean meetings and work on the Mediterranean code of conduct against terrorism.
Progress in implementing the EU's counter-terrorism strategy, which relies on prevention, protection, prosecution and reaction, is reviewed in the Council every six months. For example, measures to combat radicalisation, recruitment, and terrorist fund-raising are regularly reviewed for effectiveness.
Co-ordination among Member States has produced concrete results, such as the recommendation on explosives. However, noted Mr Lobo Antunes, although Europol has "effective" files fed by Member States, police and judicial co-operation is hampered by the requirement of unanimity in the Council, and it is to be hoped that the reform treaty will help to overcome this.
Mr Lobo Antunes stressed that the EU Joint Situation Centre (SITCEN), provides threat assessments useful to the Council, but has no co-ordinating role. The Council, and the High Representative for Common and Foreign Security Policy, are considering whether to appoint a new counter-terrorism co-ordinator.
Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission with responsibility for Justice, Freedom and Security, told the House that the Commission "continues to be fully committed to the implementation of the EU counter-terrorism strategy" and to finding the right balance between "the right to life" and "the right to privacy and procedural rights".
All sources indicated that "the threat of new terrorist attacks continues to be high", he said and pointed to the thwarting this week of planned terrorist attacks in Denmark and Germany. At least this proved the effectiveness of prevention measures: he described the stopping of the attacks as "fantastic result", to applause from the House.
Mr Frattini then outlined a package of measures in preparation by the Commission. First, an EU Action Plan on the security of explosives to be adopted in November, which would set up an EU explosives database and early warning system, e.g. for use if explosives are stolen. Second, draft legislation to make terrorist misuse of the internet punishable EU-wide. Third, legislation for an EU system of passenger name records, since "the Union is at least as much a potential target of a terrorist attack as the United States and the use of PNR is an important law enforcement tool" for protecting EU citizens. Fourth, a report evaluating the implementation by the Member States of the EU framework decision on terrorism.
The Commissioner stressed the need for mutual trust and exchange of information between Member States to combat terrorism, arguing that this required both an appropriate legal framework and the promotion of shared international experiences.
In conclusion, he said, "we should not forget that an overwhelming majority of our citizens - 84% according to a recent Eurobarometer poll - are strongly in favour of EU action to combat terrorism and organised crime". Naturally any such action must be line with fundamental rights and Article 6 of the Treaty.
Political group speakers
Speaking for the EPP-ED, Manfred WEBER (DE) said that the recent arrests in Denmark and Germany had shown that there was a still a lot of work to do. Terrorists, he said, used networks and the Internet to communicate and therefore there was a need to work at an EU level. He called for a an assessment of current laws on the fight against terrorism as well as a new impetus. The roots of terrorism need also to be addressed at the cultural level.
Jan Marinus WIERSMA (NL) for the PES group that there should be co-operation at the EU level. It was paramount to tackle "recruitment and radicalisation and the combating of religious extreme right-wing groups" at the EU level. The EU should examine a Dutch initiative where funding was made available to focus on those who may be susceptible to radicalisation.
Graham WATSON (UK), speaking for the ALDE group, said: "Once again laws that take away our freedoms risk entering by the back door. I do not argue that counter terrorism laws are unnecessary. The arrest yesterday of three people in Germany, the arrest this morning of another three in Denmark shows the continuing threat that terrorists pose to our society. My Group is united in its belief that we need more judicial cooperation to make EUROPOL and EUROJUST as effective as possible. Here in Parliament we should be insisting on sunset clauses for anti-terror laws so that legislation susceptible to abuse does not remain on the statute books any longer than necessary. Karl Popper once said, 'We must plan for freedom, and not only for security, if for no other reason than only freedom can make security secure'."
For the UEN group, Konrad SZYMAŃSKI (PL) said: "Since the terrorist attacks in New York, Madrid and London, the co-operation between the Member States has improved. The concerns relating to data sharing should not block this co-operation. International terrorism uses armed movements in an unprecedented manner. This is why it is necessary to apply legislation aiming to fight against terrorism".
Speaking on behalf of the Greens/EFA, Cem ÖZDEMIR (DE) stressed the need to take targeted and effective measures. His group would like to have an overall view of existing measures and their effectiveness. It must be possible to justify to citizens what has actually been done. The moral dimension is defending values, which was not done in the case of CIA renditions in Europe. The Commission must understand the imperative need to involve the European Parliament. The human rights violations resulting from inclusion on lists of terrorist organisations, notably in the case of people listed by mistake, must be forwarded to the Civil Liberties Committee. Finally, the Greens/EFA group would like to know the Council's intentions with respect to the role of counter-terrorism co-ordinator and to receive an evaluation of Mr De Vries' activities during the months of his mandate.
For the GUE/NGL group, Tobias PFLÜGER (DE), said that the debate that we are holding here is central for democracy in the European Union. Since 11 September 2001, there has been a war on against terrorism. NATO's military strategy is difficult to reverse. In Afghanistan, we are getting into a situation similar to Iraq. The war against terrorism fuels this terrorism.
Within the EU, the framework decision on combating terrorism is bringing new laws and new definitions of terrorism, as is the case in Germany. This legislation must not encroach upon respect for fundamental rights.
On behalf of his group, Johannes BLOKLAND (IND/DEM, NL) said the central issues were what measures had been taken, had they achieved their goal and were they in line with the rule of law? In his view, for example, the rules on carrying liquids on planes were not effective, nor had the huge amount of data collected for security purposes since 2001 "always been used effectively".
He noted with regret that former EU counter-terrorism coordinator Gijs De Vries had said no Member State was willing to pursue a European policy on counter-terrorism. Mr Blokland urged the Council to at least provide the EP with regular, consistent information on this front.
Andreas MÖLZER (AT), speaking for the Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty group, referred to this week's thwarted terror attacks in Denmark and Germany, emphasising that the threat came from young Muslims within the EU, who attended Koranic schools and encountered "preachers who preach hate". There was now a "parallel society of Islamists in Europe". He added that "our tolerance leads to loopholes" and that "we should stop the multicultural approach and underline our own basic European culture".
Non-aligned MEP Jim ALLISTER (UK) said it was important "to denounce terrorism" but, he asked, "within the EU do we always consistently practise what we preach?" In this connection, he criticised the deputy first minister of Northern Ireland, Martin McGuinness, for "vehemently attacking" the German government for requesting the extradition of an individual suspected of involvement in a terrorist attack some years ago in Germany. "We can't pick and choose in resisting terrorism", he said. He also referred to the "recourse of ETA to active terrorism", arguing that this showed "seldom does a terrorist leopard change its spots".
British and Irish speakers
Sarah LUDFORD (ALDE, UK) stated that Europol tells us that there were almost 500 terrorist attacks in the EU last year. This is, of course, a major criminal threat but so are drug smuggling, people trafficking and corruption. Where is the Council action, she questioned, to insist that all Member States sign and ratify the European Convention on Human Trafficking? Where was the Council protest when the UK Government terminated a major corruption probe in January against national champion arms manufacturer BAE?
As Vice-Chairman of the European Parliament's Inquiry on Extraordinary Rendition, Mrs Ludford stated that she shared the outrage others have expressed about the complete silence of the Council in the face of the findings that many Member States were complicit in massive human rights abuses of abduction and torture.
The Council, she said, would do well to look in its own backyard before it gobbles up the civil liberties of EU citizens. "MEPs have had no information on the implementation of the framework decision on terrorism passed over five years ago. Has every Member State fully transposed it? How many cases have there been? How many investigations or convictions have been recorded? We know that agencies, even within one state, will not share information because of jealousies, power struggles and turf wars, let alone through cross-border cooperation. Why not make that a priority instead of frenetically legislating to take away our privacy all the time?
There is also a lot of inconsistency when it comes to tackling radicalism. This is an important subject, but it also implies the integration of the vast majority of moderate Muslims, yet there are parts of the EU where great difficulties are placed in the way of the building of mosques. Why not look at that?"
Stating that this debate is about the safety of our people and the preservation of our way of life, our liberal democracy, the rule of law and the defence of freedom, Timothy KIRKHOPE (EPP-ED, UK) said that terrorism strikes at the very heart of all of these things. In all its forms, terrorism defines the fight between good and evil, and we must remain ever vigilant. .
Terrorism, Mr Kirkhope stated, "is an act of war on the fabric of our society. It is perpetrated by criminals and murderers who detest our liberal democracy and freedom. Terrorist groups must be banned and those who perpetrate violence, incite terrorism or give succour to terrorists should be tackled. In terms of the action that EU Member States can take together, we saw at the weekend the arrest of ETA bomb-makers. This shows that joint investigation teams add value to the anti-terrorism fight."
"The security of the travelling public must be our prime concern. The concern of ourselves, of governments, airport operators and airlines. But, as with all legislation, improvements can be brought about in the light of experience and I believe there is a case, and a good one, for a review of how that is operating."
At the same time we should rely fundamentally on available intelligence to assist legislators like ourselves in determining the nature and extent of the ongoing threat. He commended Commissioner Frattini's proposals which are positive in that respect. Mr Kirkhope appreciated that there is a delicate balance but, he concluded, we must always do what we can to protect our people from the evil and murderous intent of terrorism.
Michael CASHMAN (PES,UK) welcomed the strategy review and tackling the roots of terrorism. Now above all, he stated, we need to act as 27 Member States, not separately, and act in conjunction with our allies, including the United States. The United States is not a problem. The attacks on the United States did not occur on September 11, they occurred before then, and an attack upon one is arguably an attack upon every single one of us.
Proinsias DE ROSSA (PES, IE) strongly supported the demand for effective, efficient, balanced and accountable security at the European and international level in addressing terrorism.
If we are, he said, to avoid feeding the threat, democratic accountability is essential to ensure balance and proportionality. But a security response, no matter how effective, is not sufficient. We must, he continued, address the international, political and economic injustices which certain demagogues are using to tap into a youthful hunger for justice. Their appeal, he said, is based on a tabloid history, a tabloid politics, which denies the nuances and contradictions which are integral to all of our political and religious traditions.
The battle for hearts and minds requires us to avoid demonising whole communities of religious believers. It requires open dialogue, not confrontation, it requires us to address the real and perceived disconnection that some young people are experiencing. Europe's idea of 'unity through diversity' could help, but that requires courageous political leadership which unfortunately is sadly lacking at Council level.
Concluding, Mr De Rossa appealed to the House to avoid sloppy language which implies sloppy thinking. Equating fundamentalism automatically with terrorism is sloppy thinking. There are, he said, millions upon millions of Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims who believe literally in the old testament, in the new testament and the Koran, but they are not terrorists. There are a tiny number of people who have a literal reading of their religion who are involved in terrorism. We have, he concluded, to address why that is the case.
Council response
Summing up, Manuel LOBO ANTUNES sought to reassure MEPs as to the Portuguese Presidency's readiness to co-operate with Parliament in this "difficult and complex debate".The debate had brought forth praise as well as criticism. Some had wanted counter-terrorism policy to advance, others to retreat, but everyone agreed on the need resolutely to fight this scourge.
Mr Lobos Antunes also stressed that new threats require willingness to learn, improve counter-terrorism methods, including deeper international co-operation and act to prevent further outrages. But the fight must be fought with full respect for our values and principles.
He concluded by reiterating the hope that a new counter-terrorism co-ordinator would be appointed soon.
Vote will take place on 11 October 2007
REF.: 20070823IPR09765
see also the speech in the plenary: http://tobiaspflueger.twoday.net/stories/4272495/
MEPs debated the fight against terrorism with statements from the Commission and the Council. The debate focussed on whether current EU legislation and data-sharing between the Member States should be fully assessed as to its effectiveness. MEPs also questioned whether the Council should appoint a new EU anti-terrorism co-ordinator following Mr de Vries decision to step down in February 2007. The House will vote on a resolution on the issue during its plenary session in October.
EU Member States must go on co-operating in their implementation of counter-terrorism measures, so as to ensure they respect fundamental rights and freedoms, stressed Mr Manuel Lobo Antunes Minister for European Affairs, speaking for the Council.
Terrorism is a scourge that must be fought at both national and international levels - it is a global threat that needs a global answer, he continued. Efforts to improve information exchange and co-ordination with third countries are under way in international fora, led by the United States, and also closer to home, e.g. through dedicated Euro-Mediterranean meetings and work on the Mediterranean code of conduct against terrorism.
Progress in implementing the EU's counter-terrorism strategy, which relies on prevention, protection, prosecution and reaction, is reviewed in the Council every six months. For example, measures to combat radicalisation, recruitment, and terrorist fund-raising are regularly reviewed for effectiveness.
Co-ordination among Member States has produced concrete results, such as the recommendation on explosives. However, noted Mr Lobo Antunes, although Europol has "effective" files fed by Member States, police and judicial co-operation is hampered by the requirement of unanimity in the Council, and it is to be hoped that the reform treaty will help to overcome this.
Mr Lobo Antunes stressed that the EU Joint Situation Centre (SITCEN), provides threat assessments useful to the Council, but has no co-ordinating role. The Council, and the High Representative for Common and Foreign Security Policy, are considering whether to appoint a new counter-terrorism co-ordinator.
Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission with responsibility for Justice, Freedom and Security, told the House that the Commission "continues to be fully committed to the implementation of the EU counter-terrorism strategy" and to finding the right balance between "the right to life" and "the right to privacy and procedural rights".
All sources indicated that "the threat of new terrorist attacks continues to be high", he said and pointed to the thwarting this week of planned terrorist attacks in Denmark and Germany. At least this proved the effectiveness of prevention measures: he described the stopping of the attacks as "fantastic result", to applause from the House.
Mr Frattini then outlined a package of measures in preparation by the Commission. First, an EU Action Plan on the security of explosives to be adopted in November, which would set up an EU explosives database and early warning system, e.g. for use if explosives are stolen. Second, draft legislation to make terrorist misuse of the internet punishable EU-wide. Third, legislation for an EU system of passenger name records, since "the Union is at least as much a potential target of a terrorist attack as the United States and the use of PNR is an important law enforcement tool" for protecting EU citizens. Fourth, a report evaluating the implementation by the Member States of the EU framework decision on terrorism.
The Commissioner stressed the need for mutual trust and exchange of information between Member States to combat terrorism, arguing that this required both an appropriate legal framework and the promotion of shared international experiences.
In conclusion, he said, "we should not forget that an overwhelming majority of our citizens - 84% according to a recent Eurobarometer poll - are strongly in favour of EU action to combat terrorism and organised crime". Naturally any such action must be line with fundamental rights and Article 6 of the Treaty.
Political group speakers
Speaking for the EPP-ED, Manfred WEBER (DE) said that the recent arrests in Denmark and Germany had shown that there was a still a lot of work to do. Terrorists, he said, used networks and the Internet to communicate and therefore there was a need to work at an EU level. He called for a an assessment of current laws on the fight against terrorism as well as a new impetus. The roots of terrorism need also to be addressed at the cultural level.
Jan Marinus WIERSMA (NL) for the PES group that there should be co-operation at the EU level. It was paramount to tackle "recruitment and radicalisation and the combating of religious extreme right-wing groups" at the EU level. The EU should examine a Dutch initiative where funding was made available to focus on those who may be susceptible to radicalisation.
Graham WATSON (UK), speaking for the ALDE group, said: "Once again laws that take away our freedoms risk entering by the back door. I do not argue that counter terrorism laws are unnecessary. The arrest yesterday of three people in Germany, the arrest this morning of another three in Denmark shows the continuing threat that terrorists pose to our society. My Group is united in its belief that we need more judicial cooperation to make EUROPOL and EUROJUST as effective as possible. Here in Parliament we should be insisting on sunset clauses for anti-terror laws so that legislation susceptible to abuse does not remain on the statute books any longer than necessary. Karl Popper once said, 'We must plan for freedom, and not only for security, if for no other reason than only freedom can make security secure'."
For the UEN group, Konrad SZYMAŃSKI (PL) said: "Since the terrorist attacks in New York, Madrid and London, the co-operation between the Member States has improved. The concerns relating to data sharing should not block this co-operation. International terrorism uses armed movements in an unprecedented manner. This is why it is necessary to apply legislation aiming to fight against terrorism".
Speaking on behalf of the Greens/EFA, Cem ÖZDEMIR (DE) stressed the need to take targeted and effective measures. His group would like to have an overall view of existing measures and their effectiveness. It must be possible to justify to citizens what has actually been done. The moral dimension is defending values, which was not done in the case of CIA renditions in Europe. The Commission must understand the imperative need to involve the European Parliament. The human rights violations resulting from inclusion on lists of terrorist organisations, notably in the case of people listed by mistake, must be forwarded to the Civil Liberties Committee. Finally, the Greens/EFA group would like to know the Council's intentions with respect to the role of counter-terrorism co-ordinator and to receive an evaluation of Mr De Vries' activities during the months of his mandate.
For the GUE/NGL group, Tobias PFLÜGER (DE), said that the debate that we are holding here is central for democracy in the European Union. Since 11 September 2001, there has been a war on against terrorism. NATO's military strategy is difficult to reverse. In Afghanistan, we are getting into a situation similar to Iraq. The war against terrorism fuels this terrorism.
Within the EU, the framework decision on combating terrorism is bringing new laws and new definitions of terrorism, as is the case in Germany. This legislation must not encroach upon respect for fundamental rights.
On behalf of his group, Johannes BLOKLAND (IND/DEM, NL) said the central issues were what measures had been taken, had they achieved their goal and were they in line with the rule of law? In his view, for example, the rules on carrying liquids on planes were not effective, nor had the huge amount of data collected for security purposes since 2001 "always been used effectively".
He noted with regret that former EU counter-terrorism coordinator Gijs De Vries had said no Member State was willing to pursue a European policy on counter-terrorism. Mr Blokland urged the Council to at least provide the EP with regular, consistent information on this front.
Andreas MÖLZER (AT), speaking for the Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty group, referred to this week's thwarted terror attacks in Denmark and Germany, emphasising that the threat came from young Muslims within the EU, who attended Koranic schools and encountered "preachers who preach hate". There was now a "parallel society of Islamists in Europe". He added that "our tolerance leads to loopholes" and that "we should stop the multicultural approach and underline our own basic European culture".
Non-aligned MEP Jim ALLISTER (UK) said it was important "to denounce terrorism" but, he asked, "within the EU do we always consistently practise what we preach?" In this connection, he criticised the deputy first minister of Northern Ireland, Martin McGuinness, for "vehemently attacking" the German government for requesting the extradition of an individual suspected of involvement in a terrorist attack some years ago in Germany. "We can't pick and choose in resisting terrorism", he said. He also referred to the "recourse of ETA to active terrorism", arguing that this showed "seldom does a terrorist leopard change its spots".
British and Irish speakers
Sarah LUDFORD (ALDE, UK) stated that Europol tells us that there were almost 500 terrorist attacks in the EU last year. This is, of course, a major criminal threat but so are drug smuggling, people trafficking and corruption. Where is the Council action, she questioned, to insist that all Member States sign and ratify the European Convention on Human Trafficking? Where was the Council protest when the UK Government terminated a major corruption probe in January against national champion arms manufacturer BAE?
As Vice-Chairman of the European Parliament's Inquiry on Extraordinary Rendition, Mrs Ludford stated that she shared the outrage others have expressed about the complete silence of the Council in the face of the findings that many Member States were complicit in massive human rights abuses of abduction and torture.
The Council, she said, would do well to look in its own backyard before it gobbles up the civil liberties of EU citizens. "MEPs have had no information on the implementation of the framework decision on terrorism passed over five years ago. Has every Member State fully transposed it? How many cases have there been? How many investigations or convictions have been recorded? We know that agencies, even within one state, will not share information because of jealousies, power struggles and turf wars, let alone through cross-border cooperation. Why not make that a priority instead of frenetically legislating to take away our privacy all the time?
There is also a lot of inconsistency when it comes to tackling radicalism. This is an important subject, but it also implies the integration of the vast majority of moderate Muslims, yet there are parts of the EU where great difficulties are placed in the way of the building of mosques. Why not look at that?"
Stating that this debate is about the safety of our people and the preservation of our way of life, our liberal democracy, the rule of law and the defence of freedom, Timothy KIRKHOPE (EPP-ED, UK) said that terrorism strikes at the very heart of all of these things. In all its forms, terrorism defines the fight between good and evil, and we must remain ever vigilant. .
Terrorism, Mr Kirkhope stated, "is an act of war on the fabric of our society. It is perpetrated by criminals and murderers who detest our liberal democracy and freedom. Terrorist groups must be banned and those who perpetrate violence, incite terrorism or give succour to terrorists should be tackled. In terms of the action that EU Member States can take together, we saw at the weekend the arrest of ETA bomb-makers. This shows that joint investigation teams add value to the anti-terrorism fight."
"The security of the travelling public must be our prime concern. The concern of ourselves, of governments, airport operators and airlines. But, as with all legislation, improvements can be brought about in the light of experience and I believe there is a case, and a good one, for a review of how that is operating."
At the same time we should rely fundamentally on available intelligence to assist legislators like ourselves in determining the nature and extent of the ongoing threat. He commended Commissioner Frattini's proposals which are positive in that respect. Mr Kirkhope appreciated that there is a delicate balance but, he concluded, we must always do what we can to protect our people from the evil and murderous intent of terrorism.
Michael CASHMAN (PES,UK) welcomed the strategy review and tackling the roots of terrorism. Now above all, he stated, we need to act as 27 Member States, not separately, and act in conjunction with our allies, including the United States. The United States is not a problem. The attacks on the United States did not occur on September 11, they occurred before then, and an attack upon one is arguably an attack upon every single one of us.
Proinsias DE ROSSA (PES, IE) strongly supported the demand for effective, efficient, balanced and accountable security at the European and international level in addressing terrorism.
If we are, he said, to avoid feeding the threat, democratic accountability is essential to ensure balance and proportionality. But a security response, no matter how effective, is not sufficient. We must, he continued, address the international, political and economic injustices which certain demagogues are using to tap into a youthful hunger for justice. Their appeal, he said, is based on a tabloid history, a tabloid politics, which denies the nuances and contradictions which are integral to all of our political and religious traditions.
The battle for hearts and minds requires us to avoid demonising whole communities of religious believers. It requires open dialogue, not confrontation, it requires us to address the real and perceived disconnection that some young people are experiencing. Europe's idea of 'unity through diversity' could help, but that requires courageous political leadership which unfortunately is sadly lacking at Council level.
Concluding, Mr De Rossa appealed to the House to avoid sloppy language which implies sloppy thinking. Equating fundamentalism automatically with terrorism is sloppy thinking. There are, he said, millions upon millions of Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims who believe literally in the old testament, in the new testament and the Koran, but they are not terrorists. There are a tiny number of people who have a literal reading of their religion who are involved in terrorism. We have, he concluded, to address why that is the case.
Council response
Summing up, Manuel LOBO ANTUNES sought to reassure MEPs as to the Portuguese Presidency's readiness to co-operate with Parliament in this "difficult and complex debate".The debate had brought forth praise as well as criticism. Some had wanted counter-terrorism policy to advance, others to retreat, but everyone agreed on the need resolutely to fight this scourge.
Mr Lobos Antunes also stressed that new threats require willingness to learn, improve counter-terrorism methods, including deeper international co-operation and act to prevent further outrages. But the fight must be fought with full respect for our values and principles.
He concluded by reiterating the hope that a new counter-terrorism co-ordinator would be appointed soon.
Vote will take place on 11 October 2007
REF.: 20070823IPR09765
see also the speech in the plenary: http://tobiaspflueger.twoday.net/stories/4272495/
Tobias Pflüger - 2007/09/19 10:22
Trackback URL:
https://tobiaspflueger.twoday.net/stories/4272444/modTrackback