ed316
12-14-2005, 04:13 PM
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/printer_friendly/news_logo.gif
The EU's jumbled anti-terror plan
By Kirsty Hughes
Writer on European affairs
In a flurry of activity at the start of December this year, European justice and interior ministers agreed a new, grand-sounding EU strategy on terrorism, which the EU's leaders will endorse at their summit on 15-16 December.
This is a response to al-Qaeda attacks from 9/11 through to the Madrid bombings of 2004 and this year's London bombs.
"The terrorism perpetuated by al-Qaeda... has become the main terrorist threat to the Union," according to one recent EU statement.
But is there anything very new here, and does the EU have the powers to lead a strong counter-terrorism strategy?
And where, if anywhere do civil liberties and democratic accountability fit - a more than topical question given the angry European reactions to reports of CIA rendition flights using EU airports.
European efforts at co-operation on justice, police and security issues have been ad hoc and spasmodic over the years. But international terrorism requires an international response.
The goal of the EU's new counter-terrorism strategy is "to combat terrorism globally while respecting human rights and make Europe safer".
It will, according to Brussels, "prevent, protect, pursue and respond".
Sharing secrets
But beneath the headline goals, lies a confusing jumble of agencies, directives and co-operation efforts.
Much of this plethora of initiatives is not new, but the al-Qaeda attacks have speeded up agreement and action in some areas.
Plans for a 'principle of availability' of information - to share police information across countries - may take until 2008 to come into force
Europol and Eurojust, which respectively coordinate police and judicial co-operation, are two of the longest-standing EU agencies in this area.
New additions this year are Sitcen (the EU's love of acronyms continues unabated), based in Brussels which brings together input from all 25 member states security and intelligence agencies to prepare joint analyses on terrorist threats, and Frontex, the new European borders agency based in Warsaw.
Sharing of information and intelligence lies at the heart of EU counter-terrorism, and is vital for such agencies to work effectively. But it is a highly sensitive area. And so genuinely secret information is mostly shared on a bilateral basis.
But some less sensitive information is already shared - the Schengen border-free zone has an information system with data on people wanted for arrest or refused admission to the EU, and plans are afoot to strengthen this and to link it to a separate EU visa information system.
Biometric passports are being introduced in the EU from this year. And there are already a number of financial directives to control money laundering within and beyond the EU.
The European arrest warrant came into force this year too, reducing average extradition times from nine months to 43 days.
EU ministers and officials are also negotiating over a European evidence warrant - so that data and documents can be exchanged - but agreement may take another year or two.
Meanwhile, plans for a much wider "principle of availability" of information - to share police information across countries - may take until 2008 to come into force. Moving swiftly is not always what the EU does best.
Human rights?
Ministers also agreed at the start of December, a controversial new directive - approved on 14 December by the European Parliament - on retention of phone and internet records of the entire European population for periods of six months to two years, with access granted to investigate "serious criminal offences".
Civil liberties groups have expressed profound concern at such extensive surveillance, questioning whether its effectiveness justifies its severity.
There is a glaring deficit in the EU's domestic human rights policy
**** Oosting, Amnesty International
Few would disagree with stricter EU controls on storage and transport of explosives, or sharing best practice on protecting power stations or railway networks, but when it comes to extensive monitoring of bank accounts, phone calls, and internet connections, the twin issues of democratic accountability and human rights will not go away.
Complex EU institutional structures do not help here: while the European Commission has some rights to initiate counter-terrorism proposals, much of the power and control lies in the council of ministers - that is, in the EU's intergovernmental arm - with reports going to the European Council of heads of government, which meets behind closed doors.
Such procedures do not contribute to easy or effective scrutiny either by the European Parliament or by national parliaments.
The EU does make repeated reference to human rights in its counter-terrorism strategy. And it is establishing a new Fundamental Rights Agency from the start of 2007 - by extending its existing EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. But human rights bodies doubt if this is enough.
Radicalisation
**** Oosting who heads Amnesty International's EU office believes there is a "glaring deficit in the EU's domestic human rights policy".
He considers that if the EU's Fundamental Rights Agency only monitors EU laws not national laws, then it will be a "minimalist conception of the agency¿that does not offend political sensibilities".
The role of the EU will remain secondary to that of member states
EU counter-terrorism co-ordinator, Gijs de Vries
He stresses that since the EU's approach to a European area of freedom, security and justice "is built upon mutual trust between member states in each other's justice systems" then those justice systems need monitoring at EU level - not something that national governments are in a rush to agree to.
The EU's new strategy to "combat radicalisation and recruitment to terrorism" also raises questions about freedom of speech.
However, this is a strategy stronger on rhetoric than action: the EU claims that the "core of the issue is propaganda which distorts conflicts around the world as a supposed proof of a clash between the West and Islam".
But since, in fact, most of the powers to define and tackle incitement to terrorism, or to take stronger steps to tackle xenophobia or Islamophobia, remain at member state level, the EU can do little more than exhort here.
And this, at the end of the day, is perhaps one of the most important points to remember about the EU efforts against terrorism. As the EU's own counter-terrorism co-ordinator, Gijs de Vries, admitted recently: "The role of the EU will remain secondary to that of member states. The EU is not a federal state; the main instruments in the fights against terrorism, including police forces, judicial authorities and security agencies, will remain under the control of national authorities". Kirsty Hughes is a former senior fellow of the Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4529174.stm
Published: 2005/12/14 16:57:21 GMT
© BBC MMV
The EU's jumbled anti-terror plan
By Kirsty Hughes
Writer on European affairs
In a flurry of activity at the start of December this year, European justice and interior ministers agreed a new, grand-sounding EU strategy on terrorism, which the EU's leaders will endorse at their summit on 15-16 December.
This is a response to al-Qaeda attacks from 9/11 through to the Madrid bombings of 2004 and this year's London bombs.
"The terrorism perpetuated by al-Qaeda... has become the main terrorist threat to the Union," according to one recent EU statement.
But is there anything very new here, and does the EU have the powers to lead a strong counter-terrorism strategy?
And where, if anywhere do civil liberties and democratic accountability fit - a more than topical question given the angry European reactions to reports of CIA rendition flights using EU airports.
European efforts at co-operation on justice, police and security issues have been ad hoc and spasmodic over the years. But international terrorism requires an international response.
The goal of the EU's new counter-terrorism strategy is "to combat terrorism globally while respecting human rights and make Europe safer".
It will, according to Brussels, "prevent, protect, pursue and respond".
Sharing secrets
But beneath the headline goals, lies a confusing jumble of agencies, directives and co-operation efforts.
Much of this plethora of initiatives is not new, but the al-Qaeda attacks have speeded up agreement and action in some areas.
Plans for a 'principle of availability' of information - to share police information across countries - may take until 2008 to come into force
Europol and Eurojust, which respectively coordinate police and judicial co-operation, are two of the longest-standing EU agencies in this area.
New additions this year are Sitcen (the EU's love of acronyms continues unabated), based in Brussels which brings together input from all 25 member states security and intelligence agencies to prepare joint analyses on terrorist threats, and Frontex, the new European borders agency based in Warsaw.
Sharing of information and intelligence lies at the heart of EU counter-terrorism, and is vital for such agencies to work effectively. But it is a highly sensitive area. And so genuinely secret information is mostly shared on a bilateral basis.
But some less sensitive information is already shared - the Schengen border-free zone has an information system with data on people wanted for arrest or refused admission to the EU, and plans are afoot to strengthen this and to link it to a separate EU visa information system.
Biometric passports are being introduced in the EU from this year. And there are already a number of financial directives to control money laundering within and beyond the EU.
The European arrest warrant came into force this year too, reducing average extradition times from nine months to 43 days.
EU ministers and officials are also negotiating over a European evidence warrant - so that data and documents can be exchanged - but agreement may take another year or two.
Meanwhile, plans for a much wider "principle of availability" of information - to share police information across countries - may take until 2008 to come into force. Moving swiftly is not always what the EU does best.
Human rights?
Ministers also agreed at the start of December, a controversial new directive - approved on 14 December by the European Parliament - on retention of phone and internet records of the entire European population for periods of six months to two years, with access granted to investigate "serious criminal offences".
Civil liberties groups have expressed profound concern at such extensive surveillance, questioning whether its effectiveness justifies its severity.
There is a glaring deficit in the EU's domestic human rights policy
**** Oosting, Amnesty International
Few would disagree with stricter EU controls on storage and transport of explosives, or sharing best practice on protecting power stations or railway networks, but when it comes to extensive monitoring of bank accounts, phone calls, and internet connections, the twin issues of democratic accountability and human rights will not go away.
Complex EU institutional structures do not help here: while the European Commission has some rights to initiate counter-terrorism proposals, much of the power and control lies in the council of ministers - that is, in the EU's intergovernmental arm - with reports going to the European Council of heads of government, which meets behind closed doors.
Such procedures do not contribute to easy or effective scrutiny either by the European Parliament or by national parliaments.
The EU does make repeated reference to human rights in its counter-terrorism strategy. And it is establishing a new Fundamental Rights Agency from the start of 2007 - by extending its existing EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. But human rights bodies doubt if this is enough.
Radicalisation
**** Oosting who heads Amnesty International's EU office believes there is a "glaring deficit in the EU's domestic human rights policy".
He considers that if the EU's Fundamental Rights Agency only monitors EU laws not national laws, then it will be a "minimalist conception of the agency¿that does not offend political sensibilities".
The role of the EU will remain secondary to that of member states
EU counter-terrorism co-ordinator, Gijs de Vries
He stresses that since the EU's approach to a European area of freedom, security and justice "is built upon mutual trust between member states in each other's justice systems" then those justice systems need monitoring at EU level - not something that national governments are in a rush to agree to.
The EU's new strategy to "combat radicalisation and recruitment to terrorism" also raises questions about freedom of speech.
However, this is a strategy stronger on rhetoric than action: the EU claims that the "core of the issue is propaganda which distorts conflicts around the world as a supposed proof of a clash between the West and Islam".
But since, in fact, most of the powers to define and tackle incitement to terrorism, or to take stronger steps to tackle xenophobia or Islamophobia, remain at member state level, the EU can do little more than exhort here.
And this, at the end of the day, is perhaps one of the most important points to remember about the EU efforts against terrorism. As the EU's own counter-terrorism co-ordinator, Gijs de Vries, admitted recently: "The role of the EU will remain secondary to that of member states. The EU is not a federal state; the main instruments in the fights against terrorism, including police forces, judicial authorities and security agencies, will remain under the control of national authorities". Kirsty Hughes is a former senior fellow of the Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4529174.stm
Published: 2005/12/14 16:57:21 GMT
© BBC MMV