Aid diversion to terror fight ‘illegal’

By David Cronin

Date: 09/06/05

Lawyers in the European Parliament have advised that the assembly has grounds to challenge the diversion of aid earmarked for fighting poverty to anti-terrorism projects.

The focus of some MEPs' ire is how representatives of EU governments agreed in November last year to grant

€5 million to a scheme in the Philippines designed to help its authorities comply with a United Nations Security Council resolution approved after the 11 September 2001 terror attacks.

The money comes from the rules covering the EU's development aid activities in Asia and Latin America, the 'ALA regulation'. The European Commission approved releasing the funds in December, following the go-ahead from the ALA management committee, which comprises representatives of

EU member states. Luisa Morgantini, the chairwoman of the Parliament's committee on development, recently requested an opinion from the assembly's legal service on the matter. She pointed out that there is no reference to anti-terrorist activities in the clause of the regulation under which the project has been funded.

In a formal opinion released on 20 May, the lawyers say it is "beyond doubt" that anti-terrorism measures are not covered by the relevant clause. "A project which has as its overall objective the fight against terrorism and international crime cannot be considered to fall within the scope of the ALA regulation," it adds.

The lawyers also argue that the Commission has sought to modify the regulation without following the correct legal procedures, in particular without consulting MEPs. As a result, it says that it is "possible" for the Parliament to seek an annulment of the decision in the European Court of Justice. MEPs sitting on Parliaments's legal affairs committee are discussing whether they should mount such a challenge.

Irishman Gay Mitchell is one of several MEPs to have raised the issue with the Commission. He feels that the Philippines project could set a precedent for money, which ought to be going to health and education in poor countries, instead going to schemes where security or migration issues dominate.

Mitchell has prepared a report on a blueprint, put forward by the Commission last year, for merging 16 of the EU's external assistance programmes. He is worried that the initiative could see the fight against poverty losing out to other concerns. "It is not acceptable to call expenditure on security, immigration and asylum 'development aid'," he says.

However, the commissioner for development and humanitarian affairs takes a different tack. Louis Michel recently refuted a claim by Mitchell that the Commission wishes to "hijack development funds for security goals".

He said that the Commission's planning for the use of ALA funds has been transparent and that details of it have been published on the EU executive's website. The aim of the €5m initiative, he added, is to help the Philippines sharpen its tools in fighting terrorism and other crime by strengthening its borders.

The UK, which will hold the EU presidency from July to December, was originally against the proposed diversion of funds when discussed at the ALA management committee. But it changed its approach, citing a shortage of funding available from the section in the EU budget devoted to foreign and security policy.

Some non-governmental organisations want the UK to revert to its previous stance. They feel that it would be an inopportune time to weaken the 'poverty focus' of EU development aid when some progress has been made to re-establish it. For example, the proportion of EU-administered aid going to low-income countries rose from 51% to 56% in 2002-03. Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, has promised to push the agenda of the celebrity-led Make Poverty History campaign during his chairmanship of both the EU and the Group of Eight (G8) leading world economies.

Florent Sebban from Eurostep, an umbrella group for aid charities, argues that those who urged a more caring Europe during the French and Dutch referenda on the EU constitution should be heeded. He is exhorting the EU institutions to define a clear instrument for eradicating the most extreme forms of poverty in the world as part of their spending plans for 2007-13.

Mirjam van Reisen from Europe External Policy Advisors warns against diverting development aid to security measures when the resources needed to combat abject poverty are inadequate. "Without a clear instrument for development cooperation, development cooperation is dead," she says.

Article reports on the diversion of EU development aid to anti-terrorism security measures, challenged by lawyers in the European Parliament. EU governments had agreed in November 2004 to grant €5 million to a scheme in the Philippines designed to help its authorities comply with a United Nations Security Council resolution approved after the 11 September 2001 terror attacks. The money came from the rules covering the EU's development aid activities in Asia and Latin America, the 'ALA regulation'.