How to stop the EU’s rush-hour killers

By Mirjam Dittrich and Antonio Missiroli

Date: 14/07/05

The four explosions that hit London last week, killing more than 50 people and injuring 700, have once again demonstrated Europe's vulnerability. They have also confirmed that Europe is not just an operational base and hiding place for terrorists, but also a target.

What is most striking is that the attack, although to some extent predictable, could not have been prevented. A small group of terrorists managed, despite a heightened state of alert, to thwart one of the world's best counter-terrorism services, one that had already successfully stopped similar attacks in the recent past. They combined the co-ordinated action of America's 9/11 with the focus on innocent rush-hour metropolitan commuters of Madrid's 3/11. The first European suicide bombers were British citizens and killed, among others, many fellow Muslims. They apparently belonged to the galaxy of terrorist groups loosely inspired and trained by the al-Qaeda 'franchise'.

In response to the attack, security measures have been upgraded across the UK and in other European cities. Yet not much can be done on a permanent basis to secure citizens' daily lives in open and liberal societies. And it is simply not possible for a single country acting alone to deal effectively with such terrorist threats. Europeans must act together. Improved co-operation and mutual trust in the areas of law enforcement, intelligence sharing and judicial co-operation are not only desirable but necessary. London's 7/7 bombs should boost practical implementation of the 150 measures outlined in the EU counter-terrorism action plan as well as other anti-terrorism provisions.

At the extraordinary interior ministers' meeting on 13 July, the UK's EU presidency urged adoption of a far-reaching proposal for Union-wide data retention with only limited safeguards. This would require telecom companies and internet providers to store details of phone and web communications for at least a year. Another key issue was the uneven co-operation among security services.

Asymmetries of resources and access to privileged information, or turf battles and rivalries over status between different agencies, can hamper the common fight against terrorism. Co-operation can be improved by applying the 'availability principle' (i.e. that "all member states should, as and when necessary, have access to all information held by other member states") as proposed in The Hague Programme.

There should also be greater support among member states' security services for Europol, Eurojust and the EU Situations Centre.

The EU's reaction should not, however, be limited to additional security measures. The issue of radicalisation, especially in some of the larger EU countries, needs also to be addressed. Radical ideologies are finding fertile ground among disenfranchised Muslim youngsters across the continent. To counter this, stricter rules could prevent Imams from preaching hatred and language training for foreign clerics could be made mandatory. Moderate religious leaders across the EU should also speak out firmly against terrorism and set Islam clearly apart from extremist groups. The Muslim Council of Britain's prompt reaction to the 7/7 bombings serves as an excellent example, although the thousands of hate-mails it received afterwards cannot be discounted. And, of course, much more should be done to foster the better integration of Islamic communities into secular European societies, including greater Muslim representation in governments, parliaments and other elected bodies.

Another consequence of the attack on London is likely to be strengthened European solidarity, in the spirit of the special clause inserted into Article 43 of the unloved EU constitution. It would be significant if Tony Blair, in his dual capacity as prime minister of the country which was attacked and current president of the Union, promoted a common EU endorsement of the United Nations high-level panel's definition of a terrorist act as "any action...that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act".

Not only would this perfectly fit what happened in London last week. It would also combine the moral credibility of the victims and the political credibility of the EU25, making it more difficult for any country in the world to reject this at the 60th UN General Assembly in September.

• Mirjam Dittrich is policy analyst and Antonio Missiroli chief policy analyst at the European Policy Centre in Brussels. They write here in a personal capacity.

Major commentary feature in which the authors analyze the vulnerability of European cities to terrorist attacks and make suggestions how the EU should proceed in the fight against terrorism.