Leading the fight against the causes of terror

Date: 03/04/03

By David Cronin

Non-military tactics such as judicial cooperation are vital, says EU High Representative Javier Solana

YOU have lamented that the US talks about the 'war against terrorism', whereas the EU talks about the 'fight against terrorism'. Could you explain what the main differences are between the two approaches?

I have noted the difference in terminology. It is a difference that is important and revealing. I, like many Europeans, would hesitate before describing this as a "war", and not because I doubt for one second the seriousness of the threat posed by terrorism - I have attended too many funerals of victims of terrorism for that to be the case.

But for me the word "war" suggests that the means will be military and the outcome clear. In preferring to talk about a "fight" against terror I hope we better convey the fact that our most successful instruments are likely to be non-military ones - police, intelligence and judicial cooperation - and that we must address the causes of terror as energetically as we address its manifestations.

One of the key measures currently under discussion is a possible EU-US agreement on extraditing terrorist suspects. Do you think Greece will realize its ambition of having this accord signed before its stint as holder of the EU's presidency ends? What are your views about the obstacles to concluding the deal - eg the concerns expressed about possible cases where a suspect is sought both by the US and an EU member state?

The proposed agreements on Mutual Legal Assistance and Extradition are important initiatives not only in the fight against terrorism, but also against organized crime, money-laundering, and so on. This is an EU initiative and there will be gains for us. The potential benefits should not be underestimated. Also, they represent a new departure for the Union.

I know that Greece attaches great importance to concluding the negotiations before the end of its presidency and I fully support them. I hope we will see agreement at the meeting of Justice and Home Affairs ministers in May. As in all negotiations, it is clear that some issues need to be clarified further, to ensure that the Union is content with the result.

The point you mention is one that we raised with the US right at the beginning of the negotiations. The presidency has been making every effort to find an acceptable and workable solution. It is in all our interests - we must not lose sight of the fact that these agreements will mark a new level of cooperation with the United States, one sought by the EU and which will bring added value over the current bilateral arrangements.

Civil liberties campaigners have criticised the general thrust of certain measures introduced by the Union after the 11 September 2001 atrocities. They have, for example, argued that details exchanged under the recent transatlantic deal on airline passengers won't be subject to adequate data protection rules. What is your response to these criticisms?

I am very much aware of the concerns of those who have voiced criticisms of certain measures. Immediately after 11 September 2001, the European Council made it very clear that measures taken in the fight against terrorism had to be reconciled with respect for the fundamental freedoms. These freedoms are explicitly cited in the Treaty on European Union.

The case you mention, Passenger Name Records (PNR), is a good example of where the Union, which shares the same objective as the United States, has sought to ensure that the application of the measure respects EU legislation on data protection.

Since last year, we have made known our views to the United States about the potential conflict between US rules and EU legislation. The Commission has agreed an interim arrangement with the US authorities, but our goal remains to arrive as quickly as possible at a permanent agreement, which takes account of all our concerns. We have to be sure that our citizens can have confidence that their rights are protected in the same manner as they would be in the EU.

George Robertson, your successor as NATO secretary-general, has suggested EU states should spend at least 2 of their GDP on defence, so they can be better equipped to deal with the terrorist threat. But would it not be more sensible to use such money on fighting the grievances widely considered as causes of terrorism - especially global poverty?

European leaders realise that we must make efforts in both directions - better counter-terrorism capabilities and more attention to the root causes of terrorism. Europe is often criticised for not spending more on defence. Some of that criticism is justified. Our military capabilities need to be upgraded and be made more inter-operable.

The targets that we set ourselves in Helsinki in 1999 are part of encouraging that process. But there are other ways of improving global and regional security. We must learn to think of security as a multi-dimensional concept.

The fact is that there is no standard "unit of account" as far as security is concerned in the modern world. How much additional security does an aircraft carrier bring? Is it more or less than spending the equivalent amount of money on poverty reduction, peacekeeping, or the reconstruction of failed states?

Europe could spend massively more on defence at the expense of these other priorities, but I am not sure that Europeans would be more secure as a result.

Your own country, Spain, has suffered from ETA terrorism. How has this affected you personally?

I have lost very dear friends, people close to me and my family. During some parts of my ministerial career in Spain it seemed that barely a month would go by between funerals that I attended for the victims of terrorism.

Interview with EU High Representative Javier Solana.