FIGHTING TERRORISM: THE EU NEEDS A STRATEGY NOT A SHOPPING LIST By Hugo Brady and Daniel Keohane The fight against international terrorism is a key priority of Britain’s EU presidency. Following the July London bombings, the British government is understandably keen to speed up European countert e rrorism eff o rts. The centrepiece of EU policy in this area is the counter-terrorism ‘action plan’, which EU governments first put together after the September 2001 attacks in the US. The action plan looks impressive on paper. EU countries have agreed on over 150 measures in areas such as police and judicial co-operation; anti-money laundering and asset-freeze legislation; transport and b o rder security arrangements; and programmes to help protect energy, food and water supplies in the event of an attack. More o v e r, EU anti-terror eff o rts go beyond enhancing internal security: the Union is also planning to re i n f o rce its co-operation with the US, the United Nations and other important i n t e rnational partners. The EU’s broad approach is laudable because effective counter- t e rrorism policies need to go much further than law enforcement and external defence. Finance ministers need to clamp down on terrorist funding; health authorities need to stockpile vaccines; and transport ministries need to be ready to protect vital infrastructure. However, EU countries already struggle to co-ordinate all the ministries and agencies involved in their national counter-terrorism eff o rts. Trying to streamline the collective eff o rts of 25 countries at the EU level is exponentially more difficult. Despite these difficulties, the EU can boast some concrete results from its counter-terrorism action plan. The European arrest warrant, for example, allows EU governments to speed up cross-border investigations. According to the European Commission, the new warrant has reduced the time it takes to extradite suspects from an average of nine months to 43 days. In September, a judge in Rome used the EU arrest warrant to extradite Hussain Osman, a suspect in the attempted London bombings on July 21st , to the UK. The EU has also agreed on new measures against terrorist financing. New money laundering laws allow EU governments to check any cro s s - b o rder transfers that exceed S15,000 – a significantly lower threshold than in most other countries. On intelligence sharing the EU has also made some pro g ress. Its Brussels-based ‘situation centre’ (SitCen) provides valuable EU-wide threat assessments to the national governments. These assessments are unique as they combine internal and extern a l intelligence analyses from the member-states. However, pro g ress has been slow in most areas covered by the EU’s action plan. The rules for taking the n e c e s s a ry decisions are complex and cumbersome. But more importantly, EU governments often lack the
Centre for European Reform 29 Tufton Street London SW1P 3QL UK
T: 00 44 20 7233 1199 F: 00 44 20 7233 1117 info@cer.org.uk / www.cer.org.uk