Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-23-Speech-3-123"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021023.3.3-123"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, when I was asked to make a statement on this topic, we did not know how tragically topical it would become. We are discussing this subject today in the shadow of the horrific terrorist attack in Bali on 12 October, in which more than 200 people lost their lives. It was a completely incomprehensible catastrophe, and has also underlined the fact that the terrorist threat must still be taken very seriously. We must not deceive ourselves – the fight against terrorism will be a very long and arduous task.
We have thus stemmed the flow of money financing acts of terror, the lifeline without which international terrorism cannot survive.
In addition, a number of important initiatives have been taken with regard to aviation safety.
All things considered, we have reason to be pleased and proud about our handling of the fight against terrorism. It has become harder to exist as a terrorist and perpetrate acts of terror in Member States and has made it safer and more secure for our citizens. Can we rule out the possibility of future terrorist attacks? No, we cannot, but for this very reason we must continue the fight with renewed energy. This means not only continuing to round up terrorists, wherever they may be, but also providing targeted assistance in the quest to remove the underlying causes adding fuel to the terrorists’ fire.
Have we put legal certainty for our citizens on the line? For us, the politicians, it is a fundamentally political dilemma: is it acceptable to restrict our freedom in order to protect ourselves against terrorism? Are our efforts to protect our freedom and safety resulting in the creation of a Big Brother society? Where do we draw the line? I believe that the famous liberal philosopher Karl Popper gave us some guidance when he said: ‘If we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.’ This is also the line I sense in Parliament’s motion for a resolution, which emphasises that it is necessary to be firm when it comes to preventing terrorists reaping gains from their atrocities. The Presidency is fully in agreement with the emphasis which the motion for a resolution places on the principle that there must be no rewards for terror.
I believe that we have struck the right balance. At the same time, the Presidency does not deem it necessary for there to be any further substantial anti-terrorism initiatives within the EU at the present time.
The Danish Presidency has made the fight against terrorism a top priority. The handling of the fight against terrorism has been mainly oriented towards the EU’s external role. At the same time, of course, we want to continue to work on the implementation of internal measures.
It is the objective of the Danish Presidency to achieve progress in integrating the fight against terrorism into all aspects of the EU’s foreign policy. On top of strengthening the EU’s international role by increasing the emphasis EU foreign policy places on combating terrorism and by means of a systematic evaluation of the contribution of third countries to the fight against terrorism, it is our ambition for the EU to become a standard-bearer in the UN and other international fora. Maintaining the international anti-terrorism coalition and cooperation with the USA are essential aspects. Other aspects are the conclusion of a general convention against terrorism and the universal implementation of the 12 existing international conventions on combating specific acts of terror.
The Council Conclusions of 22 July 2002 on the EU’s external action against terrorism opened a new chapter in the fight against terrorism. In its future agreements with third countries, the EU will take more account of the contribution of these countries to the fight against terrorism and conduct a more targeted and if necessary tougher political dialogue with third countries. It was also decided to identify specific measures with a view to helping third countries to fulfil their obligations under Security Council Resolution 1373 and to concentrate on a smaller number of countries with a view to initiating a pilot project in cooperation with the UN’s Counter-Terrorism Committee. This will mainly be aimed at countries which have the political will but not the ability to observe UN resolutions. In the latter areas, in particular, it is hoped that concrete results will have been attained by the end of the Danish Presidency in the form of the launch of one or two pilot projects.
An accurate and comprehensive assessment of the threat is, however, a prerequisite for being able to re-evaluate the substance of contractual relations with third countries from the point of view of entering into agreements, for being able to tighten up the political dialogue if necessary and for being able to assess the possible need for aid to third countries. It has therefore also been a high priority of the Presidency’s to prepare the necessary analysis of individual countries and regions. The work is making good progress, and we anticipate that the necessary analytical bases will soon be in place.
We must send the message to our discussion partners in third countries that the way in which they handle the fight against terror will have a considerable influence on their relations with the EU. I am pleased, therefore, that this idea is expressed in the motion for a resolution.
The last time I had the honour to speak to Parliament about terrorism was on 11 September this year, when together we remembered the anniversary of the terrorist attack on the USA. At that time, I emphasised that the USA had been targeted for attack because of its power, because of its insistence on Western-style democracy and on freedom and tolerance; but it could just as easily have been us who were hit. The terrorist attack in Bali, coming as it did out of the blue, has shown that no one is immune. The terrorists have distorted the many advantages of globalisation for the purposes of their inhuman and ruthless game. The fight against terrorism is a global one, in which close cooperation between the EU and the USA is an essential prerequisite for success.
The EU can certainly be proud of its efforts in the wake of the 11 September terrorist attack. We have put our own house in order in conformity with the UN resolutions, and we have done this in such a way that legal certainty for our citizens has been respected.
Now it is important to turn our gaze outwards and play the international role which is expected of us. We have to maintain the anti-terrorism coalition and intensive cooperation with our closest partners, the USA in particular: in this way we have hope of success. I therefore hope for the continuing support of Parliament for the line taken here and I would thank the two Commissioners for their cooperation in this field.
We have thus far been able to satisfy ourselves that, if it was the terrorists’ intention to break up Western democracies, they have achieved the exact opposite. We must let this thought guide us all in future. For this reason, too, the EU’s external role is a very important element in the fight against terrorism.
What, therefore, has the EU been doing since 11 September 2001, and how effective has it been?
The EU’s political reaction to last year’s catastrophe was very rapid and dynamic. First came a firm declaration from EU Heads of State and Government making it clear that the EU would do everything possible to ensure that those responsible were held to account and punished. The EU also stressed that the US Government and people could count on the full solidarity and cooperation of the EU in the continuing fight against terrorism. We shall not be moved on this. The EU did not stop at words. On 21 September, the Heads of State and Government adopted the plan of action which has become the backbone of the EU’s efforts. The list of results makes impressive reading.
One of the key points on this list was the strengthening of police and judicial cooperation. Particular examples are the introduction of a European arrest warrant, the establishment of a common definition of acts of terror, and joint investigation teams. These are areas in which the EU has taken a quantum leap forward by swiftly adopting the necessary legal acts.
In addition, agreement has been reached on a decision on the freezing of assets and evidence. This will establish rules on the way in which the Member States recognise and execute in their territories freezing orders issued by a judicial authority in another Member State. It will also make things harder for terrorists in the Member States. In addition, negotiations have been initiated with the USA on a cooperation agreement on extradition and mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, and it is expected that an agreement between Europol and the USA on the exchange of personal data will be finalised by the end of the year. All things considered, it can be said that the EU has delivered all that could be expected of it – and more.
Another main point is putting an effective stop to the financing of terrorism. The necessary legal acts for the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1373 were adopted as early as December 2001."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples