europe-voice

The voice of Europe

By FT.com Stuff in London
Published: September 19 2001 19:35 | Last Updated: September 19 2001 19:46

Europe has displayed an impressive discipline in its response to the terrorist assault against the US. After an outpouring of sympathy came a powerful expression of collective resolve when Nato invoked article 5 stating that an attack on one member was an attack against the alliance.

Now comes the hard part. The intense diplomacy across the Atlantic this week underlines concern in European capitals about how the Bush administration intends to manage the next phase of the crisis. A military response is inevitable. But the timing, the targets - and above all the objectives - in the new war on terrorism remain unclear.

Tony Blair, who follows Jacques Chirac to Washington, will naturally want to influence the administration's deliberations. Britain, France and the rest of the European Union want to know what the international coalition against terrorism is ultimately for. Is it a broad alliance with the narrow objective of punishing the perpetrators, or does President George W. Bush favour a narrow US-led coalition with the broad objective of a war against terrorism around the globe?

Mr Bush's Wyatt Earp rhetoric gives the impression of a trigger-happy president. But his pledge to bring Osama bin Laden, the fugitive Saudi terrorist, to justice "dead or alive" is more geared to an American audience bent on revenge. In practice, the White House seems more circumspect. As Mr Bush told Congressional leaders: there is not much point in dispatching $2m missiles to destroy an empty $10 tent.

Europe's leaders should reinforce the case for proceeding carefully - but not to the point of ruling out any action that could risk civilian casualties. The issue should not be whether the retaliation should be proportionate, but whether it is precise if it comes to commando strikes against Mr bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.

This will be the first phase of the war on terrorism. The second will be a wider onslaught on the regimes which support terrorism as well as their financial networks. This will have far-reaching repercussions since it could include countries such as Libya, Iran and Iraq. Europe will want to have a say in this second phase; but EU leaders must realise that their influence will depend on their commitment to the first military phase of the war.

The international coalition will come under increasing strain in coming weeks. But if European countries break rank, they cannot expect a fair hearing in Washington. Equally Mr Bush should take note of the efforts which EU governments are taking this week to strengthen counter-terrorism. For this is the arena where ultimately the war can be won.

EU steps up co-operation on terrorism

By Peter Norman in Brussels
Published: September 20 2001 19:49 | Last Updated: September 21 2001 12:57

The European Union on Thursday stepped up its fight against international terrorism with an ambitious programme for greater co-operation with the US and more effective action in its 15 member states.

Responding to last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, justice and interior ministers approved about 30 measures to increase co-operation between police and intelligence services, toughen action against money laundering, tighten border controls and create a bigger role for Europol, the EU's fledgling joint police body.

"We are determined to take the necessary immediate steps to make sure European citizens are provided with the highest level of security so that we can thwart attacks and effectively combat terrorism," Antoine Duquesne, the Belgian interior minister and co-chair of the meeting, declared afterwards.

David Blunkett, the British home secretary, was especially forceful. "We must do all we can to ensure that the full might of all our law enforcement organisations is brought to bear. We must act decisively and rapidly when faced with a common threat," he said.

The ministers, meeting in special session, underscored the need for speed. Symbolising a new sense of urgency in the EU's approach to justice and home affairs, they vowed to secure agreement by December on two important Commission proposals announced this week.

The Commission's plans for a common EU definition of terrorist acts with appropriate penalties and a European arrest warrant for serious crimes in place of cumbersome extradition procedures were welcomed.

While co-operation with the US was a focus of yesterday's meeting, Mr Duquesne said the EU would also boost its counter terrorist activities with the candidates and other third countries.

Security issues were discussed with senior Bush administration officials on Thursday by a delegation led by Louis Michel, the Belgian foreign minister, and Javier Solana, the EU's high representative for foreign affairs.

One senior European official said that it was clear that the US intended to pursue the terrorists on a broad front. "This is not an administration that is thinking just about launching a few cruise missiles," he said.

Chris Patten, the EU commissioner, also present at the talks, said that "we have to show over the next six months that we are able to deliver on our promises."

Stage set for EU leaders to show solidarity
By Peter Norman in Brussels
Published: September 21 2001 12:38 | Last Updated: September 21 2001 12:58

European Union leaders prepared to meet in Brussels on Friday evening for a special summit that will demonstrate their solidarity with the US and push forward co-operation in the fields of transport, justice and security fields.
The first objective of Friday evening's gathering will give the 15 leaders, as a group, the chance to rally behind messages of support delivered personally to President George W. Bush by leaders such as France's president Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair, the UK prime minister.
The second, far trickier, exercise will be to keep up the momentum behind decisions taken by EU ministerial councils since the outrages of September 11.
Unity does not come easily to the EU's 15 member states. But the 10 days since the terrorist attacks have seen EU member states breaking new ground in foreign policy and casting aside long-held taboos in justice and home affairs.
The problem, however, is that while the political will to act is strong, the instruments at hand are often weak, reflecting the asymmetrical nature of the EU's development since its creation.
The EU is a collection of states that have voluntarily ceded sovereignty in degrees that vary significantly in different policy areas. Integration is furthest advanced in the single market, reflecting the EU's origins as a common market. But, apart from rules against money laundering, the single market is not at the centre of the battle against terrorism.
The EU's dilemma was highlighted this week by Chris Patten, the external affairs commissioner, and Antonio Vitorino, his colleague responsible for justice and home affairs.
"The Union's capacity for being an effective international partner is a direct reflection of how far it has reached in its efforts to organise itself internally," they said in a paper to prepare yesterday's EU-US meeting in Washington. "We need to beware of exciting unrealistic expectations in our dialogue with the US, and we must accept that in certain areas the EU is not in aposition to make an effective collective contribution in the short term."
Although the EU proclaims a common foreign and security policy, and in Javier Solana, has an energetic and effective "high representative", the flow of EU leaders travelling to Washington this week shows how member states dominate this area of activity.
The really big foreign policy initiative involving European countries came last week at Nato, rather than the EU, when the alliance's members agreed to regard the assault on the US as an attack on all members, provided it is proved the attack was directed from abroad.
Although the EU committed itself at its Tampere summit two years ago to a common "area of freedom, security and justice", integration in home affairs is hobbled by a need for unanimity in decision-making.
For that reason, the 30 or so measures, announced on Thursday, to strengthen police and intelligence co-operation within Europe and with the US mark a dramatic change of tempo for justice and home affairs ministers.
The ministers' sudden turn of speed would have been impossible without action initiated in Tampere. The Commission's important proposals for a common EU definition of terrorist acts and a European arrest warrant for serious crimes were unveiled this week only because they had been under discussion for a year.
Friday's summit will put pressure on the justice and home affairs ministers to fulfil their commitments despite worries about civil liberties and constitutional concerns. Antoine Duquesne, the Belgian interior minister who co-chaired Thursday's meeting, gave a hint of possible difficulties in implementing the measures when he said: "All of us will be asking our services to think the unthinkable because the unthinkable has already happened."
There was no progress this week on plans to extend the scope of an EU directive against money laundering to cover the proceeds of serious crimes including terrorism because of a dispute between the member states and the European parliament over how far lawyers should be brought into its net.
The challenge for EU leaders is to foster a climate in which such attitudes can change but without upsetting the balance of institutions that have grown up and been secured by solemn treaties over four decades

Europe is reluctant to enter a major conflict

European support for US-led retaliation to last week's attacks on New York and Washington has shown signs of faltering as leaders strike a range of nuanced positions, some at odds with Washington's.

Although EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana called for a "grand international coalition to fight against this plague of terrorism", leading politicians in France, Germany and Italy expressed reservations about the US response - though German leaders are themselves divided.

Nato countries last week invoked article five of the alliance's constitution, declaring that Tuesday's attack was an attack on them all. But some countries have emphasised their freedom to act as individual nations within the terms of that commitment.

Conscripts' concerns

"The term war is inappropriate," said Italian Defence Minister Antonio Martino, echoing views expressed across Italy's spectrum.

We must use armed reaction in a way that doesn't provoke other elements of instability French Defence Minister Alain Richard Mr Martino initially ruled out involving Italian troops in any conflict but later qualified his comments, saying special forces might participated in a Nato response.

The BBC's David Willey in Rome says Mr Martino is keen to dispel the fears of anxious parents, concerned that conscripts might go to war.

Germany's President, Johannes Rau, also doubted that his country's troops would take part in any armed response, suggesting they would play a role in providing logistical support to Nato's response.

However, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder rejected this view: "I cannot and do not want to rule out [military participation]" he said. His Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, said some retaliation was necessary.

"Not to react would be an invitation to continue [with terrorism]," he said. But he warned against a "disproportionate response". German troops have been put on a heightened state of alert and the defence minister has said he is examining all possibilities for provision of support to the United States.

Spanish support

The French Defence Minister, Alain Richard, also urged caution. "Armed action is only one component," he said. "We must use it in a way that doesn't provoke other elements of instability".

Spain will act without any reservations and as an active member of Nato because we have suffered from terrorism more than anybody Spanish Defence Minister Federico Trillo

Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine meanwhile asserted that "every ally remains free" within Nato's commitment to assist the US. President Jacques Chirac flies to Washington on Tuesday, where the British Government believes he will solidly back military action. Russian defence officials have also qualified their initial signs of solidarity with the US regarding military action.

The defence minister ruled out launching attacks on Afghanistan from bordering former Soviet republics and the chief of staff said Russia would not participate militarily. Spain, led like the US by a right-wing administration, has given one of the strongest signals of support. "Spain will act without any reservations and as an active member of Nato because we have suffered from terrorism more than anybody," said Defence Minister Federico Trillo and offered the US use of its bases.

Source: BBC

Solidarity with US diluted by unease

By Judy Dempsey, FT Diplomatic Correspondent in Brussels
Published: September 23 2001 18:15 | Last Updated: September 24 2001 03:13

When President George W. Bush last week addressed a joint session of Congress, he spelt out in no uncertain terms what he expected from the rest of the world.

"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make," he said. "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbour or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Many countries have since rushed to support an administration intent on launching an unprecedented mission against terrorism. But support is not so clear-cut. Some are concerned the US will use this campaign to bypass the United Nations and impose a new world order. Others fear domestic instability if they give unconditional support.

At the forefront in solidarity with the US is the European Union. At an extraordinary summit of its leaders last Friday, EU leaders said any US response to the bombings was legitimate. They would co-operate on every level, they said. They also pushed through a package of anti-terrorism measures, including a European arrest warrant.

Some European governments, including candidate states, have also offered the US use of their air space and intelligence and several have suggested they would offer troops if asked. Outside Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have made similar offers. China, too, has promised to share intelligence.

Despite domestic opposition, Pakistan agreed to help the US track down Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect behind the bombings. But there are countries that want nothing to do with this global coalition, including North Korea and Iraq, often referred to as "rogue states" by Washington.

However, between states fully on board and those outside the coalition is a grey world of countries, which have condemned terrorism but remain uneasy about supporting the US.

Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia's prime minister, said Mr Bush's war on terrorism overlooked the "anger among oppressed peoples" such as Palestinians, Chechens and Iraqis. Iran has indicated it wants to remain neutral - and will therefore not offer air space to US war planes. It also fears that US strikes on Afghanistan will provoke a mass exodus of refugees in addition to the 1.5m already in Iran.

The Central Asian republics of Uzebekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are also in an awkward position. Not only do their borders flank Afghanistan, they share an ethnic and religious identity with tribes in northern Afghanistan.

Any bombing of that country could unleash a backlash among Islamic populations there.

Russia, too, is in a grey zone but an exclusive one. It is in a powerful position to makes demands on the US in return for substantial support. Some diplomats say Mr Putin could have a long shopping list for Mr Bush, ranging from concerns about Washington's missile defence system, blocking Nato from expanding to the Baltic states and compensating Russia if it stopped exporting arms to Iran.

But it is the Arab world that remains the most ambiguous towards Mr Bush's war on terrorists - partly because the US is so closely identified with Israel.

Saudi Arabia downgraded its relations with the Taliban some time ago and the United Arab Emirates on Sunday severed its ties.

Elsewhere, Arab leaders support anti-terrorist measures but several states would prefer any coalition to be under the aegis of the UN. Moreover, Muslim groups fear their governments will use anti-terrorist measures as an excuse to crack down further on the Islamic opposition without addressing the conditions that often fuels radicalism.

COMMENT & ANALYSIS:
Europe discovers a single voice: The rhetoric is easily mocked but Britain, France and Germany are staking a claim in the new international landscape
PHILIP STEPHENS
Financial Times; Oct 5, 2001
By PHILIP STEPHENS

Everything has changed. Nothing has changed. We stand on the edge of a new internationalism. Dream on. Realpolitik rules. As soon as Osama bin Laden and his Taliban friends have been dispatched we shall go back to the grubby politics of might is right. Take your pick. Grand coalitions of the good or competing national interests. The moral impulse or Machiavelli.

September 11 overturned the strategic chessboard. Still unclear is where the pieces will sit when they are all back on the board. A massive military assault on terrorist and Taliban forces in Afghanistan is now inevitable. The geopolitical consequences await the clearing of the cordite.

This week Britain's Tony Blair put the case for a profound shift in the way the world is governed. His theme was that the terrorist attack on America had thrown into tragic relief the big strategic reality of the coming century. The challenges - economic and social, financial and environmental as well as those of security and terrorism - demand international solutions. Frontiers are porous. The rich cannot escape the plight of the poor. Even the strongest, as we now see in the rubble of what was once New York's World Trade Center, are vulnerable. Self-interest and mutual interests cannot be disentangled.

Behind this, though unspoken for obvious reasons of diplomacy, is Mr Blair's calculation that the US will not quickly recover from the massive blow to its self-confidence. For the first time in living memory (Pearl Harbor was many thousands of miles away for most Americans) it has felt the consequences of war on its own territory. Isolationism and unilateralism now seem less than compelling alternatives to co-operation. If others have something to say, here is a moment when Washington is willing to listen.

Lofty idealism, of course, invites parody. Mr Blair's rhetorical tour of the world's trouble spots and injustices has been mocked by those steeped in the doctrine of raison d'etat. The critics miss the point. The prime minister has seen an opportunity. Like the rest of us, he cannot predict the endgame. But the chess pieces will not rearrange themselves. Mr Blair has made himself a player.

So, almost unnoticed, has Europe. Gerhard Schroder's decision to join Mr Blair at Labour's Brighton conference attracted scant attention. But the German chancellor's presence carried a message that should not be missed. It said something important not only about the warm personal relationship between these two leaders but also about an emerging coherence in the European Union's approach to foreign and security policy.

Mr Blair was always going to use his speech to emphasise the strength of Britain's relationship with the US. This prime minister has been as assiduous as any of his predecessors in courting influence in Washington. What was interesting was the way in which he linked Britain's "rock solid" Atlantic alliance to a more prominent place for Britain in Europe and for Europe in the world. These sets of relationships, he said, were mutually reinforcing rather than exclusive.

Mr Schroder arrived at the same destination from a different direction. International terrorism, he declared, made the case for European solidarity. But that solidarity had to be fixed in the transatlantic partnership. The west's security was anchored in the "Euro-Atlantic community".

Fine words, you may say. But there is substance too. It is only a matter of weeks since Mr Schroder cast aside a half-century of German inhibitions to take the lead in Macedonia. Now, for all the political trouble it would cause him at home, the chancellor is ready to commit German forces to the war against the Taliban. Washington's reluctance so far to take up the offer of anything more than intelligence and logistical support does nothing to diminish its significance.

France's response has been equally robust. Jacques Chirac, the French president, has given unequivocal backing to US military action against the Taliban. No "ifs", no "buts", no sniping at US "imperialism". France has committed two warships to the US-led coalition. It is also ready, if asked, to deploy its special forces. Those in the Anglo-Saxon world who like to depict Paris as irredeemably anti-American have been sorely disappointed. The only concern I have heard - and this voiced by some British diplomats - was that Washington might undervalue the strength of French solidarity.

The bigger picture that begins to emerge from all this is one in which, for as long as Britain, France and Germany speak with one voice, Europe claims a place in the new strategic landscape. Thus far, the EU's attempts to forge a common foreign and security policy have been declaratory - the grandiose rhetoric serving only to amplify the absence of substance. The Union has been an economic organisation searching in vain for a political identity.

Now we can see where it might deploy its influence. Mr Blair, in Moscow last night for talks with Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, has endorsed Mr Schroder's call for Russia to be included in a new European security framework. The diversion of US resources into the fight against terrorism means that Europe will be asked to shoulder more of the burden in the Balkans. That is as it should be. A more even-handed approach in Washington to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians opens the door to a distinct, though complementary, European role in the Middle East.

There is no guarantee, of course, that Europe will seize the moment. The solidarity of the transatlantic alliance will depend crucially on Washington's continued willingness to listen. Bombing Iraq would wreck the international coalition. For its part, the coherence of Europe's position rests, in Mr Schroder's words, on a willingness to put aside "competitive squabbling and petty jealousies". Credibility demands the big increases in defence spending that all European governments have so far balked at.

But the opportunity is there. We need only think of what has changed in three short weeks. The US needs friends and, just as importantly, it knows it. Europe has shown it can act as one. Russia wants partnerships. Iran has acquiesced in the international coalition against terrorism. Israel is talking to the Palestinians (???????), Pakistan co-operating with the Americans. Those who know Europe will not be brave, or foolhardy, enough to say that the continent's hour has come. But if it has not now, it never will.