A binding timetable. Beyond the official texts, all European summits have a few more or less concealed additional indications. Last Friday's Summit in Ghent was no exception. For an overview, I can but refer you to our Special Edition of 20 October (No. 8075), as it's all there: the articles, the press conferences, the complete texts of the declarations adopted. I'm now adding a series of remarks on the "combating terrorism" chapter.
The Heads of Government were very firm regarding the non-military aspects of the fight against terrorism, and almost brutal regarding the slow pace and almost prevarication of Justice Ministers, imposing of them absolute deadlines; a) 7 December for the European arrest warrant (abolishing, detail to be underpinned, the principle of double incrimination for terrorist crimes), for the common definition of terrorism and for the freeze on assets; b) the end of the year for drawing up a list terrorist organisations in Europe (to Spain's great satisfaction, for which Basque terrorism is to be placed at the same level that Muslim fundamentalism, and ETA must therefore figure on December's list); c) the end of the year too for transforming commitments against money laundering and the financing f terrorism into "legislative instruments"; d) "without delay" for measures relating to air safety proposed by the Commission. Tony Blair spoke of bureaucratic obstacles that needed putting an end to, Chancellor Schroeder of the "dithering" attitudes of some ministers. The Heads of Government are really determined to make life in Europe difficult for terrorists and those supporting them.
An aircraft that causes problems. The situation in quite different for the military aspects, given the EU's lack of real powers. The lack of knowledge about the situation caused journalistic quarrels (defined as "media hysteria" by the Finnish President), absolutely excessive over the three-way meeting (France, United Kingdom and Germany) which preceded the Summit, as well as some ill-thought out judgements by which Cfsp and Esdp have been practically demolished by events. It is unreasonable to argue as if "defence Europe" already existed, and be surprised that the countries directly concerned should themselves decide on military action (that they finance alone, and alone take the risks) or that they consult one another on the fringe on Community institutions. Faced with affairs that may determine the lives of thousands of people, some susceptibilities seem derisory and misplaced. According to Jacques Chirac, by raising the issue at the Summit, the Italian Prime Minister "created a problem that does not exist", as the Three spoke among themselves of military issues, with which the European Council does not deal (and that at least four Member States do not even want it to deal with). Mr. Chirac then added: the idea that the Three should want to set up a "Board, within the EU, is an idea void of substance or interest even". I would add that there cannot be a "Board" there where the "Community method" is respected, with the Commission's right of initiative, participation by the European Parliament, majority voting in Council. There where the Community method is no applied it's a different story. The remedy to any danger of a Board is thus simple, if the political will exists: all that needs doing is to bring the maximum of subjects within the pillar of the Community Treaty, possibly sidelining those that want none of this. On this path, in the military field, the first goal is a common weapons' policy. From this point of view, pulling out of the European project for a tactical transport plane (A 400 M), as Italy has just done, is from no point of view heading in the right direction and certainly does not help the countries concerned to prepare a weighty presence in the future "defence Europe". There has to be a minimum of coherence. What does Renato Ruggeiro, Foreign Minister, think of the decision to pull out taken by Antonio Moratino, Defence Minster?
Credibility is at stake. The Ghent Declaration on terrorism gives over much space to what Europe intends doing as soon as possible for the reconstruction of Afghanistan and stability of the whole region, referring to a "large and ambitious programme, both political and humanitarian" and that will cover all the countries in the area. That will be an opportunity for Europe to strengthen its ties, notably with Iran and Pakistan, and to play in favour of "a dialogue of equals" with the Arab and Muslim worlds. It's Europe's credibility that is at stake here (on condition that the other side plays the game too).
The economic and monetary chapter of the Summit deserves a separate comment, in the days to come, and the chapter on the future of Europe will be scrutinised in our "short chronicles" on the ongoing broad institutional debate.
(F.R.)