Deadlines to keep. Of the three hot topics at last week's European Council- the fight against terrorism, the re-launch of negotiations on the Constitution and the re-launch of the Lisbon strategy- the first turned out to be the least surprising, because everything, or almost everything, was known in advance, after the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) and Foreign Affairs Councils. The Heads of Government, who had followed their Ministers' work step by step, did not have much to add. This doesn't mean their text was insignificant; far from it (you will find it in Nr 2366 of our series EUROPE/Documents, attached to our bulletin of 27 March).
The main thing was to do something tangible: not to announce fantastical or misleading new initiatives, such as the creation of a European CIA, but to make the priority the effective and total implementation of the action plan adopted after 11 September, after the New York attacks (but the application of which is lagging behind: see pages 5 and 6 of our bulletin of 27 March for the details). This time, the Heads of Government went for the formula guaranteeing the greatest efficiency: setting deadlines for the various measures. One might say that there is no shortage of deadlines in Community life, and that the dates themselves are insufficient. But although that is the case, there is a reason for believing that these deadlines will, for the most part, be respected, and it is called political will. Experience shows us that without this, deadlines guarantee nothing. The Community (today the Union) has seen all kinds of time-tables in its half-century of existence: those that were respected, those which were not, and even those whose fulfilment was anticipated (such as getting rid of quantitative restrictions and customs duties in the fledgling common market). Of the time-tables that gave rise to a feeling of urgency, we could cite those on the creation of the greater unified market and, after the long phase of studies and preparation, the birth of the single currency. This time, awareness of urgency should become even more acute, by the very nature of its subject matter: European civilisation at stake. Do I exaggerate? I don't think so, and I am not alone. The President of the European Parliament, Pat Cox, said that the Madrid attacks represent "a declaration of war on democracy itself". The President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, described terrorism as "the greatest threat to the free world since the second world war". Still more significantly, the Euro-Mediterranean parliamentary assembly said, in the final statement from its first session, that attacks like those on Madrid, Casablanca and Istanbul should be considered "crimes against humanity" (see our bulletin of 25 March, page 15). Europe does not just have a few groups of delinquents or fanatics to face up to, but an organised strategy whose aim is to destroy as much of civilisation as possible. It must react; the approved deadline of 26 March must be kept to.
Operational objectives, but with how many? This time-table provides staggered deadlines between 1 May and 31 December, applied to operational objectives such as: the European arrest warrant, common investigation teams, the depletion of financial resources (identification, screening, freezing and confiscation, with mutual recognition of related decisions), keeping data on telephone and e-mail communications, a European register of those found guilty of terrorism, exchanges of information on digital imprints and data related to visas, the creation of a European border management agency; and that's not all. I will come back to the list of measures, and also to criticism voiced by those who fear- rightly, in some cases- that fundamental freedoms and the protection of privacy could be compromised.
And will it be possible to bring this programme in, with 25? I offer, as food for thought, the words of Jean-Claude Juncker who, despite his youth, is the Head of Government who's taken part in the most European Summits. He recommended a link "in real time" between the national information services to solidify co-operation and co-ordination, and he added: "my preferred hardcore would be a hardcore of 25. But if we can't all go forward together, those who can should lead from the front. I am thinking of the three countries of Benelux, France, Germany, the Italians, the British, and others too, why not. This is not a threat, but we will not be able to wait. Europeans are tired of hearing measures announced that never enter into force".
The Summit calls for a factual report on the implementation of measures agreed. My preferred hardcore would also be a hardcore of 25. But if the difficulties (which I spoke of in this column of 23 March, among others) prevent this, then we may have to lower our sights to start off with. (F.R.)