Strasbourg, 14/12/2005 (Agence Europe) - Despite the determination expressed by certain political groups to set up a real fact-finding committee on the presumed use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners suspected of acts of terrorism, the debate on Wednesday afternoon's plenary showed that a temporary committee would be the preferred solution. This kind of committee, which has less binding powers but which can be set up to deal with any sort of European issue, constitutes the most realistic alternative at this stage. During their exchange with the Council and Commission, many MEPs pointed out that they would not be content with declarations of good intent, and called on the matter not to be made into a pretext for anti-Americanism.
In its response to a letter from Jean-Marie Cavada on this subject, the EP's jurisconsult said that the claimed practice implemented on Community territory since 1 January 2002 has no connection with Community law and that a fact-finding committee, which would have to restrict itself to verifying allegations of infringement or bad administration in application of Community law, is therefore not legally foreseeable (EUROPE 9088). Challenging the opinion put forward by the legal service, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Co-President of the Greens/EFA Group, had told the press on Tuesday that his group would, with the Socialists and GUE/NGL, call for the establishment of a real committee of inquiry. On Wednesday, the conference of presidents finally decided to fall back on a temporary committee, saying it would be the best common denominator between political groups. The day before, Hans-Gert Pöttering, President of the EPP-ED Group, had pointed out that he was “against a committee of inquiry” but had supported the setting up of a temporary committee. Less categorically, Graham Watson, President of the ALDE Group, had said that, in the absence of proof of violation, a temporary committee seemed the most judicial choice. The composition and the mandate of the committee will not be decided till January 2006.
“Member States are called upon to take grave decisions to maintain the balance between security and freedom” but the resolve to protect citizens must also be in line with “international law”, Douglas Alexander recalled on Wednesday, speaking on behalf of the Council. The question of torture in all its forms is a “key element” of the debate, the Council president said, stressing that it must be banned at all costs and that the condemnation of such practice is “unconditional”. “We must naturally act in concert” with the Americans and our other partners to combat terrorism, Franco Frattini said, welcoming the declaration by Condoleezza Rice whereby the United States does not tolerate but, on the contrary, punishes any act of torture. According to the European Commissioner, it is a matter of a “strong commitment, which forces the Americans to adopt certain forms of behaviour” and which calls on Europeans to make certain verifications. “If such accusations are verified, they may have serious political consequences” even though, until there is proof to the contrary, “we must accept the comments made by all governments which have all denied having been involved” in such action, Mr Frattini warned. “There are no accused among Member States for now, and I say this in particular for our Polish and Romanian friends and no-one must feel they are being named and shamed”, the Commissioner added, promising to react if such acts are confirmed by legal inquiries in some Member States. “It is up to the Parliament to choose its means of action but, if one speaks of inquiry, then powers of interrogation are needed. It is up to you to decide whether such powers are foreseen or not (…)”, Mr Frattini told MEPs, before going on to conclude: “Any proof of acts of torture in Europe would be toned down by the presence of terrorism and terrorist propaganda”.
“There can be no compromises when it comes to fighting terrorism or when it comes to respecting fundamental rights”, Hans-Gert Pöttering, President of the EPP-ED Group, said during the debate. “There is a growing feeling that citizens have indeed been transported and held illegally on European soil and these allegations have never been openly denied by the United States”, he commented, with reference to the remarks made by the rapporteur for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on this affair (see other article). “Our group takes a stance in favour of very close cooperation with the Council and is in favour of a temporary committee”, he went on to say. Martin Schulz, President of the Socialist Group, said this must be clarified as no-one should be condemned out of hand under any circumstances. Above all, one must not restrict oneself to investigating just one country or another but rather have an idea of the whole of the EU, and the Parliament can contribute to this, the German Social Democrat said. He went on to specify: “We shall call for a commission of inquiry to be set in place”. Why take the declarations made by Ms Rice at face value? Asked Baroness Sarah Ludford (ALDE, Britain).
While in the past she has backed the idea of an official investigative committee, on Wednesday Sarah Ludford seemed to prefer the idea of a special temporary committee. Addressing the chair of the Council, Dutch Green/EFA MEP Kathalijne Buitenweg doubted the veracity of Condoleezza Rice's statements. Italian GUE/NGL MEP Giusto Catania said Frattini was asking MEPs to look into the issue and find evidence, but the MEP said he had the impression that some Member States were trying to put a lid on the whole affair. Catania was suspicious, saying there had been abuse and it was clear that European governments knew about it. There is an obligation to find facts, he added.
Calling for another fast to implement approach to give the Civil Liberties Committee an active role in the affair, Jean-Marie Cavada (ALDE, France) explained the role of the Civil Liberties Committee (which he chairs) in the event of serious violations of fundamental principles by Member States. He said it was up to the political groups to follow up and shed light on the allegations, suggesting that the Civil Liberties Committee immediately started looking into the matter so that it could later submit its findings to the forthcoming temporary committee.
Calling himself pro-American, Irish UEN MEP Eion Ryan said very detailed clarifications should be provided by the US authorities, adding that he was tired of hearing people whining to the US when asking questions about the US no longer being friends with the EU. Nobody, he said, is planning to stop being friends with the US, but the EU was entitled to an answer. This approach was echoed by Polish Samoobrona MEP Ryszard Czarnecki, who said he agreed with the idea of a temporary committee but was concerned about potential anti-US hysteria.