Strasbourg, 05/07/2006 (Agence Europe) - While the vote on the report on alleged illegal activity by the CIA in Europe is expected in Strasbourg on Thursday, plenary discussions on Wednesday showed that differences still differed greatly between MEPs of the different groups.
Opening the discussion, Rapporteur Claudio Fava (PES, Italy) denounced the attitude of certain States, an attitude that he considers “arbitrary” and a “blow below the belt” to democracy, saying that, in this affair, the burden of proof was now to be shared by the governments. “We want to do everything we can so that such abuse does not reoccur in coming years”, he said, before calling for prorogation of the inquiry conducted since January this year by the EP temporary committee on CIA activity in Europe. Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (PES, Germany) said that the fight against terrorism cannot be conducted with the same weapons as terrorists use. On quite a different tone, Jas Gawronski of Italy (EPP-Ed) described the report as “extremely tendentious” against the United States and regretted that the report does not mention the fact that most information gathered in the report came from American sources. In the same way, Eva Klamt (EPP-Ed, Germany) reproached the report for not being “balanced” or “complete”. Many elements are not included in it, for example the fact that there is “no proof of the existence of secret detention centres”, she said. In her view, the report must be objective to be credible and to be adopted by a vast majority of MEPs. The chairman of the temporary committee, Carlos Coelho (EPP-Ed, Portugal) recalled that it was above all an intermediary report and that, in consequence, one must not draw definitive conclusions. Judging the work of the commission “quality” work, he stressed the tasks still to be accomplished in order to see to what extent the governments were implicated.
He also said that he was in favour of a strengthening of inspections in airports and secret services. He concluded that “this report should be serious and has to avoid any hint of political propaganda”. Speaking on behalf of the ALDE group, Baroness Sarah Ludford repeated that the credibility of the EU depended on its being able to both fight terrorism and respect human rights. Alexander Alvar (ALDE, Germany) affirmed, “the fight against terrorism doesn't mean we're allowed to anything we want”. Sophia In't Velt (ALDE, Netherlands) said that there was still some missing elements in the affair but affirmed, nonetheless, that “the puzzle is almost finished”. Speaking for the Greens-EFA group, German MEP Cem Özdemir declared, “there have been a sufficient number of cases proving” the violation of human rights and that each State had an obligation to shed light on what had happened, notably with regard to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Giusto Catania (GUE/NGL, Italy) did not hesitate in denouncing what he considered as “complicity” on the part of European countries. According to Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL, Germany) asserted that, “it is up to governments to shed light of human rights violations”. Konrad Szymanski (UEN, Poland) on the other hand noted that the US interpreted things differently to the Europeans on the European Convention on Torture. He was surprised that, “there is a legal loophole that they have exploited and we are now trying to accuse them”.
Speaking for the Finnish presidency, the minister for European affairs and trade, Paula Lethomäki indicated that this report was extremely important and essential. However, she pointed out that the “treaties do not recognise the competencies of the EU in this affair”. Commissioner Franco Frattini said that it was necessary to find the truth and explained that the Commission was ready to help Parliament in its approach to Member States. He promised that during the next JHA Council on 24 July, “I will definitely point out to ministers of the interior in the EU that they should closely cooperate”.
Despite these differences, the EPP-ED Group seems ready to approve an amended text. With a low majority (46 to 43), MEPs of the EPP-ED Group took a stance on Tuesday evening in favour of the intermediary report by Claudio Fava (PES, Italy) with changes in four amendments that have still to be accepted by the MEPs of the Socialist Group.