Strasbourg, 14/02/2007 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday 14 February, the European Parliament adopted the report on the controversial investigation which makes the CIA directly responsible for illegal operations on European soil against terrorist suspects and accuses a dozen European countries, particularly the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy, of turning a blind eye to CIA flights carrying alleged terrorists to secret prisons outside the United States. At the plenary session in Strasbourg, MEPs approved the report by the committee of enquiry on CIA activities in Europe by a majority vote: 382 for, 256 against and 76 abstentions.
In all, 1,245 CIA flights (not counting State flights) flew into European airspace between the end of 2001 and the end of 2005. The 76-page report is quite severe on most member states. 14 EU countries, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) and Turkey, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, which is the only country to admit having helped the CIA (see EUROPE 9212). MEPs condemned the fact that European countries conceded control which they ought to have been exercising over their airspace and their airports, shutting their eyes to flights operated by the CIA for the illegal transfer of prisoners to detention centres where they were tortured. The Parliament also condemned the acceptance and concealment of the secret transfer of prisoners on several occasions by the secret services and government authorities of some European countries. MEPs acknowledge, however, that no formal proof of the existence of secret CIA prisons on European soil has ever been found, although US President George W Bush officially confirmed in September 2006 that use had been made of this practice abroad (see EUROPE 9260). The report also accused a number of European countries of having shown less than willing to cooperate with the enquiry. The report also condemned the “omissions” of the EU High Representative for external policy Javier Solana, the little cooperation from the anti-terrorist coordinator Gijs de Vries, and also the attitude of NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who refused to be interviewed by the committee.
At the opening of the debate, the rapporteur, Italian Claudio Fava (PES) noted that the various testimonies received by MEPs were “facts that speak for themselves”. Were governments aware of what was going on? “Some, yes, certainly”, he said, denouncing as “dishonest” those who refused to look the truth in the eyes. MEPs then clearly demonstrated that they were divided on the text before them. “We have opened a door, we won't allow anyone to close it,” he said. Speaking for the EPP-ED group, Jas Gawronski (Italy) said that MEPs had failed to produce a balanced report. From the very start, the committee of enquiry looked more like a “court” and this had not made dialogue easy, he stated. Mr Gawropnski wanted two amendments to be voted on as a priority: the first allowing secret services to operate secretly as long as they abide by the law, and the second indicating that the CIA could fly where it wanted so long as it did not break the law. For the PES group, Wolfgang Kreissl-Doerfler (Germany) said, “We cannot defend the freedom to assist violence … which runs contrary to the foundations of the EU”. He said the German presidency should be called on to explain this clearly to member. Ignasi Guardans Cambo (ALDE, Spain) stressed that it was Europe's credibility that was at stake. “We have to challenge the idea that the only way (against terrorism) is to carry on a dirty war,” he argued. Speaking on behalf of the UEN, Konrad Szymanski (Poland) said that reading the report simply lifted the veil on the partial nature of the work carried out by the temporary committee. He said that many accusations, particularly against Poland, were not backed up by any proof. For the Greens/EFA, Cem Oezdemir (Germany) criticised the behaviour of the Polish government which had treated those carrying out the enquiry like emissaries from the Warsaw Pact, and he pointed out that accession to the EU “did not bring only rights, but also responsibilities”. Poland was severely criticised in the report, with MEPs noting that, in spite of their meeting Polish authorities, it proved impossible for them to prove or disprove the existence of detention centres in that country (see EUROPE 9304). Giusto Catab-nia (GUE/NGL, Italy) criticised the US strategy, while stressing the responsibility of complicit European governments. He also wondered about the silence of the European Commission President José Manuel Barroso (see EUROPE 9323) on activities he should have known about when he was Portuguese Prime Minister, and that of Commissioner Franco Frattini, who was then Italian Foreign Minister.
Mr Frattini did not approve of such accusations. Gerard Batten (IND/DEM, UK) considered the report “characteristic of anti-Americanism and the European Parliament's desire for power”. Luca Romagnoli (ITS, Italy) said the Fava report was above all “stained with hypocrisy” as the Americans are “our allies”. He also said it was “biased” as it does not respect the presumption of innocence. Roger Helmer (NA, UK) considered the Fava report had nothing precise about it and was based on “press cuttings”. He finally said the work serves as a platform for a general anti-American tendency, in addition to attacks against member states.
The European Council and Commission for their part restated their attachment to the protection of fundamental rights when it comes to combating terrorism, leaving it up to member states to carry out their own investigations on the illegal activities of US secret services on their soil. While MEPs expect the Council to put pressure on all governments concerned to make them provide complete and objective information, and to ensure that an independent investigation is carried out as soon as possible where appropriate, Mr Gloser pointed out that the Council does “not have the power” to conduct its own investigations, or the “duty” to take measures under Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty. “Tepid and formal”, was how Mr Fava described the Council's reaction during a press conference after the vote. “The Council cannot fail to hear the result of the vote”, Mr Fava went on to add. “Given such denunciations, it is essential that national inquiries should shed light on the truth”, European Security Commissioner Franco Frattini decided. Member states certainly did have the responsibility to “reveal the truth, although it may be upsetting”. “It is therefore up to the magistrates to investigate and up to the states to launch administrative inquiries” and, where necessary, “for officials to be punished” if they are indeed accountable in this affair, the Commissioner said. Although it is undeniably true that there was violation in this affair, he sounded a note of caution, warning the Parliament about the divisions that it faces and which could make its message “less powerful”.
Although its competencies do not allow it to introduce legislation on the secret services, the Commission will, “draw conclusions and formulate proposals”, he promised. He believed that they also needed, “political reflection on the role of the intelligence services” (EUROPE 9332). Frattini concluded that political control was “indispensable” and that the secret services, “should operate in the framework of a clear and precise mandate given by their governments”.