EU works towards co-ordinated ‘Action Plan against Terrorism’

“Business has a vested interest in security. A fact that should be more clearly understood by blue chip companies. We can’t afford for business to operate under any form of insecurity because that undermines commercial interests.”

As the European Union’s (EU) first counter-terrorism co-ordinator, Dutchman Gijs de Vries is supporting his own fine words by creating an early-warning anti-terrorism network targeting those industries across the Union’s 25 Member States which are most at risk from attack.

De Vries is also working alongside national security experts on a parallel programme aimed at identifying vulnerabilities in industry and commerce. Although the major responsibility for this task rests with EU Member Governments, de Vries’ newly-created office – based in the EU Council of Ministers’ Secretariat in the heart of Brussels – is directly responsible for ensuring that national administrators are “marching in step”.

“Subsidiarity rather than diktat is the rule here,” adds de Vries. “That said, we are looking for closer links, both horizontally and by sector, which will augment current arrangements for co-operation. The EU has a vital, supporting role to play in all of that.”

Specifically, de Vries is focusing on the dangers to aircraft and shipping. Not only can these modes of transport be used by terrorist factions to move around the Union, but unwary operators could innocently be ferrying weapons from one Member State to another. That is de Vries’ prime concern.

With Europe’s largest port – Rotterdam – in de Vries’ home nation, it’s hardly surprising that he’s fully-attuned to the vulnerabilities of the maritime world. However, he’s at pains to point out that the anti-terror network will extend much further. The energy industries, those organisations concerned with healthcare, with preserving water supplies and agriculture will also be included in what is a massive international effort to pull the drawstrings of security together.

Joint action on terrorism

Security remains a high priority in Brussels. Only last December, delegates attending a European heads of Government meeting in the Netherlands discussed how they might improve Europe’s joint actions against terrorism. They were also given a progress report on what has been achieved through the increasingly frequent meetings of the EU’s Justice and Home Affairs ministers, all of whom are tasked with entering into detailed negotiations regarding joint EU actions against the terrorist threat.

In fact, de Vries points out that work completed to date has already borne fruit. He states that, since the September 11 attacks on the US, EU ministers have ratified a wide range of measures including the European Arrest Warrant (which speeds up extradition procedures). New agencies have also been created, among them Eurojust which, as its name suggests, brings together prosecutors and magistrates from across the Union.

Meantime, the criminal law of the 25 Member States is being aligned such that acts of terrorism may be prosecuted and punished in a uniform manner across Europe.

“The need for positive, legislative action like this was amply demonstrated by last year’s terrorist atrocity in Madrid,” suggests de Vries. “When they met last March and again in June, Europe’s political leaders agreed upon an additional plan of action which included more than 100 legislative and policy initiatives. Those policies include decisions to increase co-operation in a large number of areas, ranging from intelligence sharing through to the control of financial assets.”

Detailed decisions on how this co-operation should actually take place – in the form of a dedicated EU ‘Action Plan against Terrorism’ – are still eagerly awaited. According to de Vries, this will not appear in published form before the end of the year. Assuming the deadline is met at some stage, any released plan should include a final report covering co-operation between anti-terrorism services and the police, data gathering and sharing and the ability of all 25 Member States to deal with a chemical, biological or nuclear attack.

Concentration of skills

The EU’s institutional powers to fight terrorism are relatively limited, although they’re growing in importance. Most of the competencies remain in the Member States’ own Governments’ hands. It’s a fact that the national capitals are somewhat reluctant to pool too much of their authority and intelligence with others in the Union

“There have been some preliminary indications that Europe’s anti-terrorism specialists do have complementary skills from one country to another. That aids co-operation,” continues de Vries. “This fact is epitomised by the review of national capabilities which showed that France and Spain are good at setting up joint cross-border investigations, and that British strengths lie in making threat assessments.”

The EU co-ordinator is also quick to commend both the UK and France for the energy and investment which both countries are deploying in identifying vulnerabilities such as oil and gas pipelines, water supplies and telephone cables.

However, de Vries is concerned that some EU nations – Belgium, Ireland, Germany and Slovenia among them – have not yet ratified an international convention on the financing of terrorism, which allows the authorities to freeze the assets of suspected terrorists or seize their finances. “We can only command credibility if we have our own house in order,” explains de Vries, who would like to see the ratification process concluded as soon as possible.

At the latest EU Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting, ministers discussed – thus far inconclusively – how they might ramp up efforts to cut terrorist funding by looking more closely at money transfers outside of the normal banking methods. de Vries is at pains to point out that there are already two EU directives on money laundering. “Mind you,” says de Vries, “neither are sufficiently rigorous when it comes to addressing the financing of terrorist activity. We’re looking at drafting a new directive specifically focused on that issue alone.”

That directive will emphasise the need to ensure that institutions verify (on a risk-sensitive basis) the ultimate beneficiary of bank accounts. “Special attention will be given to the role of Trusts, company service providers, banks and individuals deemed to be politically exposed,” outlines de Vries.

Money launderers beware

Under the latest proposals from the European Commission for an update to the EU’s money laundering directive, the eight special recommendations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Financial Action Task Force on terrorist financing will be transposed into European law. This would allow harmonised controls on large sums crossing the EU’s external frontiers, while pushing Governments into exchanging vital information on cash movements deemed to be suspicious and (possibly) linked to terrorist activity.

In a recent Memorandum to EU ministers, de Vries stated: “Intelligence indicates that there is now less use made of the regular banking system. This implies that terrorists are seeking alternative means of moving funds. For example, cash couriers or alternative remittance systems. Charities in the EU are going to be under even greater scrutiny. There’ll be far more demand for transparency so that they don’t become a convenient vehicle for financing terrorist activity.”

The Dutchman’s concerns have already been echoed by Franco Frattini, the new EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security. Italy’s former foreign minister has stressed that the non-profit sector needs to be “protected and guaranteed” against being abused by terrorists seeking to use its good name as a smokescreen for moving their ill-gotten gains.

During the forthcoming EU Summit, it’s expected that EU leaders will ask for formal proposals from the Commission on how to prevent the abuse of charitable concerns. By way of short term assistance, the Netherlands Government – which held the six-month rotating EU presidency until last December – has circulated a Best Practice document outlining how suspicious cash transactions might be monitored.

Exercises in diplomacy

In his capacity as counter-terrorism co-ordinator, de Vries will have to perform some highly delicate exercises in diplomacy. His position is being strengthened somewhat by the fact that Europol, the European Police Office, is increasingly being used by national police services to channel communication between EU Member States. In 2003, Europol’s case load rose to 4,700 cases, an increase of 40% on 2002. Eurojust experienced a 50% growth in the same period.

We welcome the adoption of the International Maritime Organisation’s International Ship and Port Facility Security Code. Co-operation in such matters is essential because terrorism doesn’t recognise national borders

Gijs de Vries

Moreover, during the accession negotiations with the 10 new EU Member States that joined the Union last May, Brussels provided substantial aid to help them modernise their police structures and to support judicial and related reforms. de Vries suggests that more than one billion Euro has been earmarked to continue assistance in the field of internal security between now and the end of 2006.

Finally, there’s one crucial factor to bear in mind. Terrorism has now become such an all-pervasive issue that smaller Member States struggle to deal with it head on.

Take money laundering. The amount of cash illegally processed every year through the UK alone is estimated to be worth 25 billion Euros. Compare that figure with the 360 million Euros which the European Commission deploys on projects to fight terrorism (although it has to be said that this amount will certainly grow in the coming years). The need for a central EU role in the battle against the terrorists and their financing is abundantly clear.

So much for the public sector response. What about the private sector? Hilde de Clerck, Secretary General of the Confederation of European Security Services, comments: “Quite frankly, we’re not consulted enough at the moment. Gijs de Vries and his colleagues haven’t yet had time to make a proper assessment of the private sector security market, both actual and potential.”

de Clerck suggests this isn’t surprising since EU authorities are still embroiled in attempting to define the major risks.

However, she remains somewhat unhappy with the private security industry’s degree of contact with the EU’s institutions, which de Clerck feels have been inadequate. “They don’t consult with us that much, and we’ve had very few opportunities open to us to present our point of view,” claims de Clerck. In time – and given the fact that de Vries hasn’t been in post that long – de Clerck believes that situation will improve. “We have certainly put our foot in the doorway,” concluded de Clerck, referring to the model for public-private sector partnership which the Confederation first published a year ago.

de Clerck cites Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium and the Nordic nations as the best examples of relatively comfortable co-operation between the two sectors – but, by implication, other EU countries (perhaps encouraged by the EU authorities) still have some progress to make in this department. In other words, it will be a while yet before the private sector will be able to look their public sector counterparts in the eye. Somewhat ironic, adds de Clerck, because no-one is more in favour of the industry’s strict regulation than the industry itself.

Dialogue with the States

While promoting EU talks that will hopefully improve this situation, de Vries also comments that he’s happy with ongoing discussion involving the US envoys on terrorism-related topics. Those discussions have been taking place under the auspices of the purpose-designed Policy Dialogue on Border and Transport Security.

de Vries also refers to the agreements reached on passenger name records and the Container Security Initiative as further evidence of successful co-operation between the EU and the US.

“We welcome the adoption of the International Maritime Organisation’s International Ship and Port Facility Security Code,” adds de Vries. “Co-operation in such matters is essential because terrorism doesn’t recognise national borders. Countries must work closely on this issue irrespective of any differences they may harbour in terms of judicial and social traditions.”