MEDIA
The broad outlines of an EU programme to protect critical infrastructures from terrorist attacks were sketched out by the European Commission at a conference on June 27. The Commission will try to forge a 'common understanding' on what needs to be protected - including a list of priorities - and will propose a euro 140 million EU funding programme. It will submit a strategy to the EU Council of Ministers by the end of 2005 and, if that is approved, will draft concrete proposals in 2006. At a separate seminar the same day on global anti-terrorism strategy, high-level politicians adopted common principles and called for a United Nations-lead summit of world leaders. A core member of the ruling Saudi royal family said it was vital to counter the philosophy of terrorists and not merely crush them through military and security means. Seeds of EU programme sown. The New Defence Agenda think-tank organised the hearing on critical infrastructure protection, a subject that was catapulted up the EU's priority list following the March 11, 2004 Madrid train bombings. Magnus Ovilius from the Commission's Justice, Freedom and Security DG said it would publish a Communication by the end of the year to pave the way for an EU programme. He stressed its scope would not be limited to the damage caused by terrorist attacks - it would also cover natural disasters which wreak havoc on infrastructures. Nor would the programme be confined to protecting physical assets - it would also tackle such issues as security checks on the people who control infrastructures. As for who will pay for it, Mr Ovilius said "responsibility for managing risk will lie primarily with the owners and operators". However, the Commission would propose a fund of some euro 140 million for 2007-2013 to cover "soft issues" such as carrying out risk assessments. It would remain up to the member states to pay for the "hardware", i.e. the specific security measures that need to be taken. "I do not think we need to spend a lot of money because private operators today are already providing security," he said. In defining precisely what critical infrastructures need to be protected at EU level, the Commission will take into account whether an attack would have a cross-border effect, such as, for example, the bombing of a nuclear installation, he said. Jose Antonio Hoyos Perez from the Commission's transport and energy DG said his department was trying to find out from the member states what infrastructures are "critical". He admitted this was a tough task as national administrations were reluctant to give out this information. He said it was "premature" to discuss what the balance should be between member state and EU funding. However, he said it would be vital to ensure any extra costs did "not distort the competition", especially given that from 2007 the EU's energy market would be fully liberalised. "Physical connections will increase because of liberalisations," Mr Perez argued, so any "attack on the weakest link will have big repercussions". From the Council of Ministers-based EU Military Staff, Ian Abbott singled out energy, transport, health, water, sanitation and telecommunications as the key areas that need protection. It is essentially the member states that are responsible for providing this, he stressed. The guiding principles should be to retain public confidence and return to normality as soon as possible in the event of an attack, he said. Mr Abbot said the novelty element of an attack was often more significant than the number of fatalities due to terrorism's wider psychological impact on the general public. Kevin Rosner, external expert from NATO, claimed that the EU's heavy reliance on Russian oil was causing insecurity and that Europe needed to "reconsider introducing nuclear technology". He warned of the danger of terrorists coming from Iraq to Europe to disrupt Europe's energy supply - "the artery of life to the crusader nations". He noted that 65% of Europe's oil currently passes through the Mediterranean, an area where there was a "lack of trans-national security standards and early-warning systems" for dealing with disruptions of energy in transit.
Global approach urged.
A separate roundtable on a global strategy for fighting terrorism was organised by the European Parliament's Liberal and Democrats group, the Indian think-tank Strategic Foresight group and the German Friedrich Naumann Stiftung. Conference host and Liberal leader Graham Watson MEP (United Kingdom) told a press conference the event's purpose was "to show that there are limits to state-to-state discussions on combating terrorism". The media and general public were not allowed access to the roundtable. Justifying this decision, Mr Watson told Europe Information "this is a working session, which includes members of the Israeli Knesset and Palestinian legislative council, and we wanted to have a no-holds barred meeting". Prince Turki bin Faisal from the Saudi Arabian royal family and a former head of the Saudi intelligence service, told Europe Information it was crucial "to counter the philosophical output of terrorists". Prince Turki, currently Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United Kingdom, said "once you engage the terrorists to show there are alternatives to their interpretation, they begin to question their own convictions and motivations". Politicians from other Middle Eastern and Asian states there included Secretary General of the League of Arab States Dr Amre Moussa, former Malaysian deputy Prime Minister Dr Anwar Ibrahim and former Jordanian Foreign Minister Professor Kamel Abu Jaber. The former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans said there was broad agreement among participants that there should be an "absolute prohibition of politically-motivated violence against civilians". However, separate strategies should be tailored to tackle each specific breed of terrorism, he said. Sundeep Waskelar from the Indian think-tank organising the roundtable noted there had been 20,000 terrorist attacks causing 25,000 deaths in the past ten years, 90% of which were cases of domestic terrorism. The principles adopted by the 35 participants say that "no cause or grievance, no matter how legitimate, justifies the deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants". They add that "all religions promote humane values and do not sanction the killing of innocent people". They condemn anti-terrorism actions that involve "torture, extra-judicial killing and debasing the human being". They say that "states have moral obligations to dissuade people from supporting philosophies and acts of terror". And they urge the adoption of "strategies that are much broader than reliance on coercive police and military means".
