Monday

3rd Oct 2022

Opinion

Paris attacks merit EU security review

  • Syrian refugees are not to blame for lackadaisical implementation of the Prum Decision (Photo: EU's attempts)

There’s no way to say it differently: the deadly Paris attacks are not just the result of the West’s military operations in the Middle East or the failures to properly integrate the restive Muslim European minority (depends on which side of the aisle you are), but also the failure of member states to hash out European-level policies to secure their external borders.

Whether through an ill-advised attachment to national sovereignty or whether through sheer shortsightedness, European leaders have stunted the development of the Schengen area.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

The Frontex border agency, responsible for securing the external frontiers of the EU cannot operate a credible EU border police patrol since it depends on a yearly budget of €114 million (its American counterpart has some $10 billion at its disposal), while the Schengen Information System (SIS) that allows for information exchange between European law enforcement agencies is woefully inadequate.

Even if the perpetrators were known to counter-terrorist police, they were able to move freely across the continent without ringing alarm bells.

The mayor of Molenbeek, a district in Brussels, had received a terror suspect list featuring three of the Paris terrorists one month before the attack, but lacked the institutional framework to share it with other member states.

Hours after being identified as having participated in the attacks, Saleh Abdeslam was questioned by police on the Belgian border and then released.

Treating the Paris attacks (executed, as we now know, mostly by EU nationals) as nothing more than a foreign policy problem and scapegoating Syrian refugees is bound to miss the mark.

The attacks were, above all, an internal problem.

For example, Syrian refugees are not to blame for the lackadaisical implementation and ratification of the Prum Decision, the framework that allows member states to search each other’s DNA analysis files, fingerprint identification systems, and vehicle registration data bases.

Sometimes referred to as Schengen III, the document was signed in 2005 by seven European states and should have been implemented fully by all member states by August 2011.

At the time of this writing, only 22 states agreed on DNA exchanges, 18 on fingerprint sharing, and 19 on vehicle registration pooling. Notably, the UK secured an opt-out on grounds of protecting its sovereignty and privacy.

Security loggerheads

It’s no wonder then that national security services have been at loggerheads with each other, their cooperation stifled either by reluctant governments or by the lack of proper policy tools.

Since terrorism is through its essence a cross-border phenomenon, the security response has to be nimble as well and be able to seep through national borders.

It wasn’t a Syrian refugee who repeatedly shot down the idea of a European intelligence agency - most recently it was the French interior minister who scoffed at the idea, floated by home affairs commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos.

Another problem which hasn’t been addressed is the freezing of terrorist assets and the clamping down on terrorist financing.

No measures have been taken towards halting the trade of antiquities, a hallmark of ISIS, or towards cracking down on tobacco smuggling, which is responsible for an estimated 20 percent of all terrorist funds.

In particular, profits from the illicit tobacco trade spur other criminal activities, including drug, oil, and human trafficking, making tobacco smuggling “a lucrative and widespread” practice among terrorist organizations.

These issues should be included in a revised version of the April European Agenda on Security, when the standing committee on internal security (Cosi) meets in December.

Restoring trust in Schengen is well within the realm of the possible. Unfortunately, the meeting of justice and interior ministers of 20 November disappointed through its apathetic outcome.

True, they vowed to move more quickly toward sharing the details of passengers flying in and out of Europe, upgraded the checks on the Schengen area and agreed on enhanced data sharing.

Federal-type action needed

But these were already in the works and are more of the same piecemeal approach instead of the bold, federal-level actions needed.

Even if French president Francois Hollande activated for the first time ever the mutual defence clause of the EU treaty (article 42.7 of the Treaty of the European Union), EU officials believe it will have little concrete impact.

Admittedly, speking of policy failures is less interesting to voters than playing the nationalistic and xenophobic card to heap blame on Syrian refugees for the continent’s ills.

Though terrorism will never be completely eliminated, it can be contained through a sensible mix of policies which strike a good balance between collective security and individual freedoms.

Allowing for greater intelligence sharing, implementing the Prum directive, creating a truly effective European border police force and security service, raising the bar in the screening of people moving in and out of Europe, and cutting off the way terrorists fund their agendas, are all measures that can save Schengen and move forward European integration.

Maryla Krol is a research assistant with an economic think tank based in Geneva

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

How US tech giants play EU states off against each other

Some have tried to justify Big Tech's meagre tax payments in EU states with heavier tax burdens by emphasising the fact that these companies create jobs and invest in next-generation technologies. However, their market dominance comes at a steep cost.

Column

EU should admonish less, and listen more, to the Global South

Whether on Russia, or gas, or climate change, or food security, the EU's constant finger-wagging and moralising is becoming unbearably repetitive and self-defeating. Most countries in the Global South view it as eurocentric and neo-colonial.

News in Brief

  1. EU ministers adopt measures to tackle soaring energy bills
  2. EU takes Malta to court over golden passports
  3. EU to ban Russian products worth €7bn a year more
  4. Denmark: CIA did not warn of Nord Stream attack
  5. Drone sightings in the North Sea 'occurred over months'
  6. Gazprom threatens to cut gas deliveries to Europe via Ukraine
  7. New compromise over EU energy emergency measures
  8. 15 states push for EU-wide gas price cap

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. The European Association for Storage of EnergyRegister for the Energy Storage Global Conference, held in Brussels on 11-13 Oct.
  2. EFBWW – EFBH – FETBBA lot more needs to be done to better protect construction workers from asbestos
  3. European Committee of the RegionsThe 20th edition of EURegionsWeek is ready to take off. Save your spot in Brussels.
  4. UNESDA - Soft Drinks EuropeCall for EU action – SMEs in the beverage industry call for fairer access to recycled material
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic prime ministers: “We will deepen co-operation on defence”
  6. EFBWW – EFBH – FETBBConstruction workers can check wages and working conditions in 36 countries

Latest News

  1. Editor's weekly digest: A week of leaks
  2. Putin declares holy war on Western 'satanism'
  3. Two elections and 'Macron's club' in focus Next WEEK
  4. EU agrees windfall energy firm tax — but split on gas-price cap
  5. Ukrainian chess prodigy: 'We are not going to resign ... anywhere'
  6. Going Down Under — EU needs to finish trade deal with Australia
  7. MEPs worry Russian disinfo weakens support for Ukraine
  8. Everything you need to know about the EU gas price cap plan

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us