Following the long summer lull, the London terrorist acts were once again highlighted in Strasburg last Wednesday during the European Parliament morning session.

That morning MEPs gathered for the Council and Commission statements on Liberty and Security, entitled “Responding to the threat of terrorism while protecting the rights of citizens.” British Home Secretary Charles Clarke and the EU Home and Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini were present and repeated what President Bush had told the Americans after 9/11: “We must lose some of our civil liberties for the sake of our security.”

But both Clarke and Frattini had a more important message to convey. They were also there to tell the plenary how crucial a “United States of Europe” is for the European version of the War on Terror. The grandiosity with which they portrayed their vision of Europe is in itself worthy of historical prominence.

The solve-it Constitution

What is interesting is the way both Clarke and Frattini managed to include the French and Dutch referenda on the EU Constitution in their bid to implement the War on Terror.

“In the aftermath of the failures of referendums on the Constitution the European Institutions – our Europe – have experienced, we have seen and felt terror in our cities,” Frattini ominously declared. “And we all understand very well how much our immediate response counts for the future of the European idea, particularly for our citizens.”

We have of course grown accustomed to seeing such tragic events being usurped by those who believe that the old idea of a United States of Europe would solve all our problems. But short of implying that the London bombings had any relation to the French and Dutch No votes, Frattini here spins the separate issues into a single tragic happening.

Therefore, with the EU Constitution, Commissioner Frattini assures us, we would be more secure in the face of terrorist attacks.

Indeed, perhaps a European criminal justice system is all we need. Perhaps a Europol acting as a federal police would do a better job than the British to prevent terrorism in their home country.

Otherwise, police cooperation at EU level is the more reasonable approach. And certainly nothing is preventing police cooperation across the EU.

Cooperation and erosion

The British Home Secretary, representing the UK Presidency of the European Council, gave it a different twist. Preceding Frattini in his address to the Strasbourg plenary, Mr Clarke claimed that the No votes in France and The Netherlands were proof that the people feel the EU is doing too little to tackle terrorism.

Clarke thinks the people are hoping the EU will wage a European War on Terror. So he spelt out what steps have been taken at EU level so far such as the European Arrest Warrant, rules on police and judicial cooperation, and the work of Europol and Eurojust. He referred to the developments of the Schengen Information System, which enables exchange of data on wanted individuals. He ventured into the Visa Information System and biometrics in passports, ID cards, visas and driving licences.

What is needed now, he argued (apart from the EU Constitution, of course), was a data retention system that would force telecommunications providers to store data on their customers’ phone calls, SMS, e-mails, Internet access, passwords, etc. Telecommunications surveillance must become omnipotent. Nothing is private (except, of course, for the determined terrorist using safe encryption devices, who would still go undetected).

“European Union States may have to accept an erosion of some civil liberties if their citizens are to be protected from organised crime and terrorism,” Mr Clarke told the plenary.

Torture is OK, ’cos times have changed

To top off, Mr Clarke claimed he did not want to undermine the achievements of the European Convention on Human Rights, but times have changed and its jurisprudence needed to be re-examined.

Then, in true Orwellian fashion, he added: “Our strengthening of human rights needs to acknowledge a truth which we should all accept; that the right to be protected from torture and ill-treatment must be considered side by side with the right to be protected from the death and destruction caused by indiscriminate terrorism...”

It seems that for Mr Clarke, like many others before him, human rights are neither universal nor indivisible. Indeed, times have changed.

It is ironic that Mr Clarke started his address by describing the EU as a “massive force for good” going on to recall how, as a student, 35 years ago, he had “campaigned to remove dictatorships in Spain, Greece and Portugal and the totalitarian regimes of central and eastern Europe”.

These totalitarian regimes did not have a fraction of the means of surveillance available today, and their intrusive laws were primitive compared to today’s. Yet, since we take democracy for granted the gradual erosion of much cherished principles and civil liberties does not particularly bother us. And with the threat of terrorism we tend to drift into accepting the EU Constitution without actually knowing what it makes out of the EU.

“A massive force for good.” I like the dichotomy in Mr Clarke’s slogan.

[email protected]