Terror has been deployed as a tool of war since human beings realised they functioned as social animals. With every generation that has passed since that discovery, terror has been adjusted and sharpened according to technological developments, as well as the extent to which the human “imagination” succeeded in developing new methods by which to create a brutal discontinuity in the affairs of the “enemy”.

Last week in Brussels, another incident occurred in the series which describes the bloody history of terrorism. It will not be the final one. Even so, many people experienced it as if it was the first terrorist attack that had ever happened. This will recur when the next attack is carried out.

Terror is sometimes effective as a tool for offensive operations, as the history of the Roman Empire, among others, demonstrates. We have every interest to ensure that the terror wave now rolling is prevented from reaching its aims. The methods that Europe should use to overcome it must not be restricted to military measures, or to reinforcing security, although these remain indispensable. A wider net of social measures and intelligence gathering operations also needs to be established. 

***

Ġużeppi Mercieca

In the days following the announcement of his death, a lot was said about Mgr. Mercieca’s humility. Surprisingly perhaps, every word of it was true. As a quality, humility is rarely in evidence. According to the general view, it is less than effective.

I happen to be one of those who in their contacts with Archbishop Mercieca over the years was impressed by his behaviour. Gentle and allusive in style, he would let you understand what he really meant after you left him, for he would not insist on his point of view, as if in the belief that the point he wished to make would eventually become evident.

I guess he was right to believe so. Not least because his soft, gentle approach did not mean he was weak-willed.

***

European lobbies

A study drawn up by the NGO ALTER-EU focuses on how the Permanent Representations of EU member states in Brussels (or embassies to the EU institutions) hold meetings with agents representing private interests. These lobbies seek to discuss with embassy officials proposals that are coming up in the European Council, hoping to influence the kind of position they plan to take.

In efforts to make EU decisions more transparent, attention has been concentrated up to now mostly on the European Commission and the European Council.

Quite rightly, ALTER-EU argues that the permanent representations play a central role in the ways by which final positions are staked out in the Union. Yet it got a limited response from embassies to its requests regarding information about how, when and for what reason their officials had met with private lobbyists.

Only four member states (Ireland, Rumania, Holland and Poland) provided information. Six embassies said they did not keep records of the information requested. Five did not even reply.

Two refused to supply the information: the UK and Malta.