Faced with terrorism, we must defend the corpus of the European house (Margaritis Schinas)
(B2 - exclusive) We must act with determination, defend the European way of life, not give in to threats, integrate those who suffer, but also strengthen police cooperation, explains the Vice President of the European Commission
Margaritis Schinas, European Commissioner for 'Promoting the European Way of Life', is presenting several proposals today. In an exclusive interview with B2 and Sud-Ouest, he also answers certain delicate questions such as the European training of imams or the weakening of society under the effect of the coronavirus pandemic.
Today you are presenting a new agenda against terrorism. We are not starting from nothing. There have already been several series of measures, since the beginning of the 2000s, and more recently during the last wave of terrorist acts in 2015-2016?
- Exact. That's why we start with a booster shot. Our progress report on the Security Union recalls all that has been done, but also all that is not implemented. For example, we have gun regulations. But 25 countries have still not transposed it. We did propose legislation to remove hateful terrorist content [in 2018] (1). But this text (TCO) is still under discussion (2). So we say: implement what has already been decided or decide what needs to be!
Counterterrorism and radicalization
What are the axes of this new agenda?
— We emphasize the fight against radicalisation. An essential point after the attacks in Paris and Vienna [mid-October and early November]. We also want to introduce some improvements on urban planning which is not always conducive to security. We want to stimulate the capacity of states, cities and regions to build and plan safe urban areas. It's imperative. What was done in Nice after the [2016] attack is a good example.
In the midst of a coronavirus pandemic, does terrorism remain a threat, despite everything?
- Yes. I would say it is even more systemic. The issue of terrorism has always depended on people's proximity to events. The closer people were, the more concerned they felt. The further away they were, the more protected they felt. Today with the pandemic, it hits harder. Everyone is in front of a screen, more vulnerable, more fragile. You don't feel strong or able to react. This is what terrorists exploit. Thus surface a whole series of conspiracy theories, hybrid attacks. This was verified in Paris, Nice and Vienna. The pandemic is an absolute accelerator of all ills.
How to react then?
— We want to be very clear in defending our European way of life. Our universal system of education, health, training... all of this is non-negotiable. We don't want to start defining the threat of terrorism, religious or not, or naming the adversary. Instead of attacking the enemy, we want to defend what Europe stands for. Our society, our money, our means can help the inclusion, the integration of all. But we are not going to negotiate or allow our enemies to undo what makes us European. We will not tolerate threats or attacks on our corpus European. We will defend it Urbi et orbi.
How to avoid the radicalization of some?
— We must identify who are the radicals who take up arms. Who are these people that we have failed to integrate into our systems, who slip through our cracks, and become our enemies? It is necessary to plug these cracks, to ensure that they do not become radicalized. In the new budgetary framework, in preparation, we will have more funds available for this, the resources of the European social fund and the structural funds for example, and not only those of the migration fund.
Is that enough to fight terrorism?
- No. You also need a certain ability to react. We want to strengthen Europol. This agency is a formidable instrument for police cooperation. But the current mandate is not enough. Europol must be allowed to do new things, to cooperate with private parties [while they are limited to police cooperation], to be able to issue alerts directly on foreign terrorist fighters, to compile big data to track criminals, to cooperate with the European public prosecutor's office Eurojust or to strengthen the role in the development of technologies.
To go to a European prosecutor in charge of terrorism or a European FBI?
"You are going too fast. In the anti-terrorist policy, we cannot make a major leap, go from few skills to absolute communitarisation. It is my belief. You have to go step by step. It is also a question of efficiency. We must not create the impression that Europe is in competition with national agencies which, by nature, communicate with difficulty. You first have to build trust, show that you bring concrete added value. You don't have to skip the steps.
The training of Imams
Another point, it was envisaged a European training of Imams. Do you recommend this?
“It's not a simple question. We thought about it a lot. The path shown by the Heads of State and Government [at the end of October], aimed at " work for dialogue and understanding between communities and religions rather than division is the answer. Europe cannot train imams, just as we cannot train bishops or rabbis. So that's not in our proposals. But what we can do is foster integration. We have many instruments in our systems of education, health, social services, our democratic values that are able to integrate and include people before they become fragile, victims of jihadists, anti-Semites or right-wing extremists. That's what you have to do.
So you're not recommending the training of imams...
- I did not say that. If the States want to take this route, each can decide it... But each in his soul and conscience. There is no collective decision.
And we could do it with European funding?
— If a national authority wishes to obtain European funds, it must draw up an application which corresponds to the conditions of these funds. The European Social Fund (ESF) and the 'Justice and Values' fund, for example, do not aim to finance religious training, they are intended to develop employment or skills or values. Now, if a State has a project which corresponds to an objective of the ESF, the European Social Fund will examine it and may finance it.
Nothing automatic then?
“There is nothing automatic. But nothing forbidden either.
Cybersecurity and Frontex
On cybersecurity, you also intend to act. In what spirit?
- It will be next week. Wait a minute. For the moment, we have several pieces in place, for example with the ENISA agency [European Cybersecurity Agency], but no cohesive policy. We have two pieces of legislation: one physical on critical infrastructures, and the other digital (the NIS directive). They reflect a world that is no longer there. It is now necessary to align the level of protection against digital threats and physical threats. The citizen in the digital world must not be more exposed than in the physical world. It is this objective that we are pursuing.
Last point, concerning the controversy over the possible participation of Frontex in repelling refugee ships. Some in the European Parliament are calling for the resignation of director Fabrice Leggeri?
— You have to keep a few principles in mind. First, we must let Frontex do its job, trust it. That's why we gave them a reinforced mandate [for border surveillance], with up to 10.000 personnel. Secondly, Europe has always been a destination for asylum seekers. Everyone must always have the possibility, in all circumstances, to make this request. These objectives are not mutually exclusive. They are reconcilable. And that is all the work of Frontex. The politicization of this affair and, above all, the personal attacks, really have no place.
(comment collected by Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)
Last thing, how do you manage to work the European Commission in times of crisis?
This impacts the services [of the European Commission] a lot, but not the College [of Commissioners]. Since mid-May, we meet again physically. It also makes the legislative process more difficult. But the pandemic has not affected our political ability or how to exercise it. On the contrary. This tragedy placed Europe at the center of the battle. We made historic decisions like the recovery fund. It is not the first time that there is this leap... When Delors arrives in 1985, he finds a stagnation of 30 years, he launches the single market. In 1990, it was the food crisis, dioxin, mad cow disease. Today we have one of the best veterinary detection systems. At the end of the 2000s, it was the Greek crisis, the European Commission had nothing then: neither money nor system. Three years later, we have a governance mechanism, an intervention mechanism and funds. Today, with this crisis linked to the pandemic, we have set up an exclusive health program, we have changed the mandate of the agencies. We are buying the vaccines collectively by paying for it with community money. If we had said that a few years ago, no one would have believed it.
- Lire: Fight against terrorism. Commission proposes rapid removal of hate content online
- A first trialogue is scheduled for Thursday (10.12) and a second following Tuesday (15.12)
Face-to-face interview, Tuesday (8.12) face-to-face at the Berlaymont premises
