Europol - the policeman's dream
The closing of the walls around the European Union and the removal of the internal borders between the member states is being followed by the building of a huge network of control and surveillance of the "undesirable" population as a whole. Maybe including you. By Mads Bruun Pedersen SECRECY IS THE SLOGAN UNDER WHICH THE governments of the European Union has been working for the last five years to fulfil the dream of a supernational European police force. There is little or no public information or discussion of the project. Civil liberties and basic human rights are being undermined and threatened. The case of the Spanish Proposal
Shortly after Spain took over the Presidency of the European Union in July 1995, a working group under the EU Commission put forward a document which it had been working on for some time. It contained proposals for guidelines for the work of the analysis databases of Europol. These databases are supposed to be the spine of Europol's intelligence work. Europol's Database • Personal information about criminals and "potential offenders" is stored in the Information System at the Europol headquarters in the Hague, Netherlands. Europol staff and national police units have access to this information.
Europol stalf also have access to has Amallysis Registers, a huge miam of mon-personal information (facts" about potential pollential victims, informers, phew erooms and others. samar Europol staff (the nave the right to men to the system.
This document, which was presented to the governments of the EU countries but not the parliaments, outlined the critera according to which personal information could be stored and processed in the central databases.
It was specificaly stated that information about a persons political views, religious convictions, ethnic origin, sexual orientation and health situation should be able to be stored and processed!
Not just convicted criminals and wanted persons will be registered in the computer system. The Europol Convention authorises the creation of files on non-criminals and nonwanted person such as "contact-persons," "potential witnesses", and even "potential
The Spanish proposal was not published for public debate. The intention was that it be circulated among a very small circle of politicians, civil servants and government representatives. For years now, these people have been working in secrecy to prepare the Europol Convention, which was finally signed by all EU countries on 26 July 1995. The current priority is drafting implementing directives for those parts of the Convention
European Union which were left open. The level of secrecy is as high as it was during the drafting of the convention itself.
The Spanish proposal was, however. leaked to the press, creating an outcry in some EU countries, and questions to the relevant ministers in various national parliaments. As a result, the proposal was replaced by a draft prepared by the Italian presidency of the EU. This new proposal maintains the possibility of recording the same information as proposed in the Spanish original! "Lifestyle," "behaviour" and "movement" can all be recorded, according to regulations... which will be further specified at a later date in a special rule book!
This Spanish incident illustrates the way Europol works. And it reveals the way the decision-makers, bureaucrats and politicians who are developing Europe-wide policing actually think about our civil liberties and human rights. These people live in a world where they feel so powerful that they can strike off a few civil liberties, without expecting any resistance from us or inconvenience to them. The continuing development of Europol suggests that, unfortunately, they are right. Union detectives
Secrecy has been the key word ever since German Chancellor Helmut Kohl raised the idea of a European police force at a European Council meeting in June 1991. His idea was integrated into Article K.1 #9 of the Treaty of European Union ("Maastricht Treaty"). This places the question in the "third pillar" of Maastricht: a matter of "common interest": to be negotiated at the inter-governmental level,
July 1996 #279 3
* European Union rather than of "Union interest", to be handled by the European Commission, with procedure subject to Community law
The idea of a European FBI is not new. Politicians and police chiefs came together, from the late 1970k, in the TREVI group, a structure of working commitees on fighting terrorism, crime. and narcotics. It was here that they laid the ground for a more structured Europe-wide police force. Serious discussion started in the late 1980s.
Operational tasks Europol is presently designated as an intelligence service, without operational authority. But the reference to Europol in the "Maastricht" Treaty of European Union is carefully worded so as not to exclude future operational tasks being allocated to the body.
Article K. 1 (9) refers to "the organisation of a Union-wide system for exchanging information within a European Police Office (Europol)." And, in a separate Declaration on Police Cooperation, "Member States agree to consider, on the basis of a report, during 1994 at the latest, whether the scope of such cooperation should be extended." No such steps have yet been taken. But this is mainly due to the slow process of ratifying the Europol Convention in the member states.
The Convention specifies the purpose of Europol as fighting "terrorism, unlawful drug trafficking and other serious forms of international crime." This last point is specified as including crimes connected with nuclear and radioactive substances, smuggling of illegal immigrants, theft of goods in transit from one member state to another, and illegal sale of
Remember
this?
• Russian left demonstrates against Chechnya war • Salvador's FMLN becomes a single party • Indian feminists debate the UN Conference on Women • 1 million African Americans march in Washington DC The bound collection of International Viewpoint costs only £5/$ US 10 per year (1982-1995), plus 20% postage charge for orders of less than 5 volumes. 4 International Viewpoint stolen motor vehicles in another state.
There is some conflict between the nember states about the definition and priority of "terrorism" within Europol's mission. Greece and Spain in particular want to give high priority to this point, widened to include crimes against life, freedom from bodily harm and personal freedom, crimes against the state, and crimes against property. These crime forms have been added to the Convention as Annex 22. This means that they can be added to the primary tasks of Europol at a later date. Police without control
There is no parliamentary or independent control over the implementation of the Europol Convention. The body is governed by a Board of Representatives appointed by the member states. Unlike other international organisations like the Council of Europe, there is not even the partial openness of the process through an obligation of report to a parliamentary assembly or democratic institution of any kind.
Disputes between member states over the interpretation of the Convention are to be resolved by the European Court of Justice in Luxemburg. Though Britain and some other states are strongly opposed to giving the European Court any role, which has so far proved to be a stone in the shoe of the project.
But in March 196 the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council decided to move along with the rest of the implementing rules, and leave this European Court question to be solved later. Most member states seem to hope that Britain will give up its resistance when the moment comes to approve the whole project, and the implementation of Europol is waiting to be set in motion. Walls and controls
Europol will not be the only European organisation devoted to the control of the population. The Schengen Agreement? has already contributed to the new, higher walls round "Fortress Europe." The number of asylum seekers able to make a claim in the European Union is declining drastically. The holes in the wall have been plugged with visa requirements, carrier sanctions, harmonised asylum policy, and tighter border controls at the external frontiers.
The results of this policy are made visible from time to time, as refugees are found dead in containers, washed up on beaches, and when stowaways are thrown overboard when discovered.
A refugee must now protect himself not only from his persecutors, but also from those who try to take advantage of his vulnerability on the way to seeking asylum in an EU country. The more difficult it is to get inside the wall, the more desperate people get, and the easier it is for professional criminals to take advantage of them. A whole "industry" for "helping" refugees, and separating them from their money, has blossomed in the buffer states to the east and south of the European Union.
The internal walls between EU countries are being torn down, to facilitate the free movement of the workforce. But this has not reduced the authorities "need" to control the population. Border control has disappeared from the geographical internal borders, and been replaced by a generalised control over migration across the EU territory.
The Europol Convention is one device for ensuring these new mechanisms of control. The Schengen Agreement is another, introducing new measures for cross-border police cooperation, and shared information systems. There is the central EURODAC computer register of digitised fingerprints of asylum seekers. And the Dublin Convention, which sets standards for handling asylum applications. A range of other agreements set new standards for border control, customs co-operation, common telecommunication surveillance and message-tapping, and encryption of data transmission.
Separately and together, these measures constitute a very serious threat to civil liberties and basic human rights. Not just for refugees and immigrants, who are the first to feel the new system working, but for the residents of Europe in general. * Notes 1. Mentioned in States of Injustice: A guide to human rights and civil liberties in the European Union, by Michael Spencer, London, Pluto (1995), p.158 2. See Albert Rochal, "Building fortress Europe," International Viewpoint #266, May 1995, pp. 30-31.