The Strasbourg Veto
Published in El Pais
(Spain) on 15 February 2010
by (link to original)
The European Parliament blocks an anti-terrorist cooperation accord with the U.S.
The European Parliament debuted its new powers, granted under the Lisbon Treaty, by blocking an anti-terrorist cooperation accord with the U.S. The vetoed treaty would have extended Washington’s power to use European data on international bank transfers to examine the financial transactions of terrorist suspects. The ability to access the records of the SWIFT interbank network began after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, but now, when it was time for renewal, the European Parliament exercised its veto, generating transatlantic tension in addition to the misunderstanding caused by Obama’s refusal to attend the upcoming bilateral summit. This is another setback for the Spanish administration, which defended the extension.
A majority (378 votes against 196 and 31 abstentions), made up of some Socialists plus German Conservatives, Liberals, Greens and Communists, found that the accord does not guarantee confidentiality for Europeans’ data, that Washington has acted with total opacity and that there was no reciprocity. The result is that a new pact will have to be negotiated. There is a risk that Washington will prefer to do this on a bilateral basis with each European country. Faced with the Obama administration’s obvious displeasure with the decision, one Euro deputy responded that the European Parliament is now the equivalent of Congress before the White House. In any case, it is the Europeans who must live with the consequences of the decision. Every government in the E.U. was in favor of extending the treaty, which has proven useful in preventing attacks and providing clues about attacks that were already committed.
This is why, one day before the Lisbon Treaty — which gives the European Parliament the power to approve or reject this type of agreement — came into force, the Council (which represents the national governments) extended the agreement. It was surely a mistake that this did not prevent the veto from being exercised. The Council did not even make a serious effort to convince the European Parliament of the usefulness of extending the treaty. It is urgent to renegotiate the conditions for accessing data and to restore the trust of Europe’s best ally in the anti-terrorist fight. But it is also urgent that the E.U. be consistent with its new institutional structure.
The European Parliament debuted its new powers, granted under the Lisbon Treaty, by blocking an anti-terrorist cooperation accord with the U.S. The vetoed treaty would have extended Washington’s power to use European data on international bank transfers to examine the financial transactions of terrorist suspects. The ability to access the records of the SWIFT interbank network began after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, but now, when it was time for renewal, the European Parliament exercised its veto, generating transatlantic tension in addition to the misunderstanding caused by Obama’s refusal to attend the upcoming bilateral summit. This is another setback for the Spanish administration, which defended the extension.
A majority (378 votes against 196 and 31 abstentions), made up of some Socialists plus German Conservatives, Liberals, Greens and Communists, found that the accord does not guarantee confidentiality for Europeans’ data, that Washington has acted with total opacity and that there was no reciprocity. The result is that a new pact will have to be negotiated. There is a risk that Washington will prefer to do this on a bilateral basis with each European country. Faced with the Obama administration’s obvious displeasure with the decision, one Euro deputy responded that the European Parliament is now the equivalent of Congress before the White House. In any case, it is the Europeans who must live with the consequences of the decision. Every government in the E.U. was in favor of extending the treaty, which has proven useful in preventing attacks and providing clues about attacks that were already committed.
This is why, one day before the Lisbon Treaty — which gives the European Parliament the power to approve or reject this type of agreement — came into force, the Council (which represents the national governments) extended the agreement. It was surely a mistake that this did not prevent the veto from being exercised. The Council did not even make a serious effort to convince the European Parliament of the usefulness of extending the treaty. It is urgent to renegotiate the conditions for accessing data and to restore the trust of Europe’s best ally in the anti-terrorist fight. But it is also urgent that the E.U. be consistent with its new institutional structure.