What Future for the EU
Brussels, 17 September 2009
On 17 September 2009, the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, the Centre
for Asymmetric Threat Studies at the Swedish National Defence College, and the
European Policy Centre organised an international conference with the support of
the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs on the future of European Union counter-
terrorism efforts. The conference, timed to coincide with the Swedish Presidency
of the EU, invited high-level policymakers and researchers to examine the EU’s suc-
cesses and failures in countering terrorism at home and abroad, and to make sug-
gestions for the future direction of European cooperation on counterterrorism.
Beginning with a morning session bringing all 120 conference participants to-
gether, the conference heard from a distinguished group of policy- and opinion-
makers. Christopher Dickey, Paris Bureau Chief and Middle East Regional Editor
of Newsweek magazine, Gregory F. Treverton, Senior Policy Analyst and Profes-
sor at RAND Corporation, Jiri Sedivy, Assistant Secretary General of NATO, and
Gilles de Kerchove, EU Counterterrorism Coordinator at the Council of the Euro-
pean Union, tackled the broad questions of the EU’s role in countering terrorism
abroad. The morning session was chaired by Jacki Davis, Communications Direc-
tor of the European Policy Centre.
After lunch, the conference continued in the form of parallel workshops. The
workshops were held in seminar format under the Chatham House rule to encour-
age frank discussion amongst the specially invited guests.
• The ‘Prevent’ workshop focused on radicalisation leading to terrorism
and methods for addressing the problem.
• The ‘Protect’ workshop examined the EU’s progress in protecting citizens
and critical infrastructures from harm.
• The ‘Pursue’ workshop assessed EU efforts to pursue, investigate, and
bring terrorists to justice within the EU and abroad.
• The ‘Respond’ workshop examined how EU member states should coop-
erate when prevention and protection efforts fail to deter terrorism.
A cross-cutting theme of the conference, addressed in all workshops, was the
EU’s cooperation with third parties, including the United Nations and the United
States. The prospects and prescriptions for ‘resetting’ counterterrorism coopera-
tion between the EU and the Obama administration were examined.
This conference marked the final event of a research project supported by the
Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs and carried out by the Europe Research Pro-
gram at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs. Yet the conference should
also mark the beginning, not the end, of a more focused and concerted effort
amongst EU states to counter terrorism abroad. It is hoped that the critical reflec-
tions and concrete suggestions put forward during this conference will take the
EU further towards that goal.
10.00 Welcoming remarks
Hans Martens, Chief Executive, European Policy Centre
Tomas Rosander, Ambassador and Counterterrorism Coordinator, Swedish Ministry of Foreign
10.20 Panel discussion
Jackie Davis, Communications Director, European Policy Centre (Chair)
Gregory F. Treverton, Senior Policy Analyst and Professor, RAND Corporation
Gilles de Kerchove, EU Counterterrorism Coordinator, Council of the European Union
Christopher Dickey, Paris Bureau Chief and Middle East Regional Editor, Newsweek Magazine
Jiri Sedivy, Assistant Secretary General, NATO
11.40 Question and answer session
12.25 Closing remarks
Antonio Missiroli, Director of Studies, European Policy Centre
12.30 Buffet Lunch
13.30 PREVENT: Preventing and Responding to Radicalisation Leading to Terrorism
Moderator: Magnus Ranstorp, Research Director, Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies
Presenters: Maajid Nawaz, Director, Quilliam Foundation; Former Member of Hizb ut-Tahrir
Imam Jean Abd-al-Wadoud Gouraud, Instructor, Advanced Institute for Islamic Studies, France
Edit Schlaffer, Founder and Chair, Women Without Borders/Sisters Against Violent Extremism
Discussant: Peter Neumann, Director, International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political
PROTECT: Protecting Citizens, Borders and Infrastructures from Terrorism
Moderator: Antonio Missiroli, Director of Studies, European Policy Centre
Presenters: Lars Gunnar Wigemark, Head of Unit, Security Policy, DG RELEX.
Gilles de Kerchove, EU Counterterrorism Coordinator, Council of the European Union
Christian Krassnig, Policy Officer for CIP and CBRN, DG JLS, Commission
Discussant: Daniel Keohane, Research Fellow, EU Institute for Security Studies
15.00 Coffee break
15.30 PURSUE: Pursuing, Investigating, and Bringing Perpetrators to Justice
Moderator: Bob de Graaff, Director, Centre for Terrorism and Counterterrorism, Leiden University
Presenters: John Sandage, Deputy Director, Division for Treaty Affairs, UNODC
Robert Whalley, Consulting Senior Fellow, International Institute for Strategic Studies
Alexandre Guessel, Anti-Terrorism Coordinator, Council of Europe
Discussant: Hugo Brady, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for European Reform
RESPOND: Responding in Solidarity When Terrorist Attacks Occur
Moderator: Mark Rhinard, Senior Research Fellow, Swedish Institute of International Affairs
Presenters: Emanuela Bellan, Head of Unit, Secretariat-General, Commission
Johnny Engell-Hansen, Head of Unit, Operations, EU Situation Centre, Council General
Timo Hellenberg, Executive Director, Hellenberg International Ltd
Discussant: Gustav Lindström, Course Director, European Training Course in Security Policy, Geneva Centre
for Security Policy
17.00 Conclusion, followed by drinks reception
Morning Session report
Following the welcoming remarks from Hans Martens, Chief Executive of the Euro-
pean Policy Centre, Ambassador and Counterterrorism Coordinator Tomas Rosander
from the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs took the floor. He opened by noting
As counterterrorism policy has moved beyond the ‘war on terror’ paradigm,
the prospects for enhanced international cooperation have improved.
Regarding the EU’s role in counterterrorism, Ambassador Rosander underlined
that the focus should now be placed on implementation, including support to
third countries and areas like Pakistan, the Sahel and Yemen. The EU already has
a number of excellent platforms for its counterterrorism activities, but there is a
need for greater coordination and consideration of possible synergies among the
EU institutions, specifically, and among member states, generally.
Explaining the Swedish position toward EU counterterrorism, the Ambassador,
noting that ‘transparency is a Swedish passion’, explained that Sweden advocates
as much openness and transparency as possible, including in the field of counter-
terrorism, to avoid feeding suspicions and alienation. Ambassador Rosander ended
his presentation highlighting the importance that the EU’s approach to counterter-
rorism must always respect human rights, international standards and rule of law.
Gilles de Kerchove, EU Counterterrorism Coordinator, Council of the European Un-
ion, began by reminding the audience that the EU’s principal role is to support
the Member States’ national security programs, and he noted:
The current strategy seems to be working, partly reflected in the fact that
there have not been any terrorist attacks on EU soil since the London attack
in July 2005.
He went on explaining that the nature of terrorist threats has evolved since 9/11
from being coordinated by a single organisation (e.g. al-Qaeda) to a more diversi-
fied and subtle structure, raising concerns that fragile or failed states (e.g. Sudan
or Mali) could become safe havens for terrorists or foster ‘home-grown terrorism’.
‘Recent Eurobarometer polls show that EU citizens want ‘Europe’ to do more in
the fight against terrorism’, said Mr de Kerchove. The current EU strategy does not
need revising but should be better implemented. In terms of the four pillars of the
Counterterrorism Strategy, more has been achieved in relation to ‘pursuing’ ter-
rorists and ‘protecting’ the civilian population than to ‘preventing’ and ‘respond-
ing’ to threats.
Mr de Kerchove said there must be a proper legal framework along with a vision
and a strategy on data sharing taking into account how much surveillance each
country is prepared to accept. The EU should be ready to increase its assistance
to third countries (such as Pakistan and Yemen) to help strengthen their capacity
and mobilise development assistance in the Sahel region of sub-Saharan Africa.
Member States must also do more to combat ‘home-grown terrorism’ without stig-
matizing one culture or religion and they must build better relations between the
intelligence community and the private sector. Regrettably, countries too often
fail to develop national counterterrorism strategies, allowing industry and tech-
nology to steer them forward, Mr de Kerchove noted. The ratification of the Lis-
bon Treaty will increase the pace of the EU’s decision-making process and involve
the European Parliament more actively. The new post of High Representative for
Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the planned European External Action
Service would improve states’ ability to face territorial threats and integrate civil
protection and defence policies better.
Turning to EU and US cooperation on counterterrorism, Mr de Kerchove said that
in the past, the Bush administration had preferred to make bilateral agreements
with Member States, and that its paradigm of the ‘global war on terrorism’ had
muddied EU-US relations. There is now a new approach, and this autumn there
will be a ‘Washington Declaration’ on a shared set of legal principles on counter-
terrorism and data protection.
Gregory F. Treverton, Senior Policy Analyst and Professor, RAND Corporation, ex-
plored questions related to EU-US counterterrorism cooperation. He said that to
improve US-EU cooperation around counterterrorism, the US first needs to inte-
grate its law enforcement and intelligence cultures, and use this as the basis for
Professor Treverton further noted that most security activities take place ‘at the
edges of the EU’, as Member States have the primary responsibility for national se-
curity. He believed the EU is likely to take a larger role in counterterrorism in the
future, arguing that the current paradigm of geographical jurisdiction to guide po-
licing must be expanded beyond national borders. Noting the differences between
how the US and the EU view and react to threats, he said that EU countries treat
threats as domestic, while the US authorities perceive them as stemming from
abroad. Moreover, US prosecutors preferred to try terrorists in military courts
whereas EU prosecutors want to use criminal courts. Despite these differences,
Professor Treverton was hopeful about the prospects of greater US-EU cooperation
in the field of counterterrorism.
Speaking on the role of NATO in counterterrorism cooperation, Jiri Sedivy re-
Responding to terrorist threats, using an approach based on United Nations
principles and international law, has been a NATO priority ever since 9/11.
He explained that NATO is currently seeking to strengthen its cooperation with
both the UN and the EU. While NATO-EU cooperation has been enhanced, it still
falls short of its potential and expectations, and relations have become more dif-
ficult since the EU’s 2004 enlargement as two of the new EU Member States do
not have relations with NATO. Current NATO-EU relations consist of informal
information-sharing between staff, but more could be done to exchange informa-
tion about strategies and nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) issues, as the lack
of any plans to coordinate activities in the face of threats in Europe currently is
‘alarming and unacceptable’. To improve NATO-EU cooperation, Mr Sedivy suggest-
ed that one measure would be to set up more regular high-level talks. However,
he noted, such plans are currently on hold because of a ‘political blockage’, which
must first be overcome.
In his address, Christopher Dickey, Newsweek’s Paris Bureau Chief and Middle East
Regional Editor, made a case against the use of military means when fighting ter-
rorism. In fact, Dickey pointed out that some of NATO’s military efforts might
even be counter-productive since NATO has become involved in an ‘occupation’ of
Suggesting that some terrorists are driven by anger at ‘occupations’ such as of Pal-
estine, Iraq and Afghanistan, Dickey insisted that it is the occupation of Muslim
countries by the West – not the fact that they are under-developed – that engen-
ders terrorism. He noted that supplying aid and helping to foster development
should therefore not be the sole means to eradicate terrorism.
Moving on to addressing how terrorism can be addressed, Mr Dickey said he be-
lieved that countries are more prepared to ‘trade’ – rather than to ‘share’ – intel-
ligence in their fight against terrorism because this would provide police forces
in one country with something in return. With regard to the EU, Mr Dickey said it
should focus its efforts on building a framework in which to share intelligence.
In particular, the EU should focus on areas such as boosting communications
in cross-border finance and in facilitating forums for trading intelligence.
One major obstacle, however, is that the 27 EU Member States have various de-
grees of concern about fighting terrorism as those threats tend to be higher in
some Member States than in others, and that this constitutes a problem for effec-
tive cooperation amongst Member States.
The morning session report was written by the European Policy Centre. For the original report,
PrEVEnt: Preventing and responding to radicalisation Leading
Moderator: Magnus Ranstorp, Research Director, Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies,
Swedish National Defence College
The first workshop focused on the ‘prevent’ strand of the EU’s counterterrorism
efforts. Discussion focused on the need to mitigate the factors that lead to radicali-
sation, including root causes, recruitment strategies, and extreme narratives both
in Europe and abroad. Participants differed somewhat on the core causes of radi-
calisation and the consequent actions that must be taken.
Viewing terrorism as being chiefly motivated by ideology, some participants
stressed the importance of producing a counter-narrative capable of challenging
the rise of Islamic extremism. They called for religious and civic leadership that
emphasizes peaceful living and social harmony, drawing on grass-roots efforts to
counter radical tendencies within Islamic communities. Examples included im-
proving access to information and education in order to provide a better under-
standing of Islam and its true, fundamental teachings based on open-mindedness
and peaceful co-existence, teaching youth the true meaning of Jihad and Islam, and
exposing misguided concepts related to Islam. In addition to efforts within at-risk
communities, some speakers suggested that inter-community measures should be
promoted. Such measures include workshops and dialogues between faiths, and
cultural activities highlighting common points of agreement between religions.
Some participants emphasized other motivations behind extremism, including
economic and political grievances. Such problems have a tendency to lead young,
male adolescents, in particular, into radical forms of Islam. Focusing on the al-
leviation of root causes, including economic destitution and political instability,
would help address radicalisation concerns even if the direct links between these
factors and extremism are not firmly established.
Regarding the role of the EU in the prevention of terrorism, participants agreed
that sustained and ‘real’ cooperation is of critical value to member states. Discus-
sion turned to the fact that EU member states engage in prevention activities at
very different levels – some are more advanced and sophisticated than others.
Some governments have special programmes, while others do not; some have con-
siderable expertise in counter-radicalisation, while still others are only now build-
ing capacity. An EU-wide template for prevention programmes might therefore be
in order, so that countries can more efficiently ‘learn’ from each others’ successes
and failures. A systematic register of past and current efforts, combined with a
shared evaluation process, would heighten the EU’s overall effectiveness and al-
low it to ‘punch its weight’ in the global sphere.
Maajid Nawaz Director, Quilliam Foundation;
Former Member of Hizb ut-Tahrir
Imam Jean Abd al-Wadoud Gouraud Instructor, Advanced Institute for
Islamic Studies, France
Edit Schlaffer Founder and Chair, Women Without Borders/
Sisters Against Violent Extremism
Peter Neumann Director, International Centre for the Study of
Radicalisation and Political Violence
ProtECt: Protecting Citizens, Borders and Infrastructures
Moderator: Antonio Missiroli, Director of Studies, European Policy Centre
The second workshop explored the ‘protect’ strand of the EU’s counterterrorism
efforts. Such efforts include a strategic commitment to protect citizens and infra-
structures while reducing our societal vulnerabilities to attacks through improved
security of borders, transport and other essential systems required to power our
The workshop began by highlighting EU successes. Increasing attention to build-
ing threat assessment capacity was seen as a step in the right direction. Border
control was discussed as an area where the EU has made progress and the enlarge-
ment of Schengen was viewed as an important step. Participants also noted that
much had been accomplished in the area of Critical Infrastructure Protection
(CIP). In particular, the establishment of the Critical Infrastructure Warning Infor-
mation Network (CIWIN) to strengthen information sharing on CIP between EU
member states was praised. The network, where member states can share good
practices and information on activities, vulnerabilities and shared threats, was
perceived as a significant accomplishment.
Discussion then turned to the external dimension of the prevent strand. The EU
should devote more attention to prevention efforts abroad, some participants ar-
gued. Programs to build law-enforcement capacity in Pakistan, and the Jakarta
Centre for Law Enforcement Cooperation, were seen as steps in the right direc-
tion, but more work needs to be done. Use of the Stability Instrument was exam-
ined as an instrument for the EU to provide relevant assistance to foreign coun-
Participants highlighted areas where more work is needed. Completion of data-
bases such as the Schengen Information System II (SISII) was an urgent concern,
albeit with a recognition of civil liberties worries. More protection efforts should
be devoted to urban transportation infrastructures and soft targets. Such areas
have been neglected in comparison to civil aviation and sea ports, for example.
Dialogue with the public sector needs to be strengthened. The private sector is
both a critical actor and a critical target in relation to terrorism and counterterror-
ism and much value can be added through a more comprehensive public-private
partnership in this area. A lack of joint exercises and simulation between EU gov-
ernments, the EU and NATO, and the EU and the US was cited as detrimental to
the building of joint capacities, trust and confidence amongst partners.
A general consensus emerged that the EU must now focus on implementation and
consolidation of its existing efforts. Other priorities include careful consideration
of the ‘internal security strategy’ in the Lisbon Treaty. On the one hand, such a
strategy would be valuable to ‘get the interior ministry people on board’ as op-
posed to foreign ministries. On the other hand, a potential for conceptual overlap
exists with the external security strategy which may re-establish the internal-
external security divide. More work needs to be done to match the EU’s security
research with EU priorities. Findings should be disseminated more broadly to gov-
ernments, industry and the public.
Gilles de Kerchove EU Counterterrorism Coordinator, Council of the
Lars Gunnar Wigemark Head of Unit, Security Policy, DG RELEX
Christian Krassnig Policy Officer for CIP and CBRN, DG JLS, Commission
Daniel Keohane Research Fellow, EU Institute for Security Studies
PurSuE: Pursuing, Investigating, and Bringing Perpetrators to Justice
Moderator: Bob de Graaff, Director, Centre for Terrorism and Counterterrorism,
The third workshop discussed the ‘pursue’ strand of the EU’s strategy for com-
bating terrorism. The goal of this strand is to enhance capacities to pursue and
investigate terrorists across national borders; to impede planning, travel, and
communications; to disrupt support networks; to cut off funding and access to at-
tack materials; and to bring terrorists to justice. Participants agreed that a broad
strategy against terrorism is essential and that human rights and rule of law must
be at the heart of such a strategy. This would require the development of a shared
vision, allowing for a strategic approach based on careful and common threat as-
Participants pointed out that the pursue aspects of counterterrorism are not
strictly limited to law enforcement. There is a growing recognition regarding the
interrelationship between the prevention of terrorism and its pursuit, including a
wider appreciation of the need to consider these strands in concert. Efforts must
encompass such issue areas as policing, border control, security sector reform,
customs, extradition, migration, etc. Currently these issues are handled amongst
very different policy communities.
In taking such an approach, participants stressed that European counterterrorism of-
ficials must ensure equal attention to activities inside and outside Europe. In address-
ing the problem of external terrorism, there is a need to restrict terrorist groups
operating abroad through proscriptive instruments. Furthermore, EU officials should
strive to allocate sparse resources more effectively by ‘building on strengths’.
Ideally, more information-sharing amongst member states would allow for identifi-
cation of overlaps and gaps, and might lead to quicker, common recognition of key
problem areas. Closer relations between the police and prosecutors would go a long
way towards ensuring that terrorist suspects are properly prosecuted.
Stressing the importance of the need to improve EU cooperation with other inter-
national organizations, participants noted that while the UN has a fairly limited
operational role it can still provide the international community with structure as
well as with a global counterterrorism approach. The UN Global Counterterrorism
Strategy is based on a holistic and collegial perspective emphasizing rule of law
and criminal justice. Currently, the UN provides training and technical assistance
funded by its member states. However, some participants shared the view that it
is unfeasible to have a single approach to terrorism, suggesting instead that assist-
ance should be tailor-made for specific cases, thus requiring careful assessments.
John Sandage Deputy Director, Division for Treaty Affairs, UNODC
Robert Whalley Consulting Senior Fellow, International Institute for
Alexandre Guessel Anti-Terrorism Coordinator, Council of Europe
Hugo Brady Senior Research Fellow, Centre for European Reform
rESPond: responding in Solidarity When terrorist Attacks occur
Moderator: Mark Rhinard, Senior Research Fellow, Swedish Institute of International
The fourth workshop focused on the last strand of the EU’s counterterrorism ef-
forts: ‘respond’. The goal of this strand is to prepare governments and citizens, in
the spirit of solidarity, to manage and minimize the consequences of a terrorist
attack by improving capabilities to deal with the aftermath of the attack, the coor-
dination of the response, and the needs of victims.
Discussion first turned to the EU’s growing array of capacities directed towards
helping member states to recover from attacks and disasters. The EU now has poli-
cies, tools, and procedures in place to deal with terrorist attacks in most of the
policy sectors where it holds competences, from transport to information tech-
nology. There are also new decision procedures that allow the EU to act quickly
and effectively when a disaster strikes. Participants agreed that the EU’s capaci-
ties must be understood in a broader context: although many observers associate
‘response’ with civil protection, in fact the EU’s capacities include efforts focused
on prevention and preparation for generic events. This explains the proliferation
of situation awareness portals and integrated early warning systems focused on
Participants encouraged a more strategic orientation to the EU’s efforts. Haphazard
growth of the EU’s response capacities could be more adequately organised and di-
rected. Discussion explored the value of a strategic document agreed between the
national and EU levels, to identify where capacities reside, where responsibilities
begin and end, and what planning guidance should be taken into account.
Discussion then turned to a ‘triage’ approach to understanding the nature of ter-
ror attacks, each requiring an increasing degree of EU cooperation: (a) localized
attacks requiring supplementary support from the EU or other international or-
ganisations, (b) multiple attacks requiring both supplementary support and coor-
dination for assessment and response, and (c) attacks outstripping the capacities
of individual states and requiring management at the EU level.
Whatever the nature of the attack, participants agreed that the EU can play a
value-added role in the areas of (i) obtaining situation awareness, (ii) coordinat-
ing communication, (iii) clarifying decision-making structures, and (iv) identify-
ing and, where appropriate, managing the knock-on effects of a terrorist attack.
As threats become increasingly transboundary, the EU and its member states will
need to tackle these tasks effectively, through practised relations between EU in-
stitutions, member states, and the array of actors also involved in situation aware-
ness and disaster response, such as international actors like the UN and WHO and
Discussing the way forward, the group identified disparities between national
crisis management systems as an obstacle to coordinated crisis management at
the EU level. Participants emphasised that EU arrangements must be made more
flexible in their response and more attuned to member state needs, particularly
in light of the fact that EU efforts are dependent on national capacities Overall, a
consensus emerged that a holistic, multi-sectoral approach is needed at the politi-
cal level. This might involve a crisis management portfolio in the Barroso II Com-
mission. Further recommendations included: threat assessment across the board
to improve priority-making; better linkages between the four phases of counter-
terrorism (to foster coherence at both the technical and political levels); and a
stronger focus on implementation.
Emanuela Bellan Head of Unit, Secretariat-General, Commission
Johnny Engell-Hansen Head of Unit, Operations, EU Situation Centre,
Council General Secretariat
Timo Hellenberg Executive Director, Hellenberg International Ltd
Gustav Lindström Course Director, European Training Course in Security
Policy, Geneva, Centre for Security Policy
tHE WAY AHEAd
From Analysis to Proposals for Action
This conference marked the beginning of what should be a robust debate on the
EU’s role in countering global terrorism. Now comes the time to turn the valua-
ble words shared in both the plenary session and the parallel workshops into con-
crete action. This section lists specific areas for change followed by more general
advice to policymakers.
First, the EU must tackle the forces of radicalisation in a more targeted and sus-
tained way. The EU’s ongoing work to tackle the root causes of terrorism – includ-
ing development funding and stability programmes – should be partnered with
a more specific focus on radicalisation. Supporting civil society and religious
groups willing to promote a ‘counter narrative’ to radical Islamism is a step in the
right direction. For their part, EU governments must better leverage their vari-
ous efforts at terrorism prevention. Capacity building within poorly resourced EU
governments, along with systematic information-sharing about the successes and
failures of different programmes, would go a long way toward that goal.
Second, the EU should further its work on critical infrastructure protection to
deter attacks and build resiliency into pan-European systems. Rather than ad-
dressing all infrastructures simultaneously, the EU should first assess risks and
identify key vulnerabilities in order to target specific infrastructures. Areas
where European infrastructures cross the EU frontier should be addressed by
initiatives that coordinate internal and external policy instruments. If national
implementation of European critical infrastructure protection programmes con-
tinues to falter, more binding guidelines could be usefully considered by the EU.
Third, the EU’s investigation and pursuit efforts against suspected terrorists,
although an area of great progress, requires further attention. Closer working
relationships between police, customs, migration, and border control officials
must be a priority. New initiatives under the ‘Stockholm Programme’ could pro-
vide the vehicles for such efforts. After a number of false starts, EU data sharing
mechanisms must be finalised and used only when necessary for solving a case
(thus respecting data privacy concerns).
Fourth, the EU’s toolbox of response capacities, although not focused solely on
terrorist attacks, requires better coherence and flexibility. Coherence can be
gained by central coordination of the Commission’s sectoral initiatives—current-
ly fragmented between such sectors as transport, health, humanitarian aid, and
civil protection. Flexibility can be enhanced by designing crisis decision struc-
tures tailored to different types of events, and by improving situational aware-
ness for all EU members during a crisis. The ‘Solidarity Clause’ in the Lisbon
Treaty should be treated as an opportunity to enact such reforms.
Close to a decade after the 11 September 2001 attacks and flush with vigour after
approval of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU has a historic opportunity to recalibrate its
fight against global terrorism. The anniversary of the attacks should prompt a
fresh look at the EU’s counter-terrorism strategy, focusing both on detail and on
general principles. The arrival of the Lisbon Treaty must bring attention to how
institutional innovations, such as the expansion of qualified majority voting, a
new internal security committee, and a double-hatted high representative, might
help the EU institutions ‘pull in the same direction’ towards counter-terrorism.
We hope this conference has offered both the intellectual stimulus and the prac-
tical suggestions to improve the EU’s approach towards countering the terrorist
threat in the world today.
with the editing assistance of Erik Brattberg and workshop reporting by
Josefine Dos Santos, Åsa Fritzon, Björn Fägersten and Kristin Ljungkvist.
The Europe Research Program at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs
wishes to thank the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs for their generous sup-
port of its research on EU cooperation on counterterrorism.
Panel morning session
Panel morning session
Photos: European Policy Centre