G-6 AND DHS SECRETARY CHERTOFF DISCUSS

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 ROME 001132 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: KJUS KHLS PTER CVIS PREL PGOV IT SUBJECT: G-6 AND DHS SECRETARY CHERTOFF DISCUSS COUNTERTERRORISM STRATEGIES REF: A. BERLIN 229 ¶B. ROME 724 ¶1. (SBU) Summary. Italy hosted a meeting of the six larger EU nations in Venice May 11-12 to discuss strategies and share experiences on ways to better cooperate in the fight against radicalization and terrorism. Known as the "G6" meetings of EU interior ministers, this year's meeting included DHS Secretary Chertoff and European Commission VP Frattini as SIPDIS guests for the first time. The US Delegation was invited to attend on the second day when the discussion focused on ways to enhance the trans-atlantic dialogue on these issues. EU Ministers agreed that radicalization poses a significant threat in Europe, urged further attention on the root causes, welcomed ideas to help undermine radical recruitment, and noted that prison populations require special focus. Some suggested that the G6 should turn its attention to radicalization in Africa, which has a potential direct impact on European communities because of proximity. G6 ministers discussed the legal shortcomings that hamper aggressive counter-terrorism strategies and suggested new conceptual approaches on fighting terrorism. Finally, the ministers agreed that expulsions are an effective tool to protect national security and suggested that more emphasis should be given to protecting the rights of citizens to live without terrorist attacks when determining if dangerous non-citizens should be expelled from their territories. Members welcomed US participation at future G-6 meetings, and informally raised the idea of having a dialogue on terrorism with other parts of national governments beyond interior ministries. End Summary. ¶2. (U) High-level participation at the May 11-12 G6 plenary meeting in Venice included: Minister Amato (Italy); Minister Kaczmarek (Poland); Director General, National Police Prefect Gaudin (France) and Director of Territorial Security Pierre de Bousquet de Florian (France); Minister Schaeuble (Germany); Home Secretary Reid (UK); Secretary of State for Security Camacho (Spain); European Commission VP Frattini; DHS Secretary Chertoff. (U) Combating Radicalization In Europe -------------- ¶3. (SBU) German Minister Schaeuble opened the plenary session with a discussion on managing the effects of mass migration in Europe. A failure of integration, he warned, stems from isolation and leads to serious national security threats. We must engage in an intercultural dialogue to help prevent the problems of isolation, and focus particularly on growing Muslim communities. Member states should also acknowledge differences within Muslim communities and modify their messages as necessary, realizing that a "one size fits all" approach is not effective. Italian Minister Amato complained that he felt "helpless" about foreigners who enter Italy and preach anti-Western ideologies. A key focus in this regard, he said, should be to find ways to address radical Imams who use Mosques for nefarious purposes and as a venue to preach hate. Italian law, he underscored, restricts the government's ability to move against religious leaders even under those circumstances. Amato expressed similar concern that religious schools were springing up in Italy and seemed to be imparting radicalism to their students. Prefect Gaudin offered that France already has a good outreach project with the Council of Muslim Faithful (CFCM). The French government regulates Mosques, Imams, and religious schools to ensure they comply with French law. ¶4. (SBU) Chertoff noted that home-grown Islamic radicalization is not as serious a problem in the US as it is in Europe, but pockets of radical Muslims exist, as the recent arrests in New Jersey of individuals targeting military facilities at Fort Dix show. The issue of radicalization is one that inherently belongs to the Muslim community, he added. Muslims have to take ownership of this problem because government leaders do not have sufficient credibility. We need to identify and encourage an influx of educated Imams that have an alternative narrative of life experiences away from violence. We should be more creative in using the media, Chertoff explained, especially the Internet. Polish Minister Kaczmarek said Poland maintains a joint project with Germany to comb the Internet for potential threats, which could be useful for other members. ¶5. (SBU) VP Frattini announced that the EU is already at work on the radicalization front, saying that there are at least three studies due out by year end analyzing the factors that lead to radicalization. The European Commission is also ROME 00001132 002 OF 004 working on a project to track (i.e., map out) the background, training, and funding of Imams and mosques in Europe. Frattini mentioned a pilot project in the Netherlands that teaches Imams the Dutch language and culture to help in the integration process. Another project underway in Indonesia (funded by the EU),he said, identifies moderate Muslim leaders and provides them opportunities to engage large groups; the EU is interested in expanding this project. (Note: Our sense was that this is a public diplomacy program to give moderate leaders a platform to convey life experiences and engage others to show that radicalism is not the only--or best--avenue to solve problems. End note) ¶6. (SBU) Home Secretary Reid cautioned against over analyzing the situation, which could distract from taking concrete actions to stem the growth of radicalism. We should share practical examples of how isolation translates into indiscriminate violence against innocents. With respect to Imams, Reid said we should institute tighter local language requirements. We must take a holistic approach to radicalization, Reid advised, and look for ways for the local community to get involved to undermine its inception. One special focus should be radicalization in the prison system, he underscored, where radical recruitment is steadily growing. Secretary of State Camacho agreed with Reid's approach on prison recruitment and supported the idea of a unified approach to tackle the general problem of radicalization. (SBU) Africa: A Problem Waiting To Happen -------------- ¶7. (SBU) Director de Bousquet asked that the group direct its attention to the radicalization problem in Africa, which in France's view, is generally underestimated. The area from North Africa to the Horn and south to Tanzania, he said, is fertile ground for fundamentalism and terrorists. The region is importing radical Imams from Saudi Arabia, de Bousquet asserted, and the strength of fundamentalism is a function of ongoing radical activities in the region. The existence of terrorist networks in East Africa and the Horn is also worrisome, de Bousquet continued, especially the strong threat of al-Qaida in the region stretching from Sudan to Tanzania. Camacho noted that destabilization in North Africa has direct repercussions for countries like Spain, which border the Mediterranean. The Spanish intelligence services, Camacho said, judge that al-Qaida is working to establish a franchise in the region, if it has not already done so. (SBU) Outdated Legal System Hampers Counter-terrorism Action -------------- -------------- ¶8. (SBU) Amato said that G6 members should start thinking of themselves as a network united to fight terrorism and think of new strategies in that regard. Reid launched a spirited discussion on the international legal system and counter-terrorism, declaring that there is a fundamental mismatch between the inherited legal framework available to fight terrorism and modern terrorist circumstances. The fundamental human right people should enjoy is the right to life, Reid argued, but that is under threat from modern terrorist groups. The challenge of the new threat of terrorism is that individuals not associated with governments or states, pose a threat to the collective right to life, yet are the beneficiaries of rules that prevent states from protecting their populations. ¶9. (SBU) Existing laws that are nearly 60 years old were created to protect the individual from the threat of European Fascism, Reid continued. The current threat to people in Europe and elsewhere comes not from the State but from individuals who are acting on behalf of organized terrorist groups. The current system, which is designed to protect the individual from the State, has the effect of shielding these individuals from efforts by the State to protect the lives of its citizens. Outdated laws, Reid noted, do not take into account changes in the nature of the terrorism threat, which is defined by fundamental changes in both terrorists' intentions and capabilities. The new wave of terrorism, he said, is not restrained from killing indiscriminately in large numbers; legal and social restrictions have little influence on these terrorists. In the past, a terrorist's capability was limited because of technology and expertise. With the availability of weapons of mass destruction, the capabilities today are potentially unlimited. Schaeuble agreed with Reid's analysis and said this type of discussion should be conducted at the European and trans-atlantic level, rather by individual member states. ROME 00001132 003 OF 004 (SBU) Expulsions As A Preventive Measure -------------- ¶10. (SBU) Reid argued that rules governing expulsions make it operationally difficult for countries to discharge their fundamental responsibilities to protect their citizens. European case law, he said, compels courts to regard the safety of individuals before deportation, making the rights of individual dangerous aliens more compelling than the rights of the citizenry as a whole. Because the legal regime does not take into account the modern threat of terrorism, countries' attempts to avoid the full implementation of human rights rules creates a strategic problem for Western countries. Those attempts, he continued, are interpreted as governments failing to live up to their own democratic standards and adherence to the rule of law. Citing his own experience, Reid said the European Convention on Human Rights is so restrictive that the lives of 60 million British citizens are threatened because of the speculative risk to a handful of foreign nationals facing the threat of mistreatment in their home countries. Saddling a host nation with this burden, he declared, is disproportionate and illogical. ¶11. (SBU) Frattini said he has asked European Commission President Barroso to include a statement in the draft "Future of Europe" Council conclusion that emphasizes citizens' right to security and protection of liberty. Frattini proposed creating a re-entry ban for the whole EU--even a permanent one--in cases where individuals are considered a serious threat to all member states. The idea is to be able to expel an individual and keep them out when the threat is not only to the host nation but also to neighboring members. ¶12. (SBU) One way to make this more politically acceptable, Frattini argued, would be to devise "security packages," much like the mobility and migration packages currently in place. The EU can set up agreements with third countries to guarantee certain basic protections and treatment for deported individuals. The EU could create a database of information that outlines what countries guarantee certain rights. If the EU is united on this approach, Frattini maintained, it could have some influence with the courts and facilitate expulsions. ¶13. (SBU) Schaeuble fully agreed that a state should be able to expel suspects for national security reasons, but cautioned that the practice not fuel radicalization. Why not give suspects a choice, he asked rhetorically, instead of automatically expelling them. Either the suspect agrees to follow the host country's laws to the letter, or to face immediate expulsion. Above all, Schaeuble insisted, we should seek global and permanent solutions to this legal problem; stop gap measures are not the answer. At the same time, he said, in light of possible adverse reactions by some sectors of European public opinion, the G6 should consider keeping this type of discussion outside the public domain. ¶14. (SBU) Chertoff agreed that modifying existing laws is only temporary. We need to brainstorm new tools to keep up with reality, he urged; we need to think out of the box. He also noted that this problem in the United States is somewhat less dire, as the US abides by the obligations under the Convention Against Torture instead of the European Convention on Human Rights. Camacho and Gaudin supported further dialogue on this issue and echoed Schaeuble's caution, saying that, although punitive measures are an acceptable part of law enforcement, we should be careful not to undermine fundamental rights. Gradual Next Steps -------------- ¶15. (SBU) Amato concluded the G6 meeting saying that updating legal tools to incorporate the notion of networks threatening our way of life will take time. In the realm of counter-terrorism, he said, the G6 should consider establishing a solidarity clause much like exists in NATO. Members should adopt common principles (not a treaty) that demonstrate a unified front against terrorists. Amato issued a general invitation to include US participation in future discussions on these topics and suggested that there might be a benefit to opening up the dialogue to other departments, including ministries of foreign affairs. Camacho suggested that the G6 set up working groups to further analyze the situation in Africa and discuss the legal aspects of expulsions. ROME 00001132 004 OF 004 Comment -------------- ¶16. (SBU) G6 ministers warmly welcomed Secretary Chertoff and the US delegation as guests to their G6 meeting. The Europeans consistently pointed out that a common approach with the US in fighting terrorism is the logical way ahead. We found European arguments on the nature of the terrorist threat and legal hurdles to be the most lucid and concise we have heard recently. Clearly, the Europeans want to maintain a strong trans-atlantic partnership to tackle these issues. We may have some differences in approach, and our legal goals and means may not match up exactly, but we share similar views on a variety of points. The final G6 communique can be found in English at the Italian Interior Ministry website www.interno.it. ¶17. (U) DHS did not have an opportunity to clear this message. Spogli