Home page
Presentation
Activities
Documents
Press & PR
Who's who?
Links
Site Map
Contacts
Search this site
Cliquer ici pour la version française


Proceedings of the seminar on "The European Security and Defence Policy: how to deal with the new threats"


Proceedings of the seminar on
"The European Security and Defence Policy: how to deal with the new threats"

Seminar
on
"The European Security and Defence Policy: how to deal with the new threats"

co-hosted by the Spanish Cortes Generales and the WEU Assembly

Museo Príncipe Felipe, Ciudad de las Artes y de las Ciencias

Valencia, 9-10 February 2004

Programme

Monday 9 February 2004

09.30 Opening session / Inauguration of the seminar:

          Mrs Rita Barberá Nolla, Mayor of Valencia

          Mr Guillermo Martínez Casañ, Chairman of the Spanish Delegation

          to the WEU Assembly and Chairman of the Political Committee

          Mr John Wilkinson, Chairman of the Defence Committee of the WEU Assembly

          Mr Francisco CAMPS, President of the Generalitat Valenciana

      Keynote speaker: Mrs Ana Palacio, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Spain

11.15 First session: Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

        Chairman: Mr Francisco Arnau Navarro, Chairman of the Technological and Aerospace Committee

        Speakers:

          Mr Vicente Garrido, Director, Instituto de Cuestiones Internacionales y politica exterior (INCIPE), Madrid

          Mr Giorgio Zappa, President and Director General, Alenia Aeronautica S.p.A.

15.00 Second session: Terrorism

        Chairman: Mr John Wilkinson, Chairman of the Defence Committee

        Speakers:

          Mr Jean-Luc Marret, Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique (Foundation for Strategic Research), Paris

          Mr Agustín Díaz de Mera, Director General of Police, Ministry of the Interior, Spain

          Mr Haizam Amirah Fernandez, Senior Analyst, Real Instituto Elcano, Madrid

          Mr Colin Cleary, Political Counsellor, US Embassy, Madrid

Tuesday 10 February 2004

10.00 Third session: Cooperation with the southern Mediterranean countries on

      regional problems

      Chairman: Mr Guillermo Martínez Casañ, Chairman of the Spanish

      Delegation to the WEU Assembly, Chairman of the Political Committee

      Speakers:

          Prof. Castor Diaz Barrado, Professor of International Public Law, Juan Carlos I University, Madrid

          Mrs Elvira Sánchez, Researcher, Centre d'información i documentación internationales (CIDOB), Barcelona

          Mr Francis Ghilès, Senior Fellow, Euro-Arab Management School

          (EAMS), Granada, [2002-2003]

          Mr Andreu Claret, Director of the European Mediterranean Institute,

          Barcelona

13.00 Conclusions:

          Mr Guillermo Martínez Casañ, Chairman of the Spanish

          Delegation to the WEU Assembly, Chairman of the Political

          Committee

        Closing address by Mr Julio de España, President of the Cortes Valencianas

        Press Conference

Monday, 9 February 2004

Opening session

09.30 Opening session / Inauguration of the seminar

Mrs Rita Barbera, Mayor of Valencia, began by welcoming the fact that the seminar was taking place in Valencia. Its title "The European Security and Defence Policy: how to deal with the new threats" showed how relevant and important it was. This importance was accentuated by the fact that it was the parliamentarians of the Assembly of WEU, the protagonists in the debate on the European Security and Defence Policy, who had taken the initiative of holding such a seminar. Among the many and varied themes to be discussed were the complex issues of terrorism and cooperation with the southern Mediterranean countries. The Mayor stressed that people in Europe and the world as a whole had to tackle the challenges facing them by forging a common position. This required new forms of cooperation and new policies to ensure that the world became a safer, and therefore a freer and more peaceful place in which to live. The seminar would provide pointers in this direction. Finally, the Mayor expressed the hope that the conclusions reached at the seminar would henceforth be associated with Valencia, a town which, in her opinion, had preserved its historical heritage but was also forward-looking.

Mr Guillermo Martínez Casañ, Chairman of the Spanish Delegation to the WEU Assembly and Chairman of the Political Committee, welcomed all the participants and thanked those who had enabled the seminar to be held in Valencia, especially the Cortes Generales, the WEU Assembly, the Government's ministerial spokesman, the regional government represented by its President, Mr Camps, the Town Hall of Valencia and its Mayor, who had just opened the seminar, and the Bancaja, represented by its Director, Mr Olivas, which was closely involved in the town's financial life and had sponsored the event. Mr Martínez Casañ emphasised that the main objective of the seminar was to address problems common to all Europeans and try to find joint solutions to the new threats. This was the purpose of the Valencia seminar and he hoped that the debates would be productive. He wished all the participants a pleasant stay.

Mr John Wilkinson, Chairman of the Defence Committee of the Assembly of WEU, thanked the Mayor of Valencia, Mrs Barbera, the President of the Generalitat Valenciana, Mr Camps, and the Chairman of the Spanish Delegation to the WEU Assembly, Mr Martínez Casañ. He explained why Mr De Decker, President of the Assembly, was unable to attend this important seminar on a subject which was at the very heart of the Assembly's preoccupations.

The debate would focus on some specific aspects of the European Security Strategy, in particular the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the fight against terrorism, but also on cooperation with the southern Mediterranean countries, a key element in the EU's Security Strategy.

In the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction there had been some very significant progress, with Iran signing up for nuclear inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency and Libya abandoning its weapons of mass destruction and halting the programmes to develop them. A thorough analysis of what was going on in this field in Iraq was continuing. But the objective of total control over proliferation was far from being met. North Korea continued to be a real worry. Even individual scientists could still do a great deal of harm as had been demonstrated by the case of a Pakistani nuclear scientist who had admitted that, at his own initiative, he had shared nuclear weapons technology with other countries without any authorisation. Here again many questions were as yet unanswered.

In the fight against terrorism there was without doubt more awareness of the threat and more cooperation between states on a wider scale, but even so much remained to be done. This was a formidable challenge to the political will and persistence of democratic states.

The European Security Strategy rightly pointed out that none of the new threats was purely military and that none of them could be tackled using purely military means. The Assembly had already made that point last year. Its politico/military cooperative role was very relevant to concerting European efforts in this field.

To counter each of these threats, a comprehensive set of instruments was needed. Europe had all the tools at its disposal to respond to multi-faceted situations, but it was a fact that its military capabilities were the weakest component. Reinforcing those capabilities was therefore vital in the years ahead if Europe was really determined to protect its citizens against future threats.

In its reports the Assembly had often pointed to the need for close and cooperative relations with the non-EU countries on the borders of the Mediterranean. It was aware of the vital importance of the Barcelona Process established in 1995 and its revitalisation through the Valencia Action Plan, drawn up by the Fifth Euro-Mediterranean Conference of Foreign Ministers in April 2002. Everyone knew, however, that the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict was having a devastating effect on full, parallel development of the three separate chapters of the Barcelona Process. But even in the other countries of this region, many problems still remained to be solved: the Western Sahara, abject poverty, poor economic prospects for the majority of the population and the possible rise of more radical Islamic movements, all of which constituted a threat to stability.

In building a cooperative system across the Mediterranean region, where north-south relations tended to be predicated on non-military factors, the accent should be on confidence-building measures in the political, economic and cultural fields, essentially with the aim of promoting regional cooperation, sustainable economic growth, human rights, democracy and cultural understanding. However, the military dimension was crucial and was at the heart of WEU's raison d'être.

Mr Camps, President of the Generalitat Valenciana, thanked the participants for coming to Valencia. He explained that before becoming President of the Government of the Autonomous Community of Valencia he had himself been a parliamentarian involved in parliamentary diplomacy. Hence he fully grasped the role that parliaments played in building a better and more peaceful world. Security and defence were there for the good of peoples and citizens and should serve the aim of achieving world peace. The Autonomous Community of Valencia was loyal to Spain and, of course, to Europe. It played a key part in Mediterranean cooperation and supported a policy of openness, cooperation and loyalty with regard not only to all partners in Europe but also those on the southern shore of the Mediterranean. He concluded his presentation with good wishes for peace and prosperity to all.

Mrs Ana Palacio, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Spain, pointed out that a debate was already under way and would continue in the coming months on promoting peace and stability worldwide, and more specifically in the southern Mediterranean and the Middle East. Concerted action was already taking place between Europe and the United States with a view to diagnosing the problems confronting the region. The UNDP report had clearly identified the wounds that were tearing the region apart. Jihadist terrorism was an ideology of hate that fed on the despair of young people. This analysis was shared by all and should encourage a concerted effort to combat terrorism.

Efforts must be made to create the just and prosperous societies that were a prerequisite for lasting peace in this region and the rest of the world. A general consensus was emerging on the importance of geography, even in a global society, and on the need "to look to the south so we did not lose our own sense of direction in the north". Over the coming months Spain would be proposing a comprehensive and consistent overall vision of these issues in various multilateral fora such as the G7 and the EU/US summit. In March they would be discussed at a meeting of the EU Foreign Affairs Ministers. Whatever solutions may be envisaged, the importance of the transatlantic link must be underlined.

There had to be a lasting change, not only in the situation itself but also in peoples' perceptions and mindset, which meant giving careful thought to ways of institutionalising long-term cooperation arrangements. It was crucial to the success of the process of global reform for those initiatives for change to come from within societies themselves.

The EU should not try to launch initiatives in parallel to the ones that already existed. It was necessary for each country concerned to develop its ties with the EU according to its specific characteristics. There must be a shared - hence transatlantic - effort and the Middle East conflict should not be permitted to stand in the way of realising the full potential for cooperation in the Mediterranean area. Last but not least, it was necessary to give fresh impetus to the Barcelona Process.

11.15 First session

Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

Chairman: Mr Francisco Arnau Navarro, Chairman of the Technological and Aerospace Committee

Mr Francisco Arnau Navarro, Chairman of the Technological and Aerospace Committee of the Assembly of WEU, opened the first session on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction with the following question: "How can we convey to our citizens the danger constituted by weapons of mass destruction?" He felt it was important to tackle this question with a view to debating it in the national parliaments.

Mr Vicente Garrido, Director of the Instituto de Cuestiones Internacionales y Politica Exterior (INCIPE), Madrid, described the threat posed by nuclear, radiological, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction, drawing a distinction between two approaches:

  • non-proliferation, founded on the implementation of treaties and multilateralism - this provided the basis for the European Union's approach;
  • counter-proliferation, which included the possibility of using force against "terrorist" states that had developed weapons of mass destruction. This was the approach currently favoured by the United States.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had identified three main threats in the nuclear field:

    (a) a radiological bomb designed to disperse radioactive material, or an attack on a nuclear power plant, which would have the same effect;

    (b) the theft of material in order to manufacture an atomic bomb;

    (c) the theft of a nuclear weapon.

In practice, (a) was a real threat. It was easy to get hold of radioactive material, of which there were large stockpiles, particularly on the territory of the former Soviet Union. Threat (b) seemed unlikely, given that terrorist networks did not have the wherewithal to manufacture an atomic bomb. Threat (c) was real, in view of the non-negligible risk of theft of materials in the former USSR and the fact that the destruction of its tactical nuclear arsenals was never subjected to international verification.

Regarding biological and chemical weapons, one could talk of "the poor man's bomb" in connection with the terrorist threat. The United States in particular took this risk very seriously, given that this kind of weapon was easy to produce and conceal. Moreover there were huge stockpiles of undestroyed chemical weapons in Russia.

However, it had to be borne in mind that these chemical gases were very dangerous to handle and highly volatile. Their "effectiveness" in the hands of terrorists was not a foregone conclusion (the Aum sect in Japan). Biological weapons had an enormous destructive potential, but were more likely to be used for "strategic" purposes, since it was impossible to control their effects in time or space. The Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions existed of course, but their application was highly problematic given the unwillingness of certain countries to allow their industry to be subjected to any proper inspections.

In fact the new development was not the existence of weapons of mass destruction per se, but rather the possibility for terrorist groups to get hold of them and the difficulties involved in properly monitoring chemical or pharmaceutical companies capable of supplying terrorist states or groups with the ingredients for their manufacture.

In conclusion, Mr Garrido felt that the European Union should seek ways and means of strengthening non-proliferation regimes and treaties and their application. Those regimes had, after all, achieved a measure of success thus far. It was also important to make a concerted effort as regards preventive action (vaccinations, for example) and measures for dealing with a chemical or biological attack. Finally, the EU should decide what stand to take on the issue of a ballistic missile defence.

Mr Giorgio Zappa, Chief Executive, Alenia Aeronautica S.p.A., pointed out that weapons of mass destruction were the main threat currently facing western societies, given the relative ease with which terrorists could procure them. Indeed, it was difficult to control the export and proliferation of these goods as sanctions regimes were not very effective. Over the last decade in particular there had been a proliferation of WMD and their means of delivery. It was therefore important for the western countries to coordinate their policies in the legal, political, diplomatic and military fields.

It was also necessary to make provision for counter-proliferation measures and to develop response capabilities. This meant making the necessary investments, organising armaments cooperation at European level and cooperating with the United States.

There was still a lack of coordination at European level. The solution was to set up a European armaments agency and to make use of OCCAR.

Surveillance was a prerequisite for avoiding proliferation. Europe must therefore acquire the requisite capabilities, such as satellites and UAVs. Transatlantic cooperation remained important, notwithstanding the difficulties linked with technology transfers.

Debate

Mr Ioan Timis (Romania) drew attention to the efforts being made by Romania, which was acutely aware of the dangers of weapons of mass destruction, to actively support international disarmament and non-proliferation policy, as well as all forms of cooperation with the United States.

Mr Dario Rivolta (Italy) wondered whether certain countries were continuing to conduct research on chemical and biological weapons and expressed concern about the danger of biological weapons being developed by terrorist groups.

Mr Garrido replied that many countries had not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, in particular in protest against the fact that Israel held nuclear weapons but had not signed up to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Furthermore, as long as there were no intrusive inspections of biological weapons - the United States in particular opposed such inspections - the risk of proliferation in this area remained considerable.

Mr Lluís Maria de Puig (Spain) shared the concern about proliferation and the terrorist threat. Yet the existence of such weapons had been given as the reason for waging war on Iraq, but for the moment their existence had still not been proven. Where, then, did the limits lie? Could all military intervention be justified? Wasn't there hypocrisy on the part of the United States and Russia, which held stocks of these weapons? It had been established following the anthrax scare in the United States that the anthrax had been produced in the United States. Whatever the case may be, it was not enough to have suspicions, one needed to be sure.

Mr Garrido replied that he had arrived at the same conclusions as Mr de Puig regarding the issue of WMD in Iraq, and recalled that recourse to the use of force should not take precedence over treaties.

Mr Renzo Gubert (Italy) wondered whether certain countries had the "right" to possess WMD.

Mr Garrido pointed out that the signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty had agreed that the five superpowers could have a military arsenal.

Mr Andrea Manzella (Italy) asked about the objectives pursued by terrorists. What did "rogue states" and terrorist groups have in common? Did the international scientific community have the means to control proliferation?

Mr Ali Dahmane (Algeria) drew attention to the dangers of applying double standards with regard to Islamic terrorism. It was important not to dramatise or accuse Arab-Muslim states in general. All countries should be involved in the combat against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Fears among Western public opinion should not be allowed to become an obsession as this could trigger serious tension between the Western and Muslim worlds.

Mr Zappa agreed, in response to all the questions, that technology was not the solution to the problem of terrorism, and that of suicide attacks in particular. However there were technological solutions with regard to state-held weapons of mass destruction. Europe needed greater intelligence capabilities, in the field of satellite observation in particular.

Mr Garrido, with reference to the failure to find WMD in Iraq, thought that there was little by way of serious information on such weapons in the satellite images of Iraq. Regarding the asymmetric threat, he pointed out that the United States had adopted the doctrine of Saint Augustine - the war is just if the cause is just - to justify a pre-emptive war against the risk of WMD.

15.00 Second session

Terrorism

Chairman: Mr John Wilkinson, Chairman of the Defence Committee of the Assembly of WEU

Mr Jean-Luc Marret, Foundation for Strategic Research, Paris, made an in-depth assessment of the types of terrorist threat the European Union would have to deal with.

He maintained that there were abiding structural reasons for terrorist violence, which meant that strictly security-based anti-terrorist measures did not go far enough. Poverty was not the only cause of terrorism. Many radical Jihad fighters found their vocation in Europe and the United States, mostly through the help of facilitators or activists in prison.

It was possible and necessary to combine a security-based fight against terrorism with a policy of providing development aid to specific regions, directing an approach that was essentially socio-economic towards the younger sections of the population in the most impoverished areas.

On the other hand, there was clearly no simple, overall solution to the problem of terrorism. Islam's present cultural crisis could only be resolved by Arab-Muslim societies themselves. The Western world could bear with this process to some extent but should continue to question to what degree this was possible without its becoming counter-productive.

Mr Agustín Díaz de Mera, Director General of Police, Ministry of the Interior, Spain, reminded his audience that forty years of ETA terrorism had been the cause of over 1 000 deaths. It was not easy to combat these types of terrorist organisations, which had networks in both their area of operations and abroad. Nowadays, they were often elaborate organisations with operational, logistic and economic structures and a recruitment base, and this made efforts to fight them more complicated. The 11 September 2001 attacks had, however, given an important boost to international cooperation in the fight against terrorism.

European police forces were now more aware of the dimensions of the terrorist problem, and more specifically, cooperation between France and Spain in the fight against ETA had improved considerably in recent years and yielded significant successes.

Spain was trying to improve international police cooperation to prevent terrorists seeking refuge in third countries.

Three elements were of vital importance in the fight against terrorism:

  • the exchange of police information and judicial cooperation;
  • the establishment of strategic partnerships between police forces in different countries, including the setting up of an overarching public security body to fight international crime and terrorism that respected neither laws nor borders;
  • the identification of emerging trends in crime and terrorism and development of a strategy to tackle them.

There should also be harmonisation of penal codes and agreements to make them easier to implement. Joint teams should be established for special activities, such as a border police force with a single command structure for the whole of the EU.

Judicial and police organisations in the EU should coordinate as closely as possible with one another, invest more in information technology and promote scientific and other forms of training.

Since 2001, the EU had made progress in the fight against terrorism with the approval of a common definition of the crime of terrorism, a European directive on an arrest and extradition warrant and the establishment of lists of terrorist organisations and their collaborators.

Mr Haizam Amirah Fernández, Senior Analyst with the Real Instituto Elcano, Madrid, said that while it was true that the Jihad terrorists represented only a minority in the Muslim world, writing them off as a small group of madmen was not sufficient to explain the root causes of terrorism. He recalled that there had been 300 Muslims among the victims of the attacks of 11 September 2001. It was his belief that a proper understanding of the underlying causes of terrorism could help to prevent similar attacks in the future, and took the view that it was necessary to "use our heads and not our hearts" to counter terrorism.

There were three fundamental aspects to Jihad terrorism: it was a combat in the name of religion, a fight against "the modern way of life" and a challenge to the existing world order. The reference to Islam was perceived as providing terrorism with a cloak of legitimacy. However, ideas of redemption and separation from Western nations were fundamental elements of the terrorists' logic. Since the failure of the vision of a "Great Arab Nation", political Islam had filled the void and kindled hopes of breaking the deadlock. Radical Islam had triggered a kind of civil war between extremists and moderate Muslims. The ideas it defended fell on fertile ground because too many poor people felt "excluded" and contested the legitimacy of the existing world order. Because young Muslims did not have access to political channels to express their desires, they felt alienated and frustrated. Arabic state, political and economic systems were not functioning properly and in particular were not providing enough jobs for the growing number of ambitious young people. Radicals offered the prospect of change and revolution which was attractive under these circumstances although, typically, radical leaders did not come from poor backgrounds.

Mr Fernández suggested that in order to put an end to terrorism Western society first needed to change the perception that people had nothing but contempt for the Muslim world. The next step was to stop creating the conditions which formed a breeding ground for violence because "the feeling of injustice is the decisive incentive for terrorism".

Mr Colin Cleary, Political Counsellor at the US Embassy in Madrid, presented an outside view of the recent success the Spanish authorities had scored in the fight against terrorism, including the crackdown on al-Qa'ida cells. Spain had been confronted with terrorism for several decades and had not needed a "9/11-lesson" to understand the importance of a comprehensive approach to combating terrorism. Indeed, it owed its success in seriously "weakening the scale of the ETA-thing" to a comprehensive strategy consisting of multi-faceted police work involving prisoners' groups and key witnesses and also of legal reforms, including stronger sanctions for multiple crimes and initiatives to raise public awareness about the victims of terrorist attacks. However, the speaker believed that ETA in its weakened form might now turn its attention to hitting "easier" targets, with the attendant risk of large numbers of civilian casualties.

Al-Qa'ida operations in Spain were supported by the proximity of militant Islamic movements in Algeria. One of the 11 September 2001 terrorists (Mohammad Atta) had been in Spain twice in the same year. The Spanish authorities had recently captured 12 individuals who were presumed to be members of al-Qa'ida.

While it sometimes proved impossible to convict presumed terrorists due to a lack of evidence, Mr Cleary considered that even a "temporary disruption" of their activities − while they were in custody − was useful.

He believed that there were six priority areas in the fight against terrorism: diplomatic activity, financial dealings, intelligence cooperation, law enforcement, justice cooperation and, finally, the military option.

Debate

H.E. Mr Mohamed Sahbi Basly (Ambassador of Tunisia in Madrid) regretted that countries were not "tackling the right problem" and that there seemed to be a prevailing logic of confrontation between poor and rich, Muslim and non-Muslim or the Arab and the Western world. In his view ignorance about fellow human beings was the main problem. He claimed that for too many years the West had been "deaf to our grievances". Spain, however, had been among the few nations to have established friendly relations with all Maghreb countries.

Mr Ali Dahmane (Member of the People's National Assembly, Algiers) warned against a potential "demonisation" of society as well as a "psychosis in Western countries against everything Arab". He questioned the historical legitimacy of those who were in possession of WMD and those who were not".

Mr Mostera Khiar (Member of the National Council, Algiers) regretted that for many years Algeria had been left to fight religious extremists on its own. Michel Dreyfus-Schmidt (France, Socialist Group) disagreed with Mr Cleary as he had understood him to be calling for capital punishment for terrorists captured in Spain. Mr Cleary replied that he was not advocating the death penalty but that Spain meted out harsher punishments for multiple murders committed by terrorists. He referred to a recent case in which a French magistrate had asked Spain to arrest 16 Algerians, only for France subsequently to refuse to bring them to trial. However, he repeated that even in such cases it was important for the activities of such presumed terrorists to be disrupted.

Mr Jean-Luc Marret pointed out that the most violent Islamic activists did not necessarily come from poor backgrounds. Exploiting the vacuum left by a dysfunctional state, militant Islamic groups offered assistance to the poorer sections of the population. It was therefore necessary to "gain a hold on their territory" and provide development assistance in a form suited to the local environment and which targeted ordinary citizens. However, the speaker warned against a simple transposition to the Arab world of Western assumptions about the role and functioning of civil societies, explaining that such an approach would fail because the functions that worked well in Western countries would not be appropriate in Arab societies.

Mr Haizam Amirah Fernández insisted that when people became desperate they resorted to violence. Whereas activists had been prepared to kill but not to die in the past, the situation had changed with people now prepared to die in order to kill − and thereby to serve the cause.

Tuesday, 10 February 2004

10.00 Third session

Cooperation with the southern Mediterranean countries on regional problems

Chairman: Mr Guillermo Martínez Casañ, Chairman of the Spanish Delegation to the
WEU Assembly and Chairman of the Political Committee

The Chairman opened the session by stressing that there could be no peace or security without dialogue, which brought about understanding between peoples. The subject of this session was of particular interest to the Spanish, who had daily, permanent relations with the countries of the southern Mediterranean. Everyone was therefore eager to hear what the four speakers had to say.

Mr Castor Díaz Barrado, Professor of International Public Law, Juan Carlos I University, Madrid, thanked the Assembly for having invited him to speak and stressed that there were two aspects of fundamental importance for cooperation in the Euro-Mediterranean area: the first was human rights and the second the social dimension of cooperation.

He reminded participants that the Barcelona Process, which had been established in 1995, contained a "security" dimension, an economic and financial dimension and a social, cultural and human dimension. However, the objectives set were a long way from being attained. What progress had been made in the various areas?

There was no shared perception or vision about human rights. It seemed as if the countries on the northern shore tried to impose their views on the southern Mediterranean countries. This did not make for compatibility. The European Union and the Council of Europe had asked all the countries concerned to sign the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights which placed strong emphasis on respect for human dignity and civil and civic rights. Furthermore, there was the Arab Charter adopted in 1994. A comparative study showed that the two instruments were founded on different criteria when it came to defining human rights. There were in particular three main areas of disagreement. First, the Council of Europe's Convention prohibited any interference with the physical inviolability of a human being. In contrast, in the southern Mediterranean countries this principle was recognised only within the limits of the legal framework as defined by the states. Attempts were under way to overcome this obstacle through cooperation. The second Vienna Conference had reached agreement on the universal nature of human rights. Article 5 of the declaration adopted by the Conference made provision for the respect of certain religious, cultural and political aspects in the region concerned. This made it difficult to establish a common area.

As far as physical inviolability was concerned, the northern and southern countries applied different criteria for non-discrimination and for defining freedom of conscience, thought and religion. In order to overcome the problem of establishing common criteria, a proposal had been made for human rights to be a cooperative responsibility with a view to creating a framework of compatibility based on a more pragmatic approach. However, this would require all the parties to agree on a core of jointly held beliefs. Work on a concept of compatibility was being done on the basis of a clause of conditionality prescribing the respect of human rights.

A great deal of progress had been made in the social field since the Barcelona Process had been launched in the 1990s. Economic integration had to go hand in hand with social integration, which implied looking at labour relations and workers' rights. This was an area of productive cooperation particularly as regards worker mobility (immigration and migratory movements) and cooperation between employers and employees.

The second aspect of the social dimension was education and training, and the third concerned health and social security rights. Finally, the influence of the media was important as were exchanges of view among young people and the participation of civil society.

Summing up, Mr Díaz Barrado said cooperation could not be restricted to the political arena or to security and defence. Human rights and the social dimension also had to be developed.

The Chairman thanked the speaker and called Mrs Elvira Sánchez.

Mrs Elvira Sánchez, Researcher, Centre d'información I documentación internactionales (CIDOB), Barcelona, pointed out that WEU and its Assembly had made a remarkable contribution since 1980 to the debate on the security and defence aspects of Mediterranean cooperation. But the economic, financial and social aspects were also important as was the need to bring Libya into the process.

It was essential to remember the multi-dimensional nature of security as there was a tendency to look on security solely in terms of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. However, the other aspects should not be neglected. It was very difficult to arrive at a common approach mainly because there was no joint vision on the two shores of the Mediterranean. The two sides did not understand each other and did not share a common security culture. Furthermore, Europe and the West as a whole gave the impression of wanting to control issues related to peace and security. Europe adopted an attitude of superiority in negotiations and this was not well received by its southern Mediterranean neighbours. New forms of dialogue therefore had to be found. There was a need for a global approach with a view to shared security on the basis of a combination of "security" and "stability". This would take better account of the needs of the southern Mediterranean countries.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict was another important factor which had to be taken into account in any North/South common security policy. If it was not included in a realistic manner, it would be impossible to table proposals. One of the reasons for it not having been included so far was that Europe had left it to the United States to take the initiative of becoming involved in the conflict. Europe's position of being content to play a subordinate role was damaging, because the United States' national interests did not always coincide with those of European countries. The US-led partnership initiative was in practice turning out to be aid: 61% of it was of a military nature and 82% of it went to Israel and Egypt.

Europe had to play its part in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and be more proactive. In addition to strengthening stability and security, it was important not to lose sight of the other important issues such as economic and democratic development. Specific cooperative action had to be taken to fight terrorism and stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and was also needed in other areas such as:

  • the economic development of the southern shore countries;
  • relations between the civil and military sectors;
  • conflicts outside the Mediterranean region;
  • citizens' security (demining in some regions of the southern Mediterranean countries);
  • territorial defence.

With a view to the imminent enlargement of the European Union it was to be feared that the EU would shift its centre of interest eastwards, to the detriment of the southern countries. So that this did not create an imbalance in favour of the East, it was important to ensure that the rules governing the acquis communautaire were applied strictly when welcoming the new member states into the EU. Furthermore, Europe's security policy should be consistent with the national policies of certain member states. With the strong participation of civil society it should be possible to rectify certain misconceptions the North had about the South.

(Mr Wilkinson, Chairman of the Defence Committee took the Chair)

Mr Francis Ghilès, Senior Fellow, Euro-Arab Management School (EAMS), Grenada (2002-2003) stressed the importance of combating ignorance through education and economic development. Since 11 September, the word "Islam" had taken on connotations that were almost as negative as those of the word "nuclear". US leaders themselves were using fundamentalist language ("axis of evil") similar to that used by extremists. One must be conscious of the importance of the language used not only by political leaders but also by the media in the West. The level of the media was in general very poor; their simplistic way of presenting issues did nothing to help dialogue. The image of the West projected to Arab societies by western television was above all one of a vulgar and narcissistic consumer society.

There had been mistakes on all sides. The presence of centres of fundamentalist Islamic activism had been tolerated in the West, for example in the United Kingdom, while Arab political leaders - for example in Algeria, when they had legalised the FIS - had sometimes underestimated the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism. Furthermore, the Taliban phenomenon in Afghanistan had to a large extent been created by the West (in particular by the United States in conjunction with Pakistan, with financial support from Saudi Arabia). In North Africa private funds from Saudi Arabia had been used to finance the publication of rigid Wahabite interpretations of the Koran which did not reflect the religious traditions of North Africa.

In the area of economic policy the EU proposed the creation of a free trade area that excluded agricultural products and the free movement of individuals, which was hypocritical. To call this a "free trade area" was a sham.

The EU was in the process of enlarging, yet Europeans were being deprived of a coherent policy with regard to the Mediterranean area. Europe must have the will to forge ahead in this area. North Africa had already made considerable progress. Legislation now existed - even if the spirit of the "law" remained too restrictive - and deserved recognition. Civil society played a non-negligible role. North Africa could be compared with Spain 40 years previously. The countries of the northern rim of the Mediterranean should show some humility, given Europe's own turbulent history.

Another important area was that of the offshore savings of the southern rim countries, which represented some 50 or 60 billion euros. Europe too needed to adopt a bolder vision and more courageous policies. In particular it was important to strengthen cooperation among Italy, Spain and France with respect to the region. The 5 + 5 initiative that had been re-launched the previous December in Tunis could be productive if it led to substantive cooperation.

The "Greater Middle East Initiative" proposed by the Americans appeared, in Mr Ghilès' view, to be "a grand concept looking for substance" motivated essentially by electoral considerations.

It was also essential in his view to build bridges between the North African diaspora in Europe and the countries of origin. Integration policies in the northern rim countries needed to be revisited, which called for a change of mindset. It was up to politicians and in particular to parliamentarians to talk less about terrorism and more about cooperation, in order to avoid creating a climate of fear among Western public opinion. The North African countries were natural and essential partners for the countries on the northern shore of the Mediterranean.

Mr Wilkinson thanked Mr Ghilès for his address which had been both provocative and full of wisdom. A policy dominated by fear would indeed be erroneous.

Mr Andreu Claret, Director of the European Mediterranean Institute, Barcelona, felt it was necessary, in such a seminar on European security, to underline the importance of regional cooperation. A few piecemeal measures were not enough, a fundamental strategy was called for.

It was necessary to tackle the root causes of terrorism and the new threats. It was too simplistic to explain the development of terrorism solely by the existence of extreme poverty and social inequality. Nevertheless it could not be denied that there was a link between widespread poverty and frustration and the development of Islamic fundamentalism.

Among Arab public opinion there was enormous frustration due to the lack of political, economic and social prospects. Hence it was important to develop effective North-South cooperation, in order to nip all forms of fundamentalism in the bud and counter such feelings of frustration in the southern rim societies.

The impact of EU enlargement needed to be correctly assessed. There was a tendency in most cases to focus on the challenges arising in the east and with regard to transatlantic relations. But it would be a serious mistake to forget the southern Mediterranean region, which had always been an area of trade and cultural exchanges, as well as of conflict. This was a historical constant which must be borne in mind.

Since 1995 the Barcelona Process had provided the framework for cooperation between the two shores of the Mediterranean. Some eight years following its creation the process was encountering difficulties and some people had doubts about whether it was effective. Its abolition had been suggested on occasions. It was indeed a highly complex process, but it would be a mistake to do away with it. The criticism with regard to its complexity and the doubts about its effectiveness might sometimes justified, but there was a second factor which had hampered its development, namely, the current obsession with security. A third element that was particularly detrimental to the Barcelona Process was the approach taken by the Bush Administration with regard to the management of relations between the Western and Arab worlds. The current US Administration took the view that it was necessary to instigate radical change in the Middle East through violent shock treatment, the war in Iraq being the first shockwave in this deliberate earthquake. The end consequences of such a global policy could still not be predicted. Even the consequences of the first shockwave in Iraq were still unforeseeable.

The Barcelona Process should be maintained, but it was necessary at the same time to adopt a constructive attitude and above all to avoid a bureaucratic routine that led to postponing agreed deadlines. It was necessary to attain tangible objectives in specific areas of cooperation.

Debate

Mr Wilkinson thanked the speakers and opened the debate.

Mr David Atkinson (United Kingdom) stressed the importance of seeking out the root causes of terrorism, particularly in the Middle East. What did the future hold for the four million Palestinians living in refugee camps, whose status had not been clarified? Should not the EU and WEU take an initiative to set up a fund in order to determine that status?

Mrs Sanchez replied that any initiative would be welcome. It was true that the camps were a breeding ground for terrorism, but how could they be done away with? The EU had to adopt a firmer policy. Could the Palestinians return to their homelands when the territories in question where under the authority of Israel?

Mr Jean-Pierre Kucheida (France) had a comment he wished to address to Mr Díaz Barrado: with reference to the social dimension of the rapprochement between North and South, the European Union's liberal drift was worrying because its policy would work in favour of businesses but not people. The North-South rapprochement should bring benefits to the population as a whole. As far as application of the principle of the universal nature of human rights was concerned, he found it shocking to suggest that respect for specific attributes should be observed.

The physical integrity of women had to be respected: practices of female mutilation could not be tolerated. The Sharia was incompatible with European values. The principle of secularism that had been adopted in France should be followed elsewhere. One country which was setting a good example in this respect was Turkey.

Mr Ghilès felt it necessary to be more modest. Discrimination against Algerians and women was still a problem in France. He had mixed feelings about prohibiting the wearing of headscarves. Economic development was perhaps the way to solve the problem. It had to be remembered that the unemployment rate was as high as 60% in some areas of France. Concerning women's rights, it should be borne in mind that some Arab countries had brought in reforms before a number of Catholic countries. It was therefore necessary to be a little more modest and show greater respect for others.

Mr Díaz Barrado considered that the various views needed to be drawn together. He agreed that the fundamental rights of a human being must not be violated and commanded respect. A person's physical and psychological integrity was an inalienable right. Once people agreed on what was essential, they then had to reach agreement on concepts that were compatible. Inviolable rights were recognised in the European Charter on Human Rights. In this respect social issues should not be neglected. A plan of action had been proposed for a number of areas.

Mr Petre Roman (Romania) took the view that attempts to export democracy to the Arab countries had been a partial failure. He did not think it wise to try and overturn all the customs and traditions of the Arab world. However, the West could at least export some aspects of its civilisation including the values of secularism, humanism and a sense of initiative. To that end a peaceful campaign against terrorism was necessary. Having heard the views of Mr Cleary, the representative of the US Embassy, friends of the United States had to ask themselves a question. Deposing Saddam Hussein had been a good deed. It had shown that the exercise of power through intimidation could be vanquished. But would its impact not have been even more effective if all the nations had rallied to the US action?

Mr Claret replied that the end of Saddam Hussein's regime opened up new prospects. The right approach was to develop cooperation and not just export democracy. The Arab world needed a transitional period.

Mr Napoleon Pop (Romania) explained that his country was very much in favour of strengthening Mediterranean cooperation and supported all initiatives with a view to framing an ambitious policy backed up by a strong common political resolve to organise such cooperation in the EU framework.

Mr Dario Rivolta (Italy) referred to the need to reconcile security requirements on the northern and southern shores of the Mediterranean with the obligation to respect human rights. With regard to the fight against terrorism he wondered whether immunity for EUROPOL officials was compatible with democratic principles.

H.E. Mr Mohamed Sahbi Basly (Tunisian Ambassador, Madrid) agreed with previous speakers that the glass should been seen as half full, rather than half empty. A change of mindset was necessary. Cooperation should be constructive and take place in a climate of trust and openness. One should not attempt to impose the Western model on southern Mediterranean countries. Rather, tolerance was called for on both sides. Poverty and frustration could lead to acts of desperation.

Mr Ali Dahmane (Member of the People's National Assembly of Algeria) welcomed the balanced presentations given by the speakers. All too often, European parliamentarians were inclined to impose Western values on southern Mediterranean countries. Islam had its own precepts which should be given the same respect as the values defended by other religions. It respected both human and women's' rights.

Mrs Manuel Aguiar (Portugal) agreed that people on both shores of the Mediterranean should defend human rights, which were universal.

Mr Ghilès pointed out that the Barcelona Process made provision for cultural, economic and personal exchanges. Nevertheless, he thought it was both possible and necessary to go further than the current economic and, in particular, cultural proposals.

Mr Claret thought the best solution for dealing with the delicate issue of human rights was to establish a regular and substantive dialogue between the two shores of the Mediterranean. The issue of human rights was an evolving one. Insufficient attention was paid to it in both the southern and northern parts of the Mediterranean region. The principle of dialogue needed to be broadened with the aim of constantly improving the protection of human rights.

Mr Wilkinson thanked Mr Guillermo Martínez Casañ, Chairman of the Spanish Delegation to the Assembly of WEU, and all the Spanish hosts for their welcome. He stressed the importance of the subjects that had been discussed. Cooperation between the two shores of the Mediterranean and the fight against terrorism were crucial to Europe's future security. Europe also needed to have flexible military capabilities. A naval force in the Mediterranean was of particular importance in that respect. The debates had been extremely interesting and representative, with numerous participants from the northern, southern, eastern and south-eastern parts of Europe as well as from the southern Mediterranean region. Such discussions contributed to the process of dialogue that was necessary in order to increase security for everyone.

Conclusions

Mr Guillermo Martínez Casañ , Chairman of the Spanish Delegation to the Assembly of WEU and Chairman of the Political Committee, thanked Mr Julio de España, President of the Cortes Valencianas, President Armand De Decker and all the participants. He agreed with the statement made by the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mrs Ana Palacio, at the beginning of the seminar, on the need for a strong European Security and Defence Policy. All parliamentarians present at the seminar, as members of the Assembly of WEU, were of the same opinion. Mrs Palacio had also stressed the need "to look to the south so we did not lose our own sense of direction in the north". Indeed we should not lose sight of our objective, which was to forge ahead with the ESDP.

The first session on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction had provided food for thought about the ways and means of neutralising such weapons. The risk of nuclear proliferation came from several states, but there was now a new risk of chemical or biological weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. The EU and other states should take firm action to strengthen the relevant control regimes. Enhanced consultation and cooperation together with more effective control regimes were necessary in order to prevent proliferation. There had been a very interesting debate following the presentations by a panel of leading experts, and members of the WEU Assembly had an obligation to pursue their parliamentary work on those large-scale threats. While the threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction were new for some countries, other states had unfortunately lived with terrorism for a long time and had lost all too many lives to it.

A global policy on development and economic and social cooperation was one effective tool for combating terrorism, but increased police cooperation was also a necessity, as had been pointed out by Mr Díaz de Mera, Director General of Police at the Spanish Ministry of the Interior. The various experts had presented participants with some excellent analyses of Islamic fundamentalism and the US view had also been expressed. The United States had closely followed the global strategy conducted with some success by Spain for combating terrorism. Terrorism was a common danger which concerned everybody. It cared nothing for ideological or cultural values and was diametrically opposed to democratic principles. All countries of the world had to cooperate to fight terrorism, both at bilateral level with their neighbours, and in a multinational framework at regional and international level. It was necessary to cooperate with the United States in order to have any chance of rooting out terrorism.

Finally, as had been made clear in the third session, thought must be given to the ways and means of further strengthening the regional cooperation among the countries of the Mediterranean region. It had been generally agreed that a harmonious development of the European Union was impossible without a strong and effective Mediterranean policy that guaranteed the balanced development of both shores of the Mediterranean. Independently of the Middle East conflict, which posed challenges and risks that were clear to all, there was a real problem of understanding between the countries on either side of the Mediterranean. They needed to find a common language in order to come together in a spirit of friendly cooperation. Cooperation was necessary not only in the economic sphere, but also in the cultural field, with each side respecting the other's differences in order to avoid accusations of interference. The various speakers had also underlined the importance of cooperation in the field of human rights.

Mr Martínez Casañ expressed heartfelt thanks to all those who had contributed to the success of the seminar, in particular the prominent experts and representatives from the Arab and Mediterranean countries. The seminar had provided the opportunity to delve more deeply into the issues of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, as well as that of regional cooperation among the countries of the Mediterranean to serve the aim of peace.

Closing address

Mr Julio de España, President of the Cortes Valencianas said he was honoured to be taking part in the closing ceremony of the seminar. Valencia was proud to welcome the Assembly and, with regard to the seminar topic, to be associated with the attempt to break new ground. The new terrorist threats and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction were areas of major concern. The potential use of such weapons by certain less developed countries presented a major challenge. The industrialised nations had a duty to guarantee developing countries' stability and security. Spain was a country that was daily faced with the threat of terrorism. The high state of alert and efficiency of the Spanish authorities, together with cooperation with France, meant Spain was able to protect itself from the danger and her people were committed to opposing terrorism. The 11 September 2001 attacks represented terrorism at its worst. The main response had to come from the United States but we were all under attack and all aware of the need to eradicate terrorism. Spain was among those spearheading the fight against terrorism. That was why it wanted the Counter-Terrorism Committee set up by the United Nations to play a really useful part in the campaign and draw up a list of terrorist organisations around the world as the European Parliament had proposed. The draft Constitutional Treaty put forward by the Convention on the Future of Europe also made provision for both civilian and military action for fighting terrorism. Spain had always supported a security and defence policy based on WEU and the latter's integration in the European Union. The EU was about to expand from 15 to 25 member states and should have a "good neighbour policy" towards the countries along its borders, and especially, through the Barcelona Process, towards those along the Mediterranean rim.

The conflict in the Balkans had helped galvanise the European Security and Defence Policy. International conflicts in recent years - in the Gulf, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq - had served to demonstrate the need to develop that common policy further, while at the same time strengthening transatlantic ties. Mobilising multinational forces was a task for countries on both sides of the Atlantic. Europe should not establish a common security and defence policy that sidelined the United States. Spain, as Mr Aznar had recently told the United States Congress, was doing its utmost to help bring about European integration, and this had to go hand in hand with stronger transatlantic ties. Spain had successfully implemented the decentralisation process set in train by its 1987 Constitution and, as an active member of the European Union, had become the world's eighth largest economic power.

Immigration issues also affected Spain. They influenced the labour market and had a bearing on security, health, education and other areas. More restrictive legislation on entry was inevitable, notwithstanding the fact that Spain was culturally a very mixed society and the Spanish people were very tolerant.

The speaker hoped, in conclusion, that as the seminar drew to a close, new ideas would surface, allowing progress to be made towards a more effective security and defence policy based on democratic values and the rule of law.

Mrs Manuela Aguiar (Vice-President of the Assembly of WEU) speaking on behalf of the President of the Assembly, thanked the Spanish authorities for their hospitality and for making the seminar possible. WEU and the Assembly had always been leading exponents of peace and security and, in this respect, had always tried to act in consultation with a wide range of partners. She congratulated everyone on the high standard of the presentations and debates.

There was a need to hold on to the idea of tolerance. A power lacking in stature was invariably doomed to decline. The tradition of tolerance which Arab nations had practised for centuries needed to be kept alive. The achievements of those countries had, in their time, been admirable, especially in the fields of mathematics and the natural sciences. We should take our cue, in our relations with countries throughout the world, from the example of tolerance they had set. This meant our outlook had to change and concrete action was needed on our part in economic, social and cultural terms. Immigration was a major factor in all this, as was the need to share both the risks and the solutions.

Mrs Aguiar concluded by expressing her warmest thanks to the Parliament and the Comunidad of Valencia, and in particular to Mr Martínez Casañ.

(The sitting was closed at 13.30)

Final list of participants - see pdf version for photos

Speakers

Mrs Ana PALACIO, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Spain

Mrs Rita BARBERÁ NOLLA, Mayor of Valencia, Spain

Mr Guillermo MARTÍNEZ CASAÑ, Chairman of the Spanish Delegation to the WEU Assembly and Chairman of the Political Committee

Mr Haizam AMIRA FERNÁNDEZ, Senior Analyst, Real Instituto Elcano, Madrid

Molt Honorable Francisco CAMPS, President of the Generalitat (Government of the Autonomous Community of Valencia)

Mr Andreu CLARET, Director, Institut Europeu de la Mediterrània, Barcelona

Mr Colin CLEARY, Political Counsellor, US Embassy, Madrid

Molt Excellent Julio DE ESPANA, President of the Cortes Valencianas

Mr Castor DÍAZ BARRADO, Professor of Public International Law, Juan Carlos I University, Madrid

Mr Agustín DÍAZ DE MERA, Director General of Police, Ministry of the Interior, Spain

Mr Vicente GARRIDO, Director, Instituto de Cuestiones Internacionales y Política
exterior (INCIPE), Madrid

Mr Francis GHILÈS, Senior Fellow, Euro-Arab Management School (EAMS), Granada (2002-2003)

Mr Jean-Luc MARRET, Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique, Paris

Mrs Elvira SANCHEZ, Researcher, Centre d'información I documentació internationals (CIDOB), Barcelona

Mr Giorgio ZAPPA, Chief Executive, Alenia Aeronautica, Italy

Members

Belgium

Ms Mimount BOUSAKLA

Mr Steph GORIS

Mr Geert LAMBERT

Mr Francis POTY

Mr Jacques TIMMERMANS

France

Mr Michel DREYFUS-SCHMIDT

Mr Jean-Pierre KUCHEIDA (*)

Mr Jean-François LEGRAND

Mr Marc REYMANN

Germany

Mr Klaus Werner JONAS

Mr Peter LETZGUS

Mr Eduard LINTNER

Mr Helmut RAUBER

Greece

Mr Kosmos SFYRIOU (*)

Italy

Mr Emerenzio BARBIERI

Mr Milos BUDIN

Mr Domenico CONTESTABILE

Mr Giovanni CREMA

Mr Renzo GUBERT

Mr Raffaele IANNUZZI

Mr Gennaro MALGIERI

Mr Andrea MANZELLA

Mr Pasquale NESSA

Mr Andrea RIGONI

Mr Dario RIVOLTA

Mr Enrico RIZZI

Mr Francesco TIRELLI

Netherlands

Mr Dick DEES

Mr Adri DUIVESTEIJN

Portugal

Mrs Manuela AGUIAR

Mrs María Eduarda AZEVEDO (*)

Mr Antonio BRAGA

Mr Antonio NAZARE PEREIRA

Spain

Mrs Cristina AGUDO CADARSO

Mr Pedro AGRAMUNT FONT DE MORA

Mr Francisco ARNAU NAVARRO

Mr José Manuel BARQUERO VÁZQUEZ (*)

Mr Lluís Ma DE PUIG

Mr Adolfo FERNANDEZ AGUILAR

Mr Guillermo MARTÍNEZ CASAÑ

Mr José Luis MORALES MONTERO (*)

Mr Julio PADILLA CARBALLADA

Mr Gabino PUCHE RODRIGUEZ-ACOSTA (*)

Mr Inaki TXUEKA ISASTI

United Kingdom

Mr David ATKINSON

Lord BURLISON

Mr Tom COX

Mr Bill ETHERINGTON

Mr George FOULKES (*)

Lord KILCLOONEY

Mr Humphrey MALINS (*)

Mr David MARSHALL

Mr Alan MEALE

Mr Edward O'HARA

Mr Gordon PRENTICE

Lord RUSSELL-JOHNSTON

Dr Rudi VIS

Mr Robert WALTER (*)

Mr John WILKINSON (*)

Associate Members

Czech Republic

Mr Martin DVORAK

Mr Oldrich NEMEC

Mr Frantisek PELC

Ms Zuzana ROITHOVA

Mr Jaroslav ZVERINA

Norway

Mr Aage KONRADSEN

Mr Rolf REIKVAM

Poland

Mr Janusz LORENZ

Mrs Joanna SENSYSZYN

Mr Wojcieck ZARZYCKI

Associate Partners

Bulgaria

Mrs Kina ANDREEVA

Mr Tsonko KIROV

Mr Angel NAYDENOV

Mr Valeri TZEKOV

Estonia

Mr Robert LEPIKSON

Mrs Maret MARIPU

Latvia

Mr Dainis TURLAIS

Lithuania

Mr Gintautas KNIUKSTA

Mr Alfonsas PULOKAS

Mr Rimantas SINKEVICIUS

Mr Arturas VAZBYS

Romania

Mr Alin Theodor CIOCARLIE

Mr Cristian DUMITRESCU

Mr Constantin GAUCAN

Mrs Lucia LEPADATU

Mr Napoleon POP

Mrs Nora REBREANU

Mr Petre ROMAN

Mr Karoly SZABÓ

Mr Ioan TIMIS

Mr Nicolae VASILESCU

Slovenia

Mr Zmago JELINCIC

Mr Tone PARTLJIC

Observers

Finland

Mr Mikko ELO (*)

Mr Esko-Juhani TENNILÄ

Ireland

Mr Jack WALL

Mr Michael NOONAN

Mr Ned O'KEEFE

Chairmen of National Defence, Foreign Affairs and
European Affairs Committees

Prof Venko ALEXANDROV, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Security, Bulgaria

Mr Mario GRECO, Chairman of the Committee on European Affairs, Italian Senate

Parliamentary Guests

Macedonia

Dr Kenan HASIPI, Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia

Mr Zoran KRSTEVSKI, Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia

Serbia and Montenegro

Mr Borivoje MIJATOVIĆ, MP, Assembly of Serbia and Montenegro

Ukraine

Mr Oleh ZAROUBINSKY, First Vice-Chairman of the Committee for European Integration, Ukrainian Parliament

Chairmen of Delegations
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Mr Petro KOÇI, Chairperson of the Albanian Delegation to PACE

Representatives from North African parliamentary assemblies

Mr Mahmoud ASSALA, Research Director, Council of the Nation, Algeria

Mr Ali DAHMANE, Deputy, People's National Assembly, Algeria

Mr Mostera KHIAR, Member of the Council of the Nation, Algeria

Spanish Authorities

Mr Borja BARBOSA DE MIGUEL, Security Advisor, Central Government Delegation

Mrs Concha BLAT, Regional Secretariat for Relations with the Central Government and with the EU, Presidency of the Generalitat of Valencia

Mr David CALATAYUD CHOVER, Head of the Private Office of the Central Government Permanent Representative to the Autonomous Community of Valencia

Mrs Consuelo CÍSCAR, Cultural Council

Mrs Merche CORELL, Department of European Affairs and External Relations, Presidency of the Generalitat of Valencia

Mr Juan COTINO FERRER, Central Government Permanent Representative to the Autonomous Community of Valencia

Mrs Carmen DOLZ ADELL, Director General of Development Cooperation and External Relations, Regional Secretariat for Relations with the Central Government and the EU, Presidency of the Generalitat of Valencia

Mr Miguel DOMÍNGUEZ, Deputy Mayor of the City of Valencia

Mrs Ana ENGUÍDANOS WEYLER, Head of European Affairs and External Relations Department, Directorate General for Development Cooperation and External Relations, Presidency of the Generalitat of Valencia

Mr José Luis FERRANDO, International Affairs Advisor to the President of the Provincial Council

Mr Vicente FERRER ROSELLÓ, Vice-President of the Provincial Council

Mr Alejandro FONT DE MORA, Councillor, Presidency of the Generalitat de Valencia

Mrs Eva FUERTES, Department of European Affairs and External Relations, Presidency of the Generalitat of Valencia

Mr Fernando GINER GINER, President of the Provincial Council

Mrs Enma IRANZO MARTÍN, Director General, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Generalitat de Valencia)

Mr Enrique LUJÁN CASTRO, Mayor of Utiel

Mrs Ma Soledad MARTÍNEZ REIG, Private Office, President of the Generalitat de Valencia

Mr Vicente MONTESINOS VERNETTA, Vice-President of the Bancaja Foundation

Mr José Luis OLIVAS MARTINEZ, President of Bancaza

Mr Rafael RIPOLL NAVARRO, Regional Secretary in charge of relations with the Central Government and the EU, Presidency of the Generalitat de Valencia

Mr Ricardo SÁNCHEZ ARJONA, External Relations, Presidency of the Generalitat de Valencia

Parliamentary Staff

Mr Igors AIZSTRAUTS, Latvia

Mrs Audra BIELINIENE, Lithuania

Mr Federico CASELLI, Italy

Mr Eugen DENSOREAN, Romania

      (Assistant to Mr Petre Roman)

Mr Marc DE ROUCK, Belgium

Mrs Elena DI PANCRAZIO, Italy

Mr Rainer DORNSEIFER, Germany

Mrs Claire DOSSIER-CARZOU, France

Mr Daniel DULCA, Romania

Ms Angeles GARRIGÓS DE LA UZ, Spain

Mrs María Teresa GOMEZ-BERNARDO, Spain

Mr Andrew HUBNER, United Kingdom

Mrs Lucie KARLOVA, Czech Republic

Ms Anna LABEDZKA, Poland

Mr Guy LINDSTROM, Finland

Mr Ihor MYSYK, Ukraine

Mr Jovan PEJKOVSKI, Republic of Macedonia

Mrs Adriana PESCARU, Romania

Mrs Vincenza PROIETTI BEFANI, Italy

Mrs Ene RONGELEP, Estonia

Mrs Monserrat SANTOS, Spain

Mrs Dessislava SENYOVA, Bulgaria

Mrs Martina SLANCAROVA, Czech Republic

Embassies in Madrid

Mrs Audra CIAPIENE, Chargé d'Affaires, Embassy of Lithuania

Mr Devrim ÖZTÜRK, Counsellor, Embassy of Turkey

Mrs Jasna PONIKVAR, Second Secretary, Embassy of Slovenia

Amb. Mohamed Sahbi BASLY, Ambassador of Tunisia

Mrs Cristina TUŞA, First Secretary, Rumania

WEU Secretariat-General, Brussels

Mr Arnaud JACOMET, Head Secretariat General

WEAG

Mr Luis BALSELLS-TRAVER, Executive Officer

EU Satellite Centre, Torrejón

Mr Fernando DAVARA RODRÍGUEZ, Director, European Union Satellite Centre, Torrejón - Madrid (*)

Industry

Mr Simone GUERINI, Alenia Aeronautica, Italy

Press

Mrs Carla ALIÑO GARCÍA, Agencia Efe

Mr Alfonso ÁLVAREZ,TVE

Mr I. BARBERAN MARTINEZ, Las Provincias Radio

Mr Jordi BARCELÓ,Ràdio Nou

Mrs Dolores BENLLOCH ROMEU, Agencia Efe

Mr Manuel BRUQUE JIMÉNEZ, Agencia Efe

Mr Eusebio CALATAYUD ALCALÁ, Agencia Efe

Mr Alberto CAPARROS VEGA, ABC Valencia

Mr Juan Carlos CÁRDENAS PLA, Agencia Efe

Mrs Cristina CHIRIVELLA BERGA, Valencia Més à Més

Mr Alberto DI LOLLI, El Mundo

Mr Joaquin FERRANDIS GARCÍA APARISI, El País

Mr Jesualdo GARCÍA BOIX, Informe Semanal

Mr Lisardo GARCÍA BUENO, Informe Semanal

Mr Diego GARRIDO VEGA,Valencia Més a Més

Mr Gonzálo GAYO CORPELLA, Diario de Valencia

Mr José Luis GIMÉNEZ, Canal Local PTV-Cable

Mr Jesús GONZALEZ, A3TV

Mrs Teresa HEVIA IVARS, Diario de Valencia

Mrs Marisol HERNANDEZ MARTÍNEZ, El Mundo

Mrs María LA HUERTA, Canal 7 Tele Valencia

Mrs Macarena LÁZARO ALMENAR, Agencia Efe

Mr Carlos LÓPEZ BRIZ, Atlas

Mrs Christina MACKENZIE, Flight International, France

Mrs Alicia MARTÍ CINTERO, La Razón

Mr Javier MARTINEZ, A3TV

Mr Francisco MARTÍNEZ MEDRANO, Canal 9

Mrs Isabel MARTÍNEZ REVERTE, Informe Semanal

Mrs Marta MEDINA BORRÁS, Canal 7 Tele Valencia

Mr Andrés MENÉNDEZ LÓPEZ, Informe Semanal

Mr José María MILLÁN JOAQUÍN, Canal 9

Mr Juan José MONZÓ RAMÍREZ, Las Provincias

Mr Santiago PACHECO TARÍN, Cope

Mr José PARRILLA PLIEGO, Levante EMV

Mr José Luis PEREZ, Director, Informativos COPE Comunidad Valenciana

Mrs Eva Maria PEREZ LOPEZ, Europa press

Mrs Inés PERIS MESTRE, Canal Local PTV-Cable

Mr José Aleixandre PORCAR, Levante EMV

Mrs Cristina RAMÓN ALABAU, Agencia Efe

Mrs Aurora ROCA GONZÁLEZ, Radio intereconomia Valencia

Mrs Ana Juan ROCH, Canal 9

Mr José RODRIGUEZ MENDEZ, Atlas

Mr Pablo SERNA AYALA, Canal 7 Tele Valencia

Mr Salvador TAMARIT NIETO, Canal 9

Mrs Rosa TEJEDOR, Ràdio Nou

Mr Jesús TRELIS SEMPERE, Las Provincias

Mrs Lourdes VAÑO, Ràdio Nou

Mr Ernest ZURRIAGA LLORENS, Radio nacional de España


Haut de page
 
© 2002 - 2017, Assembly of WEU