European Union’s anti-terrorism coordinator, Gilles de Kerchove, spoke to Pallavi Aiyar at the EU headquarters in Brussels to explain why he believes closer relations between Indian and European counter-terrorism agencies would benefit India.
How are counter-terrorism responsibilities divided among the European Union (EU) and the individual member states? How would cooperation on counter-terrorism between India and the EU be different, or more useful, than the existing cooperation between India and EU member states such as the United Kingdom or France?
EU member states are solely responsible for national security and intelligence. So, the day-to-day security operations rest in their hands. But at the EU level, we coordinate on many things, such as aviation security or restricting access to materials for explosives, segments in which it makes sense to have EU-wide measures. At the EU level, our main agencies are Europol, for the police, and Eurojust, a judicial organisation.
If India were to enter into an agreement with Eurojust, you would, in a single meeting, have access to prosecutors from all the 27 member states, people who are external relations’ specialists for their countries. So, it is very convenient. This is what I’m telling the Americans. If they want to have a sophisticated operation against pedophiles using the internet, or coordinate arrests and seizures of materials on the same day in five different places across Europe, Eurojust is the key.
Europol is responsible for collecting police information from member states and making strategic threat assessments. They have developed niche specialties such as those on counterfeiting of the euro. I remember having discussed the same problem with the rupee in India. It could be a useful field of cooperation.
After 9/11, we negotiated an overarching extradition agreement with the United States, and another one on mutual legal assistance. So, through a single negotiation, the US got a modern, updated agreement with 27 member states of the EU. For India, we can also work at building a legal framework, within which practitioners from both sides can work together.
You have been to India twice in recent years, and met a range of agencies involved in counter-terrorism. What kind of cooperation do you foresee between India and the EU?
Last December, at the India-EU summit, a counter-terrorism declaration was adopted. It was possibly the most significant outcome of the entire meeting. The declaration refers to several topics in broad terms, and the challenge is to make these more concrete. The topics ranged from transport security to cyber- and security-related research, judicial cooperation and possible mutual legal assistance. Several years ago, cooperation between Europol and its Indian counterpart was planned. At that time, we had identified the Central Bureau of Investigation. But now, I realise the National Investigation Agency (NIA) would have been a better counterpart. I have met NIA members and they would like to have an agreement with Europol.
As the next step, we are planning a seminar in New Delhi to explain to the Indian side what I’ve just explained to you. I have many other ideas. Why not go for a mutual extradition treaty? Of course, this is not agreed on by all sides, since it is quite resource-intensive, but we can try. Also, a seminar on cyber security would soon be held at the EU’s joint research centre, and Indians have been invited to this. When I met colleagues at the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), cyber security was one of their main concerns.
What kind of cooperation in counter-terrorism does the EU have with Pakistan?
We started a programme with Pakistan three years ago, with a ¤15-million budget, to support the civilian approach to fight terrorism. This includes training police in forensics and evidence collection, prison reform, along with media training for reporting terrorist attacks. We are also supporting the creation of their fusion centre — a centre where one can connect the dots and make sure the intelligence collected by all players is put together. In Pakistan, it’s very necessary that the Inter-Services Intelligence, the police, customs and other agencies share information, since the country doesn’t have an impressive record of conviction, to say the least.
India says one reason why cooperation on counter-terrorism between India and the EU has been slow is the lack of political trust that needs to be built before technical-level talks. Do you agree?
There is no lack of political will. EU’s foreign affairs chief, Catherine Ashton, is very keen on building a strategic relationship with India. We also have no difference in approach to terrorism with India. We support India’s initiative to have a United Nations’ comprehensive convention on its fight against terrorism. I have never noticed any divergence in threat assessment between India and the EU. When I met colleagues at the NTRO or the NIA, I found at a practitioner’s level, they understood the benefits of cooperation with Europe. In any country, when it comes to topics as sensitive as terrorism-building, trust between leaders is important. But building trust at a practitioner’s level is even more important. Sometimes, things are too slow for stupid bureaucratic reasons such as lack of resources.
By lack of political trust, I am referring to suspicions in India about the EU’s relationship with Pakistan. There is a perception that the EU is soft on Pakistan, with trade concessions seen as the main strategy in dealing with terrorism originating in that country. It is as though the EU is concerned about bribing Pakistan’s civilian government into cooperating to protect the West, and not about the attacks that India suffers.
I think India would be the first to benefit from the EU’s approach to Pakistan. We are not soft on Pakistan, and have already told them it was unacceptable that three years after the Mumbai attacks, the suspects have not been tried. The manner in which we are helping the Pakistan government would not harm India in any way. We have been active in providing humanitarian support after the floods, and also in helping to fight corruption and promote good governance. It is about turning Pakistan into the kind of country India can be comfortable with as a neighbour. We consider the likes of the Lashkar-e-Toiba a very serious threat. These groups are no longer just regionally focused, but are going outside their hinterland and targeting the West as well.
