Free and protected

“In the absence of the entry into force of the Constitutional Treaty, it is vital to make effective use of the Programme of The Hague and its preliminary evaluation to ensure the citizens of the European Union of effective protection and security”, says JOANNA LOPATOWSKA-RYNKOWSKA, expert in human rights, in the last number of “Europe infos”, monthly of COMECE (Commission of the episcopates of the European Community) and OCIPE (Catholic Office for Information and Initiative for Europe). She reviews the still partial implementation of the “long-term Programme on the reinforcement of freedom, security and justice in the European Union”, formulated by the European Council in November 2004 and better known as the “Programme of The Hague”. THE THIRD PILLAR. “The space of liberty, security and justice is undoubtedly one of the Community policies that has most rapidly developed; despite that, as the complexity of the European Union gradually increases, the challenges to which it must respond are also increasing”: in particular, that of the “greater protection and security” of citizens. The fight against organized crime and terrorism, collaboration in the control of immigration, judicial cooperation at the civil and penal levels: these are the main commitments to which the EU officially intends to respond with its Programme of The Hague. “This year, after a preliminary evaluation of its implementation, the European Commission launched a discussion of how to promote the political agenda and improve the way that this space works”. Four communications have been presented to citizens, on the basis of which some proposals for action have been formulated, to be realized by 2009 in the above-mentioned fields. In Lopatowska’s view, one in particular remains critical: “judicial cooperation in the penal field, what is commonly called the third pillar”. This is because “the creation of a space of liberty, security and justice at the national level is unsatisfactory” and “hence there does not exist any instrument to maintain the programme’s efficiency”. A further reason is the complexity and slowness of the negotiations within the European Council: “since unanimity is required in this sphere, the accords that are reached are often watered down”. SECURITY AND DEFENCE . Finland, which assumed the revolving Presidency of the Council on 1st July, in presenting a political agenda characterised by great continuity with the Austrian Presidency, “has been brutally confronted, right from the start of its semester, with the grave international crisis” in Lebanon, points out JOHANNA TOUZEL , COMECE press officer. It is an event that, in the view of Finnish Foreign Affairs Minister Erkki Tuomioja, has represented “a test for the EU’s capacity for reaction”. Faced by the “traditional neutrality of Ireland and Finland” and the “privileged transatlantic link represented by the UK”, it is difficult in Touzel’s view, “to find a common position”. But one idea seems positive: that of “last June’s European Council to adopt, without waiting for the ratification of the Constitutional Treaty, some institutional reforms envisaged in the same Treaty with the aim of making the EU more efficient in the short term in tackling the European policy of security and defence”.THE CHURCH IGNORED? The European Commission has just published its Green Paper on transparency, in which “it explains how it intends to standardise greater vigilance, openness and interaction between the EU institutions and independent external players”, points out CLARE COFFEY. The Green Paper, and the consultation open to everyone who accompanied it and concluded on 31 August, explains Coffey, rest on three premises: “the need to establish a more structured framework to regulate the activities of interest groups; the search for feed-back on the minimum norms of the Commission in the field of competition; and the obligation to divulge information relating to the beneficiaries of Community funds under shared management”. According to Coffey, what is needed is “to put in place an optional system for the registration of lobbies that wish to be consulted on the initiatives of the Union”. To these lobbies “it could be said” the Church too in some sense belongs, through such agencies as COMECE and Caritas Europe. But, Coffey points out, “in actual fact these two organizations do not correspond to the definition of lobbies given by the Commission” and, on the other hand, the Green Paper, does not directly treat of the Churches and religious communities, making ambiguous the way in which the Commission perceives these players and their role”. “The Commission’s efforts of transparency are commendable – concludes Coffey – but the ignorance displayed by the Green Paper about the activities of organizations linked to the Churches relating to the policies of the EU needs to be pointed out”.