 |
 AFP
A rose lies on a rail in memory of the victims of the train bombings at El Pozo railway in Madrid.
|
Posted on 03/12/2005 4:09:42 PM PST by familyop
Editorialists review the progress made in the fight against terrorism in Europe since last year's deadly attacks on Madrid. Their assessment of our progress? Depressing. A lack of trans-Atlantic cooperation would be one thing, but German states are even having trouble giving each other an investigative hand.
|
|
AFP
A rose lies on a rail in memory of the victims of the train bombings at El Pozo railway in Madrid.
|
The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung devotes five full pages to the one-year anniversary of the Madrid al-Qaida bombings. Twelve months on, the editors write, "the danger of a new attack in Europe hasn't diminished. And this isn't about scaremongering. European security experts are united in their belief that terrorists motivated by religion could plan a similarly murderous attack in 2005." The paper notes that 9/11 and 3/11 are connected in more ways than just dates -- the culprits also knew each other. But what a shame there hasn't been enough cooperation among investigators to put a stop to the terrorist network. In Germany alone, officials believe the number of Islamists capable of violence is in the "low three digits." Britain believes it has 200 sleepers and the Netherlands may be home to 150. Problem is: there isn't even enough personnel to conduct intensive surveillance of these possible terrorists. "The EU member states boast they will counter the terrorist threat with closer cooperation and new laws, but if you take a closer look, the results are depressing." For months the EU police agency, Europol, was leaderless because member states couldn't agree on a candidate to head it. And in Germany, a new "analysis center" was supposed to network investigators across the country. "But insiders report that state-level criminal investigation offices really have to be persuaded before they're willing to share their insights." It's impossible to draw any conclusions from Madrid, it continues, because there's just too much information missing. "The only thing that's certain," it laments, "is that Madrid was not the last terrorist attack in Europe."
The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung argues that al-Qaida planners deliberately chose Madrid for their big European premiere because of massive public opposition to the Iraq war and national elections that were scheduled for three days after the attacks. Al-Qaida, the paper believes, felt Spain was the country where it had the best chance of ousting a government. It worked. If you ask the new government if the country is any safer today, it will say the threat is still "high." But Spaniards, the paper notes, feel the "Islamic storm clouds have passed and the country is no longer in al-Qaida's crosshairs." Three-quarters of Spaniards to this day believe the attacks were the result of Aznar's show of solidarity with Bush. But what were the lessons learned, the paper asks? "Mostly, how easy it was for the sleepers to blend into an open society." And how easy it was for them to move freely between Madrid, Brussels, Berlin and Afghanistan using doctored papers. It then looks to efforts to increase international cooperation to stop terrorism. "It is good that cooperation with Maghreb countries, from which most of the Madrid terrorists came, has improved. But less so that there are still problems with trans-Atlantic cooperation and cooperation within the European Union."
The freeing of Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena from her Iraqi kidnappers one week ago continues to provide German commentators with ammunition on Friday. Yet instead of remaining squarely focused on the death of Italian secret service agent Nicola Calipari in a hail of US bullets on the road to the Baghdad airport, it is the dissembling of the Italian government on the question of whether it paid ransom money for Sgrena's freedom that is now coming under the microscope. Despite somewhat half-hearted attempts by members of the Italian government to deny that the journalist was bought free, most consider it fact that Italy handed over between €6 and €8 million to her abductors.
The daily Die Tageszeitung focuses on the Italian government's difficult-to-believe denials of paying ransom money for the series of Italian hostages that the country's involvement in Iraq has produced -- including the case of the "two Simonas" in Sept. 2004. The paper interprets recent statements condemning the paying of ransom to terrorists made by the government as a bone thrown to the United States as part of the deal made by the two nations: "The US commits to investigating the circumstances that led to Calipari's death, and Italy rethinks its permissive dealings with hostage takers." But, the paper points out, "this line will be difficult to follow. In Italy -- in contrast to the United States -- people have an emotional stake in each individual kidnapping case."
The center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung likewise sees the question of ransom payments as crucial, and argues that there are two major taboos being breached by the Sgrena case. And they are competing for attention. The first is US-Italy relations, which Calipari's death placed under immense pressure. The second is Italy's habit of paying ransom to terrorists, which the US looks down on and which the Italians have bumblingly denied. The paper argues that the US and Italy are competing over which issue gets the most attention. "(Italian Foreign Minister Gianfranco) Fini and (Italian Prime Minister Silvio) Berlusconi have to demonstrate accountability. Otherwise, they will not have the moral authority to demand a rigorous investigation into the incident." The Americans have recognized this weak spot. "Which means the investigation could become buried under the ransom question."
Sueddeutsche then leaps a few more countries across the Mediterranean to another political flash point: Lebanon. It argues that the UN resolution -- pushed through in September by the US and France in hopes of handling the problem -- is only complicating the situation. It's biased toward the Israelis and could throw off the delicate balance of religious groups and parties in Lebanon. Eighteen different religious communities exist in Lebanon and they coexist through a complicated system of proportional representation. "In such communities, words aren't enough; nor can patent remedies from abroad bring solutions. The only thing that can take them forward is a consensus between all confessions and parties." One of those parties is Hezbollah, which until now has been viewed by the US as a terrorist organization. By calling for the disarmament of the Hezbollah militia as well as the withdrawal of Syrian troops, UN Resolution 1559 threatens this vital consensus. The Shiite party is a "power factor" capable of mobilizing a half-million Syria-friendly Lebanese. The editorial says the US is now viewing Hezbollah as a power in Lebanon rather than just a terror group and that's "comforting." If Hezbollah were incorporated into the Lebanese Army, wouldn't that have the same effect as disarmament, it asks? But Hezbollah isn't the only problem with the resolution. It also indirectly calls for Lebanese citizenship for the 350,000 Palestinian refugees living there -- a move it implies could upset the peace between the country's Shiites, Sunnis, Christians and Druze. But they can't return home to Israel, either, because if all the Palestinian refugees went back, there would be more Palestinians than Jews. The resolution, it argues, "is directed against Syria" and it asks if pressuring Syria to give in will be worth the instability it could create in Lebanon.
Good.
Readers will also likely be interested in the following.
Italian general was ordered not to inform Americans on release of hostage Sgrena
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1361347/posts
Alles Kaput! Courage!
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.