Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Prodi, we know that when all European Councils draw to a close, they either give us grounds for satisfaction or grounds for disappointment. One of the grounds for satisfaction is always the number of well-intentioned declarations, and one of the grounds for disappointment is usually the way these are implemented. I shall restrict my comments to the chapter on the follow-up to the 11 September attacks and the fight against terrorism and I would like to give my views on this on behalf of my group. We welcome the statement that humanitarian aid for Afghanistan and neighbouring countries is an absolute priority, but unfortunately, we do not welcome the specific actions taken. If we want to take specific action and provide vital and essential food aid to the civilian population at risk, we must respond to the appeals by numerous key figures and NGOs and suspend the bombings. We have had enough indications and warnings, spelling out that a humanitarian catastrophe is imminent, as winter in Afghanistan is approaching, which is usually extremely harsh. We now know that the civilian population is paying a high price for the war, and the Council, in declaring its staunchest support for the military operations, is turning a blind eye to this situation. The pre-summit meeting between the Heads of State and Government in Ghent, other than the fact that, to my mind, it is a failure compared to the real summit, demonstrated that the Heads of State and Government give military cooperation with the United States priority over a concerted political approach at European Union level. It also relegates the humanitarian, diplomatic and all other types of initiatives to the background. With regard to the commitment to fight against terrorism and to protect the population against these acts of terrorism, it goes without saying that the commitment made by the Council is to be welcomed, but an unambiguous definition of terrorism is clearly needed as far as legislative initiatives are concerned in order to avoid any confusion and the criminalisation of any anti-establishment behaviour or activities, which are, however, political in nature and legitimate nonetheless. Our group has a number of concerns regarding the declaration in which the European Union states that it is willing to undertake reciprocal initiatives with the United States, particularly to facilitate judicial assistance and extradition. Regarding extradition, we are aware that the death penalty is still in force in the United States and therefore this poses a huge problem for the European Union. Regarding judicial assistance, we are concerned about ensuring that civil liberties are protected and that personal data protection is not diminished as a result of this cooperation with the United States. One of the important chapters concerns the protection of the population, and we welcome the joint efforts made with regard to non-proliferation and export controls on weapons and chemical, bacteriological and nuclear substances capable of being used for terrorist purposes. Therefore, intensifying our joint efforts is a very positive move, but we may wonder why the important question of industrial activities has not been mentioned at all, particularly with regard to nuclear power stations and re-processing plants, where large quantities of radioactive and fissile substances are stored, which could cause an ecological and social catastrophe in the event of an aircraft crash, intentional or otherwise. The Council statement does not contain a single reference to this issue, and I think that this is a serious oversight. To sum up, Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Prodi, I think that it is true to say that we are particularly disappointed by the outcome of this Summit. I do not wish to have to relive this disappointment at the Laeken Summit, and I am pleased to note that Mr Verhofstadt is determined to give the European Union a new role and to open up genuine dialogue on a topic that has been slightly overworked in recent weeks, in other words, globalisation. I am pleased that he has changed the vocabulary he was using to refer to this matter, since he has rejected the term ‘anti-globalisation,’ which was essentially inappropriate.

Political group: Verts-ALE