Mr President, this debate is being held just over a year after the attacks in the United States. I think this is a good time to take stock of the progress that has been made in the fight against international terrorism, but also of the guiding principles on which this progress should be based. Recent events, including the terrible disaster which took place in Bali a few weeks ago, show that the threat is still very much present. The crucial question with regard to the EU's policy is, of course, to what extent all the combined measures taken have contributed to a decrease in the risk of terrorism. Would the Commission and the Council be able to comment on this? The European Parliament would like to be informed more frequently and more effectively about the implementation of the action plan. Our grassroots support needs this. I appreciate that much of the information is sensitive, but a comprehensive overview of the activities does not give us a direct insight into the policy's effectiveness. Are we really managing to drive back terrorist networks? Parliament's motion for a resolution devotes a great deal of attention to the role of the United Nations in the fight against international terrorism, and rightly so. This role is crucial. We want an international approach to an international problem based on collective security, which means that action should be taken via the UN Security Council and not unilaterally or along with occasional coalitions. This is not only a question of principle, it is also desirable in view of the need to create the widest possible support for the fight against international terrorism. Fighting the root cause of terrorism is the most effective way of tackling this phenomenon's breeding ground. We would like to see aspects such as the promotion of democracy and the fight against poverty playing a clear role in this. The policy should not be confined to military or police operations. The European Union has, like no other, the complete bandwidth of instruments required for this at its disposal. We are, in fact, talking about a form of conflict prevention, which is surely the EU's general priority in its foreign policy. This brings me to the special problem that has already been mentioned by Commissioner Patten, namely the problem of the so-called failed states. These can mainly be found in Africa, but also closer to home, like Transdniestria, the break-away section of Moldavia, for example. These countries, or regions, offer an excellent home and operating base for criminals and terrorist activities, two things that often go hand in hand. The European Union should, I believe, adopt a more pro-active stance, particularly in the case of a few regions closer to home – one of which I mentioned a moment ago – and not leave the solution of the Transdniestria problem, for example, to other countries and organisations alone. Finally, we are of the view that the European Union could easily be a little more ambitious in its thoughts about its role in the fight against terrorism when it comes to the deployment of the new instruments of the common foreign and security policy in combating terrorism. In the exceptional circumstances we are facing, we need to ask ourselves whether there are any tasks in addition to those of Petersberg. This would also fit in with our more general view that our activities to fight terrorism should take place more at EU level than at national level. If the EU joins forces, this will pay dividends at UN level too.

Political group: PSE