Information Exchange - US / EU

Treasury Secretary Kenneth Dam says that the relationship between the US and the EU is about "more than trade," citing co-operation in the so called "war on terrorism." Speaking in Washington, DC, Dam said "This morning I'd like to offer a fresh perspective on U.S.-EU economic relations. If you've been reading the financial press on a regular basis, you might think the U.S. and the EU were fighting a transatlantic tradewar." This is a fallacy, he went on, setting out examples of the trade between the two over the past ten years.
"We have devoted new resources to fighting the financial war on terrorism, collaborating with our EU counterparts on new financial and regulatory changes, and working to find common ground on the issue of data privacy."

The EU's data privacy laws are so strict that the UK's data protection commissioner has indicated that, in her opinion, any customer asking to see their records would have the right to see, also, any risk management information and, most importantly, money laundering reporting information in those records. Seemingly, it would be an offence if an institution declined or neglected to release that information.

The reason that the USA's attempt to introduce effective "know your customer" procedures in the late 1990s was, predominantly, due to opposition to the obtaining and analysis of personal information which may be used by the banks (at that time just obtaining permission to operate multi-faceted financial services businesses) to cross sell insurance, mortgages and other products. He went on to discuss the US concerns over data privacy: "Last July, Peter Fisher, Treasury's Under Secretary for Domestic Finance led a group of financial regulators to Brussels for a set of talks on the issue. Initial meetings with EU Commission officials and with EU member state data protection commissioners were highly educational, for both sides.

" Even on this complex issue, we hope to continue to work toward understanding the concerns of our EU counterparts, so that we may explain best how U.S. laws and regulations provide adequate protection under the EU directive. After all, we have a common interest in privacy on both sides of the Atlantic, and it is not so important what we term the resolution of our differences, but that we recognize that both sides' interests can be accommodated when we make doing so our primary objective." But privacy is, seemingly, only privacy if the US says so: and if the US considers someone a terrorist, then that is enough for the US to seek them denied any privacy worldwide.

"Since September 11th, the U.S. and the EU have campaigned jointly to designate terrorist entities and their financial backers, and then to freeze their assets. For example, nearly every terrorist individual and entity designated by the U.S. also has been designated by the EU or some of its member states. Moreover, the U.S. and the EU have established a fluid, informal mechanism for sharing information on terrorists and their supporters. Action also was taken by the EU against the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a group that has taken responsibility for a number of suicide bombings in Israel," said Dam.

"For instance, the EU's "clearinghouse process" is too cumbersome, and it should be streamlined. Given the threat we face, it still takes far too long for terrorist names to be submitted and considered for designation by the EU."

Dam pointed out that the lack of what might be termed "EU Federal Law" means that some countries can freeze assets and others cannot: "Equally troubling is the fact that under current EU treaty interpretation, the EU cannot direct member states to block the assets of individuals and entities of so-called "internal terrorists." Since not all of the fifteen EU countries have domestic blocking laws that allow them to block assets of terrorism-linked persons independent of EU action, the assets of "internal terrorists" are being left unblocked in a number of European countries. The terrorist threat is too serious to be left unchallenged because of how the EU chooses to organize itself in the terrorist finance area."

Yet many countries in Europe is that they do not see some activities as terrorist related, and they see other actions as terrorist but the US denies it. For example, according to Dam " there also is a general reluctance throughout Europe to designate the social and religious arms of Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist entities." In this case he might be right, but he must remember that his government supported so called political and social wings of Irish Republican terrorism as a special case and or many years allowed them free speech and fundraising within the US. Countries that have seen decades of terrorism cannot be expected to roll over and lie down at the insistance of a country only now recognising the problem despite extensive, and rebuffed, efforts to secure its co-operation over many years.

Dam must also recognise that public support across much of Europe is not for the Israeli government which is widely seen as some or all of the following: an illegal occupying force, an insurgent force that indiscriminately or deliberately kills innocents, a terrorist force that murders suspects instead of putting them on trial.

In 1998, Amnesty International criticised the policy following the attempted murder of Hamas leader Khaled Mish al by Mossad, the Israeli secret service. A committee of inquiry was set up to examine the failed attempt. Amnesty said "The commission of inquiry stated that it does not question the Israeli Government's policy of using extrajudicial executions in order to combat 'terrorism'. It even calls on the Israeli government to 'discuss [such a policy] ..., define its scope and establish ground rules for its implementation.'

The US is also seen as Anti Palestinian in relation to its Foreign Relations Authorization Act, passed earlier this year. "Palestinians must comply with the law in four areas: recognition of the state of Israel, acceptance of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, resolving the conflict between Israel and Palestine through negotiation and peaceful means, and a renunciation of terrorism and acts of violence," according to Middle East Online.

This week US President Bush invoked his powers under the Act and downgraded the PLO's office in Washington - he granted a 180 days "suspension" pending the Palestinians making, as Washington sees it, a better job of complying with what it has already agreed to do.

And whilst an infinitesimal proportion of humanity would agree with terrorism as a means of achieving political ends, many will fully understand much of the force lying behind what purports to be a letter from Osama Bin Laden published on the website of The Guardian, increasingly being seen as the voice of reason in an unreasonable UK.

The problem for the US is that, seemingly, it defines war as its right to be attack another country within that country's own borders but when that country reliates by attacking within the US, it will be considered terrorism: it expects to be able to use military supremacy to defeat those who are poorly equipped and then to deny them the right to use available and inexpensive means to counter-attack. This approach is makes no sense to ordinary people across Europe who see things in a much more integrated manner.

The USA considers itself a fortress into which no subversive should be permitted to enter and no hostile should be allowed to approach. The reality is different but the American people, at least insofar as they influence their government, do not seem to have grasped this. And politicians (here we can include the UK government which is incapable of questioning the US government, it seems) are not willing to disabuse them of their notions.

Yet, war is no longer something you export. It comes back and bites you on the bum when you are looking the other way.

And the fact that the USA supports this with both money and political support in the shape of the Office of Anti-Boycott Compliance. is particularly galling for some. This office issues fines against any person or entity that it finds guilty of acting in any way consistent with what it sees as giving effect to any sanctions against Israel. This office recently fined a Swiss company for allegedly dealing in a transaction that blocked Israeli involvement. The US does not enforce its laws in respect of boycotts of any other country.

The exchange of information that Dam sees as so vital on an informal basis causes many deep concern where the US is seen as failing to apply any even-handed standards. And the fact that it is seen as applying knee-jerk reactions and expects others to immediately fall in with its assumptions is widely seen as questionable if not simply oppressive.