Council of Europe Conseil de l'Europe . * Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe Congrès des pouvoirs locaux et régionaux de l'Europe CONF/ERFURT (3) 22 s:\delai.sh\erfurt\conf3.22e TN2422.97 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON "CRIME AND URBAN INSECURITY IN EUROPE: THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL AUTHORITIES" Kaisersaal, Erfurt, Germany 26 - 28 February 1997 TRANSFRONTIER CO-OPERATION BETWEEN LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND CRIME PREVENTION IN THE GERMAN-DUTCH EUREGIO by Dr. Heinrich A. Hoffschulte President of the German Section of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) Chairman of the EUREGIO Working Group on European Questions Frontiers protect criminals, not law-abiding citizens Public discussion of two issues - the growth of international crime and the opening of frontiers, a goal which has been becoming steadily more urgent, at latest, since the 1957 Rome treaties were concluded - in the last fifteen years makes it clear that one recurrent prejudice simply cannot be eradicated: the belief that opening frontiers encourages international crime and that this step should be taken cautiously, if not positively delayed. The truth is that frontiers have long ceased to be a serious problem for international and organised crime, but are still an insuperable practical obstacle, not just in bringing criminals to justice, but even more in preventing and combating crime. People who argue that keeping frontiers and frontier controls is important for the purpose of combating crime often point to the successes scored in picking up wanted criminals at frontiers. For years, statistics on the number of wanted criminals arrested and crimes detected in the course of random checks were quoted. For a long time, the use made of these figures in public discussion certainly reflected the interests of frontier officials, whose position and jobs were particularly threatened by the dismantling of frontiers. This is understandable, but not ultimately convincing. Following this logic to the end would mean bringing back, on trunk routes within the Federal Republic, the frontiers which used to exist between the German states in the last century or the East/West frontiers which were done away with in 1989; indeed, checks carried out at the Kamen (eastern Ruhr) and Frankfurt West motorway junctions or on the motorways to Berlin would certainly turn up more criminals than those carried out, for example, on the frontier between Germany and Holland. When the Schengen Agreement was under discussion, the preventive importance of frontiers was repeatedly mentioned. Indeed, on one occasion, the Conference of Land Ministers of the Interior unanimously adopted a resolution insisting that, before the frontiers were opened further and controls disappeared entirely, nineteen (!) law-harmonisation and other measures must be taken; otherwise, they could not agree to the removal of controls. Given that unanimity is still the rule in security matters within the EU, our frontiers would certainly still be the same today if this advice had been followed. But demands of this kind are, quite simply, mistaken and misleading. The plain truth, which is often overlooked, is that frontiers help criminals. They give them, in effect, a protective shield, a kind of "cordon anti-sanitaire" or shelter, in which they can take refuge from the police and the courts and lay new plans in peace. Classic examples include (but are not restricted to) the kind of petty crime that centres on late-night bars and gaming halls in frontier areas, with effects which are often little short of grotesque. The low-life elements change places, as each group crosses the frontier to meet "on the other side", where - in theory - nobody knows them. These goings-on in frontier red-light districts are basically absurd - but the bar-hoppers, alas, are not the only ones who are left looking foolish. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that frontiers invite crime, both petty and serious. They give law-abiding citizens a false sense of security, but actually produce the opposite effect by helping criminals to evade pursuit, discovery and arrest, which have always been impeded by the fact that state frontiers also mark the dividing line between areas of responsibility, making it harder for the authorities on either side to agree on concerted action. In our German-Dutch frontier region, or EUREGIO, different ways of dealing with drugs were a problem for many years. Both countries agreed that possessing and selling the so-called "hard" drugs must be punished, but there was sharp disagreement for a long time on the best way of handling the supposedly "soft" drugs in small "daily doses". The Netherlands took the view that the danger of hard drugs could be countered by making small quantities of hashish available, more or less officially, in "coffee shops" which everyone knew about. These became genuine places of pilgrimage - obviously for addicts from Germany, and particularly the frontier region, too. It was only when the communities in which these "shops" were located banded together in protest, because petty crime in these areas had risen sharply and the police could barely cope with the countless burglaries, thefts from cars and other typical "habit-funding" crimes, that the authorities backtracked and stopped handing out drugs like cups of tea or coffee. Reports that drugs were easier to come by in the Netherlands actually had the effect of attracting criminals and traffickers, since addicts' expectations sent demand through the ceiling. The authorities' obvious lack of interest, at least in small consumers of narcotics or "soft" drugs, created a kind of "safe haven", even for the big traffickers. Official neglect meant tolerance in practice. Rightly or wrongly, this gave drug offenders and dealers the feeling that they stood a better chance of getting off scot-free. The magnetic effects were considerable - and the frontier protected the whole process. The romantic notion that frontiers mean safety has recently been having yet another field-day in German-Danish frontier regions where, for various reasons, a gut feeling has developed that frontiers are a good thing, quite apart from their obvious political and administrative functions. The argument that frontiers make it easier to trace, arrest and prosecute offenders is in any case highly dubious from a rule-of-law standpoint. Successes here are obviously due to the fact that the controls carried out at frontiers would otherwise require, in any law-governed state, a court search warrant or at least the strong suspicion that an offence had been committed. Anyone who talks about "internal frontiers", while feeling that controls of this kind should normally be subject to rule-of-law conditions, is clearly implying that frontier controls, while still formally lawful, actually represent a "misuse" of frontiers in terms of legal policy. Local authorities were ahead of states in co-operating across frontiers With a view to completion of the internal market and the (political) European Union, transfrontier co-operation is now all the rage everywhere. Its actual intensity varies. It can be managed entirely by local authorities close to the frontier, be organised by national or regional governments, or take mixed forms, involving community groups, chambers of commerce and associations too. In its structural policy, the European Union has also come to realise that transfrontier regions play, or should play, a special role in development of the Union. Against this background, I should now like to say something about the EUREGIO's 45-year practical experience of transfrontier co- operation; put this briefly in the context of the present international legal system, and tell you about the EUREGIO's experience in the field of crime control and prevention. Forty-five years' transfrontier experience in the German-Dutch EUREGIO Proximity to the Netherlands has allowed the Münsterland to learn about transfrontier co- operation and appreciate its benefits. In this German-Dutch frontier area, we started working from Steinfurt-Burgsteinfurt with our Dutch neighbours, in the very early post-war years, to forge the contacts needed to overcome the war's legacy. These efforts in the EUREGIO are today recognised by the EU Commission in Brussels as exemplary for the many transfrontier regions which have since come into being within the EU or on its external frontiers. The term EUREGIO denotes both a geographical area and a purpose: EUREGIO = European REGIOn. The EUREGIO lies in the central part of the German-Dutch frontier zone, approximately between the Rhine, the Ems and the Ijssel. The German section comprises the northern and western Münsterland and the county of Bentheim, and the Dutch section takes in the Twente and Achterhoek. In other words, the EUREGIO is located at the geographical heart of north-western Europe's great economic centres. The Rhine-Ruhr area, the Dutch Randstad and the North German ports are all within some 250 km. At the same time, exploiting the advantages of this location depends on intensive co-operation within the region. Taken separately and in terms of their own countries, the German and Dutch components of the EUREGIO are simply peripheral regions - with effects which are common, to a greater or lesser degree, to nearly all frontier regions. Being peripheral at national level tends to isolate a region from the centres of political discussion and decision - in our case, the capitals, Bonn or, in future (even more so), Berlin and The Hague, as well as the Land capitals, Düsseldorf and Hannover. Industry, business and trade are normally focused on national centres, and the same is true of transport and communications. On the other hand, in spite of its links with two different states, the EUREGIO has a relatively high degree of geographical, cultural, architectural, economic and even linguistic unity. To that extent, it is very definitely a region, as the EU understands that term.