Why Europe needs closer Intelligence cooperation – Asia Times

Why Europe needs closer Intelligence cooperation - Asia Times

” Coming along is a start, staying up is development and working together is achievement”, said Henry Ford, an American businessperson who, like no one else, saw possibilities for the future. In the protection area, assistance is all the more important. And it is better nevertheless for terrorism.

However, knowledge cooperation is necessary in the fight against international terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. Data exchange, mutual operations, and state-to-state collaboration make it easier to thwart terrorist cells and disrupt plots.

And this, alas, is a pressing process now. According to experts, the IS Khorasan ( ISIS-K) terrorist organization, which carried out a deadly attack on a Moscow concert hall, is shifting its attention to Europe more frequently. For example, Germany recently charged seven people from Central Asia with plotting high-profile terrorist attacks on behalf of ISIS-K.

However, experts warn that the Paris 2024 Olympic Games could be a possible target. The terrorist threat level has already been raised by France, and it will not be decreased in the upcoming weeks. Also, French authorities requested additional security personnel from their global partners to help guard the significant sporting event.

” Terrorism is by its nature a global threat, particularly jihadism”, said Marco Lombardi, teacher at the Italy- based Catholic University of Sacred Heart. ” In its best moment, ISIS was spread across more than 40 locations and had almost 50 associated organizations”, he elaborated.

The Islamic State’s structure was versatile and used corporate communication both as a propaganda tool and as a means of governing a pervasive and dangerous reality. For this reason, the fight against violence must be organized in a partnership, cooperation, and cooperative way between states”. If that’s not done, “every attempt to fight against it is a losing one”, the professional told this writer.

The EU as an all- German artist in safety

The EU’s participation with its member states has considerably increased over the past ten years. Europol, which is Europe’s main intelligence- sharing and functional coordination center, has obtained more powers to handle terrorism. Also, the company launched the German Terrorism Center (ECTC ), conceived as a “unique European data hub”.

For example, its directories help law enforcement identify, in fast fashion, persons traveling to fight areas or suspected international fighters. But, ECTC is limited in features and has no energy to obtain intelligence. Rather, this structure was created to attach the applicable information that the EU member states have with one another without gaining access to its resources.

The Intelligence and Situation Centre ( INTCEN), a new EU institution, has become a hub for the country’s civilized intelligence community. This organization, which was established as the External Action Service’s secretary, is charged with delivering situational awareness and intellect analysis.

Despite this, INTCEN is limited to member state and depends on their deliberate efforts. It has no capacity to use its own intelligence-gathering tools or cooperate with part state resources.

Moreover, compared with national intelligence service, INTCEN’s human resources are badly small. As of today, the organization employs 70 persons, whereas the UK’s MI5 and France’s DGSI staff amount to around 5000 and 3000, both.

” However, achieving effective forms of cooperation is no easy”, Lombardi noted. Security is a matter of national attention because, in some ways, the ability to provide protection to its residents determines a state’s level of sovereignty.

” Consequently, in Europe ( but not only ), we have contradictory pressures: In the face of a rational orientation towards assistance, a government arrangement emerges to control this assistance due to the political repercussions it may have.

” But, the risk of ISIS has recently accelerated this process of cooperation between nations and, most importantly, between law enforcement agencies. Beyond any consensus, operators in the field are more likely to communicate information to help the success of the goal. The functional dimensions pushes cooperation, in our opinion, even more than the regulatory dimension.

” And what I identify as ‘ information exchange’, i. e. the exchange of information to respond to a practical operational need, ]should be distinguished ] from’ information sharing’, i. e. sharing disinterested information because the scenario and the mission are shared.

” Thus, on an administrative level, the techniques are very powerful, and the different German police forces share memoranda of understanding”, the expert said.

Is a European knowledge company possible?

The idea of the EU’s own in-house intelligence agency has been popular for a while, but it has n’t received enough support so far. However, by establishing a devoted institution, Europe may acquire, among other things, the ability to act more fast and quickly in the face of global terrorism.

Establishing a sense of a common strategic culture is one of the best ways to prepare the ground for the establishment of a supranational EU intelligence agency. The Intelligence College in Europe ( ICE), which was founded in Paris in 2019, is a shining example. The college, which brings together professionals in civilian and military intelligence from Europe, was intended to serve as a” crucible for the emergence of a common strategic culture.”

More importantly, the EU needs to overcome some political and legal obstacles. An intelligence agency reacts to the political authority of its own country, as Lombardi put it, which complicates the formation of a lasting agreement between them.

The expert argued that the information exchange is always subject to a political evaluation regarding national security because these organizations cannot deviate from the rules of the national governments.

Lombardi added, however, that this picture is now changing under the influence of a new environment.

” First of all, because the threat is global and pervasive and, therefore, requires a symmetric response. The geography of the cyber world is a different geography because it is redefining interests and tasks, he said, because new technologies, especially digital, are redefining threat scenarios where the notion of a “national border” no longer makes sense.