“Coming together is a beginning, staying together is progress and working together is success,” said Henry Ford, an American entrepreneur who, like no one else, saw opportunities for the future. In the security domain, cooperation is all the more important. And it is truer still for counterterrorism.
Indeed, cooperation in intelligence is indispensable in the fight against global terrorist groups such as the Islamic State and Al Qaeda. Information exchange, joint operations and collaboration in intelligence analysis between states – all those approaches ease the way to disrupting plots and thwarting terrorist cells.
And this, alas, is a pressing task today. Experts say that the IS Khorasan (ISIS-K) terrorist group, which was responsible for a deadly attack on a Moscow concert hall, is becoming increasingly focused on Europe. Germany, for instance, has recently charged seven men from Central Asia for plotting high-profile terror attacks on behalf of ISIS-K.
Meanwhile, analysts warn that the Paris 2024 Olympic Games could be a potential target. France has already raised the terrorist threat level to the highest and is not going to lower it in the coming months. Additionally, French authorities asked their international partners to provide extra security personnel to help guard the major sporting event.
“Terrorism is by its nature a global threat, especially jihadism,” said Marco Lombardi, professor at the Italy-based Catholic University of Sacred Heart. “In its best time, ISIS was spread across more than 40 countries and had nearly 50 affiliated groups,” he elaborated.
“The structure of the Islamic State was flexible and used strategic communication towards the outside as a propaganda tool and towards the inside as a tool for governing a widespread and jeopardized reality. For this reason, the fight against terrorism must be organized in a consortium, solidarity, and cooperative manner between states.” If that’s not done, “every attempt to fight against it is a losing one,” the expert told this author.
The EU as an all-European actor in security
Over the last decade, the EU has noticeably strengthened cooperation among the member states. Europol, which is Europe’s primary intelligence-sharing and operational coordination center, has obtained more powers to tackle terrorism. Additionally, the agency launched the European Counterterrorism Center (ECTC), conceived as a “unique European information hub.”
For instance, its databases help law enforcement identify, in timely fashion, persons traveling to conflict zones or suspected foreign fighters. However, ECTC is limited in functionality and has no power to collect intelligence. Instead, this structure is designed to connect available information shared by the EU member states, without gaining access to its sources.
Another EU body, the Intelligence and Situation Centre (INTCEN), has taken on the role of a hub for the European civilian intelligence community. Set up as a directorate of the External Action Service, this institution is tasked with providing intelligence analysis and situational awareness.
That said, INTCEN can only share intelligence among member states and depends on their voluntary contributions. It can neither work with member states’ sources nor have its own intelligence-gathering capabilities.
Also, compared with national intelligence services, INTCEN’s human resources are unfairly small. As of today, the institution employs 70 people, whereas the UK’s MI5 and France’s DGSI personnel amount to around 5000 and 3000, respectively.
“Unfortunately, achieving effective forms of cooperation is not easy,” Lombardi noted. “There are many interests, and security is a topic of national interest: in some way, the ability to guarantee security to its citizens is a measure of the sovereignty of a state.
“Consequently, in Europe (but not only), we have contrary pressures: In the face of a pragmatic orientation towards cooperation, a government orientation emerges to limit this cooperation due to the political repercussions it may have.
“However, the threat of ISIS has contributed in recent years to accelerating this process of collaboration between countries and, above all, between law enforcement agencies. In fact, beyond any agreement, operators in the field are more inclined to share information to facilitate the success of the mission. We can say that the operational dimension pushes cooperation 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.
“Therefore, on an operational level, the practices are quite effective, and the various European police forces share memoranda of understanding,” the expert said.
Is there a chance for a European intelligence agency?
The concept of the EU’s own in-house intelligence agency has been circulating for quite some time but has not received enough support so far. Meanwhile, by establishing a dedicated institution, Europe will gain, among other things, the ability to act more timely and decisively in the face of global terrorism.
One of the ways to set the stage for the creation of a supranational EU intelligence agency is by developing a sense of a common strategic culture. An excellent example is the Intelligence College in Europe (ICE), established in Paris in 2019. The college, which brings together European civilian and military intelligence professionals, was designed as a “crucible for the emergence of a common strategic culture.”
More importantly, the EU needs to overcome some political and legal obstacles. As Lombardi put it, an intelligence agency responds to the political authority of its own country, and this is something that makes organic agreement between them more difficult.
“These agencies cannot deviate from the guidelines of the national governments, and the information exchange is always subject to a political evaluation regarding national security,” the expert explained.
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. And then, because new technologies, especially digital, are redefining threat scenarios in which the concept of ‘national border’ no longer makes sense: the geography of the cyber world is a different geography ‘from the real one’ which is redefining interests and tasks,” he said.