Intelligence, counter-terrorism and private security stakeholders all rely on the timely and accurate delivery of information to “front-line” staff. In most major security breaches, although relevant data was available it failed to reach the right person in time. Information-sharing to reduce vulnerabilities is vital, so why has intra-European cooperation remained so limited? Do EU and NATO member states mistrust each other when dealing with sensitive security information, or is it security sector rivalries that obstruct cooperation? The Lisbon treaty is meant to unify EU security policies, but coherence on information-sharing remains elusive. How can Europe better harness its information-sharing resources?
A United States Mission to the European Union and Security and Defence Agenda lunch discussion with Ivan K. Fong, General Counsel and Mary Ellen Callahan, Chief Privacy Officer and Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer from the US Department of Homeland Security.
The event will be moderated by Brooks Tigner, Editor, Security Europe.
The so-called ‘Twitter’ or ‘Web 2.0’ revolutions in the Arab world have sparked fierce debate on the right of governments to shut down the internet. This has been paralleled by criticism of Iran and China for their use of social media to track political protesters and for propaganda. The storage of data on these platforms greatly increases public and private vulnerabilities to attack. Does switching off the internet constitute a breach of freedom of speech, and if so, should the EU develop capabilities to prevent this? Does NATO’s cybersecurity policy include this issue and what kind of actions or sanctions might be considered? Could an EU platform for cooperation between public and private actors contribute to regulating cyberspace, and could such a platform enable governments to stay up to speed with technological developments?
Europe’s public authorities need to reach out to the private sector to help develop effective responses to today’s increasingly complex security threats, the European Union’s Counter-Terrorism Coordinator Gilles De Kerchove said Thursday. “We public authorities should do better to identify and make known our needs in the field of security related research,” De Kerchove told a conference, co-organised by Security & Defence Agenda and European Organisation for Security. “If Ministries of Interior don’t express their views, it’s very difficult for the researchers and mainly for the private industry to invest.” The conference focused on four main areas of concern: border security, disaster control and civil protection, cyber-security and protecting transport infrastructure. Speakers assessed the need to reduce the fragmentation of Europe’s approach to security, examined the role of European institutions and examined ways to dovetail the needs of industry and government.
Natural disasters, terrorist attacks and geopolitical instability, all pose threats to Europe’s critical energy infrastructure that could prove disastrous, provoking a cascade effect that could strike other sectors from water supply to the mobile phone network, heard an SDA / EOS roundtable debate. Speakers stressed the need for more investment, closer European co-operation and the development of a more integrated European market that would facilitate flows of energy from one country to another, especially in times of crisis.
Opening Security and Defence Day 2010, Belgian Minister of Defence, Pieter De Crem, explained how the current financial climate of austerity and reduced budgets is encouraging the sharing of resources and better levels of cooperation and interoperability. The recent Anglo-French agreement on naval infrastructure is a clear indication of greater rapprochement between member states on security issues, he said.
On January 22, the SDA will hold the first of its annual Member’s Lunches at the Bibliothèque Solvay. This private lunch will serve as a brainstorming opportunity for SDA member’s to discuss their own policy priorities as well as the SDA’s activities for 2008.
Enrique Mora, Head of Cabinet to Javier Solana and Hendrik Schuwer, Head of Cabinet to Jaap de Hoop Scheffer will brief SDA members on upcoming institutional priorities for 2008.
Europe’s ability to respond quickly to global emergencies was brought into sharp focus by major catastrophes like the Asian tsunami, Pakistan earthquake and Hurricane Katrina. The EU’s reconstruction and crisis management capabilities are widely seen by public opinion as inadequate. What, objectively, are Europe’s assessment and response capabilities, and what are the prospects for the disaster relief force suggested by the Barnier report? Would such a unified European force affect the role of ECHO or disaster response-times? How should Europe tackle its present force projection shortcomings, and where would the Community Civil Protection Mechanism fit in?
The 1325 EU Partnership was instigated by the European Peacebuilding Liaison Office (EPLO) Gender, Peace, and Security group to provide a forum for high-level policy makers to enhance discussion and understanding of gender perspectives and implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1325 (2000) on women, peace and security, within the EU. It aims to do so by linking people and disseminating information across the EU institutions, governments, military, academia and field- and EU-based NGOs. In particular, the 1325 EU Partnership will achieve its aims by concentrating on highlighting practical examples, best practices and lessons learnt across various thematic areas and contexts, to augment gender awareness, understanding and mainstreaming.
The overlap between NATO and the EU’s emerging identity has at times been a contentious feature of both the transatlantic and intra-European political debates. But how justified are these concerns? Are US policymakers aware of the ESDP’s potential for promoting global stability through hard as well as soft power, and what do they think of it? Are the strongest supporters of an independent European military capability beginning to acknowledge that NATO is still a flexible and effective instrument for furthering joint transatlantic interests? Because both the EU and NATO face the same pressures – for a more clearly defined security strategy, a serious shortage of resources and to admit Balkans and Black Sea countries as future members – how much new scope is there for complementary policymaking?
The crucial role of private security companies in Iraq looks increasingly like a pointer to the future. Private security contractors are now offering a wide array of sophisticated security-related services. This roundtable will focus on how EU policymakers see the role of such companies developing and the possible implications it has for ESDP. Beyond the military domain, the interaction between private security companies and NGOs involved in humanitarian and development work will be examined.
In June 2005, the SDA organised a roundtable on protecting Europe’s infrastructure against terrorism (the report can be found in the Publications section). Only a few days afterwards, London’s transport system was hit by four near-simultaneous bomb attacks. This was a reminder of the burning importance of critical infrastructure protection. On October 2, the SDA will look at issues such as the coordination of policies at the EU level and private sector involvement, with a close look at energy infrastructure. Dependence on imported energy means that infrastructure protection strategies need to be adapted to meet a wide geographical scope, leading us to ask where the weakest points lie.
In the wake of the Madrid and London bombings, the counter-terrorism strategy agreed by EU leaders in late 2005 heralds a more concerted approach to security in Europe. How could the strategy be tailored to take an “all hazards” approach to the many layers of threat, ranging from terrorist attack to natural catastrophe, disease pandemics and organized crime? What specific steps are needed to strengthen EU countries’ security, and is the pooling of national resources a viable option in any of these?
Creating a coherent response by EU countries to terrorist threats is already placing strains on Europe ’s decision-making and cooperation mechanisms. Does EU have an efficient and integrated border management framework, and how well are the new member states policing Europe ’s ‘new borders’? What are the priorities for the EU’s new Border Agency and how will its risk analysis be fed into decision-making at both national and EU level? Does Schengen II provide a satisfactory political base for information-sharing? What prospect is there for a clear mandate on civil liberties protection versus more efficient security controls, and what consultation methods with elected representatives and civil society groups would work best? Is heightened security in Europe destined to remain a matter for national policymakers, or is Europe moving towards a more collective EU-level approach?
The event is organised in collaboration with Fundación para el análisis y los studios sociales (FAES) to mark the release the FAES report ‘NATO: An Alliance for Freedom’ and to discuss NATO’s need for strategic change and its role in counter-terrorism strategies. The FAES report highlights the growing importance of security threats posed by Islamic jihadists, and says that NATO must make an “ambitious jump” by enacting measures to strengthen protection against future attacks at the centre of Alliance strategy.
The NATO Forum is drawing oil, gas, nuclear, and alternative energy providers from across the globe to meet, discuss, and network on the problems and solutions to energy security. Protection of physical infrastructure is but one critical element of this discussion. Enhancing supply, challenges to land and sea transport, new and emerging technologies, and the public policy context of enhancing energy security within a global context will all be discussed at length within the framework of the forum.
This event is hosted by Kenyon International & Oxford Metrica, with the support of the New Defence Agenda
Space-borne technology holds the answers to many of Europe’s most pressing security and counter-terrorism problems. But how hard will it be for major players like the European Space Agency, with limited experience of security issues, to spearhead projects ranging from R&D to interoperability? Are multi-state programmes so difficult to structure and manage that more consideration should be given to single state or bi-lateral programmes? Or does Europe need a new model for operating large, complex space systems?
Difficult choices lay ahead for European nations as they restructure their military forces for out-of-area operations. What kinds of incentives should national capitals devise to encourage accelerated force transformation? How should nations contribute to the greater European force posture? What kinds of defense assets should be pooled? Which capabilities are more suited towards specialization?
Heightened preparedness is the best way to discourage terrorist attacks on Europe’s national landmarks, business and infrastructural nerve centers. In the U.S., the cost of upgrading first response emergency services to deter non-nuclear terrorist attack is put at $62bn over the coming five years. What needs to be done in Europe, with what cooperative mechanisms and from where will the money come? Are there lessons to be learned from the US experience?
The recent Atlantic Storm simulation exercise showed the United States and EU Member States are not prepared for a bioterrorism attack. With US and EU biodefence programmes varying markedly, can the Atlantic alliance develop suitable defences together? Are differences in EU and US programmes based purely on threat perception, or are other critical factors involved? What are the similarities and differences between European and American programmes and do gaps in scope and scale, priorities and strategy weaken transatlantic defence cooperation? As past preparedness programmes were developed around state-run bio programmes, will the potential increase of sub-state actors affect our attempts to control biological weapons development and use?
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the areas surrounding the Black and Caspian Seas have caught the world’s attention as the ‘frozen conflicts’ continue to deteriorate and the borders of Europe move eastwards. Due to the geostrategic location of the region, the US is increasingly involved, rounding up partners for the ‘War on Terror’ EU developing its nascent European Neighbourhood Policy (EPN), while the Russians persist to hold a grip on its ‘sphere of influence’.
The possibility of major terrorist attacks in Europe has provoked a strong response from authorities in charge of security, and there have been a number of successful anti-terrorism operations. But with the EU on the point of enlarging from 15 to 25 countries, how well structured are its collective and collaborative anti-terrorism defences?
In a world where the threat of terrorism knows no borders wide international dialogue and cooperation is indispensable. Homeland and domestic security goes beyond the present counter-terrorism agenda. Modern society is increasingly vulnerable. Today’s threats menace both the public and the private sectors. Government and business must work together to create a safer world. A wide security agenda also reflects increased threats to the free flow of people, ideas, and trade, as well as to the interests of third parties. Side effects and collateral damage must be minimized. This international conference will examine the different threat perceptions and approaches of the US,and Europe, clarify the agenda, and encourage international cooperation on worldwide security.
Working Group Monday 7 July, Bibliothèque Solvay, Brussels 12.00 – 16.00
Working Group Monday 24 February, Bibliothèque Solvay, Brussels
12.00 – 16.00
The policy rifts over the Iraq Crisis that have divided the NATO alliance clearly need to be repaired. How strong is the case for a new defence and security “doctrine” that would require the United States and its allies to clearly define their 21st Century interests, concerns and commitments? How might this doctrine be structured so as to re-launch NATO and also clarify the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy?
The NATO Alliance, which has served Europe and its North American allies so well for more than 50 years, is reinventing itself. And the European Union is grappling with the creation of European security and defence policies, as part of its burgeoning Common Foreign and Security Policy, that will complement yet not destabilise NATO. At the same time, NATO’s military assets and expertise will remain the dominant factor guaranteeing European security, at least until the EU’s planned Rapid Reaction Force becomes a reality, and probably thereafter.
The New Defence Agenda, a Forum Europe initiative under the Patronage of Javier Solana, EU High Representative of the CFSP and Lord Robertson, Secretary General of NATO, offers a platform for political leaders, officials, industry executives and policy analysts to discuss European defence and security issues on a regular basis in Brussels, to contribute to a series of Working Papers that will reflect key points raised in these debates and perhaps more important, to raise the profile of often sensitive defence and security issues by involving and briefing the international press.