While terror elements started infiltrating from one state to another state, the EU member states individually decided to manage their own border to tackle the crisis of migration and free movement of people. This unexpected infiltration forced them to introduce security sector reforms and apply new means of intelligence surveillance to identify terror suspects. In 2015, the migration crisis demonstrated certain vulnerabilities at borders of the EU member states, and it has become crystal clear that the management of borders was weak. The current crisis led to difficulties in majority of the states. In many aspects, the ongoing influx of unwanted people and migrants is leading to the Europeanization of border management. The Brussels, Vince and Paris attacks revealed the shortcomings of intelligence cooperation of the EU member states.
The blame game has got worse as heads of governments started criticizing each other for the failure of their security agencies to cooperate on law enforcement level. After the above-mentioned security crisis and blame game, European Union is now living in a turbulent time, and operating in permanent crisis mood—confronts with one turmoil after another. These challenges are too irksome in nature and sensitivity because for too long the EU turned blind eye to the suffering of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria and Iraq. At present, the EU has no coherent policy to tackle this crisis. Mass migration now poses the gravest threat to the stability of the project.
The uncontrollable spy agencies in some EU member state generated an important debate in print media that agencies of some states are operating on diverse direction. In Germany, this question is often raised by experts that legal restrictions must be imposed on the secret services (BND).
Parliamentary enquiry revealed that BND spied on nearly 3,500 individuals of the allied countries. The new legislation in Germany banned BND from spying on foreign governments. To bring intelligence under democratic control, several EU member states recently adopted new laws. In January 2015, in Sweden, security service (SAPO) was reorganized to address the complaints of citizens. Austria, Denmark, Finland, Republic of Ireland and Hungary are spying on their own citizens according to their designed surveillance systems but their electronic approach to national security and stability is not perceived as a professional approach on community level.
The case of the Netherlands is not so different where various forums discuss the menace of radicalization and extremism in different perspectives. But the Netherlands intelligence and security system is much better compared to some EU member states. The country maintains professional intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure that share information on EU level and helps member states in tackling the scourge of radicalization. Transitional threats facing the country can be tackled only at law enforcement level. The Netherlands actively stresses the importance of professional approach in the international arena. Like Britain, the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) defeated extremism, radicalization and international terrorism by a professional mechanism, and shared its valuable information with other EU member states. In Netherlands, three member review committee on the intelligence and security services (CTIVD) was formed as an independent body to oversee the performance and operations of intelligence agencies. The country intelligence and security service act 2002 stipulate that the conditions under which the right to privacy of communications may be restricted. In view of the above mentioned weak intelligence sharing approach and unprofessional border management mechanism in some EU member states, The UK, Belgium, Netherlands, France and Germany introduced security sector reforms (SSR) to bring intelligence under democratic control.
In Britain, intelligence oversight on parliamentary, legal and through several other bodies has produced importance results. The country maintain highly professional intelligence infrastructure, which helps other EU member states in tackling terrorism and radicalization. The Government Communication Headquarters (GCHQ), MI6 and MI5 are the strongest intelligence agencies in Europe and Asia—adorned with modern computer software, communications and drone technology. Therefore, the UK involvement in EU’s security is pivotal. The MI6 and MI5 serve the nation for more than 100 years. To make intelligence professional, oversight system in the country is very strong that watch the performance of agencies through various means. Two commissioners oversee the use of powers mentioned in the regulations of investigatory power act (RIPA): the intelligence services commissioner and the interception of communication commissioner. Parliamentary and legal oversight system is also strong that assess the activities of all intelligence services across the country. The EU Intelligence agencies share plenty of information, but unfortunately, this information could not help member states to tackle the persisting crisis of national security. The EU member states need to introduce security sector reforms and strengthen legal and parliamentary oversight bodies to prevent intelligence failure and corruption within the system.
(by Musa Khan Jalalzai - slguardian.org)
