Daily Times

Debate among the European Union (EU) intelligence experts normally starts with the assumption that without a professional intelligence analysis, law enforcement cannot be made effective. The way of assessing the failure of intelligence involves valuating the accuracy of intelligence analysis and criticising the intelligence for not providing high quality information. In policy-making, the role of intelligence is of great importance, but if there is no coherence between them how can the claim be made that the intelligence is successful? Undoubtedly, secret agencies fail on several fronts, but that does not mean they are useless and incompetent. Every nation has its own oversight system to fix the broken window.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks in Brussels, security experts raised the question of intelligence-sharing failure, which caused huge infrastructure destruction and the killings of innocent civilians. Terrorists killed more than 34 innocent people and injured over 200 in Brussels. President of the EU Council said: “I am appalled by the bombing at Zavantem airport and the European District in Brussels, which have cost several innocent lives and injured many others. The European institutions are hosted in Brussels, thank to the generosity of Belgium’s government and its people. The European Union retunes this solidarity now and will fulfil its role to help Brussels, Belgium and Europe as a whole counter the terror threat that we have all been facing.”

The failure of French and Brussels intelligence agencies to tackle the menace of extremism and the exponentially growing networks of the Islamic State (ISIS) prompted a deep distrust between the law enforcement agencies and civil society of the two states. Normally, intelligence failure occurs due to preventable conditions — the way intelligence is understood, method of operation, capabilities, lack of coordination, cooperation and poor distribution of intelligence among the agencies of the European Union member states. To prevent intelligence failure the intercourse between the three level of intelligence — strategic, operational and tactical — is necessary. The issue is very complex within the EU member states as they all lack a coordinated counterterrorism strategy and intelligence-sharing system.

An Indian scholar, Janani Krishnaswamy in 2013 described some important aspects of intelligence failure and its causes in a research paper: “The source of intelligence failure resides not only within the boundaries of the intelligence procedures but also in the inaction of the policy makers to react on the intelligence made available, the intelligence community’s inability to adapt to the changing faces of terror, and the reform makers’ failure to make appropriate proposals of intelligence reforms. The story of intelligence reform is far from complete. Even if some reforms were sensible in fixing a few troubles of the intelligence community, reform makers have not been able to mend the core predicaments of the community because of (a) a failure to make any post-event audit, (b) lack of professionalism and systematised functioning, (c) communication gap between procedures and consumers of intelligence, and lack of protocol for engaging and de-engaging, (d) failure to implement reforms to recruit and train intelligent personnel, (e) failure to improve the working of intelligence personnel and, (f) and failure to adequately strengthen local intelligence.”

There are over a dozen intelligence and law enforcement agencies supporting the security of EU, but some of them lack professional demonstration of their capabilities. There have been several intelligence failures in the EU due to a lack of adequate intelligence, dearth of trained agents, the wrong way of application of surveillance technology, bureaucratisation and politicisation of intelligence-sharing, lack of action, and lack of sensible intelligence reforms. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in France and Belgium, the EU intelligence agencies and their way of cooperation have been under severe criticism.

All EU member states, according to the requirements of their law enforcement agencies, prepared and announced a bunch of strategies, measures and surveillance mechanisms, but these efforts could not prove effective in countering the challenges of extremism and international terrorism. The legal system on counterterrorism evolved during the last one decade in response to any terrorist attack within the matrix of the EU, and new measures like arrest-warrant and the Eurojust emerged after the 9/11 attacks. After the Madrid and London attacks, the EU in 2005 announced its first counterterrorism strategy. Moreover, due to the new challenges to its internal security, four EU information agencies were established; Europol (European Police Organisation), Joint Situation Centre (SitCen), Intelligence Division of the European Union Military Staff (INTDIV EUMS), and the EU satellite Centre (EUSC). These agencies, notwithstanding all available resources have been unable to control or undermine the exponentially growing networks of the IS and homegrown extremist groups.

On March 23, 2016, Sputnik International reported Anton Tsvetkov, a Russian security official and director of the organisation of Russian officers, suggested: “In such cases all law enforcement services are put on high alert; the security of the entire strategic and transport infrastructure is intensified and the major purpose of the intelligence services is to prevent repeated attacks. The second objective is to identify and detain all those involved in masterminding and executing the attack. When terrorist attack has already happened or even when there is a person walking with a bomb along the street, it already represents a serious failure of the Special Forces.”

Counterterrorism experts in the United States, Pakistan and the EU point to the hole in Belgium intelligence since the Paris attacks as those who killed civilians crossed border into Brussels. The French and Belgium intelligence infrastructure also suffered from a lack of check and balance. The country law enforcement agencies are struggling to counter terrorism without competent intelligence agencies. Its huge intelligence gap has badly affected the intelligence cooperation with other EU member states. Brussels intelligence came under scrutiny, while the EU member states are in unhappy on their reluctance to share intelligence. It is hoped that the EU member states will try to reorganise their intelligence cooperation system and introduce security sector reforms. The EU must learn from the deadly attacks in Paris and Brussels and extend the hand of cooperation to each other on law enforcement level.

The writer is the author of The Prospect of Nuclear Jihad in Pakistan, and can be reached at zai.musakhan222@gmail.com