Responding to new security threats

Since the end of the Cold War, states have responded to the changed global environment and altered their defence and security capacity to respond to new threats.

These new threats, often in the form of terrorism, have required countries to broaden their definition of defence, focusing more on security and intelligence. In the EU, these areas largely remain the responsibility of member states but since the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US, the Madrid bombings in 2004 and the attacks in London in 2005, there has been a greater move towards co-ordination and co-operation between national governments.

On the internal side of things, member states have agreed to make it easier for their police forces and prosecution services to investigate cases which have a cross-border dimension. The 11 September attacks prompted states to quickly sign off the European arrest warrant, which allows suspects to be transferred quickly and easily between member states. The European evidence warrant which was agreed shortly afterwards will, when it comes into force, allow states to send evidence more easily and quickly across borders.

Europol, the EU’s police agency, is currently being adapted to help it better investigate terrorist threats, while Eurojust, the EU’s judicial network, allows an EU-level examination of cases. Both bodies also bring an external dimension to increasing security by co-ordinating and exchanging information with third countries.

EU states in February agreed to exchange DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registration data between their police forces which would help fight crime. A directive agreed last year compels telecommunications companies to retain data on phone calls and emails which could also be useful for security reasons.

The European Commission recently published a proposal to improve the co-ordination of information between states on combating cybercrime, including the posting of information on how to make bombs and terrorist statements on the internet. The Commission is also trying to persuade member states to accept the creation of a list of critical infrastructure that needs specific protection against terrorist and other threats.

The Commission believes the EU is the best forum in which to examine issues such as the threat posed by liquid explosives and brought out a green paper earlier this year asking member states and other interested parties what developments were possible in this area. A group of member states’ air transport experts chaired by the Commission last November agreed to reduce the amount of liquids allowed on board planes, following a terrorist threat against flights from London.

The threat to air travel has seen the EU respond to the external dimension of security. The Commission and the EU presidency have negotiated agreements to allow the transfer of air passenger data to the US for use in counter-terrorism assessments. The Commission has said that it is examining the possibility of setting up a similar European system to allow data to be collected on passengers travelling to the EU.

The EU also holds high-level meetings with states such as the US and Russia on justice and security, where counter-terrorism forms an important part of the discussions.

But while the trend over a number of years has been towards a greater EU role in responding to internal and external security threats, there may be a limit to this. States still tend to guard their intelligence closely, with Europol and Eurojust reporting difficulties in getting member states to share the burden of investigations with them. Gijs de Vries, the EU’s first counter-terrorism co-ordinator, stepped down from his post earlier this year and is not expected to be replaced. De Vries was reported to be frustrated at the lack of power for the post, which was created in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks. The fact that de Vries will have no successor suggests that member states do not see a need for a counter-terrorism co-ordinator.

Since the end of the Cold War, states have responded to the changed global environment and altered their defence and security capacity to respond to new threats.