24 Jan Euro-Atlantic Café on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (Event summary)
On the 12th of January, CEID held the first event of the Euro-Atlantic Café in 2017, a series of discussions aiming to bridge the gap between Hungarian and U.S. perspectives with constructive dialogues on foreign and security policy. The current event, entitled Homeland security: The Watchers on the Wall, focused on counterterrorism, law enforcement and intelligence sharing. Our guests were Professor Nathan Sales, Associate Professor of Law at Syracuse University, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Professor Ferenc Bánfi, Executive Director of CEPOL (European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training).
Background: the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were unprecedented considering their scale and the number of the victims. it was the beginning of a new era: the era of global terrorism. As a consequence, the government of the United States set up a new governmental body, the Department of Homeland Security and President Bush declared global war on terror. In 2015, however, Western Europe became the target of the new wave of terrorism, carried out by the so called Islamic State. GLOBSEC Intelligence Reform Initiative made an important comparison between the two generations of terrorists. While the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks were prepared in training camps and obliged to a hierarchy in their orders, current perpetrators tend to have criminal backgrounds and one of their most important bonding experience is prison.
Professor Bánfi, while basically agreeing with the former statement, highlighted that these changes are parts of the evolution of terrorism. Change is permanent, however the nature of terrorism and goal to cause fear in the masses is still the same as it had ever been, from the beginning of history. One of the most important factors which differentiates the recent type of terrorism is modern technology: it has become considerably easier, faster and cheaper to multiply the modus operandi. Training camps are not needed anymore, since training can be done virtually, using social media or the dark side of the internet. Another indicator of the changing nature of terrorism is that the perpetrators of recent events had no intentions to die. Hierarchy among terrorists seems to be over as well, more attention is given to individuals who are ready to execute the attacks.
Professor Sales agreed with Mr. Bánfi, stating that the threat Europe and the United States are facing has indeed changed in several ways, which highly determine the policies. An important question is what steps should be taken to prevent attacks before happening and how to try to minimize casualties if they happen. According to Professor Sales, the nature of the threat we experience is also evolving and has changed considerably since 9/11. A shift can be seen from centralized, command controlled and hierarchical terrorist organization towards a more entrepreneurial nature, when no training, instructions or funding is given to the individual operatives. The problematic issue is, that the counter- terrorism measures the U.S. created after 9/11 assume certain sorts of threats and detect people as they communicate with central control, or travel across international borders. With current trends of terrorism, the effects of modern technology and the terrorist’s active usage of the opportunities given by the internet, detection became much more difficult. While the magnitude of attacks can be smaller, they are becoming more frequent.
As most of Europe has free borders, without control, and terrorists are often already inside, counter-terrorism seems to be even more challenging. Professor Bánfi illustrated the growing frequency with numbers: in 2001, 178 terrorist attacks were registered globally, claiming around 3500 victims, whereas in the period of 2015-2016, close to 3000 attacks happened, killing around 27000. Counter-terrorism lacks effectiveness, which he explained with a missing political will, highlighting that around 173 terrorist organizations are registered by the United Nations, however, only 9 of them are considered likewise by the U.S., Russia and the United Nations as well. Professor Bánfi compared the situation of Afghanistan and Syria. Illustrating his point regarding the lack of political will, he stated that theoretically, the elimination of terrorists should not take more than a couple of days. Considering these, he came to the conclusion, that while terrorism or even migration is often seen as a law enforcement or military issue, a real solution should start with a unified political will.
According to Professor Sales, jihadist terrorism constitutes a multidimensional problem, and therefore requires multidimensional solutions, with political, law enforcement and military methods. Continuing with the example of Afghanistan, he called the attention to the fact that the fight against the Soviet invaders in the 1980s meant training, experience, and created social networks not present before. It also brought about a sense of invincibility for the jihadist fighters, making the country a magnet for them, and establishing the foundations of Al-Qaeda later. Lately, Syria joined Afghanistan in this respect. As ISIS started to lose ground geographically, people who have served in the jihad are now flooding back to Europe, demoralized after their losses, but still committed. Paradoxically, military successes in iraq and Syria resulted in growing intelligence challenges for Europe and the U.S. as well.
Regarding the problems of homegrown terrorism and second generation of immigrants joining terrorists, Professor Bánfi stated the historical reasons for these issues, most importantly unsuccessful and improper integration. This is a holistic problem in Western Europe, and therefore understanding the radicalization needs to start from scratches.
Professor Sales’ opinion on this issue is that due to the fundamental principles of the U.S., it can be said that the situation of Europe in this regard is more difficult. People who come to the U.S. are mostly middle class, qualified, prosperous people, while Europe has to deal with mostly poor and unskilled immigrants.
Considering the measures applied so far by the European Union, and the level of security in Europe, Professor Bánfi highlighted the difference between objective security situation and security perceptions, saying that the latter is much worse. He also added that the possibilities of security services are framed by political will and fundamental rights, and he stressed that a proper balance was needed, the safeguarding of freedom was essential. He warned that through a worsening security, terrorism is undermining the belief in democracy.
About law enforcement and intelligence tools used in the U.S. in counter-terrorism and their effectiveness, Mr. Sales stated that the apparatus is rather narrow. He mentioned two broad sets of programs after 9/11: first, pushing the borders out, meaning the potential terrorists should be detected before entering the U.S. The second program includes the analyzation of the content of emails and phone calls, plus the so-called passenger name records.
Regarding the cooperation of military and law enforcement, Professor Bánfi called the attention to a fundamental change: military NATO forces are being used in law enforcement, while law enforcement forces started to do security service. The conventional way is not valid anymore, multidimensional methods are becoming standards. Still, for proper counter-terrorism measures, a common understanding of terrorism is the key.
On the topic of intelligence sharing among countries, both speakers agreed that it constituted an extremely difficult and complex issue. Professor Sales added that one of the most serious problems was the so called information wall, which kept law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the U.S. from being able to work together. Professor Bánfi added that information and intelligence sharing had to be based primarily on trust.
During the Q/A part with the audience, the speakers discussed whether the Russian Federation can be involved as a partner in intelligence sharing. Russia has its own strategy in this regard, however, cooperation with Russia remains possible, to a certain level.
About the efficiency and possible counter-productivity of the anti-terrorist measures applied in France after the Paris attacks – the stationing and patrolling of military and police troops on the streets – both speakers agreed that this was a general procedure after such events, necessary for increasing security perception for the public and providing a possibility for fast mobilization.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher.
