EU will meet post bin Laden terror threat
by Dr Julian Richards
06 May 2011
Bilateral cooperation with the support of supra-national organisations like Europol will keep the streets of Europe as safe as possible, writes Dr Julian Richards
The death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of US special forces in Pakistan has been described by many as a pivotal step forward in the struggle against international terrorism. At the same time, most political leaders in the West have been careful not to appear too jubilant.
Satisfaction over the demise of al-Qaeda's leader has been tempered with a reminder that the threat of serious terror attacks has not evaporated. As the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs Cathy Ashton noted in an official statement the morning after bin Laden's death, "we need to remain vigilant in our efforts to completely disable the al-Qaeda network, as the threat of retaliatory action remains serious".
This warning follows a period of particularly increased concern over the possibility of Mumbai-style terror attacks in European cities, which surfaced in October of last year. The threat of such attacks was uncovered following the interrogation of a German of Afghan origin who had been detained following a visit to a terrorist training camp in the Waziristan region of Pakistan. While intelligence and security officials have pointed out that there is no precise intelligence pointing towards a specific attack, the threat has been taken very seriously and official terror threat levels have remained high across most European countries.
Further recent incidents have highlighted the ongoing risks. Around the same time as the October terror alert, a set of bombs hidden within printer cartridges were discovered at East Midlands airport in the UK. The devices were found on cargo planes that had departed from Yemen, via the UPS hub in Cologne, and were thought to be primed to explode over the US. Al-Qaeda's affiliate in the Arabian Peninsula, AQAP, claimed responsibility for the bombing attempt. This incident demonstrates how al-Qaeda has morphed beyond its original focus on bin Laden and his cohorts in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, and underlines how his death may no longer be as significant operationally as it might have been ten years ago.
Meanwhile, just a few days before the bin Laden operation in Pakistan, a terrorist bomb exploded in a busy restaurant in Marrakech, killing 16 people. This time, another al-Qaeda affiliate, that of the "Islamic Maghreb", has come under suspicion. Again, this attack demonstrates the regional evolution of the al-Qaeda organisation. Two days later, German security officials announced that they had disrupted an alleged al-Qaeda terror cell in Düsseldorf with the arrest of three individuals, who, they claimed, represented a "concrete and immediate threat", possibly to the transport network.
While these incidents emphasise that the terror threat is still very much alive ten years after 9/11, European defence and security officials have every reason to remain steadfast in their ongoing struggle against international terrorism. Complacency is never advised in these situations and luck may have played a role on numerous occasions, but the fact remains that Europe has not suffered a major al-Qaeda-associated terror attack since the London bombings of July 2005, which killed 52 people. While the recent Düsseldorf arrests are a reminder of the threat, they are also evidence that intelligence and security agencies across Europe are continuing to take positive action in disrupting terror networks.
Of course, an international threat like al-Qaeda requires an international response. While some European countries such as Belgium and Austria have called for a CIA-style pan-European intelligence agency, the larger EU members – who have considerable secret equities to protect – generally prefer to operate intelligence coordination with their neighbours through a web of bilateral relationships on specific operational matters.
At the supra-national level, while Europol is generally considered to be growing into a very significant capability, the somewhat shadowy EU Situation Centre SitCen in Brussels remains relatively small, issuing approximately 100 intelligence reports per year from a team of approximately 24 analysts. Most of this reporting is of a strategic, assessment nature, since the SitCen has no mandate to gather intelligence of its own. Despite a belief that the larger EU nations remain very reluctant to provide SitCen with sensitive intelligence, however, reports suggest that it is starting to have a material effect on the deliberations of the European Council in such areas as counter-terrorism policy.
The Lisbon Treaty is clearly significant in the EU's development in such areas as security and justice, as the establishment of Cathy Ashton's post as foreign affairs supremo and the European External Action Service EEAS under her command attest. But operational intelligence cooperation is likely to remain a largely bilateral affair for the immediate future, using tried-and-tested relationships between security agencies and their periodic gatherings under such arrangements as the Club of Berne. These relationships have been painstakingly constructed over many years. From a counter-terrorism point of view, there is good reason to believe that these structures are working as best they can, and will continue to keep the streets of Europe as safe as we can hope for in the face of the continued – and possibly heightened – terrorist threat.
Clearly there is always room for improvement, especially in such as areas as operational intelligence sharing between partner countries. But, supplemented with organisations such as Europol, whose director, Rob Wainwright, recently claimed employs "some of the best analysts in Europe", we should have no reason to doubt that the European security and intelligence capability will strive to meet any challenge posed by bin Laden's death in Pakistan as well as we can hope and expect.
Dr Julian Richards is deputy director of the University of Buckingham Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies
The death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of US special forces in Pakistan has been described by many as a pivotal step forward in the struggle against international terrorism. At the same time, most political leaders in the West have been careful not to appear too jubilant.
Satisfaction over the demise of al-Qaeda's leader has been tempered with a reminder that the threat of serious terror attacks has not evaporated. As the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs Cathy Ashton noted in an official statement the morning after bin Laden's death, "we need to remain vigilant in our efforts to completely disable the al-Qaeda network, as the threat of retaliatory action remains serious".
This warning follows a period of particularly increased concern over the possibility of Mumbai-style terror attacks in European cities, which surfaced in October of last year. The threat of such attacks was uncovered following the interrogation of a German of Afghan origin who had been detained following a visit to a terrorist training camp in the Waziristan region of Pakistan. While intelligence and security officials have pointed out that there is no precise intelligence pointing towards a specific attack, the threat has been taken very seriously and official terror threat levels have remained high across most European countries.
Further recent incidents have highlighted the ongoing risks. Around the same time as the October terror alert, a set of bombs hidden within printer cartridges were discovered at East Midlands airport in the UK. The devices were found on cargo planes that had departed from Yemen, via the UPS hub in Cologne, and were thought to be primed to explode over the US. Al-Qaeda's affiliate in the Arabian Peninsula, AQAP, claimed responsibility for the bombing attempt. This incident demonstrates how al-Qaeda has morphed beyond its original focus on bin Laden and his cohorts in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, and underlines how his death may no longer be as significant operationally as it might have been ten years ago.
Meanwhile, just a few days before the bin Laden operation in Pakistan, a terrorist bomb exploded in a busy restaurant in Marrakech, killing 16 people. This time, another al-Qaeda affiliate, that of the "Islamic Maghreb", has come under suspicion. Again, this attack demonstrates the regional evolution of the al-Qaeda organisation. Two days later, German security officials announced that they had disrupted an alleged al-Qaeda terror cell in Düsseldorf with the arrest of three individuals, who, they claimed, represented a "concrete and immediate threat", possibly to the transport network.
While these incidents emphasise that the terror threat is still very much alive ten years after 9/11, European defence and security officials have every reason to remain steadfast in their ongoing struggle against international terrorism. Complacency is never advised in these situations and luck may have played a role on numerous occasions, but the fact remains that Europe has not suffered a major al-Qaeda-associated terror attack since the London bombings of July 2005, which killed 52 people. While the recent Düsseldorf arrests are a reminder of the threat, they are also evidence that intelligence and security agencies across Europe are continuing to take positive action in disrupting terror networks.
Of course, an international threat like al-Qaeda requires an international response. While some European countries such as Belgium and Austria have called for a CIA-style pan-European intelligence agency, the larger EU members – who have considerable secret equities to protect – generally prefer to operate intelligence coordination with their neighbours through a web of bilateral relationships on specific operational matters.
At the supra-national level, while Europol is generally considered to be growing into a very significant capability, the somewhat shadowy EU Situation Centre SitCen in Brussels remains relatively small, issuing approximately 100 intelligence reports per year from a team of approximately 24 analysts. Most of this reporting is of a strategic, assessment nature, since the SitCen has no mandate to gather intelligence of its own. Despite a belief that the larger EU nations remain very reluctant to provide SitCen with sensitive intelligence, however, reports suggest that it is starting to have a material effect on the deliberations of the European Council in such areas as counter-terrorism policy.
The Lisbon Treaty is clearly significant in the EU's development in such areas as security and justice, as the establishment of Cathy Ashton's post as foreign affairs supremo and the European External Action Service EEAS under her command attest. But operational intelligence cooperation is likely to remain a largely bilateral affair for the immediate future, using tried-and-tested relationships between security agencies and their periodic gatherings under such arrangements as the Club of Berne. These relationships have been painstakingly constructed over many years. From a counter-terrorism point of view, there is good reason to believe that these structures are working as best they can, and will continue to keep the streets of Europe as safe as we can hope for in the face of the continued – and possibly heightened – terrorist threat.
Clearly there is always room for improvement, especially in such as areas as operational intelligence sharing between partner countries. But, supplemented with organisations such as Europol, whose director, Rob Wainwright, recently claimed employs "some of the best analysts in Europe", we should have no reason to doubt that the European security and intelligence capability will strive to meet any challenge posed by bin Laden's death in Pakistan as well as we can hope and expect.
Dr Julian Richards is deputy director of the University of Buckingham Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies
COMMENTS
