The drifting United States

The US is in crisis and I feel deeply sorry for the many friends I have in that great country. It continues to be deeply affected by the coronavirus pandemic, more than 100,000 lives have been lost and millions of people are without a job. Now, there are demonstrations and anger in many cities in response to police brutality and racism. The African-Americans are the main target of the racist attitudes we can easily notice within the police forces and in some segments of society. But the key problem resides in the political leadership of the country. President Donald Trump is a man that stirs up conflict and social disharmony. His approach to power is based on antagonising part of the American society. It is the politics of the hatred and rejection, splitting the citizens in two clear-cut groups: the supporters and those that he sees as enemies. At a time the country needs solidarity and unity of purpose, President Trump brings in discord and resentment. Seen from this side of the ocean, that is the most direct route to a deeper national disaster. And we can only be extremely worried because the US are the most powerful nation on earth. It cannot be adrift, rudderless.

New approaches to the Armed Forces

This week, we were engaged in a discussion about the future shape and configuration of the armed forces in contexts such as those we find in Europe. The starting point was that tomorrow’s defence will be very different in terms of means and personnel from what we have seen in the past. We should not be preparing for future conflicts the same way we have been doing during the last twenty years or so. Tensions and hostilities will be much more complex than they have been in the past.

I will not go into the details of the discussion this time. I just want to mention that one of the issues was about the participation of the armed forces in domestic security patrolling. Something we saw in recent years in France, above all, but also in Belgium and elsewhere, soldiers walking side by side with the Police – or on their one, no Police personnel being around – in the streets and shopping malls of our cities.

This remains a major point of disputation. I am not in favour. I do not think military personnel should be doing routine patrols that are very much within Police’s territory, unless there is a special emergency. But several senior military officers are for it. And some politicians as well, for reasons that have more to do with political gain than with increased levels of security.

The debate is not closed.

The investigation must be thorough

The brutal acts of terrorism that occurred on Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka raise a good number of key questions. The answers are not yet known. They require time and serious analysis of every piece of information. One of the most important questions must be about the mastermind. The attacks have shown a very high degree of preparation, a well organised chain of command and a deep effort of indoctrination, the brainwashing of the suicide bombers. All this is profoundly disturbing. One needs to find out what kind of structure allowed this level of coordinated, well-targeted destruction. First, the families of the victims must know who is responsible. Second, we all need to be sure that such capacity to do evil is annihilated.  

The politicians and the armed forces

In the “old Europe”, from France to Germany and through the Benelux, the public opinion is very divided regarding the possible increase in military budgets. Half of the citizens agree with the increase; the other half is not convinced. 

This situation places the governments in a very delicate position. They are stuck. And they have not managed to address the security and defence issues with the right words. Politicians in several European countries are not clear about the military. Therefore, many people understand the need for more money to be spent with the police services, with the prisons. But they are not sure about the role of the armed forces.

Assange and the legality of some cover operations

Julian Assange’s predicament leaves no one indifferent, in our part of the world. He has scores of supporters. Also, plenty of detractors. His personality, not just his deeds, is deeply controversial. I will not enter that discussion.

However, I recognise that, thanks to his initiative, it has been possible to demonstrate that a good number of actions taken by powerful Western governments, under the cover of national security and defence, surpassed the limits of what can be considered legitimate. Basic rights and values have been shaken by such actions.

And that brings back a fundamental question that remains unresolved in our democracies. The systems in place do not ensure a proper democratic, ethical and legal control of some undercover operations carried out by special military forces, or by specific police and intelligence services within the security apparatus. It has become obvious that our parliaments are not prepared to exercise such oversight. They intrinsically lack the competence and the political strength to carry out that role. And the justice machinery is basically in the same position of weakness.

I think it is time to envisage the creation of a constitutional body that would bring together a small number of elders, a group of sages who have reached the end of their professional ambitions and careers, and have behind them an immaculate life history, a public image of great credibility. This would be a top-level group mandated to oversee and assess complex legal and ethics practices as carried out by special government agencies. Such independent panel would report to an appropriate parliamentary committee.

This move would certainly respond to some key interrogations that we ought to deal with, based on what Assange and Wikileaks have revealed.  

EU's collective defence

The issue of collective defence is again a major concern for many European countries. It has to take into account a good number of major new developments. A more assertive Russia. A new level of foreign policy coordination between Russia and China, a policy that is clearly in competition with the Western interests and approaches. The fake news, the political interference and the funding of populist and far-right radical movements. The growing political gap and related tensions between Europe and Turkey. The situation in the Middle East and the Northern part of Africa. Terrorism. The US unprecedented new official policy towards defence cooperation with Europe. And the very hesitant, ambiguous views of the citizens regarding military expenditures.

And I would add one more, that is often left aside: the inept political direction provided by the EU leaders, particularly when it comes to articulating defence and security, military forces, intelligence and police services.

A comprehensive view of criminal behaviour.

The assailant that yesterday attacked the police officers on duty at the Champs Elysées had a long past of criminal behaviour. He spent many years in jail. And all those who knew him a bit agree he was a deeply deranged fellow.

 As we take these facts into account, we must raise a number of questions about the workings of the penitentiary system, the failures – or at least, the limitations – of the re-education programmes, the inefficiency of the back-to-society policies and also the way our institutional arrangements miss the target when it comes to deal with extremely violent people. 

All these matters need to be seriously thought through, and challenged, if we are indeed committed to making our environment safer.

It´s not enough just to speak about terrorism.  

On domestic security matters

The concept of “war against terrorism” is not appropriate for our European societies. We are not at war. We have a very serious challenge in terms of domestic security. But it is a security issue to be dealt with by the police and the internal intelligence services. War would mean a major disruption of normalcy. We want to keep the same routines and be convinced that the security services are indeed equipped to match the challenge. They might of course be supported by the armed forces. But that support has to be much smarter than just placing a few soldiers in shopping malls and other public spaces. The politicians need to understand that the military can do much better things than just standing out there.

EU´s debate on security and defence

The on-going debate about the future of EU security and defence is excessively focused on the military dimensions. It is also incomplete in terms of understanding the meaning of European security and the complementarity links – and the differences as well – between both concepts. Furthermore, many of the responses that are put forward do not match the new nature of the risks and threats our Europe is confronted with. The understanding of the intents that move our adversaries and enemies is good. But the proposed set of actions are too conventional and too narrow. On the opposite side, we see the enemies playing complex hybrid packages against us. Actually, their main lines of intervention go far beyond the hard military means. They also go far beyond the traditional diplomatic adversarial politics. They are multidimensional, subtle and very often take advantage of our own internal divisions. We should not limit ourselves to military options. That would be in deep contradiction with what we have been talking about during the last six or so years in terms of a comprehensive approach to crisis management.

But there are other points that are also missing. First, the strengthening of national police services. Second, the call for greater cooperation between member States in matters of police investigation, information sharing and joint detailed analysis and interpretation of the data collected. Third, the augmenting of national intelligence resources, which are extremely limited in some of our States, including in those that have recently experienced terrorist incidents. Fourth, the sharing of information between the military and the police intelligence services.

No need to go overboard

Serenity is the best answer to all complex challenges. It´s essential to keep that in mind as we face a number of terrorist attacks. They want to destabilize us. We respond with steadiness. And with the appropriate means. No need for dramatic speeches of the kind we watched yesterday in Paris. A few firm words are enough. 

The political leaders and the police work

The fight against terrorism is above all the work of the specialised police services. They should be able to carry out their duties with a great degree of independence. This basically means that the political leaders should not get involved in the technical tasks of the police. They must be advised to do so, to keep a healthy distance from the police and not to fall in the temptation of becoming super police chiefs. That´s not their role.

The politicians should deal with the public dimensions issues and above all, they ought to bring the security feelings back. That´s about promoting a climate of serenity and fighting the propagation of alarmist views. It´s about explaining the security strategies that are being put in place.

Furthermore, their relationship with the police should be about creating the critical conditions for the services to be able to perform in a coordinated and efficient manner.

But police decisions have to remain the prerogative of the police forces. If the politicians try to meddle in such interference will cause confusion in the ranks of the police bosses and will compromise the professional approaches that the challenge of fighting terrorism requires. 

Cologne raises many questions

Referring again to the New Year´s criminal incidents in Cologne, I think it is important to note that the total number of complaints filed with the police has now reached 379. This is an incredible high figure, but possibly lower than the actual number of cases. In these types of crimes some victims do prefer not to file a formal charge. In any case, the total figure registered so far clearly shows the magnitude of the problem. It leaves no room for a light treatment of the matter. This is more than just a law and order issue. As it is also bigger than just police failure to anticipate and later on to respond to the occurrences.

There are many questions that call for a frank and courageous answer. But also for serenity. The citizens have to be reassured. And the refugees have to see the authorities as strong enough and ready to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Lessons from Cologne

Regarding the sexual attacks against young women and thefts in Cologne, and also in some other European cities, I certainly wish to add my voice to those who have expressed shock. It is important to make it clear that such actions are criminal acts. Therefore, the perpetrators ought to be brought to face justice. The police work needs to be done without any outside interference. This is no time for political meddling in police affairs.

But it is time to draw some very serious political lessons from these abhorrent incidents. They call for a frank debate about the challenges of integrating in Europe large numbers of people coming from cultures that are very different from ours – and in some ways, unacceptable, because they are a negation of key human values Europeans take for granted. It is not an easy debate but has to be clearly discussed. 

Soldiers on the streets is no effective response to terrorist threats

Yesterday I wrote about my concern to see inappropriate, excessive security measures being adopted as a follow-up to the dramatic events in France. Unfortunately, the politicians seem to prove me right. They have now decided to put something like 10,000 soldiers on the French streets. This increases the security paranoia, it sends the message that people should live in fear, and gives the military a role that it is not theirs, for which they are not prepared. Furthermore, it makes them an easy target for all kinds of crazies that hate military uniforms.

The politicians know that this is not the right approach but might think that the citizens appreciate this action. I am not even sure of that.

And let´s be clear. When there is a real problem – and the terrorist threat is real – the responsibility of the political leaders is to organise the right response. Not to engage in spectacular actions that have very little impact on the solution of the problem. 

Ashton and the hesitant EU states

Today Baroness Ashton, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has issued a statement on “the extremely grave situation in the Central African Republic”. The title says everything. Or maybe, almost everything.

The statement recognises that the situation has been deteriorating very seriously since the beginning of this week. The French troops and the African military mission are just overwhelmed by the increasing violence, the widespread attacks against Muslims, and the generalised chaos in a country that has been pretty chaotic for a bit of time now.

The main addressees of this declaration are the EU states themselves. They have been very reluctant in fielding a peace mission in support of those already on the ground. The EU governments have invented all kinds of excuses to delay the deployment of the forces. Some of these forces are ready to go but their political masters prefer to say that they need additional training, just as a way of procrastinating.

It is true that CAR is far away. One can even say that Libya is much closer and is still in disarray and the Europeans do very little to help this neighbour. There is a big difference though. Libya is not witnessing a genocide-type of conflict. There the issue is more about strengthening the state authority.

I can understand the reluctance on the European side when it comes to sending troops to address a law and order challenge. Troops are not policemen. They are supposed to deal with military threats. But if you do not have enough gendarmes and special police forces to deploy, you go for the military solution as stop-gap approach. It is either that or more innocent civilians being simply massacred.

For those like me who have spent a few years dealing with the country and the region, the short term response – to stop the violence – does not seem too difficult and certainly it would not require a very large force.

It calls however for a commitment on the EU side that is now clearly absent. And Mrs Ashton cannot state it with the same clarity I can. But she means it.

UNPOL

What do you know about the work of the UN Police, UNPOL?

That was my question for today, at the request of a friend. And I spent part of the day writing about UNPOL. I called it notes about …as I thought these were just some brief comments about the subject matter. But it was no chore because I do consider the Police Division of the UN and their officers deployed in the field, about 13, 000 of them, as among the best support the United Nations can offer.

But I also noticed, once again, that the politicians and the public opinion are ill informed about the role of UNPOL in peacekeeping operations. Why?

Comprehensive peacekeeping operations

Yesterday we had a discussion here in Brussels among international staff about peacekeeping.

 My colleagues, who are well informed and widely travelled people, could not avoid the usual mistake in this type of discussions: to reduce peacekeeping to military operations, boots on the ground and many of them for that matter. They forgot, like many do, the important role Police play in peace support operations. I had to remind them that more and more often the security challenges these missions are facing have more to do with Police work than with soldiers ‘work. The UNPOL, for instance, has become in the last few years a major Police division in the UN Secretariat. It is also an example of the UN´s capacity to adapt to new demands.

And then beyond the Police, there are now thousands of civilian experts equally involved in peacekeeping. 

Their contributions in many areas make the current operations multidimensional and more comprehensive. 

Confidence in the security institutions

The response of the FBI and other police forces to the aftermath of the Boston bombings has been exemplary. The coordination among the services, the mobilization of an extraordinary amount of resources, both human and material, the relations with the citizens and the management of the media will be looked at in many police academies, in different parts of the world, as cases of best practices and models to be followed.  

Among the many lessons, they remind us that celerity in the resolution of these major threats to public life is key to recapturing people’s confidence in the security institutions and on national political leadership. 

On terrorism

Terrorism remains a major threat in some corners of the world. Our duty is to condemn all forms of terrorism anywhere and remember that the fight against terrorism is above all a police task. The role of politicians and intellectuals is to advocate for the police to be given the means to do their job, within the law and with full respect for the rights of the citizens. .

Then, after the police work, it is a matter of effective administration of justice.

My experience, sometimes in difficult conditions, has taught me that those who try to fight it through military means or by ways of political concessions are taking the issue from the wrong end.