The European Journal

Our trusted friends…

It’s now over nine years since a decision was made by the European Parliament, on the 5 July 2000, to establish a temporary committee to investigate what was known in the public realm as the Echelon intelligence gathering system.

This committee was charged with investigating whether a system called ‘Echelon’ existed, run and operated by the Anglo-sphere countries, and what its capabilities were. They sought to understand whether the system was working within Community law, whether citizens were safe, whether encoding of information in normal electronic communications would be necessary, whether the EU institutions themselves were safe, and whether EU industries were suffering a detrimental effect because of this system.

From the outset, the temporary committee was compromised in its work, as temporary committees lacked the legal authority to conduct inquiries and demand witnesses to appear. No doubt this was in part due to pressure from the UK, a signatory to the UK-USA intelligence sharing agreement, whereby the UK, US,Australia, Canada and New Zealand work together in the sharing of information.

However, any UK pressure did nothing to stop the production of a document that was typically anti-American. Author Gerhard Schmid viewed the UK as nothing more than a platform on which the US carried out its operations to undermine European industry. Recognising the EU’s dependence and inferiority to US power in section 12.3, the report then went on to urge the EU to recognise itself as an equal partner, finishing with the ‘motion for a resolution’, under point Z, of “the EU as a partner on an equal footing with the United States…”, noting that “a common security policy which did not involve the secret services would not make sense…”

The investigation reported that the focus of Echelon was mainly the acquisition of private and commercial data, though the volume of data collected made practical analysis almost impossible, vastly limiting the systems usefulness. Along with the Anglo-sphere states, France and Russia were identified as also having the capabilities to operate a similar system.

The continued existence and operation of a deep level of cooperation and coordination between the UK-USA agreement signatories can still be found in evidence such as the documents lost by an incompetent Cabinet Office official on a train in June 2008. The documents recovered had, according to the BBC, “for UK/US/Canadian and Australian eyes only” emblazoned across them, showing that there is at least still some information Europe does not have access to.

The Echelon report reminded everyone that even in 2000, under Articles 11 and 12 of The Treaty on European Union, member states had a “binding requirement to enhance and develop their mutual political solidarity”. Indeed, it noted on page 130 that future integration within the EU would require and demand intelligence to be available at the European level, and in point 12.2.3 fired this federalist broadside: “In the past nation states sued to guarantee their own external security, internal order, national prosperity and cultural identity. Today, the European Union is in many fields in the process of taking up a role at least complementary to that of the nation state. It is inconceivable that the intelligence services will be the last and only are not affected by the process of European integration.” To put it bluntly, this is not what the Europhiles want you to read.

The fact that the European Parliament found it necessary to investigate whether a member state was spying on the other member states shows precisely how utopian the dream of Europe really is. Yet the elites, particularly the left-wing Labour elites, seem as blind to this as they are to the everincreasing current account deficits.

Yet just as the UK may appear to have been involved with operations to further the Anglo-sphere, so our ‘European partners’ have been involved in operations against us. Telegraph journalist Sean Rayment recorded on the 8th of February 2009 that an Army intelligence document dated January 19th mentioned that spies from 20 foreign intelligence agencies including France and Germany were actively targeting the UK.

So in spite of all the idealism of European unity, the reality of being ever vigilant is as necessary as ever. Which makes the ramming through Parliament without proper debate of the Treaty of Lisbon even more concerning. Whilst it does in Article 4 TEU respect that national security should remain a state function, it also:

• Commits signatories to implementing common defence to reinforce the European identity and its independence in the world; • Aims for ever-increasing convergence of Member States actions (Article 24.2);

• Requires Member States “before undertaking any action on the international scene or entering into any commitment which could affect the Union’s interests…” to consult each other and ensure through concerted coordinated action that the EU can assert its interests internationally (Article 32);

• Demands Member States to make available to the EU “civilian and military capabilities” for implementation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (Article 42.3);

• Gives the European Defence Agency power to enquire into identifying Member States military capabilities, to promote harmonization and promote multilateralism and thus urge integration between security services (Article 45).

The Europhile might indeed ask ‘what is the problem with sharing information?’ This would miss the whole point: we cannot trust our supposed allies in Europe. Whether it is secret protectionism of the French car industry, German reductions of non wage-labour costs, or covert spying on British interests, trusting Europe with British interests is inherently suicidal.

Already we have seen consequences of Britain’s wayward drift towards Europe. The US has become increasingly reluctant to share information with the UK, even on such projects where the UK is a level-One partner, such as the F35 Joint Strike Fighter project. In American eyes, the Europeans cannot be trusted, and as seen above, we already know that to be true. One only has to look back at the case of French Major Pierre-Henri Bunel who leaked NATO plans to the Serbians to understand why those not in the Anglo-sphere have such a bad press.

Given this situation, one can only hope that Echelon is indeed operating and obtaining information from our neighbours in Europe, as they most certainly are working to obtain information from us. The European Parliament’s Echelon report acknowledged that the UK would never admit to spying on our neighbours, as we could keep an official policy of EU loyalty without ever admitting what happens behind closed doors. But the longer our political class play with the fire of handing Brussels ever more power, the closer we move to the day when the US no longer trusts us and our security services report to Brussels, the impossibility of which was considered “inconceivable” to Mr. Schmid.

Dancing, but to who’s tune?

Glen Ruffle writes: A combination of different forces is aligning that could soon start a series of consequences which would undermine NATO’s future.

It began in April 2008, when NATO ministers met and agreed that eventually, Georgia and the Ukraine would join the alliance. The much sought after MAP (Membership Action Plan), the actual timetable for membership, was however denied.

The next major development was in August. From what it is possible to gather from the OSCE, the Georgian President, Mikhail Saakashvili, pulled the trigger first in a tense situation that had built up in South Ossetia. Separatist forces had for a long time been receiving aid and help from Russia, and when Saakashvili decided to try and crush them by force, he bit off much more than he could chew. Presumably he thought the West would help and be able to stop Russia, but geography worked against him. The West was helpless and Georgia was, and still is, at the mercy of Russia.

The brief war shook Georgia. The West was helpless. For all its bravado, the United States was shown to be a paper tiger in this situation. Georgian policy has since had a time of reflection. NATO, the United States’ military alliance, was unable to offer as much assistance as the French Presidency of the EU appeared to do. And, given the EU’s military ambitions and the fact that the new Treaty of Lisbon, forced through parliaments across Europe, duplicates NATO as a collective defence organisation in Article 42.7, suddenly the prospects of NATO membership seemed somewhat less enticing.

The Georgian war offered the Europhiles and Francophiles a fantastic opportunity as well. For the EU, it opened up the perfect opportunity to intervene and carry out diplomatic missions and peace keeping operations.With the full knowledge that Russia would not tolerate any NATO presence in such a role, the EU, so keen to build close relations with Russia as Russia is such a vital energy supplier, can slip perfectly into the role of middle-man, helping to keep both sides happy. Bernard Kouchner after all did lay out French policy clearly: “In the EU we want to maintain a dialogue with Russia...it is our neighbour...and we are consumers of their energy”. Georgia has the security of British and French military patrols, and EU taxpayers money, whilst Russia has the security of knowing its compliant partner, the EU, is bereft of NATO’s most unpopular member, the United States.

And it is the absence of the United States from EU missions that also pleases the Francophiles. Russian and French policy coincides at this point: both want to reshape the world order, and to establish a new system whereby the world is more multipolar and the US is ‘just another state’ amongst many. By strengthening the EU through peacekeeping operations and developing its military capabilities, France further undermines the need and credibility of NATO, which can be used as an instrument of US policy.

Subsequently, these celestial movements have produced a Saakashvili government in Georgia that recently, started emphasising EU relations rather than NATO membership (particularly after a new MAP was again denied recently), and an EU that is exploiting the situation to develop itself as a state and weaken US hegemony, and a Russia which is pleased as its policy of weakening the US is furthered by other international institutions. The Georgian border is of course not the only place where the EU is stepping up to missions. The former Yugoslavia, another region where Russian interests are significant, is also increasingly being managed by the EU instead of the United Nations. Only recently, the UN Mission in Kosovo handed all operations over to EULEX, the EU mission which will from now on manage this province.

Unfortunately there is little sign that the US has realised what is happening.Whilst dismissing Sergei Ivanov’s Russian plan for a new European defence treaty as blatantly anti- NATO, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Matthew Bryza failed to expand on the way the EU is undermining the raison d’etre of NATO as well. France, on the other hand, announced that Russia’s idea would be discussed, as the EU wants a renewed commitment from Russia to the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty. Such a commitment would undoubtedly include a clause that demanded the removal of the American missiles from Eastern Europe. This removal will be less of a blow to Eastern Europe if the EU acts as a new security guarantor, which the Treaty of Lisbon makes steps towards.

‘New Europe’ can thus be placated, and so we must look at ‘Old Europe’. Germany, Italy and France have been singled out as the main movers opposing any Membership Action Plan being given to Georgia or the Ukraine. For these ‘old Europe’ states, there is no fear of a neighbour who recently was your master. Russia is instead a major business partner and opportunity, and of course a vital energy supplier. So whereas ‘new Europe’ still feels it has a valid reason for NATO membership, the ‘old Europe’ heartlands no longer have the ideological glue that held the alliance together. Yet they are still members, and can thus from this strong negotiating stance can direct the organisation. As such, NATO is now no longer so much about ‘old Europe’s’ defence as is becoming a lever for ‘old European’ politics.

Such political manouevrings at NATO’s expense will only exasperate and alienate the US. NATO will no longer be the useful tool of US policy it once was. The US will assess it’s commitment to the alliance, and probably downgrade it, eventually relegating it to redundancy. The EU will be able to step in and offer to take over the buildings and structures of NATO, expanding the presence of the EU cell that currently already is installed in NATO supreme command in Belgium. The absence of one major enemy has produced a major ideological void in NATO that is being filled with national ideas, and as economic difficulties will be increasing, states will be looking for the best uses of their resources. Committed legally to the European Union, many states in Eastern Europe will feel obliged to put more effort into the EU’s Defence Agency and the “framing of a common Union defence policy”. This in turn will see NATO commitments weaken, and the likely long-term effect of it all will be the emasculation of NATO and its eventual abandonment, leaving the US with a weakened presence in Europe. Just what the EU, Old Europe and Russia want.

Slowly and surely, Europe undermines NATO

The ambitious French Presidency of the EU, running until the start of 2009, has not had quite the start it hoped for. Ireland’s rejection of the Lisbon Treaty has stolen much of the attention and vision Sarkozy’s government was hoping to bring, and, as ever, kept the EU in its endless circle of stumbling from one crisis to another.

One of the headline grabbing policies that did get through into the public domain was the announcement of the revival of the 1999 Helsinki European Council goal that the EU should be capable of deploying a 60,000 strong force. Whilst rumours that the French would command British aircraft carriers were far off the mark, support groups of naval and air units to bolster the 60,000 strong EU force are definitely envisaged.