Securitate globală

The EU Security Continuum:
the interaction between internal and external spheres in combating "new security threats"

ANA POSTOLACHE
[Global Citizen Århus, Danemarca]

Abstract:
Exceeding the traditional dividing line between internal and external security, the article aims to analyze the coordination link between EU internal and external spheres in combating the "new security threats" and in achieving its security goals. First, I will analyze the rapprochement steps towards the EU security continuum, the instruments and the logic behind the process. Second, I will step beyond the discursive claims and I will analyze the EU operational aspects directed under this umbrella, with a particular focus on organised crime. Last but not least, I will discuss the reflection of EU security continuum on the wider global security arena.

Keywords: security continuum; internal security; external security; global threats; organised crime

Introduction

For a long time, the security dimension followed the traditional distinction between internal and external spheres, basing on different institutions and strategies, and responding to different logics. The explicit acknowledgement of the existence of linkages between the two spheres begun to be more visible in the last decades, impelled by the advent of globalization, new technologies, the change in the role of war and power, and the existence of transversal threats. Orga­nised crime, international terrorism, illegal migration or human trafficking, are just a few examples of new security threats that knows no frontiers and have become an increasing security concern. Their transversal nature led to the emergence of a continuum, where both dimensions of security, internal and external, evolve towards a common cluster.

Given this context, the aim of this paper is to analyze the coordination link between EU internal and external spheres in combating the „new security threats” and in achieving its security goals. First, I will analyze the rapprochement steps towards the EU security continuum, the instruments and the logic behind the process. Second, I will step beyond the discursive claims and I will explore the operational aspects directed under this umbrella, with a special focus on organised crime. I will question how and with what consequences, organised crime is being managed through this distinctive security logic, based on internal and external coordination. Furthermore, is the new security framework complex and flexible in providing a good basis for modern crime fighting? Last but not least, I will discuss the relation between the EU security continuum and the global security arena, and I will reflect upon how the EU security dynamics feed back into international developments.

The EU Security Continuum: rapprochement, logic and instruments

Since the sixteenth century, police and military spaces, which are the interface of the two spheres, have been distinct clusters of the security dimension. In the subsequent centuries, they continued to have different components and objectives, and they have been institutionalized separately in the context of the nineteenth century. The rapprochement between internal and external security spheres appeared especially after the end of the Cold War, driven by the process of globalization and its interrelated transnational and transversal features. The dynamic of technology, with its ability to produce and manipulate information, accelerated the speed of movement of objects and ideas, money and information, entailing a much higher degree of interdependence than ever before. In this respect, cataclysmic events, whether man-made or natural, can have a high impact on security issues and can quickly undermine stability across many countries. For example, the consequences of the recent events brought by the Arab Spring, did not stop to the Middle Eastern or North African frontiers, but impacted on much larger scale. This trend is clearly outlined by Charles Kegley that noted, „we are all a part of this world, and this world is an integral part of each of us”.¹ Moreover, the advent of new technologies and the increase of interdependencies have been accompanied by the emergence and the expansion of a new category of risks. Organised crime, international terrorism, illegal migration or cyber-attacks are shaping in an unprecedented way the traditional security framework. Their clandestine and obscure origin, their complex and subtle trajectory and their pathogenic effect, ² traverse the divide between a state’s external environment and its domestic affairs,³ calling for complementary actions and collaboration between police, customs, intelligence, and military, in achieving security goals. Today, external security agencies are looking inside the borders in search of an enemy from outside while internal agencies are looking outside the borders in meeting internal security needs. As Didier Bigo noted, „the international is now both a constitutive and explicative dimension of internal security and police work, even if intellectual traditions and academic separation between internal and external tend to make one forget this”.⁴

To analyze and interpret the new dynamics and the interconnectivity between the two dimensions of security, I draw on the perspectives of Didier Bigo and Patryk Pawlak. Didier Bigo coined the concept of „security continuum” in 1994, to define „the blurring of the distinction between internal and external security” by integrating strategic intelligence, national border guards, customs officers, military, police and judges under the continuum umbrella.⁵ Moreover, in supporting the merging between internal and external spheres, Bigo used a practical metaphor that can be labeled as less conventional, but undoubtedly very insightful. He explained the new security logic and the intimate connection between the two dimensions of security through the metaphor of Möbius ribbon. In Bigo words, „the metaphor gives sense to the merging of the inside and outside (…) It could be that what is at stake is not only the question of the physical border of the state but of our boundaries of our understanding the world”.⁶ The parallel used by Bigo is thus not just a simple metaphor but a valuable analogy to understand the new topology of security and the link between the internal and external security. The second perspective that strengthens the complementary between internal and external dynamics is the cross-pillar or cross-pillarization approach. In Patryk Pawlak point of view, the connection between internal and external spheres is seen as „the blurriness of EU pillar structure” and referrers to policies, actors, and processes that transcend the artificial borders between Community policies (pillar one), Common Foreign and Security Policy (pillar two), and Policie and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (pillar three). Adopting a cross-pillar approach implies looking for answers across pillars in order to design the most effective policy and provide the most comprehensive EU response to the matter in question. Put simply, cross-pillarization is the process of constant interaction between actors or policy areas in the search for balance. ⁷

Given the process of continuously redefinition of borders and enlargement, where the „external of today is the internal of tomorrow”⁸ the emergence of a security continuum is more visible in the European context than in other parts of the world. Since the outset, the key objective of the European Union has been to secure its territory and provide its citizens with personal safety.After more than five decades, the objective of security continues to remain a central piece of EU puzzle, but the rules of meeting the security expectations have taken o new turn that doesn’t stop to the EU borders. In this context, if the EU is to be effective in achieving its security goals, it needs to respond to the new security threats of terrorism, organised crime, corruption, drugs and migration flows, and to work along the continuum. The first rapprochement between internal and external spheres was paved by the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997, which added the Schengen rules to the EU’s legal framework and transferred the policy fields of civil law, border controls, visa, migration and asylum from the intergovernmental third pillar to the Community first pillar. For the first time the EU acquired legal competence to enter into cooperation with third countries in the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) field,⁹ allowing the EU to integrate JHA issues more systematically in its external relations. The steps towards a shared agenda to tackle the new global challenges continued in the Tampere extraordinary European Council summit, held under the Finnish presidency in 1999. The summit officially launched the external dimension of JHA, when the head of state and government acknowledged the need for „stronger external action” in the field of JHA. The Council underlined that all competences and instruments at the disposal of the Union, and in particular in external relations, must be used in an integrated and consistent way to build the area of freedom, security and justice. The integration of JHA in other union policies and activities relied on „express competences” in areas such as trade, development, association and CFSP for achieving JHA objectives and on „implied external competences” based on the EU’s internal powers in the JHA field.¹⁰ Furthermore, the link between internal-external nexus has been accompanied by the Global Freedom, Security, Justice strategies and a series of principles for external action in the JHA field, as the concept of partnership, the use of conditionality and the application of differentiated and flexible approaches towards third countries or regional groupings.

After the Tampere summit, the connection between the internal and external dimensions of EU security has been strengthened by the European Council in Feira which requested that the JHA external priorities be „incorporated in the Union’s overall external strategy as a contribution towards the establishment of the area of freedom, security and justice”.¹¹ Moreover, the subsequent report presented by the Commission and Council in 2000, stressed the need for the Union „to integrate JHA matters fully in the Union’s external policy so that a comprehensive, integrated, cross-pillar action is carried out by the Union as a whole”.¹²

The subsequent years noted a rapid development of the connection between the two spheres, through a combination of internal and external factors which mutually reinforced each other.¹³ Particularly important is the Council from December 2005, which affirmed the necessity that the policy field of justice and home affairs to become a central priority of the EU’s external relations and that the EU ensures a „coordinated and coherent approach”.¹⁴ According to the Commission, „the projection of the values underpinning the area of freedom, security and justice is essential in order to safeguard the internal security of the EU”. Furthermore, the Communication from the Commission to the June 2006 European Council, noted „the inextricable link between the EU’s internal and external policies” and the need to combine Community and intergovernmental methods on the basis of „what best achieves the desired outcome, rather than institutional theory and dogma”. The Communication stressed the essentiality of the continuity and consistency between internal and external policies to produce results.¹⁵

The most recent steps in pooling the internal and external resources in a fusion process is brought by the Lisbon Treaty that abolished the pillar structure and marked the transfer of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters to the Community pillar. Also, the Lisbon Treaty strengthened the role of the European Parliament that has become fully involved in the definition of Europol and Eurojust’s structure, operation, field of action and tasks, and has acquired, together with national parliaments, an enhanced role in scrutinising the agencies’ activities both inside and outside the Union.¹⁶ Furthermore, the EU’s new single order and legal personality make it easier for the EU to negotiate with third countries and conclude agreements on behalf of the EU. It is no doubt that the changes introduced by the Treaty brought substantial capabilities in acting internationally in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. ¹⁷ Along with the Lisbon Treaty, in 2010, the European Commission has further acknowledged the inseparability of the internal and external security spheres, through the EU’s Internal Security Strategy adopted in February 2010 and the Stockholm work programme for 2010-2015.¹⁸

EU Security Continuum: Combating new threats

The vast majority of the literature dealing with security issues, after the end of the Cold War, emphasized the emergence of a new category of risks, including organised crime, terrorism, illegal migration, cyber-attacks and weapons of mass destruction. Since these new threats exists both inside and outside the EU, they exceed the traditional border between external and internal security and strengthens the conviction that certain issues cannot be fought only from inside but require member states and the EU to undertake joint actions beyond EU territory.¹⁹

I this section I will limit my attention to one of the most effervescent area of today’s security arena, namely organised crime, and I will question how and with what consequences this issue is being managed through the distinctive security logic based on internal and external coordination. Furthermore, is the new security framework complex and flexible in providing a good basis for modern crime fighting? The analysis is not about combating organised crime in the EU framework, but about combating organised crime with the framework of security continuum in the EU. In this respect, I focus first on the policy-oriented documents undertaken in the fight against organised crime with the internal-external security framework, and second, I will explore the operational phase such as the implementation of dedicated agencies, mechanisms and actions, developed under this umbrella.

Conceived as a new form of warfare,²⁰ less local and more organised, politicized and beyond the border, organised crime networks occupy a particular place in the EU security logic. From drug smuggling, e-crimes, fraud and identity theft, to finance scams and human trafficking, the crime networks are dynamic, and well organised, relying on modern communication systems and globalized networks to plan and procure means of attack. Moreover, they have the capacity to be entrepreneurial, business-like and highly flexible in responding to changing market forces and situations,²¹ threatening the economic basis of European societies, the politic structures of EU nations and the safety of its own citizens. The presence of illegal amphetamines factories, predominant in the Baltic states, Belgium, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands and the UK, the increase of currency counterfeiting and human trafficking networks, are just a small fragment from the larger picture of the organised crime networks in the European Union.²²

In 1998, the EU defined organised crime through the Joint Action 98/733/JHA as „a structured association, established over a period of time, of more than two persons, acting in concert with a view to committing offences which are punishable by deprivation of liberty (….)”.²³ After the common definition the EU begun to construct its concerted answer at the Tampere European Council in October 1999. The strategy adopted by the Council emphasized that the coordination between internal and external spheres in combating organised crime respects the current tendencies of security issues, by incorporating a comprehensive multidisciplinary logic, where preventive measure should complement enforcement. Furthermore, in accordance with the Tampere European Council and the previous Treaty of Amsterdam, the strategy proposed by the Commission, relied on the experience acquired at European and international level, stressing the link between the two spheres.

In most of the cases, organised crime originates outside the EU’s border and the efficient answer in dealing with these issues has to combine the internal security logic with the external security dynamics. As such, the EU has to work effectively with third countries to stop the criminals, disrupt their organisations and their finances, and provide access to justice for their victims. At the same time the EU must tackle the underlying factors that enable organised criminality to exploit and operate across the EU’s external borders. These actions include the removing of obstacles to judicial cooperation in criminal and, as appropriate, civil matters.²⁴ Furthermore, measures and steps taken with regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the European Union Strategy for the Beginning of the New Millennium on Prevention and Control of Organised Crime, calls for the extension of this measure. Moreover, the Internal Security Strategy, stressed the growing cross-border challenges and implied a coordinated approach to police cooperation, border management, criminal justice cooperation and civil protection.²⁵ With reference to the place of internal policies in EU external actions, Commissioner Frattini emphasized that: „…to tackle organised crime all areas of policy must come together. We cannot have artificial borders between different policies nor between internal and external policy. Those who threaten the EU would be the only people to benefit. Rather we must see justice, freedom and security as interlinked to the EU’s external action”.²⁶

In operational terms, the relationship between external and internal security implies connection, bond and joint operations. The EU uses a number of different instruments to implement the external aspect of its Home Affairs policy in combating organised crime. These include: legal agreements, declarations, action plans and agendas, expert and ministerial meetings, sub-committees, monitoring and evaluation, assistance programmes and partnerships. These actions relies on the coordination across the pillars (Community, CFSP, ESDP, JHA, development policies) to deliver a tailored and coherent response. For example in the case of organised criminality, the EU relies on police and judicial expertise to rebuild and transform the weak law enforcement institutions and courts systems, while European Crisis Management Operations, and in particular Civilian Crisis Management Operations, tackle the issue of on the ground.²⁷ The cooperation with the external dimension has been further enhanced by pre-accession pact developed with the candidate countries.²⁸ Furthermore, the way in which the EU adapted their foreign policies to meet internal security concerns regarding the fight against organised crime,²⁹ is particularly relevant in the case of aid and assistance programmes. The EU aid was directed to countries to strengthen border controls, trains police officers and judges, and links deals on trade and visas to commitments to tackle local crime and law enforcement reform. The European Commission is guiding these countries police and justice reforms through the „stabilisation and association process” and a more direct role through the EU police missions that help fight organised crime in Bosnia, Macedonia and Kosovo. The assessment of these actions notes some important progresses in fighting organised crime under the umbrella of internal-external security, but the need for more complementary policies still needs to be strengthened. This aspect is particularly evident for the main gateways into Europe for drugs, sex trafficking and illicit arms, as the Western Balkans.

Is thus essential that future measures on organised crime to use the new framework to the fullest extent possible. All the compartments of organised crime, trafficking in human beings, child pornography, cyber crime, financial crime, counterfeiting of means of payment and drugs trafficking, should be tackled in a comprehensive way in order to achieve EU security goals and overall global security goals.

Conclusion

As a first step in influencing the outcome of international order, the EU strategies succeeded to exceed the rigid structures of state border by adapting to the new global trends. As the case of combating organised crime emphasized, the EU has witnessed progress in tackling threats under the common wade of internal-external security, where internal efforts are backed up with external initiatives and vice versa. However, much remains to be done and the EU must be able to define its concerted efforts in a comprehensive coherent answer in order that the coordination link between internal and external security to meet the ambitious discursive logic and impelling the rise of new opportunities for closer cooperation between security actors in the global spectrum.

Furthermore, the consequences for international security spectrum can be seized in a long term view, where the challenges ahead are too large for any single framework to address them in a coherent and effective way. Therefore in a world that respects no borders, the ability to construct security in a continuum way, combing internal and external frameworks, can be an essential factor in the fight against new threats, not just for the EU but for a wide range of security actors.

Bibliography
BIGO, Didier, „The European internal security field stakes an rivalries in a newly developing area of police intervention”, in Malcolm Anderson and Monica den Boer (eds.), Policing Across National Boundaries, London, Pinter, 1994.
BIGO, Didier, „When Two Become One: Internal and External Securitisations in Europe”, in Morten Kelstrup, Michael C. Williams (eds.), International Relations Theory and The Politics of European Integration. Power, Security and Community, London, Routledge, 2000.
BIGO, Didier, „Internal and external security (ies), the Möbius ribbon”, in Mathias Albert, David Jacobson, Yosef Lapid, (eds.), Identities, Borders and Orders, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 2001.
BRADY, Hugo, „The EU and the fight against organised crime”, Working Paper, Centre for European Reform, London.
Council of the European Union, „A Strategy for the External Action of JHA: Global Freedom, Security and Justice”, Brussels, 6 December 2005, available at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/05/st14/st14366-re03.en05.pdf, accessed on 09.06.2012.
Council of the European Union, „Internal Security Strategy for the European Union: Towards a European Security Model”, Brussels, 25 February 2010, available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/librairie/PDF/QC3010313ENC.pdf, accessed on 10.06.2012.
Council of the European Union, „The Stockholm Programme - An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens”, Brussels, 05 May 2010, available at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st14/st14449.en09.pdf accessed on 10.06.2012.
Council Meeting, „General Affairs”, Luxembourg, 13 June 2000, available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/gena/09274.en0 COMMUNIQUE.doc.html
ERIKSSON, Johan, Rhinard, Mark, „The Internal-External Security nexus. Note on an emerging research agenda”, Cooperation and Conflict: Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association 44 (2009): 243-267.
European Commission, „The prevention and control of organised crime: A European Union strategy for the beginning of the new millennium”, Official Journal of the European Communities, Brussels, 03.05.2000, C 124.
European Commission, „Communication from the Commission to the European Council of June 2006. Europe in the World-Some Practical Proposals for greater coherence, effectiveness and visibility”, Brussels 8 June 2006, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/councils/bx20060615/euw_com06_278_en.pdf, accessed on 09.06.2012.
European Commission, „Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe’s citizens”, Action Implementing the Stockholm Programme Brussels, 20.04.2010, available at: http://eur lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0171:FIN:EN:PDF, accessed on 09.05.2012.
European Council, „Presidency Conclusions”, Tampere, 15 and 16 October 1999, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/tam_en.htm, accessed on 10.06.2012.
European Council, „Conclusion of the Presidency”, Santa Maria de Feira 19 and 20 June 2000, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/fei1_en.htm, accessed on 11.06.2012.
FALKNER, Gerda (ed.), „EU Policies in the Lisbon Treaty: A Comparative Analysis”, Working Paper 03 (2008), Institute for European Integration Research of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, 2008.
FRATTINI, Franco, „How the Justice, Freedom and Security policies influence EU’s external action”, Heads of Mission Conference, 2007.
“Joint Action of 21 December 1998 adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on making it a criminal offence to participate in a criminal organization in the Member States of the European Union”, Official Journal of the European Communities L 351 (29.12.1998).
KEGLEY, Charles W. Jr., Witkopf, Eugene R., World Politics Trend and Transformation, Seventh Edition,London, Macmillan Press Ltd, 1999.
MONAR, Jörg, „The dynamics of Justice and Home Affairs: Laboratories, driving factors and costs”, Journal of Common Market Studies 39 (2001): 747-764.
MONAR, Jörg, „The EU as an International Actor in the Domain of Justice and Home Affairs”, European Foreign Affairs Review 9 (2004): 395-415.
PAWLAK, Patryk, „The External Dimension of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: Hijacker or Hostage of cros-pillarization”, Journal of European Integration 31 (2009): 25-44.
SCHROEDER, C. Ursula, „Strategy by stealth? The Development of EU Internal and External Security Strategies”, Perspectives on European Politics and Society 10 (2009): 486-505.
TRAUNER, Florian, Carrapiço, Helena, „The external dimension of EU Justice and Home Affairs: Post-Lisbon Governance Dynamics”, Paper presented to the 6th ECPR General Conference, Reykjavik, University of Reykjavik, 24-27 August 2011.

ANA POSTOLACHE – În prezent cercetător la think-tank-ul Global Citizen din Århus, Danemarca. Master în Studii Europene la Centrul de Studii Europene, Universitatea „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Iași. Licență în Istorie la Facultatea de Istorie, Universitatea „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Iași.

 sus