europe

Я, Силовик. The GRU

Я, Силовик. The GRU

The Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation - (Главное Разведывательное Управление/Glavnoe Razvedyvatel'noe Upravlenie) - or ‘GRU’ is one of the most inconspicuous organisations imaginable. Even among the generally taciturn cohort of Russian intelligence agencies, the GRU has been remarkable in its pursuit of secrecy. Whereas an endless stream of horror stories emanated from the Lubyanka, from the Aquarium - the GRU’s headquarters built atop a mass grave - there was only ever silence. This article will explore this most secretive and dangerous of organisations, offering a detailed assessment by comparing its Cold War past and its modern identity.

Я, Силовик. The FSB: The Sword and Shield of the Federation

Я, Силовик. The FSB: The Sword and Shield of the Federation

Any talk of the Soviet Union or the Cold War inevitably includes the Soviet Committee for State Security (KGB). Just as the Russian Federation succeeded the Soviet Union, so too did a number of organisations and agencies succeed the KGB. This first article will explore one of these institutions, the Federal Security Service (FSB). Beginning with the history and how the service came to be in modern Russia, this piece will go on to explore the nominal role and functions of the FSB. It will also shine a light on the actual role played by the Federal Security Service in Russian politics and society today, as well as touch on some of the controversy that surrounds this organisation. The purpose of this article is to illuminate the FSB as a service and inspire readers to dig a little deeper into the world of the security services of Russia.

The Russian Disinformation Campaign in the Western Balkans

The Russian Disinformation Campaign in the Western Balkans

After the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the EU- and US-imposed sanctions on Russia, the Kremlin employed a counter-strategy: disinformation and propaganda. The Western Balkans, a key strategic partner to the EU and NATO, became a fertile ground for Russian disinformation campaigns. Capitalizing on ethnic divides, weak institutions, and the deteriorating freedom of media, the Kremlin inserted itself into the region. Using Serbia as a launch site for disinformation, Russia established a regional base for the Sputnik news agency in Belgrade.

Securitising people movements in Europe: Political divergence on migration management

Securitising people movements in Europe: Political divergence on migration management

The history of humankind is a history of people movements, with new perceptions of space as a triggering factor for major historical breaks. [1] Migration, defined as ‘the process of people travelling to a new place to live’ [2], has, indeed, always been a common feature of human societies. [3] But, while migrations have significantly enriched European societies in the era of mass movement [4], a shift seems to have occurred in our understanding of national borders.

What ISIS’ Defeat in the Middle East Means for Europe: Counter-Radicalisation in the EU

Radicalisation has emerged as a sincere issue in Europe in the last five years. Since ISIS started to lose territory, foreign fighters have begun to return to Europe, while ISIS’ web presence has strengthened and increased. In response, the European Union has created some of the most successful anti-radicalisation programmes to tackle those threats. However, these measures have failed to prevent some of the worst terrorist attacks that have ever occurred on European soil. This is due to a lack of true coordination and cooperation between member states’ approaches and at the broader EU level.

by Sabbir Jubaer & Valerio Viscardi

Propaganda & Returning Fighters

As ISIS has finally been defeated on the ground, losing its entire territorial control in the Middle East [i], some observers may underestimate ISIS as a continuing and viable adversary in the future for Western countries, especially for Europe given its proximity to the Middle East. Careful observation, however, suggests that ISIS is adapting to the new circumstances through maintaining a robust presence online and by posing new security challenges. In order to address these challenges, the European Union formulated a number of policies and discussed their efficiency in addressing extremism on European soil.

Since 2013, extremist propaganda has undergone a transformation. ISIS has started to produce ‘top notch’ quality propaganda videos, with graphic details and narratives directed towards radicalisation: considered here as intolerance and a possible use of violence against democratic values.[ii] The rise of social media has further bolstered the effectiveness of ISIS’ communications, a stark contrast to al-Qaida’s communications during the previous decades.[iii] The slow destruction of ISIS’ territory and its retreat underground has ultimately been downplayed by ISIS propaganda. This has encouraged homegrown terrorist fighters to act, causing devastating harm. Recent findings suggest the increased use of encrypted communications apps (Telegram & WhatsApp) have been essential mediums for the successful distribution of ISIS propaganda.[iv]

The issue of how to deal with the returning fighters and their families has been a serious concern for European countries. Some states for instance (France and the United Kingdom), before the decision was made to withdraw American troops from Iraq, were not interested in taking back their citizens who had left to fight alongside the so-called Islamic State, fearing a further spread of militancy. In fact, different European cities had already been attacked by militants alleged to be linked with ISIS. France had argued in favour of conducting the prosecutions of the fighters in the countries where their actions took place, i.e. Iraq. However, some European countries, including France, have now agreed to take back the fighters after the United States (U.S.) announced the withdrawal of its troops, fearing the militants may otherwise escape due to the absence of U.S. forces.[v]

Another major concern is the rehabilitation of the detainees. Instead of functioning as rehabilitation centres, prisons in many European countries have emerged as new ground for radicalisation. Prisons provide a space where militants of various degrees of radicalisation can come in touch with, and influence, non-radicalised prisoners. Thus, a prisoner or a person with a lower level of radicalisation can become fully radicalised. This was suspected to be the case for the convicted burglar and prison inmate, Benjamin Herman, a white suburban teen and nominal Catholic when he was first arrested. During his detention, he came in contact with an Islamist recruiter. Whilst allowed out into the community as part of a ‘two-day home leave’ in May 2018, he murdered three people. During the investigation, the authorities found a Quran and a prayer rug in his cell. This, coupled with his link to the radicalist preacher in custody, led Europol to classify the incident as a jihadist terror attack. [vi]

Responses & Rehabilitation

To respond to these threats, the European Union created a centralised strategy for Combating Radicalisation and Recruitment to Terrorism. This strategy, revised in 2014, aims primarily at ‘combating radicalisation and recruitment while taking into account evolving trends, such as lone-actor terrorism, foreign fighters, and the use of social media by terrorists’.[vii] To this purpose, the strategy focuses on four main pillars: prevention, protection, pursuit, and response. Specifically, the prevention pillar tries to ‘prevent people from becoming radicalised  … being recruited to terrorism and prevent a new generation of terrorists from emerging’ [viii]. Some examples of ongoing work in countering Islamic radicalisation are the Europol Internet Referral Unit (IRU) to combat terrorism and violent extremist propaganda, and the Radicalisation Awareness Network.

Regarding the former, on 12 March 2015, the Justice and Home Affairs Council of the European Union authorised Europol to create a special unit ‘aimed at reducing the level and impact of terrorist and violent extremist propaganda on the internet’. [ix] The IRU provides operational support to member states by identifying and referring relevant online content towards responsible internet service providers, which remove illegal content from their domain.[x] The European Union’s Radicalisation Awareness Network Internet and Social Media Working Group (RAN@) was created in 2011 by the European Council. Existing as Europe’s largest and highest funded counter-narrative campaign, it is a ‘network of frontline practitioners from across Europe who work on a daily basis with people who have already been radicalised or who are vulnerable to radicalisation’.[xi] This campaign is designed to support objectives such as implementing de-radicalisation and rehabilitation programmes, developing approaches for handling returning foreign terrorist fighters, equipping teachers and youth workers in addressing the root causes of radicalisation, and strengthening resilience, in particular among young people. Moreover, it creates synergies between different actions and policy areas of member states, enhancing the cooperation between them and the European Union.[xii]

Finally, these tools allow counter-narrative campaigns to inspire change in social structures inside each member state in order to increase integration and discourage individuals to radicalise. Each of the different thematic approaches addresses terrorist propaganda from a different angle, and none of them are comprehensive in themselves. Instead, each of these approaches have merit and, collectively, they create a stronger response to terrorist propaganda.

Counter-Radicalisation in Prison & European Countries

In order to tackle radicalisation in prison, each European country has implemented different measures. Some of the most illustrative are those of Belgium and Germany. Belgium, in 2018, developed a program known as ‘Deradex’. According to this program, radicalised inmates were kept isolated and were allowed only limited contact with other prisoners considered radicalised at the same level. The opposite approach was taken in Germany where the idea of isolating radicalised inmates was rejected favouring instead the implementation an intense monitoring and intervention program to prevent further radicalisation from occurring. [xiii] These are only two examples of the different approaches European member states have chosen. These differences are preventing the European Union, and its law-enforcement agencies, from implementing a more effective and unified action. European policy makers need to pay equal attention to homegrown extremists. The detainment and prosecution of returning fighters may give comfort for some time, however, new homegrown fighters will rise unless the root causes of extremism are addressed. Undetected radicalized European citizens can exploit their anonymity to cause more havoc and may emerge as fighters if a new front is opened.

ISIS’ future strategies

Losing territorial control in the Middle East could push ISIS to try to establish strongholds in new theatres. It has previously been successful capturing an area in a non-Muslim majority country far from its traditional area: Marawi city in the Philippines in 2017.[xiii] The group now has a  presence in Libya and has declared “wilayats” (provinces/branches) in many regions around Europe. Therefore, ISIS may try to find another front near or even within European soil.

Even with an absolute lack of control over land, ISIS will continue to exist and even may thrive as long as its ideological foundation appeals to individuals. ISIS’ future strategy will likely involve attempts to evolve as a fully-fledged virtual caliphate. The cyber caliphate will engage in asymmetric warfare and provide a platform to direct its followers to organise, propagate extremist narratives, recruit new militants, and incite attacks on European soil.

In conclusion, the national approaches to tackle radicalisation in Europe have proven to be effective on a national level. However, more cooperation at a European level could empower national approach and extend their effectiveness to the whole union. The recent wave of attacks have strengthened the current European transnational cooperation and proven its necessity. At the same time, the European counter-messaging campaigns and programme provide effective support to member states, not limited to national territories, in the battle against radicalisation. However, the lack of coordination and the differences in the national commitment of addressing radicalisation undermine the general effectiveness of anti-radicalisation in Europe. Therefore, there should be more cooperation with the European law enforcement institutions in order to allow them to work as bridges between different law enforcement agencies around Europe, significantly increasing the general operational effectiveness.

Sources:

[i] The Soufan Center. 2019. “IntelBrief: A State Without Territory”. Accessed on February 12, 2019. https://thesoufancenter.org/intelbrief-a-state-without-territory/

[ii] European Commission.“Radicalization”. Immigration and Home Affair Accessed February 15, 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/content/radicalisation-0_en

[iii] Gambhir, Harleen K. 2014. “Dabiq: The Strategic Messaging of the Islamic State”. Institute for the Study of War.

[iv] “Counter-terrorism strategy”. European Union. 2017. Accessed February 08, 2019. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=LEGISSUM:l33275.

[v] McAuley, J. & Birnbaum, M. 2019. “France to take back ISIS fighters, reversing policy in wake of U.S. withdrawal from Syria”. Washington Post. Accessed February 12, 2019. https://wapo.st/2BxJP6K

[vi] Erickson, A. 2018. “Europe’s prisons breed terrorism. Can anything be done?”. Washington Post. Accessed March 19, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/07/26/europes-prisons-breed-terrorism-can-anything-be-done/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.51905d015a4c

[vii] “Counter-terrorism strategy”. European Union. 2017. Accessed February 08, 2019. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=LEGISSUM:l33275.

[viii] Meleagrou-Hitchens, Alexander. 2017. “The Challenges and Limitations of Online Counter-Narratives in the Fight against ISIS Recruitment in Europe and North America.” 18 (3): 95–104. doi:10.1353/gia.2017.0041.

[ix] “Europol’s Internet Referral Unit to combat terrorist and violent extremist propaganda.” 2015. News release. July 1. Accessed February 08, 2019. https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/europol%E2%80%99s-internet-referral-unit-to-combat-terrorist-and-violent-extremist-propaganda.

[x] Dr Alastair Reed,Dr Haroro J. Ingram, Joe Whittaker. 2017. “Countering Terrorist Narratives.

[xi] European Commission. 2019. “Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN)”. Accessed January 27, 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/networks/radicalisation_awareness_network_en.

[xii] Idem

[xiii]Betteridge-Moes, M. 2017. “What happened in Marawi?”. Aljazeera. Accessed February 12, 2019. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/10/happened-marawi-171029085314348.html


The Security Implications of The Far-Right’s Rise in Europe

The far-right’s most recent electoral emergence in Europe raises concerns about the possible securitization of multiculturalism, the inspiration of radical right terrorism and the destabilization of liberal democracies. Understanding its rise and tactics can help liberalism address the far-right’s challenge.

by Javier Martínez Mendoza

In the last five years, instability in the Middle East and Islamist terrorism have been perceived as two of the main threats to Western societies’ everyday life. However, an inward look at the structure of these societies begins to indicate a new perspective of an ever-present but exacerbated threat. The phantom of the radical right is becoming an increased security challenge for many western societies and consequently, mainstream policy-making is dangerously overlooking the threats posed by far-right movements.

In 2016, the electoral emergence of far-right politics was made evident by Brexit and Donald Trump’s victory. Both cases illustrate the influence of heightened Euroscepticism and an anti-immigration agenda, respectively, in order to achieve ground-breaking electoral gains. In the following years, radical right parties would start disrupting the political landscape of other Western countries.

In  Europe, Alternative for Germany’s (AfD) success in federal and state elections precipitated a break-up of the country’s twelve-year-long period of political stability under Angela Merkel. This led her to step down as leader of the centre-right [1]. In Southern Europe, the Italian right-wing political party Lega Nord have managed to take control of the public agenda through the Ministry of Interior and its recent immigration policy.  This left the majority coalition partner Five Star Movement without political initiative. Similarly, Vox’s victory in Andalucia has put an end to Spain’s exceptional status as the single major European country without a significant far-right party [2].

Regardless of the far-right’s latest boom after the 2015 refugee crisis, its current emergence in Western liberal democracies can be traced back to the 2008 financial crisis. Consequently, the economic and social struggles exacerbated by the crisis amongst European and North American societies,  raised the appeal of the radical right. Arguably, the political platform with which the far-right has addressed people’s grievances can be viewed as an antagonistic response to the cultural, social and political changes caused by globalization in the last 40 years and accelerated in the last decade.

Securitizing immigration and beyond

The radical right has built and benefited from a narrative that warns societies of the perils of immigration and multiculturalism. Following their logic, prominent features of globalization threaten the cohesion of national identities and traditional values they view as essential. Thus,  nativism, a radical and exclusionary form of nationalism, has risen as a challenge for the liberal democratic order and domestic security due to processes of politicization and securitization that lead to extraordinary policies and the normalisation of antagonistic attitudes against “securitized” groups or institutions within societies [3].

In the last four decades, economic integration, a push towards progressive social rights and immigration have transformed Western societies, therefore, changing the social and demographic landscape and gradually expanding into multiculturalism. Reactions to these social transformations have been mixed. However, animosity towards cultural diversity and migration fluxes increased after the 2008 financial crisis and, most recently, by the 2015 refugee crisis [4].

Consequently the far-right have often argued that across Europe the waves of refugees entering the continent are terrorist cells planning to carry out attacks there. Despite the ambiguity of their argument, this narrative has gained momentum, especially after terror attacks such as the attack in Paris on November 13th, 2015 [5].

Recently, this rhetoric has earned far-right parties electoral successes, granting them access to an increased presence in national parliaments, and consequently the political weight to form coalitions in some governments. But most importantly, they seem to have seized control of the political discourse in Western societies by making immigration policy a key electoral issue. Mainstream parties now feel inclined to embrace an essence of the far-right’s proposals to avoid losing voters to the far-right, or compelling majority coalition partners to implement tougher immigration controls [6, 7].

Even if these measures have allowed centre-right parties to hinder the electoral advance of far-right formations they are consequently practising the normalisation of ultra-nationalist discourse. This creates a dangerous environment for minorities in Europe through the politicization of cultural diversity and immigration  [8, 9].

Furthermore, far-right parties and leaders are often characterised as authoritarian and in contrast with liberal democracy and progressive social values. Once in power, far-right governments –like Viktor Orbán’s in Hungary and Law and Justice majority regime in Poland, have expressed this perceived authoritarianism targeting and hampering free media, autonomous judiciary systems and liberal democratic institutions. Despite seeking political representation through democratic means and claiming to defend Western liberal values from terrorism and crime through their migration policies–they refer to the incompatibility of Muslim immigrants with liberal democratic values [10, 11, 12].

Far-right violence and terrorism

The terror attacks carried out in recent years by Al Qaeda and the Islamic State have instigated Western governments to pay close attention and employ concerted efforts to tackle Islamist terrorism. However, far-right terrorism has been present in the West for decades and remains worryingly overlooked by decision-makers and security forces [13].

Radical right terrorism refers to the instances when far-right extremists answer violently to contemporary social changes, such as their countries’ openness to different cultures or social progressive values. Their disenchantment with liberal democracy and their personal and social grievances could lead radicalized groups or individuals to take matters into their own hands rather than relying on mainstream politics. Hence, there is a risk members of far-right groups might address their perceived security threat through vigilantism and attacks carried out by clandestine cells, challenging the state’s monopoly on the use of force and threatening the lives of minorities and other groups in Western societies. Radicalized individuals may also be inspired by far-right politicians rhetoric against immigration and multiculturalism [14, 15, 16].

Right-wing extremism, similar to its Islamist counterpart, has benefited from social media and internet communications. Extremists have utilised technology to establish networks that cross borders and build connections with like-minded groups and political formations. Furthermore, social media has allowed them to improve their training, recruitment, fundraising methods, while spreading propaganda and radical content in such a way that they reach a broader audience while remaining clandestine. Thus, violent far-right cells and individuals have become an internationalised phenomenon that has increased violent attacks in the last four years and should not be overlooked by government authorities [17, 18, 19].

Instability and inattention to other issues

Western allies consider themselves threatened by Russian hostilities and therefore political instability in the West represents a strategic gain for Russia. As previously mentioned, far-right parties have aimed to disrupt liberal democracies’ political stability profiting from an increasing social polarization and breaking the traditional left-right political divide in favour of identity politics. They have also questioned economic cooperation, such as the European integration project. Even if far-right political parties are not directly influenced by Russia, the turmoil caused by their disruption in European liberal democracies undoubtedly profits Russia’s foreign policy  [20].

On the other hand, the securitization of immigration and multiculturalism arguably aims to divert policy-makers from comprehensively addressing actual security issues. For instance, terrorism will continue to fester if the targeting of Muslim minorities by the far-right contributes to Islamist radicalization within the West. Likewise, climate change, economic turmoil and social justice vindications cannot be addressed if the far-right shifts attention to immigration and promotes an environment of political instability that hinders the process of policy-making [21].

Conclusion

Western liberal democracies need to acknowledge the security risks posed by the far-right. It is a threat to their democratic processes and has arguably shifted the political and electoral discussions towards the far-right’s agenda. Radical right politics have emerged from within liberal democratic societies and have already crossed borders by establishing networks of like-minded groups; consequently becoming an international security concern.

Mainstream parties embracing policies from the far-right hoping to halt far-right parties from attaining further electoral success are helping them galvanize political momentum. Even without winning a majority in parliaments, the politicization and eventual securitization of immigration and multiculturalism have helped far-right groups advance their goals and get closer to broader parliamentary representation or even governmental positions.

In order to address the far-right’s challenge, it is necessary to understand the root causes of their emergence, the issues that have contributed to increasing their public appeal and learn from their rhetoric and networks. This is not to adopt the far-right’s ideas rather to learn from their communication methods in order to promote liberal values in a compelling way for disenfranchised and grieving populations.

Understanding the risks to security and liberal democracy posed by the far-right –namely, the securitization of immigration and multiculturalism, the inspiration of far-right violence and the overlooking of other security threats and their relation with the far-right– will allow mainstream policy-makers to renovate liberal democratic processes in order to alleviate people’s grievances without them needing to resort to far-right stances. The far-right will remain as a key and challenging feature in liberal democracies for the upcoming years, but its footprint in democratic institutions and social cohesion is still in the making; liberal elites and individuals can still make a difference.

Sources:

[1]Katrin Bennhold & Melissa Eddy (2018). Germany Without Angela Merkel: Unthinkable? Think Again, She Says. The New York Times.

[2]Christoph Hasselbach (2018). Opinion: Right-wing populism is EU’s elephant in the room. Deutsche Welle.

[3]Martin A. Schain (2018). Shifting Tides: Radical-Right Populism and Immigration Policy in Europe and the United States. Migration Policy Institute.

[4]Pankaj Mishra (2016). The Globalization of Rage: Why Today’s Extremism Looks Familiar. Foreign Affairs.

[5]Martin A. Schain (2018). Op. Cit.

[6]Aristotle Kallis, Sara Zeiger & Bilgehan Öztürk (2018). Introduction. In Kallis, Zeiger &Öztürk (eds.), Violent Radicalisation & Far-Right Extremism in Europe. SETA Publications.

[7]James F. Downes, Matthew Loveless & Andrew Lam (2018). Opening up Pandora’s box? How centre-right parties can outperform the radical right on immigration. LSE.

[8]Aristotle Kallis, Sara Zeiger & Bilgehan Öztürk (2018). Op. Cit.

[9]Tamáz Berecz & Kristóf Domina (2012). Domestic Extremism in Europe: Threat Landscape. Athena Institute.

[10]Ben Margulies (2018). Nativists are Populists, Not Liberals. Journal of Democracy, 29:1.

[11]Zsolt Eyedi, Chantal Mouffe, Yannis Stavrakakis, Ruth Wodak & John Fitzgibbon (2017). Five views: is populism really a threat to democracy? LSE.

[12]Max Bergmann, Carolyn Kenney & Trevor Sutton (2018). The Rise of Far-Right Populism Threatens Global Security and Democracy. Center for American Progress.

[13]In the US, extreme right violent incidents rose from five or less per year between 2007 to 2011, to 31 in 2017. Similarly, in Europe these attacks rose from 0 in 2012 to 30 in 2017. Seth G. Jones (2018). The Rise of Far-Right Extremism in the United States. CSIS.

[14]Idem.

[15]Daniel Koehler (2016). Right-Wing Extremism and Terrorism in Europe Current Developments and Issues for the Future. PRISM, 6:2.

[16]Aristotle Kallis, Sara Zeiger & Bilgehan Öztürk (2018). Op. Cit.

[17]Seth G. Jones (2018). Op. Cit.

[18]Idem.

[19]Daniel Koehler (2016). Op. Cit.

[20]Alina Polyakova (2016). Why Europe Is Right to Fear Putin’s Useful Idiots. Foreign Policy.

[21]Sean Illing (2018). Reciprocal rage: Why islamist extremists and the far right need each other. Vox.

Is Europe (once again) losing the Western Balkans?

Is Europe (once again) losing the Western Balkans?

This year’s Western Balkans Summit, taking place in London, failed to produce almost any meaningful results regarding the real integration of the region into the European Union. Even though the EU has decided to move forward with enlargement processes, general perception is that these efforts are half hearted and indecisive. At the same time, new players are gaining influence in the Western Balkans. Is the EU struggling to hold on to the Western Balkans?

EU and Cyber Security: New Player against Emerging Threats in Cyberspace – Part One of Three

Transport, energy, health, and finance are the most vulnerable sectors exposed to cyber-threats. Issuing the EU Cybersecurity Strategy in 2013 was an important step forward in developing a common framework; however, the strategy lacked the practical initiatives that would deliver tangible outcomes.

By Rusudan Zabakhidze

In the past decade, cyber warfare has become an exceptional phenomenon that has increased the vulnerability of individuals, non-state actors, and state actors to unprecedented levels. Businesses and governments rely on networks to provide their services across the EU. However, the cyber threat vulnerability of the world’s second-largest economy remains unclear. This article provides an introduction to the EU’s strategic cyber security vision by critically analysing internal and external challenges in the implementation of the recently published cyber security strategy: “Resilience, Deterrence, and Defense: Building strong cybersecurity for the EU.”

In the case of a cyber offense, the victimised country is often hampered to find a proper response because of the ambiguity surrounding the nature and origin of the attack. Since the cyber-attacks against Estonia in 2007, there have been growing concerns over the possibility of election hacking by foreign states, ransomware attacks, and other cybercrime. According to the statistics provided by the European Commission, 80% of European companies experienced at least one cybersecurity incident in 2017 [1]. Correspondingly, 86% of Europeans believe that the cybercrime risks are increasing [2].

The European Union is working on completing the Digital Single Market which will further extend the “four freedoms” (movement, capital, goods, and labour) by providing the rules of fair competition for the individuals and businesses of the Member States to engage in online activities [3]. Therefore, the costs related to cyber attacks are only expected to increase, creating a need for the development of effective preventive mechanisms. Some Member States have already included Cybersecurity in their National Security Strategies. Yet, the ambition of creating the Digital Single Market coupled with the highly interdependent nature of the EU economy indicates a need for action on the collective European level, rather than the individual national levels.

Transport, energy, health, and finance are the most vulnerable sectors exposed to cyber-threats [4]. Issuing the EU Cybersecurity Strategy in 2013 was an important step forward in developing a common framework; however, the strategy lacked the practical initiatives that would deliver tangible outcomes [5]. Necessary resources, for example, are still up to each Member State to acquire. In September 2017, the European Commission proposed a wide range of concrete measures that aim to further strengthen the EU’s cyber defense structures and capabilities, entailing more cooperation between the Member States. The updated strategy, “Resilience, Deterrence, and Defense: Building strong cybersecurity for the EU,” revolves around three principles: building resilience, developing legislative responses, and strengthening international cooperation [6].

While the implementation of the proposed initiatives is a long-term process, the EU has already taken its first steps regarding the security of its own institutions. An inter-institutional arrangement established a permanent Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-EU) covering all EU institutions, bodies, and agencies.

The European Commission has created the EU Cybersecurity Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA). This agency coordinates cooperation among member states against cyberattacks. The EU has created a blueprint that guides incident responses for large-scale cyberattacks. An EU-wide certification scheme is also in consideration to increase the quality and security of digital products and services. The EU plans to support Research and Competence Centers and to set up a cyber defense training and education platform. The EU also aims to develop a framework for a Joint EU Diplomatic Response to Malicious Cyber Activities and to deepen cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) [7].

Even though the proposed initiatives cover a wide range of responses, there are a number of practical challenges that will significantly affect the speed, as well as the outcomes, of the mentioned initiatives. The EU has neither properly defined resilience or deterrence nor made sufficiently clear how it intends to overcome institutional fragmentation and lack of legal authority in cybersecurity issues [8]. Other tasks that lie ahead include finding consensus on what constitutes a cybercrime and building the capacities to trace the sources of attacks.

While updating the original cyber security strategy can be considered a positive step towards the EU’s increased resilience, the challenges posed by institutional fragmentation of the Union may hinder the implementation process. Ultimately, as the frequency and scale of cyberattacks increase, effective mechanisms are essential. Failure to implement the proposed initiatives will automatically result in the failure of the establishment of the Digital Single Market. Failure to adapt to the risks and realities of the 21st century could harm the EU’s credibility, and ultimately its viability, not only with its citizens, but worldwide.

Sources:

[1] European Commission. 2017. State of the Union. Cyber Security Factsheet. [online]

Available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/21480/cybersecurityfactsheet.pdf

[2] ibid

[3] European Commission. 2015. Shaping the Digital Single Market. [online]

Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/policies/shaping-digital-single-market

[4] Council of the European Union. 2017. Reform of the Cyber Security in Europe. [online]

Available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/cyber-security/

[5] European Commission and High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

2013. Cyber Security Strategy of the EU: An Open, Safe and Secure Cyberspace. [online]

Available at: https://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/policies/eu-cyber-security/cybsec_comm_en.pdf

[6] European Commission. 2017.

State of the Union - Cybersecurity: Commission scales up EU's response to cyber-attacks.

[online] Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-3193_en.htm

[7] European Commission. 2017. State of the Union. Cyber Security Factsheet. [online]

Available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/21480/cybersecurityfactsheet.pdf

[8] Bendiek, A, Bossong, R & Matthias Schulze. 2017. The EU’s Revised Cybersecurity Strategy.

German Institute for International and Security Affairs. [online]

Available at: https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/comments/2017C47_bdk_etal.pdf

The State of the European Energy Union

In an increasingly open and interconnected market, one of the most vital elements of the European Union (EU) common market project is lagging behind: energy. The European Energy Union is an ongoing project of the EU to create an open and interconnected energy market throughout the EU providing secure, affordable and climate-friendly energy.

By Dorien van Dam

In an increasingly open and interconnected market, one of the most vital elements of the European Union (EU) common market project is lagging behind: energy. The European Energy Union is an ongoing project of the EU to create an open and interconnected energy market throughout the EU providing secure, affordable and climate-friendly energy. The initiative was launched in 2014 and published its last progress report in November 2017 [1]. These reports monitor the advancement of the EU towards its 2020 and 2030 energy and climate targets. The reports repeatedly draw the same unsatisfactory conclusion: more work will be needed. So, what exactly is going wrong?

The road towards this Energy Union is outlined in a framework, and can be roughly divided into four pillars: (1) more interconnection, (2) higher energy efficiency, (3) higher share of renewable energy and (4) cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Some countries, however, are struggling more with their targets than others.

As per the 2014 numbers of Eurostat, nine member states have already met their national renewable energy targets for 2020. The states that are the furthest away from reaching their targets are France, the Netherlands and Ireland [2]. Ironically, these are countries with relatively high GDP per capita within the EU. Irish officials argue that their progress towards the targets were hampered by slow recovery following the financial crisis. Ireland was however not disproportionately affected by the financial crisis;  it was a truly global crisis [3].

A possible explanation is that the four countries were not politically equipped to surpass the tragedy-of-the-commons problem. Renewable energy is a typical good that everyone wants but nobody wants to pay for. In the Netherlands, even after a sharp increase in ‘green’ voters during the 2017 election, the new government coalition agreement was exceptionally weak from an environmental perspective. The French system, on the other hand, is infamous for its layered bureaucracy with high amounts of red-tape. This system, in addition to a well-organized fossil fuel lobby are severely hindering the development of a green energy sector [4].

On a more positive note, the EU is expected to surpass their goals in cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 1%. Even though this goal does not include ‘embedded emissions’: GHG emissions involved in the production of imported goods [5], it is still a hard-needed win for the EU in the realisation of their 2020 goals.

Another area where progress is being steadily observed is that of energy efficiency. Per capita energy consumption in the EU has decreased from 2007 to 2014. Yet, 2015 and 2016 witnessed small increases, likely due to cooler winters. This resulted in the repetition of the EU Energy mantra: “additional efforts may be needed.” Despite these cooler winters, the EU is the first economic bloc to decouple economic growth from energy consumption.

Finally, the EU has a range of projects on their way to increase energy interconnection. These projects, however, are facing their own geopolitical issues. To conclude, the EU has set out a structured path towards the creation of its Energy Union, but along the way it has had to face multiple political—and meteorological—realities. Most of the 2020 goals are legally binding targets, resulting in possibly hefty fines for the countries that fail to meet their targets. Yet it is doubtful that the European Court of Justice will accept a cold winter as a justification for a breach, but imposing fines when the EU is suffering from low levels of support might prove a politically risky move. All in all, 2020 will prove to be an interesting year, not just for the Energy Union, but for the wider European Union as well.

Sources:

[1] European Commission. 2018. Energy Union and Climate. [ONLINE]

Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/energy-union-and-climate_en.

[Accessed 3 March 2018].

[2] TheJournal.ie. 2017.

Ireland is expected to miss its EU renewables target - and cop a multimillion-euro bill.

[ONLINE]

Available at: http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-eu-2020-energy-fines-2-3231942-Feb2017/. [Accessed 3 March 2018].

[3] Ibid.

[4] ICIS. 2017. ICIS Power Perspective: France likely to miss 2020 renewables target. [ONLINE]

Available at: https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2017/10/06/10149918/icis-power-perspective-france-likely-to-miss-2020-renewables-target/?redirect=english. [Accessed 3 March 2018].

[5] European Commission. 2018. Energy Union and Climate. [ONLINE]

Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/energy-union-and-climate_en. [Accessed 3 March 2018].