Governing the European Intelligence: Multilateral Intelligence Cooperation in the European Union

Öz

Since intelligence is an essential part of national security, a high volume of cooperation in this area is not expected. An assessment of the literature shows that there are several obstacles to intelligence cooperation. More precisely, states are reluctant to involve in intelligence cooperation because of trust factors and other factors such as bureaucratic culture and resistance, regime type, lack of normative motivation and shared identities. Even if they are compelled to cooperate, they prefer bilateral intelligence cooperation. However, due to the globalization of national security threats in the last two decades, intelligence organizations are currently obliged to cooperate multilaterally even though they do not prefer to do so. Multilateral intelligence cooperation within the European Union is a unique example of relatively successful multilateral intelligence cooperation. On the one hand, official European intelligence agencies INTCEN and Europol provide the legal framework of intelligence cooperation among the Union. On the other hand, informal channels such as the Club of Berne are also proven useful for the EU’s intelligence cooperation. We argue that the relative success of European intelligence cooperation derives from at least three factors. These are institutionalized demand for intelligence governance, the delegated authority of the members of the EU’s (epistemic) intelligence community, and its ability to set the national security agenda of the EU.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Intelligence
• Global Governance
• Cooperation
• European Union

Governing the European Intelligence: Multilateral Intelligence Cooperation in the European Union

Öz

İstihbarat ulusal güvenliğin önemli bir parçası olduğu için bu alanda yüksek hacimde bir işbirliği beklenmemektedir. Literatürün değerlendirmesi sonucunda istihbarat işbirliğinin önünde engeller olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Daha doğrusu, devletlerin güven faktörleri, bürokratik kültür ve direniş, rejim türü, normatif motivasyon ve ortak kimlik eksikliği gibi faktörler nedeniyle istihbarat alanında işbirliğine isteksiz olduğu belirlenmiştir. İşbirliği konusunda bir mecburiyet doğduğunda ise istihbarat işbirliğinin ikili çerçevede tercih edildiği görülmüştür. Son yirmi yılda ulusal güvenlik tehditlerinin küreselleşmesi nedeniyle, istihbarat örgütleri bunu tercih etmeseler dahi çok taraflı işbirliği yapmakla yükümlü hale gelmişlerdir. Avrupa Birliği içindeki nispeten başarılı çok taraflı istihbarat işbirliği bu alanda eşsiz bir örnek oluşturmaktadır. Avrupa istihbarat teşkilatları INTCEN ve Europol, birlik arasındaki istihbarat işbirliğinin yasal çerçevesini sağlamaktadır. Bern Kulübü gibi gayri resmi kanalların da AB'nin istihbarat işbirliği için yararlı olduğu görülmüştür. Bu çalışmada, Avrupa istihbarat işbirliğinin göreceli bu başarısının en az üç faktörden kaynaklandığını iddia edilmektedir. Bunlar, istihbarat yönetişimi için kurumsallaşmış talep, AB'nin (epistemik) istihbarat topluluğu üyelerinin yetki türü ve AB'nin ulusal güvenlik gündemini belirleme yeteneğidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İstihbarat
• Küresel Yönetişim
• İş birliği
• Avrupa Birliği

Kaynakça

1. Aldrich, Richard J. "International intelligence cooperation in practice." International intelligence cooperation and accountability, (2018): 18-42.
2. Arcos, Rubén, and José-Miguel Palacios. "EU INTCEN: a transnational European culture of intelligence analysis?." Intelligence and National Security 35, sy.1 (2020): 72-94.
3. Ateş, Ahmet. "Current Challenges and Trends in Intelligence." Güvenlik Bilimleri Dergisi 9, sy.1: 177-204.
4. Bilgi, Şeniz. "Intelligence Cooperation in the European Union: An Impossible Dream?." All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 5, sy.1 (2016): 57-67.
5. Bock, Ryan E. "Anglo-Soviet Intelligence Cooperation, 1941–45: Normative Insights from the Dyadic Democratic Peace Literature." Intelligence and National Security 30, sy.6 (2015): 890-912.
6. Boer, Monica Den, Claudia Hillebrand, and Andreas Nölke. "Legitimacy under pressure: the European web of counterterrorism networks." JCMS: Journal of common market studies 46, sy.1 (2008): 101-124.
7. Cass, Frank, and Ḥazi Karmel. Intelligence for peace: the role of intelligence in times of peace. Vol. 5. Psychology Press, 1999.
8. Claire DiMario, “Counter Terrorist Group.” Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, 2015, https://pilac.law.harvard.edu/europe-region-efforts//counter-terrorist-group-ctg (16.03.2021).

9. Constantin-Marian Birsan,. “Intelligence effectiveness in the European Union (EU) in the new security environment.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Naval Postgraduate School, Department of National Security Affairs, (Monterey California: 2012).
10. Cross, Mai'a. K. Davis. "A European transgovernmental intelligence network and the role of IntCen." Perspectives on European Politics and Society 14, sy.3 (2013): 388-402.
11. Debruyne, Emmanuel. "Intelligence in Occupied Belgium: The Business of Anglo-Belgian Espionage and Intelligence Cooperation during the Two World Wars (1914–1918, 1940–1944)." Intelligence and National Security 28, sy.3 (2013): 313-336.
12. Europol, Europol’s History, 2021, https://www.europol.europa.eu/history/europol-history.html (16.03.2021)
13. Europol, Statistics&Data, 2021, https://www.europol.europa.eu/about-europol/statistics-data (16.03.2021)
14. Fägersten, Björn. "Bureaucratic resistance to international intelligence cooperation–the case of Europol." Intelligence and National Security 25, sy.4 (2010): 500-520.
15. Fägersten, Björn. "Multilateral Intelligence Cooperation: A Theoretical Framework." B. Fagersten, Multilateral Intelligence Cooperation: A Theoretical Framework (2012): 1-28.
16. Finkelstein, Lawrence S. "What is global governance?." Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 1.3 (1995): 367-372.
17. Finnemore, Martha, and Michael N. Barnett. Rules for the world: international organizations in global politics. Cornell University Press, 2004.
18. Fischer, Benjamin B. "Anglo-american intelligence and the soviet war scare: The untold story." Intelligence and National Security 27, sy.1 (2012): 75-92.
19. Gauri Khandekar, The EU as a Global Actor in Counter Terrorism, 2011, http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/content/pdf/participant-papers/eu/Gauri-Khandekar-The-EU-as-a-Global-Actor-in-Counter-Terrorism.pdf (17.03.2021)
20. Gross, Richard C. “Different Worlds: Unacknowledged Special Operations and Covert Action” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. US Army War College (Carlisle Barracks PA, 2009).
21. İlter, Erdal. Millî İstihbarat Teşkilâtı Tarihçesi, Ankara: MİT Basım Evi, 2002.
22. Lander, Sir Stephen. "International intelligence cooperation: An inside perspective." Cambridge Review of International Affairs 17, sy.3 (2004): 481-493.
23. Lefebvre, Stéphane. "The difficulties and dilemmas of international intelligence cooperation." International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 16, sy.4 (2003): 527-542.
24. Lowenthal, Mark M. Intelligence: From secrets to policy. CQ press, 2019.
25. Matei, Florina Cristiana. "The challenges of intelligence sharing in Romania." Intelligence and National Security 24, sy.4 (2009): 574-585.
26. Rettman, Andrew. "EU intelligence services opening up to collaboration." EUObserver.com 18 (2011).
27. Riebling, Mark. Wedge: The secret war between the FBI and CIA. Knopf, 1994.
28. Sparago, Marta. "The global intelligence network: Issues in International Intelligence Cooperation." Perspectives on global issues 1, sy.1 (2006): 1-8.
29. Tucker, David. The end of intelligence: Espionage and state power in the information age. Stanford University Press, 2014.