Counter-terrorism Coordinator Research Articles

‘Strengthening cooperation with external partners: Looking for a common response to the phenomenon of foreign terrorist fighters’

Addressing the challenge of foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs) and their affiliates who travelled to Syria and Iraq to join Da'esh and other terrorist groups has been a priority for the EU and the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator since 2013, both within the EU and internationally. This article sets out comprehensive EU cooperation with international partners on foreign terrorist fighters: It covers EU action related to the camps and prisons in North East Syria where FTFs and family members are held, accountability of FTFs and affiliates, cooperation on FTFs with the EU’s neighbourhood: Turkey, Western Balkans and Middle East and North Africa regions, multilateral engagement with the United Nations and other fora as well as addressing Islamist extremist ideology which is contributing to the radicalization process. From a practitioner's perspective, the article provides the EU policy framework and its evolution, as well as examples of capacity building and other initiatives.

Strengthening inter-agency coordination in counterterrorism in Israel after Munich

ABSTRACT The September 1972 Munich Olympics massacre brought to light the critical need for internal coordination and international cooperation among intelligence, security and enforcement agencies, government ministries, and many others who deal with counterterrorism. Through an historical overview of the role of the counter-terrorism bureau and with interviews of its former directors, this article presents the security lessons learned from the attack while providing an overview of the counterterrorism coordinator’s critical role in coordinating organisations focused counterterrorism operations, policy, and law.

Interview with Gilles de Kerchove

Gilles de Kerchove was appointed European Union (EU) Counter-Terrorism Coordinator (EU CTC) on 19 September 2007. In this function, he coordinates the work of the EU in the field of counterterrorism (CT), maintains an overview of all the instruments at the Union's disposal, closely monitors the implementation of the EU CT strategy and fosters better communication between the EU and third countries to ensure that the Union plays an active role in the fight against terrorism.He was previously Director for Justice and Home Affairs at the EU Council General Secretariat (1995–2007) and Deputy Secretary of the Convention which drafted the Charter of fundamental rights of the EU (1999–2000). Before that he was Head of the Private Office of the Deputy Prime-Minister of the Federal Government of Belgium, Minister of Justice and Minister of Economic Affairs (1993–1995) and Head of the Private Office of the Deputy Prime-Minister of the Federal Government of Belgium, Minister of Justice and Minister of SMEs (1989–1992).Mr de Kerchove is a Professor of European Law at the Université Catholique de Louvain, at the Université Libre de Bruxelles and at the Université Saint Louis-Bruxelles.He has published a number of books and numerous articles on European law, human rights, security and CT.

The Counterterrorism Coordinator and the Commissioner for the Security Union: Does the European Union Need Two Top-level Counterterrorism Officials?

ABSTRACT Both national and EU officials have repeatedly emphasized the need for a comprehensive and strongly coordinated EU counterterrorism policy in order to bring together the disparate measures taken by the member states, avoid duplication of action, involve uninterested member states, and to present the EU as a coherent counterterrorism actor. To address these concerns, the EU member states agreed to create the position of an EU Counterterrorism Coordinator in 2005, only to be followed in 2016 with the position of an EU Commissioner for Security Union. A question therefore arises as to whether the EU needs two counterterrorism coordinators. This article addresses this question by utilizing Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of field, capital, doxa, and habitus and argues that there is no apparent rationale for the coexistence of two EU Counterterrorism Coordinators with an overlapping mandate and minimal material, similar cultural and vastly disparate symbolic capital.

The collective securitisation of terrorism in the European Union

This article explores the recent and significant growth of European Union cooperation on counter-terrorism by drawing upon the concept of ‘collective securitisation’. It highlights how 9/11 was a precipitating event, one which led some EU leaders to call upon the member states to develop an EU counter-terrorism policy and to step up counter-terrorism cooperation with the United States. Various counter-terrorism legislative instruments have since been adopted, defining terrorist acts and having a significant impact on national counter-terrorism policies. 9/11 was therefore used by some actors to convince the EU member states that they all faced one collective terrorist threat, embodied at the time by al-Qaeda, rather than each of them facing a distinctive threat as had hitherto been a common view across Europe. This was a crucial moment, in other words, paving the way for the development of a common EU counter-terrorism policy. The subsequent institutionalisation of this cooperation, in particular through the establishment of the European Arrest Warrant, the Counter Terrorism Coordinator and the European Counter Terrorism Centre within Europol, has contributed to a routinisation of counter-terrorism practices in the EU.

The EU as an International Counter-terrorism Actor: Progress and Constraints

During the first decade after the 9/11 attacks, the European Union (EU) has developed into an international counter-terrorism actor in its own right, a role increasingly accepted by third countries. This is a result of many influences, including a more favourable legal basis after the Amsterdam Treaty reforms; enhanced institutional capabilities, such as the growing importance of the Counter-Terrorism Coordinator; the use of a broad range of instruments, such as intelligence sharing; and the application of geopolitical priorities, guided by meetings at the United Nations and the Council of Europe (among other fora). At the same time, the EU's counter-terrorism role has remained subsidiary, both legally and politically, to that of its member states. Furthermore, a lack of its own operational capabilities, its institutional complexity, and its problems of cross-policy coordination continue to act as powerful constraints on the EU's counter-terrorism responsibilities.

The European Union Counter-terrorism Coordinator and the External Dimension of the European Union Counter-terrorism Policy

The post of European Union (EU) counter-terrorism coordinator (CTC) has often been seen as ineffectual. However, this article argues that such a critical assessment of the post of EU CTC is due to a significant extent to an over-emphasis on the internal dimension of the EU CTC's activities. Consequently, it suggests focusing on the external dimension of the EU CTC's work, which has often been largely overlooked. For that purpose, it develops an international actorness analytical framework. On that basis, the article demonstrates that, despite the limitations inherent to this post, the EU CTC is already significantly advanced in the process of establishing himself as a fully-fledged counter-terrorism actor on the international stage. Evidence shows that he is increasingly considered an important component of the external dimension of the EU counter-terrorism policy by both member states and third states and bodies.

The evolution of the European Union’s ‘fight against terrorism’ discourse: Constructing the terrorist ‘other’

The purpose of this article is to explore the ways in which the European Union (EU)’s counter-terrorism discourse, the ‘fight against terrorism’, is constructed, and the ways in which it functions both rhetorically and in practice. It argues that ‘EU identity’ is constituted through and is central to the constitution of EU counter-terrorism policy. The approach taken is constructivist in nature, drawing on a discourse analysis of primarily European Council policy documents, as well as the reports and speeches of the EU Counter-Terrorism Co-ordinator. In particular, it identifies three strands of the discourse that, it is argued, play a key role in the construction of a terrorist ‘other’. These three strands include terrorism as crime and as an emotive act of violence; terrorism as an act perpetrated solely by non-state actors; and terrorism as a ‘new’ and ‘evolving’ threat. The article proceeds in three steps. First, it outlines the theoretical considerations that underpin this research, including its empirical application. Second, it demonstrates how each strand of the discourse is constructed. Third, it discusses the functioning of the discourse, including the contested nature of the ‘terrorism knowledge’ that underpins the EU’s counter-terrorism approach. The article concludes by reflecting on what this case study contributes to our understanding of EU counter-terrorism policy, as well as explaining how the notion of the terrorist ‘other’ could provide the basis for a future research agenda that deepens our understanding of how the identity of the EU is constituted.

Editor's introduction: Academic and Policy Perspectives on the 'War on Terrorism'

This issue of Irish Studies in international Affairs is dominated by contributions to the debate on the US 'War on Terrorism' post11 September 2001. It draws from papers presented at last year's annual conference of the RIA's National Committee for the Study of International Affairs and from some others submitted directly to the journal, and the articles collectively represent a good cross section of the ongoing international debate. Academics have a particular role to play in this context. Without making any claim that academics have a uniquely objective perspective to bring to events, it can be argued that good academic writing can play an important part in the public debates around the appropriate policy responses to global conflict and terrorism. In such a highly polemical and often emotional debate it can be difficult for actors on all sides to be self-critical or to acknowledge failures, and yet it is essential that the public discourse contains such contributions from both supporters and opponents of the position led by the US and British governments. Mr Gijs de Vries, then newly appointed EU counter-terrorism coordinator, opened the 2004 conference in Dublin. Counter-terrorism is an area where academic work is only just emerging. Many commentators have suggested that the EU, because of its own history and institutional make-up, has a more complex view of the causes of terrorism and of the required policy responses than the current Bush administration in the US. There are certainly signs that this is so in a comparison of the 2002 US national security strategy and the 2003 EU security strategy. However, it is less clear if any differences in approach have emerged in practice. The contributions of David Hastings Dunn and Karin Fierke set out contrasting analyses of the global debates. Dunn focuses on an analysis of changing US aims and strategy in the period since 2001. Fierke, drawing on the literature within critical security studies, argues that we need to examine the assumptions on upon which the War on Terrorism is built and the extent to which these assumptions are contributing to the further construction of conflict and the terrorist threat rather than ameliorating the problem. Francesco Cavatorta looks at the perspectives of radical Islamic groups, a point of view frequently ignored or simply caricatured in the public debate on terrorism; while Luis Moreno looks at the particular case of the Spanish reaction to the Madrid bombings of March 2004 and analyses the relationship between the bombings and the immediately following change of government in Spain. Richard

Editor's Introduction: Academic and Policy Perspectives on the 'War on Terrorism'

Editor'sintroduction Academic and Policy Perspectives on the 'War on Terrorism' JohnDoyle Centre for InternationalStudies,School of Lawand Government, DublinCity University This issue of IrishStudies in internationalAffairsis dominatedby contributionsto the debate on the US 'Waron Terrorism'post-11 September2001. It drawsfrom paperspresentedat last year'sannualconferenceof the RIA'sNationalCommittee forthe Studyof International Affairsandfromsomeotherssubmitteddirectlyto the journal,andthe articles collectively representa good cross sectionof the ongoing international debate.Academicshaveaparticular roletoplayinthiscontext.Without makingany claim thatacademicshavea uniquelyobjectiveperspectiveto bringto events,it canbe arguedthatgood academicwritingcanplayanimportantpartinthe public debates around the appropriatepolicy responses to global conflict and terrorism.In sucha highly polemicaland often emotionaldebateit can be difficult for actors on all sides to be self-criticalor to acknowledgefailures, and yet it is essential thatthepublic discoursecontainssuchcontributions fromboth supporters andopponentsof the position led by the US andBritishgovernments. MrGijsdeVries,thennewly appointedEU counter-terrorism coordinator, opened the 2004 conferencein Dublin. Counter-terrorism is an areawhereacademicwork is only just emerging.Manycommentatorshave suggestedthatthe EU, becauseof its own historyandinstitutionalmake-up,has a morecomplexview of thecausesof terrorismandof the requiredpolicy responsesthanthe currentBush administration in the US. Thereare certainlysigns thatthis is so in a comparisonof the 2002 US nationalsecuritystrategyandthe2003 EU securitystrategy.However,it is less clear if any differencesin approachhaveemergedin practice. The contributionsof David HastingsDunn andKarinFierkeset out contrasting analysesof theglobaldebates.Dunnfocuses on ananalysisof changingUS aimsand strategyin the period since 2001. Fierke,drawingon the literaturewithin critical securitystudies,arguesthatwe needto examinetheassumptionson uponwhichthe Waron Terrorism is builtandtheextentto whichtheseassumptionsarecontributing tothe furtherconstructionof conflictandthe terrorist threatrather thanameliorating theproblem.FrancescoCavatorta looksattheperspectivesof radicalIslamicgroups, a point of view frequently ignoredor simply caricaturedin the public debate on terrorism;while Luis Morenolooks atthe particular case of theSpanishreactionto the Madridbombings of March 2004 and analyses the relationshipbetween the bombings andthe immediatelyfollowing change of governmentin Spain.Richard IrishStudiesinInternational Affairs, Vol.16(2005),1-2. 2 IrishStudiesin InternationalAffairs AldrichandEunanO Halpinbothexamine the issue of intelligenceand its role in makingthe case for wara crucialissue in the debatein Britain,butthey also raise widerissuesabouttheroleof intelligenceservices in foreignpolicy makingandthe damageto the credibilityof intelligenceanalysis if it is perceivedby the publicto be manipulatedfor shorttermpolitical advantage.Rory Miller looks at the Irish debateson the war and its relationshipto Irish neutrality,while RobertBarnidge examines the legal obligations of states with regardto non-state actors such as international terroristorganisations.Delma Campbell,finally in this section, looks at the place of internationaleducationexchanges in the Waron Terrorism-as an instrumentof US soft powerbutalso as a casualty of tightervisa restrictionsfor studentsandacademics. ApartfromtheWaron Terrorism, this issue also includesanhistoricalreviewof theIrishlegationinPer6n'sArgentina(1948-55) fromPaulHand;ananalysisof EU votingin theUN GeneralAssemblyfromNick Rees andHelenYoung;a discussion by CatherineLynch of the impact of factionalism within political partiesas an explanationforbothprogressandstallingin the NorthernIrelandpeace process;an explorationby MartynFramptonof the evolution of SinnF6in's policy towardthe EuropeanUnion, which culminatedin the election of two MEPs in 2004, andour annualreviewsof Irishforeignpolicy andIrishdevelopmentaidby Nick Rees and HelenO'Neill, respectively. Finally,all suggestionsandarticlesforpublicationwill be warmlywelcomedby theeditor. ...

U.S. UNPREPARED FOR TERROR ATTACK

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMEland Security (DHS) and other federal agencies are failing to give emergency first responders the resources they need in a timely fashion, leaving the nation perilously unprepared for another catastrophic terrorist attack, according to a Council on Foreign Relations study. Currently, the federal budget allocates $27 billion over five years beginning in 2004 to fund state and local first responders. The 20-member council task force, chaired by former Sen. Warren B. Rudman and advised by former White House counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke, pegs federal expenditure needs at closer to $25 billion per year. Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared urges Congress to require DHS to work with states, cities, and professional emergency responder associations to set formal standards and guidelines for emergency preparedness. Clarke suggests the creation of formulas that quantify funds needed by specific cities to be able to respond to a terrorist ...

U.S. counterterrorism policy in the 1980s and the priorities for the 1990s

Abstract The Department of State's counterterrorism coordinator discusses current patterns in international terrorism and cites three areas of growing concern: radical Palestinian terrorist groups, Libyan supported terrorism, and narcoterrorism in the Andean nations. He explains U.S. Government counterterrorism policy and assesses its effectiveness. The recent trend toward treating terrorists as criminals and applying the rule of law against them is examined. He also emphasizes the importance of pressuring countries that sponsor terrorism and of refusing to make deals with terrorists.