European Security Hearing

Event organised by the Intergroup for Peace Initiatives, held at the European Parliament, Brussels,
Tuesday 12 September 2006

General overview
What was being discussed? 2 speakers, Ben Hayes from Statewatch and a Herbert von Bose, Head of Unit of the Preparatory Action for Security Research discussed issues arising from the fact that the recently approved FP7 includes funding of research into civil security. There seems to be an increasingly fine line between research into civil security and military research and it has appeared to some that the EU is now perhaps on the wrong side of this line.

What is the FP7?
The Framework Programmes (FPs) have been the main financial tools through which the European Union supports research and development activities. The FP is proposed by the European Commission and adopted by Council and the European Parliament following co-decision. FP7 was never intended to be “another Framework Programme”. It is designed as a key contribution to the re-launched Lisbon strategy, an economic growth plan set out by the European Council in March 2000.

What has FP7 got to do with the possible militarization of the EU?
The most recent draft of the FP7 includes nine priority themes for EU action, one of which is ‘Security.’ The objectives set out for security research in the FP7 proposal are to:
• develop the technologies and knowledge needed to ensure the security of citizens from threats such as terrorism and organised crime, while respecting fundamental human rights;
• ensure the best use of available technologies in civil and defence-related areas;
• stimulate the co-operation of providers and users in security solutions.

The proposal aims to ensure that security related research supports the Common Foreign and Security Policy, contributes to a high level of security within the EU, and supports the development of technologies and capabilities in support of other EU policies e.g. transport, civil protection, energy and the environment.

The reason that this sort of research is sometimes viewed as questionable is that some areas seem to have more of a military than civil flavour. In the Statewatch report ‘Arming Big Brother’ several such examples are listed: biometric passports, the Galileo project whereby peoples’ movements can be monitored from space and another project named ‘Probant’ concerning the visualization and tracking of people inside buildings. Member States are opposed to the idea of the EU becoming involved in military issues and therefore, as Herbert von Bose repeatedly reinforced, there can be no such thing as a ‘European military budget.’ It cannot exist. Whether or not the budget amounted to something military, even if perhaps not in name, was to be discussed.

What were the main arguments made against FP7?
Research could encroach on civil liberties
Ben Hayes was clear throughout the discussion that he was not opposed to all of the security research proposals set out in FP7 but was concerned that not all of them would be what he would deem to be ‘genuine research’ of products but rather development of products. He also flagged up that this development would be being carried out by arms companies, the same companies who would then sell these products back to the EU and its Member States who had funded them in the first place. He also expressed real concern as to the nature of these products, worried that they would be utilized as ‘control systems’. Without aiming to seem alarmist he described a worrying picture of a Europe not all that different to George Orwell’s 1984. He agreed that FP7 had many legitimate aims but called for a detailed debate on those research areas which could become tools of oppression.

Questionable projects
Some examples were given on the sorts of research projects being funded under the heading of civil security. Five of those listed were surveillance projects, there is a research project into the security market and supply chain, others dealt with crowd control. Not all of these projects therefore, Ben Hayes argued, were research into civil applications but around shaping future EU policy. A comment from the floor pointed out humorously that civilians can make cross border communications quite easily using a telephone so why is a civil budget being used to develop other cross-border communications?

Budget
Ben Hayes suggested that the security research budget to at least some extent was too focused on the regulation and deployment of such technologies in order to increase European economic growth in competition with the US. He questioned why overtly military private companies were being paid money to develop defence technologies to the very weapons they themselves were producing. Questions from the floor reflected a concern about the amount of involvement and possible influence of these ‘military companies’ in a so-called civil security plan. In a report published by the Transnational Institute entitled Arming Big Brother, Ben Hayes writes
“…the idea that private companies, run for profit, should be accorded an official status in the EU goes unchallenged. The result is that the arms industry is shaping not just EU security research, but EU security policy. The high-level study and strategic plan being produced by Thales UK and the ASD group are the clearest examples of this growing influence.”

Fears about lack of consultation on FP7
Ben Hayes acknowledged the Group of Personalities (GoP) and the European Security Advisory Board (ESRAB) to the Commission, as well as the Parliamentary and Council approvals but asked why the budget had been approved before ESRAB had published its report. This report, he noted, was ultimately dismissed anyway and the makeup of the group itself, he argued, was rather questionable in that there was only one representative from a Conflict Prevention NGO. Of the 50 members of ESRAB, 14 seats are occupied by industry, with 7 of the original 8 corporations included in the Group of Personalities now also on ESRAB. Some of these corporations include Siemens, Ericsons, Thales and Diehl. A further 18 seats were taken up by interior ministries and security agencies. In the aforementioned report, ‘Arming Big Brother’, Ben Hayes writes:

In establishing the European Security Research Programme and the “preparatory action”, the European Commission has taken extraordinary steps in setting up the GoP and the preparatory budget line outside the normal framework for EC research and arguably in breach of the EU treaties. That the establishment of the GoP and the incorporation of its recommendations into EU policy went almost unchallenged is very disturbing. The European Commission is supposed to be the “neutral arbiter” of European integration but in this case could scarcely have done more to accommodate the private sector and the military-industrial lobby in particular. There was no meaningful discussion in the Council (representing the interests of the member states) and no consultation of the European Parliament (representing the interests of the citizen) – policy-making was instead all but delegated to the unaccountable Group of Personalities.

Another point of contention was that Herbert von Bose boasted to have the support of around 78% of the average European on matters regarding security and technologies but, as a question from the floor highlighted, what exactly were these people being asked? My quest to discover the exact question being referred to here was a rather laborious one. Having found the section of the questionnaire relating to Security and Defence, the general line of questioning seemed to relate to whether the person thought that this was an important area for research. There was no reference to what this research might entail nor indeed as to what freedoms this research might require them to forfeit. It would seem unfair to take these figures to show support specifically for security research proposals as laid out in FP7.

Further, he asked, what research was being done into the alternatives to aggressive civil defense measures? Where was the research being done into the root causes of conflict in order to prevent it happening rather than spending millions of euros trying to deal with it once it does happen? He argued that the level of security for which governments are crying out is illusory. Perhaps instead Europe should be refocusing its attentions on tackling the causes of conflict rather than looking to aggressive defense technologies.

How did Herbert von Bose respond to this?
Civil Liberties
Herbert von Bose was keen to explain that of course no-one, least of all he, would want a Big Brother Europe but he was keen to defend the budget allocations to certain areas of research. He argued that even though spending money on cross-border communications might not seem like an obviously civil application it does have direct beneficial effects for civil security. He gave the example of how civilians suffered in New Orleans recently when the authorities could not communicate effectively with one another. The same was the case during the 7/7 bombings in London.

Questionable projects
With regard to the military feel of some of the projects Herbert von Bose agreed that it is true that some of the research done in the name of civil security will likely also yield beneficial results for military use. That is not to say that military use is its primary purpose. On the contrary, the EU does not have a military budget, it cannot have one; matters relating to defence and security are still handled intergovernmentally. Of course there is a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) but this is still distinct from other common policy areas in the decision making process which requires a unanimous vote from all Member States. All research, Herbert von Bose argued, can have a dual use but this does not mean that it is not primarily being researched for civil applications. He agreed that perhaps FP7 should be more focused on specific applications but disagreed with the Chairman’s observation that the line between civil and military technologies should be made clearer. He argued that the overlap was unavoidable but mentioned repeatedly that a regulatory committee will be appointed to oversee all research projects and ensure they are within the framework of FP7.

Budget
Herbert von Bose also spoke out against comments that the EU is directly funding military companies. Firstly, he refused to concede that these companies are ‘military’. That they happen to work on some military projects does not mean that they are therefore exclusively military companies. Further, he argued that to employ other companies without such military experience to research into civil defence technologies would take much longer and cost taxpayers more. That these companies are being essentially paid twice is equally unavoidable. They will not do this work for free and they will eventually be the ones who produce the technology they have researched. He was clear that the EU is not funding them but paying for their services in areas of civil security. With regard to concerns about regulation and deployment, Herbert von Bose pointed out that, although there will be financial benefits accruing to these companies, this is not the reason for research into the security technology.

He named interoperability as the real reason. In order for Europeans to have cross-border communications for example, they must all be using (and therefore also buying) the same system.

Lack of consultation on FP7
In this area, Herbert von Bose was clear to remind his fellow speaker that there was a good blend of people in ESRAB consulted on FP7 and that a peace organization was included in this. Furthermore there was a debate in Parliament and a report was produced. He also pointed out that the Commission is under no obligation to agree with the report put to them by this committee and that they are well within their rights to make a decision contrary to that report. He went on to highlight various different ways in which the Public Authorities and civil society had also been consulted.

Conclusions
It is fair to say that the speakers chose to disagree over spending allocations in FP7. Everyone agreed that civil security is important, it was over how this was to be achieved that there was discord. Herbert von Bose did concede that there should be more future research done into the root causes of conflicts but maintained that this would not come under the research budget in this particular area.

Return to top of page