Brussels attacks, a challenge to EU intelligence services

The attacks in Brussels earlier this week that left 31 people dead and over a hundred injured, and which are the second major terrorist attack to take place on European soil in the past four months, has left policy makers and intelligence services across the continent confronting a number of major challenges.

Speaking on the BBC radio on Thursday morning, Rob Wainwright, the head of law enforcement and intelligence agency Europol, warned that even beyond France and Belgium there was a more “widespread network” than first feared of “well trained, well planned terrorists” aimed at carrying out “multiple attacks aimed at mass casualties”.

Fears are clearly growing about coordinated attacks across European capitals, symbolised by the visible strengthening of a security presence in both Paris and London following the Brussels attack.

The attacks are likely to have implications at a number of levels. In Belgium itself it has turned the spotlight on potential lapses in the security services, though analysts are pessimistic if it will lead to fundamental changes in approach.

“The inefficiencies stemming from the country’s fragmented bureaucracy are well known and the attacks are unlikely to provide a catalyst to remedy them,” says Carsten Nickel, a Brussels-based senior analyst at Teneo Intelligence, who argues that local politicians were likely to press for the further devolution of powers.

Europol support

However, at a European level it is likely to bolster support – and the case for funding for – Europol’s own counter terrorism center, set up just over a year ago, “It is unlikely that the attacks will prompt a fundamental rethink of EU action on these areas,” adds Nickel.

Policy-wise things remain more uncertain. Since the attacks, a number of European leaders have raised questions about the Schengen agreement of visa-free travel that 26 European nations are part of. The agreement has already been under strain since the refugee crisis – France reinstituted border controls in the wake of the Paris attacks, and other countries have brought in controls for temporary periods. However, analysts believe that outside the public rhetoric that sense is likely to prevail. “We do not believe that Schengen’s complete breakdown is a viable option, because it would undermine the entire European project, which is especially unwise after the attacks, and would be too costly for national economies and businesses,” says Lora Chakarova, IHS Country Risk analyst.

The attacks are also likely to increase pressure on the European refugee policy – and in particular the agreement with Turkey over the resettlement of refugees from Syria. “The willingness of countries to take in refugees from Syria is going to be weaker than before, making the task of relocation a much more difficult one,” says Nickel.

The biggest, and perhaps most concerning impact is likely to be on attitudes towards refugees, and the popularity of xenophobic, anti-Islamic parties – already on the rise across much of Europe. Some such as Germany’s Alternativ fur Deutschland and Netherland’s Dutch Freedom Party have been quick to link to Europe’s refugee policy and calling for change. Polls in Germany have pointed to gains by the AfD in the attack’s immediate aftermath.

However, overall, Nickel argues that while in the public domain at least discussions will focus on questions about EU integration and information sharing, the biggest challenge will be on a local level.

“It’s all nice and well to have better information and information sharing but at the end of the day it comes down to the local street to street level, and local networks, and local policing. You cannot solve those issues on the EU level.”

COMMENT NOW