UE reia sirul deciziilor in oglinda privind organizarea securitatii in interiorul granitelor fortaretei sale, dupa binecunoscutul model importat din SUA: isi mai creeaza un serviciu secret. Si asta nu in orice conditii, ci daruindu-i acestuia niste atribute extrem de importante: autonom si independent.
Adica, un fel de 3 in 1 cu arome de Central Intelligence Agency, SS si KGB, dar in varianta de distributie Uniunea Europeana:)
Se prognozeaza “zile senine” in viitorul de Big Brother
al UE, deoarece oricine poate observa ca legile de retentie a datelor sunt doar o actiune de inceput…
Inceputul sfarsitului libertatilor noastre…
Iar Uniunea Europeana, ca sa nu-si dezminta tendintele neo-fasciste de control al populatiei, infiinteaza acest nou SS, ca agentii tip Gestapo aveau deja…
Asadar, iata ce apare deocamdata in presa din Romania:
Deputaţi ai Parlamentului European sunt înfavoarea creării unui serviciu secret comun al ţărilor membre ale Uniunii
Europene, potrivit ediţiei de mâine a revistei economice germane
Wirtschaftswoche, din care AFP publică astăzi unele extrase, preluate de Agerpres.
“Dacă vrem să ajungem la o politică externă europea-
nă comună, ne trebuie un serviciu secret european”, a declarat germanul Manfred Weber, vicepreşedinte al conservatorilor din PE şi membru al Uniunii Social-Democrate (CSU), ramura bavareză a Uniunii Creştin-Democrate (CDU), conservatoare, partidul cancelarului german Angela Merkel.
Publicaţia scrie că Werner sugerează ideea plasării serviciului respectiv sub control parlamentar prin intermediul unei comisii speciale.
Austriacul Hannes Swoboda, vicepresedintele Socialistilor si Democratilor din PE, sustine, de asemenea, infiintarea unui serviciu secret european care sa aiba autonomie pentru a actiona independent, scrie saptamanalul.
Potrivit Wirtschaftswoche, acesti deputati europeni argumenteaza in special o lipsa de anticipare de catre UE a evenimentelor actuale din nordul Africii, dovada, in opinia lor, a utilitatii unui astfel de serviciu secret comun.
Mai jos cateva extrase din articole in limba engleza, vizand acelasi subiect:
EU Intelligence Service without Democratic ControlThe loose cooperation between the intelligence services of the EU Member States has developed into a highly independent network over the past years.
Still, while in established democracies a parliamentary committee possesses an insight into the activities of the intelligence service and therefore can control them, this is not the case on the EU-level.
The Council acts in the dark, the European Parliament has no say at all.
Javier Solana, the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Secretary General of the Council, considers it “absurd to complain about the lack of transparency in the EU”.
Meanwhile various intelligence service units have been established under his supervision since 2001, such as the European Satellite Centre (EUSC), the Intelligence Division (INT) and the Joint Situation Centre (SitCen).
Together they constitute the EU Intelligence Service within the framework of the European Security and Defence Policy.
Two years after his appointment, Javier Solana took the initiative and set up the Situation Centre without the resolution of the Council of Ministers, despite the fact, that according to article 207 of the EC-Treaty only “the Council shall decide on the organization of the General Secretariat”.
Since then the EU officials and the national intelligence service experts analyze the security situation in the Member States 24 hours a day under the patronage of the Spaniard and provide essential incentives for the decision making process in the EU.
The Council itself refuses to admit the problems.
To the parliamentary question “how democratic and legitimate the current EU legal basis is”, the Council replies:
“There are no units on the EU-level that are responsible for intelligence-gathering, since the EU units and agencies are merely recipients of verified intelligence from the Member States.”
Therefore “the decisions taken in the Member States themselves are accountable for its democratic control”, reads the response of the Council to this question in January 2009.
This is at least misleading.
The intelligence is in fact being gathered on the EU-level.
Two leading officials confirm this fact.
Frank Asbeck, the Head of the Satellite Centre (EUSC) in Spanish Torrejón, explains: “The EUSC is one of the few operative agencies of the EU.”
An unambiguous statement follows: “We consider ourselves an evident extension of the national instances of secret service or military intelligence.”
The Satellite Centre is directly involved in the missions of the EU-soldiers, for instance the ESDP-Mission in Darfur, on the Sudanese boarder with Chad.
The agents promptly provide the EU-Missions’ Headquarters and Commanders on the ground with relevant information.
The British Intelligence Service agent, head of the Brussels Situation Centre, William Shapcott formulates this more unequivocally.
In 2002 he elaborated on this in the British House of Lords: “In the past years we began developing a lot instead of completely relying on the information from the Member States.”
Apart from this, there are around 600 EU-staff members in 120 delegations of the EU Commission worldwide.
Through the Directorate General Foreign Affairs they provide the Situation Centre in Brussels with diplomatic information.
The so called EU-Monitoring-Missions (EUMM) are even more insightful.
The Monitors – this is how the EUMM observers are called – are the detector dogs of the European Security and Defence Policy.
They send their tessera to the national headquarters and 10 minutes before that to Javier Solana’s Department in Brussels.
“What we receive is often better and more detailed than the material of national services”, one of Solana’s staff members praised their own sources of information.
An EU Commission official gloats, “We have our own eyes and ears worldwide.”
While the draft Convention on Mutual Assistance
in criminal matters sets out powers of surveillance and interception within the EU the “Requirements”, which will also apply within the EU, are subject to
international agreement through a series of hidden working parties.
international agreement through a series of hidden working parties.
These secret working groups include: i) the EU Police Cooperation Working Group(Telecommunications)
and its Technical Questions Sub-Group; ii) IUR, the International Users Requirements group; iii) STC, Standards Technical Committee; and ILETS, International Law Enforcement Telecommunications Seminar.
ILETS is a key group comprising the Cold War UKUSA countries -the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and UK – plus Hong Kong and Norway and 14 EU member states (15 minus the UK which was a founding member).
Aside from strictly technical questions membership of these groups overlap so that EU member representati-ves on the Police Cooperation Working Group may also be on ILETS.
The drafts of the original IUR 95 “Requirements” adopted by the EU in January 1995 and the proposed revisions in 1998 (to include internet service providers and satellite phones) in ENFOPOL 98 (and its two
revised versions) came from this group into the EU policymaking process.iv) “Lyon Group”: While ILETS works on technical matters (and their policy implications) a much more high-powered driving force on the global interception of telecommunications is
the “Lyon Group” and especially its “High-tech Crime Subgroup of G8 Senior Experts’ Group on Transnational Organised Crime.”
more: www.statewatch.org
(BRUSSELS) – French diplomat Patrice Bergamini will head the European Union’s intelligence agency, replacing Britain’s William Shapcott atop an office observers see as a potential “European CIA,” a diplomat said Tuesday.Bergamini, 40, a specialist in defence and security matters, works in the cabinet of EU chief diplomat Catherine Ashton, who named him to head the Joint Situation Centre, said the diplomat who requested anonymity.
The agency, known as SitCen, had been headed by Shapcott since it was launched in 2001.
The agency is now part of the European External Action Service, the 27-nation bloc’s diplomatic corps headed by Ashton which was formally launched on Monday.
SitCen began as a platform for several EU members, including Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain, to exchange sensitive information.
Its activities expanded to include terrorism analysis in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
The pro-transparency group Open Europe, a non-governmental organisation, has described the agency as the seed of Europe’s agency modelled after the United States’ CIA.
But SitCen has a staff of only 100 people.
It does not collect information, a task still in the hands of national intelligence services.
Its mission mainly consists of analysis of sensitive information that EU member states are willing to
share.http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/intelligence-france.5rg
Mission Implausible – Building an EU Intelligence Community
Following recent terrorist attacks, intelligence agencies have been in the limelight. In particular their failings to coordinate efforts and to collaborate with other intelligence services have been subject to criticism.
While the US has responded by revamping its intelli-gence community and creating the new Department of Homeland Security, little seems to have happened at the European level.
The paper seeks to explain why some intelligence cooperation takes place within the EU and why some, not to say the bulk, does not.
To gain precision, it outlines a model that divides intelligence into different stages, topics and levels.
This ˜intelligence cube" allows for an accurate discussion on cooperation in distinctive areas.
Although the study mainly follows a pragmatic functionalist approach, suggesting that collaboration is utility driven rather than an end in itself, it does not argue that an increased Europeanisation is desirable.
Rather it suggest that efficiency considerations offer the most convincing explanation why no new European Intelligence Agency has been created and why so little cooperation takes place within EU structures.
This explanatory illustration is followed by a normative appreciation of what improvements the Union can and should undertake to advance the intelligence community’s contribution to the fight against terrorism.
Si un mic film care la momentul realizarii lui parea fictiune / teoria conspiratiei…
European Union’s Secret Service – Fiction or Fact
preluare de pe sursa: Centrul de Informare Alternativa
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu