Artur Gruszczak Associate Professor Institute of Political Science and International Relations Jagiellonian University Krakow, Poland e-mail: [email protected] Intelligence Support for Diplomacy: Information Sharing and the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union Paper to be presented at the International Studies Association (ISA) Annual Convention, 26-29 March 2014, Toronto, Canada FIRST DRAFT - WORK IN PROGRESS - PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE Introduction The birth of the European Union coincided with dramatic, violent and destructive processes taking place in the Balkans, the Horn of Africa and the region of Great Lakes. The European Union, having been developing its international actorness and identity, decided to start building and enhancing its capacities to prevent and respond to external crises and violent conflicts in the most effective and coherent way. This meant at that time, the mid- 1990s, the widening of the external dimension of its policies and entering the area of diplomacy and security. The complex and demanding system of international relations and interactions in the era of post-Cold War strategic conundrum became increasingly dependent on information, communication and data management. Governance, management and policy-making processes in the digitalised world, based on complex information networks and communication channels, were saturated with mass information flowing from sources dispersed all over the world. Diplomacy has always been connected to information and knowledge: about other states, their political systems, economic resources, demographic features, cultural traits, etc. As the foreign relations went global, more 1 complex and interrelated, involving more actors belonging in different categories, state diplomacy was in a growing need of learning and understanding different components of the world system for they permeated state sovereignty and interfered in national interests and objectives. The contemporary state has become dependent on reliable information sources. Decision-making processes require a comprehensive information management and intelligence support through the gathering of information and subsequent identification and evaluation of internal and foreign policy goals of the hosting state. Foreign diplomatic services have been concerned with obtaining, collecting and transmitting information acquired in their receiving states. This information was referred to various aspects political, social, economic, cultural, religious, military, sporting or touristic activities. Diplomatic posts of the states are filled with both diplomats, or foreign service officials, and intelligence officers, usually called spies. The former are obliged to monitor the local environment, watch processes and developments in the realms of politics, economy, society, culture etc., chart a course of action when necessary, provide reports describing or partially analysing the observed issues. They utilise open sources of information and these intelligence products which are not subject to security clauses and basically remain unclassified. The latter, deep-cover agents operating in embassies on fake assignments, are tasked with acquiring information and data restricted or kept secret by local authorities or legal and private persons. This information and data, be it raw material, be it a sort of intelligence or semi-intelligence product, is transferred to competent authorities of the sending country for the further processing, collation or analysis. Information provided by diplomats plays an increasingly important role in policy- and decision-making processes, with particular regard to security issues and ‘hard’ policy measures. Policy-making in this area needs a robust, effective and firm intelligence support. An experienced US diplomat, John Brady Kiesling, ascertained that ‘diplomacy and espionage live together in tense symbiosis.’1 That traditional view of diplomacy cum intelligence was recently rethought and conceptualised under the heading of sociocultural intelligence (SOCINT). This concept takes into account numerous factors and determinants influencing contemporary foreign and security policies in the 1 John Brady Kiesling, Diplomacy Lessons: Realism for an Unloved Superpower, Washington: Potomac Books, 2007, p. 239. 2 context of knowledge management, predictability and anticipation, situational awareness, contingency planning. This paper aims to analyze the links between intelligence and decision- making in the area of EU common foreign and security policy (CFSP). According to the predominant view in the area of intelligence studies, intelligence aims to reduce uncertainty for leaders and decision-makers. This thesis is particularly relevant with respect to the European Union aspiring to act as a global actor in the realm of diplomacy and security. Following the Lisbon treaty and the institutional reform of the Union, the CFSP was rearranged toward enhanced diplomatic activities and more robust operational capabilities in the security field. The establishment of the European External Action Service (EEAS) was an important step on the way to a genuine political actorness of the EU. The incorporation of intelligence units (IntCen, SitRoom, IntDir) into the EEAS highlighted the growing importance of information management and analysis for decision-making mechanisms in the EU. Special emphasis should be put on COREU as an EU diplomatic information network. The massive flow of information and data is typical for contemporary diplomacy. Foreign offices and diplomatic delegations are involved in information gathering and management. Therefore, the further development of intelligence organization and tradecraft at EU level is indispensable to build and strengthen the EU’s position as a global actor. The thesis developed throughout this paper is that effectiveness, credibility and relevance of the CFSP cannot be built without developing a strong networked mechanism of information gathering, processing and intelligence sharing among EU Member States with an active part played by EU institutions and agencies. This requires the establishment of a sociocultural intelligence hub integrating the Member States’ foreign ministries, diplomatic posts, EU institutions and agencies as well as national intelligence services of the Member States. The sections of the paper proceed as follows: In section one, the concept of sociocultural intelligence is presented and explained as a new category of intelligence focused on building situational understanding and predictability on the basis of wide range of information acquired by foreign and diplomatic services in a receiving state. In section two, institutional dimension of intelligence cooperation for the CFSP is described, highlighting the role of the EEAS and specialised intelligence units established in its framework. The roles of EU Intelligence Analysis Centre (IntCen) and 3 Intelligence Directorate of the EU Military Staff are thoroughly analysed and evaluated. Section three focuses on communication networks and channels used by EU sociocultural diplomacy. Correspondence Européenne (COREU) is at the core of analysis given that it is an encrypted communication network transmitting the messages referring to foreign and security affairs and regulating secure information flows in the CFSP area. The conclusion focuses on the argument that the European Union has chosen the concept of sociocultural intelligence due to certain restrictions placed by the Member States on intelligence sharing. Expanded diplomatic network of the EU allows for acquisition and processing of big data and varied information and use them in EU-led processes of early warning, conflict prevention and crisis management. Sociocultural intelligence (SOCINT) – diplomacy in support of intelligence Diplomacy is a state activity aimed to actively manage complex bilateral, regional and international relationships across the range of actors: states, organizations, social and cultural movements, ethnic communities, that participate in international dialogue.2 As a result, contemporary diplomacy operates in a dense networked environment hosting variegated subjects linked to local allies, national partners and overseas counterparts. Diplomacy refers not only to partnership, good neighbourhood, active and mutually beneficial cooperation, but also has to encompass problems emerging at supranational level, global challenges and universal dilemmas addressing the most existential questions underpinning national stability and international order. Diplomats and foreign service officials no longer focus their activities exclusively on national interests seen in a narrow perspective. They devote much of their attention to supranational and global issues and dilemmas because these constitute imminent and growing pressure on modern nation-states in terms of sovereignty, security, communication and governance. Proliferation of risks, threats and hazards has become a ‘normal’ feature of the modern world in the era of globalization. The fact that sources of risks and origins of threats to national interests and values can be located far from state borders and outside the scope of sovereign 2 See Kishan S. Ran, 21st century diplomacy: a practitioner’s guide, London and New York: Continuum, 2011, p. 4. 4 jurisdiction of a given state is a prerequisite for the redefinition of the roles of traditional diplomacy and the shift towards the acquisition of information and the management of knowledge gained through analysis