Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for Interview

Interview

Intervista con Benedetto Della Vedova, Sottosegretario agli Affari Esteri del Governo italiano - Il difficile cammino dell’Europa

by

Andrea Varsori, Strife’s Editor-in-Chief discusses with Benedetto della Vedova, the Italian Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs (Credit Image: Benedetto della Vedova’s staff)

Benedetto Della Vedova è Sottosegretario di Stato agli Affari Esteri e alla Cooperazione Internazionale dal 28 febbraio 2014, nei governi di Matteo Renzi e Paolo Gentiloni; è Senatore della Repubblica dal 2013. È attualmente candidato per la lista pro-europeista “+Europa”, assieme all’ex-ministro agli Esteri Emma Bonino, per il collegio uninominale di Prato. Andrea Varsori, Editor-in-chief di Strife, gli ha parlato al King’s College, dove della Vedova ha partecipato al dibattito “The Road towards the United States of Europe”, organizzato dalla King’s Italian Society. Nell’intervista, si è discusso delle future prospettive dell’Unione Europea, delle sue divisioni interne, e della posizione italiana riguardo a Brexit.

 

AV: Col 2017, ci siamo lasciati alle spalle quattro grandi elezioni nazionali: Paesi Bassi, Francia, Germania, Austria. Lei pensa che l’UE ne sia uscita più forte?

BDV: Sicuramente sì. È uscita più forte soprattutto dalle elezioni francesi. Vorrei sottolineare, però, che si tratta di vittoria in una battaglia, magari quella principale, ma non nella guerra. E questa guerra consiste in uno scontro politico sostanziale: quello tra i fautori dell’apertura e i fautori di varie modalità di chiusura. A questo proposito, le elezioni austriache ci hanno dimostrato che lo scontro non è finito. Poteva sembrare, all’inizio, che la vittoria di Van der Bellen lasciasse ben sperare per un esito a favore dell’Europa. Alle ultime elezioni politiche, però, l’ÖVP di Sebastian Kurz ha vinto e ha formato un governo che ha come azionista di primaria importanza i nazionalisti dell’FPÖ. La partita, dunque, non è chiusa.

AV: In questo contesto, allora, da cosa può passare un eventuale rilancio dell’integrazione europea? Forse da una decisiva riforma di un settore dell’Unione?

BDV: In realtà credo che a contare di più siano le elezioni. Con tutti i difetti che possono avere. Dobbiamo tenere conto di come si vota in Polonia, in Austria, in Francia, dove l’esito è stato decisivo, e ovviamente in Italia, dove c’è da avere preoccupazione. Soprattutto, dobbiamo accettare il fatto che l’Unione Europea sia oggetto delle campagne elettorali nazionali. Da un lato, è oggetto di critiche da parte delle varie narrative nazionaliste. La necessità è quella di costruire una contro-narrativa efficace, soprattutto sul piano politico e simbolico.

AV: Lei vede degli esempi di questa contro-narrativa in questo momento in Europa?

BDV: Sicuramente la campagna elettorale di Macron è uno di questi. Soprattutto, il presidente francese ha continuato a dire le stesse cose anche dopo essere stato eletto, ad esempio nel discorso che ha fatto alla Sorbona. Macron ha vinto proprio perché ha affrontato direttamente il nazionalismo, sostenendo, contro la vulgata comune, la necessità di costruire una sovranità condivisa, l’unico tipo possibile di sovranità.

AV: Sicuramente una mossa controversa. Una parte consistente dei cittadini europei probabilmente vede l’espressione “sovranità condivisa” come un controsenso.

BDV: In questo, penso che la responsabilità decisiva nella diffusione di questa idea sia delle leadership politiche. Spesso, hanno deciso di cavalcare l’emotività, nella falsa convinzione che una tale mossa potesse pagare ben al di là del voto. Così spesso non è stato, ma le idee propagandate in campagna elettorale sono rimaste e hanno attecchito tra i votanti. Brexit ne è un esempio.

 

Benedetto Della Vedova has been Italian undersecretary for Foreign Affairs since February 2014 (Credit Image: ANSA)

AV: Parlando di Brexit, lei cosa pensa dello stato attuale dei negoziati tra Gran Bretagna e Unione Europea?

BDV: Trovo molto positivo l’atteggiamento tenuto dall’Unione Europea sinora. Per ora, a Bruxelles ci si è mossi senza prestare il fianco a troppe divisioni interne. Ovviamente, all’interno dell’Unione le posizioni sono differenziate tra diversi Paesi. Nonostante questo, la posizione coesa dell’Unione nel negoziato è rispettata da tutti. Il punto della questione, in realtà, è il Regno Unito. È Londra che deve decidere che obiettivo vuole raggiungere. Su un continuum che va dal Canada alla Norvegia, il Regno Unito deve decidere dove posizionarsi.

AV: L’Italia ha un esito preferito dei negoziati in corso sulla Brexit?

BDV: Io le posso dire quale esito preferirei io. Personalmente, io vorrei che i negoziati sulla Brexit finissero in modo da lasciare spazio e modalità per un ripensamento. Questo ripensamento può avvenire con una modalità uguale e una decisione contraria a quella avvenuta nel giugno 2016. Sono convinto che una grande democrazia come quella britannica possa benissimo ritornare sui propri passi.

AV: In questo contesto, la posizione dell’Italia, soprattutto nella stampa domestica, è spesso descritta come simpatetica alle istanze britanniche nel negoziato. Lei è d’accordo con questa visione?

BDV: Questa impressione può essere adeguata per il presente governo. Il Primo Ministro Gentiloni è sicuramente molto friendly nei confronti di Londra - ed è giusto così. Personalmente, sono convinto che il rapporto tra Italia e Regno Unito debba essere una amicizia nella franchezza. La franchezza nei rapporti reciproci non deve impedire, ma anzi può aiutare la collaborazione tra i due Paesi. Il mio sogno, in realtà, è quello di impostare delle modalità per ottenere un esito diverso dall’uscita del Regno Unito dall’Unione. Detto questo, ha ragione chi dice che Brexit is Brexit: è una cosa seria, di portata storica, che è impossibile ignorare. Sicuramente, dopo il referendum non è possibile avere del business as usual. La questione fondamentale che va riaffermata in questo momento in Europa, nell’ambito dei negoziati su Brexit ma non solo, è che il mercato unico europeo, i suoi flussi e i suoi benefici non sopravvivrebbero alla fine dell’integrazione politica. Non è possibile immaginare un vero single market senza un complesso di istituzioni che lo governi: integrazione economica e politica si sostengono a vicenda. Per esse, vale la formula latina simul stabunt, simul cadent. Questo va ribadito, ovviamente, per combattere il nazionalismo, che è un nemico sia per l’integrazione politica, sia per quella economica, dato che spesso implica il protezionismo. Ma andrebbe ribadito anche ai Paesi dell’Est.

AV: A questo proposito, come affrontare le posizioni più scettiche di certi Paesi dell’Europa Centrale, come quelli del Gruppo di Visegrád (Polonia, Ungheria, Cechia, Slovacchia)?

BDV: Quello con i Paesi dell’Europa Centrale è uno scontro politico da affrontare in termini politici. Ovviamente, all’interno dell’Unione tutti i Paesi sono in condizione di fare una scelta riguardo al tipo di politiche che essi preferiscono condurre internamente. Però il punto che va chiarito è che l’appartenenza al mercato unico implica una condivisione totale dei diritti, ma anche dei doveri e delle responsabilità che ne conseguono. Da questo punto di vista, è inammissibile che certi Paesi si siano rifiutati di partecipare alla condivisione dei migranti. Le nazioni dell’Europa Centrale ricevono, giustamente, fondi strutturali dall’Unione che le hanno aiutate e le stanno aiutando a raggiungere livelli di sviluppo economico comparabili a quelli dell’Europa Occidentale. Per i fondi strutturali, l’Italia è un contributore netto. Beneficiare di voci di bilancio europee quali le politiche di sviluppo strutturale, però, significa anche dover prender parte agli sforzi comuni dell’Unione, inclusa l’accoglienza di migranti. Le due cose si accompagnano: accettare una significa accettare anche l’altra.

 

This article has been translated in Italian by Andrea Varsori. The English version is available here

Images Sources

Feature image: here (credit image: ANSA)

Image 1: Picture taken by Mr Benedetto Della Vedova’s staff during the interview

Strife Interview – Tom Keatinge (RUSI) on Financial Intelligence

by

 

The issue of terrorism financing has become a major international concern in the past few years. For instance, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the US President George W. Bush decided to target finances, and therefore issued Executive Order 13224. Similarly, the November 2015 Paris Attacks have resulted in further efforts to targeting terrorism financing, such as the UNSCR Resolution 2253.

Strife’s William Moray discusses these issues, and others related to financial crime, with Tom Keatinge. Mr Keatinge is the Director of the Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies at RUSI, and an Alumnus of King’s College London, where he read an MA in Intelligence & International Security. He advocates the importance of Financial Intelligence (FININT) and argues in favour of shifting the international community’s approach from solely focusing on ‘attempting to stop terrorists’ finances’ to ‘using finance to stop terrorists’.

All enquiries as to this article’s content should be sent to Strife Blog.

 

Tom Keatinge is the Director of the Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies at RUSI

WM – What is financial intelligence? What purpose does it hold?

TK – The financial sector produces a vast amount of data. This information is owned by the private sector, and is generally not shared with the public sector, i.e. the security authorities. There are mechanisms, such as suspicious transaction reporting, that require the private sector to share this information with governmental authorities. However, a considerable amount of financial information is never used by the authorities, because it was never shared with them in the first place, and so effectively, it is thrown away.

So, the question is, can a more intelligent use of that broad information collected by the financial institutions be used? Can we create mechanisms that can allow the security authorities to access such data, as they can for example with mobile phone companies? If you just think about your own use of your ATM card, or you credit card, and so on, it tells you a huge amount about yourself. It generates a huge amount of information, and arguably intelligence about who you are, what you do, or who are you connected with.

We feel very strongly, here at the Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies, that we need to do more to use this vast amount of bulk information that financial institutions generate, just as we use the bulk information that internet service providers and mobile companies produce.

 

WM – How could this information be used in counter-terrorism (CT)?

TK – In a CT effort, financial intelligence has proven to be very effective at accelerating the ability of the security authorities to develop networks. There tends to be a reason for people paying money to one another, as they tend to be subsequently connected. That can help you identify not just who is connected to whom, but also how the balance of power lies, who might be the leader, or where have these people travelled together. The point is that the vast quantity of situational information that can be generated from financial transactions opens a similarly significant number of networks and facilitates generating further leads to investigate.

From a CT perspective, we obviously want to have every opportunity to identify actors who are planning attacks. For example, regarding the London Bridge attack: who are the perpetrators connected to? Of course, not everyone they have financial relations with will be terrorists or terrorist-related. However, there might be more people worth watching more closely, and those connections are sometimes easier to identify in this day and age through financial means than through communication means - communications data is often encrypted nowadays, whereas financial connections are not encrypted, because at the beginning and the end are banks, and banks are legally required to share their suspicions and to share data when requested with the authorities.

 

Eight people were killed and 48 injured during the June 2017 London Bridge attack (Credit Image: Dominic Lipinski / PA Wire)

 

WM – So financial intelligence would not just help in a terrorist investigation, it might also help in the prevention of attacks?

TK – I am very cautious to say that financial intelligence is somehow a silver bullet. I would not suggest that. What I would suggest is that it adds an additional, extremely valuable dimension to the picture that the authorities can create, when undertaking CT operations. There may well be information, as well as connections and activities that are not exposed by CCTV cameras or by communications data, but that are revealed by financial intelligence.

 

WM – Isn’t there a risk here to data privacy / data collection?

TK – Historically, the relationship between the authorities and banks was founded inbank secrecy and privacy. For instance, the authorities told the banks ‘We trust you to manage your data, to look after your data. If you see anything suspicious, please let us know’. In other words, the authorities respected bank secrecy. Yet, over the years, this trust has declined; banks have proven – either wittingly or otherwise – to facilitate money laundering, tax evasion, and so on. Therefore, bank secrecy is perhaps not as sacrosanct as it used to be. What we clearly need to be cognisant of is that banks hold a huge amount of personal data on all of us, and that data needs to be used responsibly. People got very concerned about the kind of access that the authorities might have to communications data over recent years; consider amongst other things, the reaction to the Snowden leaks. We need to make sure that we do not fall into the same trap with financial data, that privacy is protected, and subsequently that there are the right protections on access that the authorities can have to our financial data.

In an extreme situation, just like the case of Apple with the iPhone and the San Bernardino shooting, you may find that some banks might say ‘You customers can trust me, I am going to be the Apple bank, I will only provide the authorities with the information I am legally required to. And I am not going to allow access to any additional information on a voluntary basis’.

So I think there is an important need for a debate about privacy and financial intelligence to be taking place now, before we end up in a situation where people discover their data is being used for CT purposes without them really realising what is going on.

 

WM – I suppose that you are in touch with various institutions such as banks to discuss financial intelligence. What is their reaction?

TK – When dealing with a financial institution, I think it is important to divide it into two parts.

On the one hand, you have those who are responsible for financial crime and compliance, who often have a law enforcement or a security background, and completely understand the power of data, and indeed perhaps even that of financial intelligence.

On the other hand, you have staff who are doing the business on the trading floor, in the branches and so on; they of course can feel a long way away from the financial crime compliance department and thus are less likely to understand the value of financial intelligence; it’s not part of their job

There is also a public relations issue in all of this: the banks obviously have had very bad press and PR in recent years; and thus, demonstrating that you as a financial institution are either contributing to the disruption of human trafficking, of wildlife trade, or contributing to CT efforts, is obviously a positive message to deliver to your customers.

I do not want to sound completely cynical, the financial institutions clearly do see the importance of doing this from a social and security perspective. But there is also an obvious desire to show that they are, as one of the banks has it as its tagline, ‘here for good’, and that they are not just here for profit.

 

WM – Moving on to the state perspective, who is more likely to be involved? The intelligence community and/or law-enforcement agencies?

TK – There are different forms of information sharing models around the world.

In the UK, the information sharing partnership is called the Joint Money Laundering Intelligence Task Force. It is a partnership between the private sector and the public sector that is effectively run by the National Crime Agency. So here, we are not talking about security authorities, but law enforcement. There is a working group which looks specifically at terrorism financing but again, these initiatives are run by law enforcement, not by the security authorities.

But clearly information sharing goes beyond CT alone. The process of sharing information aims to identify and disrupt a range of different kinds of financial crimes, not just terrorist financing. Different countries have different priorities: in the UK, these are human trafficking, trade based money laundering, corruption, terrorism financing. In Hong-Kong, they have a Fraud and Money Laundering Intelligence Taskforce, as fraud is one of their big focuses.

In other words, the sharing of information underpins tackling threats that are particular to each individual country, not just terrorism.

 

WM – What are your views on the impact financial intelligence, information sharing might have on intelligence cooperation?

TK – One of the great frustrations a financial institution has is that it holds information in different countries, and yet it is often legally unable to get the benefit of bringing that information together and looking at it holistically. And even in the cases banks can do that, if they succeed in creating a complete picture out of all this information, the law often restricts them to only give a slice of the picture to the relevant country. For instance, if they draw on information from the UAE, from Singapore, from the UK, and from Mexico, they cannot give the whole picture to each country, they have to give just the Mexican slice to the Mexicans, the UAE slice to the Emiratis, and so on.

The financial sector has tremendous difficulties with cross-border information sharing. At the same time, I have to say that the financial sector has more ability to get a transnational global picture with its analysis than countries do. Therefore, I think there is an opportunity for financial institutions to facilitate the creation of global threat pictures, where sometimes governments are more restricted on what they can and cannot share. I am thinking about cases where banks simultaneously operate in Five Eye countries and in African or South-East Asian states, such countries where information sharing with Five Eyes is probably zero. Whereas the banks have a pretty good picture of the financial flows and thus potentially have a pretty good picture of some of the emerging threats that might be developing. The question then is how do they use that information? Can they help governments overcome some of these cross-border information-sharing challenges? Again, that brings us back to the issues of data privacy, data collection; we should not be using the financial sector as a back door to circumvent the protections and procedures imposed on the ability of states to share information.

 

Image Source:

Featured Image: https://dg8r3imuwhpev.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/Best-Internet-Concept-of-global-business-from-concepts-series.jpg

Image 1: https://terrordiaries.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/tom-keatinge.jpg

Image 2: https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/terror-attacks-in-london-leave-at-least-two-dead-35786080.html

Strife Interview - Defence Journalist Jean-Dominique Merchet on the French intelligence reforms

by

Palais de l’Elysée, home of the President of the Republic (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

The French presidential elections are due to take place in a few weeks. They will have a significant impact on the short-term future of this country. The first round will be held on 23 April 2017 and the second round on 7 May 2017. The future Head of State will have to deal with several topics, including the terrorist threats, a hypothetical reform of the intelligence machinery, as well as the future of the European Union (EU).

Strife’s William Moray discusses these issues with defence journalist Jean-Dominique Merchet [@jdomerchet]. Mr Merchet is a journalist for the daily newspaper L’Opinion and he publishes Secret Defense – a professional blog. An expert in defence, strategy, and security issues, he is an alumni of the Institut des hautes études de défense nationale (Institute of Advanced Studies in National Defence), a public Academic institution dedicated to research and education in defence-related matters. All enquiries as to this article’s content should be sent to the Strife Blog.

WM – You recently wrote an article about some potential French intelligence reforms the future President of the Republic may have to decide upon. Which of these reforms – if any – do you think should constitute a priority?

JDM – The subject of the utmost importance is the nomination of a new ‘DGSE’ (Director-General of the Foreign Security). The need is strong, as Bernard Bajolet will be tending his resignation a fortnight after the presidential election.

In general, I would personally argue on the one hand in favour of maintaining the Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure (DGSE, ‘Directorate-General for Foreign Security’, the foreign intelligence agency) as it is. This organisation is a French particularity, known as an ‘integrated service’ in the sense that it combines different activities. Hence, in equivalent UK terms, with regards to covert operations, the DGSE combines the activities of MI6, the GCHQ and some activities of the SAS. I believe this system is not a bad one, it is efficient. Conversely, some people would like to dismantle the agency. For instance, the military part – i.e. the Service Action, Action Service, the division in charge of covert action – would be reassigned to the Commandement des Opérations Spéciales (COS, ‘Special Operations Command’, similar to USSOCOM). Another possibility would be to establish an equivalent of the NSA which would oversee SIGINT. However, a public servant well aware of this topic has recently suggested that ‘we must make improvements, but this is as simple as changing the parts in a moving car’. I think this sums it up accurately; thus, there is no need to change anything in the DGSE.

What does not work well on the other hand is the Ministry of the Interior (i.e. the Home Office), which in France controls the Direction Générale de la Sécurité Intérieure (DGSI, ‘General-Directorate for Domestic Security’, the domestic intelligence agency, which in France is under the Ministry of the Interior’s supervision). Again, this is strictly my own view, as a long-standing observer of such matters. The Ministry still functions more or less as it did in the early 20th Century, with regards to both law enforcement and domestic intelligence. To this extent, inter-service competition between police and prefets (representative of the state in local governments) remains a major characteristic. Also, the distinction between the National Police and the Paris Police Prefecture is another example of poor management, as this distinction does not make much sense. All things considered, the DGSI is a law-enforcement agency, not a domestic intelligence agency, unlike what the politicians claimed when it was established. Therefore, if there is truly a need for modernisation, it should be directed at the Ministry of Interior. In comparison, the Ministry of Defence – which supervises the DGSE – has considerably modernised in recent years.

WM – In regards to the recent controversy following the publication of the book “Un President ne devrait pas dire cela” was President Francois Hollande right to publish classified information regarding clandestine operations, more particularly ‘opérations homo’?

JDM – He was very wrong to do so. The book’s title speaks for itself, there are certain things the President should not talk about. In fact, I would argue this book finished Hollande of, as he renounced standing for re-election. In other words, this event was the final step of a long and tortuous road. However, the real problem is rather that Hollande and other decision-makers have, and continue to, abuse this military-like attitude, an attitude which I find very disagreeable. I am thinking of the vocabulary which is being used, such as ‘we are at war’. Ideally, one should continue as before whilst talking about it less. In the end, it is not up to politicians to feed the fantasy.

WM – How come the only response the French government has come up with towards the terrorist threats merely consists in the state of emergency, and not a proper strategy? This measure, similar to martial law and therefore intended to be temporary, has been ongoing for over a year (since the Paris attacks in November 2015) and has been extended on five occasions.

JDM – I would not be so categorical as to the absence of a strategy. To declare the state of emergency means to raise the level of alert up to a maximum. From there onwards, diminishing the level of alert becomes extremely hazardous, because it would be political suicide. The point is that the state of emergency is a PR operation; as with any PR operation, it is difficult to go back. For instance, I myself believe that the deployment of military personnel in the streets is of limited use. However, once a decision has been made, it is very difficult to reverse that decision. Nonetheless, the intelligence services, the anti-terrorist units and the police do their job: they prevent terrorist attacks from happening and dismantle terror networks. Nevertheless, it is important to find rules that dovetail well with the daily lives of the citizens.

WM – Yet, France’s response fails to include long-term measures (such as the Counter-Terrorism Strategy (CONTEST) in the UK). Why is that?

JDM – There is no perfect solution to the terrorist threat. Once a cycle of terrorist violence has been initiated, it is difficult to find a way out of it. Long-term solutions must indeed be found such as a means to tackle radicalisation, as well as considering the effects of foreign policy. A brainstorming process is required and improvements can always be found. However, an efficient antiterrorism policy also requires protective – and thus short-term oriented – measures. Short term and long term are not mutually exclusive. Coming up with criticism is one thing, such criticism is a necessity in a democratic system, however, snap judgments are another. You mentioned the United Kingdom. The British were lucky enough not to have suffered any terrorist attack lately, unlike France or Germany. I am not suggesting that the French approach is perfect, but who can claim to have the perfect strategy? The struggle against terrorism is an imprecise science.

French Soldiers patrolling near the Eiffel Tower (Credit: AFP - Gonzalo Fuentes)

WM – France will remain the only nuclear power and a UNSC permanent member of the EU in the aftermath of Brexit. Will Paris thus have increased responsibilities in terms of EU defence as well as diplomacy?

JDM – Not really, in the sense that the issue at stake is power. In that sense, the UK will always have an important role to play in the continent. After all, Great-Britain is a fundamental pillar of NATO. As Theresa May rightly pointed out, ‘the British people have voted to leave the EU, but they did not vote to leave Europe’. I do believe moreover that Brexit needs to be put in perspective, as the UK did not play a great role in either EU integrated defence or external security. Similarly, Brexit will not damage cooperation in regard to anti-terrorism, as intelligence sharing with France is the product of bilateral agreements. Conversely, I am quite sceptical about whether the departure of the UK from the EU will result in an acceleration of the work on the subjects of diplomacy and common defence.

In short, I really doubt that Brexit will cause much of an impact one way or another and thus, the effects this will have on France should be minimal. Brexit is not good for the international order, neither symbolically nor for the image it creates; the practical effects, however, will be limited.

WM – In the wake of the US national election hacks and information leaks during the campaign by several state and non-state actors, how well-equipped is French intelligence to respond to such similar threats - considering that the French presidential and legislative elections are a few months away?

JDM – Who is capable of successfully dealing with a massive cyberattack? Currently, in my view, nobody has this capacity on a large scale.

France is fully aware of the problem and has means of defending itself. The Conseil de défense et de sécurité nationale (Defence and national security council) met on Wednesday 1st of March, and this topic was discussed on that occasion. The media regularly mentions this topic, if only to educate the public and raise awareness. For instance, the expression ‘cyberattack’ has different layers. First, it can mean the propaganda being spread by social media. This is also a matter of freedom of speech. The fact that these rumours originate from sources close to the Kremlin (e.g. RT, Sputnik) is not the problem; this is ‘soft power’, and many Western powers similarly make use of it. The West no longer has the monopoly of either power or legitimacy, both are heavily contested. No, the real issue at stake here is that a fraction of the public opinion here in France, believe these ‘trolls’ spread by pro-governmental Russian media. The second layer is the attack which targets and takes down a website. Here again, some defensive measures do exist. Finally, the third layer, i.e.the actual hacking is the theft of confidential data for a specific purpose. There has not – yet – been such a case in France, similar to Wikileaks; however, it might very well happen.

The important thing when it comes to cyberattack and hacking is to stick with facts instead of adopting a fantasy-like approach. For instance, the public has never complained about Wikileaks. A final point, the French electoral system has a very limited use of electronic votes; the French living abroad are the only small portion of the electorate which can vote electronically and only for the parliamentary elections. Therefore, there cannot be any hacking, the ultimate choice is that of the French people. Which brings us back to the real problem at stake, the fact that a segment of the public believes the trolls of the Russian media.

(Following publication of this interview, the French government has suspended this electronic vote on Friday 3rd March, in order to prevent hacking).

This article was translated from French by Strife’s BA Representative William Moray. You can find the French version here.

Image 1 Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paris_-_palais_de_l’%C3%89lys%C3%A9e_-_cour_05.JPG

Image 2 Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/6009862-3×2-940×627.jpg

Feature image source: http://www.lopinion.fr/blog/secret-defense

Entretien avec Jean-Dominique Merchet sur les Réformes du Renseignement en France

by

La France vivra dans quelques semaines des élections présidentielles dont l’enjeu est de taille pour l’avenir immédiat du pays. De nombreux dossiers attendent le futur chef de l’Etat, parmi lesquels la vague de terrorisme, une hypothétique réforme du renseignement, ou encore l’avenir de la construction européenne.

William Moray, de Strife, s’entretient avec Jean-Dominique Merchet (@jdomerchet) pour évoquer l’ensemble de ces sujets. M. Merchet est journaliste au quotidien L’Opinion et anime le blog Secret Défense depuis 2007. Expert reconnu en matière de défense, de sécurité et de stratégie, il est également auditeur de l’Institut des hautes études de défense nationale (IHEDN). Pour toute demande relative à cet article, merci de vous adresser à la rédaction de Strife Journal & Blog.

WM – Vous avez récemment écrit un article listant les potentielles réformes du renseignement, réformes sur lesquelles le futur Président de la République devra se pencher selon vous. Laquelle (ou lesquelles) de ces réformes devrait avoir être prioritaire?

JDM – Le point qui me parait être le plus important et le plus urgent est la nomination d’un nouveau directeur général de la Sécurité extérieure (DGSE). Il y a là une contrainte forte, dans la mesure où Bernard Bajolet quittera ses fonctions quinze jours après l’élection présidentielle.

Plus globalement, mon opinion personnelle est qu’il ne faut pas trop toucher à la Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure (DGSE, le service français de renseignement extérieur). Cette dernière est une spécificité française, un service « intégré », c’est-à-dire qu’elle rassemble divers services. En comparaison avec la Grande-Bretagne, la DGSE regroupe les services du MI6, du GCHQ ainsi qu’une partie des activités des SAS. Je pense que ce n’est pas un mauvais système, qu’il fonctionne bien. Certaines personnes aimeraient ‘casser la maison’, soit pour en retirer les activités militaires (le Service Action passerait ainsi aux mains du Commandement des Opérations Spéciales, le COS), soit pour réorganiser le service technique au sein d’une nouvelle agence, qui serait une NSA à la française. Pour autant, un haut fonctionnaire très impliqué dans ce dossier a récemment suggéré que : « on doit améliorer les choses, mais c’est aussi simple que de changer les pièces d’une voiture en train de rouler ». La formule me parait très raisonnable. Je ne crois donc pas qu’il y ait lieu à transformer la DGSE.

Ce qui ne va pas bien en revanche, c’est le ministère de l’Intérieur, qui en France chapeaute la Direction Générale de la Sécurité Intérieure (DGSI, le service français de renseignement intérieur). DGSI). Encore une fois, je parle strictement en mon nom propre, en tant qu’observateur attentif de longue date. Ce ministère fonctionne toujours plus ou moins de la même façon qu’au début du 20e siècle, s’agissant aussi bien de la police que du renseignement intérieur. A ce titre, il est toujours marqué par le poids des chapelles qui le composent, à savoir les préfets, la police nationale, etc. La distinction entre la préfecture de police de Paris et la Police Nationale est un autre exemple du problème, cette séparation n’a que peu de sens. Du reste, la DGSI est un service de police au fond et non une agence de renseignement intérieur, contrairement aux affirmations des politiques à sa création. Si modernisation il doit y avoir, ce serait donc davantage au niveau de l’Intérieur. A titre de comparaison, le ministère de la Défense (qui dirige la DGSE) s’est considérablement modernisé.

WM – Pourriez-vous brièvement revenir sur la polémique née de la publication du livre « Un Président ne devrait pas dire cela » ? Le Président Hollande a-t-il eu tort de rendre publiques des informations classées ‘secret défense’ au sujet des opérations spéciales, plus particulièrement des ‘opérations Homo’ ?

JDM – Oui, il a eu tort, évidemment. Comme l’énonce le titre de ce livre, François Hollande n’aurait pas dû faire cela. Je pense d’ailleurs que cet ouvrage l’a achevé, puisqu’il n’a pas pu se représenter. En d’autres termes, cet épisode aura été la dernière étape de son chemin de croix. Le vrai problème toutefois est qu’Hollande et les gouvernants dans leur ensemble ont usé et abuse de cette posture militaire, posture que je trouve très désagréable. J’entends par là le langage qui consiste à dire entre autres choses « on est en guerre ». Dans l’idéal, il faudrait en dire moins tout en en faisant autant. In fine, ce n’est pas aux politiques de nourrir les fantasmes.

WM – Comment se fait-il que l’unique réponse trouvée à ce jour par le gouvernement a la menace terroriste consiste en l’état d’urgence, à défaut d’une stratégie ? Cette mesure, qui par essence même, se veut temporaire et répondre à des circonstances exceptionnelles, a été prolongée a pas moins de cinq reprises depuis son instauration, au lendemain des attentats de Paris.

JDM – Je ne serais pas aussi catégorique quant à l’absence d’une stratégie. L’instauration de l’état d’urgence signifie élever l’état d’alerte au maximum. Il est impossible dès lors de baisser le niveau d’alerte car un tel geste constituerait un suicide politique. En d’autres termes, l’état d’urgence est une opération de communication politique ; le problème est que comme avec toute mesure de communication politique, le retour en arrière est difficile. Par exemple, j’estime personnellement que déployer l’armée dans les rues (dans le cadre du plan Vigipirate) ne sert pas à grand-chose, mais une fois que la mesure est prise, il est très difficile de revenir en arrière. Les services de renseignement, la police font leur travail, empêchent les attentats, dénouent les réseaux. Bien entendu, il importe de trouver des règles de vie ordinaire.

WM – Pourquoi la France est-elle cependant incapable de mettre en place une stratégie avec des mesures sur le long terme, à l’image de CONTEST au Royaume-Uni ?

Personne n’a la solution miracle contre le terrorisme. Une fois engage dans un cycle de terrorisme, on ne va pas s’en sortir comme ça. Il faut penser sur le long terme, bien entendu, ce qui implique trouver une solution contre la radicalisation, ainsi que tenir compte des effets de la politique étrangère. Une réflexion devrait être menée sur ces sujets et bien d’autres, et des améliorations sont toujours possibles. Pour autant, l’effort contre le terrorisme requiert aussi des mesures de protection immédiates, donc focalisées sur le court terme. L’un n’exclut pas l’autre. Il est important d’émettre des critiques, d’autant plus dans le cadre d’un état de droit, pour autant, j’estime qu’il est tout aussi crucial d’éviter les jugements à l’emporte-pièce. Vous évoquez l’exemple du Royaume-Uni ; les Britanniques ont eu la chance d’avoir été ces derniers temps moins touchés que la France ou l’Allemagne. Cependant, la France avait précédemment été épargnée pendant vingt ans tandis que l’on pointait du doigt la politique de Londres jugée trop laxiste à l’encontre des imams (et autres prêcheurs) radicaux. Bien entendu, il y a des choses qui ne marchent pas bien en France ; mais au fond, qui a la bonne stratégie ? La lutte contre le terrorisme n’est pas une science exacte.

Un soldat en patrouille sur l’esplanade du Trocadéro, haut-lieu touristique de Paris face à la Tour Eiffel. Crédit photo : AFP / Gonzalo Fuentes

WM – A l’issue du Brexit, la France restera l’unique Etat membre de l’UE disposant de l’arme nucléaire et disposant d’un siège permanent au Conseil de Sécurité de l’ONU. Cette situation place-t-elle Paris face à des responsabilités accrues en matière de politique extérieure ou de défense européenne ?

JDM – Non, pas tellement, dans la mesure où il est question de puissance. A ce titre, les Britanniques auront toujours un rôle important à jouer en sur le continent européen. Nous parlons après tout d’un Etat qui est un pilier de l’OTAN. Comme le soulignait fort justement Theresa May, « les Britanniques ont fait le choix de quitter l’UE mais pas de quitter l’Europe ». Du reste, je pense que l’impact auquel vous faites allusion est à relativiser : le Royaume-Uni ne jouait qu’un rôle limité au sein de l’UE en matière de défense et de sécurité extérieure. La coopération anti-terroriste ne sera pas non plus affectée, puisque les échanges de renseignement, notamment avec la France, ont lieu dans le cadre d’accords bilatéraux. A l’inverse, je ne suis pas non plus convaincu que le départ des Britanniques aura pour effet d’accélérer ces chantiers de diplomatie et de défense commune.

En résumé, je ne pense pas que le retrait de Londres aura grand impact sur l’UE dans un sens comme dans l’autre, et par conséquent les effets sur la France seront minimes. Le Brexit n’est pas bon pour l’ordre international, en termes de symbole et d’image. Mais d’un point de vue matériel, les effets seront limités.

WM – Eu égard aux nombreuses allégations de piratage informatique (émanant d’Etats ou d’autres entités) visant à perturber les récentes élections américaines, les services de renseignement français sont-ils aptes à faire face à une telle menace ? Les échéances électorales (présidentielles et législatives) approchent à grand pas.

JDM – Qui est capable de faire face à une cyber-attaque massive ? Je pense sincèrement que personne ne le peut à l’heure actuelle, pas sur une telle échelle (massive).

Toutefois, la France a conscience du problème et a des moyens pour se défendre. Une réunion du Conseil de défense et de sécurité nationale a eu lieu à l’Elysée le mercredi 1er Mars au cours duquel la question a été évoquée. Ce sujet est régulièrement abordé dans les médias, ne serait-ce que parce qu’il importe de sensibiliser le public a la réalité du problème. Par exemple, le terme ‘cyberattaque’ regroupe plusieurs niveaux. D’abord, les réseaux sociaux. Il s’agit ici de propagande, mais nous sommes aussi dans le cadre de la liberté d’expression. Le souci n’est pas tant que ces rumeurs proviennent de sources proches du Kremlin (RT ou Sputnik). Au fond, ce dont on parle, c’est de « soft power », or nombre de puissances occidentales (USA) font de même. Les Occidentaux n’ont aujourd’hui plus le monopole de la puissance et de la légitimité, les deux sont contestés. Non, le problème tient plutôt au fait qu’une partie de l’opinion publique ici, en France, souscrive à ces ‘trolls’ diffuses par les médias russes pro-gouvernementaux. Le second niveau est celui des attaques informatiques qui peuvent bloquer les sites. Encore une fois, il existe des moyens d’y parer, dans la mesure du possible. Enfin, le dernier niveau, le vrai piratage, est le vol de documents confidentiels (données et autres) dans un but précis. En France, nous n’avons pas – encore ? – eu de fuite à l’image de l’affaire Wikileaks, mais cela peut arriver.

Il importe de ne pas se faire une représentation fantasmatique du piratage informatique, au contraire, avoir une approche réaliste et concrète. Par exemple, le public ne s’est jamais plaint de Wikileaks. Par ailleurs, n’oubliez pas que le vote électronique n’a qu’un rôle extrêmement limité dans le système électoral français ; seuls les Français de l’étranger peuvent y avoir recours et dans le seul cadre des élections législatives. Au final, c’est bel et bien l’électorat qui décide, puisque le piratage du scrutin n’est pas possible. Le problème encore une fois est qu’une partie de cet électorat adhère aux trolls de la presse russe.

Depuis cette interview, le gouvernement a annoncé Vendredi 3 mars la suspension du vote électronique, par précaution pour éviter tout risque de piratage.

Cet article a été traduit en français par William Moray. Vous pouvez trouver la version anglaise ici.

Feature image source: http://www.lopinion.fr/blog/secret-defense

Image 1 Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paris_-_palais_de_l’%C3%89lys%C3%A9e_-_cour_05.JPG

Image 2 Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/6009862-3×2-940×627.jpg

Strife Interview - Counterterrorism Expert on Daesh Communication Strategies

by

 

Since Daesh first declared the so-called ‘Islamist State Caliphate’ in mid-2014, their global communications strategy and online recruitment operations have caught most observers by surprise. The scope and seeming sophistication of their propaganda campaign soon came to represent the cornerstone of Daesh’s initial military triumphs and generated a certain a degree of alarm within western political and academic circles.

However, as the civil war in Syria now enters its sixth year and ISIS’ territorial presence across the region continues to recede, many are beginning to question the impact this has had on their messaging strategy. Strife’s Iona Allan talks to one of the leading Counterterrorism Expert (CE) in ISIS propaganda to discuss the current state of their communications strategy and the challenges facing global efforts to counter Daesh. The expert is referred to hereafter as CE. All names, titles, employers, and personal details have been withheld for security and safety reasons. All enquiries as to this article’s content should be sent to Strife Journal & Blog.

IA - How have Daesh communication strategies changed in recent months, particularly since the Mosul offensive? Has there been a notable shift in either the tone of their messaging strategy, the core theme of their message or their intended audience? Or do you see some continuity?

CE - I think what they have done is try and not focus on Mosul because it doesn’t fit into their original strategy and narrative. Either they don’t focus on it or they try to divert attention away from it. For example, in some of their magazines like Rumiyah, the current focus is a lot more on inspiring lone actor attacks and providing advice. The message is shifting attention away from what is transpiring in their so-called Caliphate, i.e. by trying to create this perception that regardless of whatever is happening on the ground in Iraq, Syria and Libya, they are still in charge and they are still strong. You can understand from a recruitment point of view why you would want to create that perception.

The other discernible trend in their propaganda is trying to blame outside powers for causing civilian deaths and casualties. Again, it is a diversionary tactic because there is quite a lot of evidence surrounding what they are doing in terms of execution or hiding amongst local civilians in eastern Mosul. In brief, one strand is the lone actor and the other is basically blaming others for what is happening.

IA - The prevailing preconception is that Daesh propaganda and recruitment are a sophisticated and well-disciplined operation. Do you feel that this is an accurate assessment? Or do you feel that the role of online recruitment in the growth and success of Daesh has been exaggerated?

CE - I think we tend to build up this sophistication. I’m not saying that they haven’t done well with their communications, but I’m always struck by why we are always so surprised that terrorist organisations operating in the 21st century digital age are using all the communications tools at their disposal. Especially if you think about the age group that they are recruiting from, and where their base support comes from, I’ve always been surprised about why we make such a big deal about their communications – it is to be expected. You can go back hundreds of years; people do use the communications tools at their disposal to advance their cause.

What I think has been very clever is where they have differentiated themselves from previous groups is that they have created a ‘call to action’ which requires someone to leave their bedroom whether they are tweeting or on Facebook. That, I think has been very clever. That is what I think is their USP. It is not enough just to support by ‘liking’ but there is an action that you need to take. The other thing - again my own observation - I think we have under-reported as an international community - is how they effectively use one-to-one contact. It is obvious that they use social media as the first point of contact; but if you speak to a lot of those who were contacted and who have now defected, or have become disillusioned by Daesh, they [say] quite a lot about the phone calls [and] about one-to-one contact. If you think about the way that states communicate to counter Daesh, that personalised approach is absent. I think this aspect hasn’t been reported enough. We therefore, attribute much of their work to the fact that they are on Twitter and produce lots of different communication.

IA - So perhaps it is a more targeted communications strategy than we tend to assume?

CE - Yes, they try to appeal to a very broad base, but then they narrow it down to a more personalised contact. And I think some people will say that what they have noticed has changed is the barrier to entry has become much lower, i.e. as Daesh’s position of strength has reduced, lost territory, fighters and finance etc., that in their communications they are really saying to anyone - ‘can you just need to commit something in our name no matter who you are’.

A member of the Syrian pro-government forces carries an Islamic State (IS) group flag as he stands on a street in the ancient city of Palmyra on March 27, 2016, after troops recaptured the city from IS jihadists._President Bashar al-Assad hailed the victory as an “important achievement” as his Russian counterpart and key backer Vladimir Putin congratulated Damascus for retaking the UNESCO world heritage site. / AFP PHOTO / STRSTR/AFP/Getty Images

 

IA - Can you explain a little about what counter- Daesh communications actually involves? What does counter-communications really mean? Many people may assume that counter- Daesh communications strategy simply means creating a ‘counter-narrative’, is there anything problematic about this idea?

CE - Yes, I don’t really like the word counter-narrative because I think it puts you always on the back foot and I think one of the things which Daesh has done very well is they have had a very clear call to action. In terms of counter-narrative, this is focused on the three different areas of their messaging - military success, Sunni supremacy and statehood.

The global narrative has changed from ‘look they are terrible and evil’, which is what terrorist organisations like- they thrive off that publicity to a focus on their failures. When attacks happened in Paris or in Nice, the fact that you have blanket coverage for days after days that is exactly what organisations like Daesh live for. Those countering Daesh focus less on what they thrive on and try to focus on exposing the reality behind their words.

There is quite a lot of research out there to say that counter-narratives in themselves don’t work, there needs to be an alternative. Speaking to a lot of people who work in the creative industry, advertising, marketing and PR, in their experiences of whatever campaigns they have worked on and whoever in the world it may be, having a positive call to action is very important. You need to be able to harness people around something. So just countering it won’t ever be enough by itself.

IA - It seems like one of the major dilemmas for counter-Daesh communications is determining what the most appropriate channels of communication are. Would you agree with this assessment? If so, what are the risks of using the government as an official channel of communication and what alternatives are available?

CE - I think there is a tension between your domestic public expecting you to do something and wanting to know what you are doing and recognising that governments aren’t best placed, because of the credibility factor to do that type of communicating. While it is important to show that there is a very broad alliance working against Daesh, it is also imperative to work at the grass roots level. That is, working with local voices on the ground (who are better placed than governments that are far removed) to communicate and to understand what resonates with those local audiences. There are a lot of voices who do not believe that Daesh is the solution in their community in Iraq or their community in Syria and those voices are being heard more and more at the moment. But only those communities are best placed to do that.

IA - So do you think you can observe more of such voices the further the conflict has gone on?

CE - Definitely. What we see in Iraq, where Facebook is much more popular than Twitter, there are a lot of campaigns which have started quite small, but you can see that they have just gone viral because those messages from Iraqis are resonating with other Iraqi fellow citizens. If you look at good communications practice, that makes absolute sense.

IA - So counter- communications also serves a domestic purpose?

CE - We should recognise the need for the domestic public to know what their government is doing to protect them and keep them safe. The problem with the military action is that it has so many negative connotations in the region – both recently and historically. So if you spend too much time talking about the military action, you actually also provide a channel for Daesh to say ‘haven’t we always told you..? it’s them and look at them killing innocent civilians.’ So in a way, it plays into their narrative.

Image 1 source: https://www.newss.co/2017/01/06/devastated-by-daesh-3000-year-old-city-nimrud-left-to-looters-in-northern-iraq/