It is Time To Create a European Intelligence Agency: A Step Towards Creating A Much-Needed International Intelligence Agency

We live in a world that is interconnected and interdependent in ways that it has never been before.  Human beings are moving from country to country in unprecedented numbers, both voluntarily thanks to the explosion in affordable means of travel and as refugees fleeing persecution, or economic migrants seeking a better life.  Advances in communications technology have made it possible to communicate instantaneously from from one end of the globe to the other.  Although these advances have enriched our lives in many ways, they have also made it possible for those animated by hate, prejudice, or unalloyed lust for power and glory to wreak havoc and destroy lives more easily.  Terrorist networks benefit from access to encrypted communications technology and freedom of movement to kill, maim, destroy and spread terror.

Despite the tremendous advances we have made in turning our world into a global village, one in which we are inextricably interconnected through global trade, communications, finance and travel, we are lagging behind in the creation of critical collective institutions that are necessary to serve our growing collective interests.  The events of the past few year have increasingly pointed to the need for an international intelligence agency that would serve the collective interests of the international community by providing accurate, timely, reliable and shared intelligence.  Questions such as whether Iraq still had a secret nuclear weapons program and a cache of weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq war, whether Iran was and is in fact trying to build a nuclear weapon, or the true extent of North Korea's nuclear activities, are all ones that could most effectively and reliably be answered if the world had such an agency.  The lack of such an agency serving humanity's collective need for security was palpably felt in Paris last weekend when the city and many innocent people in it became the target of six simultaneous terrorist attacks that by all accounts had been meticulously planned over a period of time.  

It is not too late: world leaders should now bend their efforts to creating a formalized, supranational intelligence system that integrates national intelligence capabilities and is responsible for gathering credible and timely intelligence for a reformed Security Council that is more representative of the people and nations of the world and whose mandate to preserve peace and security has been fleshed out and made more clear.  The existence of such a system would make it much harder for those intent on committing heinous acts that instill terror into the hearts of people to carry on their activities undetected. Moreover, the fact that such intelligence is shared, means that it is more likely to be trusted by the countries which it impacts, making it more likely that they would feel comfortable relying and acting upon it and doing so more swiftly and decisively.  It would also lead to greater unity in decisions made by the Security Council, which is, after all, the international agency tasked with maintaining peace in the world.

Europe can lead the way by creating a European-wide regional intelligence agency.   In the aftermath of last weekend's attacks in Paris the question that is being asked in some quarters is whether Europe's informal system of sharing intelligence is adequate to deal with the threats it is facing.  There is a call in some quarters for "some form of institutionalized sharing of electronic and human intelligence." Such action could serve as a first step along the road towards the creation of an international intelligence agency.  It could serve as a testing ground from which we could all learn how we might to do this successfully at a global level.  One valuable lesson such a step will hopefully  model is that it is possible to get nations to trust each other enough to be willing to share intelligence in a systematic and timely manner.  An even deeper lesson will likely be that ultimately such trust will come only when the nations involved are convinced and deeply understand that ceding a modicum of sovereignty by sharing intelligence is in their own best interests and will benefit them both individually and collectively in the face of collective threats like terrorism.  This was the fundamental and powerful lesson and operating principle upon which the foundations of what we now know as the European Union were based.

The Power of Unity -- A Formidable Tool for Peace and Security

Today, February 11, 2011, Egyptian protesters in Cairo's Tahrir Square, in Alexandria and in Suez got their wish: President Hosni Mubarak stepped down as president of Egypt after thirty years in power.

In following the media coverage of the historic events that have unfolded in Egypt over the past eighteen days, the most striking phenomenon has been the demonstration of unity amongst people of disparate backgrounds: the rich and the poor, the educated and the uneducated, secularists and Islamists, the young and the old and people of various political persuasions. This unity has manifested itself in three ways: unity of purpose, the ability to speak with one voice and unity of action. When coupled with a disciplined determination to keep the protests peaceful and avoid violence, the power of such unity has been phenomenal: it has begun to change the course of history both within Egypt and inevitably within the region.

The power that results from unity of purpose, action and voice is one that the international community would do well to ponder and to mindfully cultivate as it seeks effective tools to maintain and restore much-needed peace and security in the world.

It makes no difference whether the problem is caused by a bully in the form of an autocratic leader with whom the citizens of a country are contending, or whether it is caused by a bully in the shape of the government of an individual nation which threatens the peaceful equilibrium of all member nations of the world community; in order for the solutions to all such problems to be effective, they must be pursued in reliance on a spirit of absolute unity. Whether it is a president who has seized power in defiance of the constitutional requirements of his country, as in the case of Mr. Gbagbo of the Ivory Coast, a president whose autocratic rule has outlived its welcome as in the case of Mr. Mubarak, or a country that poses a threat to other countries through its illicit pursuit of weapons of mass destruction such as Iran or North Korea, any effective solution must have as its linchpin the principle of unity.

In the case of the Ivory Coast, the African Union and the the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) must continue to speak with one voice (with the continued backing of the EU, the UN and the rest of the international community) and act as one -- with collective force if necessary -- in order to be effective and set a good precedent for the rest of Africa. In the case of Iran and North Korea, it is high time for the international community to rise to its responsibility and clearly decide what it will do when a nation has been clearly shown to be flouting the international rules that prohibit the proliferation of nuclear weapons and is consequently threatening the peace of the world with its behavior. The consequences of such behavior must be clearly specified and agreed to by all nations, along with the circumstances in which they will be applied. Moreover, punishment must be meted out even-handedly to all who break the rules. Last, but not least, it is time to establish an international standing force that represents the international community and has the mandate to enforce its collective decisions.

It is not until the international community can both speak with one voice and back its voice up with unified action that peace will become a reality. As for Egypt, it is still not out of the woods: what remains to be seen is whether the people of Egypt can maintain their unity of purpose, voice and action as they go about collectively crafting the future of their country.

International Fuel Bank Is a Step in the Right Direction

This month, i.e. December 2010, the International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA) made history. Its board of governors representing 35 member nations voted to create an international fuel bank. The purpose of this bank is to provide nations with access to a source of low enriched nuclear fuel enabling them to power their civilian nuclear reactors which in turn produce much-needed energy in the form of electricity. Nations seeking access to fuel from the bank would have to forego their right to the technology that would allow them to enrich uranium domestically and create their own fuel thereby reducing the risk to the world of proliferation of dangerous nuclear materials and weapons. This is a tremendous boon to the cause of global security because once a nation has mastered the technology of uranium enrichment it can easily move from producing low enriched uranium needed to power civilian nuclear reactors to highly enriched uranium needed to produce nuclear weapons. Moreover, even if a nation were to have no interest in the development of nuclear weapons, the danger of nuclear material falling into the hands of unscrupulous terrorists increases with every new nation that starts producing its own nuclear fuel.

As a practical matter, the bank is likely to be particularly attractive to small and developing countries that need access to energy sources in order to bolster and aid their development. Indeed, dozens of such countries have already expressed their desire to have nuclear power. However, as the pundits point out it is unlikely to solve the bigger problems our world faces of countries such as Iran and North Korea who pursue uranium enrichment and/or plutonium extraction for reasons that are suspect.

Therefore, although the creation of this international fuel bank is an important first step for bringing the issue of nuclear proliferation under control, I remain convinced that it is not until the nations of the world are willing, one and all, to forego their right to enrich uranium to produce their own nuclear fuel, and to submit nuclear fuel making to the sole jurisdiction of a supranational organization that will ensure that they each have fair and access to the nuclear fuel they need to meet their legitimate energy needs, that this problem will be resolved in the long-term.

The benefits of the approach I advocate are many and include a level playing field for all nations be they large or small, nuclear powers or non-nuclear powers. If we are to build an international community that is based on clear rules rather than fuzzy policies, we must accept the fact that there can be no hypocrisy or double-standards. The rules must apply even-handedly to all nations.

Another benefit is the transparency afforded by such a system which allows nations to know exactly how much nuclear fuel each one of them is getting and how it is being used. The system will be even more fool-proof once the international community gets around to creating an international monitoring and verification system that is robust, applies to all and is coupled with a proper collectively conceived and created system for enforcing the rules and dealing with breaches by rogue nations. Until that day comes, we can take heart in the fact that the international community has taken a firm step in the right direction leading to a more secure world.

Time to Even Out the Nuclear Energy Playing Field

On September 7, 2008, the New York Times reported that the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, an international body which regulates the sale of nuclear energy and technology around the world has approved a deal which allows India to engage in nuclear trade for the first time in three decades.  India was banned from buying nuclear fuel and technology because it conducted nuclear tests, developed a nuclear weapons program and yet consistently refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.   The deal in question reverses past policy and practice in this regard and allows India to buy nuclear fuel and technology to power its civilian nuclear program thereby allowing it to meet its growing demand for electricity and to continue its economic growth.   In return, India has promised to separate its civilian nuclear reactors from its military reactors used for its nuclear weapons program.  It has also agreed to allow international inspectors to monitor its civilian nuclear program.

Putting aside the politics of the situation, it strikes me that a number of relevant questions need to be asked:

1. How does the international community explain its decisions to allow certain countries like India to trade in nuclear nuclear fuel and technology while denying others like Iran and North Korea the same opportunity?  Are there a set of principles on the basis of which such decisions are made?  Have these principles been agreed to by all nations in advance?  If not, what should these principles be?  

1.  If the issue is one of a nation's increasing demand for electricity and energy, shouldn't the international community be equally concerned with ensuring that such demands are met not only in India but in all countries where the need arises?  At the level of principle, isn't it crucial to deal even-handedly with the legitimate energy demands of the peoples of all nations including Iran and North Korea?  After all, they too, have claimed that they need nuclear reactors to satisfy the growing energy demands of their people and yet they have not been offered similar deals by the Nuclear Suppliers Group.  It is time to deal with all nations in an even-handed fashion, be they large or small, powerful or weak and ensure that the legitimate energy demands of all are met.  And yet, the issue is not that simple.  Clearly a closely allied question is how trustworthy a nation has proved itself to be in its dealings with the international community.  It is clearly too risky to allow all nations to have access to nuclear fuel and technology especially if one cannot trust their intentions.  Which leads us to the next question:

2.  What are we going to do about crafting a viable international system to adequately manage the risks of the proliferation of nuclear arms while at the same time providing for the legitimate energy demands of peoples everywhere? The current international system designed to protect the world from this danger appears to be falling apart at the seams.   In a world where nations can still adopt secret nuclear weapons programs that threaten the peace of the world, in which there is no mandatory, no-notice and geographically unlimited system of inspections of ALL nuclear sites worldwide and in which nations can choose whether they want to sign onto the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or not, it is too dangerous to allow countries to build nuclear reactors even if they claim that they are intended to meet legitimate civilian energy demands.  

In order to respond to both questions i.e., the legitimate and growing energy demands of countries worldwide while also ensuring our safety from nuclear weapons, I propose that we create a supranational institution with responsibility to manage all nuclear facilities and all activities related to the nuclear cycle worldwide.  This institution would be made up not of government appointees but rather of individuals elected by the people of every nation.  To ensure its independence from the dictates of individual governments it would be funded from levies imposed on the sale of nuclear fuel.  This body would be responsible for assessing the legitimate energy demands of all nations and of ensuring that each nation has fair and equal access to nuclear energy to meet its needs.  It would have the authority to set prices that are fair for all.  It would also have the authority to impose penalties on any individual, company and country that did not abide by its regulations.  Such penalties would have directly enforceable by the courts of each country.  The transparency regarding supply, demand and nuclear activities afforded by having all nuclear facilities under international management would considerably reduce the risks of secret weapons programs and would make the world safer.  Most importantly, nations would no longer feel the need to acquire nuclear capability because they would be assured that their energy needs were met.  They would also be secure in the knowledge that no other nation was building nuclear capabilities against which they would need to protect themselves.    

Fortunately, we do not have to start from scratch in creating such a supranational institutions.  The world has done something similar in the past with great success and created a model that we can learn from:  In the aftermath of the Second World War, six Western European nations including France and Germany established the European Coal and Steel Community and pooled the management of their coal and steel into its hands.  They were willing to cede a measure of sovereignty in this narrow economic sphere, albeit one critical to their reconstruction and economic well-being, because they concluded that it was in their collective self-interest to do so.  Consequently, despite their visceral discomfort with the idea of ceding sovereignty over such critical resources over which they had fought many wars, they did so to their great advantage.  In addition to ensuring that they all had equal access to the coal and steel they needed for reconstruction after the war, the creation of the Coal and Steel Community marked the end of ruinous wars between France and Germany and established the foundation for further European integration ultimately resulting in what we now know as the European Union.  There are many lessons the international community can learn from this experiment.  It can replicate this model to our advantage with respect to nuclear energy as well as oil and gas, learning from its strengths and avoiding its weaknesses.