Skip to main content

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • 73 Accesses

Part of the book series: New Security Challenges Series ((NSECH))

Abstract

As one night of riots followed another in Paris suburbs and elsewhere in France in late 2005, the enormity of the problem they reflected soon became evident. The impoverishment and marginalization of immigrant communities has reached a crisis point. This is, of course, not a specifically French problem. As Timothy Garton Ash argues, it is an all-European problem: ‘Unrest in Germany, bombings in London, and assassinations in The Netherlands are all signs of the façade of European multiculturalism cracking under the pressures of its underlying realities.’1 To some extent there is recognition that most member states of the European Union (EU) have large, dissatisfied communities of immigrant dissent. The 2004 Hague Programme, which is nothing short of a project in the area of ‘internal’ security comparable to that of the Single Market, calls for a European framework for the integration of immigrants to be drawn up. Were this to lead to greater cooperation in this area, it would be highly unlikely that we would see identical responses to the problem. Different forms of nationalism within member states would determine the precise way in which governments react to and transpose such a framework, just as the French government responded in a particularly ‘French way’ to the crisis, informed by its egalitarian form of nationalism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. J. Sperling and E. Kirchner (1997) Recasting the European Order: Security Architectures and Economic Cooperation (Manchester & New York: Manchester University Press), 32–3.

    Google Scholar 

  2. The most striking example of what this implied for European states is in the field of signals intelligence (SIGINT). Under the 1947 UKUSA Agreement, to which Australia, Canada and New Zealand were also signatories, Britain’s SIGINT organization, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), was formally integrated into a global surveillance network. In addition to providing a division of SIGINT collection, the Agreement also institutionalized American leadership within the surveillance network. Under the Agreement, the United States’ four original partners, including Britain, appear as second parties; whereas NATO members that signed at a later date, including Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy and Norway, did so as third parties. The Agreement also served to institutionalize the presence of American facilities, directly managed by the National Security Agency (NSA), on British and German territories. European countries participating in the surveillance network were, moreover, obliged to adopt American security standards. See J. Richelson (1990) ‘The Calculus of Intelligence Cooperation’, International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, Vol. 4, No. 3, 227–8;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Whitaker, R. (1992) ‘Security and Intelligence in the Post-Cold War World’, in R. Milliband and L. Panitch (eds) New World Order? The Socialist Register 1992 (London: Merlin Press), 119;

    Google Scholar 

  4. D. Campbell (2001) Surveillance Electronique Planetaire (Paris: Editions Allia), 21.

    Google Scholar 

  5. European states were not integrated into the Atlantic security network on the same basis or to the same extent. Among European states, Britain enjoyed (and, to great extent, still does) a privileged status and, as a result, developed particularly intimate military and intelligence links with the US. The armed forces of Britain and the US have developed close relations over the years. Britain and the US are also engaged in a number of collaborative weapons projects — both conventional and nuclear. The so-called special relationship is, however, at its strongest in the area of intelligence. In addition to their relations in SIGINT, there is a great deal of cooperation between the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) in the field of human intelligence (HUMINT); between America’s Defence Intelligence Agency and the British Defence Intelligence Staff on defence intelligence; and between America’s National Reconnaissance Office and Britain’s Joint Aerial Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre (JARIC) on ‘overhead’ intelligence from satellite data, reconnaissance aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). This especially close relationship has led to similar practices and positions, and to a deeper level of US technological developments and capabilities compared to other European states. In stark contrast, France remained on the periphery of the Atlantic security network and a rigorous critic of institutionalized American hegemony in Europe, particularly during the late 1960s. The French government’s 1966 withdrawal of France from NATO’s integrated military structure and rapprochement with Moscow represented a direct challenge to NATO’s legitimacy as an instrument for stability in Europe. This, combined with Germany’s Ostpolitik, which was launched in 1967 and premised on establishing long-term cooperation agreements between East and West as a way of forcing ‘normalcy’ on socialist states, severely strained Atlantic unity under American leadership. See C. Grant (2000) ‘Intimate Relations: Can Britain Play a Leading Role in European Defence — and Keep Its Links to US Intelligence?’ CER Working Paper, 2;

    Google Scholar 

  6. A. Wenger (2004) ‘Crisis and Opportunity: NATO and the Miscalculation of Détente, 1966–1968’, Journal of Cold War Studies Vol. 6, No. 1, 22–74;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. K. van der Pijl (1984) The Making of an Atlantic Ruling Class (London: Verso), 252–3.

    Google Scholar 

  8. G. L. Williams and B. J. Jones (2001) NATO and the Transatlantic Alliance in the 21st Century: The Twenty-Year Crisis (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan), 32–3; 35; 40; 42.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. A. Eriksson (2004) ‘The Building of a EU Capability — A Process of Europeanisation’, paper presented at the Fifth Pan-European Conference of the Standing Group on International Relations, The Hague, The Netherlands, 9–11 September;

    Google Scholar 

  10. S. Duke (2000) The Elusive Quest for European Security: From EDC to CFSP (Basingstoke and London: Macmillan Press Ltd.; New York: St. Martin’s Press);

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. Sperling and E. Kirchner (1997) Recasting the European Order: Security Architectures and Economic Cooperation (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press);

    Google Scholar 

  12. Also see L. Watanabe (2004) ‘European Security in an American Era: Between Estrangement and a New Partnership’, in A. Howell (ed.) Governance and Global (Dis)orders: Trends, Transformations and Impasses. Selected Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Centre for International Security Studies in conjunction with the Fourth Annual Conference of the Nathanson Centre for the Study of Organized Crime and Corruption (Toronto: Centre for International Security Studies, York University), 81–124.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Anderson, M. (2000) ‘Counterterrorism as an Objective of European Police Cooperation’, in F. Reinares (ed.) European Democracies against Terrorism: Governmental Policies and Intergovernmental Cooperation (Aldershot: Ashgate Dartmouth), 227–43;

    Google Scholar 

  14. D. Bigo (1994) ‘The European Internal Security Field: Stakes and Rivalries in a Newly Developing Area of Police Intervention’, in M. Anderson and M. den Boer (eds) Policing Across National Boundaries (London and New York: Pinter Publishers), 161–73.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 2010 Lisa Watanabe

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Watanabe, L. (2010). Introduction. In: Securing Europe. New Security Challenges Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230277021_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics