www.tpuc.org - The Peoples United Collective -

Leiff · Wannabee Evaluator Joined: 21 Aug 2007 Posts: 23

Arming Big Brother: The EUs Security Research Programme
Ben Hayes, April 2006

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2006/apr/bigbrother.pdf

Overview
This Statewatch-TNI report examines the development of the security-industrial complex in Europe and in particular the development of the EU Security Research Programme (ESRP).
Spawned by the military-industrial complex, the security-industrial complex has developed as the traditional boundaries between external security (military) and internal security (security services) and law enforcement (policing) have eroded.
With the global market for technologies of repression more lucrative than ever in the wake of 11 September 2001, it is on a healthy expansion course.
The story of the EU Security Research Programme is one of “Big Brother” meets market fundamentalism.
It was personified by the establishment in 2003 of a “Group of Personalities” (GoP) comprised of EU officials and Europe’s biggest arms and IT companies.
The GoP’s concern was a simple one: European multinationals are losing out to their US competitors because the US government is providing them with a billion dollars a year for security research – it recommended the EU match this level of funding to ensure a “level playing field”.
The European Commission has obliged with a “preparatory” budget for security research 2004-6, with the full ESRP to begin in 2007, and appointed an EU Security Research Advisory Board to oversee the programme.
This makes permanent the GoP and gives profit-making corporations an official status in the EU, shaping not just security research but security policy.
Myriad local and global surveillance systems; the introduction of biometric identifiers; RFID, electronic tagging and satellite monitoring; “less-lethal weapons”; paramilitary equipment for public order and crisis management; and the militarization of border controls – technological advances in law enforcement are often welcomed uncritically but rarely are these technologies neutral, in either application or effect. Military organisations dominate research and development in these areas
under the banner of “dual-use” technology, avoiding both the constraints and controversies of the arms trade.
Tomorrow’s technologies of control quickly become today’s political imperative; contentious policies appear increasingly irresistible.
There are strong arguments for regulating, limiting and resisting the development of the security-industrial complex but as yet there has been precious little debate.

Conclusions and recommendations
The planned Security Research Programme raises important issues about EU policy-making and the future of Europe.
At a time when Europe needs to harness the resources at its disposal to take meaningful action against not just terrorism but disease, climate change, poverty, inequality, environmental degradation, resource depletion and other sources of insecurity, Europe lacks credible political leadership.
As part of a broad strategy, technology clearly has an important role to play in meeting the security challenges facing Europe.
The ESRP is not part of such a strategy, it is part of an emerging security-industrial complex dominated by profit-driven conglomerates with a particularly narrow view of how best to achieve security based primarily on the use of military force.
The ESRP is part of a broader EU counter-terrorism strategy almost singularly orientated around the demands of lawenforcement. Freedom and democracy are being undermined by the very policies adopted in their name.
The militarisation of the EU is a controversial development that should be fiercely contested but it has not been subject to any meaningful debate. EU funding of military research is also very controversial, from both a constitutional and political perspective.
It is regrettable, therefore, that multinational arms companies have been given a seat at the EU table, a proposed budget of one billion euros for “security” research and all but full control over the development and implementation of the programme.
In effect, the EU is funding the diversification of these companies into the
more legitimate and highly lucrative “dual use” sector, allowing them to design future EU security policies and allowing corporate interests to determine the public interest.
Where the European Commission has failed, it must be hoped the European and national parliaments take seriously their obligation to challenge both the costs and the alleged benefits of security
research and to review all military expenditure by the EU.
The full security research programme is not yet underway and parliaments could still take meaningful action to restrict or at least bring the ESRP under some form of regulation or democratic control.
Civil society too has a critically important role to play in resisting the development of the securityindustrial complex and the wider militarisation of the EU.
Civil liberties groups and anti-militarist campaigners should challenge current developments and explain to the people of Europe what is being done in their name.
It is hoped that this report contributes to a broader campaign against EU militarism and that it will be followed-up by systematic monitoring of the development and implementation of the ESRP by independent groups.