Social Control
Under the Microscope?
State control and anarchist practice
Several recent developments in the oxymoronic field of State intelligence should give those of us involved in our own insurrectionary projects pause for thought. Even as we write, rampant repression encompasses our comrades in Spain and Italy, but this constitutes only the latest visible manifestation of state repression, it is the more immediate and violent for this, but we should not let this distract our thoughts from the larger geo-political reality that this represents. Although these repressive round-ups are generally represented by the media as the separate policies of separate sovereign states, when viewed within the context of the growing monstrosity that is the supranational EU, this violent, immediate form of state repression comes uncomfortably close to home.
The principal law-enforcement body of the EU, Europol, was formed when the constituent states of the European Community realised that they would need to create a Pan-European law enforcement organisation in order to maintain their control in the new supranational political and social discourse. An organisation was needed which could pool and apply the law-enforcement resources of European Member States to effectively tackle crime on a Europe-wide footing.
Initially conceived of as the European Drugs Unit (EDU) by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, by July 1999 the EDU finally evolved into the European Police Office (Europol) with its remit growing from simple drugs policing to include areas of ‘serious’ crime as diverse as immigration, vehicle trafficking, child pornography, forgery, money laundering and terrorism.
In 1995 the European Union and NATO implemented the ‘EU/NATO Security Agreement’ for the exchange of information between these two institutions, and which created the EU Council General Secretariat Security office (GSC Security office- the ‘Central Registry’ for NATO classified information provided to the EU) and the European Commission Security Office, as well as providing a useful, ‘backdoor’, indirect link with US Federal and Military intelligence.
In the same year, in July, the EU governments signed the Europol Convention, informing the fundamental tenets which supposedly dictate the operation and direction of the institution. This Convention was totally rewritten six years later in order to provide a much wider remit and to give Europol operational powers far surpassing its original scope. A brief look at the changes which this heralded gives some small insight into the potential trajectory of this fledgling beast.
Under the Convention, Europol was set up to act as both a ‘clearing house’ for bilateral and multilateral exchanges of data and as a curator and custodian of a central EU intelligence database on organised crime. At the time every opportunity was exploited to stress this non-operational constitution. But, virtually immediately, by the very next year, Europol officers were participating in joint investigation teams in several EU countries.
The member states of the European Union have increased Europol’s budget year-on-year since 1994, and from an initial staff of 18, by 2002 over 260 posts were funded with at least another 60 liaison officers seconded from the member states.
Some 17 extra forms of crime and their related activities were added to Europol’s scope of intervention, forcing a change from the original ‘crime related approach’ to a much broader, proactive and unregulated mandate.
The new Convention also saw extensive powers granted for the collection and storage of information on both individuals and categories of people who were perceived as a potential threat to the implementation of law and order in a Europe-wide context.
This revision of the Convention also paved the way for the Council of the European Union to begin approving a series of co-operation agreements which allowed a further 23 non-EU states and agencies to exchange data with Europol. Its relationship and interaction with existing and planned EU law-enforcement offices and databases will also effectively extend its powers further over time.
As Statewatch succinctly notes:
It is clear that Europol has operated, since its creation as the Europol Drugs Unit in 1993, within the widest possible interpretation of its legal basis and that restrictions have probably been disregarded at times.
This transition has not all been plain sailing however; Statewatch again:
Fostering EU-wide cooperation in organised crime investigations was the rationale behind Europol, but while its role is being expanded, it appears that some national police forces appear reluctant to accept their obligation to share intelligence and may prefer to co-operate bilaterally on a case by case basis.
In May 2001, the Swedish Presidency of the EU acknowledged ‘murmurs of discontent’ over the democratic control of Europol, all of which stemmed from the weak provisions in the original Convention. However, the facade that is the European Parliament remains ineffective on the margins of the European decision-making process, and the Council has proposed that future amendments of the Europol Convention should no longer require ratification by the national parliaments of the EU. Revisions will, instead, simply be implemented after unanimous agreement in the EU Council of Ministers.
In December that year, shortly after 9/11, the Belgian Presidency proposed a wider competence for the European Court of Justice over the interpretation and implementation of the Europol Convention, thus further legitimising and entrenching this institution in the law-enforcement paradigm. Although this process was seen as some as a reigning in of what was still seen by some as a rogue institution, it is highly likely that Europol will continue to enjoy far-reaching immunities from the legal process and will not be subject to anything like the various regulatory controls usually found at the national level.
In February 2001 a Europol seminar on counter-terrorism held in Madrid agreed on a proposal by Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy to set up a joint investigation team on ‘anarchist terrorism’. It appears that after Genoa in July 2001 Europol may have set up an ‘analysis file’ on ‘anarchist terrorism’ which in turn fed through into this situation report. Interviewed by a German newspaper in August ’01, Jurgen Storbeck, Europol's Director at the time, said the so-called ‘Black Block’ of ‘anarchists’ could be seen as “terrorist or pre-terrorist".
Another new category added in 2001 was ‘eco-terrorism’ - of which the report gives no examples. The report simply says in total that: "Radical environmentalists and animal rights movements have maintained a limited campaign. Nevertheless, the material damage they caused was extensive". No definition of ‘eco- terrorism’ is given nor is one planned in the proposed extension of Europol's role. Thus the distinction between activity which might be termed a criminal offence and that construed a "terrorist" offence is blurred.
Then, on January 5th 2004, in Rome, following a provocative Italian letter bomb campaign against EU leaders, Italy’s Interior Ministry announced the creation of a European task force to combat ‘anarchist insurrection’. The initial task for the force was to gather data for two months on the ‘phenomenon of anarchist insurrection’. The task force was coordinated from Italy and consisted of ‘experts’ from France, Greece, Italy and Spain, as well as representatives from Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands and representatives from Europol and the crime-fighting organisation Eurojust, both of whom had top officials targeted by explosive devices in the previous month.
Since 9/11, the State’s true obsession with security and control has been revealed for all to see. As successive security initiatives are rolled out in the name of the protection of liberty both in Europe and the US, further collaboration between the various state intelligence agencies must be seen as inevitable. Indeed, documents recently leaked to the English liberal broadsheet ‘The Guardian’ and the NGO Statewatch; reveal that the EU and the US are preventing the full extent of their co-operation on the ‘war on terrorism’ from being made public knowledge.
The documents show that secret talks between senior American and European officials cover a wide range of issues which would be/are being used against active anarchists and other rebellious elements, including extradition, the exchange of personal data, methods of funding, intelligence gathering, and organised crime.
Despite what it likes to portray as ‘open government’, the EU has become increasingly secretive over its relations with the US, especially concerning intelligence. The EU consistently refute or attempt to play down the extent of their co-operation with the US, especially between the FBI and Europol. Pertaining to the leak of these documents, the EU commented, rather optimistically (for us anyway), that they ‘could significantly disturb the good functioning of the co-operation between the EU and the United States’.
The full version of the original document which was released to Statewatch shows that the documents concern the demand of the US for European help in tracing funds held by suspected terrorists and also what it refers to as ‘pro-active, intelligence-driven’ investigations.
The fate of our brothers and sisters in Spain and Italy show how the State’s response to the current growth of anarchism can easily manifest in its most brutal form within Europe (this is not to forget the ultimate fate of some of our comrades in South America and elsewhere). The current political rhetoric of Spain and Italy, with its invention of fictitious anarchist ‘organisations’, misuse of criminal law and, by default, admission of the increased perceived threat from the anarchist milieu, is likely reflected in intelligence circles throughout the European Union.
That the British state does not currently apply such heavy-handed tactics against anarchists does not imply that similar operations are therefore not going on, albeit on a smaller, more insidious level against anarchists in Britain. Also, we must not forget that the British State has recently shown a parallel mentality by deciding that places of worship used as centres for “fomenting extremism” are to be closed down, raiding and closing down radical Muslim bookshops which promote a political line deemed to be too radical for public consumption. In recent raids in Leeds, UK, books by the liberal writer ‘John Pilger’ were seized by police as evidence of ‘anti-western’ propaganda, similarly, in raids against squats in Brighton, before the Sept 2005 Tony Blair/Labour Party conference, police seized CD’s and books on the basis that they were ‘anti-war’. Likewise, across Europe, the method with which this intelligence drive and attempted pre-emption operates will depend upon the political dialogue within each independent state.
A similar narrative is occurring within US law enforcement. There appeared recently a paper published by one Randy Borum (criminologist and ex-copper) of the University of South Florida and Chuck Tilby of the Eugene Police Department called Anarchist Direct Actions: A Challenge for Law Enforcement. This interesting paper ‘concludes that Anarchism is a revolutionary movement, not just a “protest group”’. Well surprise, fucking surprise!
Seriously though, for all of its minor misconceptions and inherent faults- and there are some that will bring a smile to your face - this paper does provide some insights into anarchist practice which will be greatly beneficial to law enforcement when the inevitable repression increases. It also shows that the US too is beginning to perceive a real and potent threat from the anarchist milieu.
So, the situation as it stands seems to be an admission all round by the State that, especially since 1999, there is a growing threat from a post-left movement based loosely within the ideas of anarchism, and it appears that the increased security culture enabled by the events of 9/11 has further allowed the state to begin an extensive, potentially international, series of operations in order, at the very least, to provide itself with a better understanding, through increased surveillance and intelligence, of what it perceives as a potential serious threat; and at most to violently nip this threat in the bud.
We see the evidence of operations like this all around us in Europe, yet many of us still think that we remain largely ignored by the State. Whilst it may be easy to remain comfortable in indifference and apathy, even knowing the subtle and insidious methods of our own State security institutions here in the UK, or to continue playing the same old intellectual cat and mouse games with the State, the fact remains that the state is increasingly organising against ‘anarchists’, at the national, supranational and international level.
The question remains then, what is to be done? If we now find ourselves targeted by the state in our ongoing social war for relations without measure, how do we react? Do we continually attempt to evade and confound our opponent? Do we reveal the corrupt facade of our adversary for what it truly is? Do we identify our immediate enemy as the police and intelligence machines? Do we pre-empt and strike this enemy first, by any means necessary, refusing to lie down and accept their judgement without a fight?
All of the above - and more - must be necessary in order that we are not corrupted, converted, isolated, incarcerated, depleted, decimated, co-opted, recuperated or even disappeared, for these are all tactics of the coercive arms of the state. Yet as anarchists, as insurrectionists, as nihilists we must confront this confrontation with open arms whilst employing the means of the social insurgent and the urban guerilla - but constantly remaining aware of the failure of the model employed by the leftist insurgents of the 1970-80’s. There can be no other way. And this is not an advocacy for armed struggle- unless you want it to be- rather an appeal to common sense, the need to destroy that which destroys us, and the fundamental desire for the natural beauty of liberty outside of the mega-machine.
We must strike now! We must take the fight to the enemy. We cannot wait idly by whilst our comrades are targeted NOW! We must engage on our own terms before the inevitable, before the following car, before the knock at the door, before the certainty of handcuffs, riot shields and MP5’s.
The threat is real.....not only to us, but from us too...