4.4. Hybrid Threat and the CSDP (John Maas

4.4. HYBRID THREAT AND CSDP

by John Maas

Countering hybrid threats – a European Union response through Joint Communication

A year ago, the term ‘hybrid’ was just entering the European Union lexicon. Commentators, politicians, planners all had a sense of what ‘hybrid’ might mean but not necessarily a full understanding of the true nature of the threat. Indeed, in terms of reaction, one of the first steps was to internally digest the fact that hybrid threats really were a challenge to the European Union both at the level of Member States and also in the Brussels’ institutions.

Just to reinforce what is meant by the terms ‘hybrid’ and ‘hybrid threat’: the concept of hybrid threat relates to the deliberate use and blending of coercive and subversive activities both conventionally and unconventionally across the diplomatic, information, military, economic spectra – with the hybridity coming from the coordination by a state and/or non-state actor to achieve specific objectives, while remaining hidden, and below the threshold of formally declared warfare.

It is important to understand that there is usually an emphasis on exploiting the vulnerabilities of society and on generating ambiguity in order to hinder decision-making processes at a political level – and thereby gain leverage. These often insidious attacks are frequently masked by massive disinformation campaigns, using social media to control the political narrative or to radicalise, recruit and direct proxy actors who can in turn be used as vehicles for delivering a hybrid strategy.

To respond to these challenges, the European Union Member States, through the Foreign Affairs Council and the European Council, have taken action and mandated the High Representative in close cooperation with Commission services and the European Defence Agency (EDA), to forge a credible European response.

The hybridity in ‘hybrid threat’ refers to coordination by a state and/or non-state actor to achieve specific objectives while remaining hidden and below the threshold of formally declared warfare.

A COMPREHENSIVE JOINT FRAMEWORK

The consequent extensive joint work has resulted in a comprehensive Joint Framework that sets out 22 actionable proposals across the full spectrum of European Union competences to counter hybrid threats. These proposals focus on four main elements: improving awareness, building resilience, prevention, responding to a crisis.

As such, the European Union goal was to develop a significant response with a real priority given to the political level in responding to the dramatic change in the European Union’s security environment, particularly in the eastern and southern neighbourhood. Furthermore, given that key challenges to peace and stability continue to underscore the need for the Union to adapt and increase its capacities as a security provider, a strong focus is placed on the close relationship between external and internal security, which requires close cooperation with partners. Here, as NATO is also working to counter hybrid threats, the Foreign Affairs Council proposed to enhance current EU–NATO cooperation.

IMPROVING AWARENESS

Turning to the key tenets of the framework: as a direct result of the often very subtle and difficult to detect methods of deploying a hybrid threat, improving awareness is essential in supporting the early identification of changes in the security environment related to hybrid activity enacted by either state or non-state actors. To support this goal, action has been undertaken in three main areas:

First, the creation of a European Union Hybrid Fusion Cell, established within the European Union’s Intelligence and Situation Centre (EU INTCEN), offers a one-stop shop for information collation to support the analysis of potential hybrid threats. This Cell, once at full operating capacity, will be capable of analysing information specifically related to indicators and warnings concerning hybrid threats with the aim of then rapidly disseminating the products to inform the European Union’s strategic decision-makers. This work will also help bring an input to European Union Member States’ security risk assessments. Moreover, the Cell is in direct contact with the Council’s Integrated Political Crisis Response (IPCR) mechanism which, through regular meetings of Commission DGs, collects ‘signals’ of ongoing events from the different areas of expertise (energy, trade, competition, telecommunication, etc.) and is thus able to detect changes. If, for example, one country produces two or more signals, that will trigger the mechanism to a higher alert.

The second element concerns strategic communication. It is absolutely critical that the European Union has an ability to respond to misinformation campaigns that deliberately target both the European Union as an institution and individual Member States. A sound strategic communications strategy (which makes full use of social media tools, as well as the traditional visual, audio and web-based media and is delivered by professional communicators with the appropriate language and cultural

awareness) is essential. In direct response, two task forces – Stratcom East working in the Russian language and Task Force South running a counter Da’esh narrative – have been set up to counter active disinformation campaigns. Their products are disseminated through weekly publications that factually set the record straight and are complemented by the use of modern media methods such as Twitter.

EU Mythbusters (@EUvDisinfo) is one such outlet which has a growing number of followers.

Thirdly, building on the experience of some Member States and partner organisations, and in order to fill a gap at the strategic level, Finland has accepted the European Union challenge for a Member State to establish a European Centre of Excellence. This work should start in early 2017 and the Centre’s tasks will be specifically focused on research and training on how hybrid strategies have been applied and, thereafter, on encouraging the development of new doctrinal concepts to help Member States and allies improve the advice given to strategic decision makers. This will likely lead to a real-time capacity for exercising demanding scenarios designed to improve decision-making in situations blurred by ambiguity. The research should also help contribute to aligning European Union and national policies, doctrines and concepts, and help to ensure that decision-makers can respond better when faced with complex challenges posed by hybrid threats which by their nature are designed to create uncertainty.

CAPACITY TO WITHSTAND STRESS AND RECOVER

Turning to the longer-term action, the fourth domain is that of building resilience. Resilience in this context is the capacity to withstand stress and recover, ideally through actioning of lessons identified. To effectively counter hybrid threats, the potential vulnerabilities of key infrastructures, supply chains and society need to be analysed and vulnerabilities addressed. For success in this area to be achieved, it is imperative that a comprehensive approach be adopted to allow all European Union instruments and policies to be brought to bear, and for Member States to be offered the best guidance on critical infrastructure design in order to ensure an overall improvement in resilience across the Union and with partners. To offer a flavour of the scope of this work, actions have been outlined to build resilience in areas such as cybersecurity, critical infrastructure protection, financial systems safeguards against illicit exploitation, and the countering of violent extremism and radicalisation. In each of these areas, the implementation of agreed strategies by the European Union institutions as well as by Member States themselves fully applying existing legislation are key factors for success.

The European Defence Agency has a paramount role in driving forward another form of resilience – that of building defence capabilities. Here it is absolutely essential to stay abreast of technological innovation to ensure that the European Union’s capacity to act as a defence and security provider remains relevant in a dynamically and rapidly changing world. Here the European Union is seen as being able to play a key role in helping Member States develop those capacities that will be needed in the future to counter the full spectrum of potential threats. The first step on this path has been to identify the relevant key capability areas of surveillance and reconnaissance as catalyst areas for future military capability development. Technological advances can also be complemented by shortening capability development cycles, focusing investment on technological prototypes, and encourageing both innovation and innovative commercial technologies. When it comes to building resilience to hybrid attacks, commercial operators have very often through years of experience developed best practices that the European Union could exploit rather than seeking bespoke military solutions. Cyber security is one such area.

CYBERSECURITY

While the European Union greatly benefits from its interconnected and digitised society – considered as a real strength and economic driver – there are serious considerations linked to over-reliance. As regards hybrid attacks, the very connectivity that drives European Union society is by definition a centre of gravity and may appear a rewarding target for a would-be aggressor. Strong cyber security is therefore absolutely critical in the context of countering hybrid threats. Specifically, improving the resilience of communication and information systems in Europe is vital in supporting the digital single market. The European Union Cybersecurity Strategy and the European Agenda on Security provide the overall strategic frameworks for European Union initiatives on cyber security and cybercrime. Moreover, the European Union has been very active in developing awareness in Member States and in building inter-mechanism cooperation.

However, the European Union cannot in today’s interconnected world operate alone. There is an inbuilt reliance on partners and neighbouring countries, be it from global economic ties, shared resources or simply the natural intertwining of cultures. Therefore, when we look to the European neighbourhood, building capacities in partner countries in the security sector is essential. Taking a holistic approach by building on the nexus between security and development, the European Union is actively developing the security dimension of the revised European Neighbourhood Policy.

In this respect the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) can offer tools for use on missions and operations that can be melded to complement other deployed European Union instruments or used independently. A couple of such examples might be advisory support for key ministries under stress from hybrid threats or additional support for border management agencies that are at risk of being overwhelmed by an engineered emergency. MUTUAL ASSISTANCE CLAUSE AND SOLIDARITY CLAUSE

Let’s go back to the issues relating to prevent-

ing, responding to and recovering from hybrid

threats. One of the actionable proposals is to examine the feasibility of applying the Solidarity Clause in Article 222 TFEU (as specified in the relevant Decision) and Article 42(7) TEU, in the event of a wide-ranging and serious hybrid attack occurring – and specifically examining the potential European Union actions to support a Member State seeking such assistance.

Early work has seen the development of a European Union operational protocol. The simple flow chart aims to help build better links between the European Union’s already well-developed but often diverse response mechanisms. The aim too is simple, to link information and the analysis of information to be fed swiftly and coherently to key decision-makers within both the Commission and the External Action Service. By establishing this common protocol, the time taken from the initial identification of a potential threat to a decision being taken to react should be considerably shortened. Furthermore, this protocol outlines the modalities for better coordination between structures, improved intelligence fusion and analysis to better inform the political, operational and technical levels charged with making policy recommendations.

European Commission

The creation of a European Union Hybrid Fusion Cell offers a one-stop shop for information collation to support the analysis of potential hybrid threats.

In the European Union, coordination of crisis management occurs at three levels: political, operational and technical. It addresses the full crisis management cycle: prevention/mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Dedicated procedures govern the implementation of the Commission system (ARGUS), the Council arrangements (IPCR) and the EEAS Crisis Response Mechanism (CRM). Within the CRM, identified points of entry allow coordination with EU actors and international partners. When there is a need for wider/emergency consultation on hybrid threats among Commission services, the EEAS and European Union agencies, appropriate use is made of these crisis management procedures.

Given the nature of hybrid threats, the purpose and design of which is often to stay below the threshold of activity that might trigger a recognisable crisis, the European Union may need to take appropriate action in the pre-crisis phase. The attached table gives an indication of the interaction required to better inform and speed up decision-making.

COOPERATION AND COORDINATION

Finally, the Council proposes to step up co operation and coordination between the European Union and NATO in common efforts to counter hybrid threats, not least as the two organisations share common values and face similar challenges. European Union Member States and NATO allies alike expect their respective organisations to support them, by acting swiftly, decisively and in a coordinated manner in the event of a crisis. Of course, in a perfect world they should ideally be able to prevent the crisis from happening.

Therefore, an effective response calls for there to be an active dialogue and close coordination both at the political and operational levels of both organisations. Closer interaction between the European Union and NATO would improve both organisations’ ability to prepare for and respond to hybrid threats effectively in a complementary and mutually supporting manner.

It is fundamental that this cooperation be based on the principle of inclusiveness, while respecting each organisation’s decision-making autonomy and data protection rules. Closer European Union–NATO cooperation in a number of areas has been endorsed at the highest level by both organisations.

These areas include situational awareness, strategic communications, cyber security, and crisis prevention and response.

There has also been political agreement that the two organisations should conduct parallel and coordinated exercises organised in this cooperative framework. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the European Union’s response to hybrid threats largely depends on Member States’ willingness to share detected signals and their vulnerabilities; The more general point, which is important for all to grasp is that countering hybrid threats requires everyone to take a different intellectual approach to security issues. The traditional internal and external, civil and military, public and private separations in the European Union approach to security and defence matters are no longer sustainable and a necessary step change in mindset was needed. The European Global Strategy has gone some way to updating security and defence thinking in Europe, and the Joint Communication on Countering Hybrid Threats represents a first step towards building a safer Europe. More needs to be done, including planting the seed in all those who work in the European Union institutions or serve in delegations or on missions and operations that hybrid threats are real, and that they themselves have a role to play in supporting efforts to create a safer society.

Disinformation campaign Regular security forces

Special forces

Economic pressure

Diplomacy Hybrid Threat = combined, centrally designed and controlled use of covert/overt, military/ non-military and conventional/unconventional means and tactics Irregular forces

Information operations

Cyber attacks Propaganda

Graph: Jochen Rehrl