Budapest, September 29-30, 2011 Terrorism and Democracy in the 21 st Century Supervising Intelligence Networks: the new challenge for oversight Peter Gill University of Liverpool, UK

The context 1.The human costs of terrorism and counter- terrorism since 9/11: – 150k civilians killed (c10% in ‘terrorist attacks) – 60k ‘insurgents’/’terrorists’ killed – 42k national/foreign police/military killed (Burke, 2011, ) 2.The political cost to democracy: – Enhanced corporatist security-intelligence- industrial complex beyond democratic control and oversight – Threatening democracy in order to save it?

Intelligence control and oversight Intelligence: ‘mainly secret activities... intended to enhance security and/or maintain power relative to competitors by forewarning of threats and opportunities’ (Gill, 2009, 214) can they be subject to democratic control and oversight in the interests of effectiveness, efficiency, legality, propriety and respect for rights?

Oversight: the story so far... Studies of oversight have concentrated on state intelligence (military, police, security...) But, two other intelligence sectors/actors: corporations: a) competitive/business b) security, especially private security and military companies; ‘in-house’ in mining, banking etc; ‘sovereignties’: groups willing to use violence to control people, resources, territory (Warner, 2009), e.g. paramilitaries, national liberation movements, militias, criminal organisations.

Security and Intelligence Networks Important relationships between sectors Networks also across local and national levels Why? a) ideologies: actors in different sectors may be in alliance or in conflict (or, in some cases, work together for limited purposes) b) interdependencies: personnel, technologies, access to sources, shared objectives... How? May be formal/contractual or informal/deniable. Depend on trust and reciprocity

Overseeing networks: an impossibility? Progress in overseeing states: legalisation via legislation, oversight (judicial, parliamentary, civil society), but networks? ORCON, secrecy and resistance Rules, terms of reference and ‘gatekeepers’ Political will, resources and self-denial How about oversight networks: national and transnational, official and civil society? (cf. Born, Leigh & Wills (eds.) 2011; Marty, 2007)

Conclusion: some agenda items... How significant is ‘terrorism’ compared with other security threats? – 2010: 18/27 EU members had no terrorist attacks (Europol, 2011) How can new corporatist security intelligence complex be scrutinised – for effectiveness and legality? – the issue of militarisation. The paradox of oversight: necessary to develop state capacity (including regulation of private companies and suppression of uncivil sovereignties) and enhance oversight of the state. Thank you

References Born, Hans, Ian Leigh and Aidan Wills (eds.) 2011, International intelligence Cooperation and Accountability, London: Routledge. (esp. chapters by Born & Wills, Forcese, Hayez, Leigh, Wills & Born, Wright.) Burke, Jason, 2011, The 9/11 Wars, London: Allen Lane. Europol, 2011, EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report, April Gill, Peter, 2009, ‘Theories of intelligence,’ Gill, Marrin & Phythian (eds.) Intelligence Theory: key questions and debates, Routledge, Marty, Dick, 2007, Secret detentions and unlawful transfers, CoE. Warner, Mike, 2009, ‘’Intelligence as risk shifting,’ Gill, Marrin & Phythian (eds.) Intelligence Theory: key questions and debates, Routledge,