A report for European Commission Directorate General 1A: External Political Relations elaborated the findings of the project.
Nature (causes and implications) of security threats
Key considerations included:
The changing notion of security from purely military to a broader range of threats, and the absence of agreement on a definition of ‘security’ among security experts;
The impact of global developments on countries and regions, resulting in cross-border and global threats;
A blurring of the distinction between domestic and international politics, and a decrease in the effectiveness of national policy instruments;
Increasingly unconventional threats, difficult to defend against, necessitating increased cooperation between states and regions and/or within the framework of international institutions, as well as new ways to address security issues.
A typology of security threats
A typology of security threats was elaborated, falling roughly into two categories: military and non-military.
Military threats comprise:
Biological and/or chemical warfare
Nuclear attack
Conventional conflict with light weapons
Non-military threats comprise:
The criminalisation of economies
The narcotics trade
Ethnic factionalism or irredentism
Macro-economic destabilisation (including international financial transactions and debt rescheduling
General environmental degradation
Specific forms of environmental damage
‘Computer’ or ‘cyber’-warfare against commercial structures
‘Computer’ or ‘cyber’-warfare against state/defence structures
Penetration of state structures (by terrorists or criminal organisations
Migratory pressures
Likely occurrence of threat
By using a classification of low, moderate, probable and high, the evidence collected from the questionnaire survey showed:
For 1999, only two types of security threats received significant ratings in the ‘moderate’ ‘probable’ and ‘high’ categories. These were: ethnic factionalism or irredentism with a combined rate of 75%, and migratory pressures with a combined rate of 67% of the responses. The other ten types were rated as ‘low’. For 2010, the ratings were similar, but the criminalisation of the economies was also rated as a significant threat.
European and US responses were similar. The most significant differences for 1999 relate to macro-economic destabilisation, and cyber-warfare against state structures. Both were scored higher by the 33 European respondents compared to the 9 US respondents.
The Europeans scored significantly higher than the US respondents on the two issues regarding the environment, and nuclear attack. US respondents rated the two cyber-warfare issues higher than did the Europeans.
Origin of threats
Russia/CIS was listed as one of the main origins of threats. Eastern Europe and Asia were also indicated as sources or causes of threats.
Institutional suitability
NATO was identified as the single most suitable organisation for a specific security threat, particularly by the US respondents. The EU scored highly for issues of criminalisation of the economies and migratory pressures, macro-economic destabilisation, ethnic factionalism, narcotics trade, environmental problems, and cyber-warfare against commercial structures. In all except one case (specific environmental problems) the combined scores of NATO and the EU represented the highest overall scores. Other organisations that entered into consideration included the OSCE, the WEU, OSCE, UN and OECD.
Recommendations
The research gave rise to several recommendations for future research into security threats.