B2 The Daily of Geopolitical Europe. News. Files. Reflections. Reports

Blog AnalysisBorders Immigration Asylum

Operation Themis. Does the Frontex agency act without democratic control?

Unlike the EUNAVFOR Med operation, Frontex's Themis operation uses "civilian" means. But it does not respect any of the usual European rules: democratic control and transparency (credit: Frontex/ capture you Tube / Archives B2)

(B2) The recent launch of a new operation off the Mediterranean by the European Border and Coast Guard (the Frontex agency) is striking.

A very blurry lens

The press release issued on this occasion leaves a certain vagueness and raises more questions than it solves. The new operation deals with both search and rescue at sea, law enforcement, fight against crime, against terrorist networks (read: Frontex launches an operation in the central Mediterranean, named Thémis). But we do not really understand the objective of the new mission.

A proximity of objectives with EUNAVFOR Med

We asked for details from Frontex (based in Warsaw), especially on how the two operations EUNAVFOR Med and Themis were going to be coordinated. The answer received just now (at 13 p.m.) is a bit vasouillarde.... First of all, we were learnedly told that THEMIS was civilian where EUNAVFOR Med was military. Real information! (1). Then, we were told that this mission only had the function of rescue at sea and did not have the task of combating migrant smuggling. Which is, there, in full contradiction with the statement of the official press release.

“At the same time, the new operation will have an enhanced law enforcement focus. Its operational area will span the Central Mediterranean Sea from waters covering flows from Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Turkey and Albania. " Operation Themis will better reflect the changing patterns of migration, plus cross border crime. (...) said Frontex Executive Director Fabrice Leggeri.

The words are not completely identical. But they are very close to the words used for the EUNAVFOR Med operation. In any case, there is nothing to make a real distinction between the two operations.

An operation deployed without democratic control

This failure in communication actually reveals a more general problem. Unlike PSDC operations, which operate within a specific framework, these operations are carried out without any legal framework or authorisation. Certainly there are regulations defining the action of the European body, certainly there was an operation plan approved within Frontex, in agreement with the country of origin. But all this is done discreetly, "under the table", at an infra-political level, without formal approval or transparency. In short, without democratic control in one way or another and without any transparency. Which is against the rules, and above all, against the European spirit.

... without any published legal framework

No competent political authority at European Union level — the Council of Ministers, for example — has approved such an operation. No framework decision has set the objective, the means, the limits, or even the area of ​​operation. No decision has been published in the official gazette or in any other medium. No information was given on the cost of this operation, nor its duration. No minutes were noted and are publicly accessible. No information to the European Parliament has been made officially. No translation, even in the main languages ​​concerned by this operation, has been published.

A lack of justification explaining the exception

Good minds will no doubt consider that operational necessity imposes this absence of formalism. One can doubt the relevance of this argument, at least at the European level. A military operation carried out in the name of the European Union, financed by the Member States alone, respects all these conditions: a framework decision is approved by the ministers and published in the official journal in all the languages. It sets the objective, the missions, the means, the rules relating to secrecy and data protection, gives indications on the area of ​​operation, the allocated budget, the duration of the operation and the political control of the 'operation.

Comment: the military respect a certain democratic obligation, why not the border guards?

One might wonder why a civilian operation, always carried out in the name of the European Union, within a Community framework, with Community money, under a Community hierarchy, can escape compliance with these procedures. What is the political, democratic, constitutional, legal reasoning that can justify such an exception? (2) The military are doing this very well, the European Border and Coast Guard Corps, if it wants to retain its relevance and legitimacy, should do this very well.

(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)

(1) Which is a bit taking the European public for a fool. Our questions on the usefulness of having two operations more or less in the same area, with more or less the same objectives, the means of coordination, the appropriate use of European funding, on the other hand, remained unanswered.

(2) We asked the reason for such a lack. No satisfactory answer was provided.

Nicolas Gros Verheyde

Chief editor of the B2 site. Graduated in European law from the University of Paris I Pantheon Sorbonne and listener to the 65th session of the IHEDN (Institut des Hautes Etudes de la Défense Nationale. Journalist since 1989, founded B2 - Bruxelles2 in 2008. EU/NATO correspondent in Brussels for Sud-Ouest (previously West-France and France-Soir).

s2Member®