Europe's Intel Blackout: A Risky Calculation?

The news that several European nations are limiting intelligence sharing with the US regarding operations in the Caribbean raises a critical question: are these nations acting out of principle, or self-preservation? The official line focuses on concerns about human rights violations and the potential for illegal strikes (strikes that violate international law, presumably). But digging deeper, the strategic calculations at play are far more complex, and potentially destabilizing.

The core issue stems from the US military's ramped-up operations against alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers, coupled with then-President Trump's bellicose rhetoric about military intervention. France, the Netherlands, and the UK, all with strategically vital territories in the Caribbean, are understandably nervous. The Netherlands, in particular, with its ABC islands (Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao) a mere 50 kilometers off the Venezuelan coast, faces the most immediate risk. One French military official, speaking anonymously, succinctly captured the sentiment: they "would find themselves on the front line" in the event of a US-led war.

This isn't simply about abstract legal concerns. The Europeans are essentially hedging their bets, attempting to distance themselves from actions that could backfire spectacularly. The decision to limit intelligence sharing, as reported by AFP, is a calculated risk. They're betting that the potential damage to their own interests outweighs the risk of antagonizing the US, which, as one European intelligence source admitted, provides "a lot" of information to its allies.

Erik Akerboom, director of the Dutch civilian intelligence service, alluded to the core concern: "the politicisation of our services and human rights violations." But let's be clear: this isn't just about lofty ideals. It's about protecting their assets and avoiding being dragged into a conflict they don't control. Are the European powers truly concerned about human rights, or are they simply worried about the potential for blowback affecting their territories and economic interests? I've looked at hundreds of these types of geopolitical conflicts, and the answer is almost always "both."

Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6, downplayed the significance of the intelligence limitations, calling it a "local and specific issue." He frames it as a legal problem, preventing Europeans from being complicit in actions that might be legal in the US but not in their own jurisdictions. While there's truth to that, it also seems like a deliberate attempt to minimize the potential fallout.

The US response has been predictably dismissive. Former Secretary of State Marco Rubio, for example, brushed off reports of the UK cutting off intelligence sharing as "fake news." This kind of denial only exacerbates the underlying tensions. The US appears to be underestimating the seriousness of the Europeans' concerns, or perhaps they simply don't care.

The Intelligence Equation: What's Really Being Withheld?

The critical question is: what kind of intelligence is being withheld? The US claims it doesn't need European intelligence for its anti-narcotics operations. A former US military officer even called the European restraint "theoretical." But is that really the case? Are they truly self-sufficient, or are they downplaying the importance of European contributions to avoid appearing weakened?

Consider the geography. The European territories in the Caribbean are strategically positioned. They have established networks, local knowledge, and potentially, access to information that the US might not possess. While the US has vast resources, it lacks the deep-rooted connections that these European powers have cultivated over centuries.

The article mentions the US has released no details to back up its claims that the people targeted in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific were traffickers. If the US is so confident in its intelligence, why the lack of transparency? Could it be that they are relying on questionable sources or acting on incomplete information?

Furthermore, the US has killed at least 83 people via air strikes on boats accused of ferrying drugs since September. That's a significant number. If the US is acting on faulty intelligence, the consequences could be devastating, both in terms of human lives and the long-term stability of the region.

The Europeans' decision to limit intelligence sharing may be a signal, a way of saying: "We're not going to be complicit in your reckless actions." It's a risky move, one that could damage transatlantic relations. But it also reflects a growing unease about the direction of US foreign policy and a desire to avoid being caught in the crossfire. Troubled by US Venezuela operation, Europeans limit intel sharing

Europe's Got a Point

The Europeans' apprehension is understandable. The US approach to Venezuela has been heavy-handed and destabilizing. By limiting intelligence sharing, they're sending a message: the US needs to be more transparent, more accountable, and more respectful of international law. Whether the US will listen remains to be seen.