In the immediate wake of the recent atrocities in Paris, some politicians have called for the suspension of the Schengen Agreement, which abolished internal borders between signatory countries and allowed the free movement of persons between them.

The agreement, which has been in place for 30 years and has grown to include 26 countries in Europe, establishes common rules on visas, asylum requests and border controls. It is a fundamental symbol of an ever-closer European Union.

The reaction of those politicians calling for its suspension is understandable given, first, a reflection of their (misplaced) political conviction that it is uncontrolled immigration across Europe’s borders that is one of the key causes of the spate of current acts of terrorism and, secondly, that the security of European countries demands tough border controls and a ‘Fortress Europe’.

It is a political view which has considerable support, especially from anti-immigrant movements in France, Germany, the Netherlands and elsewhere. The Schengen Agreement already permits member states to re-introduce controls for short periods if a threat to internal security is perceived. But while a tighter form of border control may be desirable, a wholesale suspension of Schengen in reaction to the internal threats posed by Islamic terrorists is not the best answer.

Also, this would be pointless unless other effective methods are taken up by governments to deal with Islamic terrorists, many of whom are homegrown and against whom stringent border barriers are likely to be ineffective.

Any action also has to be weighed against the freedom of European citizens to move freely, which would be curtailed, undermining our liberty and capitulating to barbarians in our midst.

Dealing with threats requires cool European heads and closer cooperation and coordination between Western countries. There are two fields that are now crucially important.

The first is shared intelligence. The Schengen Agreement already allows for cooperation and coordination between police forces in Europe. But this must now be intensified.

The paramount anti-terrorism tool is good security intelligence. The ability to expose terrorist networks or to pre-empt terrorist attacks is the central purpose of good peacetime intelligence. The massacre of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists exposed a fatal lapse in French security that had failed to keep tabs on militants who had been on terrorist watch lists for years.

The second issue is the EU’s unwillingness and inability to control immigration. The crux of the issue is that there should be a radical change to its policy on both internal (intra-country) and external immigration and its laws on asylum. Brussels must find practical, humane and properly managed solutions to the sources of migration from Africa and the Middle East.

It should now establish with the international refugee agencies a system of processing applications for migration to Europe closer to migrants’ countries of origin, or in appropriate transit countries in North Africa. This would bring some order to the present chaotic conditions and might reduce irregular immigration in the long-run.

While it is important to have a discussion on the wisdom of a completely borderless area within our continent – and examine how that can be tweaked to deal with modern realities - it is in Europe’s security interests to focus on bolstering intelligence and tackling its pressing migration problems. These are issues that can no longer be ignored.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.