The European quest for security and defence integration: challenges ahead



Download 173.23 Kb.
Page2/3
Date conversion01.12.2016
Size173.23 Kb.
1   2   3

Challenges ahead
Through this article we aimed to present and analyse the evolution of the European political cooperation from a measure to prevent conflicts inside the community to a civilian and military crisis management tool. We also presented the theoretical framework in which our analysis takes place, and the further steps to be done in the research. In this final section we will present some challenges to the CFSP/ESDP that even tough is already consolidated, still have a long way ahead in order to, as stated by C. Hill, close the capabilities-expectations gap92.

After the failed EU constitutional referendums in France and the Netherlands, the German Presidency proposed at the European Council of Lisbon in 2007 a reform Treaty to the EU which also failed in a referendum held in Ireland in June 2008. Those reforms were to adapt the Union internal politics and bureaucracy to its 27 member-States. Those reforms were also designed to enhance the EU external capabilities and give more coherence to its foreign policy. Said so, we can define the first major challenge of the EU in the years ahead is to understand why those referendums failed and to reform the Union to work with 27 member-States.

According to the provisions in those Treaties, the High Representative for the CFSP would have merged its functions with the European Commissioner for Foreign Policy creating a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy93. This new High Representative would have provided more coherence to the policies under the CFSP/ESDP once he would have managed both political and economical capabilities of the Union. He would also chair the Council and be the Commission Vice-President. The Lisbon Treaty also designed an united European External Action Service which would have provided the High Representative with assessments and expertise.

If the Treaty was approved it would have enabled the EU to develop more consistently its Foreign Policy apparently bridging the gap between the Commission tools and the CFSP tools. However mainly in the Security and Defence field there would nevertheless still be issues opened mainly due to the ESDP lack of independent capabilities to carry on its military missions. Once the ESDP depends on the NATO assets in order to proceed with its military missions and NATO is a military alliance which demands consensus between its members to approve an action (for instance to allow the use of its assets for ESDP missions) the constant denial of Turkey, which is a NATO member but not a EU member, prevent that any actions under the Berlin-Plus agreement is taken. Turkey resent itself for having its application to join the EU constantly rejected and use the main argument of its problem with Cyprus to block the discussions under the Berlin Plus agreement94.

This brings us to the second major challenge for the EU that is how to spend more wisely the 230 billion Euro on defence (numbers of 2004). This amount represents more than half of the US military expenditure and more than three times the budget of Russia. However this budget correspond the 25 armies, 21 air forces and 18 navies in the EU. The European Defence Agency, set in motion in 2004, aims to bridge the gap between the military expenditure of the EU countries to enhance joint-projects (like the Euro-fighter, Euro-copter and A400M) and to strength the EU armaments industry. This would enhance also the interoperability while the armed forces use the same armament.

The third major challenge is the relationship with the neighbours. In 2008 the Kosovo declared its independency from Serbia mainly backed by the United States. The Europeans failed again to put forward a common position on the issues while some EU member-states supported the unilateral independence of Kosovo while other are still reluctant of doing so. In the short time, the tensions between Serbia and Kosovo still represent a major security challenge in the European borders. The way the Europeans deal with this sensitive issue will definitively impact on the course of EU future integration process in defence and security and the way the world view the EU as a reliable and coherent partner. Russia also plays a major role in the region and while it remains an unpredictable partner the EU must be aware that Russian actions can destabilize the regions and lead to the need of a more assertive EU/NATO position (including the issues of Abkhazia, Transnistria, etc.). Also the EU dependency of Russian energy supply brings a very important issue at stake in any negotiation with the Russian partners. North Africa will also continue to represent a major challenge to the EU foreign policy, especially on issues of migration and terrorism. The EU has to cope with the Barcelona Process and enhance the cooperation for development with its southern neighbours. Also Iran is a very important test for the EU foreign policy and how it is able to differ and offer incentives others than those of the United States.



Annex I – CFSP/ESDP instruments


CFSP instruments

Political dialogue and diplomacy

Diplomatic missions

(low intensity)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dialogue

Declarations

Démarches

Special

Observation

Monitoring

 

Meetings

 

 

Representatives

and fact-

missions

 

 

 

 

 

finding missions

 




CFSP instruments

Sanctions

(middle intensity)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Diplomatic

Commercial

Sanctions on

Arms embargoes

 

Sanctions

and economic

capital movements

 

 

 

 

Sanctions

and payments

 

 




CFSP instruments

Crisis mechanisms

(high intensity)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Civil police

Rule of Law

Civilian

Civil

Military

 

Force

Mission

Administration

protection

deployment

 

 

 

Mission

 

 

Tables adapted from: Barbé, Esther, and Benjamin Kienzle, (2007) Security Provider or Security Consumer? The European Union and Conflict Management, European Foreign Affairs Review 12:517-536.


Annex II- EU Missions Overseas
Ongoing Operations:
EU Military Operation in Bosnia and Herzergovina (EUFOR – Althea) - December 2004

EU Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzergovina (EUPM) – January 2003

EU Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX Kosovo) – February 2008

EU Police Mission in the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS) – November 2005

EU Border Assistance Mission at Rafah Crossing Point in the Palestinian Territories (EU BAM Rafah) – November 2005

EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST LEX) – July 2005

EU Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL Afghanistan) – June 2007

EU Mission in Support of Security Sector Reform in Guinea Bissau (EU SSR Guinea-Bissau) – February 2008

EUFOR Tchad/RCA – March 2008

EUPOL DR Congo – July 2007

EU Security Sector Reform Mission in the DR Congo (EUSEC RD Congo) – June 2005
Completed Operations:
EU Police Advisory Team in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (EUPAT) – December 2005 to June 2006

EU Military operation in Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (CONCORDIA) – March 2003 to December 2003

EU Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (PROXIMA) – December 2003 to December 2005

EU Rule of Law Mission in Georgia (EUJUST THEMIS) – July 2004 to July 2005

Aceh Monitoring Mission (AMM) – September 2005 to December 2006

EU Support to AMIS (Darfur) – July 2005 to December 2007

EU Police Mission in Kinshasa (EUPOL Kinshasa) – April 2005 to June 2007

EUFOR DR Congo – April 2006 to November 2006

EU Military Operation in DR Congo (ARTEMIS) – June 2003 to September 2003.
Source: ESDP Home-page: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=268&lang=en&mode=g

Accessed 8 June 2008.


Bibliography:
ALLEN, David, Reinhardt Rummel, and Wolfgang Wessels, European Political Cooperation: Towards a Foreign Policy for Western Europe, London: Butterworth Scientific
BRIGAGAO, Clóvis and Domicio Proenca Jr. (Eds.), (2004) Paz e Terrorismo, Sao Paulo, Huicitec.
CHECKEL, Jeffrey (Ed.), (2007) International Institutions and Socialization in Europe: An International Organization Reader ,New York: Cambridge University Press
DANNREUTHER, Roland and John Peterson (Eds..) (2006) Security Strategy and the Transatlantic Alliance, London: Routledge
DEUTSCH, Karl W., (1963) The Nerves of Government – Models of Political Communication and Control, The Free Press of Glencoe, London
FURDSON, Edward, (1980), The European Defense Community: A History, London: Macmillan.
GINSBERG, Roy H., (1989), Foreign Policy Actions of the European Community, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
GRIECO, Joseph M. (1988), Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism, in International Organization, 42:485-507
GROSSER, Alfred, (1980) The Western Alliance, London: MacMillan
HAGMAN, Hans-Christian, (2002), European Crisis Management and Defence: The Search for Capabilities, Adelphi Paper 353, New York: Oxford University Press
HILL, Christopher (1993) The Capabilities-Expectations Gap, or Conceptualizing Europe’s International Role in Journal of Common Market Studies, 31:3
HOCHLEITNER, Erich, The EU: Providing Common Security, Athena Paper of the PFP Consortium of Defence Academies and Security Studies Institutes
HOWORTH, Jolyon, (2007) Security and Defence Policy in the European Union, New York: Palgrave MacMillian.
KEOHANE, Robert O., and Joseph Nye, (1977), Power and Interdependence, Boston: Little Brown.
_________, Robert O., (1984) After Hegemony – Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, New Jersey: Princeton University Press
KRASNER, Stephen D. (Ed.), (1983) International Regimes, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
LIPSON, Charles, (1991) Why are some international agreements informal?, in International Organization, 45:495-538
MARCH, James G. and Johan P. Olsen, (1989), Rediscovering Institutions: the organizational basis of politics, New York: Free Press.
_______, James, G., and Johan P. Olsen, (2004) The Logic of Appropriateness, Arena Working Papers, 04/09.
MASTANDUNO, Michael, (1988), Trade as a Strategic Weapon American and Alliance Export Control Policy in the Early Post-War Period in International Organization 42: 121-150
MATTLI, Walter, (1999) The logic of regional integration, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MAYER, Christoph O., (2006) The Quest for a European Strategic Culture: Changing Norms on Security and Defense in the European Union. Basingstoke, Palgrave MacMillan
MEARSHEIMER, John J., (1994-5), The False Promise of International Institutions, in International Security 19: 5-49.
MENON, Anand, Anthony Forster and William Wallace, (1992) A common European defense? in Survival, 34:3
MORAVCSIK, Andrew, (1993), Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach, in Journal of Common Market Studies, 31:473-524
NORTH, Douglass C. (1991) Institutions, institutional change and economic

performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
NUTTALL, Simon, European Political Cooperation, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992.
PJIPERS, Alfred, Elfriede Regelsberger, and Wolfganf Wessels, (1988), European Political Cooperation in the 1980s, London: Brill.
SCHIMMELFENNIG, Frank, (2003), The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SMITH, Michael E., (2004a) Europe’s Foreign and Security Policy: the Institutionalization of Cooperation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
______, Michael E., (2004b), Institutionalization, Policy Adaptation and European Foreign Policy Cooperation, in European Journal of International Relations 10:95
STEIN, Arthur A., (1990) Why Nations Cooperate: Circumstances and Choice in International Relations, Ithaca: Cornell University Press
STETTER, Stephan (2004) Cross pillar politics: functional unity and institutional fragmentation of EU foreign policies in Journal of European Public Policy, 11:4 720-739.
STEWART, Emma J., (2006), The European Union and Conflict Prevention – Policy Evolution and Outcome, Berlin: LIT
VAN ECKLEN, Wilhelm, (1998) Debating European Security 1948-1998, Center of European Policy Studies, Brussels and SDU Publishers, The Hague.
VON DER GABLENTS, Otto, Luxemburg Revisited, or the Importance of European Political Cooperation, in Common Market Law Review 16
VON WOGAU, Karl (Ed.), Auf dem Weg zur Europäischen Verteidigung, Freiburg: Herder
WALT, Stephen M., (1988), The Origins of Alliances, Ithaca: Cornell University Press
WALTZ, Kenneth N., (1979), Theory of International Politics, New York: McGraw Hill.
WENDT, Alexander, (1999), Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press



1 Ph.D. Student, University of Tuebingen, Germany. Email: joao.costa@student.uni-tuebingen.de

2


Deutsch, Karl W., (1963) The Nerves of Government – Models of Political Communication and Control, The Free Press of Glencoe, London and North, Douglass C. (1991) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

3On the political economic foundation of integration see Mattli, Walter, (1999) The logic of regional integration, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

4


Smith, Michael E., (2004a) Europe’s Foreign and Security Policy: the Institutionalization of Cooperation, , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

5


Hill, Christopher (1993) The Capabilities-Expectations Gap, or Conceptualizing Europe’s International Role in Journal of Common Market Studies, 31:3, pp. 305-328.

6 VON DER GABLENTS, Otto, Luxemburg Revisited, or the Importance of European Political Cooperation, in Common Market Law Review 16 p. 688.

7


 SMITH, op. cit., p.1

8


Treaty of Amsterdam, Article J.7.

9 SMITH, Michael E., Europe’s Foreign and Security Policy: the Institutionalization of Cooperation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, page 17.

10


 Keohane, Robert O., (1984) After Hegemony – Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp 51-52

11


 Waltz, Kenneth N., (1979), Theory of International Politics, New York: McGraw Hill.

12


 Mastanduno, Michael, (1988), Trade as a Strategic Weapon American and Alliance Export Control Policy in the Early Post-War Period in International Organization 42: 121-150, Schimmelfennig, Frank, (2003), The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13


 Walt, Stephen M., (1988), The Origins of Alliances, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

14


 Smith, op. cit. p.20.

15


 For a different perspective see Boyer, Yves, Uma experiência de cooperacao internacional: A Uniao Européia e as questoes de defesa in Brigagao, Clóvis and Domicio Proenca Jr. (Eds.), (2004) Paz e Terrorismo, Sao Paulo, Huicitec, pp. 321-333.

16


 Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph Nye, (1977), Power and Interdependence, Boston: Little Brown.

17


 Ginsberg, Roy H., (1989), Foreign Policy Actions of the European Community, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

18The „interdependence logic“ represents the international pressures that result in a common response of the EU.

19


The „regional integration logic“ involves demands from inside the region on the EU as a response to its development generating more internal challenges and enhancing the prospects of cooperation.

20


 See Grieco, Joseph M. (1988), Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism, in International Organization, 42:485-507, and Mearsheimer, John J., (1994-5), The False Promise of International Institutions, in International Security 19: 5-49.

21


 Smith, op. cit.

22


 Keohane, op. cit.; Stein, Arthur A., (1990) Why Nations Cooperate: Circumstances and Choice in International Relations, Ithaca: Cornell University Press; and Krasner, Stephen D. (Ed.), (1983) International Regimes, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

23


 Moravcsik, Andrew, (1993), Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach, in Journal of Common Market Studies, 31:473-524.

24


 Smith, op. cit.

25 Checkel, Jeffrey (Ed.), (2007) International Institutions and Socialization in Europe: An International Organization Reader ,New York: Cambridge University Press.

26


 Wendt, Alexander, (1999), Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

27


 Smith, op. cit.

28


 March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen, (1989), Rediscovering Institutions: the organizational basis of politics, New York: Free Press; Douglass C. North (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance, New York: Cambridge University Press; and Smith, op. cit.

29 The ESDP operates inside the institutional framework of the CFSP, the so called Second Pillar of the EU. The first pillar being the Commission and the third being the Justice and Home Affairs. This distinction is recognized as artificial as many author of cross-pillarization explain. See for instance: Stetter, Stephan (2004) Cross pillar politics: functional unity and institutional fragmentation of EU foreign policies in Journal of European Public Policy, 11:4 720-739.


30 Furdson, Edward, (1980), The European Defense Community: A History, London: Macmillan.


31 As the description requires, when I refer to the European Community (EC) it is understood following the common usage, to the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Atomic Community and the European Economic Community linked together with the Treaty of Rome in 1957.

32


Menon, Anand, Anthony Forster and William Wallace, (1992) A common European defense? in
1   2   3


The database is protected by copyright ©dentisty.org 2016
send message

    Main page