How Development of the European Security and Defense Policy Made the EU a Strategic Actor - Essay Example

To what extent has the development of the European Security and Defense Policy made the EU a strategic actor. Introduction Nowadays the global security environment changes quickly. Because of frequent terrorist attacks and threats, natural disasters, local national conflicts, unforeseen breakdowns in vitally important technological systems and other imminent accidents, the problems of internal and international security are on the top of political strategical agendas of almost all countries and international organisations. During the last fifty years a system of European security has been changed dramatically. The process of changes involved a participation of various actors, a creation of new governmental institutions, a great exchange of ideas, policies and approaches to national and international security and defense. Webber et al. assert that “the Europeanisation of security has been the great political revolution of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries” (19). One of the outcomes of the process, which is considered to be of a great importance, is the innovative European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP). This paper is aimed to discuss the role of the ESDP development process in a building of European security competence and in a strengthening the role of the European Union (EU) in the context of the world security and defense policy. The origin and development of ESDP During the period of the Cold War, prior to 1999, the EU played a quite passive role in the own security area. According to the terms of a settlement, made in the early 1950s between the US and the Western European Union (WEU), the EU was a civilian institution, while the responsibility to assure security in Europe was laid upon NATO and WEU (Deighton, 720). In 1990s immense changes shook the Europe, forcing the EU to adapt to these historical changes. The fall of the Berlin Wall and re-uniting of Germany, the break-up of the Soviet Union and the end of the Iron Curtain, the collapse in Yugoslavia and the Balkan War – there are one of the major events of 1990s that changed the old European coordinate system. Since 1991 the role of NATO in the European security has been questioned, and in 1994 the European security and defence identity concept (ESDI) was developed as “a framework for combined joint task forces, coalitions of the willing for military security provision” (Deighton, 724). In 1997 the EU member states signed the Amsterdam Treaty, which provided the basis of development of a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), of which European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) is a significant integral part. The political push for this progress was made by France and the UK in Saint Malo in December 1998, where the need to establish own autonomous capabilities to secure and defend the EU was made public for the first time. The declaration, in particularly, emphasizes that (Deighton, 725): The European Union needs to be in a position to play its full role on the international stage. To this end, the Union must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed by credible, military forces, the means to decide to use them, and a readiness to do so, in order to respond to international crises, acting in conformity with our respective obligations to Nato. Thus, one can consider that the ESDP development seems to be the logical result of an objective historical process - the European Union found itself in a conditions when a more comprehensive institutions and new competencies became extremely needed to ensure security and defense of its members. The European Security and Defense Policy is considered as an innovation in the EU security governance. Webber et al. believe that it is innovative by two main reasons: First of all, it caused the development of a number of absolutely new governmental institutions, such as the High Representative Office, Political and Security Committee (PSC), the European Union Military Committee (EUMC), the European Union Military Staff (EUMS), the European Union Committee for Civilian Aspects of Crisis Management (CIVICOM) and some others. Second, it promoted for the first time for EU the development of “a discrete military capacity”, so called the “Petersberg Tasks” (Webber et al., 15), which are referred to crisis management and suppose using military forces for the purposes of peacekeeping and other humanitarian missions within a limited period of time – so, it was a powerful incentive toward the development of the internal security policy of the European Union. In order to understand more clearly crisis management in the context of the European Security and Defense Policy, it is important to make some definitions in regard to the Petersberg Tasks. So, “peacekeeping” includes “actions undertaken over the medium and longer–term to address root–causes of violent conflicts in a targeted manner” (Duke and Ojanen, 484). Root causes may include different factors – from “imbalance of political, socio-economic or cultural opportunities amongst different identity groups” to the “lack of democratic legitimacy and effectiveness of governance” or “lack of a vibrant civil society” (Duke and Ojanen, 484). Among other humanitarian missions there might be conflict prevention, conflict management, and even conflict resolution. It also should be noticed that the prevention of any kind of conflicts is the major task of the ESDP crisis management. Thus, a “militarized” nature of the innovation led to the common opinion that the ESDP creation was a military revolution in Europe, which yet caused in turn the changes in the civilian nature of the institute of the European Union itself (Deighton, 719). It becomes clear that security in the EU is defined now as a complex issue, comprising many social and even individual aspects – economics, environment protection, human rights, humanitarian mission, criminal policy etc. Today it is no doubt that, within a short time, the European Union has become an active and influential actor on the world arena of security and defence. Now the European Union has to have its own independent polices and strategies, as well as definite relations with other international security institutions, with NATO in the first place. Overview of the European Security Strategy From the point of view of security governance, today’s Europe can be characterized “by heterarchy, or multiple centres of power, a multiplication of actors involved in the provision of security, and highly developed forms of institutionalisation and community building, with these forms being extended across the continent, functionally within the sphere of security and geographically through enlargement and partnership” (Webber et al., 25). Such complex nature of the European Union institute and changing international context caused the necessity to develop new frameworks of strategic thinking concerning the EU security. In 2003 the first European Security Strategy (ESS) was developed in purposes to provide guidance concerning the role of the EU on the world security arena. Heusgen emphasizes the following main statements of the ESS (7): Analysis of threats the EU is confronted with - currently a list of threat situations includes terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional crises, failing states and organised crime; in addition several global challenges are mentioned too: poverty, diseases, environmental destruction, etc. Defending European security and values – this includes the defence of the EU itself against possible threats, as well as security in the neighbourhood of the EU and the establishment of a world order based on effective multilateralism. In this perspective the EU understands a vital importance of links between internal and external security and has a clear strategic objective to improve intelligence cooperation between national, European and international bodies, such as Europol and Interpol. Several particular regions are mentioned in the ESS (e.g. the Middle East) regarding to which special conflict and threat prevention measures are suggested, including strategical partnerships with other key actors. Implications for EU policy resulting from the treats and strategic objectives described above – the ESS assumes that the European Union has to get more active, more capable of acting, and more coherent – more focused in terms of connection of different security capabilities and instruments, used currently throughout the Europe. The ESS suggests that “the first line of defence will be abroad” (Duke and Ojanen, 486), hence establishing its main focus onto external security objectives. But yet, the merging of internal and external security management aspects is one of the major objectives of the EU’s security strategy. It was also highlighted in another significant document, the EU’s Action Plan on Terrorism, which is being reviewed twice a year from December 2004. Role of the EU and NATO relationships in the European defense policy The role of the EU in international security arena increased remarkably, mainly due to its increased capacity to act autonomously, while the role of NATO (largely driven by the US) in the European security and defense area seems to become lesser. Nevertheless, as Deighton asserts the European Union “has neither the military capacity nor the political will to create a security or defence profile that is independent from NATO in the short term” (731). The European Security and Defense Policy describes the aspects of the policy of relationship between the EU and the US over the NATO, which is considered to remain a dynamic influential actor, a key partner in building security in Europe. Webber et al. introduce four ways of contribution of the NATO in the EU’s security provision (14): Due to the shape of the organisational and military infrastructure, NATO associates with a number of arrangements linking NATO with non-members. Due to the political purposes, NATO continues to broaden, at that its trans-Atlantic links remain fundamental ones. It helps to coordinate defence and security matters among a growing number of European states. NATO also considered being an authority over a range of security-related issues. It helps to encompass effectively various issues such as peace-keeping, defence diplomacy, dialogue with partners (e.g. with Russia) and so on, which are of principal significance for the EU. NATO has a strong position as an organisation with a stable set of values associated with security governance. It can not be viewed just as a military alliance, rather it is “an organisation [that represents] an international community of [liberal] values and norms” (Webber et al., 14). Thus, although the EU’s role in security governance in the Europe has increased, which gave rise to competition between the European Union and NATO, the North Alliance (and the US as well) still remains one of the most reliable partners in the European Security and Defense Policy arena. At the same time, Deighton argues that “it is in the Unions’ own interests to create strategic space for itself in a world in which US strategies and tactics began to seem very different from those that have been so assiduously cultivated in the Union over time” (737). In other words, the EU should strive to avoid the situation when American policy and a perception of its own interests would be a strategic barrier on a successful implementation of the European Security and Defence Policy and the European Security Strategy. Conclusion The process of European integration is inspired by objectives to build a powerful community of nations and people in order to ensure a better position and a high quality of life for each of them. Uniting around shared values demands a strong policy of defending these values both internally and externally. The European Security and Defense Policy may be considered as a fundamental step toward a building of the European Union security strategic space; it promotes a number of security initiatives led by the European Union, as well as it reveals a role of EU as a strong strategic actor in the context of the world security and defense policy. However, Delors points out: “The only question that really matters is how we see tomorrow’s world and what role we intend to play” (109). This perspective should be particularly taken into account in a further process of the European “militarization” in order to achieve all purposes of the European Union development strategy. Works Cited Deighton, Anne. “The European Security and Defense Policy.” Journal of Common Market Studies 40.4 (2002): 719-741. Print. Delors, Jacques. “European integration and security.” Survival XXXIII.2 (1991): 99-109. Print. Duke, Simon and Hanna Ojanen. “Bridging Internal and External Security and Defense Policy.” European Integration 28.5 (2006): 477-494. Print. Heusgen, Christoph. “The European Security Strategy as a response to new challenges in EU foreign and security policy.” Civilian Perspective or Security Strategy? European Development Policy Confronting New Challenges in Foreign and Security Policy International Conference, 23 November 2004, Berlin. Ed. Schilder, Klaus and Tobias Hauschild. Berlin: WEED, September 2005: 6-9. Print. Webber, Mark, Stuart Croft, Jolyon Howorth, Terry Terriff, and Elke Krahmann. “The governance of European security.” Review of International Studies 30 (2004): 3-26. Print. Read More