The European Security Strategy - Coping with Threats in a Comprehensive Way
| | RISQ Reviews | 15 November 2004 |
|
|
|
Author: Sven Biscop
 "Is not the ‘EU way’ that we do not address issues as security problems, but as governance, development, environmental issues etc., unless they pose an effective politico-military threat...?"
In December 2003 the European Council adopted the European Security Strategy (ESS), the first ever common strategic vision of the EU Member States. The best way of summarizing the ESS, the ‘European way’, is ‘effective multilateralism’, the last of three strategic objectives named in the ESS. Effective Multilateralism - ‘the development of a stronger international society, well functioning international institutions and a rule-based international order’ as the ESS has it - concerns the global level, the world system itself, and as such addresses the long-term, underlying factors determining peace and security, and that by multilateral means, by cooperating with others.
The other two strategic objectives in the ESS are implied by Effective Multilateralism. ‘Building security in our neighbourhood’ is the application of the same principles in the proximity of the EU, not because of any hierarchy of objectives, but because the EU has the means, and perhaps even the duty, to directly play the leading role itself in its own neighbourhood, rather than acting through the UN and the other multilateral bodies as it will at the global level. ‘Addressing the threats’, the first objective mentioned in the ESS, demands a number of immediate measures in the politico-military field, but can only succeed in the long-term through the root causes approach of Effective Multilateralism.
Security = Global Governance
Effective Multilateralism can best be understood as an effective system of global governance, i.e. a system able to ensure at the global level access to the core public goods that at the national level the State provides - or is supposed to - to its citizens: stability and security, an enforceable legal order, an open and inclusive economic order and global welfare in all of its aspects (such as access to health, a clean environment, education etc.). These are global public goods to which everybody should have access, including future generations. The different global public goods are inherently related: they can only be fully enjoyed if one has access to them all. In our globalized world, too large a gap between haves and have-nots in terms of access to global public goods is the ultimate systemic threat to Europe’s security: at a certain level of inequality the resulting political instability, extremisms, economic unpredictability and massive migration flows will become uncontrollable.[1]
Although it is still very broad, the concept of global public goods renders it easier to operationalize, almost to visualize even, global governance; it also allows for a clear delineation of policy priorities. The ESS does not explicitly mention the concept, but its implicit presence is evident: ‘The best protection for our security is a world of well-governed democratic states. Spreading good governance, supporting social and political reform, dealing with corruption and abuse of power, establishing the rule of law and protecting human rights are the best means of strengthening the international order’.
Against this background of globalisation, specific politico-military threats stand out. They include regions of chronic tension and long-standing disputes and conflicts, failed States and civil wars, proliferation of WMD and excessive militarization, and terrorism. These challenges directly threaten other regions and States. On account of spill-over effects and the challenge that they pose to international stability, they also indirectly affect the EU. They have to be tackled head-on, using coercive means when necessary, but as they are symptoms of the ‘dark side of globalisation’, effective global governance, improving access to global public goods, must be pursued at the same time as the key to preventing such threats. ‘Security is the precondition of development’, the ESS states, but this works the other way around as well. Of course, the strength of the causal relationship between, on the one hand, the gap between haves and have-nots in the broadest sense and, on the other hand, specific politico-military issues differs from case to case. Nonetheless, in the long term no durable settlement of such issues can be achieved unless the stability of the world system itself is assured.
Implementing Comprehensive Security
If in the ESS the EU recognizes the inseparable links between all the dimensions of Effective Multilateralism, between the different global public goods, then it must act accordingly in implementing the ESS.[2] This comprehensive approach to security implies accepting the ESS as the strategic framework, i.e. as determining the choice of objectives and the development of instruments and means, not just for ESDP and CFSP, but for all of EU external action, across the pillars, from trade and development to international environmental and police cooperation. Here lies potentially the greatest added value of the ESS: providing the stimulus for the effective integration of all EU external policies. For the EU already possesses the full range of instruments, up to the military, only they are not always put to use in a consistent manner; all too often still, policies in one field of external action are contradictory with those in other areas. The adoption of the ESS has created the opportunity to structurally change this.
The European Neighbourhood Policy
At the regional level of the EU’s neighbourhood, the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) certainly goes in the right direction. Comprehensive bilateral action plans with an emphasis on detailed mutual commitments and ‘positive conditionality’ are to promote political and economic reform. Perhaps the fields of CFSP/ESDP could be included in the action plans, so as to stimulate politico-military cooperation as well, such as detaching liaison officers to the EU Military Staff, observing and participating in ESDP exercises and manoeuvres, and eventually participating in EU operations. The ultimate objective in that field is an effective security partnership, i.e. joint mechanisms for early warning, conflict prevention and crisis management, based on a common strategic assessment.
With regard to the Mediterranean e.g., the EU has already offered extensive involvement to its partners, but so far these have been very reluctant to accept the invitation. Care should be taken when developing the ENP not to ignore the acquis of existing frameworks such as the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP), notably as concerns multilateral, region-wide programmes and activities. In fact, the ENP offers a window of opportunity to revitalize the EMP, which has stagnated, obviously because of the Middle East conflict that clouds the whole of the region, but also because of a lack of effort and concessions on the part of the EU, particularly with regard to the agricultural market. For ‘positive conditionality’ to work, real ‘carrots’ must be offered and clear benchmarks must be agreed - both parties must be prepared to make concessions. In the end though, effective democratization can only happen when external stimuli can support local actors to start an internal process of reform.
Empowering the United Nations
At the global level, the EU has less direct leverage, but it can make a significant contribution both to the improvement of mechanisms and institutions for global governance and to the alleviation of specific conflict or humanitarian situations by supporting the UN and the associated multilateral bodies.
At the end of 2003 UN Secretary General Kofi Annan established a High-Level Panel with the aim of recommending, by the end of 2004, measures to enable the Security Council in particular to take swift and effective collective action in the face of threats to peace and security. In a way very similar to an earlier exercise by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), which in 2001 published its report ‘The Responsibility to Protect’, the Panel could lead to a political consensus on a policy framework outlining the types of situations that demand action by the international community.[3] This is the case when States harm their own populations, when national sovereignty must yield to ‘the responsibility to protect’ on the part of the multilateral system - the focus of the ICISS report - but also when States do not live up to their commitments towards their neighbours and the international community, e.g. by violating non-proliferation agreements, by actively supporting terrorist groups or by the illegal use of force. The consistent use of such a framework to judge situations should ensure that they come to the attention of the Security Council at an early stage - and the earlier the intervention, the smaller the need for military action and the greater the chances of success. Furthermore, in the face of public opinion such a framework would make it more difficult for the Security Council not to act. It would thus also deprive those that prefer to act unilaterally from the excuse of UN inaction.
In a May 2004 contribution to the High-Level Panel, the transmission of which the Council approved - but which it did not adopt as an official EU position - this line of action is supported.[4] The Security Council, the paper states, must provide for ‘early and determined multilateral engagement with the government or regime in question, initially on issues of governance, economic management and human rights, and then, should it prove necessary, through coercive means, including, as a last resort, the legitimate authorisation of military intervention’. This contribution to the High-Level Panel is in effect much more unambiguous on the use of force than the ESS itself; in the light of the implementation of Effective Multilateralism, it deserves the EU’s unequivocal support.
In the end of course the political will of the members of the Security Council and of the UN Member States in general will determine whether action is taken or not. On the part of the EU, the will has clearly been expressed to launch operations as ‘subcontractor’ to the UN, making use of the ‘battle-group concept’ providing for the creation of 1500-strong rapidly deployable force packages. The EU and the UN already closely cooperate in the field of conflict prevention and early warning - a necessary tool for the implementation of the approach outlined above - and in September 2003 a joint declaration on cooperation on crisis management was signed.
The Architecture of Governance
Next to this global politico-military dimension, the EU must make a similar contribution in the other fields of global governance as well. For Effective Multilateralism to be implemented, enhancing social, economic and environmental governance are equally important. E.g. the EU could step up its efforts to promote reform of the UN’s Economic and Social Council (Ecosoc) so as to enable it to play a central role in crisis management in case of financial crisis, economic stagnation or famine, when a large number of different actors have to be brought together, next to its traditional role of coordinating different spheres of economic and social development. In these other fields as well, the EU is enhancing concrete cooperation with the UN. On 28 June 2004 the Commission and the UN Development Programme (UNDP) announced a strategic partnership focussing on governance, conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction, with particular attention for countries that emerge from conflict. This is to be the first in a series of partnerships with UN agencies.
In the longer term, the objective of Security Council reform, which is inherently related to the task of the High-Level Panel, should be kept in mind. Legitimacy of decisions is a very important determinant of the success of collective action and is closely linked to the composition of the decision-making body. A mid-term option certainly worth exploring is a more structured partnership between the Security Council and regional organizations, which can act as ‘local agents’ on behalf of the Security Council. Ultimately, a composition based on regional groupings seems to be the best possible way to achieve a better balance.
The links between all fields of external action that are inherent to Effective Multilateralism must not only be reflected in EU policies at the global and regional levels, but also in EU institutions and decision-making, for the elaboration of integrated policies to be at all possible. The single External Action Service that is provided for in the Constitution should thus be conceived as comprising all the relevant directorates from the Commission and the Council Secretariat, while the Union Foreign Minister could act as a very effective driving force. The implementation of the ESS is thus closely linked to the institutional reforms in the Constitution.
Conclusion: Redefining Security
The question could rightly be asked whether all the very diverse dimensions of Effective Multilateralism still fit under the title of ‘security’. On the one hand, a number of observers from e.g. the development sector and the peace movement, and from countries in the South, fear ‘securitization’, i.e. that all of the EU’s external policies would be driven by ‘hard’ security concerns and would thus see the use of politico-military instruments. On the other hand it is feared that by widening the notion of ‘security’ too much, it becomes meaningless. Perhaps the solution is to turn it around. Is not the ‘EU way’ that we do not address issues as security problems, but as governance, development, environmental issues etc., unless they pose an effective politico-military threat to the local population, to a region, to the EU or to the international community? Perhaps then ‘European Security Strategy’ was not such a good title after all - a Comprehensive Strategy for External Action is what it should be, and what it will be if Effective Multilateralism is effectively implemented.
Prof. Dr. Sven Biscop is Senior Researcher in the Royal Institute for International Relations (IRRI-KIIB) in Brussels and Professor of European Security at the University of Gent (Belgium).
[1] Rik Coolsaet & Valérie Arnould, ‘Global Governance: The Next Frontier’. Brussels, IRRI-KIIB, Egmont Paper No. 2, April 2004, www.irri-kiib.be/papers/egmontp2.U561.pdf.
[2] Sven Biscop, ‘The European Security Strategy - Implementing a Distinctive Approach to Security’. Brussels, Royal Defence College (IRSD-KHID), Sécurité et Stratégie No. 82, March 2004, www.irri-kiib.be/papers/Artikel%20V&S%20ESS.pdf.
[3] ICISS, ‘The Responsibility to Protect’. Ottawa, International Development Research Centre, 2001, www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/iciss-ciise.
[4] ‘Paper for Submission to the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change’. http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cmsUpload/EU%20written%20contribution2.pdf.
 Full Paper
Published on 15 November 2004 by RISQ
© Sven Biscop | www.risq.org
All rights reserved.
8728 reads |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | |
 | |
 | |
| Most recent: |
runescape gold |
|
abc |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
My Headlines | Newsfeeds in your mailbox!