Abstract
There is a robust consensus among EU Member States about the need to identify the complex links between the threats and challenges to the EU's security. The new institutional framework for the EU's external action will allow it to make further progress in developing a comprehensive security policy, integrating both internal and external dimensions of security and mobilising the policies and instruments required to effectively respond to security threats. New initiatives could pave the way for a more cooperative management of ‘global home affairs’.
In December 2003 the European Council adopted the European Security Strategy (ESS) submitted by the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union/High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy (SG/HR). It was drafted against a background of sharp disagreement within the EU over transatlantic relations and relations with NATO following the Iraq War. There was consensus that a structure needed to be created around which EU foreign policy could coalesce. At the same time, Member States were keen to avoid legal obligations such as those implied by adopting the formal Common Strategies introduced under the Amsterdam Treaty. And it was seen as essential to develop the EU's European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) capacities, both military and civilian, within a comprehensive, forward-looking strategic framework. The ESS has since been considered one of the EU's main strategic security and foreign policy documents. While the 2003 ESS referred to global challenges and the relationship between security and development as well as energy dependence, it focused on threats directly relevant to the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and on reinforcing the concept of ‘effective multilateralism’, centred on the role of the UN. It was agreed in the following year that the ESS should be implemented through four ‘sub-strategies’ relating to effective multilateralism, the fight against terrorism, the wider Middle East region and Bosnia-Herzegovina (for which a military ESDP operation was set up). A fifth strategy on weapons of mass destruction had already been approved. In December 2007 the European Council gave the SG/HR the task of examining the implementation of the ESS with a view to proposing elements to improve it and, as appropriate, elements to complement it, for adoption by the European Council in December 2008.
Reviewing the implementation of the ESS has been an opportunity to assess performance over the last years, identify new challenges and agree on the necessary steps to tackle them. The ESS has stood the test of time. As the European Council stated, the strategy has proved useful and has provided the EU with a relevant framework for its external security policy. It is holistic in its approach to security and reflects the values and principles—respect for human rights and the rule of law—which should guide the EU's action.
The EU has actively addressed the key threats described in 2003—terrorism and organised crime, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts and failing states—at the European level and at the level of Member States. Under what is now called the Common Security and Defence Policy, it has acted autonomously and with partners—with Community instruments and with 23 civilian and military crisis management missions—in support of third states and international organisations across three continents. These missions are innovative, tailor-made solutions, mixing civilian and military components. This is precisely what the EU's added value consists of—and what the complex security challenges of our world require.
The threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has arguably increased, particularly in the regional context of the Middle East, accelerating efforts by some states to develop ballistic missiles. And the war in Georgia has tragically reminded us that armed conflicts in the EU's neighbourhood do not entirely belong to the past.
There have also been changes in the global security context since 2003. Developments around us are accelerating. The EU must take account of new factors that affect the security of European citizens and of the world generally. The ESS has already highlighted the importance of globalisation and the role of non-state actors, European dependence on energy and competition for natural resources, and the impact of poverty, new diseases and climate change, causing increased migration. Climate change, energy security and cyber security are indeed of more pressing relevance today than they were in 2003, as are the destabilising consequences of migration and natural disasters. These issues deserve greater attention. We also need to take account of the fact that in Europe as throughout the world, the combination of vastly fluctuating commodity prices, especially for foodstuffs, and competition from emerging economies is directly relevant to people's well-being.
There is, furthermore, a greater awareness of the increasing interconnection of threat factors. Organised crime, illegal immigration, threats to maritime security and terrorism are fuelled by regional conflicts—and these, in turn, foster state fragility, regional instability and conflicts. The same is true for arms proliferation, from small and light weapons to ballistic missiles. Climate change is the ultimate threat multiplier, resulting in new ‘climigration’ and threatening to push weak states over the edge. There are also clear links between climate change and energy security, and among inflation, economic slowdown and political instability.
In light of these considerations, and building on the new policymaking framework introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, the EU should continue to concentrate on three main objectives.
Moving towards a more cooperative management of ‘global home affairs’
The EU must continue to contribute to a multilateral system that works effectively, especially in a fast-changing international system. Strengthening global governance is essential. Working with the new powers will be increasingly important. If the EU wants these emerging powers to take on more responsibility—for instance, in climate change and energy security—the EU should engage them more and offer adequate incentives to take on enhanced responsibilities that match their enhanced capacity to contribute to collective security, both bilaterally and in multilateral UN and G20 contexts. The EU potentially has a key leadership role in fostering a more cooperative management of what a growing number of national governments recognise as ‘global home affairs’.
Whenever the EU decides to tackle a threat to its security or that of its partners, we face two imperatives. First, we must be clear on what the political strategy is—and ensure that means and goals are aligned. Second, since such threats are all complex in nature, we should always view them through a wide lens, and we should mobilise the full range of tools at our disposal in order to deal with them. But even if the EU has all its policies lined up and the political will to act, Europe alone will not be able to solve the security problems which confront it. In a world of deep interdependence, where threats are global, everybody needs partners. ‘Global governance’ is an overused phrase but a vital concept. In many respects the existing system is under pressure—both in terms of effectiveness and legitimacy—just when we need it most.
A key example is the the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The NPT has served us well. But it is under serious stress. We have to take clear action against those who are not in compliance with the treaty, but we must also provide access to civilian nuclear technology to those who want it, with proper safeguards. The 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the NPT which took place on 3–28 May 2010 at UN Headquarters in New York offered an opportunity to think about the changing requirements in terms of multilaterally agreed disciplines to effectively meet our common security objectives. Beyond Europe, the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Vice-President Ashton, has repeatedly mentioned as a priority her wish to invest in strengthening partnerships with a number of new global actors across the world: China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico and Indonesia. For too long, these countries have been seen mainly through an economic lens. But it is clear that they are major political and security players too, with increasing political clout. Our mental map has to adjust—and quickly. And it has to happen when strategies are formed, not just when resources are needed for implementation.
The EU should also be demanding. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. The rising powers have a big stake in upholding global stability and security. And it is appropriate that they be asked for a fair contribution to the growing production of global public goods that are needed. The EU should also improve cooperation with multilateral organisations, playing a key role in the provision of collective security, including NATO, the UN and the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe).
Translating the concept of human security into an ambitious vision for the EU's soft power
The EU also needs to continue to address threats at their source, which means it must have the capacity and the political will to engage in preventive intervention and promote long-term stability. There is a recognised interdependence between security and development, and this relationship affects ‘human security’ as identified by EU Member States through their collective reflection on the ESS and its implementation.
The EU has made progress in developing a distinctive European way of crisis management, using a wide range of instruments. The demand for European engagement continues to grow. If the EU's ambitions to increase its contribution to preserving global security are to be realised, its activities must be backed by adequate, available and sustainable civilian and military capabilities. They must also be backed by a coherent vision of the contribution that EU policies can make in preventing or mitigating crisis factors and security threats, particularly through reducing economic vulnerability and tensions from growing demands for natural resources, including water, and from illegal migration.
Sharing the benefits of peace and stability with EU neighbours and consolidating credibility as a global actor
Much of the EU's credibility as a responsible global actor lies in the act of sharing the benefits of peace and stability with our immediate neighbours through the EU enlargement process, the Eastern Partnership, the Mediterranean Union and the Northern Dimension. The EU needs to continue to build a strong and peaceful neighbourhood, expanding the successes already achieved and putting more efforts into addressing conflicts and instability just beyond its borders. We must get better at coordinating our engagement, especially in the field of security. Strengthening the governance of countries and the cohesion of regional organisations concerned is essential.
Alongside the European Neighbourhood Policy and the enlargement policy, the EU is open to discussing any idea that could enhance European security. Not all is well on our continent. Distrust lingers. Some conflicts are far from ‘frozen’. Some treaties, for instance on conventional weapons, are not functioning as they should. And new security challenges loom. From this perspective, the EU is naturally open to discussing the Russian initiative for a European Security Treaty. A number of principles and commitments that EU Member States have commonly agreed to should be added to the draft proposed by Russia:
that the OSCE should be the primary place for discussions on this matter;
that the treaty should be developed within the required multilateral framework, involving the US, Europe and Russia;
that we agree to settle political disputes by non-violent means;
that states are free to join the security alliance they wish; and
that we uphold a comprehensive approach to security, including respect for human rights.
Conclusion: a new narrative to enhance the legitimacy of the EU integration project
Negotiations and the rule of law have successfully replaced power politics in intra-European relations. This is a remarkable achievement and something which is watched carefully by other groups across the world, such as ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) or the African Union. No doubt they are conscious of our shortcomings as well as our successes. And we do not seek to impose our system on others. Nonetheless, expectations are high as regards the contribution the EU could make to world peace and stability. These expectations, shared by our citizens and the peoples and governments of a large number of third countries, are not yet matched by our impact.
A visibly more ambitious and more effective role for the EU in conflict prevention, crisis management and development of adequate multilateral security systems would do much to write a new narrative for the EU's external policy. The Lisbon moment, with its numerous foreign policy innovations, offers a new impetus for this progress, even if developing that narrative will not be straightforward. But it is essential nonetheless to enhance the legitimacy of the EU integration project and secure the global role of Europe within the power-shifting world of the twenty-first century.