The New Europe
The New Interventionism
Based on Chapter of the same name in Cottey, Andrew. 2007. Security in the New Europe. New York: Palgrave
MacMillan.
ÒInterventionÓ as the EUÕs
role in world security
Òsoft securityÓ missions
humanitarian causes
refugee problems
peace-keeping
state-building
Why?
Why is
this becoming the EuropeÕs forte?
Idealistic Reasons
Because
such missions resonate with EuropeÕs most deeply held political values
Europe feels it is its duty to protect human
life, end war, bring about Kant Ôs Perpetual Peace
Institutionalist Reasons
To
build and maintain the institutions that can promote/maintain the worldÕs
perpetual peace
e.g.
September 2005 the World Summit of UN Heads of State founded the
Peacebuilding Commission and a Peacebuilding Fund at the UN Secretariat (Cottey
127)
Realist Reasons?
Are
these missions in EuropeÕs interest?
Some more than others
A chance for it to flex its muscles?
What cases of action and inaction seem to
support realist arguments?
Controversial
Why?
Negates national sovereignty
Erodes the Nation-State system
**Something to think about
Are
such missions becoming more common because the nation-state system is eroding,
imploding?
Or
Are such missions in fact bringing about the
demise of the nation-state system?
Europe as the WorldÕs Moral
Superpower?
Intervention: Colonialism by Other Means?
What is the legal basis for
humanitarian interventions?
International law would seem
to support national-sovereignty
**Human Rights as a legal
basis
The International Commission on
Intervention and State Sovereignty dveloped the concept of
When
nation-states fail to/are unable to do this, the international community has
not just a right but a DUTY to intervene
(Cottey, 126)
Is this just?
Sound legal reasoning?
A good idea?
What are the dangers in using
human rights as the legitimation for intervention?
What is the differene between
the Òresponsibility to protectÓ and the Bush AdministrationÕs policy of
Òpre-emptive actionÓ?
From the 2002 National
Security Strategy
We
must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they
are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the US or our
allies and friendsÉTo forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our
adversaries, the US will, if necessary, act preemptively (as cited
in Cottey, 128).
European Attitudes Toward
Doctrine of Preemption (aka the Bush Doctrine)
Complex, divided
Depends heavily on
intelligence
e.g. Blair governmentÕs White Paper on
Saddam
HusseinÕs WMD capabilities
later proved false
Contrast Bush Doctrine with
EUÕs 2003 European Security Strategy
Our traditional concept of self-defence—up to and
including the Cold War—was based on the threat of invasion. With new threats, the first line of
defence will often be abroadÉwe should be ready to act before a crisis
occurs. Conflict prevention and
threat prevention cannot start too early (cited
in Cottey, 129; emphasis added).
Specific Interventions
The Balkans
Disintegration of
Yugoslavia/Bosnian
War
1991-1995 EU couldnÕt act
independently/together;
UN
UNPROFOR peacekeepers
Unarmed, unable to keep peace
Years of suffering, genocide,
ethnic cleansing
US/NATO to rescue
NATO ÒOperation Deliberate
ForceÓ
bombed Bosnian Serbs (backed
by British-French-Dutch Rapid Reaction Force – part of UNPROFOR)
to give Bosnians and Croats a
chance to rally
culminates in Dayton Peace
Conference
ceasefire/ NATO occupation
(IFOR/SFOR)
Independent Croatia
Bosnia-Herzegovina as UN
Protectorate (now EU)
1998-1999 Kosovo
Crisis
Faster action
NATO airstrikes March 1999
Occupation by KFOR by June
55,000 strong
2001 Macedonia
smaller force sent in
Conclusions from the Balkans
Balkans as de facto Òwestern
sphere of influence;Ó
Note crucial role for US/NATO
Non-Interventions
Sudan, finally in Chad in
2007
Rwanda
EU gradually taking over the
peace-keeping/state building phases