The New Europe
The Europeanization of
European Security
Can the Europeans go it
alone? Protect themselves (from what? whom?)
Police themselves (settle
ÒinternalÓ conflicts)
Foreign and Security Policy
in the European Union
Probably the least successful
area of EU activity
Why?
The nature of the beast
Acting collectively involves
coordinating the foreign policies of 27 countries
Even in 1991, during first
Yugoslav crisis (Bosnian War), EU 15 languished in inaction
CFSP (Common Foreign and
Security Policy)
Pillar Two in the Maastricht
Treaty (Treaty of the European Union, 1992)
Decision-making: inter-governmental (not supra-national)
Sovereignty/decision-making
still resides at the nation-state level
Decisions made by the Foreign
Ministers of each country meeting as the Council of the European Union (General Affairs and
External Relations, see Ginsberg, 177; and Cottey, 82)
A Plethora of other EU
institutions also involved (discourse,
investigation, persuasion, policy formulation):
1.
European
Council (i.e. heads of government; meet every 6 mos.)
2.
The General
Affairs and External Relations Council (i.e., the foreign ministers; meet
regularly);
3.
Council of
Permanent Representatives (COREPER) (i.e., national ambassadors to the EU
in Brussels);
4.
The
Political and Security Committee (PSC or COPS in French; estÕd in Nice
Treaty; composed of ambassadorial level reps responsible for security and
defense);
5.
High
Representative for the CFSP (estÕd in the AmsterdamTreaty; would have
become Foreign Minister for the EU under the proposed 2007 constitution;)
6. Policy Planning and Early Warning Unit
COMPLEX!!!
Two Models of Foreign Policy
(vis a vis the US)
Euro-Atlanticism
Euro-Gaullism
What countries are associated
with each view?
Euro-Atlanticism
The UK
Portugal
Denmark
Central Eastern Europe
thus,
enlargement complicated an already complicated picture
2
Examples
2003 Iraq invasion
Chirac
says that CE Òmissed a good opportunity to shut upÓ
2008
Poland agrees to missile defense system
Euro-Gaullism
France
Belgium
Luxembourg
In between (emphasizing both close relationship with US and
developing the capacity of Europe to act independently)
Germany
Netherlands
Italy
Spain
Greece
**Agreement among the ÒBig
ThreeÓ
(the UK, France and Germany)
essential to CFSP
EuropeÕs Center of Gravity
Divisions within Countries
Which political parties tend
to be more Euro-Atlanticist? (87)
Why?
Which tend to be more
Euro-Gaullist? (87)
Why?
Other Factors:
How does the foreign policy
approach of US presidential administrations affect EuropeÕs leanings in either
the Euro-Atlanticist or Euro-Gaullist directions (87)?
US ÒWar on TerrorÓ
Pushed Europe in a more
Euro-Gaullist direction
Why?
Neighborhood Politics (Cottey, 88-92)
Formula to influence
neighbors
Political dialogue
Economic aid
Technical assistance
With ÒconditionalityÓ
i.e., if you do these things, you can become
a member
It worked in CE Europe
The Copenhagen Criteria (1993)
Develop stable democracies
Functioning market economies
Be able to cope with competition of EU
Internal market
Adapt to/adopt the EUÕs rules/laws, i.e., the
acquis communautaire
Where else is it likely to
work?
Where wonÕt it work?
A Global Role for the EU (Cottey, 92-94)
2003
European Security Strategy
In a world of global threats, global markets
and global media, our security and prosperity increasingly depend on an
effective multilateral system. The development of a stronger international society, well functioning international
institutions
and a rule-based international order is our objective (as cited in Cottey, 92)
Comments
What strikes you about this quote, its
language, aims?
How is it different from US foreign
policy statements?
Note the timing, 2003
Tools:
Bi-lateral relations
Inter-regional cooperation
Global institution building, support,
participation in
Conflict prevention and crisis
management
What is the biggest obstacle
to the EU playing a stronger role in global security?
Its size – hard to get
consensus, action
Its ethos – waging
peace harder than waging war?
The EU as the worldÕs
morality/human rights police
A European Military? (Cottey, 94-96)
1999 agreed to develop a
Common European Security and Defense Policy (CESDP)
the union must have the capacity for
autonomous action backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to
use them, and a readiness to do so
(in Cottey, 95)
Helsinki Headline Goal
By 2003
Have ability to deploy 50,000-60,000 troops
Within 60 days (some faster)
Sustainable for a year
Self-sustaining (in terms of command and
control – i.e., outside of NATO); estÕd the PSC/COPS for this purpose
plus EU Military Committee (EUMC) composed of member states Chiefs of Defense
Forces made up of national
armed forces, so not a European army
First mission
2003
400 peacekeepers to Macedonia
2004
7000 troops took over peacekeeping in Bosnia
from NATO
**softer types of operations
EuropeÕs forte
humanitarian aid, peacekeeping,
nation-building
complementary
to US?
Peacekeeping has its risks
Internal Security: The EUÕs Area of Freedom, Justice and
Security (Cottey, 97-99)
Schengen area (1985)
Hard external border, Òring
fenceÓ
No internal borders
Originally 5 members (Fr,
Ger, BeNeLux)
Now majority of EU are
members
Not UK, Ireland
Plus non-EU members
Iceland and Norway (Why?)
CE countries preparing to
join
Unique challenges of Eastern
border
Areas of cooperation:
Asylum policy
Border control
Immigration policy
Drug trafficking
International fraud
Judicial cooperation
Customs cooperation
Police operations in
Counter-terrorism
International crime
Some areas more successful
than others
Which?
Why the foot dragging in
other areas?
Ends chapter with this
statement:
[T]he real foreign and security challenge for
the EU is not so much that of co-ordinating policy per se, but whether it can
mobilize the political will and material resources to develop effective
responses to the security challenges of the 21st Century (Cottey, 101).
What would it take for Europe
to do this?
Why would it?
On what basis?