Despite the treaty amendments of Maastricht, Amsterdam, and Nice CFSP lacked the strategic outlook to deal with the violent end of Yugoslavia in the s and its aftermath or to create unanimity toward the US-led invasion of Iraq in Biscop , 5, 16 and Dover , The EU needed to specify its foreign policy goals and how to secure them. The Lisbon treaty of and the ESS were designed to alleviate the lack of coherence of EU foreign policies by creating a strategic framework and reforming the institutional structure of CFSP.
The ultimate goal was and is to change how security challenges are tackled globally. As neorealists point out, this expansive strategy threatens to alienate neighbours, especially Russia Mearsheimer a and b, Dannreuther , How does the EU want to change the approach to security? The ESS provides a guiding strategy, a policymaking and -management tool, to ensure the foreign and security players in the EU act coherently Biscop , , Biscop , Instead, it provides a strategic framework to tackle various global threats , Each requires a mixture of elements.
It attempts to change the concepts of strategy, security, and power, to move away from the use of force, such as outright military engagement, and toward creating an environment in which violence is prevented through civilian and crisis management tools. It tries to overcome the lowest common denominator that, as realists and liberal intergovernmentalists believe, is the result of the quintessentially intergovernmental CFSP style which promotes the specific interests of powerful EU member states, such as the UK, France, or Germany Hyde-Price , and Delcourt and Remacle , The ESS commits the EU to effective multilateralism, a centre-piece of the strategic framework designed to change the global security environment.
Effective Multilateralism means that the interconnected and transnational security issues identified by the ESS must be tackled with a tailored set of actions and policies by groups of states. It rejects unilateral approaches. Other international organisations also feature prominently in the ESS as part of effective multilateralism. For instance, the EU attempts to legitimise its security role through a recourse to the United Nations Charta, whose values it purports to defend and uphold through nation-building, crisis prevention and crisis management missions European Council , , Gowan Even when the EU believes it is acting in accordance with UN norms and furthering effective multilateralism, it might be undermining the United Nations as such, acting without its support Gowan , Effective multilateralism and its recourse to the UN Charta is not as straightforward as the ESS might wish to suggest.
The ESS itself describes the world as multipolar. It believes multipolarity can be stable, but only through a certain approach to the new security environment — again the document refers to effective multilateralism as the solution. Here we glimpse an attempt to legitimise the EU as a global actor.
International organisations, such as the EU, are seen in the ESS as responsible for upholding the rules of the international society and sanctioning violations. Through a ordered international society, the EU wishes to promote democracy and the rule of law globally as it believes that a system of democratic governance best suits its own security needs.
A model of security governance through international society, in short, pervades the relevant documents. The ESS is a well formulated guide. It calls for an active, coherent, and capable EU committed to changing the regional and global security order, ensuring the multipolarity it diagnoses does not lead to instability. In order to do that, the EU promotes a rule-based international society solution, based on the UN Charta, and in which the European values of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights are spread gradually through development and cooperation with organisations and states to strengthen the security community.
There are difficulties though. So far the EU and MERCOSUR have failed to agree on a free trade regime and bilateral relations — good or bad — between members of the two organisations tend to preclude more substantive inter-regional cooperation Santander and Ponjaert , The European Defence Agency should play a crucial role, both in coordinating existing procurement plans, and encouraging more multinational procurement and sharing of key assets such as logistics.
The coherence deficit. The implementation of EU strategy suffers from an institutional weakness regarding the conduct of foreign policy that has not yet been overcome due to the difficulties in ratifying the Lisbon Treaty.
Different branches of the EU institutions sometimes manage different civilian operations in the same country, mixed with an ESDP military operation, which also requires working with the EU presidency and the Member States. Plus, aside from internal coherence between the Council and the Commission, among others, the EU needs to work effectively with other organisations and countries. One major problem is that EU structures are not designed to have a single chain-of-command.
As a start, the EU should carry out many more crisis management exercises to develop its internal coordination. A common position towards NATO. However, there are still some problems in the relationship, such as a lack of military capabilities, the lack of an EU-US forum for strategic dialogue and knowing how to deal with a resurgent Russia. In general EU-NATO cooperation is too ad hoc and requires a more systemic approach to work out shared strategic interests and contingency planning.
The neighbourhood is closer to the heart of European Strategic interests. There is a clear need to have a policy of equilibrium between the East and the South, in order to build a common foreign and security policy able to integrate the specific sensibilities and interests of the Member States. At the same time the Union should accept that in the East as in the South a link needs to be established in the long term between development, democracy and security.
More efforts should be made in conflict prevention and resolution in the neighbourhood, as a sine qua non condition for progress on both fronts of stability and democratisation. This means that Europe must be able to live up to its principles, including the free movement of people. Borders should not be perceived as just being about challenges and security threats, but as also presenting opportunities to create complex, transnational zones of administrative and cultural activity and exchange.
Conflict prevention must prevail over conflict-management. They fuel separatism and undermine sustainable development and democratic consolidation, and they also foster remilitarisation across borders. The Union needs to develop a policy designed to prevent conflict, the need for which was apparent throughout the year , particularly in the case of Georgia.
In the last five years, the EU has not been able to deliver a real policy of prevention of conflicts like the one in Georgia or to foster a real solution to the Israeli-Palestinian question.
Dealing with global challenges and avoiding securitisation. The focus of attention and debate in shifted from the types of challenges highlighted in — terrorism, proliferation, failing states and organised crime — to global challenges that transcend the purely security dimension such as climate change and energy, seen as major long-term concerns, and the new kinds of challenges posed by the unfolding financial crisis.
However, the more traditional security field was not neglected. There is a clear need to avert further proliferation and new strategic thinking on multilateral regimes and instruments is in strong demand. Concerns exist as to the introduction of a power-politics equation in Europe by Russia. The possibility of Europe being drawn into a world game of power politics for which it has no wish and is ill-prepared cannot be entirely discarded, even if there is a widespread conviction that the EU has no clear adversary, and thatthere is no new Cold War in the offing.
Dealing with the situation in Afghanistan, where there is a real risk of NATO failure, was perceived as a security priority, as well as the conflicts in the Neighbourhood. Working with the new American administration.
Even in an increasingly multipolar world, there is no doubt that the US will remain powerful and a crucial partner for Europe. The EU must be clear on its priorities for cooperation with the new US administration, focusing on effective multilateralism, the broader Middle East and Russia.
Moreover, the change of administration in the US has provided an opportunity for the EU to make a strong case for deeper American engagement in non-proliferation regimes, such as the ratification and implementation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Better governance for a better world. Many of the challenges that today loom large in the concerns of Europeans, like the economic and financial crisis, climate change or energy, or the need to prevent humanitarian crises, genocide and mass murder, need to be dealt with at world level.
The same is true for poverty and pandemics. Globalisation is both an opportunity and a challenge.
0コメント