WHAT?
The EU has created a “European security and defence identity”, as part of the “Common Foreign and security policy”. ESDI was first mentioned in the Maastricht Treaty [Art.J4] calling for a framework to manage CFSP and ESDI.
Practically, ESDP dates from the Cologne European Council of June 1999, but several elements brought it to the fore:
- EUROCORPS-Franco German force established in 1992
- Petersberg tasks-derived from a WEU meeting in June 1992
- Amsterdam Treaty-laid the basis for developing operational elements of ESDP 1997
- St. Malo Anglo-French summit; Britain agreed to consider European operations, where NATO does not take the lead. December 1998
- NATO 50th Anniversary summit; Alliance agreed to make its assets available “for use in EU led operations” April 1999.
Petersberg tasks:
- Humanitarian and rescue tasks
- Peacekeeping tasks
- Crisis management including peacemaking tasks
Actors
- “Mr. PESC” ESDI falls under Pillar ll in the EU system-intergovernmental, rather than “community” based. The Amsterdam Treaty [Art.18] created the position of “Mr. PESC” the High Representative.
- PSC: Political and Security Committee. Composed of national representatives at senior/Ambassador level. Similar to COREPER on matters relating to ESDI. It will exercise political control and strategic direction of military operations in a crisis.
- MC: Military Committee. Composed of Military delegates-will give military advice and make recommendations to PSC. The MC gives directions to the Military Staff.
- MS: Military Staff. A resource of military advice and support for EU led military crisis management operations.
- Council of Ministers: ESDP questions will fit into the existing Council structure under the General Affairs Council.
Headline Goal
At the Helsinki Council of December 1999, the EU committed itself to the goal of being able, by 2003, to deploy a military force of up to 60,000 for Petersberg tasks, within 60 days and sustain it for up to a year. [Allied to this was a civilian goal of supplying up to 5,000 Police officers for missions led by the UN or OSCE].
Neutrals
For traditionally neutral countries, such as Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Austria, the new Defence and Security architecture poses interesting dilemmas. One alleged reason for the Irish rejection of the Nice Treaty, is that there are “security” elements in it, which could prejudice Ireland’s neutrality.
WHY?
Drivers
The end of the cold war removed the threat of Nuclear war and of invasion by the Warsaw Pact, but did not bring peace and stability. The lessons of the Balkans and the continuing tension between Greece and Turkey have created a need for internal security. Frequently voiced criticisms from the US of European failures to solve their own problems add to calls for greater burden sharing.
Rationalisation in defence budgets after the end of the cold war has highlighted the need for forces that can respond to fluid security environments. The meagre European contribution to the Kosovo operation demonstrated that few European countries could participate in crisis situations. “Paper armies don’t win wars”.
US Point of view
The Clinton administration was ambivalent about the development of ESDP. The Bush regime has veered from mild hostility to curious scepticism about the ability of Europe to get a serious capability together. The lack of any strategic transport is one reason, possible duplication another.
Relations with NATO
The Nice Presidency report makes clear that ESDP is intended to be autonomous, but does not represent the creation of a “European Army”. ESDP is only intended to act where NATO as a whole does not choose to do so. “NATO remains the basis of the collective defence of [EU] members. Questions arise over the modality of planning and co-operation between SHAPE and EU structures.
The French.
France alone among EU members sees ESDP as a possible springboard to a greater European role on the world stage. Since DeGaulle’s era, France has resented US involvement in European affairs. Germany remains wedded to the NATO concept, as are most of the existing European members of NATO. There is no sign of any European state increasing its defence budget to pay for the Satellite and other expensive equipment which would result from not using NATO assets.
The Turks
Turkey sits astride the EU-NATO policy nexus, as a candidate member for EU membership-whose candidacy has been slow tracked because of, among other things, human rights concerns as well as the Cyprus dispute. Turkey has been difficult in the area of EU access to NATO assets and planning staffs. This sort of linkage has characterized European decision making recently.
WHY NOT?
Dangers of Duplication [spending on equipment or systems which is not interoperable]
- De-coupling [of the US from Europe]
- Discrimination [between EU and NATO]
|
