The EU, NATO and Emerging Security Challenges in ... - ISIS Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The EU, NATO and Emerging Security Challenges in 2012, by Myrto Hatzigeorgopoulos 2 achieve a “secure Europe in a better world”. 2 This document outlines five main security threats: terrorism, the proliferation of WMDs, regional conflict, state failure and organised crime. The ESS was complemented by the 2008 Report on the Implementation of the European Security Strategy which added some “new” challenges to the original list. The EU’s threat assessment was comparable to NATO’s Strategic Concept, although the ESS did not focus as much on climate change, cyber security, and piracy. There is a common understanding between the EU and NATO about the nature of the principal security challenges of the 21 st century. However, whereas the EU appears to be very focused on regional conflicts and instability derived from state failure internationally and—most importantly—in its immediate neighbourhood, NATO, on the other hand, is more preoccupied with transnational and technological issues such as cyber security and missile defence. A first explanation of this difference can be found in the European Union’s relation to its neighbourhood; over the past two decades, the EU has been very involved with its immediate neighbourhood, attempting to project and spread stability in the wake of the instability of the 1990s. The EU thus has sources of concern for its external action and foreign policy agenda other than the ESCs. Other differences between the EU and NATO also stem from the date of drafting of the ESS: less concern was attached to energy, environment and cyber security in 2003 than in 2010. The launch of the EU’s European External Action Service (EEAS) in December 2010 and the complexity of the preceding preparations also contributed to the ESS not being updated. Gradually, cyber space, energy and environmental security have appeared on the EU agenda as seen through the development of new initiatives within the EU; in December 2011, European Union High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton stated: “we need to be able to respond to the complex threats of today; violent crises, cyber-treats; energy security”. 3 Finally and most importantly, the EU and NATO are different types of organisations with different mandates. NATO has always been a military defence Alliance focusing on the security and defence dimensions of foreign policy. Although it was created for the purpose of ensuring the existence of a peaceful and pacified Europe, the European Union was originally not meant to be a strong international security actor; it may be for this reason that the EU has struggled to define, develop and establish its role and identity as a foreign policy actor. The EU’s position regarding ESCs reflects these difficulties, which has led to the low level of coordination, integration, and visibility on these threats. Addressing the Emerging Security Challenges: NATO and EU approaches […] New security challenges are increasingly inter-connected. An offensive cyber weapon, Stuxnet, was used to disrupt and even destroy parts of Iran's nuclear programme. Narcotics in Afghanistan help finance the Taliban insurgency in the same way that piracy in Somalia is currently funding the al Shabab terrorist organisation. […]So, to my mind, it does make eminent sense to have an Emerging Security Challenges Division in NATO that can deal with the issues separately but also understand how they can impact on each other. --Jamie Shea, 26 October 2011 4 2 A secure Europe in a better world - European Security Strategy, 2003: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf 3 Speech by High Representative Catherine Ashton, European Parliament in Strasbourg, 13 December 2011: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/126896.pdf 4 Q&A with Jamie Shea, 26 October 2011: http://www.atlanticcommunity.org/index/articles/view/Jamie_Shea%27s_Answers_to_Your_Questions ISIS Europe ESR 54 May 2012
The EU, NATO and Emerging Security Challenges in 2012, by Myrto Hatzigeorgopoulos 3 NATO’s method of tackling the question of ESCs has led to a re-shuffling of its structure; in August 2010, the Emerging Security Challenges Division (ESCD) was established within the NATO international staff. Bringing together various existing fields of expertise into a single division, the ESCD purpose is to respond to the cross-cutting and inter-related nature of the challenges it is to deal with. This structural response subsumes two further important changes: an adaptation of NATO’s policy and, more broadly, a paradigm shift in its strategic culture. Assistant Secretary General for ESCs Ambassador Gábor Iklódy summarised the situation: “new challenges - new NATO”. 5 In its efforts to tackle ESCs in a comprehensive and cross-cutting manner, NATO moved away from its reliance on military instruments, deterrence and “reactive approaches”. The overarching principles dictating the ESCD’s strategy with regard to the emerging security challenges are prevention, resilience and non-duplication of structures and capabilities, at international, regional, and national levels. Although the more conventional and more military threat of WMDs still requires a more traditional approach in the Alliance’s view (defence and deterrence), it is not considered to be an isolated issue anymore, as its links in particular with terrorism and cyber security are clear. Thus, the creation of the ESCD, streamlining and coordinating the work of different centres, highlights the strategic importance that the Alliance attributes to the ESCs, as well as its in-depth understanding of their inter-related character which calls for the development of holistic and comprehensive policies. The Alliance’s strategy focuses mainly on consultation, exchange of experience and collaboration with partners, but also on the need for information and intelligence-sharing. The ESCD’s work to support NATO’s role as a platform of dialogue and consultation on new security challenges further illustrates the Alliance’s awareness of the globalised, cross-cutting and non-traditional nature of the ESCs: ‘If the Alliance wants to remain an effective security provider for its members, it must become a team player’. 6 The European Union’s response to the ESCs, on the other hand, has been much more fragmented and disparate. Indeed, while NATO created a new division to increase the visibility and preparedness to respond to ESCs, the EU was caught up in its institutional complexity, and suffered from a lack of political leadership, which, in term, led to a lack of coordinated initiatives. Indeed, if the EU’s Security Strategy did mention ESCs, its record in addressing these threats is less positive. The EU has not been able to translate its conceptual approach to ESCs into clear policy priorities. It has developed sectorial action programmes and has adopted resolutions and strategies to tackle each individual challenge listed under the “ESC” heading, but unlike NATO, it has neither conducted a structural re-shuffling, nor has it prioritised them. Furthermore, the EU’s role as an international security actor tackling emerging threats is undefined. Despite the lack of single institutional framework, some EU responses to the ESCs clearly link and simultaneously tackle several challenges (e.g. terrorism and CBRN risks are highly correlated in EU responses), but comprehensive approaches lack for other threats. Similarly, there are challenges to which the EU responds as a leading actor, others where it acts as an enabler—providing a platform for the coordination of Member States’ policies or information-sharing—and also some where its role is overshadowed by a Member State’s channels and interests. Strategies and initiatives in the fields of terrorism and piracy are significant and have led to the development of concrete projects and actions. However, the EU finds it more difficult to formulate responses on challenges such as cyber-defence and energy security, and its role is extremely limited in other sectors. The salience of the cyber space threat, for example, has only recently emerged as a strategic domain for the EU, notably with the decision taken in March 2012 to establish a European Cybercrime Centre within Europol, at the Hague, Netherlands. Moreover, the EU’s development of a comprehensive, coherent approach to tackle emerging challenges has to overcome the fact that, unlike NATO, the EU does not have a direct mandate to handle the defence dimensions of the ESCs. The EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) still remains the exclusive competence of the Member States, and the underlying power struggles between institutions 5 Ambassador Gabor Iklody, NATO Lisbon Summit Edition- “New Challenges New NATO”: http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2010/Lisbon-Summit/New-Nato/EN/index.htm 6 Ambassador Gabor Iklody, NATO Lisbon Summit Edition- “New Challenges New NATO”: http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2010/Lisbon-Summit/New-Nato/EN/index.htm ISIS Europe ESR 54 May 2012
Page 1: ESR 54 May 2012 The EU, NATO and Em
Page 5 and 6: The EU, NATO and Emerging Security

The EU, NATO and Emerging Security Challenges in ... - ISIS Europe

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?