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

The EU, NATO and Emerging Security Challenges in 2012, by Myrto Hatzigeorgopoulos 4
and Member States, particularly as far as the defence industry is concerned, create hurdles for the
development of comprehensive and integrated approaches.
Within the framework of the EU, the Commission, the EEAS, and different Council formations each
address specific aspects of individual ESCs, from their political, economic and social dimensions to their
legal or even normative ones. Indeed, “European capabilities […] remain a complex puzzle of national
and multinational capabilities”. 7 There is, thus, an inherent institutional and functional complexity in the
EU’s action that adds up to the difficulty of defining a coherent and comprehensive strategy for complex
and inter-connected challenges such as the ESCs. The much-required coordination between EU internal
and external security policies and strategies in tackling the ESCs is confronted to the difficulty of
establishing increased interaction between different institutions and actors, with distinct security
mindsets. Although reiterated in the EU’s Internal Security Strategy adopted in February 2010 and in the
Stockholm work programme for 2010-2015, further coordination and involvement of the Justice and
Home Affairs domains and working groups is necessary. This especially applies to the ESCs; there is a
need for the establishment of strong Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) expertise within the EEAS, as well as
deeper engagement of the JHA Council structures in CSDP civilian crisis management missions and in
CFSP working groups. 8 Researchers from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
have declared, “the EU’s efforts [in dealing with the ESCs] could be strengthened by close integration of
internal and external security structures, supported by a single institutional framework”. 9 However,
according to Sven Biscop, Director of the Security & Global Governance Programme at Egmont – the
Royal Institute for International Relations (Brussels), the problem is first and foremost political. He
deplores the lack of political leadership which would allow the EU to clearly define its foreign policy
priorities and interests. 10 This equally holds for the importance and priority that it should attach to the
ESCs. If the setting up of the European External Action Service (EEAS) illustrated the European Union’s
efforts to further integrate and coordinate its foreign policy and external action, its structure and activities
to date have failed to define a precise and proactive agenda. Dr. Biscop favours the idea of a new ESS to
support the EEAS. A renewed Security Strategy should, in his opinion, refresh the EU external action
narrative, define the Union’s grand strategy, outlining its objectives, vital interests and priorities for
foreign policy, set an actual detailed policy, and frame the EU’s specific goals and interests as regards its
neighbourhood and its strategic partnerships. 11
Any comprehensive assessment of the EU’s action towards ESCs should mention European shortcomings
related to the fragmentation of defence budgets on the one hand, and to the limited amounts of money
spent on military Research and Technology on the other. The ESC heading contains a series of challenges
that require technological innovation and efficiency in order to be effectively tackled. The overall
reduction of defence Research and Technology investment will have significant consequences for the EU’s
ability to move forward with its ongoing projects and to develop future capabilities. In this context, the
EU Council has reiterated the need to strengthen both the role of European Defence Agency and the
Commission’s efforts with regards to Research and Technology, particularly with the new European
Framework Programme for Research and Technology (Horizon 2020). 12 The launch of the “Pooling &
Sharing” (P&S) initiative meant to bridge the EU’s capability gap by coordinating defence budgets with
limited resources in the context of the financial crisis, illustrates the EU’s attempts to address these
shortfalls. Thus, despite putting defence budgets under severe pressure, the economic crisis has,
however, created renewed political momentum on defence cooperation and has given a clear impetus for
7 Sven Biscop, “As the EU said at the NATO Summit”, Security Policy Brief, Egmont Institute for International Relations, Feb. 2012,
n°33, p. 5.
8 Florian Trauner, “The internal-external security nexus: more coherence under Lisbon?”, Occasional Paper, EUISS, March 2011,
n°89
9 Interview with Dr. Ian Anthony and Ms. Lina Grip, Stockholm, 5 May 2012
10 Interview with Sven Biscop, Brussels, 27 April 2012
11 Ibid.
12 Council Conclusions on pooling and sharing of military capabilities, 22 & 23 March 2012:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/esdp/129162.pdf
ISIS Europe ESR 54 May 2012