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 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
The EU, NATO and Emerging Security Challenges in 2012, by Myrto Hatzigeorgopoulos 5 the definition, and the increasing rationalisation and efficiency of the European Union as a security actor dealing with the ESCs. NATO-EU partnership on the eve of the Chicago Summit: the way forward? Launched within couple of months of each other, the EU’s initiative on P&S through the “Ghent Framework” of December 2010 and the “Smart Defence Initiative” (SDI) project announced by NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at the Munich Security Conference of February 2011 both illustrate the concept of “doing more with less”. Both initiatives were launched with the purpose of enhancing defence coordination between Member States in an age of severe financial pressure and austerity, and—on NATO’s side—with the goal of enabling Europe to better respond to crises in its own neighbourhood. This convergence in means and purposes could constitute a good starting point for the reevaluation and strengthening of relations between NATO and the EU. The NATO Summit of 20-21 May 2012 in Chicago, would be an ideal platform to start the process. Three themes will dominate the agenda of the Chicago Summit: preparing the transition and the post-2014 commitment of NATO in Afghanistan; ensuring the necessary capabilities to address the challenges of the 21 st century and defending the Allied populations and territories; and reinforcing NATO’s web of partners around the world. 13 The EU has reasserted its commitment as a security provider in a context of severe financial pressure and in a changing strategic environment. 14 The P&S initiative is at the centre of the EU’s efforts, and has led to the development of project proposals by the EDA and the NATO’s Allied Command Transformation, based on EU defence ministers’ proposals for new cooperative schemes. More concretely, in December 2011, this process led to the EU Member States’ commitment to11 “specific concrete projects”. A 12 th critical project is currently being prepared by Spain to combat improvised explosive devices. The Council welcomes Member States' commitments […] in the fields of: Air to Air Refuelling; Smart Munitions; Aircrew Training; Naval Training and Logistics; European Transport Hubs; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance including Space Situational Awareness; Medical Support; Military Satellite Communications, and looks forward to the concrete definition of these projects as soon as possible, as well as the development of other pooling projects on the basis of existing initiatives, such as: maritime surveillance, Helicopter Training, Satellite Communication (Procurement Cell). --Council conclusions on Common Security and Defence Policy, 1 December 2011 15 The US’s interest in merging certain P&S and SDI initiatives reflects the promising nature of the projects at the transatlantic level. The two parallel initiatives should therefore further evolve into a complementary approach, whereby NATO and the CSDP would co-exist and mutually reinforce each other. In this perspective, the Chicago Summit offers a platform for the EU and NATO to discuss, strengthen and implement their partnership by applying P&S and SDI initiatives to the ESCs. Indeed, each organisation could add value in the struggle to tackle the emerging global threats; significant progress has already been made in EU capability development in the field of air-to-air refuelling, medical support, training (Counter-IED, Helicopter Training Programme, Air Transport Crew, Fast Jet and Naval) and maritime surveillance. Further development of Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance, Future Military 13 “Preparing for Chicago”, 01 May 2012: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_84287.htm 14 Informal Defence Ministers meeting: towards a sustained policy of military capabilities, 19 April 2012: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/esdp/129632.pdf 15 Council conclusions on Common Security and Defence Policy, 01 December 2011: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/126504.pdf ISIS Europe ESR 54 May 2012
Page 1 and 2: ESR 54 May 2012 The EU, NATO and Em
Page 3: 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?