The future of the Euro-Mediterannean security dialogue

IX. A realistic approach to military cooperation in the Mediterranean
Mark Heller 1
In the totality of Mediterranean security and stability, the military or hard security dimension is a
factor of secondary importance. Other issues, especially economic and social distress and
domestic strife, are more directly relevant to the so-called “soft security” agenda that comes
closest to defining a common security concern of the Euro-Mediterranean space. The
components of that agenda – drug trafficking and other sorts of organized crime, terrorism,
environmental threats, and constraints on personal rights and freedoms (including freedom of
movement) – impinge more directly on the welfare and individual security of people around the
Mediterranean rim. And to the extent that the military dimension is relevant, it is not a
Mediterranean-wide concern, since its relevance varies greatly across the region. In some areas,
it is practically insignificant. In others, it is a very prominent issue. But even in those areas, the
Euro-Mediterranean dialogue is not the most appropriate vehicle for addressing the issue. Given
the continuing political-military weight of the United States in world affairs, the most promising
course is to extend the dialogue laterally and to transform it into a Euro-American-Mediterranean
trialogue.
IX.1 Purpose of the dialogue
Security dialogues can have two agendas. The first is institutional. Many existing institutions are
searching for new approaches to the Mediterranean, and for purposes of this agenda, dialogue is
an end in itself. It may not necessarily have a positive impact on real military-security dilemmas,
but it enhances the visibility and prominence of the institutions involved.
The second agenda is functional. Its purpose is to reduce the insecurities of parties in a
given region, and for purposes of this agenda, dialogue is a means to an end. With respect to the
functional agenda, it is possible to pursue dialogue at two levels. One is a diffuse consultation
that aims to introduce or reinforce general norms of international relations or codes of conduct in
a particular region or, indeed, throughout the world. Norms produced by such security dialogues
usually are at a very high level of generality; examples include commitments to resolve disputes
by non-violent means or to refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.
There are numerous undertakings of this sort – perhaps the most all embracing is the Charter of
the United Nations – and there will doubtless be many more, particularly in the area of global
arms control.
The other level is much more focused. It seeks to produce specific reassurances against
specific insecurities and particularly, in the military dimension, against fear of military attack.
This type of insecurity is ultimately a function of politics, that is, of the political relations
between various countries, rather than about force structures or operational codes or balances (or
imbalances) of power. That is why countries with considerable capabilities (and imbalances),
such as the United States and Canada or France and Germany, do not need reassurances,
confidence- and security-building measures (CSBMs) or third-party involvement, to deal with
their insecurities vis-à-vis each other, while countries such as Greece and Turkey or Armenia and
1 Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv.
33