• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

European Union Security and Defence White Paper A Proposal Borja Lasheras Christoph Pohlmann Christos Katsioulis Fabio Liberti Initiated by: January 2010 1 Content About the authors . 2 Preface . 3 Executive summary . 4 1 Why an EU Security and Defence White Paper for 2010–2020? . 10 1.1 Introduction: Time to deliver for Europe’s foreign and security policy . 10 1.2 Trends of the new strategic context and Europe’s role for 2020 . 11 1.3 The absence of strategic direction for ESDP . 12 1.4 Member State level: National interests and the EU’s vital interests . 13 1.5 Our goal: An EU Security and Defence White Paper . 14 1.6 2010 onwards: Building momentum? . 14 2 Security environment: Priorities and criteria for Europe’s security and defence engagement . 16 2.1 The European Security Strategy and ESDP: Overview and achievements . 16 2.2 Main limitations of the Strategy from the perspective of ESDP . 16 2.3 The need to re-focus ESDP . 17 2.4 Developing the Strategy: priorities for Europe’s security and defence . 17 2.5 Threats and overall roles for ESDP . 18 2.6 The European neighbourhood: A priority for ESDP – but not the sole criterion . 20 2.7 Criteria for European engagement . 20 2.8 Common Security and Defence Policy’s Fundamental Tasks . 22 3 The framework for a Common Security and Defence Policy . 24 3.1 Overview and achievements of ESDP over ten years (1999–2009) . 24 3.2 The current institutional framework . 24 3.3 ESDP Missions . 24 3.4 Budget for ESDP . 24 3.5 Shortcomings . 24 3.6 Suggestions and recommendations . 26 4 Strategic partnerships for EU security and defence . 30 4.1 NATO-EU and EU-US Strategic Partnerships . 30 4.2 Other strategic partnerships with security and defence implications . 35 5 Capabilities and means: Civilian and military dimensions . 46 5.1 The civilian dimension of EU security and defence . 46 5.2 Military capabilities: European Armed Forces for the twenty-first century . 52 2 European Union Security and Defence White Paper A Proposal 6 Resources, defence budgets and the European defence industry . 57 6.1 Overview and shortcomings . 57 6.2 Need for reform and recommendations . 59 Abbreviations . 62 Literature . 63 Monographies and articles . 63 Official documents . 64 About the authors Borja Lasheras is an international lawyer specialised in security and defence. Graduated from Harvard Uni- versity in 2007 (LLM), for two years he was Research Fellow in security of the Observatory of Spanish Foreign Policy, Fundación Alternativas, in Madrid. He currently works for the Spanish Mission to the OSCE, in Vienna. Christoph Pohlmann is a political analyst at the International Policy Analysis Unit of the Friedrich-Ebert- Stiftung (FES), the German social democratic political foundation. From 2007 until 2008 he was working at the FES Office in Johannesburg / South Africa. He is the author of »NATO and ESDP: Two security institutions between competition and cooperation«. Christos Katsioulis is Coordinator for activities on ESDP and CFSP of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) in Berlin, the German social democratic political foundation. From 2005 until 2007 he was working at the FES Office in Brussels on various issues of European integration. Before joining the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Christos Katsioulis was Lecturer for European Foreign Policy at the University of Trier. Fabio Liberti is a research fellow at the Paris-based Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques (IRIS), where he is responsible for European Affairs and ESDP issues area. He is the author of several studies for the French Administration, as well as for the European Commission and the European Defence Agency. Borja Lasheras, Christoph Pohlmann, Christos Katsioulis, Fabio Liberti 3 Preface the document, in Madrid (September-October) be- tween the Fundación Alternativas and the Spanish This working paper, written by several Research Fel- Ministry of Defence, which gathered leading experts lows of three European think-tanks, contains a pro- and policy-makers in CFSP/ESDP. The paper has there- posal – ambitious but realistic – for a future White fore benefited from significant discussions through- Paper of EU’ s security and defence. out 2009 with various policy-makers, together with It was first conceived between the Fundación Al- the very valuable work of a number of European cen- ternativas and the Spanish Institute of Strategic tres in recent years. The authors are very appreciative Studies (Spanish Ministry of Defence), which sup- of all of them.1 ports this endeavour, in several meetings in Spring In terms of its structure, usually a Green Paper pre- 2009 and as a follow-up to previous collaborations cedes a White Paper. However, in CFSP/ESDP, in con- on the subject of European defence. trast to other fields, no such Green Paper has yet The goal was to produce a wholly European emerged. Thus, the authors decided to adopt the fol- project, with as much ownership as possible. Thus lowing procedure: with the exception of Chapter 1, the paper was jointly developed among the signato- each chapter contains a very brief assessment outlin- ries above, who, between the months of July and ing developments with regard to the particular November, set themselves the goal of taking a fresh theme; then, the main shortcomings are analysed, look at European security and defence – a challeng- concluding with policy proposals on a priority basis. ing task in itself. The resulting Working Paper thus We hope that this document, this non-official has been developed by the Fundación Alternativas White Paper, will be helpful to CFSP/ESDP practition- and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, with the participation ers and policy-makers, strengthening common posi- of Fabio Liberti, from the Institut de Relations In- tions in the relevant strategic questions of this age (a ternationales et Stratégiques (IRIS-France). much needed task), and perhaps contribute to mak- Our work included a meeting in Berlin, a work- ing the idea of a Union of security and defence a real- shop of experts and a joint seminar of presentation of ity throughout the next decade. Borja Lasheras Christoph Pohlmann Christos Katsioulis 1 In particular, the authors would like to thank for their help- ful comments on early drafts of this paper: Alastair Cam- eron (RUSI-UK), Natividad Fernández Sola (Strategic Unit, Spanish Ministry of Defence), Nick Witney (European Council of Foreign Relations), Sven Biscop (Egmont Royal Institute of International Relations), Antonio Ortiz (Office of the Secretary General, NATO), Nicolás Sartorius (Opex- Fundación Alternativas), Giovanni Gasparini, Enrique Ayala (Opex-Fundación Alternativas), Vicente Palacio (Opex-Fundación Alternativas), José Antonio Sabadell (Spanish Permanent Representation to OSCE), Ignacio García (Spanish Institute for Strategic Studies, Spanish Ministry of Defence), Juan Moliner (General Secretariat for Defence Policy, Spanish Ministry of Defence), Félix Arteaga (Elcano Royal Institute). 4 European Union Security and Defence White Paper A Proposal »Five years ago, the ESS set out a vision of how the EU would be a force for a fairer, safer and more united world. We have come a long way towards that. But the world around us is changing fast, with evolving threats and shifting powers. To build a secure Europe in a better world, we must do more to shape events. And we must do it now.«2 Executive summary to react coherently and in good time in the face of escalating events, with the right tools and partners. One Vienna-based Spanish diplomat likes to describe That may apply to recent EU missions, including EU’s security policy in action as a »jazz band, not a ATALANTA, which to some was the first real strategic classical orchestra: musicians with different abilities mission of the EU with clearly defined interests (pro- and instruments participating in a permanent jam tecting shipping lanes). session, with a basic tune and a general idea of the However, in a context in which all the other major kind of music they want to produce … a band which powers act strategically and in which significant secu- finds it hard to agree on a specific arrangement, but rity challenges lie on the horizon, perpetuating this which can eventually sound harmonious – though minimalist approach has obvious limitations for the not necessarily completely homogeneous«. The band EU’s global reach and leverage, if and when it wants is well known among music connoisseurs, while the to meaningfully shape the twenty-first century world general public either ignores it or is bemused by the order. Europeans need to think more strategically in strange sound. Other – more successful – bands, on order to shape events, as the recent review of the Eu- the other hand, praise some of their individual quali- ropean Security Strategy (ESS)3 concluded. And they ties, as well as the fact that they do play (some kind have to come together within the EU to deal with the of) music, despite all the problems, whilst grinning at hard topics which, all too often, have divided them or its lack of success. 2 with which they have allowed others to easily divide That is a fairly good description of the EU’s overall them (from Russia’s role in European security to performance as an actor on the global stage during whether to intervene militarily in remote crises in the rather unstable decade we are about to leave be- Sub-Saharan Africa). This they must do to make good hind: some tactical achievements, the valuable expe- on Europe’s responsibilities to maintain international rience of learning on the job as an EU-27, but with a peace and security, to protect the security of its citi- pervading sense of a lack of direction. zens in a world which, unfortunately, is not at peace, Admittedly, the challenges since 2000 have proved to maintain its model and, lastly, to be more effective.

Load more

  66

Copy Link