DOCSLIB.ORG

The European Union's Wmd Strategy and the Cfsp: a Critical Analysis (Eu Npc Non Proliferation Papers, No. 2)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The European Union's Wmd Strategy and the Cfsp: a Critical Analysis (Eu Npc Non Proliferation Papers, No. 2) EU NON-PROLIFERATION CONSORTIUM The European network of independent non-proliferation think tanks NON-PROLIFERATION PAPERS No. 2September 2011 THE EUROPEAN UNION’S WMD STRATEGY AND THE CFSP: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS peter van ham I. INTRODUCTION SUMMARY Since the launch of its Common Foreign and Security The cornerstone of the European Union’s weapons of mass Policy (CFSP) in 1993, the European Union’s (EU) has destruction (WMD) strategy is effective multilateralism, taken great strides in developing a more coherent and combined with the promotion of a stable international and effective approach to its external relations. Following regional environment, close cooperation with key partners and the determination to act resolutely against pro lifer- the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in December ators. The EU sees WMD proliferation as a growing threat 2009, the EU has opportunities to combine policy and to international peace and security and has become an delivery tools under the single authority of its new import ant financial donor to an array of WMD organ- High Representative (HR) for Foreign Affairs and izations and regimes, strengthening their capabilities to Security Policy, who replaces the EU president as the monitor and verify suspected WMD activities. It would be lead actor for foreign, security and defence policy. One use ful to study what practical effect the EU’s support has of the key challenges for the EU will be combating the really had. proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) The EU has committed itself to halting Iran’s nuclear and their delivery systems. In December 2003 the pro gramme, which can be considered a litmus test for its Council of the European Union adopted the EU’s WMD Strategy. By taking on such a hard case, the EU is Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass run ning the risk that its dual-track approach of multi- Destruction (WMD Strategy).1 However, some initial lateralism and economic coercion will publicly fail. steps towards a common external non-proliferation The EU’s developing institutional framework should give member states more confidence that the Common Foreign policy had already been taken in the early 1980s. and Security Policy deserves another chance. In par ticular, In 1981 a Working Party on Non-Proliferation was High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security established within the framework of the European Policy Catherine Ashton and the newly estab lished Euro- Political Cooperation (EPC). This was the first time pean External Action Service offer opportun ities for that security issues were discussed among member consorted EU policies and actions that did not exist before. states within an institutional setting. This Working However, member states remain unconvinced that the EU Party was a secretive body, only formalized in 1986 by can be trusted with the hard challenge of devising and the Single European Act.2 The 1990 Dublin Declaration implementing a common WMD non-proliferation policy. was the first public high-level document on nuclear non-proliferation by the 12 European Community ABOUT THE AUTHOR (EC) heads of state and government. These historical Dr Peter van Ham (The Netherlands) is head of global minutiae indicate that the EU has come a long way to governance research at the Netherlands Institute of Inter- become a player within the international community national Relations ‘Clingendael’ in The Hague, and on WMD proliferation matters. Today, the EU is Professor at the College of Europe in Bruges. He is a actively engaged in making WMD proliferation a member of the Advisory Council on International Affairs to the Dutch Government and Parliament. His recent books 1 Social Power in International Politics Council of the European Union, EU Strategy against Proliferation include (Routledge, of Weapons of Mass Destruction, 15708/03, Brussels, 10 Dec. 2003. 2010) and Global Non-Proliferation and Counter-Terrorism: 2 Single European Act, Official Journal of the European Communities, The Impact of UNSCR 1540 (Brookings, 2007). L169, 29 June 1987, Title III. 2 eu non-proliferation consortium cross-cutting priority of all member states’ policies efforts in this area. First, the end of the cold war and in arriving at ‘better coordination and optimal initiated a novel strategic environment, with new mobilization’ of the available tools and policies among security challenges and opportunities to develop new them.3 In its New Lines for Action by the European initiatives and policies. US–Soviet rivalry came to Union in Combating the Proliferation of Weapons of an end and the 1990–91 Gulf War revealed that Iraq Mass Destruction and Their Delivery Systems (New was developing a clandestine nuclear programme, Lines) of December 2008, the EU argues that ‘Weapons warning the international community that existing of mass destruction which may be in the hands of states non-proliferation treaties and regimes were flawed. of concern or terrorists/non state actors constitute Moreover, in 1992 France joined the 1968 Non- one of the greatest security challenges which Europeans Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as the last EC member state may ever face.’4 It is with this sense of urgency that the to do so, removing a major obstacle in developing a EU has identified WMD proliferation as one of the key common EU stance on non-proliferation matters. priorities of its CFSP. Second, the legal establishment of the CFSP through This paper sketches the background of this strategic Title V of the Treaty of the EU (Maastricht Treaty) in choice and offers a critical analysis of the EU’s 1993 offered a solid institutional framework for closer objectives and achievements in this area. Section II lays cooperation on foreign and security matters among out the policy framework of non-proliferation within member states, including WMD non-proliferation. the CFSP by examining the main strategic documents. However, the CFSP did not include defence policy Section III presents the key tools for implementation. other than ‘the eventual framing of a common defence Section IV assesses the role of non-proliferation in policy which might in time lead to a common defence’ the CFSP, and section V asks whether this is a solid (Article J4).5 In this respect, the CFSP did not address framework for addressing proliferation threats by the link between national defence and WMD and using Iran’s nuclear ambitions as an example. Section therefore left certain questions unaddressed, such VI concludes that the EU’s greatest strength lies in the as the nuclear arsenals belonging to France and the multilateral arena, where it can have a momentum- United Kingdom. The reform treaties of Amsterdam increasing and capacity-building role. This, however, (1999) and Nice (2003) offered opportunities for all can only be achieved if all member states are moving EU institutions to strengthen their policies on a wide in the same direction, preferably with the same range of issues, including foreign and security policy, commitment. The paper further points out that the inter alia through the establishment of the European WMD Strategy is not an official ‘common strategy’, Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), now called the but little more than a political declaration without Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), under an established policy framework and earmarked the CFSP. On the strategic level, the European Council (financial) resources. It concludes that the diverging (of heads of state and government) began discussing interests among the EU member states explain why non-proliferation matters and issuing presidency the EU’s role in the WMD non-proliferation area has statements. The CFSP chapter in the Maastricht Treaty been modest and certainly less ambitious than the role introduced a new instrument called ‘joint actions’ envisaged by the 2003 WMD Strategy. to implement policy unanimously agreed among the (then 12) member states. The European Parliament II. THE EU’S WMD NON-PROLIFERATION POLICY also became engaged with non-proliferation-related FRAMEWORK resolutions and a multitude of (written and oral) questions. From its humble beginnings in the 1980s the EU’s During the 1995 NPT Review and Extension non-proliferation policy has developed into a stable Conference, the EU’s first joint action on non- framework three decades later. Two factors explain proliferation matters showed the world that the era of the intensification and consolidation of the EU’s European strategic disunity was drawing to a close. In a similar way, the EU made a positive contribution 3 Council of the European Union, Council Conclusions and New to the negotiation of the 1996 Comprehensive Lines for Action by the European Union in combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, 17172/08, 5 Brussels, 17 Dec. 2008, p. 5. Hurd, D., ‘Developing the Common Foreign and Security Policy’, 4 Council of the European Union, (note 3), p. 3 (emphasis in original). International Affairs, vol. 70, no. 3 (1994), pp. 425–26. the european union’s wmd strategy and the cfsp: a critical analysis 3 Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) as well as to efforts the 2003 WMD Strategy, were adopted.8 On 10 April to strengthen the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention 2003 the Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Anna (CWC) and the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Lindh, and the Greek Minister for Foreign Affairs, Convention (BTWC). The EU became active in Russia Georgios Papandreou, published an article in a major and Ukraine, setting up (together with the United Swedish newspaper calling for preventive measures States and Japan) so-called Science Centers to employ so as to avoid having to use military force in the case former Soviet WMD scientists. The EU also financially of a potential proliferation crisis.9 They also proposed supported the Korean Peninsula Energy Development adopting an EU strategy on WMD proliferation.10 Organization (KEDO), which aimed to solve the Only four days later, the General Affairs and External 1993–94 nuclear crisis with North Korea.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Special Report No 9/2016 EU External Migration Spending in Southern
    Special Report No 9/2016 (pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU) EU external migration spending in Southern Mediterranean and Eastern Neighbourhood countries until 2014 together with the replies of the Commission 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi - L - 1615 Luxembourg T (+352) 4398 – 1 E [email protected] eca.europa.eu 2 CONTENTS Paragraph Abbreviations and acronyms Glossary Executive summary I - V Introduction 1 - 20 EU external migration policy 2 - 20 The policy framework 2 - 5 A global approach to external migration 6 - 8 Priority given to neighbourhood countries 9 Varied institutional and financial instruments 10 - 11 Different sources of the EU's external migration spending 12 - 16 Financing and management arrangements 17 - 20 Audit scope and approach 21 - 26 Coherence of objectives, identification of partner country needs and monitoring instruments need improving 27 - 65 A wide range of policy objectives not always interlinked 27 - 31 Identification of partner countries’ needs requires better attention 32 - 37 Monitoring and assessment instruments need improving 38 - 51 Geographic and thematic priorities were difficult to verify 52 - 60 Intervention spread over a wide geographical area 61 - 65 Weaknesses affected the effectiveness of the EU's external migration spending (TPMA and ENPI) in the Southern Mediterranean and the Eastern Partnership countries 66 - 89 Shortcomings in operational objectives and result indicators made projects’ effectiveness difficult to assess 67 - 69 Factors hindering effectiveness 70 - 73
    [Show full text]
  • Motion: Europe Is Worth It – for a Green Recovery Rooted in Solidarity and A
    German Bundestag Printed paper 19/20564 19th electoral term 30 June 2020 version Preliminary Motion tabled by the Members of the Bundestag Agnieszka Brugger, Anja Hajduk, Dr Franziska Brantner, Sven-Christian Kindler, Dr Frithjof Schmidt, Margarete Bause, Kai Gehring, Uwe Kekeritz, Katja Keul, Dr Tobias Lindner, Omid Nouripour, Cem Özdemir, Claudia Roth, Manuel Sarrazin, Jürgen Trittin, Ottmar von Holtz, Luise Amtsberg, Lisa Badum, Danyal Bayaz, Ekin Deligöz, Katja Dörner, Katharina Dröge, Britta Haßelmann, Steffi Lemke, Claudia Müller, Beate Müller-Gemmeke, Erhard Grundl, Dr Kirsten Kappert-Gonther, Maria Klein-Schmeink, Christian Kühn, Stephan Kühn, Stefan Schmidt, Dr Wolfgang Strengmann-Kuhn, Markus Tressel, Lisa Paus, Tabea Rößner, Corinna Rüffer, Margit Stumpp, Dr Konstantin von Notz, Dr Julia Verlinden, Beate Walter-Rosenheimer, Gerhard Zickenheiner and the Alliance 90/The Greens parliamentary group be to Europe is worth it – for a green recovery rooted in solidarity and a strong 2021- 2027 EU budget the by replaced The Bundestag is requested to adopt the following resolution: I. The German Bundestag notes: A strong European Union (EU) built on solidarity which protects its citizens and our livelihoods is the best investment we can make in our future. Our aim is an EU that also and especially proves its worth during these difficult times of the corona pandemic, that fosters democracy, prosperity, equality and health and that resolutely tackles the challenge of the century that is climate protection. We need an EU that bolsters international cooperation on the world stage and does not abandon the weakest on this earth. proofread This requires an EU capable of taking effective action both internally and externally, it requires greater solidarity on our continent and beyond - because no country can effectively combat the climate crisis on its own, no country can stamp out the pandemic on its own.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Thematic Instruments
    1. Thematic instruments 1.1. Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation (INSC) The Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation (INSC) was established following Council Regulation (Euratom) no 300/2007 of 19 February 2007,1 replacing and widening the TACIS Nuclear Safety Programme,2 which had been established to help prevent nuclear incidents in the former USSR satellite states. The INSC aims to fund actions from a broad range of stakeholders and cover the promotion and development of an effective regulatory framework for nuclear safety (including materials and radiation protection). It also allows for the provision of tech- nical support to nuclear stakeholders in 15 countries (at national, local or regional level with private companies, NGOs, the Joint Research Centre (JRC), EU agencies and international organisations). Adopted following the ordinary legislation procedure3 and based on the multiannu- al strategy programme,4 €524 million have been allocated to the INSC for the 2007- 2013 period. The Instrument is implemented through annual action programmes. A margin of manoeuvre is preserved as it is possible to engage in emergency or sup- port measures without clear prior indications in the multiannual strategy paper. For example, a nuclear incident requires urgent safety measures and cannot be planned explicitly into a multiannual strategic programme. On 25 January 2013, a new cooperation mechanism5 was established between the EU and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).6 Once adopted, the new multian- nual financial framework should have a budget of €560 million for the period 2014- 1. See: Council Regulation n°300/2007 of 19 February 2007 establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety Coop- eration: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:081:0001:0010:EN:PDF.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Eu Foreign Policy Architecture
    THE NEW EU FOREIGN POLICY ARCHITECTURE REVIEWING THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE EEAS NIKLAS HELWIG PAUL IVAN HRANT KOSTANYAN CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES (CEPS) BRUSSELS The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) is an independent policy research institute in Brussels. Its mission is to produce sound policy research leading to constructive solutions to the challenges facing Europe. The views expressed in this book are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed to CEPS or any other institution with which they are associated or to the European Union. Niklas Helwig is a Marie Curie Researcher of the EXACT network at the University of Edinburgh and Cologne and focuses on the institutional development of EU foreign policy. He worked for the Centre for European Policy Studies and the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. Paul Ivan is a Romanian diplomat. Previously, he worked as a researcher for the Centre for European Policy Studies, where he focused on EU political and institutional issues and the European External Action Service. Hrant Kostanyan is an associate research fellow at CEPS and a PhD candidate at the Centre for EU Studies at Ghent University. He worked as an external expert for International Alert, based in London, in the Eastern Europe and South Caucasus research project. He also worked as an expert on a European Commission-funded project on the EU’s relations with Russia and the Eastern Partnership at the EU Neighbourhood Info Centre. The authors thank Piotr Maciej Kaczyński for his comments on an earlier draft. ISBN 978-94-6138-262-7 © Copyright 2013, Centre for European Policy Studies and the authors.
    [Show full text]
  • EU Policy Towards Its Eastern Neighbours
    OÂRODEK STUDIÓW WSCHODNICH IM. MARKA KARPIA CENTRE FOR EASTERN STUDIES INTEGRATION OR IMITATION? EU policy towards its Eastern Neighbours K a t a r z y n a P e ł c z y ƒ s k a - N a ł ´ c z The author would like to thank Ms Katarzyna Jarzyƒska for her assistance in the preparation of the source materials The paper was prepared within the framework of the IFRI-OSW research programme N U M E R / I S S U E 3 6 W A R S Z A W A , K W I E C I E ¡ 2 0 1 1 PRACE OSW W A R S A W , A P R I L 2 0 1 1 O S W S T U D I E S © Copyright by OÊrodek Studiów Wschodnich im. Marka Karpia Editor Anna ¸abuszewska Co-operation Katarzyna Kazimierska Translation Ilona Duchnowicz Co-operation Nicholas Furnival, Timothy Harrell Graphic design Dorota Nowacka Publisher OÊrodek Studiów Wschodnich im. Marka Karpia / Centre for Eastern Studies ul. Koszykowa 6a, Warszawa / Warsaw, Poland phone + 48 /22/ 525 80 00 fax +48 /22/ 525 80 40 osw.waw.pl ISBN 978-83-62936-00-7 Contents INTEGRATION OR IMITATION? EU policy towards its Eastern Neighbours Introduction / 5 Executive Summary / 8 Part I. Eastern neighbourhood – how far from the European Union? / 14 Part II. The Eastern vector of the neighbourhood policy / 29 Postscript. How to avoid the pretence? / 55 INTEGRATION OR IMITATION? EU policy towards its Eastern Neighbours Introduction The European Union’s policy towards the six post-Soviet countries, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, has entered a new phase since 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategy 2010
    STRATEGY 2010 What Direction for European Development Policy? Directorate-General of Global Affairs, Development and Partnerships French Proposals DIRECTORATE-GENERAL OF GLOBAL AffaIRS, DEVELOPMENT AND PARTNERSHIPS WHAT DIRECTION FOR EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT POLICY? FRENCH PROPOSALS Évaluation réalisée par : Pluricité Nicolas Subileau Alix de Saint-Albin Michel Hoffert Synthèse du rapport (français et russe) Rapport remis en décembre 2009 MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AND EUROPEAN AFFAIRS contentS Acknowledgements This document would not have been possible without the active participation and input from various Directorates of the Ministry for Foreign and European Affairs (MAEE), the Ministry of the Economy, Industry and Employment (MINEIE), the French Development Agency (AFD), the Ministry of Immigration, National Identity, Integration and Co-development (MIIIDS), the Ministry of the Interior, Overseas France and Territorial Communities (MIOMCT), the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAAP), the Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and the Sea (MEEDEM), the Ministry of Defence and the Secretariat General for European Affairs (SGAE). The document was also enriched by consultations with civil society. The layout of this document was prepared by European Development Policy Pole of the Directorate General of Global Affairs, Development and Partnerships (DGM), which organised the consultation meetings. The following people also participated in different ways in the discussions, drafting and review of this document: For the MAEE:
    [Show full text]
  • The EU and Peacebuilding After Lisbon1
    Power Analysis: The EU and peacebuilding after Lisbon1 Objectives: To analyse the roles and responsibilities of EU policymakers – insofar as they relate to conflict – following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty; To identify advocacy opportunities for civil society working on peacebuilding; To provide an overview of the roles of the EU institutions in conflict for participants in the short training course on the EU and peacebuilding. Index: 1) European Council 2) Council of the EU Council of the EU – General Presidency of the Council of the EU General Secretariat of the Council of the EU 3) External Action Service 4) European Commission European Commission: General European Commission: FPI European Commission: DEVCO European Commission: Enlargement and ENP European Commission: Trade 5) European Parliament (individual MEPs, groups, committees, rapporteurs) 6) Member States (at Member State level: ministers; officials in capitals; national parliaments) 7) Other: European Investment Bank EU Institute for Security Studies European Defence Agency BEPA, EIPA 8) Relevant EU policy documents 1 This document has been prepared as a resource for civil society organisations working on peacebuilding. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the position of EPLO or its member organisations. The document is based on information available in June 2012. 1 European Council Description: The European Council is made up of heads of governments or states, the President of the European Commission and the President of the European Council, who chairs the meetings. The President of the European Council (currently Herman van Rompuy) is elected by qualified majority from EU Member States for a two and a half year term which is renewable once.
    [Show full text]
  • Instrument Contributing to Stability and Peace Lead DG: FPI Associated Dgs: DEVCO I
    Programme Statements DB2021 HEADING 4: Global Europe Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace Lead DG: FPI Associated DGs: DEVCO I. Overview What the programme is about? The Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP) is one of the EU’s main instruments in the areas of crisis response, conflict prevention, peace-building and crisis preparedness, and in addressing global and trans-regional threats. It came into force in 2014, replacing the Instrument for Stability (IfS) and several earlier instruments that focused on drugs, landmines, displaced people, crisis management, rehabilitation and reconstruction. The IcSP provides quick, short-term support in countries or regions where a crisis is emerging or unfolding, as well as longer-term support to conflict prevention, peace-building and crisis preparedness activities as well as activities addressing global and trans-regional threats and emerging threats. Its activities complement those of the European Union’s geographical and other thematic instruments. The actions of the IcSP are structured around three operational articles in its regulation: Article 3 – Assistance in response to situations of crisis or emerging crisis to prevent conflicts – consumes 70 % of the financial envelope and is non-programmable; Article 4 activities – Assistance for conflict prevention, peace building and crisis preparedness –consumes 9 % of the financial envelope and are programmable; finally, Article 5, which is implemented by DG DEVCO, covers the third objective of the instrument – Assistance to address global and trans-regional threats – and is also subject to programming. EU added value of the programme The Treaty on the European Union, under Article 21, has defined common overarching principles and objectives for the Union’s external action, such as to ‘preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security’.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Department External Policies the EU's APPROACH to TACKLING THE
    WORKING PAPER Policy Department External Policies THE EU'S APPROACH TO TACKLING THE PROLIFERATION OF MATERIALS AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND PROSPECTS FOR COOPERATION ON THE EVE OF A NEW US ADMINISTRATION SECURITY AND DEFENCE November 2008 JANUARY 2004 EN DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EXTERNAL POLICIES OF THE UNION DIRECTORATE B - POLICY DEPARTMENT - WORKING PAPER The EU's approach to tackling the proliferation of Materials and Weapons of Mass Destruction and prospects for cooperation on the eve of a new US Administration This Working Paper survey's the EU's approach to tackling the proliferation of Materials and Weapons of Mass Destruc tion (WMD) which serves as a basis for preparing ourselves for what is expected to be a US priority for engagement with Europe. This working paper was originally written following a conference in Berlin and will be published as a book chapter (this will become evident when reading below). DGExPo/B/PolDep/Working Paper/2008_218 5 November 2008 EN This Working Paper will be published as a chapter entitled "A New Transatlantic Approach? A view from Europe" in a forthcoming book edited by Oliver Meier and Christopher Daase and entitled "Coercive Arms Control: the paradigm shift in Arms Control and Non- proliferation". Copyright therefore remains with the requesting publisher. It is published in the following language: English Author: Dr Gerrard Quille Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union Policy Department BD4 06 M 81 rue Wiertz B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] Publisher Policy Department, DG EXPO Manuscript completed on 5 November 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Guide EU-ACP Relations
    Information Guide EU-ACP Relations A guide to the European Union’s relations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific States, with hyperlinks to sources of information within European Sources Online and on external websites Contents Introduction .................................................................................................. 2 Background and legal basis ............................................................................. 2 The ACP Group of States ................................................................................ 3 The Cotonou Agreement ................................................................................. 4 Support for the Least Developed and Highly Indebted Poor Countries .................. 12 Cooperation with Africa ................................................................................. 13 European Consensus on Development ............................................................. 16 The future of ACP-EU cooperation ................................................................... 19 Information sources in the ESO database ........................................................ 20 Further information sources on the internet ..................................................... 20 Copyright © 2013 Cardiff EDC. All rights reserved. 1 Cardiff EDC is part of the University Library Service at Cardiff University Introduction We should see our reflections on the future of ACP-EU relations as a unique opportunity for us to establish a relevant, modern relationship that builds
    [Show full text]
  • Service for Foreign Policy Instruments 2013 MANAGEMENT PLAN
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION Service for Foreign Policy Instruments Service for Foreign Policy Instruments 2013 Management Plan [June 2013 update] / 1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Service for Foreign Policy Instruments Table of contents 1. MISSION STATEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 3 2. KEY CHALLENGES ............................................................................................................................. 3 3. GENERAL OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................... 7 4. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES ........................................................... 10 5. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR HORIZONTAL ACTIVITIES.............................................................. 30 / 2 Service for Foreign Policy Instruments 2013 MANAGEMENT PLAN 1. Mission statement The mission of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI) is to support the attainment of the objectives of the EU foreign and security policy as defined in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union, in particular as regards peace and conflict prevention, and to project the EU’s interests and image in the world. For that purpose FPI is responsible, under the authority of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy in his/her capacity as Vice- President of the Commission, for the operational and financial management of the budgets for Common Foreign and
    [Show full text]
  • The Instrument for Stability ─ Multi-Annual Indicative Programme 2009-2011
    EN EN EN COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 8.4.2009 C(2009)2641 The Instrument for Stability ─ Multi-annual Indicative Programme 2009-2011 EN 1 EN TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 4 1. PRIORITY 1: SUPPORT FOR THE OBJECTIVES OF THE EU NON-PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION STRATEGY........................................ 7 1.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 7 1.2. Context and justification (Project areas 1-6)....................................................................... 8 Project area 1 — Regional centres of excellence on CBRN ...................................................... 8 Project area 2 — Fighting illicit CBRN trafficking and deceptive financial practices.............. 8 Project area 3 — Support for bio-safety and bio-security.......................................................... 9 Project area 4 — Assistance and cooperation on export controls on dual-use goods................ 9 Project area 5 — Support for the retraining and alternative employment of former weapons scientists and engineers................................................................................................ 9 Project area 6 — Support for Multilateral Nuclear Assurance (MNA) initiatives................... 10 2. PRIORITY 2: TRANS-REGIONAL THREATS ...............................................................
    [Show full text]