DOCSLIB.ORG

Handbook on CSDP 3Rd Edition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Handbook on CSDP 3Rd Edition HANDBOOK CSDP THE COMMON SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Volume I 3rd edition HANDBOOK ON CSDP THE COMMON SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Third edition edited by Jochen Rehrl with forewords by H.E. Federica Mogherini High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the European Commission H.E. Hans Peter Doskozil Federal Minister of Defence and Sports of the Republic of Austria H. E. Christoforos Fokaides Minister of Defence of the Republic of Cyprus This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union and the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Cyprus. Disclaimer: Any views or opinions presented in this handbook are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the European Union, the Austrian Ministry of Defence and Sports or the Cypriot Minisrty of Defence. Publication of the Federal Ministry of Defence and Sports of the Republic of Austria Editor: Jochen Rehrl Idea and concept: Jochen Rehrl Published by: Directorate for Security Policy of the Federal Ministry of Defence and Sports of the Republic of Austria Picture credits for the front page: European Union, EUMM Georgia, EUNAVFOR MED, European Security and Defence College Printed and bound by: Armed Forces Printing Centre, Vienna/Austria, 2017 (16-03300 | 16-03527) © Federal Ministry of Defence and Sports of the Republic of Austria and Jochen Rehrl Project Number: 2016.7906 Linguistic version Media/Volume Catalogue number ISBN DOI EN Paper/Volume_01 QW-07-16-116-EN-C 978-92-95201-05-7 10.2855/14292 PDF/Volume_01 QW-07-16-116-EN-N 978-92-95201-04-0 10.2855/764888 Printed according to the Austrian Ecolabel for printedmatter, Austrian Federal MinistryofDefence and Sports/ Armed Forces Printing Centre, UW-Nr. 943 CONTENTS 1 COMMON SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY 1.1. History and Development of CSDP (Gustav Lindstrom) ............................................. 16 1.2. The EU lobalG Strategy ................................................................................................ 20 Factsheet: European Defence Action Plan ......................................................................... 25 Graphic: The EU in a contested world ............................................................................. 26 1.3. Analysing the EU Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy (Sven Biscop) .......... 28 1.4. How to implement Strategy – Implementation Plan on Security and Defence (Raphaela Engel)........................................................................................................... 35 2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2.1. The uropeanE Union and CSDP – State of Affairs (Gabor Iklody) ............................... 42 2.2. The uropeanE Council and CSDP (Luis Amorim) ........................................................ 46 2.2.1. The uropeanE Council .................................................................................... 46 2.2.2. The Council of inistersM of the European Union ........................................... 50 2.3. The oleR of the European Commission in CSDP (Diego de Ojeda) ............................. 55 2.4. The oleR of the European Parliament in CSDP (Jérôme Legrand) ................................ 58 2.5. The EEAS and its Crisis Management Component (Arnold Kammel) .......................... 66 2.6. EEAS Crisis Response Mechanism (Pedro Serrano) ...................................................... 73 3 CSDP MISSIONS AND OPERATIONS 3.1. How to Launch a CSDP Mission or Operation (Ana Isabel Xavier and Jochen Rehrl) .. 78 3.2. Challenges of Military Operations and Missions (Georgios Tsitsikostas) ....................... 83 3.3. Challenges for Civilian CSDP Missions (Kate Fearon and Sophie Picavet) ................... 89 3.4. Excursus: EUFOR ALTHEA (Friedrich Schrötter) ....................................................... 97 4 EVOLVING SECURITY CHALLENGES 4.1. Migration and CSDP (Jochen Rehrl).......................................................................... 104 Factsheet: A European Border and Coast Guard ............................................................. 112 4.2. Counter-Terrorism and the CSDP (Birgit Löser) ........................................................ 114 4.3. Cyber Security/Defence and CSDP (Jan Peter Giesecke) ............................................ 119 4.4. Hybrid Threat and CSDP (John Maas) ...................................................................... 125 4.5. Critical Infrastructure Protection (Herbert Saurugg) ................................................. 131 3 5 CROSS-CUTTING CSDP ISSUES 5.1. Gender and Women, Peace and Security in CSDP (Taina Järvinen) ........................... 140 5.2. Human Rights and CSDP (Taina Järvinen) ................................................................ 143 5.3. Rule of Law and CSDP (Daphne Lodder) .................................................................. 146 5.4. The ewN EU-Wide Strategic Framework to Support SSR (Karin Gatt Rutter and Gianmarco Scuppa) ............................................................... 152 6 CFSP AGENCIES 6.1. EU Institute for Security Studies (Antonio Missiroli) .................................................. 156 6.2. The uropeanE Union Satellite Centre (Pascal Legai).................................................... 160 6.3. The uropeanE Defence Agency (Jorge Domecq) ......................................................... 164 7 COOPERATION AND COLLABORATION 7.1. CSDP and Partners (Clara Ganslandt) ........................................................................ 170 7.2. Internal-External Security Nexus – Strengthening Ties Between CSDP and FSJ Actors (Michel Savary) .................................................................................. 178 7.3. The eurityS and Development Nexus (Clément Boutillier) ......................................... 184 8 CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT 8.1. EU Capability Development (Herbert Sailer) ............................................................. 194 8.2. Strenghtening EU Defence with Multinational Cooperation (Sabine Mengelberg) ..... 206 8.3. European Defence Deployable Capabilities (Christos Malikkides) .............................. 209 9 TRAINING AND EDUCATION 9.1. The CSDPTraining Policy (Horst Koukhol) ............................................................... 214 9.2. The uropeanE Security and Defence College (Dirk Dubois) ....................................... 217 9.3. Military Erasmus – European Initiative for Young Officers inspired by Erasmus (Harald Gell) .............................................................................................................. 220 9.4. The ositiveP Side Effects of Training – The Security Policy Dimension (Jochen Rehrl) ........................................................... 223 4 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS A CMC Crisis Management Concept AF Armed Forces CMPD Crisis Management and Planning AFET Committee on Foreign Affairs (EP) Directorate AKU Autonomous Knowledge Unit CoE Council of Europe AMIS African Union Mission in Sudan COM Commander AMISOM African Union Mission in Somalia CONOPS Concept of Operations APF African Peace Facility COPPS Coordinating Office for Palestini- ARF ASEAN Regional Forum an Police Support (EUPOL) ARGUS Secure Rapid General Alert System COREPER Committee of Permanent Repre- ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian sentatives of the Governments of Nations the Member States ASEM Asia-Europe Meeting COSI Standing Committee on Oper- AU African Union ational Cooperation on Internal Security B CPCC Civilian Planning and Conduct BENELUX Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxem- Capability bourg CPPB Conflict reventionP and Peace BG Battle Group Building BIS Budgetary Impact Statement CRM Crisis Response Mechanism (EEAS) C CS Cyber Security CA Comprehensive Approach CSDP Common Security and Defence CAR Central African Republic Policy CBM Confidence-Building Measure CT Counter-terrorism CBSD Capacity Building in Support of CT/P-CVE Counter-terrorism/Prevention and Security and Development Countering Violent Extremism CCDP Civilian Capability Development CVE Countering Violent Extremism Plan CD Creative Destruction D CD Cyber Defence DCI Development Cooperation CDP Capability Development Plan Instrument CDPF Cyber Defence Policy Framework DDoS Distributed Denial-of-Service CEDC Central European Defence Co- (cyber attack) operation DDR Disarmament, Demobilisation CERT Computer Emergency Response and Reintegration Team DG DEVCO Directorate-General for Internation- CHG Civilian Headline Goal al Cooperation and Development C-IED Counter Improvised Explosive DG NEAR Directorate-General for Neigh- Device bourhood and Enlargement Nego- CIP Critical Infrastructure Protection tiations CivCom Committee for Civilian Aspects of DIF Defence Industry Factories Crisis Management 5 DOTMLPF-I Doctrine, organisational, train- ESDI European Security and Defence ing/exercise, material, leadership, Identity (NATO) personnel, facilities and interopera- ESDP European Security and Defence bility Policy Dr Doctor ESS European Security Strategy DSG Deputy Secretary-General EU European Union EU INTCEN EU Intelligence and Situation E Centre EAB Executive Academic Board EU MS EU Member State EATs Embedded Advisory Teams EUBAM EU Border Assistance Mission EBCG European Border and Coast EUCAP European Union Capacity Build- Guard Agency (former FRON- ing Mission TEX) EUCO European Council Conclusions EC European Commission EUDEL EU Delegation EC European
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PES Report of Activities 2001-2004 (24 April 2004)
    PES • PSE • SPE European Parliament rue Wiertz B 1047 Brussels PES report of activities 2001-2004 (24 April 2004) Introduction During the period between the 2001 Berlin Congress and 2004 Brussels Congress the Party of European Socialists has faced challenges both in political and organisational terms. After a period of extraordinary electoral success in the second half of the nineties, governmental participation of PES parties has gone down. Within the EU PES parties are in government in 6 out of 15 Member states, in the new Member States PES parties are in 5 out of 10 governments. There is however no reason to conclude that European Social Democracy is facing an electoral crisis. The vast majority of EU citizens from May 1 st onwards are governed at national level led by a PES party (Germany, United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain, Poland, Czech republic, Hungary and Lithuania) or by a government with PES party participation (Belgium, Finland and Slovenia.). Fact remains that during the period 2001-2004, President Robin Cook and the Presidency had to adapt the activities to the fact that less than before PES parties were governmental parties. The role of PES ministerial co-operation has decreased and more than before the PES has undertaken major policy co- ordination projects of its own. Two major policy co-ordination projects The co-ordination of the Social Democrat and Socialist members of the European Convention under the leadership of Giuliano Amato and later the globalisation project under the leadership of Poul Nyrup Rasmussen have been project of a magnitude and an impact the PES has never seen before.
    [Show full text]
  • The EU and the South Caucasus 25 Years Since Independence Nov 25, 2016 by Amanda Paul
    The EU and the South Caucasus 25 Years Since Independence Nov 25, 2016 by Amanda Paul Wedged between regional powers Russia, Iran and Turkey, the South Caucasus is an extraordinarily complex region; one of the most security-challenged and fragmented regions in the world with internal and external security threats working to reinforce each other. The three South Caucasus states – Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan – are complicated even in their internal configuration. Twenty-five years since the collapse of the Soviet Union the region remains plagued by conflict, its people living in insecurity. Moreover, the region has not been politically or economically integrated. Rather Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia have integrated into a wide-range of different, sometimes opposing, organisations and alliances. The EU joined the mix of actors and organisations engaged in the South Caucasus in the early 1990‟s intensifying its engagement over the years with the three states becoming part of the EU‟s European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and Eastern Partnership (EaP). Despite hopes that the ENP/EaP could act as transformative tool to help strengthen stability, security, democracy and bring about a more cohesive region, the results have been rather patchy. The EU has failed to carve out a clear strategy or policy for the region and with the exception of Georgia there has been little genuine will to implement serious reform. Moreover, Russia‟s annexation of Crimea and war in the Donbas in 2014 and the increasingly polarised standoff between Moscow and the West has further exacerbated the fragile security situation, further exposing the inability of the EU to guarantee or even shore-up a partner‟s security.
    [Show full text]
  • Programme of the Youth, Peace and Security Conference
    1 Wednesday, 23 May European Parliament – open to all participants – 12:00 – 13:00 Registration European Parliament Accreditation Centre (right-hand side of the Simone Veil Agora entrance to the Altiero Spinelli building) 13:00 – 14:00 Buffet lunch reception Members’ Restaurant, Altiero Spinelli building 14:00 – 15:00 Opening Session Room 5G-3, Altiero Spinelli building Keynote Address by Mr. Antonio Tajani, President of the European Parliament Chair Ms. Heidi Hautala, Vice-President of the European Parliament Speakers Ms. Mariya Gabriel, EU Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society Mr. Oscar Fernandez-Taranco, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Peacebuilding Support Ms. Ivana Tufegdzic, fYROM, EP Young Political Leaders Mr. Dereje Wordofa, UNFPA Deputy Executive Director Ms. Nour Kaabi, Tunisia, NET-MED Youth – UNESCO Mr. Oyewole Simon Oginni, Nigeria, Former AU-EU Youth Fellow 2 15:00 – 16:30 Parallel Thematic Panel Discussions Panel I Youth inclusion for conflict prevention and sustaining peace Library reading room, Altiero Spinelli building Discussants Ms. Soraya Post, Member of the European Parliament Mr. Oscar Fernandez-Taranco, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Peacebuilding Support Mr. Christian Leffler, Deputy Secretary-General, European External Action Service Mr. Amnon Morag, Israel, EP Young Political Leaders Ms. Hela Slim, France, Former AU-EU Youth Fellow Mr. MacDonald K. Munyoro, Zimbabwe, EP Young Political Leaders Facilitator Ms. Gizem Kilinc, United Network of Young Peacebuilders Panel II Young people innovating for peace Library room 128, Altiero Spinelli building Discussants Ms. Barbara Pesce-Monteiro, Director, UN/UNDP Representation Office in Brussels Ms. Anna-Katharina Deininger, OSCE CiO Special Representative and OSG Focal Point on Youth and Security Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Flexicurity – an Open Method of Coordination at the National Level ? Jean-Claude Barbier, Fabrice Colomb, Per Kongshøj Madsen
    Flexicurity – an open method of coordination at the national level ? Jean-Claude Barbier, Fabrice Colomb, Per Kongshøj Madsen To cite this version: Jean-Claude Barbier, Fabrice Colomb, Per Kongshøj Madsen. Flexicurity – an open method of coor- dination at the national level ?. 2009. halshs-00407394 HAL Id: halshs-00407394 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00407394 Submitted on 28 Jul 2009 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Documents de Travail du Centre d’Economie de la Sorbonne Flexicurity – an open method of coordination, at the national level ? Jean-Claude BARBIER, Fabrice COLOMB, Per KongshØj MADSEN 2009.46 Maison des Sciences Économiques, 106-112 boulevard de L'Hôpital, 75647 Paris Cedex 13 http://ces.univ-paris1.fr/cesdp/CES-docs.htm ISSN : 1955-611X Flexicurity – an open method of coordination, at the national level? Jean-Claude Barbier Fabrice Colomb CNRS Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne Centre d’économie de la Sorbonne (CES) 106/112 Bd de l’Hôpital 75647 Paris Cedex 13, France Per Kongshøj Madsen Centre for Labour Market Research (CARMA) Aalborg University Fibigerstræde 1, DK-9220 Aalborg Ø., Denmark Document de Travail du Centre d'Economie1 de la Sorbonne - 2009.46 Résumé La flexicurité (ou flexisécurité) est une notion qui s’est répandue depuis le début des années 2000, à la suite de l’usage du terme aux Pays-Bas et au Danemark.
    [Show full text]
  • Frans Timmermans Cc: Günther Oettinger, Jyrki Katainen, Karmenu Vella and Phil Hogan
    Frans Timmermans Cc: Günther Oettinger, Jyrki Katainen, Karmenu Vella and Phil Hogan European Commission Rue de la Loi / Wetstraat 200 1049 Brussels 20th March 2018 Dear First Vice-President Timmermans, We are writing to you as civil society representatives (environmental NGOs, farmers, food movements, and animal welfare groups) regarding the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform, following recent details given in Commission presentations to the Council and the Parliament on its substance, in particular the common EU objectives. 1) We would like to recall that for the next CAP to be truly results-oriented, make effective and efficient use of EU taxpayers’ money, and respond to citizens’ demands to better protect our natural resources, ensure the welfare of farmed animals and ensure many and diversified farms, the EU objectives should be specific, measurable and time-bound so that progress towards them can be properly monitored.1 2) Unfortunately we are very concerned that the objectives will be very general and vague, which will make it very easy for Member States to systematically choose the least ambitious measures without facing adequate monitoring or control—as experienced with the last reform’s ‘greening’, which added complexity and completely failed to address the challenges facing the sector. 3) Furthermore, objectives focussed on increasing production—such as ‘food security’—are not only unjustified in the context of overproduction and overconsumption in Europe, especially of animal products, but also risk undermining other objectives on the long-term resilience of the sector, the environment, animal welfare, climate, human health and fair income for the smallest and most sustainable farms.
    [Show full text]
  • Ituri:Stakes, Actors, Dynamics
    ITURI STAKES, ACTORS, DYNAMICS FEWER/AIP/APFO/CSVR would like to stress that this report is based on the situation observed and information collected between March and August 2003, mainly in Ituri and Kinshasa. The 'current' situation therefore refers to the circumstances that prevailed as of August 2003, when the mission last visited the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. This publication has been produced with the assistance of the Swedish International Development Agency. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the Swedish Government and its agencies. This publication has been produced with the assistance of the Department for Development Policy, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the Finnish Government and its agencies. Copyright 2003 © Africa Initiative Program (AIP) Africa Peace Forum (APFO) Centre for Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) Forum on Early Warning and Early Response (FEWER) The views expressed by participants in the workshop are not necessarily those held by the workshop organisers and can in no way be take to reflect the views of AIP, APFO, CSVR and FEWER as organisations. 2 List of Acronyms............................................................................................................................... 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Differentiated Integration in the Eu
    DIFFERENTIATED INTEGRATION IN THE EU FROM THE INSIDE LOOKING OUT EDITED BY STEVEN BLOCKMANS CONTRIBUTORS STEVEN BLOCKMANS VÍT BENEŠ MATS BRAUN RICHARD CORBETT ELAINE FAHEY ESTER HERLIN-KARNELL THEODORE KONSTADINIDES ADAM ŁAZOWSKI CLAUDIO MATERA JUAN SANTOS VARA CSABA TÖRŐ 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, the European Union or to any other institution with which they are associated. This book is a compilation of papers presented by the authors at an EPIN seminar on “The External Dimension of a Multi-Speed, Multi-Tier European Union” in Brussels on 6 May 2013. The European Policy Institutes Network (EPIN) is a network of 37 think tanks from 26 countries, led by CEPS. EPIN aims to contribute to the debate on the future of Europe through expert analysis and commentary and benefits from the support of the EU under the European Commission’s ‘Europe for Citizens’ Programme. In the framework of this particular research project, EPIN cooperated with the Amsterdam Centre for European Law and Governance (ACELG), the Centre for the Law of EU External Relations (CLEER) and the Faculty of Law of the University of Copenhagen. Cover image: © Jonáš Vacek, 2014 ISBN 978-94-6138-373-0 © Copyright 2014, Centre for European Policy Studies and the authors. All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • EU Defence: the White Book Implementation Process
    STUDY Requested by the SEDE Subcommittee EU Defence: The White Book implementation process Policy Department for External Relations Directorate General for External Policies of the Union PE 603.871 - December 2018 EN DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EXTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT STUDY EU Defence: The White Book implementation process ABSTRACT The question of a defence White Book at European level has been under discussion for some time. Many voices, particularly in the European Parliament, are pushing for such an initiative, while others consider that it is not only unnecessary, but could even dangerously divide Europeans. Concretely, the question cannot be tackled separately from that of defence planning and processes which underpin the development of military capabilities, as White Books are often the starting point for these. Within the European Union, however, there is not just one, but three types defence planning: the national planning of each of the Member States; planning within the framework of NATO (the NATO Defence Planning Process) and, finally, the European Union’s planning, which has developed in stages since the Helsinki summit of 1999 and comprises many elements. Its best-known component - but by no means not the only one - is the capability development plan established by the European Defence Agency. How do all these different planning systems coexist? What are their strengths and weaknesses? Answering these preliminary questions is essential in mapping the path to a White Book. This is what this study sets out to do. EP/EXPO/B/SEDE/FWC/2013-08/Lot6/23 EN December 2018 - PE 603.871 © European Union, 2018 Policy Department, Directorate-General for External Policies This document was requested by the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE) on 7 July 2018 Manuscript was completed on 12 December 2018.
    [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]
  • Reporting Principles
    COMMON SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY EU BATTLEGROUPS Updated: January 2011 Battllegroups/07 Full operational capability in 2007 The European Union is a global actor, ready to undertake its share of responsibility for global security. With the introduction of the battlegroup concept, the Union formed a (further) military instrument at its disposal for early and rapid responses, when necessary. On 1 January 2007 the EU battlegroup concept reached full operational capability. Since that date, the EU is able to undertake, if so decided by the Council, two concurrent single-battlegroup-sized (about 1 500-strong) rapid response operations, including the ability to launch both operations nearly simultaneously. At the 1999 Helsinki European Council meeting, rapid response was identified as an important aspect of crisis management. As a result, the Helsinki Headline Goal 2003 assigned to member states the objective of being able to provide rapid response elements available and deployable at very high levels of readiness. Subsequently, an EU military rapid response concept was developed. In June 2003 the first autonomous EU-led military operation, Operation Artemis, was launched. It showed very successfully the EU's ability to operate with a rather small force at a significant distance from Brussels, in this case more than 6 000 km. Moreover, it also demonstrated the need for further development of rapid response capabilities. Subsequently, Operation Artemis became a reference model for the development of a battlegroup-sized rapid response capability. In 2004 the Headline Goal 2010 aimed for completion of the development of rapidly deployable battlegroups, including the identification of appropriate strategic lift, sustainability and disembarkation assets, by 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Death of an Institution: the End for Western European Union, a Future
    DEATH OF AN INSTITUTION The end for Western European Union, a future for European defence? EGMONT PAPER 46 DEATH OF AN INSTITUTION The end for Western European Union, a future for European defence? ALYSON JK BAILES AND GRAHAM MESSERVY-WHITING May 2011 The Egmont Papers are published by Academia Press for Egmont – The Royal Institute for International Relations. Founded in 1947 by eminent Belgian political leaders, Egmont is an independent think-tank based in Brussels. Its interdisciplinary research is conducted in a spirit of total academic freedom. A platform of quality information, a forum for debate and analysis, a melting pot of ideas in the field of international politics, Egmont’s ambition – through its publications, seminars and recommendations – is to make a useful contribution to the decision- making process. *** President: Viscount Etienne DAVIGNON Director-General: Marc TRENTESEAU Series Editor: Prof. Dr. Sven BISCOP *** Egmont – The Royal Institute for International Relations Address Naamsestraat / Rue de Namur 69, 1000 Brussels, Belgium Phone 00-32-(0)2.223.41.14 Fax 00-32-(0)2.223.41.16 E-mail [email protected] Website: www.egmontinstitute.be © Academia Press Eekhout 2 9000 Gent Tel. 09/233 80 88 Fax 09/233 14 09 [email protected] www.academiapress.be J. Story-Scientia NV Wetenschappelijke Boekhandel Sint-Kwintensberg 87 B-9000 Gent Tel. 09/225 57 57 Fax 09/233 14 09 [email protected] www.story.be All authors write in a personal capacity. Lay-out: proxess.be ISBN 978 90 382 1785 7 D/2011/4804/136 U 1612 NUR1 754 All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Union Challenge As an Actor in Crisis and Conflict Management
    AIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL en Español 4th Trimester 2018 The European Union Challenge as an Actor in Crisis and Conflict Management MAJOR MANUEL LOPEZ-LAGO, SPANISH AIR FORCE fter an apparently easy victory in the Afghan war by American troops in October 2001, Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) had reached a crossroad by the time Obama en- tered office. In his campaign for the presidency during 2008, he had claimed that Ame- rican Armed Forces were losing the war in Afghanistan. Regretfully, the International ASecurity Assistance Force in Afghanistan (ISAF) mission, led by NATO, had failed to fulfill the political goal of stabilizing the country, “the graveyard of the empires,” and the European Union (EU) itself did not actively fight. To make things worse, NATO troops had to work within a lot of caveats, which kept them from implementing many military operations. Consequently, nations less burdened with caveats like theUnited States, the United Kingdom and Australia, had to take most of the burden of the military operations. On December 1, 2009, President Barack Obama announced in a national televised address at the Military Academy in West Point that he was ordering a surge of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan. Despite Obama’s decision, the process to approve the surge required a great deal of “pulling and hauling” by the major actors who had access to and influence on the president.1 Consequently, the plan for the surge included a date of withdrawal, which gave a clear message to military com- manders that the time to achieve political ends had a deadline.
    [Show full text]