EUROPEAN SECURITY IN THE 21ST CENTURY: THE EU’S COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH 1. INTRODUCTION The 21st century international security environment, dominated by the rise of transnational security threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks, organised crime and piracy, has provided an opportunity for the European Union (EU) to enhance its added value as a global security actor. In this context, the EU has embraced a new external action discourse, known as the ‘comprehensive approach’. This involves the mobilisation of the entire range of instruments available to the Union to address the full cycle of crisis prevention, response and recovery. The Lisbon Treaty updated EU foreign and security policy structures to institutionalise this approach, with the promise of greater coherence and capacity to act. These developments have created new openings for the EU, and Ireland in turn, to enhance the effectiveness of its contribution to global security despite the economic crisis, which has placed severe constraints on the resources available. This paper begins by describing the comprehensive approach and concludes that a paradigm shift has taken place in European security and defence since the end of the Cold War. It considers how the Lisbon Treaty has adapted the EU institutions to facilitate the implementation of the comprehensive approach, demonstrating that this is a work in progress and that the operational aspects currently lag behind conceptual developments. It then outlines a case study on the EU’s involvement with the Horn of Africa, highlighting some of the strengths and weaknesses of the approach in that region. It assesses a number of key remaining challenges before examining the implications for Ireland and concludes that the comprehensive approach creates an environment in which Ireland can contribute effectively to the peace and security of the EU as a whole. 2. A DISCOURSE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: THE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH Under its comprehensive approach to crisis management the EU takes a holistic view of a (potential) crisis situation and recognises that an effective, sustainable solution can only be achieved by using the full range of instruments at the EU’s disposal. These instruments include political, diplomatic, economic, development, military, civilian (policing, judiciary, border assistance, etc.), and the external dimensions of internal instruments such as energy policy1 – as complementary aspects of a coordinated response. The comprehensive approach represents a shift away from a Cold War world-view, which identified existential threats (primarily the threat of invasion) that required solely military responses. It orients the EU towards a multi-faceted approach that recognises the complexity of global security issues and considers how the EU can 1 Emergency humanitarian assistance is not considered part of the crisis management toolbox. EU policy determines that such assistance should be based on need alone and not linked to political objectives. 1 EUROPEAN SECURITY IN THE 21ST CENTURY: THE EU’S COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH address every aspect of a particular crisis in a coherent manner. The idea of ‘comprehensiveness’ also refers to the need for both rapid response capabilities and a complementary long-term strategy. Furthermore, it blurs the distinctions between internal and external security threats, which have been artificially divided into the Freedom, Security and Justice (internal) and Common Foreign and Security Policy (external) domains. Finally, the comprehensive approach reflects the greater interdependence of Member States when facing these threats. The term itself is not new: the concept of the comprehensive approach was formally presented as early as 2003 in the European Security Strategy, A Secure Europe in a Better World.2 The Strategy assessed that: “In contrast to the massive visible threat in the Cold War, none of the new [global security] threats is purely military; nor can any be tackled by purely military means. Each requires a mixture of instruments.” The EU is well placed to engage in such an approach given the uniquely broad range of instruments in its toolbox compared with other multinational security organisations. NATO, for instance, commands greater military might but lacks an array of civilian resources comparable to the EU. By contrast, the EU has the scope for a broad mandate, drawing on the expertise, personnel, financing and capabilities available in its twenty-seven Member States, alongside limited own-resources, to construct ‘packages’ of measures to respond to crisis situations as they arise. Against a backdrop of austerity across the EU, the comprehensive approach may also enable EU Member States to better weather the current economic crisis without a major decline in their ability to achieve their foreign and security policy objectives. Faced with the sacrifice of national capabilities which, once lost, are difficult and expensive to regain, some Member States are beginning to view cooperation and interdependence with EU partners as a more attractive prospect. The options open to a Member State that wishes to maintain its capacity to act in an efficient and cost- effective way through the EU are numerous. Personnel and equipment (including national military headquarters) from different Member States can be contributed to EU Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions and operations, and countries share the common costs of the military operations through the ATHENA mechanism (see box below). In addition, the European Defence Agency (EDA)3 facilitates the joint development of military capabilities by groups of Member States and the pooling and sharing of existing capabilities. By availing of these opportunities and engaging in an approach which maximises impact and avoids duplication, EU Member States hope to prevent the economic crisis creating a 2 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf 3 The European Defence Agency (EDA) is an intergovernmental agency which acts as a catalyst and a coordinating body for multinational initiatives to address shortfalls in European capabilities. Ireland is a participating Member State and is involved in a number of EDA projects, including those related to chemical, radiological, biological and nuclear (CRBN) weapons and maritime surveillance. 2 EUROPEAN SECURITY IN THE 21ST CENTURY: THE EU’S COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH security crisis and Europe’s vulnerabilities becoming more apparent as the US focuses its own declining defence resources on the Asia-Pacific region. 3. INSTITUTIONALISATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH One of the objectives of the Lisbon Treaty was to modernise the EU institutions and processes in order to facilitate the objectives and working practices of an enlarged Union. In the fields of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), it promised better coordination, efficiency and ultimately greater coherence on the world stage. The institutional architecture established by the Lisbon Treaty maintained many of the Union’s pre- existing security bodies and crisis management structures but significant innovations at the level of coordination and management were introduced. Major institutional changes introduced by the Treaty include: - the creation of the post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the Commission (HRVP), and - the establishment of the European External Action Service (EEAS), the Union’s new diplomatic service. 3 EUROPEAN SECURITY IN THE 21ST CENTURY: THE EU’S COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH 4 EUROPEAN SECURITY IN THE 21ST CENTURY: THE EU’S COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH The majority of the Union’s instruments for external action, previously spread across the Council Secretariat and the European Commission (in particular DG RELEX), were brought together in the EEAS, which was established on 1 January 2011. This new institution is headed by the HRVP and even those instruments that remain part of the European Commission (enlargement, development, trade) are under the coordination of the HRVP. Thus, post-Lisbon, all of the instruments are united in a single network headed by the HRVP. Implementing these changes has consumed considerable time and energy, and an analysis must take account of the fact that the new structures are a work in progress and not yet functioning at full capacity. - HIGH REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNION FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND SECURITY POLICY AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMISSION (HRVP) An assessment of the significance and effectiveness of the HRVP must take account of the fact that the role has thus far been synonymous with its first incumbent, Catherine Ashton. Until a comparison can be made with her successor, it is difficult to separate an analysis of her level of ambition, priorities and working style from considerations of the strengths and weaknesses of the position itself. Some suggest that Catherine Ashton has proven to be a strong driver of coordination and a force for coherence since she took office on 1 December 2009. Others have been more critical of her performance to date, pointing to a lack of strategic vision and ambitious agenda. Indeed, the HRVP has thus far primarily been confined to a coordination role. The double-hatted mandate involves coordinating Member States on one hand, as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Council, and coordinating the Union’s external instruments on the other, as head of the EEAS and Vice President of the European Commission. To appreciate the challenge