European Security: an European Security: an enigmatic journeyenigmatic journey

Muhammad YusraInternational Relations Dept.

Universitas Andalas-2011

IntroIntro

Difidence in the field of security and defence

No longer content with the quest for security and defence indentity from inside NATO

No longer prepared to use the WEU as the proxy

EU itself now sought to generate a “ESDP”

VariablesVariables

Exogenous factorsEndogenous factors

ExogenousExogenous

Derives from shifting tectonic plates of the international system in the aftermath of “CW”

The Berlin wall fell on Nov, 9th 1989Eurocentric reading of IR has drastically

changed‘Dawn of peace in Europe’The focus of US (policy-makers and

military planners) switched to Asia, to the middle east.

‘Capabilities gap’ (Euro-US)To take the responsibility for their own

back yard (Balkan)

EndogenousEndogenous

Derives from the internal dynamic of european project

European states might look to their own interest

Need for greater security policy autonomyIntensified after the fall of Berlin wallGrowing awareness of the strategic

challenge pose by the enlargement to the countries of CEE

Western European UnionWestern European Union

established by seven Western European nations during the Cold War

Brussels Treaty, 1948 (Belgium, UK, Netherland, Luxemburg, france)

North Atlantic Treaty, 4 April 1949 (Brussels states + US, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland)

December 1950, the Brussels Treaty powers decided to merge their military organisation into NATO

May 1952, of the Treaty setting up a European Defence Community (EDC) in which Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany were due to participate.

However, in August 1954 the French National Assembly refused to ratify the Treaty.

Paris Agreement, October 1954Brussels Treaty Power +Federal Republic

of Germany and Italyamended the Brussels Treaty (Paris

Agreement), created Western European Union (WEU) as a new international organisation

European Security Challenge in European Security Challenge in 1990’s1990’s

Complex relationship betwen EUSeveral member states, led by UK wished

to deny any active involvement in security or defence discussion

The WEU (which was too small and increasingly too diverse in membership to be effective), and

NATO( most analyst declaring obsolete if not moribund)

Petersberg TaskPetersberg Task

June, 1992 Humanitarian and rescue tasks Peacekeeping tasks Tasks for combat forces in crisis

management, including peacemaking

Berlin PlusBerlin Plus

1996, NATO ministerial meeting in Berlinthe Western European Union (WEU) would

oversee the creation of a European Security and Defence Identity ;

within NATO structures

ESDPESDP

Arose from the Saint-Malo Declaration of December 1998

Explicitly called for the ‘capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces’

This institutional nexus, modella\ed largely on NATO;

Has already demonstrated its ability to work and to work well

Treaty of LisbonTreaty of Lisbon

was signed by the EU member states on 13 December 2007;

and entered into force on 1 December 2009renamed the ESDP to Common Security and

Defence Policy (CSDP).also led to the termination of the Western

European Union in 2010 as;with the solidarity clause (deemed to supersede

the WEU's military mutual defence clause) and the expansion of the CSDP, the WEU became redundant.

All its remaining activities are to be wound up or transferred to the EU by June 2011.

Franco-British defence Franco-British defence cooperation 2010cooperation 2010

In November 2010, British Prime Minister David Cameron and French

President Nicolas Sarkozy announced plans for unprecedented military cooperation between the United Kingdom and France;

based on a new Treaty on Defence and Security Cooperation

a new approach, but it is one that seeks to sustain the status quo – in support of sovereign foreign and defence policies.

The primary motivation is not to produce a greater or more effective ‘European’ military capability.

It is to maintain French and British aspirations to power projection and to military credibility in the eyes of the United States.

The many similarities and shared vital interests of France and the UK underpin, but do not drive, the initiative.

The end-goal is to retain access to military capability, whether that is through mutual dependence on each other’s industrial base and armed forces, or through pooling and sharing capability.

AssumptionsAssumptions

defence budgets have not been funded to compensate for the rising cost of military capability

the relatively benign security situation in Europe leaves it all but impossible to make the political case for more defence spending

Defence, generally ranked low in issue salience polls, is often seen as an easy target for cuts.

Finally, flat or lower spending combined with increasingly expensive technology undermines the viability of national, and even multinational,industries.

This threatens long-standing preferences for indigenous technological and scientific capability, without which France and the UK fear that they will lose operational autonomy.

ReferencesReferences

Recapped from several sources