A Set of Proposals that would Improve the Efficiency of the Common and Foreign Security Policy - Essay Example

FOR THE COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY By 8th, May, For the Common Foreign and Security Policy Introduction This paper seeks to provide a set of proposals that would improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Common and Foreign Security Policy (CFSP). The proposals will be justified by referring to existing practice and will evaluate the likelihood of such proposals actually being implemented. Prior to discussion in relation to the proposals, it is useful for the reader to have direction as to the historical background and working in practice of the CFSP; this will aid the reader to put the forthcoming proposals into context. The paper will consider that the ineffectiveness of the CFSP lies in the military focus, as there is duplication between the CFSP and other international organisations such as North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) as well as the United States (US). The paper will therefore propose that the CFSP should act as a supporting function and should instead focus on its relations both externally and internally in respect of economic development. This will lead to the conclusion that if this were to take place, the common foreign and security policy of EU could grow in importance in world affairs and truly achieve success. Historical Context Various changes have taken place today in Europe in the second half of 20th century. Mainly, security has changed significantly due to various factors. Such factors include disintegration of Soviet Union, dismissal of Warsaw pact and reunion of East and West Germany. Progress has been made in European Union as now it can address issue of world affairs and comment with considerable power (Stivachtis, 2007, P.261-270). The Common Foreign and Security (CFSP) that controls the efforts of the EU Member States to act in this unified way facilitate this action. The CFSP, while full of good intentions, has received extensive consideration in recent years (Tiersky et al, 2011, P.10-15). This is because the EU has, by creating the CFSP been suggested by some Member States as attempting to set itself up as a superpower to balance the power scales, in an attempt to put the EU on to the same footing as the USA with similar international strengths (Staab, 2011, P.89). Meanwhile, other Member States have suggested that the CFSP is an attempt to create a favourable interaction with United States and other important international organisations. These two theories lead to the suggestion that there has been a conflict in the agenda of the CFSP and for this reason there has been slow progress in setting a clear direction (Staab, 2011, P.151). Therefore, a uniform agenda is essential. This is evident from lack of common approach on issues facing the body. The only agenda available relies on member’s consent. The historical background to the CFSP begins with the Maastricht Treaty 1993 before which the EU had no official role in EU affairs. However, the Treaty committed members to develop a foreign policy. This foreign policy was further developed after the Amsterdam Treaty 1997 when the CFSP was created (Herrmann, 2005, P.4-10). One of the policies that were created was the ability to take independent military action, resulting in the EU deploying teams of international observers and peacekeeping forces. This will be discussed in more detail later in the proposals. However, this policy in particular prevents the CFSP from having clear direction and agenda. This implies that they work in unison with the rest of the world as the policy duplicates that of other international organisations. The Working of the CFSP At the centre of the CFSP is the High Representative for Foreign Affairs who co-ordinates the EU’s foreign policy (Merlingen and Ostrauskaite, 2008, P.18-25). The European Council makes any decisions by the CFSP. The EU has diplomatic missions in several important countries, under the authority of the High Representative and the European Council. It has been argued that this cooperation on foreign policy gives countries a louder voice on the world stage, for example Javier Solana, High Representative for the CSFP in 2006 said, ‘for decades we have been confronted by various forms of crises on our doorsteps – but without the means to address them’ (Herrmann, 2005, P.4-10). Despite this brave statement, James suggests that ‘the EU should not go it alone but should maintain traditional links with the USA through NATO and the UN’. Additionally, CFSP effects are minimal as sometimes members decide to take divergent views. This statement will now be discussed in more detail as the paper looks at some proposals by reference to existing practice. The EU as A Military Power Traditionally the EU is a ‘civilian power’ concerned with welfare generation and economic regulation (Bindi, 2010, P.291). Because of the creation of the CFSP, the focus no longer remains as one for a ‘civilian power’ rather the efforts of the CFSP is now split between military operations and support, as well as economic encouragement and regulation. However, it has been suggested that the movement towards a regulated common European Security and Defence policy (ESNP) that is separate from the US and NATO is key in the international relations of a post 9/11 world. (Merlingen, 2008, P.18). A change in policy would be a good thing that would reduce US burdens in the EU and make Europe a better and more capable partner. However, if done badly it risks a European and American strategy that leads to weakness and blame (Herrmann, 2005, P.4). There is general agreement that such policy has not been successfully implemented. The focus on security and defence in order to resolve conflicts means that the CFSP duplicates functions that are better performed elsewhere by NATO, the United Nations, and the United States (Smith, 2004, 176). This lays the basis for the main proposal; that the CFSP must remove this duplication. Argument in favour of this proposal also presents itself in academic debate where the question has arisen as to whether an EU policy in the security field is necessary. Furthermore, if the answer is in the affirmative question are bound to be raised whether CFSP in its present form is sufficient to support its prospects for becoming a policy-shaping mechanism. It is suggested that the successful development of, and implementation of, any governmental political cooperation depends on the extent to which that policy is necessary (Staab, 2011, P.104). In order to be necessary this will depend on the existence of other policy instruments. If there were similar already in existence, for example NATO and the UN Security Council then the CFSP would have to provide other options that these cannot. However, the EU’s roles as an international actor in foreign and security policies continue to be that of a ‘dwarf’, that is, they have not developed into a leading player in ‘high politics’ (Herrmann, 2005, P.4). The following activities have taken place under the EU CFSP. Most notable are the brokered ceasefire between Georgia and Russia where observers were deployed to monitor the situation and in Kosovo a police and justice force to help ensure law and order. Furthermore, the EU has no immediate army and relies on informal forces that are contributed by EU countries for responsibilities such as combined disarmament, humanitarian tasks, military counsel, clash prevention, and forestalling peace and combat forces in crisis management (European Movement, 2009, Web). However, despite this, it is up to individual member states how they choose to deploy their forces and all key decisions must be taken by unanimous vote, particularly where those decisions have military or defence implications (European Movement, 2009, Web). Compare the relevance of these to those of NATO, for example, recently the success in Libya where after the Libyan people were under threat and attack of the armed gangs commanded by Col. Qaddafi who had brutally ruled Libya for 40 years. Within 10 days, the UN Security Council had voted for a resolution with a mandate to protect Libya’s civilians. This included the policing of a no-flight zone. NATO took command of a force of dozens of ships and hundreds of airplanes when commencing military operations. The success of NATO meant saving thousands of lives and ultimately the removal of a dictator from power (Daalder & Stavridis, 2011, P.15-25). Although United States was hesitant to being involved in Libya, incursion it played a leading role in ouster of the dictator and setting of civilian free. United States provided information that enabled curtailing of dictator forces’ and progress of rebels. CFSP is sluggish in its response, as all decisions must have a unanimous vote (which is problematic if a particular member state does not wish to deploy its forces). In contrast, NATOS’s mission in relation to peace and security works on the principle that an attack against one is an attack against all, referred to as the principle of collective defence (NATO). This is enshrined in Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty which means if it needs to undertake crisis management operations it can do so either under the Washington Treaty or under a UN Mandate, alone or in cooperation with other countries. This means NATO can perform speedy response and is not reliant on the agreement of all member states, rather it only requires the approval of the UN Security Council to perform a task. A further well know example is in the case of the former Yugoslavia where the EU achieved no breakthrough success (Renda et al, 2009, P.151-160). While the UN provided peacekeeping forces and NATO provided military monitoring and air strikes. These examples illustrate that the CFSP is merely providing duplication and such a military presence would only be necessary if there was no such policy already in place. However, NATO, UN, and the US already provide this security and therefore the CFSP should, in order to achieve full effectiveness, cease splitting its focus and instead concentrate on improving its economic policy. It is suggested that the lack of impact on the international stage is because of lack of strategic clarity. There must be a foreign policy of and legal interests that prevail over national attitudes (Renda et al, 2009, P.151-160). However, this leads to the question as to whether Europe needs a military organisation beyond NATO and that would mean assuming that NATO cannot provide sufficient security. It is suggested that this is an incomprehensible idea given NATO’s “excellent health” (Taron, 2006, P.2-15). The question remains, what could the EU and NATO accomplish that NATO itself could not. United States supports acceptance of controlled foreign guided principle by the European Union, but this should be within the limits and context of NATO (Staab, 2011, P.22). Stabb (2011) further suggests that fight against terrorism can be accomplished by Europe and America working together (22-30). Additionally, there is a huge gap in terms of military prowess between America and Europe. Such disparity is obvious in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq scenario. Therefore, United States will continue to play a leading role in world security when considering the conflicts and low involvement in them as discussed above. The CSFP as Leader in Economic Policy Despite the aforementioned discussion in relation to its military policy, the CSFP does have marked success regarding EU internal cohesion. This is illustrated by the fact that there are significant differences in foreign policy throughout its Member States, yet few conflicts emerge throughout EU members. The proposal is that the EU should not become involved with foreign military policy. It is therefore put that the CFSP should concentrate on policy within the EU. What the CFSP should be doing is concentrating on what has shown itself as being successful. Such include promoting international relations with economic logic, it should therefore continue to focus on its specific strength as a ‘civil power’ (Peterson, 1998, P.74). This would act as a preventative security policy (Peterson, 1998, P.101). Therefore, if the CFSP did take heed of such proposals, the outcome would still be that of peaceful change, albeit through a different policy than an openly military one. The EU is unquestionably a success story in terms of economics and trade. Matláry (2002), puts it the EU is increasingly influencing the behaviour of other actors in the international scenario. Moreover, it serves as example for world economy due to its various accomplishments (165). Though made up of barely 27 countries, its prowess cannot be underrated in Europe and world. Moreover, it provides a large market base. In addition, its currency is strong enough to withstand minor market changes. These external relations mean that the EU is in a strong position to play an important role in global affairs and can use its weight to ensure there are effective and balanced partnerships across the globe. The perceived benefits of becoming EU members in themselves are illustrative of the power of the EU. In addition, CSFP can use its policy on developing external relationships as a method by which to encourage political and economic reforms (Foradori, 2007, P.159). For example, the EU offers free trade agreements to countries such as Georgia if they agree to undertake reforms to encourage democracy and this type of policy could be further develop across the globe as a non-military effort to encourage important norms such as democracy and respect for human rights. However, it is argued that the EU is not as successful as it could be in this area, and these proposals seek to address that. The principle of equality in decision-making prevents this body from coming up with progressive ideas. Actions by this body are usually late and only come when other bodies have already made their stand known (Herrmann, 2005, P.4). This is major obstacle to progress of European Union. This was highlighted in relation to the recent economic crisis and in fact, IMF Managing Director Strauss-Kahn said, that when the EU needs to reach an agreement ‘all this takes time in Europe, and that’s the main problem of Europe. He went on to say that the decision making process is long ‘longer than the speed of markets’ (European Movement, 2009, Web). These proposals therefore suggest that if the EU wants to have the world’s best economy, member states need to understand that they have a shared responsibility and that they should think European before looking towards their own national interests. It is suggested that the CFSP should therefore include this in the policy to concentrate on enabling member states to act as a unified Europe rather than a collection of states. There must be a greater convergence of policy positions within the member states. In summary, the CSFP must focus its efforts on its external relations, concentrating on improving the speed of decision-making as well as putting polices and action plans in place that focuses on a unified Europe as opposed to a collection of Member States. Are the Proposals Likely to be Implemented? Based on the current policy of the CSFP, it would seem unlikely they will cease having what they refer to as decisive diplomacy. The EU considers that they are a key player in international issues and the very basis of the common and security policy is its use of diplomacy. In the last decade, the EU has launched 23 civilian missions and military operations on three different continents. These operations have ranged from peace building, to full rapid response operations, to the use of combat forces in crisis management. Involvement in these operations shows no signs of slowing and there remain no signs that responsibility for such actions will be left entirely within the remit of NATO, the UN, or the US. That said the EU is developing common policies in relation to countries such as Russia, Ukraine and other Mediterranean countries. Member states are beginning to recognise that together they can achieve more in foreign policy than when apart (Cini et al, 2010, P.20-35). Conclusion This paper has discussed the military policy of the CSFP with some examples of its low-key effect on international crisis. This has been compared to the work of NATO, the UN, and the US and such examples have illustrated their arguably more substantial impact. This illustrates that the foreign and security policy of the CFSP is a duplication of functions that is not only unnecessary but also draws the focus of the CFSP away from areas that it should be focusing on. The paper has suggested that the CFSP should put its efforts into improving what it is already doing well, which is its efforts in external relationship building and economic policy that will aid the globe in its attempts at peace building, albeit in a less confrontational manner. The CFSP is therefore still work in progress; it is making low key contributions to international security while the external relations policy is hindered by lack of focus with an absence of priority being given to creating a common policy which puts the interests of the EU before the interests of the member states. If the EU can shift its focus from military policy, which is unnecessary, to a focus on bringing success to its ‘civil power’ the CFSP will grow in importance in world affairs. References Bindi, F 2010, The Foreign Policy of the European Union: Assessing Europes Role in the World, Brookings Institution Press, New York. Cini E et al 2010, European Union Politics, Oxford University, London. Daalder, I & Stavridis, J 2011, NATO’s Success in Libya. Viewed, 07 March 2012, . European Movement 2009, The EU’s Common Foreign & Security Policy and the European Defence & Security Policy, Viewed 07 March 2012, . Foradori, P 2007, Managing a Multilevel Foreign Policy: The EU in International Affairs, Lexington Books, New York. Herrmann, D 2005, The Common Foreign and Security Policy of the EU, GRIN Verlag, Munich. Matláry, J 2002, Intervention for Human Rights in Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.  Merlingen, M and Ostrauskaite, R 2008, European Security and Defence Policy: An Implementation Perspective, Routledge, London.  Peterson, J 1998, A Common Foreign Policy for Europe?: Competing Visions of the Cfsp, Routledge, London. Renda B et al 2009, Policy-Making in the EU: Achievements, Challenges and Proposals for Reform, CEPS, Brussels. Smith, M, 2004, Europe’s Foreign and Security Policy: The Institutionalization of Cooperation, Cambridge University Press, London. Staab, A 2011, The European Union Explained: Institutions, Actors, Global Impact, Indiana University Press, New York Stivachtis, Y, 2007, The State of European Integration, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., London Taron,S,2006,The Amending Treaties- Creating a Common Foreign and Security Policy for Europe, GRIN Verlag, Munich Tiersky et al, 2011, Europe Today: A Twenty-first Century Introduction, Rowman & Littlefield, New York Read More