Common Foreign Security Policy (CFSP) and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) Flashcards
Overview of Security and Defence area with regards to integration?
Domestic laws: Often been hardest policy area to communitise, as S+D is strongly tied to domestic laws.
Effective capabilities VS. national sovereignty: whereby only through events - usually resulting in failures- has the EU’s MS realised need for coherence and consistency within these areas.
How did the end of the Cold War affect cooperation in Security and Defence?
Buffer zone: fall of Soviet Union meant dissipation of buffer zone so more neutral states joined EU, bringing new security threats through this widening
US backseat: US took a backseat in Europe after Cold War, with NATO’s continuance being questioned
Maastricht?
Objectives at the time?
Case study?
Talks: CFSP implemented under Maastricht.
Objectives: to safeguard common values, fundamental, secure the union, and to promote international cooperation
Yugoslav War: EU MS did not act coherently, after which gave political will to gradually militarise the Union
Overview of the St. Malo Declaration
- Driven by France and UK and their domestic incentives whereby they once more put forward the idea of EU Defence Cooperation
- Joint declaration: that stated that the Union must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed by a credible force and the readiness to use them
Overview of the Helsinki Headline Goals
Aimed to be able to deploy 60k troops in 60 days to anywhere in the world for at least a year by 2003
Area of Security and Defence through Amsterdam Treaty
- Incorporated WEU’s Petersberg Tasks. Focused on transnational relations and humanitarian rescue and peacekeeping
Nice Treaty
Saw introduction of civilian mission as pushed by Sweden for there to be an added humanitarian-side to EU missions
ESS
Europe to share responsibility for global security in building a better world
Solana report: whereby it became a necessity for the EU to outline its strategic culture as to be more legitimised and coherent in its actions
What were the main changes incorporated through the Lisbon Treaty?
Enhanced cooperation and Brusselisation
Petersberg Tasks Updated
European Council, Permanent President and FAC
HR/VP
EEAS
- Brusselisation and Enhanced Cooperation: Still very much intergovernmental but Lisbon treaty aimed at furthering ‘Brusselisation’ by introducing three main changes to increase coherence and make it a greater actor externally: HR/VP, Perm President and EEAS
Petersberg Tasks Updated: humanitarian missions as well as to conflict prevention, post-conflict stabilisation.
Council, FAC, and PP:
Council: Council now defines strategic outlook of EU and adopts common strategies.
PP: Acts as consistency of these strategies and facilitates consensus between MS on CSDP affairs.
FAC: Principle decision maker in CSDP affairs whom meets with national foreign ministers to make formal decisions on external action.
HR/VP: chair of FAC and vice-president of Commission, with responsibilities for all EU external actions. It is a double-hatted role in order to improve consistency in EU’s external policies between EU Council and the Commission and improve coordination between operate MS ideas.
EEAS: Assistant to the HR/VP. Manages EU’s response to crises. Likely to see many smaller EU member states merge their national representations externally with that of the EU in the future (Howorth).
Present day CSDP?
PESCO
GSS
PESCO:
- Introduced through Lisbon 2009
- 2017 initiated
- Helsinki Binding: Continuing the Helsinki headlines as to improve EU’s military capabilities by making the policy binding
- Groups: Allows groups of minimum of 9 MS to enhance their defence cooperation
GSS:
- Beyond Petersburg Tasks: to move beyond Petersburg tasks for better cooperation between eu and nato
In what way does both the HR/VP and EEAS have a contradictory mandate?
Belittlement: Coordinates foreign policies of MS and produces new common policies whilst attempting not to belittle MS individual standpoints.
In this way, it has been hard for the HR/VP and EEAS to live up to expectations
Case Study of Libyan Crisis, 2013
Bury
Problems
France UK standpoint
Germany
EU institutions
EU vs. MS
- NATO and UNSC, bury EU: Both NATO and the UNSC’s responses evidently deserve praise, something the EU most definitely does not, with many arguing that “the cfsp died over Libya, we just have to pick a sand dune under which we can bury it”.
- Problems: miscommunication within the EU itself, differentiating ideas, and an inability of the EU’s newly formed structures to act efficiently.
- France and UK: wished for military internvetion and did so under a NATO banner
- Germany: mostly focused on its domestic elections and pushed for non-inteverntion, mainly to please its citizens
- EU: HR/VP and PP drafted differentiating speeches on the same day on how the eu will deal with the crisis
- Commission overruled EEAS on numerous issues and did not supply them with the tools needed to deal with the issue in time, being a new relationship that was not ready
- EU unable to act as long as MS remained unable to agree
Other limitations to the CSDP
Westphalian
Bottom-up intergovernmentalism
Interventionist vs. humanitarian
Success of policy missions
- Westphalian views: international relations is a system which independent states act upon, whereas most integrationist states understand CFSP extension of EU policy and its combination of hard and soft power as necessary for it to shoulder responsibilities
- Bottom-up Intergovernmentalism: MS control its agenda and often sign up to policies they have no intention to report back on and follow through with. No obligation to follow EU mandate in areas of S+D
- Interventionist states VS. humanitarian: France and UK vs. Germany
- Narrow mandates yet success of policing missions
