In 1998, JAN ZIELONKA, professor at the European University of Florence, declared that the Common European Foreign and Security Policy, established in 1991, failed. Furthermore, he found that the European Union should perceive itself as a "civic power" and not try to enter the field of common defence nor grasp the honour of leading the European security matters (ZIELONKA: 1998). The arguments he presented were very interesting and, over all, quite convincing. But, what happened in the following few months was the complete opposite of what he assumpted. Later that year, the most important sceptic of the European integration in security and defence matters, Great Britain, broke its ′splendid isolation′. The UK signed (together with its traditional "political opponent", France) the ′Saint Malo′ declaration about cooperation in creating a common European Defence. Within one year, the 15 states of the EU grounded the European Security and Defence Policy during their official summits, unofficial meetings, and bilateral agreements - something they had not been able to create in the forty-years long history of the European integration.
Regarding security matters, the European Union is very heterogeneous inside and it will be even more after the near eastern enlargement. The ESDP is organised between both NATO and WEU members, the NATO and non-WEU member Denmark and the ′neutral and notallied′ ones (see Diagram). That means, that the ESDP is partly inside NATO and the WEU, partly only within NATO and partly completely outside. As LOTHAR RÜHL noticed (RÜHL: 1999, pp. 8-10) - the whole construction was narrower than NATO (before the 1999 enlargement) where only Turkey, Norway, and Iceland were both outside the EU and the WEU. Apart from that amusing "tongue twister", this heterogeneous structure reflects remarkably in the ESDP policymaking.
Table of Contents
Introduction/ Overview
Short History of European Security and Defence Integration
First Steps: There‘s No Europe without the USA
French Initiatives: Visions and Failures
The 1990s: Political Integration in a New World
Driving The Visions of Integration
‘Motors’: France and Germany
‘Brakes’: ’Uncle Sam’ and Great Britain
‘Co-Drivers’: Europe’s Neutral States
Speeding up the Process
Clapping the Brakes: England
Kosovo Crisis: The Old Structures Fail
Turning Over: The Franco-British “Declaration on European Defence”
Progress and Solutions: Basics of an ESDP
Building up ESDP Basics: The Summits of Cologne and Helsinki
Security and Defence - Still State Policies?
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This paper examines the historical path and political motivations behind the integration of European security and defence policy, culminating in the 1999 Cologne and Helsinki summits. It investigates why this integration process was delayed for decades, the roles of key European actors such as Germany, France, and Great Britain, and the influence of transatlantic dynamics and security organizations like NATO and the WEU on European autonomy.
- The long-term historical evolution of European security cooperation since the post-WWII era.
- The complex interplay of national interests among major EU member states in shaping security policy.
- The role of the United States as a dominant external power and its influence on European integration efforts.
- The impact of institutional crises, such as the conflict in the Balkans, on accelerating the creation of an European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP).
- The relationship and jurisdictional overlaps between the European Union, NATO, and the Western European Union.
Excerpt from the Book
Security and Defence - Still State Policies?
A famous remark says that the European Union achieved more in the last few years than in the 40 ones before. But the terms CFSP or (C)ESDP do not mean that such policies exist. After the CFSP was established one could have agreed with a certain degree of integration on the field of foreign policy, but nothing like a ‘common security’ existed. This was rather a wish in long-term perspective. Establishing the ESDP created a framework for common security, in terms of ability to react on crises in one’s own courtyard. But in fact, common defence policy still is a project of future. One also has to discriminate common defence from common defence policy. It is the NATO that is responsible for common defence on the continent; the EU can only try to develop a common defence policy, with own troops that are able to react in a crisis, but without a common European Army.
The particular interests of the states differ anyway. It is clear that France will not resign from its idée fixe of a great Europe so easily; Germany continues on it´s path of political strengthening in the world arena (even at the cost of weakening the relations with France), and neutral states focus on conceptual development of the civil dimension of conflict prevention. It is also clear that the UK will not agree on any revolutionary change that could affect the transatlantic balance of power. ERIC HOBSBAWM sees it as follows: „Wenn es einen potenziellen Satellitenstaat der USA gibt, dann ist Großbritannien. Das ist eine wirkliche Schwäche Europas: Jemanden unter sich zu haben, der stets garantiert das tut, was die Amerikaner tun“ (Der Spiegel, 12/2002).
Summary of Chapters
Introduction/ Overview: This section outlines the failure of the Common Foreign and Security Policy as argued by experts and introduces the rapid development of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) as a response to emerging security challenges.
Short History of European Security and Defence Integration: The chapter explores the early, largely unsuccessful attempts at European defence cooperation in the post-WWII era, characterized by reliance on US military support.
The 1990s: Political Integration in a New World: This section details the post-Cold War search for a new security architecture, focusing on the EU's struggle to bridge the gap between its economic power and political weakness.
Driving The Visions of Integration: The text analyzes the conflicting interests of France, Germany, and Great Britain in shaping the future of European security and their respective relations with the United States.
Speeding up the Process: This chapter covers the transition in British policy under Tony Blair and the impact of the Kosovo crisis on the determination to establish a functional European defence element.
Progress and Solutions: Basics of an ESDP: It describes the formalization of the ESDP through the Cologne and Helsinki summits and the resulting institutional framework.
Security and Defence - Still State Policies?: The final section reflects on the remaining gap between the ESDP framework and the reality of national interests, arguing that common defence remains a long-term goal rather than an existing reality.
Keywords
European Security and Defence Policy, ESDP, CFSP, European Integration, NATO, Western European Union, WEU, Transatlantic Partnership, Security Architecture, Foreign Policy, Crisis Management, France, Germany, Great Britain, Sovereignty
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this work?
The work examines the development of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) and the long, complex process of integrating security and defence matters within the European Union.
Which key themes are central to the analysis?
Central themes include the interplay of national interests among EU member states, the role of the United States in European security, the transition from economic to political integration, and the influence of international crises on policy-making.
What is the primary research goal?
The primary goal is to explain why security integration took decades to gain momentum and how the EU finally moved toward establishing an autonomous security dimension by the late 1990s.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The paper utilizes a qualitative analysis of historical developments, political declarations, and institutional frameworks, supported by an extensive review of existing literature and scholarly commentary.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body covers the history of integration from the post-WWII period, the shift in political focus in the 1990s, the roles of key actors (France, Germany, UK), and the pivotal impacts of the Balkans conflict and the Saint Malo declaration.
How can the work be characterized by its keywords?
The work is defined by terms such as ESDP, European integration, transatlantic relations, and the interplay between national sovereignty and supranational policy-making.
How did the Kosovo crisis affect the integration process?
The crisis highlighted the EU's inability to act independently, serving as the "final impulse" that compelled member states to finalize the creation of a common defence policy.
What role does the United States play in European defence integration?
The US acts as the primary provider of security capabilities and a corrective force; the author argues that any European defence project can effectively only proceed with American support or at least its acquiescence.
- Quote paper
- Weronika Tkocz (Author), 2003, Raise of the Midgets. Towards a European Security and Defence Policy., Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/8583