"Critically discuss the prospects for the successful realisation of an European Common foreign and Security Policy and accompanying European Security and Defence Policy in the 21st Century".

“Critically discuss the prospects for the successful realisation of an European Common foreign and Security Policy and accompanying European Security and Defence Policy in the 21st Century”.

The aim of this paper is to identify the many changes, which have occurred in the European Union and potential for European Security and Defence Policy in the future.

(Park and Rees 1998, p.11) state “During the Cold War, the concept of ‘Security’ was generally understood in Europe as more or less exclusively concerned with militarily related issues, and was dominated by East-West confrontation.” Europe from 1945 - 1989 was governed by its unified fear of the Soviet Union and the continual threat of the Cold War, which existed. In actuality the initial primary concerns of the EU where in fact trade and agricultural support and not really foreign affairs. However, in 1970 the then EEC agreed on a loose inter-governmental forum about foreign affairs, namely the European Political Corporation.

The fall of the Berlin Wall resulted in a more open-minded approach and discarding the NATO mindset which had existed over the Cold War period. Now that the Atlantic Alliance was deemed almost obsolete, the European Union now had to define its own geopolitical interests out with the mindset of the NATO framework. This resulted in the introduction in1991 of the Maastricht Treaty and with it the introduction of the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the EU came about. This allowed for the implementation of some broad objectives, which were later amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam as listed: -

To safeguard the common values, fundamental interests and independence of the Union;
To strengthen the security of the Union and its Member States in all ways;
To promote international co-operation;
To develop and consolidate democracy and the rule of law, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

(McConnells 2003)

Europe has experienced many political changes over the past fifty or so years. As already mentioned there was a condition of Cold War, which existed in Europe between 1945 and 1989. Germany was segregated into four zones e.g.

East = Russian Zone
East of France = French Zone
Central = British Zone
North = American Zone

This resulted as attempts to contain German power within Europe, which failed in both the 1st and 2nd World Wars. In 1948 allied controls decided to introduce a new currency (the deutschmark) to move towards a market economy, which the Russians felt to be too aggressive. In reaction to this currency reform the Russians blockaded Berlin. East and West relations declined further. The result of this failure was the erection of the Iron Curtain and the segregation of East from West Germany. This in turn resulted in Europe calling on the USA for an Alliance, namely NATO. This Treaty came into being in April 1949 and marked the beginning of American influence within Europe. The Warsaw Pact was introduced by the USSR as a countermeasure to NATO and the German Democratic Republic Joined. According to (Park and Rees 1998, p.11) “NATO and the Warsaw Pact were expected to deter military aggression and prepare to defend in the event of attack, while the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE, now OSCE) represented a concession to the objective of increasing security by reducing military threat perceptions, military capabilities and the mistrust and suspicion which lay behind them.”

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

Also in 1947 the American’s came to the aid of the Europeans with a financial aid package known as the Marshall Plan. This plan was offering financial aid to Europe on the condition that European countries rebuilt their countries. This resulted in a European Recovery Plan being created in 1948 in which Europeans were requested to co-operate with its conditions of rebuilding their economy etc, which triggered the first step towards unity in Europe through the pressure of American Marshall Aid.

In an attempt to curtail Germany from ever using its power to such an extent the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

In an attempt to curtail Germany from ever using its power to such an extent the European Coal and Steel Community was created in 1951 as a result of the Schuman Plan, May 1950. The Schuman Plan proposed to create a supra-national Authority that controlled both the Coal and Steel Industry between its members. The original six members of the European Coal and Steel Community were namely: -

Belgium
Luxembourg
France
Italy
The Netherlands
West Germany

The ECSC was created in 1951 and then continued on to create the European Economic Community (EEC) and also European Atomic Energy Committee (Euratom) within the two treaties of Rome in 1957. As described by (Bainbridge and Teasdale 1996, p.412) “With the accession of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom, the Six went became the Nine in 1973, the ten in 1981 with the accession of Greece, the Twelve in 1986 with the accession of Portugal and Spain, and the Fifteen in 1995 with the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden.” Also in more recent times, particularly after the Nice Treaty 1999 there is yet more enlargement planned for the EU. (Black 2003) explains “10 incoming member states signed the treaty of accession to the European Union, turning the club of 15 into one of 25”. These new members have agreed to access the EU in May 2004. This will increase the total EU population according to (Black 2003) it “will add 75 million people to the EU's population, bringing it to 450 million. It will transform the union beyond recognition.” The New Member States entering the EU are listed below: -

Malta
Slovenia
Hungary
Poland
Czech Republic
Lithuania
Slovakia
Estonia
Latvia
Cyprus

This enlargement of the EU shall result in many changes occurring Politically, Economically and marks an end to the Franco-German Alliance which has existed and according to (Black 2003) “catapults Poland into the top six. It means that big countries will be outnumbered by small ones.” This completely changes the balance of power within the EU. The future of the EU can once again offer opportunity for many both politically and economically. We must also realise that there is also potentially another reason for offering enlargement of the EU, namely the threat of the collapse of Eastern European Countries after the Cold War. (Park and Rees 1998, p.13) state “shifts in the global balance of power are likely to pose more traditional, military, security problems to Europe.” The breakdown of the Soviet Block and then again enlargement introduce these types of problems.

The Western European Union (WEU) was established on 6 May 1955 based in London Headquarters. Membership of the WEU consisted of the Six alongside the United Kingdom and offered an opportunity for seven European countries to discuss issues of Security in Europe. The WEU in fact assisted with the rearmament of West Germany under admission of West Germany to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The WEU Ministers meets twice yearly and more regularly at an ambassadorial level about twice per month to debate and report on security issues in Europe. The WEU according to (Bainbridge and Teasdale 1996, p.478) “has no military capability, being wholly dependant on forces assigned to it by Member States. However unlike NATO, it can act ‘out of area’, as it did by undertaking minesweeping in the Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war.” The WEU marked a unified security policy in the EU. Around 1987 the WEU acted as a forum for discussing specific European Security Questions and assisted by the Hague according to (Bainbridge and Teasdale 1996, p.478) “the adoption of the ‘Platform on European Security Interests’, which contained the commitment to develop a ‘more cohesive European defence identity’.” The commitment of the WEU is annexed to the Maastricht Treaty according to (Bainbridge and Teasdale 1996, p.478-479) and “the declaration sets out the ‘gradual process’ by which the role pf WEU and its relations with the European Union and the Atlantic Alliance are to be strengthened.”

Today in Europe however, the cold war is now part of history and the role of NATO is unstable. According to (Park and Rees 1998, p.11) “The circumstances of the post-Cold War ‘wider’ Europe are rather different from those pertaining to Western Europe in the aftermath of the Second World War. The threats today are rather diffuse and sometimes of a kind not susceptible to military solutions.” NATO did exist, as a counter threat to Russia and its military power, now that this is broken up the threats, which are now in focus, are less apparent. At least they were until the September 11 Terrorist Attack on the twin towers. According to (Black 2002) “Nato, like the EU (largely the same people on this side of the pond) desperately needs to modernise if it is to retain any credibility, senior chaps now admit. That's why no one laughs at the old joke that its acronym actually stands for "now almost totally obsolete".” The actions of the UK and America only assisted in highlighting this to the public.

The EU has planned to implement a Rapid Reaction force to defend the interests of Europe and offer perhaps more autonomy and independence from NATO. According to (Black 2002) “The Rapid Reaction Force sounds like an oxymoron. Even -squabbling Greeks and Turks permitting - when its 60,000 men are up and marching by 2003, its brief is peacekeeping and humanitarian tasks. It might - just- eventually be able to take over Nato's operation in Macedonia.” This statement portrays just how small the European Force would be in comparison to that of the NATO Force. It is therefore safe to assume that a European Rapid Reaction force as it currently stands would not in fact be strong enough to represent the whole of the EU. Therefore the most obvious choice would be to stand alongside NATO with more broad ranging objectives i.e. NATO being allowed to operate ‘out of area’ and represent a unified front. As history has shown however, EU countries have problems agreeing on many subjects and the Rapid Reaction force is no different. France would like there to be more autonomy from NATO and other countries would like more unity with NATO.

Terrorism is the big threat today; this is not as straightforward as dealing with a threat from a nation as the population of terrorist groups are spread throughout the world and not merely within one or two countries. In order to deal with Terrorism, America and the UK deemed it necessary to attack Iraq without the backing of the UN and NATO; in order to disarm them of supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now that the military attack is complete, there has in fact been no evidence found of any apparent Nuclear Weapons. However, the liberation of Iraq has occurred as a result of the war and yet again America is aiming to act unilaterally without the backing of the UN etc. in the humanitarian and economic recovery of Iraq. According to (Nau 2002) “No democratic country, including the US, can act successfully in foreign policy if it is directly opposed by other major democratic states.” In fact there are many who oppose the US in relation to foreign policy affairs with Iraq. Could this display a flaw in both American Foreign relations as well as European relations.

Recently however, it has become apparent to many that Common Foreign Security Policy is failing within Europe. The recent Issue with the Iraq War or War on Saddam has highlighted many flaws, which exist in Common Foreign Security Policy within the EU. (Osborne 2003) writes “No blood has yet been spilt in Iraq but in Brussels - the cauldron where a common European foreign and security policy (CFSP) has been simmering away for years - the figurative blood is already beginning to soak into the carpet.” The most important flaw of European Common Foreign Security Policy, which is highlighted, is that Europe has not spoken with one voice on issues such as Iraq. In fact they have never been further apart, in particular France and Britain have maintained totally opposing views from thither and have not agreed on many, if at all any Iraq issues. There has been much recently discussed about a European Rapid Reaction Force. This however, would offer a threat to the Stability of the Atlantic Alliance. According to (Nau 2002) “Neither ally really wants the consequence of what it is asking for. America doesn't want greater European influence, and Europe doesn't want America not to lead - because then it would have to lead on its own. The unilateral/ multilateral debate is convenient for both, and thus never goes away.” Indeed the unilateral approach, which has been taken by America since the reign of George Bush Junior, has in fact been causing much upset in Europe. In particular the current Iraq conflict has come into much mixed opinion between the European Member States. The United Kingdom has been behind Bush in the War against Iraq/Saddam; on the other side of the scope is France who was completely against any action.

Common Foreign Security Policy in Europe as it currently stands has taken a bashing and the damage may not be undone. Change is needed to ensure that a unified Europe stands unified in matters such as Iraq. The European Union has always operated on an incremental process and learnt from previous mistakes. The future of the EU and its European Security and Defence Policy in the 21st Century will have to be completely rethought after the effects from issues arising from Iraq and other military conflicts, which have highlighted a flawed system. The autonomy of Europe is not a reality at present as the Rapid Reaction Force is not strong enough yet to defend all of Europe. A unified approach from both NATO and Europe in relation to Common Foreign Security Policy is required and holds the key to European Success. As far as America is concerned however, the autonomy of the EU is a very big threat and is perhaps not the best option to suit them. Is Europe strong enough in the future to stand against America? Only time will tell.

References

Bainbridge, T, Teasdale, A, 1996. The Penguin Companion to European Union. The Penguin group: UK.

Black, I, 2002. Nato, the Spent force. Guardian Unlimited [online] Monday 11 February. Available from World Wide Web: [Accessed 14/4/03]

Black, I, 2003. EU Leaders hail their new frontiers. Guardian Unlimited [online] Thursday 17 April. Available from World Wide Web: [Accessed 17/4/03]

McConnells 2003. The Referendum Commission. McConnells [online]. Available from World Wide Web: [Accessed 16/4/03]

Nau, H.R, 2002. How to Save the Western Alliance. The Observer [online] Sunday 28 April. Available from World Wide Web: [Accessed 15/4/03]

Park, W, Rees, G.W, 1998. Rethinking Security in Post-Cold War Europe. Addison Wesley Longman: New York.

Osborn, A, 2003. Dark Days for Europe. Guardian Unlimited [online] Friday 14 March. Available from World Wide Web: [Accessed 17/4/03]

"Critically discuss the prospects for the successful realisation of an European Common foreign and Security Policy and accompanying European Security and Defence Policy in the 21st Century".

Document Details

Word Count

2552
Page Count

12
Level
AS and A Level
Subject

Politics

"Critically discuss the prospects for the successful realisation of an European Common foreign and Security Policy and accompanying European Security and Defence Policy in the 21st Century".

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays