'The European Union's common foreign and security policy has been more rhetoric than reality'

        The historical setting of the ECSC pact was one of the biggest problems posed, with relation to achieving any kind of common security system. This was the period of the Cold War – a bitter war between the two superpowers of Russia and America. Several rivers and block of mainland – Europe, separated these two countries. As the European Union was not involved, its common goals of peace and security became slightly negated during this period. Although efforts were delayed, it soon became apparent that ‘in international affairs, the only successful action would be collective action’

                        History of the CFSP

The CFSP is based on a system of intergovernmentalism, the most basic definition of which is a form of interaction between states on a basis of sovereign independence. In this case, the intergovernmental aspect refers to the CFSP which is a voluntary agreement based upon the consent of the member states of Europe. Karen E. Smith in ‘European Union Politics (Oxford Second Ed.) writes that: although the CFSP was introduced after Maastricht in 1993, the ideas leading up to the establishment of the CFSP have been in formulation for the best part of sixty years.

        The first tentative step was in March 1948 when Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom signed the Brussels Treaty of Mutual Defence. In April 1949 The USA, Canada and ten West European Countries signed the North Atlantic Treaty, which was the basis for the organisation now known as Nato. On the Strength of the Brussels Treaty of 1948, The Western European Treaty (WEU) was signed in October 1954 – the purpose of this treaty was to extend membership to include Italy and West Germany. This served as a medium of communication between the six EU members and Britain. When Britain joined the EU, the WEU became obsolete. Various measures promoting increased political co-operation were employed throughout the 1970’s and in October 1984; the WEU was re-galvanised with the intention of having regular meetings which would serve as a forum for the WEU foreign and defence ministers. The Single European Act (SEA) enabled discussions to facilitate aspects of European political and economic co-operation.

The Maastricht of 1993 saw the creation of the CFSP an endeavour that aimed to create a system covering all areas of common and foreign security policy. The next integral step came in January 1994 when the NATO summit agreed that NATO resources could by used by the WEU to enhance the programme for ‘combined joint task forces’, which required US approval, as they are members of NATO and so must approve its use of resources. The Amsterdam treaty of 1997 introduced much needed reforms of the CFSP pillar.

Success of the CFSP

The Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) introduced much needed reforms, which introduced measures to improve and maintain increased levels of success of the CFSP. One of the biggest breakthroughs with relation to the success of the CFSP was the appointment of a permanent HR.

        The CFSP may have experienced problems and deemed to be inherently weak by its critics but the policy is gaining support. According to recent evidence public opinion is moving towards its acceptance. 65% of EU member states ( the original 15 countries) are in support, while more than two-thirds – 68% of those polled in the new accession states are in favour of the CFSP.

                Inherent Flaws of the CFSP.

        It is only since the 1990’s that the CFSP has gained recognition as an accepted issue within EU politics. The UK and France currently hold tow of the permanent seats on the UN Security Council. In order for CFSP to work, there should only be one seat, and this would require both countries to resign their seats. This is something that they are allegedly reluctant to remedy, as no discussion has yet happened over this issue, and according to the UN there is no plan to amend the current situation. France and Britain are two countries, which have significantly slowed the process of the establishment of a successful CFSP. Britain, along with Spain and Portugal have a number of former colonies whom they are keen to retain links with, but this agenda would have to be abandoned in the name of a common and foreign security policy. The tension has been alleviated somewhat with the signing on the ‘Franco-British Alliance’ in 1998.

        Critics of the CFSP argue that it endeavours to undermine NATO. There is no evidential proof of this, but the CFSP certainly operates in conjunction with NATO. This is where another obstacle lies, as several members of the EU, and therefore members of the CFSP, are not members of NATO. Sweden, Ireland and Finland are three such countries, who are loathe to surrender their neutrality, which is something that must happen if there is to be a common European army under the system of CFSP. At present the WEU is the European arm of NATO under the pillar system. The centre for European studies argues that change is necessary to amend the situation, either the WEU will have to be separated from NATO, or else these three countries will be required to join. The Centre for European Studies argues in its paper on the troubles facing the CSFP; that because of the separate agendas of the individual member states of Europe with relation to foreign policy, defence and intelligence, ‘it will be some considerable before we observe a comprehensive, coherent EU foreign policy’.

        Lee writes of the apparent weaknesses of the CFSP when he writes that the CFSP has often been criticised for ‘its ineffective skill to manage international conflicts; its weak military forces; its slow decision making procedure and its inconsistent strategy and plan…nor had it shown any successful counteractions in response to regional conflicts over international affairs’ He argues that the opposition over the 1990 Gulf War uncovered the failure of the CFSP, and again for the Kosovo and Bosnian Wars.  He writes that the CFSP’s ‘attempts to integrate the European countries under a name of European Security and Defence to act in a unity in international affairs had never been achieved.

        The absence of a military force is an area that many detractors of the CFSP use a point of criticism. There is no point preaching common security and defence throughout Europe if there is no literal militant force to back uup this argument. This is one area which makes the CFSP more of a rhetoric than a reality, as without an army presence it will not be possible to ‘preserve peace and strengthen international security’ which is one of the underlying objectives of the CFSP.

                Terrorism: A Challenge for the Future Success of the CFSP

Just as Nazism was a major global concern in the decades preceding the formation of the European Union, terrorism is now a highly contentious issue and one that poses problems for the future success of the CFSP. The terrorist attacks of 2001 on the World Trade Centre have proven to be one the biggest challenges facing the future of the CFSP. The attacks could have happened in any city anywhere including Europe, which confirms the need for successful implementation of the CFSP. Grant writes that the political situation surrounding the attacks and the Bush administration’s hard line on the issue and their stance ‘global war against terrorism’ introduced a degree of conflict between America and Europe. He writes that America is disinclined to turn to allies instead preferring to adopt a totalitarian outlook on the war against terror.

        The European Council states that with relation to the CFSP, they are committed to the effort of ‘combating terrorism and in providing the best possible protection for its citizens…the strategy is comprehensive, covering a wide range of issues…these aim at increasing co-operation in fields ranging from intelligence to law enforcement and the control of financial assets in order to find, detain and bring to justice terror suspects…furthermore the 25 member states are being aligned so that terrorism is prosecuted and punished in the same manner throughout the EU’.

        To this end Mr Gijs de Vries was appointed as terrorism co-ordinator, where he will overview all the instruments at the council’s disposal and work in conjunction with the objectives of the
CFSP.

                        Conclusion