THE EUROPEAN UNION

Fellow Delegates,

Welcome to the V MINI-ONU European Political and Security Committee. I hope you enjoy as much as possible, learn a lot, make new friends and have a lot of fun!

I would like to introduce myself first and then, I will let my assistants introduce themselves. I am Juliana Fonseca Vieira and I am an undergraduate student of International Relations at PUC Minas. I have large experience in Models; the V MINI-ONU will be my 10th.. Last year I had the honor to be one of the assistant directors of the Council of Ministers of the European Union. To go on with the European Union tradition at MINI-ONU, I decided to simulate the European Political and Security Committee. Models are very hard work but also very rewarding, and I love it because I have been learning a lot and having a great time! Now let my assistants introduce themselves…

Pedro Gazzinelli Colares: “First of all, I'd like to say how pleased I am with the opportunity of working as Assistant Director in this European Political and Security Committee with my great friends Juliana and Roberto. I hope you can enjoy taking part in this V MINI-ONU as much as I've enjoyed working on it, and I also know that you'll be able to develop a great work, but also make new friends and have fun. As for me, I am an International Relations student at PUC-MG and also a Law student at UFMG. I've been taking part of MUNs since 2001 when I was delegate at the II MINI-ONU. After that, I've also been to other editions of the MINI-ONU, and also at AMUN, MONU-PUC and IOSCMUN. I would therefore, like to welcome you all, to what I consider one of the most memorable experiences in a students' life.”

Roberto Vinicius Pereira da Silva Gama: “I am an International Relations student at PUC-MG, currently attending my third semester. As a Model enthusiastic, I have been involved in IO simulations since the year 2000, having participated in Models such as the HWMUN (WorldMUN), AMUN, MONU, MINI-ONU, SINUS, IOSCMUN. I’m also involved in the International Organizations Simulation Club (IOSC) – our simulation club here at PUC-MG – as a member and also as Academic Director. Is with great satisfaction that I welcome you all, hoping we can promote significant debates, good times and, most of all, a remarkable, profound and touching life experience.”

The topic you will discuss, “Conflict Prevention and Crisis Management” became an extremely important issue to the European Union in the latest years. The EU is still having a lot to do in the years to come. I recommend you to read this guide once and again and do not be restricted to it. Remember that, it is just a guide, to help your further research. It is extremely necessary to have good knowledge to have a good debate, as closed to reality as possible.

If you have any questions, or doubts, do not hesitate in contact us, we will be pleased to help you!I can hardly wait to see you in September!Take care!

Juliana Fonseca VieiraDirector

UE_vminionu-subscribe@yahoogrupos.com.br

Pedro Gazzinelli ColaresAssistant-Director

Roberto Vinicius P. S. GamaAssistant-Director

EUROPEAN POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EU COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY IN CONFLICT

PREVENTION AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT

History of the European Union and the Political and Security Committee.

At the end of the Second World War, Europe found itself completely destroyed. Its fields were dry and its population, homeless and starving. In this scenario the issue of European integration appeared, addressed in the speeches of statesmen, as the best path to peace in Europe.

The first step was given in 1950, as France and Germany established a plan to coordinate their coal and steel production. One year later, the European Coal and Steel Community emerged as the result of a treaty signed by Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, West Germany, and Italy. Six years later, these same countries signed the Rome Treaty, which gave birth to the European Community.

The integration process continued to develop in Europe as years passed by, and several new countries joined the institution such as Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Greece, Spain and Portugal. It is important to remind however, that the European Community was mainly an economical agreement between its nations.

However, it was only with the end of the Cold War, when the main threat to European estability was no longer the former USSR, that the arrangements towards an exclusevely European Security and Defense Policy were given. Since the Soviet threat no longer existed, the organization created to deal with European defense against it, back then, the North Atlantic Treaty Organizatio (NATO), found itself useless, and had to rebuilt itself. Came along another threats to european stability such as the Balkans area. To resolve those problems, NATO was rebuilt, and the EU started to move towards effective measures in order to be able to do its own security and defense without dependending on the United States of America.

It was only in 1991, with the signature of the Maastrich Treaty1 (Treaty on European Union) that the European Union as conceived today was formed. Amongst the main aims of the agreement, was the promotion of a closer union among the peoples of Europe. The introduction of Euro and the establishment of a Common Foreign and Security Policy were also topics of the Maastrich Treaty to be implemented in further years.

Such was the European Union at the turning of the Millennium, strongly based in three main pillars, namely the European Communities (being the first pillar), the Foreign and Security Policy (as the second pillar), and the cooperation in justice and home affairs (third pillar). One should note that, although the developments in the third, but mainly in the first pillar have been quite remarkable, the progress in the field of Foreign and Security Policy was considerably slower and harder.

The preoccupation with collective security however, is not a new idea in Europe, dating back to the fifties, when the French Minister of Defense proposed the creation of the European Defense Community. But in the context of the Cold War dominated by the rivalries between East and West, the subject didn't interest the European leaders, as the United States of America responded for European security towards the Soviet threat.

The fall of the socialist bloc represented the end of the USSR military threat to Europe, and the opening of a new possibility in the path to further enhancing European integration. Incorporating this spirit, the Maastrich Treaty decided upon the establishment of a Common Foreign and Security Policy for the members of the European Union, that in principle, included also the eventual framing of a common defense policy2. A few months later, the Petersberg Tasks – a common declaration made by the foreign and defense

1 The treaty of Maastricht was signed in 1991 and came into action in 1993.

2

ministers of the WEU3 countries – further specified the scope of activities that were to be executed, ranging from humanitarian and rescue tasks, to peacekeeping tasks, also including tasks of combat forces in crisis management. One must bear in mind however, that at that point, the EU would request the cooperation of the WEU, which would then be responsible for taking actions representing the EU.

“But the real world did not wait. The Balkan wars, first in Bosnia, then in Kosovo, seriously put into question the weak equilibrium of European security. Faced with the return of barbarity to the European continent, the failure of the Europeans to end the conflict dealt a serious blow to the very essence of the European project.”4

The members of the Union could only come to an agreement on the humanitarian management of the conflict, and the uncoordinated action of the countries to put an end to the conflict contributed to the tragedy of Srebrenica. The crisis in Kosovo years later came to confirm the lessons that Europe had to learn in order to develop an effective Common Foreign and Security Policy.

It was essential to the European Union to direct efforts to cooperative action while still respecting national prerogatives, if it wanted to be able to respond effectively to crises in Europe. Another important lesson involved the use of force. European Union defense institutions founded in territorial defense were inadequate, the lack of professional military forces, the absence of organizations able to coordinate actions and anticipate events, and the incapacity of projecting meaning forces abroad widely compromised European capacity of intervention in crisis situations. Moreover, the Balkan wars were a clear signal of the technological deficit of the European forces, calling for investments in restructuring and enhancing European capabilities.

The efforts towards changing that scenario began in 1997 with the Amsterdam Treaty (entry into force in 1999), began to dicuss effective measures in order to avoid the necessity of requesting the action of the WEU, “and took another subtle step forward by formulating a commom defence policy as an objective of the EU, rather than a mere possibility”5. This continued with the European Council meeting that took place in Helsinki, 1999, and embraced the St Malo's Declaration which called on the EU to develop “the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and a readiness to do so, in order to respond to international crisis”. Thus, the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) was launched as part of the CFSP. The Helsinki European Council also established the bodies responsible for implement and manage ESDP: the Political and Security Committee (PSC) and the European Union Military Committee (EUMC).

The creation of the European Rapid Reaction Force was another decision of the Helsinki Summit of 1999. It was designed to be the military arm of the European Union, and have the capacity to quickly deploy a significant contingent of troops in any crisis scenario inside and around Europe. The ERRF, therefore, is a step of ultimate importance towards the consolidation of European Foreign and Security Policy, hence consisting in a valuable tool of the PSC.

2MISSIROLI, Antonio – Background of ESDP (1954-1999) – Institute for Security Studies of the European Union.3Western European Union – Organization created in 1954 with the same European countries that were part of NATO.4HAINE, Jean-Yves – ESDP – An Overview Institute for Security Studies of the European Union (2003)5WESSEL, Ramses A. – The state of affais in EU Security and Defence Policy: The Breakthrough in the Treaty of Nice. Journal of Conflict and Security Law (2003), Vol. 8.

3

The European Political and Security Committee

The Political and Security Committee was later incorporated into the Treaty of Nice (December 2000), and now is responsible for preparing the European Union's response to crisis situations, exercising political control over the EU Military, and also communicating with North Atlantic Treaty Organization and third states.

Nevertheless, there are problems that prevent the “second pillar” of the European Union to achieve such a successful integration. The commitment necessary to establish the ERRF with the dimensions first planned would be immense, and the costs considerable. Also, historical divergent positions between Atlanticists and- Europeanists further slowed the actions of the CSP, and therefore the development of the ESDP and the CFSP.

Statement of the ProblemThe Common Foreign and Security Policy in Conflict Prevention and Crisis Management

“Conflict prevention and Crisis Management are the heart of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy agenda.

The new Rapid React Mechanism will act as a catalyser allowing us to mobilise resources within hours or days rather than weeks or months. We will now be in a better be a better position to

organize and support the mobilisation of Member States civillian experts (in areas such as mine clearance, customs, mediation, training of police or judges) in Crises situations. In times of urgent

needs we cannot anymore afford the luxury to be bogged down by bureaucratic constraints and deliver Community with unnecessary delays.”

Chris Patten Commissioner for External Relations

February 26th, 2001

The European Union Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was established as the second pillar of the European Union in the Treaty of Maastricht6. It works to strengthen the security of the European Union in several ways, to promote international cooperation and to preserve peace and strengthen International Security including those on external borders.

The terrorists attacks that took place in the United States in September 11 th, and in Spain in March 11th, keep reminding the world that International Security is something that should not be left in second plan, and calls the European Union attention for the importance of the CFSP as its second pillar. Even though the disintegration of the former Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War eliminated the danger of a massive attack in Europe, the conflict in the former Yugoslavia has made them more aware of the dangers of a major conflict on their doorstep.

These incidents are a few examples. They are to show how regional turmoil can threat peace and international security not only in neighboring countries and regions, but the whole world since they can cause the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, arms trafficking, contraband nuclear material, fundamentalism and extremism. These also shows how Europe’s defense needs have changed. In order to prevent such events The European Union decided to take responsibility for its own security increasingly into its own hands.

6The Treaty was signed in 1991 and came into force in 1993 with its ratification by the European Community.

4

Hence, the Union decided that it should be able to act independently in crisis management, and also in interventions to prevent conflict, searching for the roots of it and contributing with the reconstruction and stabilization.

Conflict PreventionConflict Prevention can go direct against the root causes of the conflict or seek to

prevent and escalation of existing crises into widespread violence.In general, preventive diplomacy is designed to deal with situations in which major

civil conflict has not yet broken out. If that doesn’t happen or fails conflicts can get stronger, which means that this later engagement would imply in using military power. In this situation the term “Crisis Management” is usually applied, the EU defines as “actions undertaken with the main objective to prevent the vertical (intensification of violence) or horizontal (territorial spread) escalation of existing violent conflicts”.7

Conflict Prevention is usually a preferable option because preventing the conflict costs less to the international community. It is far more economical to act in the root of the problem instead of waiting for the spillover of the conflict, because it generates refugees, military expenditure and costs for reconstruction or rehabilitation. This can be even more difficult in countries where the government and the parliament are the responsible for the expenditure.

The European Union (EU) has to make sure that it neighborhoods are stable. The case of the Balkans can be an example of how external conflicts can affect deeply the union’s members. The EU has to be engaged in order to resolve crisis there, otherwise, there is a risk of territorial spread of conflicts.

Hence, Crisis Management is a sort of prevention policy, if early prevention doesn’t happen or fails it is necessary to be able to take on Crisis Management tasks.

Crisis ManagementThe Creation of the European Rapid Reaction Force (ERRF)

“Rapid Reaction Mechanism (RRM) is designed to allow the European Community to respond urgently to the needs of countries undergoing crisis or moving towards crisis. Its purpose is to

provide flexible short-term support measures to safeguard or re-establish conditions of stability in EC partner countries. In political terms the RRM has proven successful both as an emergency

response instrument and as an instrument of transitional support to longer term reconstruction.”8

The ERRF is collective security mechanism through a force that is robust enough to act quickly and effectively in crisis, but flexible enough to be deployed in various forms and sizes for a complex range of missions.

The growing need for effective instruments to handle crisis situations, without depending on the North American intention to do it or not, is what gave the European leaders will to support the creation of a mechanism to enhance the EU’s civilian capacity to intervene fast and effectively in Crises situations in third countries. In November of 2000 a Military Capabilities Commitment was adopted by Member States in Brussels in order to draw together the specific national commitments corresponding to the military capability goals set by the Helsinki.

The Petersberg Tasks

7 http://europa.eu.int.comm/development/prevention/definition.htm8 http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/cfsp/doc/rrm.pdf

5

Those tasks were asserted by the Western European Union (WEU) in 1992 and now the EU uses them as the guidelines on planning Conflict Prevention and Crisis Management. The Council decided to adopt those tasks in 1997 in the Amsterdam Treaty, in order to avoid the many reasons why past UN and NATO missions, such as Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia were unsuccessful.

In other words they became the guideline of how the ERRF missions should operate. Here they appear in row of order of commitment level:

Evacuation: This first task usually happens in a stable environment. It involves the removal of civilians or personnel from a country that is in the verge of destabilization.

Rescue and Evacuation: This sort of task consists in rescuing hostage in a hot environment.

Both of the missions mentioned above should have involved air cover, ground force, communications assets, medical stations and transport capabilities. The force should be able to keep itself informed, in case that personnel transportation is needed and also to be aided, not only medically, but being able to be reinforced when it comes necessary, if an emergency arises.

Humanitarian support: Even in a stable environment this requires a high level of commitment.

It is important to notice that it’s necessary to be sure that the supplies will arrive in the right place at the right time. This is why this type if mission has to be organized in a very well planned logistical setting. It is necessary to have transportation capabilities and storage facilities, with light armored troops to watch them.

If the level of hostility is high, this mission demands enforcement, such as, escorts to the convoys as well as air and naval support. It is also important to monitor if the supplies are being fairly distributed, and getting in the designed destiny.

In a hot environment this support is usually done together with a peacekeeping operation.

Peacekeeping: These missions require a significant number of troops and also a complex logistical support, a rapid reaction force should be on hand. This sort of mission does not face as much as conflict as peacemaking operations do. Although still needs thousands of armed troops in order to: monitor roadblocks, refugee camps, headquarters, borders and so on.

To prevent further conflicts it is also necessary reconnaissance of troops, medics and engineers, to provide help to the populations involved, and help on the reconstruction of basic infrastructure. Air support is needed because they are more efficient in detecting conflict areas.

Peacemaking: It is necessary to a hot environment and it is the most complex of the tasks because it requires everything that a peacekeeping operation does plus, much more firepower.They are the most dangerous and demanding of the missions because they work in

an environment that is in “turmoil”. This mission has will deal with high levels of hostility, so it is necessary to get as much of support as it can be obtained, such as, air, naval and ground cover.

Most of the time, the opposite troops are larger in amount of personnel and even with the superior training and technology of the peacemaking missions it is not possible to overcome the superiority of the opposition. It is important to notice that these operations

6

demand the right equipment and the right personnel available, and that they got to have mobility and flexibility, and well armored, trained and organized.

In this case is interesting to have an evacuation mission ready in case the peacemaking operation fails.

These operations can be combined among themselves, depending on the necessity.

The Transatlantic Issue

… if we are to make a contribution that matches our potential, we need to be more active, more coherent and more capable.

Javier Solana9

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)10 plays a very important role in what concerns crisis management, especially in cases that are directed related to Europe as a whole. In the beginning of its creation, during the Cold War, the Alliance was designed to prevent Europe from the Soviet threat through cooperation between Europe the United States and Canada.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the end of the Cold War NATO redirected its activities to conflict prevention and crisis management in places that would be considered a threat to international security. When, in the early 90’s Europe started to develop it’s European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI), NATO members supported the idea of the strengthen of the “European Pillar” in the transatlantic Alliance. However when it comes to a Common European Defense and Security Policy, giving the EU the means to act “autonomously”, NATO members that are not EU members point some issues.

Europe’s failure to prevent the 1990’s Yugoslav conflict and it’s dependence on the United states during NATO’s action in Serbia and Kosovo, made the EU wonder about the necessity of building defense structures capable of standing alone to deal with violent conflicts and crisis prevention. Recently, NATO have made important development s related o this issue. One of them is the concept of Combined Joint Task Force Headquarters (CJTFHQ), which was introduced, in late 1993. These multinational and multi-service headquarters serve two purposes: they should be flexible and easily deployable so as to be useful for the Petersberg Tasks; and they should allow the participation of partner countries.11 The CJTF concept also allows for a “coalition of the willing” a subset of NATO members or partner States, to take military with full access to NATO command and structures when some NATO members do not want to get involved, but do not object to do it. The system should aid the creation of the European Security and Defense Identity and the Rapid Reaction Mechanism. But it also shows that, NATO does support the CFSP, however, it is always making sure that, the strengthen of the second pillar will not let the European Union, act completely independent of the Alliance.

The Common European Security and Defense Policy (CESDP) is still very dependent of NATO capabilities and “on balance, the Europeans still lagged well behind the United States of America in deployed military capabilities for force projection, 9 Javier Solana is the High Representative for the CFSP and also the President of the Council of the European Union.10 For further information see: www.nato.intNATO State Members are: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United kingdom, United States of America.11 NATO. Partnership for peace (PFP). The PFP’s main task is to increase the participant’s ability to act in concert. Through various mechanisms it helps partner countries prepare to operate jointly with NATO forces.

7

intervention, and high tech warfare.”12 NATO members that are not EU members hesitate in let the use of its assets in a permanent basis by the EU, arguing that they do not have participation on the final decisions of the Union.

In September of 2002 the North Atlantic Council (NAC) and the PSC began meeting to discuss how one would cooperate with the other. They established four working groups: one on security of sensitive information, the Berlin Plus on (ESDI initiatives designed to help more coherent European contributions within NATO) the military capabilities and the last one for permanent EU-NATO institutional arrangements.

By the end of that year NATO-EU negotiations came close to agreement on how to work together in the future. However, Turkey blocked the consensus built on what concerns “assured access” to NATO planning, arguing that the country wouldn’t have veto power over the Union’s deployment of a military force, under circumstances that would affect Turkey13 security.

In December of 2003, the European Council decided about the adoption of the 2010 headline goal. Mainly this headline goal stablished that EU members are strong commited to give the Enlarged Union the necessary tools to make the CFSP and all its necessities fully accomplished. Interoperability, deployability and sustainability will be at the core of the Member States, so “they will be able to respond with rapid and decisive action applying a fully coherent approach to the whole spectrum of crisis management operations covered by the Treaty on the EU”14. The headline Goal also calls for the importance of the work that the Berlin Plus has been having on the development of the discussions regarding EU-NATO cooperation in the security field.

In fact, a debate on whether strengthening of the CESDP could undermine NATO, does exists. The creation of an ERRF intended to be complementary and not competitive to the Alliance. That is so influent that before finalizing operational arrangements for the RRF, the EU has to agree with NATO on the conditions under which the force would have access to NATO resources, and how missions would be setting between both. Which means that, to the EU has access to NATO capabilities the NAC has to analyze in a case-by-case basis, each situation.

That demonstrates the dependence that Europe has under NATO, and to resolve this issue, Europeans governments would have to increase their defense spending to buy the strategic lift and other assets required to make the force more credible allowing the Union to act independent.

History of the Problem and Past EU Actions

The issue of a common foreign and security policy to Europe is an inheritance of the two World Wars of the 20th century and the end of the cold war. Throughout the various stages of European integration, the concepts of a common foreign policy and a common defense policy have regularly been put on the European agenda through a series of policy proposals.

Ever since the 1950s and 1960s, with the failure of two attempts to establish a European defense policy (the Pleven15 and the Fouchet Plans respectively), it is clearly

12SLOAN, Stanley R.; NATO, The European Union, and The Atlantic Community: the transatlantic bargain reconsidered. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2003.13 Turkey is a candidate country to the EU and its application is under analyses.14 2010 headline Goals. www.europa.eu.int15 The Pleven Plan started with a discussion in August of 1950 on the idea of a European Army under a European minister of defense. This idea was followed in the October of that year with the proposal to embed

8

noticeable the need for an intense political cooperation in Europe. In 1950, the Pleven plan aimed at creating an integrated European army under joint command. This plan’s negotiation within the scope of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), from 1950 to 1952, led to the Treaty that has established the European Defense Community (EDC). The EDC corollary was a political project aimed at establishing a federal or confederative structure, in 1953. However, this project failed in 1954, with the rejection by the French National Assembly.

Before the Treaty on European Union came into being, political cooperation between Member States was based on the “European political cooperation” (EPC) arrangements16. These involved regular consultations between foreign ministers and ongoing contacts between their government’s departments, as to bring about better communication and greater convergence of the Member States’ position on all major foreign policy issues and, if possible, a joint course of action.

From this date on, instigated by the occurrence of political crises, several political projects and proposals were introduced within the European scope, especially in a post-Amsterdam Treaty period. The EU political cooperation and common foreign and security policies focus increasingly on the need for enhancing gradually EU’s foreign and security mechanisms.

Western European Union (WEU) and the Brussels TreatyIn 1948, the Brussels Treaty (Treaty of Economic, Social and Cultural Collaboration

and Collective Self-Defense) was signed by the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, creating the (then called) “Brussels Treaty Organisation”.

In 1949, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) was founded as a military alliance comprising some European countries alongside United States and Canada.

In 1954, the Paris Agreements modified the Brussels Treaty. It brought together the six countries participants on the Brussels Treaty with the addition of the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy17, thus creating the Western European Union (WEU) as to strengthen security cooperation between the countries of Europe.

The organisation offers its members a platform for close cooperation on security and defense, and thus serves both to strengthen Europe's political weight in the Atlantic alliance and to establish a European Identity in Security and Defense policy. For more than 40 years, however, it was through NATO, in close alliance with the United States and Canada, that Western Europe safeguarded its security.

European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP)The European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) is a relatively new but closely

monitored integral component of the CFSP. In June 1999, EU leaders laid the foundation for ESDP18. Its capacities and structure, that had been developed significantly since then,

the European Ministry of Defense in an institutional strusture comparable to that of the ECSC.16 Set up in 1970, and enhanced and expanded upon under the Single European Act (1986/1987).17 Federal Republic of Germany and Italy were invited to join the WEU in 1954, when the plans for a European Defence Community (EDC) failed.Portugal, Spain and Greece are also members of the WEU (Portugal and Spain since 1990, Greece since 1995).18 “the Union must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and the readiness to do so, in order to respond to international crises without prejudice to actions by NATO” (Cologne European Council Conclusions, June 1999)

9

are divided in three components: the first two, military crisis management and civilian crisis management (“Petersberg Tasks”); the third, conflict prevention.

In June 1999, the Cologne European Council placed crisis management at the core of the process of strengthening the CFSP. Two years later, at the Göteborg European Council, priority was given to conflict prevention.

The Petersberg TasksAgreed by the Western European Union in 1992, the Petersberg Tasks were

redefined and officially adopted by the EU through the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997, incorporating it into Title V of the EU Treaty (“Provisions on a common foreign and security policy”). These tasks are arranged in rough order of commitment level and difficulty, and some of them can be combined. Each and everyone, the tasks are: evacuation (in a stable area); rescue and/or evacuation (in a hot area); humanitarian support (stable); humanitarian support (hot area); peacekeeping (stable area); peacebuilding (hot).

The “Petersberg Tasks” are the raison d’etre of the European Rapid Reaction Force (ERRF).

Cologne European CouncilThe Cologne European Council (held in June 1999) placed the Petersberg Tasks –

as was already the case in the Amsterdam Treaty – at the core of the European common security and defense policy. The fifteen Heads of State or Government and the President of the Commission declared;

“In pursuit of our Common Foreign and Security Policy, we are convicted that the Council should have the ability to take decisions on the full range of conflict prevention and crisis management tasks

defined in the Treaty on European Union, the ‘Petersberg Tasks’”.

To this end, it established the focus of its efforts (on strengthening of the common European policy on security and defense) on assuring that the EU has at its disposal the necessary capabilities (including military ones) and appropriate structures for effective EU decision making in crisis management within the scope of the Petersberg tasks.

Helsinki European CouncilThe Helsinki European Council, held in December 1999, improving the guidelines

established at the Cologne European Council, agreed in particular to: develop more effective military capabilities and establish new political and military structures for the Petersberg Tasks; develop modalities for full consultation, cooperation and transparency between the EU and NATO, taking into account the needs of all EU Member States; improve and make more effective use of resources in civilian crisis management in which the Union and the Members already have considerable experience (giving special attention to a rapid reaction capability).

As stated in the Presidency Conclusions of the Helsinki Summit;

"The Union will contribute to international peace and security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The Union recognizes the primary responsibility of the United Nations

Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security. The European Council underlines its determination to develop an autonomous capacity to take decisions and, where NATO

as a whole is not engaged, to launch and conduct EU-led military operations in response to international crises. This process will avoid unnecessary duplication and does not imply the creation

of an European army.”

10

Helsinki Headline Goal was the capacity, by 2003, of the Member States, cooperating voluntarily in EU-led operations, to deploy within 60 days and sustain for at least one whole year military forces of up to 50,000-60,000 persons19 able to fulfill the Petersberg tasks.

European Rapid Reaction ForceAt the Helsinki European Council, in what regards the military component of the

CFSP, the EU leaders there gathered decided to develop a European Rapid Reaction Force (ERRF) and, potentially, the nucleus of a large military capability by 2003.

The ERRF is designed to carry out the so-called Petersberg tasks, defined as “humanitarian and rescue tasks; peacekeeping tasks; and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking”. It consists on a RRF of 50,000-60,000 troops to be deployable within 60 days for a period of up to one year. It has been made clear that the ERRF will not substitute NATO’s role.

The ERRF was declared operational at the Laeken European Council (2001).

Nice European CouncilThe Nice European Council stablished the Treaty of Nice which dealt with the

enlargement that accepted the ten new EU members. And made some progress in what regards European Security making the EU itself responsible for the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions which have defence implications.

The Nice European Council introduced new military structures to the EU system, the most important being the Political and Security Committee (PSC)20. The PSC keeps track of international developments, helps define policies and monitors implementation of agreed policies.

Adopted at the conclusion of the Nice European Council Meeting, held in December 2000, and signed in February 2001, the Treaty of Nice amends Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty) by removing the provisions defining the relations between the Union and the WEU.

The Nice European Council also adopted the Presidency's report on the European security and defense policy, which inter alia provides for the development of the Union's military capacity, the creation of permanent political and military structures and the incorporation into the Union of the crisis management functions of the WEU.

Göteborg European CouncilThe Göteborg European Council (June 2001) introduced aims to improve the

civilian component field – given that the international community was considered to be in lack of it. Concrete targets have been set for civilian aspects of crisis management.

Laeken European CouncilAt the Laeken European Council (December 2001), the EU leaders there gathered

adopted the declaration on the operational capability of European security and defense policy set out in Annex II, as well as the Presidency Report.

In the words of the Belgian Presidency:

19 Even some of the candidate countries participate with military forces.20 Replacing the Political Committee.

11

“Through the continuing development of the ESDP, the strengthening of its capabilities, both civil and military, and the creation of appropriate structures within it and following the military and

police Capability Improvement Conferences held in Brussels on 19 November 2001, the Union is now capable of conducting some crisis-management operations. The Union is determined to finalize swiftly arrangements with NATO. These will enhance the European Union’s capabilities to carry out

crisis-management operations over the whole range of Petersberg tasks. In the same way, the implementation of the Nice arrangements with the Union’s partners will augment it means of

conducting crisis-management operations. Development of the means and capabilities at its disposal will enable the Union progressively to take on more demanding operations.”

Bloc Positions

Atlanticists and Europeanists All the EU Member States are committed with the strengthen of the second pillar,

however member governments have restrictions in changing their own national policy regarding a particular country or region in the name of EU solidarity.

The Atlanticists form a bloc leaded by the United Kingdom, followed by The Netherlands and Portugal that stress out the need for cooperation with the United States through NATO, seeing the ERRF as a way to develop the EDSI alongside the Alliance. They argue that this would avoid duplicity, and actions from the EU that NATO would, anyway, do better.

The Europeanists form a bloc leaded by the French that argues that Europe should invest in military capabilities and the development of a European Force completely able to act “autonomously”. They want to see a strong and unified Europe, capable of asserting itself militarily on the international scene, and are more likely to seek for a more active EU role in the conflicts.

Germany Acts like a mediator most of time. They do believe that the ERRF should be complementary and not substitute NATO; but they also argue that Europe should be more engaged in the development of the CESDP, following French position.

The Non- NATO Members Austria, Ireland, Finland and Sweden, went along all the process of development of

the CESDP. Although they call attention for the importance of early Conflict Prevention, they favour a stronger role of the EU concerning Crisis Management with a “soft approach”.

The 10 new MembersThe position of the 10 new Members may vary according their respective

applications. Acceptance of the CFSP and the duties that the implementation of the force requires, were part of the requirements to get accepted in the Union. New Members are making adjustments concerning each negotiating position.21

Other actors: United States of America / TurkeyIt is important to remember that there are countries that are not EU members but

that exercises great influence on the implementation of the CFSP. The United States of America was very reluctant about the ERRF, in the beginning

of its development, although now, the country supports the Forces and argues that it should be a complement to NATO. The US, stress the need of the forces to work alongside, believing that Europe should use the CFSP and its tools to do what Europe has proven itself 21 For more information see: http://www.iss-eu.org/occasion/occ34.pdf

12

to do best, conflict prevention. Somehow it is true that Europe works well on post conflict events however, the EU has been showing its will to go further by developing the ERRF, conflict prevention is still a very important topic on the EU agenda, however it is not the only one. The importance of the USA is crucial because it deals with political disparities that exists inside the EU when it comes to the Atlanticists bloc. Since the US is the owner of many important NATO it becomes very influent not only for that. As stated by Clinton’s administration, Secretary of Defense William Cohen, in what concerns the EU-NATO relations: “The notion that Europe must begin to prepare for an eventual withdrawal from Europe has no foundation in fact or in policy”. However, some Europeanists believe that at some point it will be time for the “United States go home and let Europe walk with their own legs”, hence secretary Cohen also affirmed that the Unites States “agree with this goal – not grudgingly, not with resignation, but with whole hearted conviction”. It is important to natice that George Bush’s adiministration and its “intervention” on Iraq caused many divergences inside the European Union, and even though that was showed in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), that outlined even more the differences between Atlanticists and Europeanists.

As mentioned before Turkey, as a NATO member, can use its influence to pressure its acceptance into the European Union.

The Political and Security CommitteeThe European Union political and Security Committee is composed of National

representatives at senior/ ambassador level, placed within the framework of Member States’ Permanent Representations. The PSC has a central role to play in the definition of and the follow up to the EU’s response to a crisis and matters related to the CFSP.

To do so, it exercises political control of the EU military, as such, and communicates with NATO and third states. The CFSP has three main tools and they are:

Common Statements, those are declarations of the EU opinions about current international issues. Common Positions form a basis for a coordination of national foreign policies by all EU members. Join Actions, are the strongest instrument of the CFSP, they commit Member States to a coordinated international action, diplomatic, economic or military.

Every decision taken by the EU regarding military and security issues can only be adopted with a consensus. Which means that all the State Members have to agree on the final decisions.

Questions a Resolution Must Address

It should be considered that although Europe is willing to intensify its CEDSP, the Union is still very dependent on NATO. How can EU manage to become more independent and achieve the settled in the Helsinki Summit to the ERRF?

It is important to remind that to achieve these goals EU Member States will have to invest not only financially but also with personnel. How committed are the members states on this endeavourer?

Should the send of troops remain voluntary to Member States? (What could be done for example, states could contribute according the size of its population.)

Since interaction with NATO is necessary it can be discussed which organization will be responsible for the designated tasks. For example:, the Petersberg Tasks

13

could be divided among them. It is also an issue, the one regarding EU access to NATO resources, since many of

EU members are also NATO members. Noting that the EU investments on military capability could be a way to pressure NATO, allowing the Union to have permanent access to its assets could be a possibility to avoid duplicity, since EU members that are NATO members will be spending money on resources that NATO already has.

Another point to be considered is how active role the EU should play. Should the Union jump into action when NATO refuses to handle a problem? Should the EU wait on NATO decision on how a problem is going to be handled? Or, should the E try to act prior to NATO, since it is too biased or ineffective? And regarding the ERRF operative matters it should be considered the logistical

facts. The size of the troops, the location and deployment, considering if they are

temporary or permanent. Investments on military capabilities, in new military technology and the acquisition

of new assets. The issue of interoperability, since there is a need to integrate the different

technologies that exists. For example: a bullet produced in Germany should work on a British Riffle.

The integration of the troops and it’s commanders, allowing them to train together to avoid problems as the language barrier, and set strategies that will improve mobility, good defensive and offensive capabilities.

And last but not least, it is the duty of the PSC to be alert and monitor how is the international scenario. The committee should never forget that “life is what is happening while you are busy doing other things”. If a crisis emerges the committee has to be ready to discuss the problem and give as soon as possible the directives to the EU Military Committee (if needed, of course) and the necessary recommendations to the EU organs and delivery to non-EU Member States.

Bibliography

ALVARENGA, Alessandro; Study Guide III MINI-ONU, EPSC. 2002

BRZEZINSKI, Zibigniew; The Grand Chessboard, Basic Books, 1997.

CAMERON, Fraser. The Future of the CFSP. Studies of the European Policy Center.

CASSEN, Bernard; “O pós Guerra Imperial – A doença que Enfraquece a Europa”.Lê Monde Diplomatique, June 13th 2003.

HAFTENRN Helga, KEOHANNE Robert, WALLANDER Celeste; Imperfect Unions, Oxford United Press, 1999.

HAINE, Jean-Yves – ESDP – An Overview Institute for Security Studies of the European Union (2003)

HILL, Christopher; CFSP: Conventions, Constitutions and Consequentiality. The International Spectator. 4/2002

14

MISSIROLI, Antonio – Background of ESDP (1954-1999) – Institute for Security Studies of the European Union

MORAVCSIK, Andrew- Striking a New Transatlantic Bargain: Foreign Affairs July/August 2003

PUCHALA, Donald J.; Institutionalism, Intergovernmentalism and European Integration: A Review Article. Journal of Commom Market Studies.

SLOAN, Stanley R.; NATO, The European Union, and The Atlantic Community: the transatlantic bargain reconsidered. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2003.

WESSEL, Ramses A. – The state of affais in EU Security and Defence Policy: The Breakthrough in the Treaty of Nice. Journal of Conflict and Security Law (2003), Vol. 8.http://www.iss-eu.org/http://www.europa.eu.inthttp://ue.eu.int/pesc/default.asp?lang=enhttp://www.basicint.org/pubs/notes/ECFSP_NATO.htmhttp://www.worldmun.net

Member States Ministry of Foreign Affairs websites:http://www.mofa.com

For the 10 new members see:http://www.iss-eu.org/occasion/occ34.pdf

15