Reasons for the Current Failure of the European Union as an International Security Actor
Even if the Lisbon Treaty tried to boost the EU’s international tools as a security actor, the outcome of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) is discouraging: from the Libya crisis to the problems of agreeing on the European Defense Agency (EDA)
- PDF / 149,098 Bytes
- 19 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 68 Downloads / 147 Views
1 Changes in the International System Since the European Security and Defense Policy’s (ESDP) Emergence The Anglo-French agreement in Saint-Malo at the end of 1998 marked the starting point for the development of the European Security and Defense policy (ESDP). From the very beginning, national divergences on the final aims of this policy were evident. Britain considered it as a way to promote the European burden-sharing responsibility, together with NATO, while respecting the priority of the Alliance, mainly the European expeditionary military capabilities. For this country, the CSDP would be limited to those external crises, in which NATO was not engaged. However, for France, the ESDP was the way to support European defense autonomy, and to develop its own resources, while engaging Britain on European military cooperation. Both agreed on the development of expeditionary capabilities
Head of the Research Group Global Governance and European Union, funded by Gobierno de Arago´n, Spain. ´ NDEZ SOLA is professor of International Law and International Relations, as Natividad FERNA well as Jean Monnet professor, at the University of Zaragoza; during 2011–2012, Visiting professor at the European Studies Institute in Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University) and currently Visiting Professor at the State University Higher School of Economics, Moscow. Main research interest: Common Security and Defense Policy, European External Action Service, Non Proliferation and Disarmament, Transatlantic Relations, International Conflicts, Security Strategy. N. Ferna´ndez Sola (*) Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs State University - Higher School of Economics, 11 Pokrovsky boulevard, Moscow, Russia Professor of International Law and International Relations, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain e-mail: [email protected] A. Boening et al. (eds.), Global Power Europe - Vol. 1, Global Power Shift, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-32412-3_5, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
73
74
N. Ferna´ndez Sola
and readiness for high intensity combat operations. There were, however, clear differences between both partners on the question of the European Security and Defense Policy impact on NATO and on the Transatlantic relationship, as well as bilateral relations with the US. Our first hypothesis then will be that, from the beginning, geopolitics was replaced by myths: that a common security policy was possible; that member states no longer had different interests owning to their individual geostrategic positions and history (cf. Anderson 2008, 53). Moreover, “Maastricht ideology” implied the belief that free trade and an integrated regulatory regime would create a framework for prosperity, shared equitably among nations and among classes. Politically, it held that the fundamental issues dividing European states no longer existed, and that the divisive nationalism of the past had become irrelevant (Stratfor 2012). One can work to solve problems with a clear idea of their strategic implications, but it is
Data Loading...
