EU Defence and security: keeping the peace (The European Union: A Global Player)

For most of the post Second World War period, Europe's security was guaranteed in close cooperation with the United States, and NATO was the predominant self-defence institution. With the end of the cold war, the picture has changed.

Europe no longer faces the threat of a massive attack by conventional and nuclear weapons. Instead, as the Balkans have shown, the EU is confronted by a range of risks which threaten Europe's stability, but not its existence. Understandably, the United States does not wish to intervene in every regional crisis on the continent and there will be occasions when it will be more appropriate for Europeans to take the lead. There is a growing readiness by members of the Union to equip themselves wit h the tools needed to promote their common set of values and to defend their interests.

It is these factors which led the EU to lay down the foundations of a common foreign and security policy (CFSP) in the Maastricht Treaty of 1993. These were further refined by its successor, the Amsterdam Treaty, which took effect from 1 May 1999. Five fundamental objectives lie behind the Union's CFSP:

The Amsterdam Treaty improved CFSP decision-making. It provided for common strategies in areas where Member States share important interests. It introduced more focused policy formulation and an early warning mechanism through the creation of a policy unit working for the Council of Ministers. This has been strengthened with the addition of an interim political and security committee and a parallel military committee to advise governments on crisis management.

One of the most visible achievements of the Amsterdam Treaty was the establishment of a High Representative for the CFSP. In October 1999, Javier Solana, former Spanish Foreign Minister and Secretary-General of NATO, became the first holder of the post. He works closely with the Commission and Member States, including their extensive diplomatic networks and the Commission's delegations, ensuring continuity and efficiency in the Union's foreign policy.

Amsterdam also reformulated the Union's security and defence objectives by opening up the prospect of using both military and non-military capabilities in cases of humanitarian disasters. These are the so-called Petersberg tasks, which range from search and rescue missions to peace-keeping and even peace-making operations.

Kosovo revealed the shortcomings of Europe's existing national and collective military capabilities and underlined the need for a European strategic defence policy. The framework was laid down by EU leaders at their Helsinki Summit in December 1999. There, they agreed to establish a rapid reaction force and insisted on transparent procedures for consulting and cooperating with NATO and non-EU countries. They made it clear that NATO remains the foundation of the collective defence of its members and that the Union would only act where NATO as a whole was not engaged.

As experiences in places as far apart as the Balkans and East Timor have demonstrated, the EU must be prepared to react quickly and effectively when required. It was this requirement which lay behind the Helsinki commitment to establish by 2003 the ability to deploy up to 60 000 troops within 60 days and sustain them for up to a year to carry out various Petersberg tasks. Use of force is clearly always a matter of last resort.

The European Commission is determined to play its full part in the process, although this is largely organised on an intergovernmental basis rather than following procedures used in most other EU business. While having no competence for military matters, the Commission has the means and experience to make a valuable input to non-military issues. One clear contribution is encouragement for a vibrant economy which can help develop a competitive and open European defence industrial and technological base.

Secondly, the Commission and the Union have a role to play in conflict prevention and crisis management. This involves obvious areas such as humanitarian assistance, rehabilitation and reconstruction and more indirect means including help with law enforcement, institution building and trade policy. Recent initiatives have included de-mining in Bosnia, the reestablishment of a viable police force in Albania, and promoting reconstruction and reconciliation in Kosovo.