Stepping inside? CSDP missions and EU counter-terrorism

Abstract

Launched in 1999, the European security and defence policy (ESDP)/common security and defence policy (CSDP) was not conceived as a tool to fight terrorism. This threat was traditionally considered as being of an internal nature and, thus, deemed to be addressed under the European Union's (EU) third pillar. However, the events of 11 September 2011 contributed to a shift in this approach, with several documents acknowledging the importance of the contribution of CFSP, including ESDP, in the fight against terrorism. At the rhetorical level, this idea has been consistently conveyed in the EU's framework documents and policy papers since then. Yet, both civilian and military missions undertaken in the CSDP's realm have not been systematically used to fight terrorism. Against this background, this article aims to examine the lack of impact of such missions in the framework of the Union's counter-terrorism and to discuss developments arising from the Lisbon Treaty's CSDP-related provisions. Based on an analysis of both EU missions' mandates and EU official documents, this article demonstrates that CSDP has not been used to fight terrorism nor has been transformed by the emergence of an EU counter-terrorism policy. It further puts forward three tentative causal explanations for this paradox while arguing for the existence of room for a change in this regard.

Keywords:

• European Union
• counter-terrorism
• CSDP
• CFSP
• Lisbon Treaty

Acknowledgements

For comments on previous versions of this article, the authors would like to thank Javier Argomaniz, Mark Rhinard, Carlos Branco, and Åsne Kalland Aarstad. Special thanks to the participants of the roundtable ‘The external dimension of EU counter-terrorism: Is there a role for CSDP?’ organized at Egmont – Royal Institute of International Relations on 9 June 2010. For this, the authors are especially indebted to Sven Biscop and Thomas Renard.

Notes

1. The ESDP was established in 1999. The Treaty of Lisbon, signed in 13 December 2007, changed this policy's name to CSDP. Throughout this document we shall use the acronym CSDP unless quoting documents referring to ESDP.

2. When it comes to terrorism, the ESS stated that: ‘Terrorism puts lives at risk; it imposes large costs; it seeks to undermine the openness and tolerance of our societies, and it poses a growing strategic threat to the whole of Europe’. (Council 2003, 3)

3. The Conceptual Framework on the ESDP Dimension of the Fight Against Terrorism underlined not only the importance of interoperability between military and civilian capabilities but also the necessity to work on generic scenarios. Cooperation with NATO was envisaged in the following major fields: (1) non-binding guidelines and minimum standards for the protection of the civilian population against CBRN risks; (2) framework agreement on the facilitation of cross-border transport; (3) identification of the relevant national points of contact, with a view to creating a common database of points of contacts and (4) cross-participation, on a case-by-case basis, in each other's consequence management exercises as observers (Council 2004a). For more on CSDP and EU counter-terrorism, see Sossai (2008) and Argomaniz (2012).

4. Article 43 TUE, no. 1: ‘The tasks referred to in Article 28 A(1), in the course of which the Union may use civilian and military means, shall include joint disarmament operations, humanitarian and rescue tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, conflict prevention and peace-keeping tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making and post-conflict stabilization. All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories’.

5. Data collected from International Security Information Service, http://isis-europe.eu/sites/default/files/publications-downloads/esrbriefing-Chart-January2012.pdf

6. We will not elaborate on a speech analysis, but it is easily verifiable that different formulations can be found throughout EU documents. For competing styles, see, on the one hand, the formulation of art. 43 (1) TUE, on the extended Petersberg tasls. ‘[…] All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories’ (emphasis added). On the other hand, for a different formulation, see the EU counter-terrorism strategy, point 10: ‘[…] To address these issues, we need to ensure that voices of mainstream opinion prevail over those of extremism by engaging with civil society and faith groups that reject the ideas put forward by terrorists and extremists that incite violence. And we need to get our own message across more effectively, to change the perception of national and European policies. We must also ensure that our own policies do not exacerbate division. Developing a non-emotive lexicon for discussing the issues will support this’. (emphasis added) The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewer who provided this welcomed suggestion.