The EU's military doctrine: an assessment

Abstract

The EU has procedures for crisis management, but not a military doctrine as Western nation states have. Instead of being derived from a security strategy, the EU's military doctrine emerged between 1999 and 2003 from contradictory dynamics in which NATO and leading European military powers exerted a disproportionate influence on its development. NATO's future has become dependent on establishing close links with the EU's economic, civilian and humanitarian resources and the peacekeeping troops of EU member states. While this external pressure may prevent the EU from developing an independent military doctrine, it might contribute to the ‘Europeanization’ of NATO.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to acknowledge the financial support provided by the European Community's Human Potential Programme through the ESDP democracy project for the research and writing of this article.

Notes

I am grateful to Ståle Ulriksen for his help on this definition. Peer Helmar Lange, ‘Understanding Military Doctrine’, in Changing Threat Perception and Military Doctrines, London: Macmillan, 1992, pp.1–17.

For the US definition of a military doctrine, see Joint Publication 1–02, ‘DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms’, accessed at www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict.

There is controversy in the social sciences about the sources of military doctrine. For competing approaches see Barry Posen, The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain and Germany between the World War, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984; Elizabeth Kier, Imagining War: French and British Military Doctrine between the Wars, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997.

This sketch was obtained through interviews with EU Military Staff at EU Headquarters during April 2002.

Ibid.

Brian White, ‘Expliquer la défense européenne: un défi pur les analyses théoriques’, La revue internationale et strategique, No.48, Winter 2002–3, pp.89–97; Michael Smith, ‘The Framing of European Foreign and Security Policy: Towards a Post-Modern Policy Framework?’, Journal of European Public Policy Vol.10, No.4, 2003, pp.556–75; Helene Sjursen, ‘Understanding the Common Foreign and Security Policy: Analytical Building Blocs’, in M. Knodt and S. Princen (eds.), Understanding the European Union's External Relations, London: Routledge, 2003, pp.35–44; Giovanna Bono, European Security and Defence Policy: Theoretical Approaches, the Nice Summit and Hot Issues (Research and Training Network, ESDP and Democracy, February 2002), accessed at www.esdpdemocracy.net/7_publications.htm. Section 1.

For example: Simon Duke, ‘CESDP: Nice's Overtrumpted Success?’, European Foreign Affairs Review, Vol.6, 2002, pp.155–75; Karen E. Smith, ‘The End of Civilian Power EU: A Welcome Demise or Cause for Concern?’, The International Spectator, Vol.35, No.2, 2000, pp.11–28.

Smith (see n.6 above)

Ibid., pp.557–8.

For an overview of the EU's role in the Balkans, see Dimitries Papadimitriou, ‘The EU's Strategy in the Post-Communist Balkans’, Journal of Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, Vol.1, No.3, September 2001, pp.69–94.

• Thierry Tardy, ‘French Policy towards Peace Support Operations’, International Peacekeeping, Vol.6, No.1, 1999, pp.55–78.

• Jolyon Howorth, ‘Britain, France and the European Defence Initiative’, Survival, Summer 2000, pp.33–55. For additional analyses of the British position at St. Malo and on the ESDP, see Jolyon Howorth, ‘Britain, NATO and CESDP: Fixed Strategy, Changing Tactics’, European Foreign Policy Affairs Review, Vol.5, No.3, 2000, pp.377–96; and Julian Lindley-French, ‘La politique de sécurite britannique et le role des structures militaires européennes de securite’, Defense, Vol.90, Dec. 2000. For the French position towards ESDP, see A. Treacher, ‘Europe as a Power Multiplier for French Security Policy: Strategic Consistency, Tactical Adaptation, European Security, Vol. 10, No.1, 2001, pp.22–44.

Simon Duke, ‘CESDP and the EU Response to 11 September’, European Foreign Affairs Review, Vol.7, No.2, 2002, pp.153–69.

Colin McInnes, ‘A Different Kind of War? September 11 and the United States' Afghan War’, Review of International Studies, Vol. 29, 2003, pp.165–184. For EU aid to Afghanistan, see http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/afghanistan/intro/index.htm.

The European Convention. Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. Brussels. Doc. No. CONV 850/03, Brussels, 18 July 2003; Giovanna Bono, ‘La PESC et la PESDC dans la Constitution européenne : évaluation sur la base du projet de la Convention’, Annuaire français de relations internationales, Paris, June 2004.

Meeting of Heads of State and Government of Germany, France, Luxembourg and Belgium on European Defence. European Defence Meeting: Conclusion, Brussels, Egmont Palace, 29 April 2003, accessed at www.diplomatie.be/en/press/homedetails.asp?TEXTID = 6273.

Eleven EU countries are involved in either peacekeeping or warfighting activities in Afghanistan. The countries not involved are Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg and Sweden. The United States Mission to the European Union, Fact Sheet: NATO coalition contributes to global war on terrorism. Brussels, 24 Oct. 2002, accessed at www.useu.be/Terrorism/EUResponse/Oct2402NATOFactSheetTerrorism.html. Kurt Palis, Teilnahme europa¨ischer Streitkra¨fte an der Krisenbewa¨ltigung, German Parliament, Dec. 2002, accessed at: www.bundestag.de/internat/weu/amtl_unt_archiv/palis1202.pdf, pp.10–11.

European Council European Defence: NATO/EU Consultation, Planning and Operations, 15 Dec. 2003, on the European Council website at the EU Council Newsroom, http://ue.eu.int/newsroom, accessed 16 Dec. 2003.

Ibid.

Stephen Castle, ‘Europe Summit: At Long Last, a Deal is Struck on the EU Defence Role’, The Independent [London], 12 Dec. 2003.

‘Blair Accepts European Defence Deal’, The Guardian [London], 29 Nov. 2003. Milita¨reinsa¨tze: Einigung mit NATO, Tagespiegel, online version, 13 Dec. 2003.

Robert Graham and James Blitz, ‘Warmth Prevails as Leaders Skirt the Hot Topics’, Financial Times, 25 Nov. 2003, p.5. See: European Council, Presidency Conclusions, Document No.10679/04, Annex EN: European Defence: NATO/EU Consultation, Planning and Operations, 17/18 June 2004. Also: Tigner Books, EU Sets Up Independent Military Ops Center. Defensenew.com, 18 June 2004.

For the original definition of the ‘Petersberg Tasks’, see WEU Council of Ministers, ‘Western European Union Council of Ministers Petersberg Declaration’. WEU Documents, 19 June 1992, accessed at www.weu.int/documents/920619peten.pdf.

For further details about the WEU and its operations, see www.weu.int.

For an overview of the WEU's military operations, see Arie Bloed and Ramses A. Wessels, (eds.), The Changing Functions of the Western European Union, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1997; and Matthias Jopp, ‘The Defense Dimension of the European Union: The Role and Performance of the WEU’, in Elfriede Regelsberger, Philippe de Schoutheete de Tervarent and Wolfgang Wessels (eds), Foreign Policy of the European Union: From EPC to CFSP and Beyond, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1997.

Interviews with EU Military Staff, April 2002.

For details see Bono (see n.6 above), section titled: ‘The rise of the military in the EU’.

Centre for Defence Studies, Achieving the Helsinki Headline Goals. London: Centre for Defence Studies, Nov. 2001. See summary of the EU–NGO Contact Group Meeting, ‘Achieving the Helsinki Headline Goals’, International Security Information Service Europe, 10 Jan. 2002.

Ian Manners and Richard G. Whitman, The Foreign Policies of the European Union Member States, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000; Douglas J. Murray and Paul Richard Viotti (eds.), The Defence Policies of Nations: A Comparative Study, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.

NATO, NATO Handbook, Brussels: Office of Information and Press, 2001, pp.50–53.

Centre for Defence Studies (see n.28 above).

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. Washington, DC: The White House, September 2002, accessed at www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf.

NATO. Prague Summit Declaration, Press Release (2002)127, 21 Nov. 2002, accessed at www.nato.int/docu/pr/2002/p02-127e.htm.

Ewen MacAskill, ‘UK Envoy Urges NATO to Play Big Role in Iraq’, The Guardian, 13 Dec. 2003, p.16.

Philip H. Gordon, ‘NATO after September 11th’, Survival, Vol.43, No.4, 2001, pp.89–106. Views confirmed by author's participation in information meetings with NATO officials at SHAPE and NATO Headquarters in January 2003.

His exact words: ‘The worst thing you can do is to allow a coalition to determine what your mission is. The mission has to be to root out the terrorists. It's the mission that determines the coalition’. Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Larry King, CNN, 5 Dec. 2001, accessed at www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2001/t12062001_t1205sd.html.

Nicole Gnesotto, ‘EU, US: Visions of the World, Visions of the Other’, in Gustaf Lindstrom (ed.), Shift or Rift: Assessing US-EU Relations after Iraq, Transatlantic Book 2003, Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies, 2003, pp.21–42.

For a review of the democratic deficit of the CFSP and ESDP: Giovanna Bono, ‘The European Union as an International Security Actor: challenges for democratic accountability’ in Hans Born and Heiner Hanggi (eds). The ‘Double Democratic Deficit’: parliamentary accountability and the use of force under international auspices, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004. See also Stelios Stavridis, ‘The Democratic Control of the EU's Foreign and Security Policy after Amsterdam and Nice, Current Politics and Economics of Europe, Vol.10, No.3, 2001, pp.289–311; and Matthias Koenig-Archibugi, ‘The Democratic Deficit of the EU Foreign and Security Policy’, International Spectator, Vol.4, 2002, pp.61–74.