Putting Ideas into Action: EU Civilian Crisis Management in the Western Balkans

Abstract

Since the early days of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the European Security and Defence Policy, the EU has always paid special attention to developments in the Western Balkans and therefore declared them a strategic priority for European external action. Thus, it is not surprising that the first missions in the framework of ESDP were deployed to this region. Considering the deployment of civilian crisis management missions to the Western Balkans a first step in the shaping of a strategic culture and based on the assumption that the European Union clearly possesses the prerequisites to form such a strategic culture, the following chapter will analyse the development of civilian crisis management and chronologically describe and evaluate the four civilian missions carried out in the Western Balkans. The conclusion is that despite the fact that ESDP is still a work in progress, the engagement in civilian crisis management missions already provides a marker for the existence of an emerging European strategic culture in the process of formation.

Notes

Bezen Balamir Coşkun, ‘Does “Strategic Culture” Matter? Old Europe, New Europe and the Transatlantic Security’, Perceptions, Vol. XII (Summer-Autumn 2007), pp. 71–90.

See Colin S. Gray, ‘Strategic Culture as Context: The First Generation of Theory Strikes Back’, The Review of International Studies, Vol. 25, No. 1 (1999), pp. 49–69; Alastair Ian Johnston, ‘Thinking about Strategic Culture’, International Security, Vol. 19 (1995), pp. 36–43, Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese History, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995), pp. 4–22.

See Gray,‘Strategic Culture as Context’, (note 2), p.50.

Asle Toje, ‘Strategic Culture as an Analytical Tool. History, Capabilities, Geopolitics and Values: The EU Example’, Western Balkans Security Observer, No. 14 (July–September 2009), pp. 3–23.

On the debate about widening vs. deepening see, for example, Fraser Cameron, ‘Widening and Deepening’, in Fraser Cameron (ed.), The Future of European Integration (New York: Routledge, 2004), pp. 1–17. For the mismatch between widening and deepening see Ludger Kühnhardt, ‘Introduction: European Integration: Success through Crises’, in Ludger Kühnhardt. (ed.), Crises in European Integration. Challenges and Responses 1945–2005, New German Historical Perspectives Vol. II (Oxford/New York: Berghahn Books, 2011), pp. 1–17.

The term ‘global actor’ is preferred by the EU when describing its role in foreign, security and defence policy on an international level. In this context the question has to be raised: what kind of power is the EU actually perceived as in international affairs? Due to the very specific nature it is difficult to describe the EU as a ‘great power’ in the classical sense as defined by Barry Buzan, for example, in The United States and the Great Powers (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004), p. 69. The author however favours the definition of Andrew Moravcsik: the EU has to be considered as a quiet superpower having civilian, military and normative abilities at its disposal. Andrew Moravcsik, ‘The Quiet Superpower’, Newsweek, 17 June 2002, p. 23.

Kühnhardt, ‘Introduction: European Integration: Success through Crises’ (note 5), p. 11; Sven Biscop, ‘The ABC of European Security Strategy: Ambition, Benchmark, Culture’, Egmont Paper, No. 16 (2007).

European Union, ‘A Secure Europe in a Better World: European Security Strategy’, Brussels, 12 December 2003, pp. 7–8, available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf

Jack Snyder, The Soviet Strategic Culture: Implications for Nuclear Options (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1977), p. 8.

For an easier reading of the text, the abbreviation of ESDP will also be used for the post-Lisbon period, when after the entering into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009 ESDP was renamed Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).

Toje, ‘Strategic Culture as an Analytical Tool’ (note 4), p. 9.

As commented on by Paul Cornish and Geoffrey Edwards in ‘Beyond the EU/NATO Dichotomy: The Beginning of a European Strategic Culture’, International Affairs, Vol. 77, No. 3 (2001), p. 587. For an in-depth analysis of civilian capabilities development see Giovanni Grevi and Daniel Keohane, ‘ESDP resources’, in European Security and Defence Policy. The First Ten Years (Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies, 2009), pp. 98–111.

European Council: Presidency Conclusions, Nice, 7–9 December 2000, [400/1/00].

European Council: Presidency Conclusions, Gothenburg, 15–16 June 2001, [SN 200/1/01 REV 1], p. 11.

European Council: Conclusions and Plan of Action of the Extraordinary European Council Meeting on 21 September 2001, [SN 140/01], p. 3.

Draft Presidency Report on European Security and Defence Policy further to the General Affairs Council on 10 December 2001, including Annex I and II: Doc. 15193/01.

See, for instance, Karen Smith, ‘The Instruments of European Foreign Policy’, in Jan Zielonka (ed.), Paradoxes of European Foreign Policy (London: Kluwer International Law, 1998), p. 67, or Catriona Gourlay and Eric Remade, ‘The 1996 IGC: The Actors and Their Interaction’, in Kjell Eliassen (ed.), Foreign and Security Policy in the European Union (London: Sage, 1998), pp. 58–93.

Alvaro de Vasconcelos, ‘A Strategy for EU Foreign Policy’, EUISS Report, No. 7, European Union Institute for Security Studies, Paris, June 2010, p.3.

The EU does not have a legal text defining this type of assistance. In practice, however, civil protection assistance is delivered during the immediate phase of a disaster and in the case of third countries usually works parallel with or hands over to humanitarian aid. See the website of the European Commission DG Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection, http://ec.europa.eu/echo/civil_protection/civil/prote/cp01_en.htm (accessed 11 April 2011).

See ‘Speaking points of Javier Solana, EU High Representative for CFSP, at the Civilian Crisis Management Capability Conference at Ministerial Level’, General Affairs and External Relations Council, Brussels, 19 November 2002 [S0217/02], p.1.

Jolyon Howorth, ‘From Security to Defence: the Evolution of the CFSP’, in Christopher Hill and Michael Smith (eds), International Relations and the European Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 179–204.

Christopher Hill, ‘The Capability-Expectations Gap, or Conceptualizing Europe's International Role’, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 31, No. 3 (September 1993), pp. 305–328.

Ana E. Juncos, ‘Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina’, in Michael Emerson and Eva Gross (eds), Evaluating the EU's Crisis Missions in the Balkans (Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies 2007), pp. 46–80.

For a detailed description of the events in BiH see Wolfgang Petrisch, Bosnien und Herzegowina. 5 Jahre nach Dayton (Klagenfurt: Wieser, 2001).

With the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty on European Union in November 1993 the EC became the EU. Michael Merlingen and Rita Ostrauskaite, European Union Peacebuilding and Policing. Governance and the European Security and Defence Policy (London: Routledge, 2006), p.53.

See Council Joint Action 2002/210/CFSP 11 March 2002, Official Journal of the European Communities Nr. L70/5 from 13 March 2002.

Council Joint Action 2005/824/CFSP of 24 November 2005 on the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), Official Journal of the European Union, L 307/55 of 25 November 2005.

Stefano Recchia, ‘Beyond International Trusteeship: EU Peacebuilding in Bosnia and Herzegovina’, EUISS Occasional Paper, No. 66 (2006), p.16; Agnieszka Nowak (ed.), ‘Civilian Crisis Management: the EU Way’, EUISS Chaillot Paper, No. 90 (2006), p.26.

Javier Solana was appointed High Representative of the Common Foreign and Security Policy on 18 October 1999 and became ex officio the Secretary General of the Council of the EU. See Art. 18, Treaty on the European Union in the consolidated version of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Official Journal of the European Communities, C 340 of 10 November 1997.

The meaning of the term ‘inspecting’ remained unclear, especially due to the fact that the mission had not been granted executive policing powers (such as arrest and prosecution powers). See Michael Merlingen, ‘EUPM (Bosnia and Herzegovina)’, in European Security and Defence Policy. (note 12), pp. 161–171.

Council Joint Action 2007/749/CFSP of 19 November 2007 on the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), Official Journal of the European Union, L 303/40 of 21 November 2007.

Council Decision 2009/906/CFSP of 8 December 2009 on the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), Official Journal of the European Union L 322/22 of 9 December 2009.

Michael Merlingen, ‘EUPM (Bosnia and Herzegovina)’ (note 30), p. 169.

The English version of the Ohrid Framework Agreement is available at http://www.president.gov.mk/eng/info/dogovor.htm (accessed 27 March 2011).

Stojan Slaveski, ‘Macedonian Strategic Culture and Institutional Choice: Integration or Isolation?’, Western Balkans Security Observer, No. 14 (2009), pp. 39–56.

Isabelle Ioannides, ‘Police Mission in Macedonia’, in Emerson and Gross (eds), Evaluating the EU's Crisis Missions in the Balkans (note 23), pp. 81–125.

Marija Risteska, ‘The Macedonian Accession to the European Union’, in David Kral (ed.), Bulgaria, Romania… and Who Next? Perspectives of Further EU Enlargement as Seen from the Newmember statesmember states and EU Hopefuls (Prague: Europeum, 2007), pp. 89–113.

Isabelle Ioannides, ‘EUPOL PROXIMA/EUPAT (fYROM)’, in European Security and Defence Policy (note 30), pp. 187–199.

Council Joint Action 2003/681/CFSP of 29 September 2003 on the European Union Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (EUPOL Proxima), Official Journal of the European Union, L 249/66 of 1 October 2003.

Ioannides, ‘EUPOL PROXIMA/EUPAT(fYROM)’, (note 38), p. 190.

Ibid, p. 191.

Ioannides, ‘Police Mission in Macedonia’ (note 36), pp. 81–125.

Ioannides, ‘EUPOL PROXIMA/EUPAT (fYROM)’ (note 38), p. 195.

See, for example, Franz Halas and Cornelia Frank,‘Friedenskonsolidierung mit polizeilichen Mitteln? Die Polizeimission EUPOL-PROXIMA auf dem Prüfstand’, DIAS-Kommentar, No. 72 (2006), p.8, or Xira Ruiz ‘La evolución de las misiones civiles de la Política Europea de Seguridad y Defensa’, UNISCI Discussion Papers, No. 16 (2008), pp. 61–84.

Council Joint Action 2005/826/CFSP of 24 November 2005 on the establishment of an EU Police Advisory Team (EUPAT) in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (fYROM), Official Journal of the European Union L 307/61 of 25 November 2005.

Ruiz, ‘La evolución de las misiones civiles de la Política Europea de Seguridad y Defensa’ (note 44), pp. 61–84.

For an excellent in-depth analysis on the mandate of EULEX Kosovo see M. Spernbauer, ‘EULEX Kosovo – Mandate, Structure and Implementation: Essential Clarifications for an Unprecedented EU Mission’, CLEER Working Papers 2010/5, The Hague, 2010. The author agrees with the views contained concerning the mandate and has therefore based the argumentation in this section on this study.

For a detailed analysis of the role of UNMIK see Calin Trenkov-Wermuth, United Nations Justice. Legal and Judicial Reform in Governance Operations (Shibuya-ku, Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2010), pp. 50–94. The mission was based on UNSCR 1244(1999).

It is worth mentioning that the role former Finnish President Maarti Arthisaari played in elaborating his Plan was heavily discussed with respect to his impartiality on Kosovo. See M.J. Barceló, ‘EULEX-Kosovo: ¿la misión imposible?’, Documento de Trabajo Nº 42/2008, Real Instituto Elcano, Madrid, 2008, p. 8.

Cyprus has formally abstained from adopting the joint action on EULEX Kosovo. This has been reportedly the first and only case of recourse to constructive abstention as provided for in the Treaty in the context of ESDP.

Spernbauer describes in more detail the different actors to which this definition could apply. See Spernbauer, ‘EULEX Kosovo’ (note 47), p. 17.

Access via http://www.csfederalismo.it/images/stories/PESD/eulex-kosovo/eulex_programme-strategy.pdf (accessed 27 March 2011).

Spernbauer, ‘EULEX Kosovo’ (note 47), p. 17.

Ibid, pp. 17–18.

Tanja Tamminen, ‘High Expectations – Limited Resources. The Bottlenecks of EU Civilian Crisis Management in Kosovo’, UPI Briefing Paper, No 70 (2010), p. 7.

See for example ‘EU splits on Kosovo recognition’, BBC News, 18 February 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7249909.stm (accessed 11 April 2011).

An Jacobs, ‘EU Civilian Crisis Management: A Crisis in the Making?’, CSS Analysis in Security Policy, No. 87 (February 2011), p. 3.

David Cadier, ‘EU Mission in Kosovo (EULEX): Constructing Ambiguity or Constructive Disunity?’, Transatlantic Security Paper, No. 3 (2011), p. 7.

Giovanni Grevi, ‘EULEX Kosovo’, in European Security and Defence Policy (note 12), pp. 353–368.

Tamminen,‘High Expectations – Limited Resources’ (note 55), p. 5.

Vibeke Brask Thomsen, ‘One Year On: What is Next for Kosovo?’, European Security Review (ISIS Europe), No. 43 (2009), p. 8.

Nicoletta Pirozzi and Sammi Sandawi, ‘Military and Civilian ESDP Missions: Ever Growing and Effective?’, Documenti IAI No. 09/29 (November 2009), p. 13.