The EU needs a security strategy based on common interests

FOR SEVERAL months, the European Union has been at work overhauling its defense and security strategy. The European Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy (EGS) is due to be presented at the EU summit in June 2016. The formulation of such a strategy is urgent, as the dramatic events of last year, including the terrorist attacks in France and the migration crisis, have demonstrated, writes World Review expert General Professor Stanislaw Koziej. In theory, the EU has had a security strategy of its own – alongside that of NATO – for the past 13 years. After the 9/11 attacks on the United States and the ensuing “war on terror,” the European Council accepted a European Security Strategy (ESS) in late 2003. Never a grand example of strategic thought, the ESS was subjected to what was deemed to be a thorough review five years later. It has now become obsolete. The process of creating the ESS’s successor is being coordinated by Federica Mogherini, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The European Union Institute for Security Studies is also at work on it. The process has entered the stage of consultations and negotiations with EU member states. If Ms. Mogherini’s project proves successful, it could, in theory at least, be a step toward transforming the vulnerable EU into a more secure community of states. However, for that to happen, the EGS must not dodge one issue that is of critical importance to EU members: how they define their strategic interests. The strategic security environment today is undergoing drastic changes. Before our eyes, the stabilizing systems created during the Cold War, such as the UN, NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), are losing their effectiveness. Relative stability is giving way to destabilization in many areas around the world. On top of this, the financial crisis has undermined the economic foundations of security. New challenges and threats – global terrorism, cyberattacks, nuclear security asymmetries, hybrid warfare, migrations – are gaining significance. In a nutshell, uncertainty is increasing; the risks are growing. In such conditions, a natural, defensive reaction occurs in nation states: hiding inside a shell of one’s own fears. The effect is “short-termism” and burying one’s head in the sand. Decreasing trust between members of a community undermines international organizations. These spiraling processes can lead to the “nationalization” of security policies in individual countries. In this environment, there is a growing risk that an ineffective, or even counter-effective, international order will emerge. The result could be an anarchic, non-polar world with numerous, ever more unstable players, focused on their own problems and goals. This would be a medieval-style universe of chaos, full of conflicts between weakened powers, political fragmentation and ad hoc initiatives aimed at short-term gains: a world inherently unstable, operating in conditions of permanently high risk. The essence of the strategic cure for such a grim scenario is to remove the uncertainty, and in that way to reduce the risk factor. The EU’s new EGS strategy should be anchored in the member states’ tangible interests. Appealing to lofty ideals such as trust and solidarity is simply not enough. In matters of security and national survival, the foundations must be rock-solid. Strengthening security alliances for the EU means, above all, strengthening the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Losing sight of the fundamental value of the transatlantic link, or allowing it to weaken, would be unforgivable. The cooperation of Europe and the United States has been and must remain a foundation of security. The alliance must also stick to its fundamental mission, namely – the members’ collective defense. All its other functions must stem from this basic mission: they may add to it, but must not replace or reduce it. For a more in-depth look at this subject with scenarios looking to future outcomes, go to our sister site: Geopolitical Information Service. Sign in for 3 Free Reports or Subscribe.

RB metadata

ID: 

1454629249339262200