THE EUROPEAN UNION AND NATO

talks to Michał Dec and Kamil Dudek

Is the European Union suitably prepared for the threats which are characteristic of the 21st century?
The European Union is a specific player on the international scene with a civilian rather than a military role. The concept of the Union’s security, described in the document of 2003 called “European Security Strategy”, is a good one. This strategic analysis includes the threats faced, together with a description of all the resources that the Union has at its disposal to remove or minimise these threats. The EU is a unique player in the sense that it prefers solutions which exclude the use of force. Instead, it presents a comprehensive approach, which includes so-called soft as well as hard instruments of security policy. In the military domain it concentrates on so-called crisis management, in other words on preventing conflicts and reacting when actual crises arise. I am thinking here of the Petersberg missions, that is rescue and humanitarian missions, peace missions controlling ceasefires and combat missions for gaining control of crisis situations, including restoring a ceasefire. Apart from that, the EU runs an active diplomacy aimed at taking preventative measures. It is also a body that uses the broadest methods of economic sanctions, policing and the rule of law, particularly in the peace rebuilding phase after a conflict.

Margaret Thatcher used to say that the European army is a “paper army” with paper resources and fields of battle which are the desks in Brussels. Has anything changed? Can the EU be an independent player in the military domain or is it doomed to maintaining the closest of ties with NATO?
The Union wants to be independent, but this is a very costly undertaking. In 2001, the EU took over the multinational force from the Western European Union. Moreover, the member countries and those which were candidates to join the Union already in 2001 pledged national contributions to the European rapid reaction force to the total of over 100,000 soldiers, around 400 combat planes and 100 naval ships. Nevertheless, a European army was not formed and the armies and equipment which were offered remain in a state of readiness to be used by the Union for specific Petersberg tasks, or to put it in another way, for reacting to crises outside the boundaries of the Union. However, an army as such has not been created. The units which have been assigned are numerous and, moreover, since 2004 the European Union has been creating “battlegroups”.
However, despite this military capability, there are significant omissions and shortcomings. In order that the EU might be able to run two Petersberg operations simultaneously, it would have to make use of some of the components of NATO’s potential - amongst others: air transport facilities, good radar systems, and above all AWACS, and intelligence information. They would have to be borrowed from the Alliance. That is why in the period December 2002 to March 2003 a number of agreements were signed under the Berlin Plus formula, regarding the loaning of facilities by NATO to the EU, essential for running independent Petersberg operations. Therefore talk of a “paper army”, is only partly justified, as the Union has its own resources and military capabilities or has guarantees for the fulfilment of any shortfalls by NATO assets. Furthermore, important components of the European Policy on Security and Defence are the EU’s resources for “civilian crisis management”, which are currently made up of over 12,000 police personnel and consultants from the fields of law, administration and civil defence. The EU is also in the process of forming the European Military Police Force.

What is Poland’s position on the European system of security? Should Poland not re-evaluate both its foreign and defence policies in relation to the choice between the EU and the USA?
Regrettably, the Polish authorities – the current and the previous ones – are not drawing any conclusions from the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nonetheless, Warsaw is changing its attitude to European defence policy because of other influences. As the EU is an organism undergoing multifaceted integration, it draws us more and more into its own affairs. However, Poland continues to present a very cautious position. She tries hard to ensure that her behaviour and her position are not perceived in Washington as being anti-NATO or anti-American.
Quite rightly successive governments of the Republic of Poland are moving to a more positive stance on the EU’s defence policy. Poland has a very important asset – a long and very good experience of many peace operations over several decades. Polish soldiers are well trained and respected around the world. Poland sees a possibility of participating in creating the EU’s “battlegroups”, and in taking part in the EU’s crisis response missions. Poles are already involved in such operations, for example in the EUFOR-Althea operation in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is not a large contingent, as it has only 175 soldiers, but our presence is noted.
Poland does not have to choose between the European Union and the USA. It is not in our interest. NATO gives us strong guarantees of security, while the EU an opportunity for full economic development, as well as security guarantees – although these are not as “hard” as those of the USA’s. Poland’s membership of NATO, her relationship as an ally of the USA and the continuing integration of Europe are historic, epoch-marking achievements for Poland. Never in history have we had such a good situation. For the first time two of our nation’s fundamental objectives in the international arena (security and development) do not have to stand in contradiction to each other. However, those politicians who don’t understand this and try to play “the American card” in our relations with the European Union should be advised to consider very deeply whether this is worth it. The national interest cannot be reduced to a game of poker. Poland is not a great power, and our strength and international prestige depend foremost on how we perform as a loyal ally of all the members of NATO and as an engaged participant in the process of European Union integration. Concern for Poland’s better future should not mean that Poles must be lined up as supporters of one side: they should be involved as joint creators of the policy and strategy of the North Atlantic Treaty, as well as the joint policies of the European Union. It is not an easy task today, when sparks are flying between Washington and some of the capitals of its European allies. Perhaps it may be worth promoting the idea raised some 10 years ago by Professor Charles Kupchan of creating an Atlantic Community into which could be poured both NATO and the European Union?

Professor, what are the future perspectives for the development of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP)? What proposals in this area were contained in the draft Treaty on the European Constitution? Will the difficulties associated with adopting this document affect the future of the ESDP?
The draft of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe includes a number of regulations concerning the II pillar of the EU, namely the Common Foreign and Security Policy. The proposals contained therein raise the importance of defence policy. The Petersberg missions have been expanded to include joint disarmament actions and to support third countries in combating terrorism on their territories. The formula for enhanced cooperation has been revised by extending it to include military and defence matters. An option has been introduced for structural cooperation by countries that meet raised criteria for defence capability and which have agreed to undertake more demanding missions; the remaining countries of the EU that are not interested can remain passive. A clause has been introduced which is characteristic of military alliances and is of the “casus foederis” type that imposes on all the member countries of the Union an obligation of providing mutual assistance and support by all available means to any member state that falls victim to armed aggression on its own territory. A solidarity clause has been included which compels the EU and its member states to joint action using all available means including military resources, if any one of them should suffer a terrorist attack or a natural disaster or catastrophe.
Moreover, during the work on the draft a start was made on creating planning bodies which would make the operation of Petersberg missions easier. It was quite a controversial matter because those countries which were against increasing the autonomy of the EU’s defence policy believed that it would lead to a duplication of the functions and structures of NATO. As a result of an initiative by Germany, France and Great Britain, an EU planning office was set up at the Main Headquarters of NATO. The creation of such bodies, as well as the European Defence Agency, which coordinates the development of the defence industry and is creating a new system for weapons supplies, means that the EU’s defence policy is taking on a new character. The EU possesses the necessary structures to enable it to pursue its own independent defence policy over an ever wider area while lessening its reliance on its American ally.
The modifications which have been brought in mean that opportunities now exist for the development of the Union’s common foreign, security and defence policies, and the main catalyst of this is the unfolding process of European integration. Problems with the ratification of the Constitution Treaty are having a negative effect on the further development of these policies. The Germans, who will be taking on the Presidency in the first half of 2007, are promising to break the impasse. On the basis of the EU’s development up to now, one can predict that even if the European Constitution is in fact accepted by the member states but in an amended form, the ESDP will not lose its current rate of development. In seeking an independent ESDP, the European Union wants above all to be an international player to be reckoned with, and to more fully underline its identity in the international arena, but not to become an independent entity of security policy, because the basis of defence for most of its member states remains NATO. Moreover the operation of Petersberg missions, which today form the essence of the ESDP, is dependent and will continue to remain so, on the EU’s use of NATO’s military assets. The cooperation between the EU and NATO is therefore a condition for the effective further development of the ESDP.

ALPA w płynie i żelu
łagodzi
różne bóle decydentów.

Oprócz egzystencjalnych.