You argue that Europe is caught between "offensive self-defence" and "human security". Could you please elaborate the distinction between the two?
My main argument is that the current debate on European security policy is caught in between two precisions which are not normally made explicit. The one is that the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) project should be about strengthening international peace and order. The other one is that the ESDP is about defending the European homeland.
These two precisions are normally shown as two sides of the same coin, but in my opinion they are not so easily put together. The basic consideration for European security policy at the moment is why, when, where and how you should intervene in conflicts and crises around the world.
I think the answers are very different according to which approach you take - whether you prioritise the idea of strengthening international peace and order or the idea of defence.
"Offensive defence" and "human security" are the two concepts which shape this debate at the moment in Europe. "Offensive defence" is a concept mainly inspired by US thinking on security under the Bush administration, expressed most explicitly in the 2002 National Security Strategy, which is built around the idea that we can no longer use territorial defence or deterrence to counter the new non-territorial asymmetric threats of the twenty first century.
The rather defensive concept of territorial deterrence gets offensive in character because you have to act beyond one's own borders and before a hostile attack occurs.
In Europe there is still a lot of opposition against pre-emptive strikes, preventive warfare and regime change.
On the other side, human security is more closely related to the idea of "collective security" - in contrast to "selective security". Human security is the most prominent concept in that area at the moment. You could name others like "civilian power", but human security has dominated the debate internationally, especially in the United Nations context.
The interesting thing is that these concepts have something in common: they are about intervening in other areas, outside your own borders. The difference is that "offensive defence" is about individual right of an individual state to intervene and "human security" is about collective responsibility to intervene and to protect to the human security severe danger in any area of the world.
Because of the nature of the European Union, traditionally described as a civilian power (that favours multilateralism and non-military means) and also because of the legitimacy problems linked to the offensive self-defence approach, it seems that the human security view would better suit the EU. What is your opinion?
Human security suits the EU much better than offensive defence. It doesn't exclude military means, but puts any action in a very strong legal context. It places strong emphasis on civilian capabilities. I think that is one of the strengths of the EU. The EU is the only international organisation that can offer this broad civilian range of capabilities and instruments for security operations.
Also, the principles of human security are very near to the project of European integration. If you look at resolving conflicts by abiding to international law and building relationships through collective security, it's very near to the European integration concept at the beginning, that security is not a zero-sum game.
Finally, the main difference between the two concepts is that human security is very multilateral, because you follow the idea of strengthening international law, you bind yourself into an international framework, while offensive defence entails that you can act autonomously and take decisions unilaterally when you feel threatened.
Do you see EU member states split around these two approaches?
It is very difficult to say which member states is closer to one or the other, because the problem of the debate within the national context is that both concepts are presented as different aspects of the same policy. They're mixed together and intertwined. So politicians argue not in these terms, but in muddled ones.
You have some countries that are active in the human security area, like Great Britain, but then again you have their policy in Iraq which has nothing to do with human security.
I have the feeling that the debate in Europe has shifted towards the defence argument after 9/11, but also in the EU's Constitutional Treaty, there are some aspects which follow from the defence argument, like the mutual assistance clause and the extension of the Petersburg Tasks to include the fight against terrorism.
However, I don't see a strong political force in Europe that calls for a common defence policy. At the moment, the collective concept is still less influential at the European level than the selective.
Do you think that EU enlargements and the continuing uncertainties surrounding the process of integration will prevent further developments towards a common EDSP?
The enlargement has an ambiguous influence on the security project. On the one hand, the EU is getting more heterogeneous so it is more difficult to create consensus on security issues – although in the smaller Union it was a topic where national security cultures were quite far away from one another.
On the other hand, given all the problems that integration faces at the moment, security is still seen as one area where there is relatively strong consensus. The Polish government has put forward the idea of a European army.
The problem is that European security policy means mainly progress in capabilities and maybe in institutions but doesn't mean a real common strategic culture or a real understanding of larger political strategy. This is obviously not going to get easier to agree on in an enlarged Union.
In your mind, do you think the common security policy should have a European focus, that is, defending European homeland, or an international one?
I think the European Security Policy project should be about strengthening international order because it is important, at this time, to have an international actor who actively supports the implementation of the international order, which is under severe strain at the moment.
From a geographical point of view, the EU is not an actor who will, in the future, intervene globally in every part of the world as this would outstretch its capacity. So it will always have a regional focus, which does mean only the European neighbourhood, but you will always have areas of larger interest to the EU, from Africa to Afghanistan.
To be able to politically mobilise the resources, you need to have a broad security engagement as is meant by human security, which is based on civilian and military capabilities but also on economic aid and diplomatic efforts. Therefore to mobilise this engagement, you need a strong interest in the region, not one only based in altruistic terms. These regions are very much in the European interest and at the heart of the problem of international security. I think these are the most important areas of engagement for the EU.
The problem is where to focus, because unfortunately there are so many conflicts. The EU is already in a process of engaging in a lot of areas but with very small and often short term missions and I am not sure whether this approach is viable for the long term. We need to focus on some areas that are very crucial in terms of their effects on international security, and obviously European security as well.
In your paper you pose a question that I think is very interesting - "Is ESDP defined primarily as a defence or as a political project?" How would you respond to that?
At the moment it is definitely a political project. A mere defence project cannot really meet the challenges of the security problems of the 21st century. You need a political project to meet these complex challenges.
It has been from the beginning a very political project as it was meant to give Europe a stronger voice in foreign affairs and not so much in security affairs. It has always been constructed as a political project and not only as a military or defence project, a problem that NATO has at the moment.
