Is Europe a Civilian Power?

Tom Vyn Institute of European Studies and International Relations Faculty of Social and Economic Studies Comenius University

Introduction
Is Europe a civilian power? This however simply appearing question is not an easy one to answer. It is hardly possible to give an answer to this question without providing definitions of the terms contained. Even if we perceive Europe, in this context to mean exclusively the EC/EU communities, it is not as simple to define what a civilian power is to mean as this term is interpreted in variety of ways in academic articles and textbooks. The first section of this paper thus aspires to provide a brief theorethical overview of how the notion of civilian power in EU/EC context is mirrored in different academic papers and provide the most appropriate definition of this term for purpose of this paper.

Defining Civilian Power

What does civilian mean, essentially? As Karen E. Smith simply puts it Civilian is non-military, and includes economic, diplomatic and cultural policy means; military is, well, miiltary.1 The most basic distinction would thus be in the nature and exclusivity of means used by various actors in an international enviroment. As Smith argues based on Hanns Maulls definition, there are four elements that constitute a civilian power means, ends, use of persuasion; and civilian control over foreign (and defence) policymaking.2 While the means used are most likely to be the easier to assess than civilian ends such as international cooperation, solidarity or responsiblity for global enviroment or use of persuasion in international enviroment; however, all of these elements are important and constitute an ideal type of civilian power as an actor which uses civilian means for persuasion, to pursue civilian ends, and whose foreign policymaking process is subject to democratic control or public scrutiny.3 Moving from Smiths general ideal type definition to more EU/EC specific domain, there are several theoretical concepts that have become classics in explaining logic in civilian power and civilising processes dynamics; most notably represented by Karl Deutsch and Jacques Duchne.

K.E Smith, Still Civilian Power EU?, London School Of Economics, www.arena.uio.no/cidel/WorkshopOsloSecurity/Smith.pdf, viewed 28th December 2006, p.1. 2 Smith, Still Civilian Power EU?, p.2. 3 Smith, Still Civilian Power EU?, p.5.

Given sufficiently widespread compliance habits and other favourable circumstances, a political community may become effectively integrated and thus come to function as a security community, so that war among its constituent populations is neither expected nor in fact probable.4 Europe as a whole could well become the first example in history of a major centre of the balance of power becoming in the era of its decline not a colonised victim but the examplar of a new stage in political civilisation...The European Communitys interest as a civilian group of countries long on economic power and relatively short on armed force is as far as possible to domesticate relations between states, including those of its members and those with states outside its frontiers. This means trying to bring to international problems the sense of common responsibility and structures of contractual politics which have in the past been associated almost exclusively with home and not foreing, that is alien, affairs.5 Both of these definitions have been heavily interpreted and further drawn upon in academic reading as far as Deutschs security community model is concerned, the ultimate notion here is, in my opinion, a premise that the civilising process is in fact closely linked to the process of integration itself. Once integration has been started and continues to involve increasing number of policy areas, it also becomes increasingly difficult for constituents states to rely on hard power within the community. Duchnes definition has been thoroughly reflected, albeit differently perceived in relevant academic studies some underpin the importance of novel attitude towards the position of Community in international system, some6 argue that Duchne managed to conflate empirical observation and normative assertion into his definition. However important may the part of Duchnes definition about new stage of political civilisation that shall replace the balance of power concept be, I reckon the crucial part of his perception lies within the domestification of both internal and especially external (to the Community itself) affairs. This abstraction had

K. Deutsch in A. Linklater, A European Civilising Process?, in C. J. Hill and M. Smith, (eds), The International Relations of the European Union, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2005, p.375. 5 J. Duchne quoted in Linklater, A European Civilising Process?, p.375. 6 Richard Whitman, Road Map for March? (De-civiliazing through the EUs Security Strategy), European Foreign Affairs Review 11: 1-15, 2006.

helped subsequent academics to elaborate on concepts such as normative (civilizing) power as an extension to the model of civilian power.

Civilian vs. Civilizing power

As Ian Manners7 argues, Europe is destined to act in an normative way since it exists as being different to any other pre-existing political forms. This argument alone does not, however, provide the essential characteristics of normative power what are the empirical actions or philosophy that make Europe normative or civilizing power? One of the most crucial, if not the most important questions in this context seems to be whether the capacity to threaten the use of force through coercive diplomacy and the ability to actually deploy such force8 is compliant with the notion of normative power. This is clearly not the case in Karen Smiths perception, as she argues that the use of military force is by definition alien to a concept of normative power or civilizing power.9 On the other hand, as Helene Sjursen points out throughout her article, the notion of equalling civilian and civilizing may be misleading. She illustrates this point on the frustrating example of European Unions involvement in former Yugoslavia conflict and its incapability to act as a failure of Europes normative power. Furthermore, she states that even clinging onto purely civilian or soft means of persuasion are not necessarily neither non-coersive, nor indiscriminate. Accepting the paradigm of military dimension in European Union as a normative power bears number of questions what are the norms or principles having intersubjective transcultural validity10 that is the deployment of military force evaluated against? Indeed, there are additional factors that need to be taken into an account legitimacy, justification and ethics of military actions possibly carried out by European Union, not anything less importantly the multilateral nature of EU, which specifically seems to be a profound obstacle to the effective conduct of coercive diplomacy and engagement in subsequent military actions.
I. Manners quoted in H. Sjursen, ,The EU as a normative power: how can this be?, Journal of European Public Policy 13:2, 2006, p.236 8 Janne Haaland Matlary, When Soft Power Turns Hard: Is an EU Strategic Culture Possible?, Security Dialogue, SAGE Publications, Vol. 37(1):105-121, 2006, p. 112 9 Smith, Still Civilian Power EU?, p.2. 10 Sjursen, The EU as a normative power: how can this be?, p.248.
7

According to Sjursen, a normative power shall focus on strenghtening the cosmopolitam dimension to international law and emphasizing the rights of individuals and not only the rights of states of sovereign equality. Could European Union, given current state of its policies, be considered a normative power? Most academics seem to be reluctant to unconditionally pronounce so. Ian Manners, for example, makes a valid point in his analysis in stating that recent process of militarization within EU might actually backfire. He argues that the equilibrium between short-term problem-solving and long-term structural solutions has been lost and that the EU, once acquired relevant military resources, might be tempted to prefer short-term military solutions in favour of long-term structural conflict prevention and transformation.

From Petersberg Tasks to European Security Strategy

The concept of Common Foreign and Security Policy of European Union has come a long way in its legislative enclosure in primary law of European Union. To begin with, so called Petersberg tasks, which had been originally developed as a part of Western European Union doctrine, came to become an integral part of acquis communitare as they were included into the Amsterdam Treaty (1997) Questions referred to in this Article shall include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking.11 As Fabrizio Pagani points out, inclusion of Petersberg tasks represents a breakthrough developement as these provisions constitute the first codification of the notion of peace-keeping and peace-related operations in the constituent treaty of an international organization.12 Another interesting factor of Petersburg tasks seems to be their relative broadness and vagueness as they seem to be covering almost unlimited variety of military action that could be possibly (albeit unlikely) undertaken. What appears to me to be the most striking about Petersburg tasks though is the sharp divergence perception of what really civilan power signifies in some academic studies and language of EUs constituting treaties. For example, Smith, for example, does not consider military forces of any kind (including
11 12

The Treaty Of Amsterdam, Article J.7(2), Amsterdam, 2. October, 1997. Fabrizio Pagani, A New Gear in the CFSP Machinery: Integration of the Petersberg Tasks in the Treaty on European Union, European Journal of International Law 9 (1998), p. 737-749, www.ejil.org/journal/Vol9/No4/090737.pdf , viewed on 1st January 2006, p.740.

peacekeeping and peacemaking) to be a civilian policy instrument and thus, by implementing Petersburg tasks, European Union cannot be, by Smiths definition of ideal civilian power be considered one. With ever deepening integration and thus nature of European Union as well, so does change the notion of Common security and foreign policy (CFSP) and European security and defense policy (ESDP) and and its associated policies, its goals, mechanisms and nevertheless perception of elites and peoples. This is, to an extent, expressed in various policy outputs. I would specifically like to mention two relatively recent documents that are both in one way or another connected to CFSP and ESDP. To begin with, The draft of Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe may seem as an odd candidate to scrutiny seeing it was rejected in national referenda in France and the Netherlands. However, I reckon that the draft, even after being rejected presents a good insight into what direcetion may European Union be heading in near future. I would especially like to stress article I-41(1) that gives a new definition of EUs military force tasks. It states that ESDP shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civil and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.13 Furthermore, draft broadens the Amsterdam Treaty article based on Petersberg tasks that defined that listed situations when EUs military force was to be used. The Draft, in another article, states that the Union may use civilian and military in joint disarmament operations, humanitarian and rescue tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, conflict prevention and peace-keeping tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making and post-conflict stabilisation. All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories.14 It seems that both of these article are striving to expand the possibilities of ESDP, both in different ways. Article I-41(1) is aware not to set up any constraints of ESDP in terms of territory and type of conflicts. The
13

Treaty Establishing Constitution for Europe, Article I-41(1), http://europa.eu/constitution/en/, viewed 28th of December, 2006. 14 Treaty Establishing Constitution for Europe, Article III-309(1).

second mentioned article on the other hand, lists concrete scenarios, however, the list is significantly updated and improved from Petersberg tasks text. Moreover, as Ortega15 points out, so called solidarity clause in regard to terrorism or natural and man-made disasters and military assistence clause that obliges member states to aid and assist a member state that becomes a victim of agression by all the means in their power have been proposed in the draft. These clauses may well become another source of mission for European Union force. Does the European Security Strategy (ESS) uphold the notion of ESDP/CFSP as proposed in the Constitution of Europe? Richard Whitman states that The ESS defines Europes security interests and priorities in a manner that is compatible with the notion of Civilian Power Europe16. Clearly, there is a major concern with the view of legitimacy for the use of force. International order based on effective multilateralism is one of the key chapters in ESS; it seeks to develop stronger international society, well functioning international institutions and a rule-based international order17. However, I still do suppose that the ESS itself is a departure from the concept of civilian power. Even the very same chapter on effective multilateralism states that there is a price to be paid, including in their relationship with the European Union for the countries that are unwilling to rejoin international community. It sees EU as an international actor promoting its own values of justice and opportunity for everyone for more secure international enviroment. Conditionality and targeted trade measures are among the tools that shall be reinforced. Moreover, ESS calls for Europe to be more active in its military activities and for wider spectrum of military missions to be considered.

Conclusion
Is Europe a civilian power? The difficulty in answering this question lies, in first place, with problem of defining a civilian power itself. Most academics seem to develop their own definitions and then use them to scrutinize European Union. This is understandable it is not possible neither to quantify what civilian power shall ultimately mean, nor whether EU classifies as one.
15 16

Martin Ortega, Petersberg tasks, and missions for the EU military forces, Institute for Security Studies, 2006. Richard Whitman, Road Map for March? (De-civiliazing through the EUs Security Strategy),p.9. 17 A Secure Europe in a Better World European Security Strategy, Brussels, 12th December 2003.

In spite of the theorethical oddness, I would argue that European Union is moving away from being civilian power. I suppose this process is quite clearly illustrated in the evolving legislature regarding CFSP and EDSP. With the process of militarization in place, it seems awkward to perceive European Union as purealy a civilian power. However, seeing European Union as a new stage in political civilisation might not necessarily involve abandoning military means of power altogether. Is it really the experience of integration and the need for multilateral decision-making that shall determine whether European Union will become a successful and respected international actor militarily just as it is economically? Are member states really capable of succeeding the Westphalian view of purely national interests in international system? I dont suppose these question yield satisfying answers just yet, but it seems we are not too far away from finding out.

References
K.E Smith, Still Civilian Power EU?, London School Of Economics, www.arena.uio.no/cidel/WorkshopOsloSecurity/Smith.pdf, viewed 28th December 2006.

A. Linklater, A European Civilising Process?, in C. J. Hill and M. Smith, (eds), The International Relations of the European Union, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2005.

Richard Whitman, Road Map for March? (De-civiliazing through the EUs Security Strategy), European Foreign Affairs Review 11: 1-15, 2006.

H. Sjursen, ,The EU as a normative power: how can this be?, Journal of European Public Policy 13:2, 2006.

Janne Haaland Matlary, When Soft Power Turns Hard: Is an EU Strategic Culture Possible?, Security Dialogue, SAGE Publications, Vol. 37(1):105-121, 2006.

Fabrizio Pagani, A New Gear in the CFSP Machinery: Integration of the Petersberg Tasks in the Treaty on European Union, European Journal of International Law 9 (1998), p. 737-749, www.ejil.org/journal/Vol9/No4/090737.pdf viewed 28th December 2006.

Martin Ortega, Petersberg tasks, and missions for the EU military forces, Institute for Security Studies, 2006.

Treaty Establishing Constitution for Europe, Article I-41(1), http://europa.eu/constitution/en/, viewed 28th of December, 2006.

The Treaty Of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 2. October, 1997.

A Secure Europe in a Better World European Security Strategy, Brussels, 12th December 2003.

10