2 Security Sector Reform
| (27567)
—
COM(06) 253
+ ADD 1
| Commission Communication: A concept for European Community support for Security Sector Reform
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 24 May 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 9 June 2006
|
| Department | International Development
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 21 June 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| Discussed in Council | 12 June General Affairs and External Relations Council
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
2.1 The 21-22 November 2005 General Affairs and External Relations
Council adopted the following conclusion on European Security
and Defence Policy (ESDP) support for Security Sector Reform:
"The Council noted that the PSC[2]
had agreed on an EU Concept for ESDP support to Security Sector
Reform (SSR), and recalled that support to SSR in partner countries
is a core area for EU action as identified in the European Security
Strategy (ESS). A concrete manifestation of this is the ongoing
ESDP mission in support of SSR in the DRC (EUSEC RD Congo). The
Council underlined that this concept will facilitate the planning
and conduct of ESDP missions in the field. The Council furthermore
noted that EU support to SSR would be based on democratic norms,
internationally accepted principles of human rights, the rule
of law, respect for local ownership, and coherence with other
areas of EU external action. The Council welcomed the Commission's
intention to develop an EC Concept for SSR covering first pillar
activities, and agreed that due consideration be given to joining
these two strands within the framework of an overarching EU concept
for SSR."[3]
2.2 For its part, the Commission also notes that SSR has been
an integral part of EU integration, enlargement and external assistance
for many years; that, "through Community instruments, the
EU has supported reform processes in partner countries and regions
in different parts of the world and under a wide range of policy
areas. These include policies and instruments which fall under
Development Co-operation, Enlargement, the Stabilisation and Association
Process, the European Neighbourhood Policy, Conflict Prevention
and Crisis Management, Democracy and Human Rights, and the External
Dimension of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice."[4]
2.3 The Commission then recalls the development of
additional EU capacity to support SSR under its Common Foreign
and Security Policy (CFSP), as reflected in the European Security
Strategy (adopted by the European Council in December 2003); thus
ESDP missions and Community action in the area of SSR "can
complement each other, especially in countries in crisis or post-crisis
situations". It also notes that some EU Member States are
very active in bilateral SSR processes, and that the need for
a more coherent and common EU concept on SSR across the three
pillars has, therefore, been raised by Member States and the Commission
in order to contribute to more effective EU external action in
this area. "This concept paper is the European Commission's
contribution to a clearer and integrated EU policy framework for
engaging in security system reform."
The Commission Communication
2.4 The Commission examines what security is, how
it is provided and what the European Community (EC) should be
seeking to achieve. It says that people should be able to expect
the state to maintain peace, safeguard their lives, property and
other rights and prevent rights and institutions being undermined.
Based on the OECD-DAC definition,[5]
the security system is all state institutions and other entities
with a role in ensuring the security of the state and its people,
viz:
— Core
security actors: including
law enforcement institutions: armed forces; police; gendarmeries;
paramilitary forces; presidential guards; intelligence services;
coast guards; border guards; customs authorities; reserve or local
security units.
— Security management and oversight
bodies: parliament/legislature; government/the executive,
including ministries of defence, internal affairs, foreign affairs;
national security advisory bodies; customary and traditional authorities;
financial management bodies; and civil society, including the
media, academia and NGOs.
— Justice institutions: justice
ministries; prisons; criminal investigation and prosecution services;
the judiciary (courts and tribunals), implementation justice services
(bailiffs and ushers), other customary and traditional justice
systems; human rights commissions and ombudsmen; etc.
— Non-statutory security forces:
liberation armies; guerrilla armies; private bodyguard units;
private security companies; etc.
2.5 Against this background, SSR means "transforming
the security system, which includes all these actors, their roles,
responsibilities and actions, working together to manage and operate
the system in a manner that is consistent with democratic norms
and sound principles of good governance, and thus contributing
to a well functioning security framework". The objective
is "to contribute explicitly to strengthening of good governance,
democracy, the rule of law, the protection of human rights and
the efficient use of public resources. In this respect, civilian
control and Parliamentary oversight are key aspects of SSR."
2.6 It is a long term process which requires strong
national ownership. The EC supports SSR related activities in
over 70 countries. Its "added value in support of SSR"
derives from: the Commission's supranational nature and experience
in promoting democracy and human rights; its global reach and
long-term presence on the ground; its commitment to policy coherence
for development; its ability to draw on a wide range of instruments
and on the experience of most of the new Member States; and its
potential to coordinate with action carried out by the EU under
ESDP, Member States and other organisations. To consolidate EU
support for SSR, the EU needs to ensure greater synergy between
ongoing Community and Member State support and ESDP missions.
The EC contribution can be improved by: integrating SSR into Country
and Regional Strategy Papers; prioritising SSR under the new Financial
Instruments; ensuring coordinated planning and implementation
with the Council Secretariat and Member States; developing tools
for implementation; expanding the pool of SSR experts; developing
specific SSR training; prioritising SSR under the new Financial
Instruments (Pre-Accession, European Neighbourhood and Partnership,
Stability and Development and Economic Co-operation); and strengthening
co-operation with international partners (UN, OECD, Council of
Europe, OSCE and AU).
The Government's view
2.7 In his 21 June 2006 Explanatory Memorandum, the
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for International
Development (Mr Gareth Thomas) says that he strongly welcomes
the release of this Communication. Encouraging a greater focus
within the EU on SSR is a key priority for HMG. Following an initiative
under the UK Presidency, a concept for ESDP support to SSR was
agreed in November 2005. In the same month, the UK co-sponsored
a seminar in Brussels on SSR with the Commission, bringing together
those working on the issue in the Commission and Council Secretariat,
as well as Member States. The aim was to highlight the need for
a common SSR concept to guide planning and programming in all
external action, and raise awareness of existing practice and
principles for donor support to SSR.
2.8 Overall, he supports the contents of the Communication,
drawing as it does on the definition of the security system set
out by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in its 2004 publication
Security System Reform and Governance, Policy and Good Practice,
and also on many of the principles and guidelines outlined in
that document. He would like to have seen "more emphasis
on the fact that SSR is also about ensuring the provision of security
for all, but also access to justice". Although the Communication
rightly refers to SSR as being about ensuring the security of
people (not just the security of states), it "would benefit
from greater emphasis on the provision of security and justice
for the poor and marginalised. We will want to see these issues
fully reflected in future Commission work on SSR."
2.9 Looking forward, he sees the key challenge as:
"to ensure that the Communication is translated
into practice, resulting in strengthened EC programming on SSR,
better co-ordinated with ESDP action, work by Member States and
other donors and multilateral institutions. We understand that
the first step is likely to be a seminar in the autumn this year
for EC delegations, focused on the challenges of implementing
SSR programmes in the field."
2.10 As the Commission and the Finnish Presidency
takes forward this process over the coming months, he will accordingly:
"aim to ensure that the Commission utilises
the Implementation Framework for SSR currently being developed
by the Organisation for Economic Corporation and Development,
Development Assistance Committee [OECD DAC], which is intended
to be a guide for country governments and their partners to conducting
SSR assessments, designing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating
SSR programmes."
2.11 He will also encourage the Commission to allocate
the increased resources that he says will be required if the recommendations
in the Communication are to be implemented effectively.
2.12 Finally, he attaches (as do we, as the Annex
to this Report) the Conclusions on the Communication adopted at
the 12 June 2006 General Affairs and External Relations Council,
which:
"welcomed the Communication and invited
future Presidencies and the Commission to progressively translate
the policy framework for EU engagement on SSR (formed by this
Communication and the concept for ESDP support to SSR agreed in
November 2005) into operational actions by the European Community
and in the framework of ESDP".
Conclusion
2.13 There has been growing acceptance that security,
as defined herein, is fundamental to not only the economic growth
and democratic sustainability of the EU's immediate neighbourhood
(witness the successful transformation of some of the new Member
States) but also to that of countries further afield, where its
absence is the prime mover in the uncontrolled immigration that
is washing up on the Union's southern shores. So, moral aspects
apart, SSR is plainly in the Union's interest. We therefore endorse
the Communication's aims and approach.
2.14 The Minister is plainly right in underlining
the importance of effective implementation, which will in major
part depend on effective co-operation between the Commission and
the Council and Member States, especially within the framework
of ESDP. We therefore ask that the Minister writes to us in a
year's time with his assessment of how effectively the recommendations
in the Commission have been implemented and of how effective inter-institutional
coordination and co-operation has been.
2.15 We recognise that — as with the ESDP
operations in the DRC to which the November 2005 General Affairs
and External Relations Council Conclusions — individual
Joint Actions will be submitted to us for scrutiny. But that is,
in a real sense, too late in the process. What is equally important
is that the House has an opportunity to scrutinise the strategy
that lies behind the individual actions, be it that of the EC
or of the Council under ESDP. With regard to the former, we have
a Commission Communication that is deposited three days before
being welcomed by the Council: with the latter — though
called a "concept", a common strategy by any other name
— no document has been submitted at all. We should therefore
be grateful if the relevant Department for International Development
and Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers would explain to
us why the underlying policy documents were not submitted in a
timely fashion, so that the House could give its view before the
policy was agreed in Council.
2.16 In the meantime, we shall keep the document
under scrutiny.
2 The committee of senior officials from national delegations
who, under article 25 of the EU Treaty, monitor the international
situation in areas covered by the CFSP and, under the general
responsibility of the Council, exercise political control and
strategic direction of crisis management operations. Back
3
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/gena/87093.pdf. Back
4
COM (06) 253, page 3. Back
5
Security System Reform and Governance, Policy and Practice, DAC
Guidelines and Reference Series (Paris: OECD 2004).
Back
|
