House of Commons - Documents considered by the Committee on 28 January 2009

Documents considered by the Committee on 28 January 2009 - European Scrutiny Committee Contents

2 European Security and Defence Policy

(a)

(30250)

16686/08

(b)

(30355)

17104/08

—

French Presidency Report on European Security and Defence Policy

Report on the Implementation of the European Security Strategy — Providing Security in a Changing World

Legal base —

Deposited in Parliament (a) 10 December 2008
(b) 21 January 2009

Department Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Basis of consideration (a) Minister's letter of 22 January 2009
(b) EM of 21 January 2009

Previous Committee Report (a) HC 19-ii (2008-09), chapter 8 (17 December 2008); also see (29743) 10415/08: HC 16-xxv (2007-08), chapter 13 (25 June 2008); (29307) 16426/07: HC 16-viii (2007-08), chapter 23 (16 January 2008) and (29518) 7235/08: HC 16-xxii (2007-08), chapter 8 (21 May 2008)
(b) None

Discussed in Council 11-12 December 2008 European Council

Committee's assessment Politically important

Committee's decision Not cleared; for debate in European Committee B

Background

2.1 Each Presidency submits a report on European Security and Defence Policy to the European Council (in December or June) recording significant developments over the six months of each Presidency, referring to activities undertaken in earlier months, highlighting progress in specific areas and drawing attention to others where further work is needed.

The French Presidency report

2.2 The report is a record of ESDP developments during the French Presidency in the second half of 2008. The main sections are: EU Operational Activities, Development of Civilian and Military Capabilities, Human Rights and Gender Issues, EU Training and Exercises, and Co-operation with International Organisations and third states.

2.3 The report also covers the European Defence Agency (EDA); Civil Military Co-ordination; Security Sector Reform and Conflict Prevention.

2.4 As is customary, the report concludes with a mandate from the Council for the incoming Presidency. This prioritises areas for the Czech Presidency to take forward over the next six months. The Report is summarised and analysed in a previous Report.[4]

The European Security Strategy Review

2.5 The present European Security Strategy (ESS), "A Secure Europe In A Better World", which was adopted by the Council in December 2003, identified terrorism, weapons proliferation, regional conflicts, state failure and organised crime as the major threats to Europe's security. It set three objectives for EU action — addressing those threats, building neighbourhood security and developing effective multilateralism. Its conclusion was that Europe needed to be more active, more coherent and more capable, and work with others to make a contribution matching its potential.[5]

2.6 In December 2007, the European Council asked the Secretary General/High Representative, Javier Solana, to conduct a Review on the implementation of the ESS, viz.

"In the light of all evolutions which have taken place since, in particular the experiences drawn from ESDP missions, the European Council invites the SG/HR, in full association with the Commission and in close co-operation with the Member States, to examine the implementation of the Strategy with a view to proposing elements on how to improve the implementation and, as appropriate, elements to complement it, for adoption by the European Council in December 2008."

2.7 On 26 May 2008, the then Minister for Europe (Mr Jim Murphy) wrote to the sub-Committee C of the House of Lords' EU Select Committee, in response to a request to set out the Government's views — in particular, on the strengths and weaknesses of the Strategy, whether the Government would be seeking to include additional threats and risks into the revised strategy, and the extent to which the UK position was shared by other EU Member States and the Commission.

2.8 The then Minister said that the Government's view, shared by other Member States, was that its basic analysis remained valid, and that it served as a valuable high-level policy framework, against which EU action could be measured and developed, but that it was nonetheless the right moment to review implementation in the light of experience and identify elements for further development.

2.9 The Government's objective for the ESS review was to encourage greater EU impact on the key external security issues identified in the Global Europe[6] agenda, set out by the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary in October 2007: tackling climate change and energy security, tackling global poverty and development, promoting security and stability in neighbouring countries and beyond, and tackling terrorism and organised crime.

2.10 The review of the implementation of the ESS should accordingly develop the Strategy's treatment of the impact of climate change, energy security, poverty and development on security, including through taking into account the security dimension of climate change. The Government was working to ensure that the report led to concrete EU action, including regional studies and deeper analysis of climate and security issues. The Government believed that the ESS review should also take into account the Spring 2008 European Council's agreement to develop a common approach to external energy policy, including energy security issues.

2.11 The Government also believed that the review should acknowledge more fully the link between development and security, and underline in this context the importance of the Millennium Development Goals. The Government fully supported the Commission's proposal for agreement at the June European Council on an Agenda for Action for the Millennium Development Goals (the Commission Communication on which was debated in European Committee B on 9 June).[7]

2.12 In addition to highlighting the development of the ESS's analysis of threats and risks, the Government saw the review as an opportunity to improve the EU's impact in conflict-affected countries by setting out clear priorities for EU work on stabilisation. Developments of note since the Strategy was written in 2003 included progress in civil-military co-ordination and capability development, the implementation of the Stability Instrument, the European Consensus on Development and the November 2007 Conclusions on Security and Development and Situations of Fragility. Key stabilisation issues included the use of expeditionary military and civilian capability development, co-ordinated planning to achieve coherent effect, building African Union capabilities, and close cooperation with the United Nations, NATO and the African Union.

2.13 The then Minister said that the ESS rightly prioritised countering terrorism and proliferation. Both areas had since been taken forward through work to implement the 2004 EU Council Declaration on Combating Terrorism and the 2003 EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The Government wanted to use the ESS review to highlight priorities for future action in combating terrorism and proliferation. This included recognising that what happened outside the EU had a direct effect within communities in Member States and vice versa, which in turn pointed to: tackling radicalisation and extremism, both within the EU and in third countries; helping third countries to build their own counter terrorism capabilities; and strengthening action against terrorist financing.

2.14 On proliferation, the then Minister said that this was an opportunity to update the perception of threats, including regions of concern and terrorists' use of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear materials; to highlight emerging issues, such as the proliferation risks of the potential renaissance of civil nuclear technology; and to reflect on EU priorities for the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

2.15 The then Minister also said that the Government would want to ensure that the ESS review emphasised the importance of close EU-NATO cooperation. The UK National Security Strategy underlined the importance of a strong EU and NATO to both European and regional security, complementing the contribution of global institutions, and that the Government supported the development of both institutions and close cooperation between them. The then Minister said that that it would be important that the review reinforced the importance of closer EU-NATO cooperation, building on the ESS's conclusion that the transatlantic relationship was irreplaceable.

2.16 Finally, the then Minister said that the detailed views held by other Member States and the Commission on ESS the review were not yet clear; the Government would discuss the review with other Member States at the June European Council, following which he would then write again and during the French Presidency he would then work closely with Partners to ensure that the priorities for future action identified above were highlighted in the Review.

The Committee's reaction

2.17 The current ESS appeared from the blue in December 2003, and became one of the major milestones in both this Committee's and its Lords' counterpart's efforts to improve "upstream scrutiny" of ESDP developments, before they emerged — almost always at the last moment — as Common Positions, Joint Actions or Council Decisions. The Committee felt that the challenge now was to ensure that the Review, unlike its predecessor, was properly scrutinised. A letter to the House of Lords' Select Committee on the European Union having been copied to this Committee, the Chairman responded on 4 June 2008, underlining that we too were interested in the Solana Review and, this time round, expected whatever was produced for adoption by the December 2008 European Council to be deposited in time for proper scrutiny.

2.18 In the Conclusions to our Report of 17 December 2008 on the ESDP Presidency Report, we noted that this period had seen the launch of both the EU's largest civilian mission and its first naval enterprise. But, comprehensive and helpful as her Explanatory Memorandum of 11 December 2008 had otherwise been, the Minister for Europe at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Caroline Flint) had said nothing about any of the costs, so it was impossible to come to any conclusions about the pressure that might be being put upon the CFSP budget (of which the UK contributes some 17%) by this ever-increasing range of activity.

2.19 Nor was there any mention of the progress in developing an evaluation process for civilian ESDP missions, which was mentioned a year ago in the mandate for the Slovene Presidency.

2.20 More profoundly, we expressed our disappointment at the Minister's failure to respond to our request to deposit ahead of adoption any document reviewing the European Security Strategy. The Committee noted moreover that European Council had adopted not only that document without any parliamentary scrutiny, but also a Declaration on the enhancement of ESDP,[8] a Declaration on Strengthening Capabilities and a Statement on strengthening international security (both already adopted by the GAERC).

2.21 Through the first of these, the Council expressed its determination to give "a fresh impetus to the European Security and Defence Policy", compliant with the principles of the United Nations Charter and the decisions of the United Nations Security Council, and "in full complementarity with NATO in the agreed framework of the strategic partnership between the EU and NATO and in compliance with the decision-making autonomy and procedures of each." Making good "the shortfall in the resources available in Europe by gradually improving civilian and military capabilities" was "the prerequisite for allowing Europeans to assume in a credible and effective manner their responsibilities under a renewed transatlantic partnership, to which the European Council reaffirms its commitment". To this end, the Council subscribed to the Declaration on Strengthening Capabilities, "which sets numerical and precise targets to enable the EU, in the coming years, to conduct simultaneously, outside its territory, a series of civilian missions and military operations of varying scope, corresponding to the most likely scenarios."[9]

2.22 The Committee pointed out that:

— the Declaration on Strengthening Capabilities required a commitment "to develop robust, flexible and interoperable capabilities", which would entail "innovative forms of specialisation, pooling and sharing of major equipment projects, with priority being given to planning, crisis management, space and maritime security." The Declaration "would also encourage the efforts of the Secretary-General/High Representative to establish a new, single civilian-military strategic planning structure for ESDP operations and missions."[10]

— the Statement on Enhancing International Security "decides on specific actions to enable the EU to play a more active role in combating terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, organised crime and cyber-attacks"; it also includes the statement that the acquisition by Iran of a military nuclear capability "would constitute an unacceptable threat to our security, both regional and international."[11]

2.23 We considered that these documents were bound to have major implications for the Committee's future work, as well as more widely for Parliament. As well as having clearly indicated our wish for the Solana report to be deposited ahead of adoption, we had also equally clearly indicated our interest in wider developments in both European Security and Defence Policy — particularly with regard to the question of planning capability, and the need to avoid duplication with NATO [12] — and Common Foreign and Security Policy.

2.24 We therefore asked the Minister not only to comment on the points in paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 above but also to explain why the Solana report was not deposited ahead of adoption and why she felt unable to share with the Committee any of the thinking in these important statements of future policy. We also asked, again, that she deposit the Solana Review, together with the other Declarations and Statements referred to above, along with an Explanatory Memorandum (or Explanatory Memoranda) summarising the key features and outlining her views thereon, and assessing the implications for British foreign and defence policy, and particularly the relationship between a burgeoning ESDP and NATO.

2.25 We also asked the Minister to do this in good time for us to make a further Report to the House before she gives evidence to us on 4 February 2009.

2.26 In the meantime, we retained the Report under scrutiny.[13]

The Minister's letter of 22 January 2009

2.27 The Minister begins her letter with some information on the likely costs of the EULEX mission in Kosovo and the anti-piracy ATALANTA operation off the coast of Somalia. The Minister says that the budget for the first 12 months of the EULEX operation is projected to be €162 million, towards which the UK will contribute approximately £27 million; whilst current estimates lead the Minister to expect that the UK share of common costs for the one year ATALANTA operation to be approximately £1.2 million. The Minister regards EU missions as having a positive impact on the ground:

"EULEX for example is supporting the Kosovo authorities by monitoring, mentoring and advising the Kosovo Police Service, justice sector and customs service, whilst operation ATALANTA is an essential part of a comprehensive approach to address both the immediate problems of piracy and the root causes of instability."

2.28 Turning to the matter of progress on the development of a civilian ESDP mission evaluation process, the Minister says that the UK has pushed for the Czech Presidency to evaluate the current civilian missions and identify lessons learnt to use in the planning and implementation of future missions:

"There is now a timeline within the Czech Presidency for evaluating each mission, identifying 'Best Practice Officers', and implementing a software tool to store observations and lessons learnt. In order to feed into this process, the UK will also be looking at lessons learnt at all stages of the missions, particularly on attracting and recruiting top quality candidates, including pre-deployment training in the UK."

2.29 The Minister then notes that an Explanatory Memorandum on the Review of the 2003 European Security Strategy (ESS) was deposited on 21 January, and also refers the Committee to her letter of the same date to the Chairman of the Lords' European Union Committee, "which sets out the Government's detailed response to the Lords' report on the Review." The Minister then continues as follows:

"The Review provides a useful assessment of the progress made and new threats faced over the past five years. It does not attempt to set out specific actions for EU foreign policy, but rather to create a broad framework to guide EU actions in the external sphere. It supports UK views on the importance for European Security of tackling climate change and diversifying energy supplies, the importance of EU enlargement, and the emphasis the Review places on the need for a comprehensive approach to conflict prevention. It also makes clear that NATO and the EU must be mutually reinforcing, rather than seeking to duplicate, challenge or undermine each other. The ESS Review is helpful in reaffirming that we need to 'strengthen this strategic partnership' between the EU and NATO. The government is keen that the EU now concentrates on implementing the aims set out in the Review Report."

2.30 The Minister then notes that the December European Council's endorsement of "a Statement on tighter international security" was designed to add more detail to aspects of the Review of the ESS, notably terrorism, WMD, proliferation and disarmament. As with the Review, "the UK is keen to see that agreed EU actions in each of these areas are taken forward, for example making progress on the EU's Radicalisation and Recruitment Action Plan."

2.31 Moving to the declaration in the December European Council Conclusions on the enhancement of European Security and Defence Policy, on strengthening capabilities, the Minister continues as follows:

"The declaration refined the 2010 Headline Goal (which said the EU should have '60,000 troops deployable within 60 days for a major operation for a period of one year'), by supplementing it with the requirement that within this framework (i.e. not in addition to a deployment of 60,000 troops) Europe should prepare itself for the following simultaneous smaller (and more likely) operations:

two stabilisation/reconstruction missions;
two rapid reaction operations, limited in time, using EU Battle Groups;
one non-combatant evacuation operation of EU citizens (in fewer than 10 days);
one maritime surveillance/protection mission;
one civilian-military operation for humanitarian support, for a period of up to 90 days;
around 12 civilian ESDP missions — including a rapid deployment mission and one other major mission.

"The redefinition of the Headline Goal has two important policy implications: firstly, the wider range of operations should act as a capability driver, with the focus on the key enablers required for more small operations (e.g. helicopters, engineers, medical etc.). Secondly, the declaration states that '[f]or its operations and missions, the European Union uses, in an appropriate manner and in accordance with its procedures, the resources and capabilities of Member States, of the European Union and, if appropriate for its military operations, of NATO'. This is a clear recognition that a 'European' operation could be conducted by the EU, NATO, UN or multinationally and that a realistic level of ambition for Europe must include the operations undertaken by Europeans in all these frameworks. The explicit recognition in an EU text of NATO as a key actor for delivering 'European' operations is a positive outcome and in line with UK policy. The EU and NATO are already working together on capabilities through the current NATO defence planning review and the EU-NATO Capability Group. The declaration also welcomed the establishment of a new civilian-military strategic planning structure for ESDP operations and missions.

"The establishment of a civilian-military planning structure should institutionalise on a permanent basis the co-operation between EU civilian and military strategic-level planning assets, leading to a more comprehensive approach to early planning for ESDP missions (i.e. in the pre-decision to launch phase). The new structure is not an Operational Headquarters (OHQ) and will not change the current arrangements in place for the use of existing national OHQs (for example, the Multinational Headquarters at Northwood is the OHQ for Operation ATALANTA).

"The French Presidency also secured agreement to a new push for capability development through a series of voluntary initiatives aimed at filling gaps in EU military capabilities: the multinational helicopter fund (inspired by UK, and which also has a strong NATO content), multinational air transport fleet; voluntary exchange programme for young European officers; a deepening co-operation between the European Defence Agency (EDA) and the Organisation for Joint Armament Co-operation (OCCAR). We welcome these voluntary capability initiatives (although we are not participating in all of them) as ways of strengthening interoperability and capability development across Europe in an inclusive/open way."

2.32 The Minister concludes with the hope that the Committee will have found this information helpful and will now be able to lift scrutiny on the French Presidency's Report on the EDSP, and by looking forward to giving evidence on the outcomes of the December European Council to the Committee on 4 February.

The ESS Review

2.33 The Minister says the Review — "Implementation of the European Security Strategy: Providing Security in a Changing World"[14] — builds on the analysis in the 2003 ESS to consider the EU's actions and reflect new security threats and developments over the last five years. She describes it as "a short accessible document with an Executive Summary that carries a strong message about the important role that the European Union has played since 2003, whilst being clear about the increasing complexity of the security threats we face." She notes that "the first two sections of the Review Report deal with the specific threats that Europe faces globally and within the European neighbourhood", while the final section "focuses on the three ways in which Europe should respond to these threats by establishing "a more effective and capable Europe", through "greater engagement with our neighbourhood", and by building "partnerships for effective multilateralism".

The Government's view

2.34 The Minister goes on to say that the Review Report provides "a useful assessment of the progress made and new threats faced over the past five years" and "further strengthens the government's aim of having a more capable Foreign and Security Policy". She then refers to the annex to her Explanatory Memorandum, which consists of the Government's response to the Lords' EU Select Committee Inquiry into the Review of the European Security Strategy referred to in her letter, and which she says "covers further detail on the issues raised by the Review."[15] The Minister concludes her comments as follows:

"The Review Report supports UK views on the importance for European Security of tackling climate change and diversifying energy supplies to ensure energy security, and the need for a more unified energy market in Europe. It also helpfully sets out the role of EU enlargement in bringing stability to neighbouring countries, and that respect for sovereignty and the territorial integrity of states are not negotiable. The strategy review moves further towards the UK's view that a comprehensive approach to conflict prevention is required including development assistance, whilst acknowledging the shared international Responsibility to Protect. We also welcome the emphasis on the need to engage multilaterally and maintaining key EU relationships with the US, with NATO and other strategic partners.

"We hope that the Review will form the frame of reference for future EU external action, and will push the EU to move forward in concert on issues such as countering proliferation, terrorism and organised crime.

"The Review provides an important contribution in setting out the cultural shift required to bring together EU military, civilian and development efforts to achieve sustainable security. It also makes clear that it no longer makes sense to regard internal and external security as separate questions. The UK believes it is important now to see further implementation of the aims set out in the Review Report, in particular, greater coherence in the planning framework in Brussels."

Conclusion

2.35 We look to the Minister to report on how the Czech Presidency has handled the timeline to which she refers in paragraph 2.26 above when submitting the next ESDP Presidency Report.

2.36 In the meantime, with regard to ESDP finance, we are still no better informed about the extent to which budgetary pressures — which were first highlighted during the UK Presidency — are affecting the effectiveness of an ever-increasing range of activities.

2.37 Moreover, the Minister still does not refer to, let alone explain, her failure to deposit the ESS prior to adoption, despite the Committee's clearly expressed request for this to be done, or why she felt unable to share with the Committee any of the thinking that has now produced these important statements of future policy. Instead, she seems to regard copies of communications with our Lords' counterparts, and her sketchy Explanatory Memorandum, as a satisfactory response. We do not.

2.38 We will accordingly raise this, and the wider issues relating to the proper scrutiny of Common Foreign and Security Policy and European Security and Defence Policy as it develops, further with her when she gives evidence to us on 4 February.

2.39 In the meantime, the Minister for Europe notes that the ESS "will form the frame of reference for future external EU action", while the Statement on Enhancing International Security is designed to add more details to aspects of the Review, notably terrorism, WMD, proliferation and disarmament, and that "the UK is keen to see that agreed EU actions in each of these areas are taken forward". These are but two illustrations of why the Committee was right to have taken the view on 17 December that these documents are bound to have major implications for the Committee's future work, as well as more widely for Parliament, and should therefore have been properly scrutinised prior to adoption.

2.40 We therefore recommend that the Solana Review and the ESDP Presidency Report, along with the Declarations and Statements to which we have drawn attention, be debated in European Committee B, so that the House may have the opportunity now to discuss the important issues they embrace — an opportunity which should have been afforded in the formative stages, rather than after the event.

4 See headnote: HC 16-ii (2008-09), chapter 8, (17 December 2008). Back

5 For the full text, see http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf. Back

6 This is part of the wider "Global Europe" endeavour, which aims to develop realistic recommendations on how the EU can become an effective liberal force in world politics. It focuses on the strategic, economic and political capacities available to the EU member states and the policies required to enhance their efficacy, with four areas of special concern: pre-emptive engagement; effective multilateralism; handling failing states and confronting WMD. Outputs will include high-level seminars and conferences in EU centres, fact-finding work and a series of publications. Back

7 Commission Communication 8403/08 and Adds 1-5 relating to "The EU - a Global Partner for Development - Speeding up progress towards the Millennium Development Goals": see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmgeneral/euro/080609/80609s01.htm for the record of the debate. Back

8 See page 11 and Annex 2 of the 12 December 2008 European Council Conclusions at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/104692.pdf. Back

9 "Europe should actually be capable, in the years ahead, in the framework of the level of ambition established, inter alia of deploying 60 000 men in 60 days for a major operation, within the range of operations envisaged within the headline goal for 2010 and within the civilian headline goal for 2010, of planning and conducting simultaneously:

- two major stabilisation and reconstruction operations, with a suitable civilian component,

- supported by a maximum of 10 000 men for at least two years;

- two rapid response operations of limited duration using inter alia the EU's battle groups;

- an emergency operation for the evacuation of European nationals (in less than ten days), bearing in mind the primary role of each Member State as regards its nationals and making use of the consular lead State concept;

- a maritime or air surveillance/interdiction mission;

- a civilian-military humanitarian assistance operation lasting up to 90 days;