CHAPTER 5: conclusions |
75. Civilian ESDP is an important development
for the EU. The continued instability across the world, including
in the European near abroad, will require outside intervention
to prevent or limit violent conflict. The EU has recognised, that
often intervention is best carried out through civilian means.
The EU, as a predominantly civilian actor, is well placed to develop
civilian crisis management capability. Through its 15 Member States,
soon to be 25, the Union has a wealth of experienced personnel
to draw upon; for example police officers, prosecutors and administrators.
The Committee has been impressed by the progress made in the four
years since the initiative was taken to develop civilian ESDP,
including in particular the preparation for the EUPM. Civil servants
in both Member States and EU institutions have ensured progress,
in spite of, or perhaps because of, the lack of media attention
and political pressure unlike that which has accompanied the military
side of ESDP.
76. Nonetheless, while civilian ESDP seems to
be one of the quiet successes of the EU's foreign policy, this
area suffers from some of the problems familiar to many of the
EU's foreign policy initiatives. The objectives of civilian ESDP
are yet to be clearly defined. While the broad mandate of the
ESDP is defined within the 'Petersberg tasks' these are not sufficiently
precise to provide a framework for civilian ESDP. Clear objectives
are needed to provide a basis for co-operation with other organisations.
At present, the 'double-hatting' which occurs limits the number
of personnel one Member State can contribute. Member States must
ensure that capacities match staff availability, while the EU
must ensure that duplication with other organisations is minimised.
Strategic thinking is therefore required when considering institutional
responsibility. The OSCE may be better placed to intervene in
order to develop democratic institutions, whereas the EU should
focus on short-term police missions.
77. By engaging in strategic thinking about institutional
burden-sharing the EU will be able to define more closely the
function of the four headline goals. As they stand, the Committee
found that three of the four categories are appropriate to civilian
ESDP. Civil protection, however, is better handled by the
Community; there is no need for two separate mechanisms within
the EU. The Committee considers the current numerical targets
set for the remaining three categories; police, rule
of law, and civil administration to be appropriate.
The Council Secretariat should be tasked to define these areas
more precisely. Presently, the key question with regard to capabilities
is whether the personnel promised by Member States matches in
quality the quantities promised. Training is an area of concern;
Member State personnel must be able to work together on the ground
as 'Europeans'. The EUPM will be a useful indicator of the success
of current training arrangements.
78. Civilian ESDP highlights the problems the
pillar structure creates for the effectiveness of the EU's foreign
policy. Dividing the EU's conflict prevention and crisis management
responses by the EU's institutional organisation is not always
desirable. The Committee recognises that this inquiry is not an
appropriate arena for a discussion on the reform of the EU. We
suggest that the Convention on the Future of Europe take note
of the current situation and make recommendations to the IGC in
2004 which should remedy this problem.
79. The Committee recognises that civilian ESDP
is still in its infancy and is only now, during the EUPM, to be
tested in a live mission. The Committee have highlighted two particular
shortcomings, evident from all the witnesses it consulted. The
first is the issue of decision-making structures. Decision-making
structures for civilian ESDP are over-complicated and unsuitable
for use in a crisis situation. A streamlined solution is required
within which clear lines of political control are easily identifiable.
Appropriate command and control arrangements will allow the EU
to react to a crisis in days rather than weeks. Financing is also
a concern. The current financing arrangements are not sustainable.
There is a need for efficient decision making rather than the
tortuous negotiations which preceded agreement on financing arrangements
for the EUPM.
80. The Committee may wish to return to this
issue once the EUPM mission can be evaluated.