1. European Security: an enigmatic journey Muhammad Yusra International Relations Dept. Universitas Andalas-2011

2. Intro Difidence in the field of security and defence No longer content with the quest for security and defence indentity from inside NATO No longer prepared to use the WEU as the proxy EU itself now sought to generate a “ESDP”

3. Variables Exogenous factors Endogenous factors

4. Exogenous Derives from shifting tectonic plates of the international system in the aftermath of “CW” The Berlin wall fell on Nov, 9th 1989 Eurocentric reading of IR has drastically changed ‘Dawn of peace in Europe’ The focus of US (policy-makers and military planners) switched to Asia, to the middle east.

5. ‘Capabilities gap’ (Euro-US) To take the responsibility for their own back yard (Balkan)

6. Endogenous Derives from the internal dynamic of european project European states might look to their own interest Need for greater security policy autonomy Intensified after the fall of Berlin wall Growing awareness of the strategic challenge pose by the enlargement to the countries of CEE

7. Western European Union established by seven Western European nations during the Cold War Brussels Treaty, 1948 (Belgium, UK, Netherland, Luxemburg, france) North Atlantic Treaty, 4 April 1949 (Brussels states + US, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland) December 1950, the Brussels Treaty powers decided to merge their military organisation into NATO

8. May 1952, of the Treaty setting up a European Defence Community (EDC) in which Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany were due to participate. However, in August 1954 the French National Assembly refused to ratify the Treaty.

9. Paris Agreement, October 1954 Brussels Treaty Power +Federal Republic of Germany and Italy amended the Brussels Treaty (Paris Agreement), created Western European Union (WEU) as a new international organisation

10. European Security Challenge in 1990’s Complex relationship betwen EU Several member states, led by UK wished to deny any active involvement in security or defence discussion The WEU (which was too small and increasingly too diverse in membership to be effective), and NATO( most analyst declaring obsolete if not moribund)

11. Petersberg Task June, 1992 Humanitarian and rescue tasks Peacekeeping tasks Tasks for combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking

12. Berlin Plus 1996, NATO ministerial meeting in Berlin the Western European Union (WEU) would oversee the creation of a European Security and Defence Identity ; within NATO structures

13. ESDP Arose from the Saint-Malo Declaration of December 1998 Explicitly called for the ‘capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces’ This institutional nexus, modella\ed largely on NATO; Has already demonstrated its ability to work and to work well

14. Treaty of Lisbon was signed by the EU member states on 13 December 2007; and entered into force on 1 December 2009 renamed the ESDP to Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). also led to the termination of the Western European Union in 2010 as; with the solidarity clause (deemed to supersede the WEU's military mutual defence clause) and the expansion of the CSDP, the WEU became redundant. All its remaining activities are to be wound up or transferred to the EU by June 2011.

15. Franco-British defence cooperation 2010 In November 2010, British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced plans for unprecedented military cooperation between the United Kingdom and France; based on a new Treaty on Defence and Security Cooperation

16. a new approach, but it is one that seeks to sustain the status quo – in support of sovereign foreign and defence policies. The primary motivation is not to produce a greater or more effective ‘European’ military capability. It is to maintain French and British aspirations to power projection and to military credibility in the eyes of the United States.

17. The many similarities and shared vital interests of France and the UK underpin, but do not drive, the initiative. The end-goal is to retain access to military capability, whether that is through mutual dependence on each other’s industrial base and armed forces, or through pooling and sharing capability.

18. Assumptions defence budgets have not been funded to compensate for the rising cost of military capability the relatively benign security situation in Europe leaves it all but impossible to make the political case for more defence spending Defence, generally ranked low in issue salience polls, is often seen as an easy target for cuts.

19. Finally, flat or lower spending combined with increasingly expensive technology undermines the viability of national, and even multinational,industries. This threatens long-standing preferences for indigenous technological and scientific capability, without which France and the UK fear that they will lose operational autonomy.

20. References Recapped from several sources