One Step Forward and One Step Back

We can call the changes brought about in the Treaty of Lisbon as an extremely cautious step forward. Firstly, the ESDP will now be renamed the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) highlighting the EU’s nominal commitment to greater integration. This is reflected in the treaty itself which states that the CSDP will include the “progressive framing of a common Union defence policy” that “will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides.” (ToL, Article 28a, paragraph 2). In essence, this phrase states that the formulation of a coherent defence policy is a clear objective, when every member state has agreed to put it in motion.

Common defence

The incorporation of mutual defence into the Treaty of Lisbon signifies a major step forward in itself.

Photo : European Commission

The inclusion of a mutual defence clause within the Treaty of Lisbon can also be considered to be a major development in common European defence initiatives. Member states, in case of armed aggression on their territory, are held to provide “aid and assistance by all means in their power” (ToL, Article 28a, paragraph 7). The incorporation of mutual defence into the Treaty of Lisbon signifies a major step forward in itself. However, the inclusion of an ‘opt-out’ clause stating that the article “shall not prejudice” individual defence policies essentially empties the article of concrete meaning. Finally, the Treaty also enshrines the role of NATO as the foundation for collective defence of states that are members to both NATO and the EU. It would seem that for all major developments in the Treaty is a clause attached stating its requirements for future approval.

Ideas in Progress

Nevertheless, it would be unfair to castigate the progress made by the Treaty without highlighting some important legalistic and structural changes which at first may appear banal. What may appear as the first sign of a significant change is the expansion of the tasks assigned to CSDP. The inclusion of “peace-making” and the support of “third countries in combating terrorism in their territories” (ToL, Article 28b, Paragraph 1), offers tools required for the development of a European defence policy with a greater focus on EU strategic interests. Going beyond the previous Petersberg Tasks (peace-keeping, humanitarian and rescue) the EU is given the legal means for more robust operations. This change effectively allows greater flexibility when dealing with perceived threats and a common response to them.

Lisbon Treaty Referendum Campaign

The Treaty introduces some important legalistic and structural changes which at first may appear banal

Photo : Flickr, Informatique

The most important structural reform of the Treaty is the establishment of ‘Permanent Structured Cooperation’ (ToL, Article 28a, paragraph 6). This confirms a firm move towards the institutionalisation of a common defence policy. This structure will bring together the states that have fulfilled their military commitments to the EU and can operate without the participation of a fixed number of participating states. Operating under qualified majority voting, the structure allows states at the forefront of CSDP to pursue greater harmonisation of their defence apparatus along the lines of a ‘two-speed’ Europe. Pierre Lellouche, defence spokesman for UMP (Union pour un Mouvement Populaire) describes the participant states as a ‘pioneer’ group that other states can join after fulfilling the agreed criteria.

So Where Do We Stand ?

Despite some of the major advances that have been described in the article, the Treaty has not answered some of the more fundamental questions which are filled with controversy. For example, the development of ‘permanent structured cooperation’ fails to delineate any concrete measures of harmonisation and does not go beyond calls for greater integration. Individual member states are left with strong powers to override any major push towards integration and perhaps rightly so.

Should I stay or should I go ?

The progress which has been described is not irrelevant but lacks direction at this stage.

Photo : Flickr, Rockcohen

The central issue to European defence today is largely an issue of definition. Before any progress is made, a shared definition of EU strategic interests has to be agreed on. Pierre Henri d’Argenson, writing for the International Institute of Strategic Studies, argues that CSDP will soon confront a threshold where controversial decisions will have to be made. Among these decisions is whether the EU wishes to become, in the words of d’Argenson, “a subcontractor or an actor in its own right for international security or making ESDP the instrument of the global strategic interests of the EU ”. So then where do we stand ? The difficult questions which have been asked about the direction of European defence have remained unanswered whilst appeasing both those who want greater integration and those who want to maintain strict independence in the realm of defence. The progress which has been described is not irrelevant but lacks direction at this stage.

The next steps should clearly work on this aspect. To do so would require the development a new European Security Strategy to provide the framework for the new tools that are now available for policymakers. Secondly, the odd position of EU non-NATO members and NATO non-EU members must be clarified to remove one of the most outstanding issues. With over 5,000 troops deployed abroad and a growing international profile, it would seem that European defence policy is enjoying sunny days. However, important questions on the future of European defence remain unanswered and the Treaty of Lisbon has not given us an answer to them.

Logo : Flickr, Pierre Holtz