European Union Security Policy Hestutomo R Kuncoro 09/288945/SP/23804 Commonality, strength or weakness?

It had already been established that the a structural policy can only exist if the members regard it as instrument for the interest of their policy, or at the very least, is aligned with it. In as much as it is a strengthening factor of the policy, it also poses a hurdle in the policy making process. The unaminity requirement constraint policy-makers to the search of lowest common1. Commonality is a feasible possibility when it comes to mere value. At the level of common position, it is quite easy to find the common ground regarding universally accepted values such as freedom, democracy, or human rights. However, it would proven to be problematic when it comes to formulating these values into operational level, into real actions. One example is the case of Yugoslavia. Although former Yugoslavia was identified as a possible area of common interest and the Unions common values were at stake, the EU didnt take the resolute action that was needed2. In this case, finding the common ground of values was not the problem; translating those values into action was. European Union was hesitant to provide military intervention in addressing the balkan crisis. The lack of political will was the cause, and it is caused by the lack of unified view in operational level. When EU finally able to formulate a real action strategy, it was already too late, and the conflict was already highly escalated. It was only at the time of Bosnia-Kosovo conflict that the EU was able to provide joint actions. ESDP is not (a mere) Normative Power EU was always identical with its normative power. It defines almost every action and policy that EU has. This is not a bad thing at all. The utilization of normative power had proven times and times again to be relatively easy to be accepted by other countries. From the perspective of EU, acting in normative level is also relatively easier. Norms are hardly offensive, thus, it easier to be formulated, and easier to be accepted.

1 2

Christian Churucca, The European Unions Common Foreign Policy: Strength, Weakness and Prospects 2003 Christian Churucca, The European Unions Common Foreign Policy: Strength, Weakness and Prospects 2003

However, norms is often not enough as a platform for real action. Even at the level of state it is quite problematic. History had witness many foreign security policy that inconsistent with the state basic norms or ideology (one example was US occupation of the Philippines). At the continental level, it is even more problematic. Translating norms into actions was already difficult enough without the presence of 27 different views on it. This is why EU was never effective when it comes to employing real action in regard of security policy. One might argue that this is actually in accordance to their normative powers. If the presence of military action is a strong signal of a states intention of war, then the lack of such presence is also a strong signal of its intention of peace. EUs reluctancy to deploy military power is a proof of strong commitment in avoiding military power in conflict resolution. However, it is one thing to not deploying military action based on a calculated policy; but it is something entirely different to not deploying it due to slow and inefficient policy making. In the Balkan case, the EU did actually deploy military action, just not in the time when it was really needed. I believe that sooner or later, EU has to accept the fact that sometimes norms cannot stand on its own, sometimes it had to be supported by the presence of strong military forces, even if only for deterrence. The absence of EUs credible military forces makes its diplomacy lacked effectiveness3. This is why that the belief that EU can and will deploy strong military forces is of utmost importance in future security diplomacy. The Future of EU Security Policy One important question that every scholar that study EU should pondered about is, How EU should position itself in the realm of world security?. Should EU stay out of security issues that calls for hard actions, and only take part as regional pacifier and conflict mediator? Or should EU play more significant role in addressing their extra-regional security issues? If so, how should EU do it? Should EU establish a more streamlined policy making that will allow it to easily dispatched the military forces of its members? In any cases, i believe that security issues has been on EU pending homework list for too long. EU should established its position in the realm of world security in a clearer manner. If EU want to become a pacifist that has nothing to do with hard military powers, then EU should empower its mediation capability and seek support from other militarry alliannces
3

Christian Churucca, The European Unions Common Foreign Policy: Strength, Weakness and Prospects 2003

such as NATO or such. On the other hand, if EU want to have more significant role in addressing security issues, EU should address its capability (or the lack of it) to deploy strong military forces if needed. Each of that position has its pros and cons. Positioning itself as only pacifist power would render its diplomacy ineffective as had been shown in the case of Balkan. However, deploying strong military forces would also corrode EUs image as a peaceful actor that heavily worship normative power. Perhaps a middle way should be established. EUs security policy should be so good and convincing that other states believe that EU can and will dispatched military forces if needed; However, their mediation policy should also take advantage of this fact and become so good that EU would never have to deploy those military forces.