Advertisement

Progress towards Defining a Common European Security and Defence Policy: Illusion or Practice

  • Simon Duke
Part of the St Antony’s Series book series

Abstract

Many hurdles have yet to be crossed on the road defining the CFSP and a European defence policy. The problems outlined here are by no means exhaustive; rather the goal of this chapter is to discuss those that appear to pose notable challenges. Although the development of CFSP has begun the process of moving the Union away from mere statements that involve little real practical commitment, numerous obstacles must be overcome if CFSP is to be a potent tool for stability in the region and beyond.

Keywords

European Council Defence Industry Planning Cell General Electric Company European Security 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. Michael O’Hanlon, ‘Transforming NATO: The Role of European Forces’, Survival, Vol. 39(3), Autumn 1997, p. 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Colonel Bernard Vezinhet, Head of Logistic/Movements and Finance Section of the WEU Planning Cell, Symposium on European cooperation on the procurement of defence equipment, Munich 1–2 October 1997 (Paris: Assembly of the Western European Union, 1997). Colonel Vezinhet notes that the Plans section has a staff of eight whose tasks are to monitor FAWEU, joint defence planning with NATO and liaison with Eurolongterm (evaluation of military requirements over a 10 year span) and WEAG, p. 62.Google Scholar
  3. General Pierre Forterre, Commander of the European Corps, at a symposium on European cooperation on the procurement of defence equipment, Munich 1–2 October 1997 (Paris: Assembly of the Western European Union, 1997), p. 59.Google Scholar
  4. Robert J. Art, ‘Why Western Europe Needs the United States and NATO’, Political Science Quarterly, Volume 111 (1), Spring 1996, p. 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andreas Kintis, ‘The EU and the War in Former Yugoslavia’, in Martin Holland (ed.), Common Foreign and Security Policy: The Record and Reforms (London: Pinter, 1997), p. 161.Google Scholar
  6. Jörg Monar, ‘The Financial Dimensions of the CFSP’, in Martin Holland (ed.), Common Foreign and Security Policy: The Record and the Reforms (London: Pinter, 1997), pp. 34–52; and Thomas Hagleitner, ‘Financing the CFSP: A Step towards Communitarisation or Institutional Deadlock?’, CFSP Forum, 2.95, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar
  7. Simon Duke, The Burdensharing Debate: A Reassessment (London: Macmillan, 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Center for Strategic and International Studies, ed., Defense in the late 1990s: avoiding the train wreck (Washington DC: CSIS, 1995), p. 12.Google Scholar
  9. Ethan Kapstein, ‘Towards an American arms trade monopoly’, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 73(3), May/June 1994, pp. 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. FINABEL’S principal task was to promote interoperability amongst the land forces of the participant countries. See Willem van Eekelen, Debating European Security 1948–1998 (The Hague: Sdu Publishers, 1998), p. 282.Google Scholar
  11. Alessandro Politi, ‘Western European Union and Europe’s Defence Industry’, in Anne Deighton (ed.), Western European Union 1954–1997: Defence, Security, Integration (Oxford: St Antony’s College, 1997), p. 135.Google Scholar
  12. Peter Van Ham, ‘The Prospects for a European Security and Defence Identity’, European Security, Vol. 4(4), Winter 1995, p. 539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. For a brief but detailed overview of the developments in the US arms industry and their implications for European security, seeJens van Scherpenberg, ‘Transatlantic competition and European defence industries: a new look at the trade–defence linkage’, International Affairs, Vol. 73 (1), 1997, pp. 99–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wolfgang Piller, Member of the Board of Management, External Relations and Governmental and Political Affairs, Daimler-Benz Aerospace AG, Germany, in Symposium on European Cooperation on the Procurement of Defence Equipment, Munich, 1–2 October 1997 (Paris: Assembly of the WEU), p. 79.Google Scholar
  15. See Timothy J. Birch and John H. Crotts, ‘European Defense Integration: National Interests, National Sensitivities’, in Alan W. Cafruny and Glenda G. Rosenthal, The State of the European Community: The Maastricht Debates and Beyond, Vol. 2 (Harlow, Essex: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1993), pp. 265–81.Google Scholar
  16. Mr de Puig, (President of the Assembly of the WEU) in, Symposium on European Cooperation on the Procurement of Defence Equipment, Munich, 1–2 October 1997 (Paris: Assembly of the WEU), p. 14.Google Scholar
  17. Surya P. Subedi, ‘The Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union and Neutrality: Towards Co-Existence?’, Netherlands International Law Review, XLII, 1995, pp. 408, 411.Google Scholar
  18. North Dmitri Trenin, ‘Avoiding a New Confrontation with NATO’, NATO Review, Vol. 44, No. 3, May 1996, p. 17.Google Scholar
  19. Willem van Eekelen, ‘WEU Prepares Way for New Mission’, NATO Review, Vol. 41. No. 5, October 1993, p. 20.Google Scholar
  20. Klaus Kinkel, ‘Peacekeeping Missions: Germany can now play its part’, NATO Review, Vol. 42, No. 5, October 1994, p. 7.Google Scholar
  21. Quoted in Robert P. Grant, ‘France’s New Relationship with NATO’, Survival, Vol. 38 (1), Spring 1996, p. 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Charles Millon, ‘France and the Renewal of the Atlantic Alliance’, NATO Review, Vol. 44, No. 3, May 1996, pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Simon Duke 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Duke
    • 1
  1. 1.European Institute of Public AdministrationMaastrichtNetherlands

Personalised recommendations