The European Union and Developments in Crisis Management Operations and Peacekeeping

Abstract

Thirty years ago, Henry Kissinger posed the question, “Whom do I call when I want to speak to Europe?” Now, the former U.S. Secretary of State is reported to have said: “I think one knows whom to call; I don’t think Europe has yet decided how to give answers to all the questions.” Europe’s foreign policy is said to be fragmented and weak. A common defense and foreign policy still eludes the European Union (EU), and it is by no means clear that the deficiencies identified during the course of the crisis in the former Yugoslavia have been rectified. Part of the problem today may also be that there are now too many candidates willing to answer for Europe. Richard Holbrooke, the former U.S. Ambassador to the UN and also to NATO, recalled the Bosnian peace conference at Dayton, Ohio, in 1995, which had three co-chairmen, one of whom was Karl Bildt, the then EU special representative. But Germany, Britain, and France also sent envoys, and each indicated that Bildt did not speak for them. Externally, the growing prominence of the European Union and its gradual assumption of some of the functions of the state had meant that its place in international relations has become more rather than less ambiguous over time. Many of the formal legal agreements between the EU and the outside world are so-called “mixed” arrangements. Furthermore, most of its informal foreign policy also operates within a somewhat unclear and evolving framework of cooperation and competition with the foreign relations of its member states. The overall situation has been complicated by the accession of new states to the EU. Prior to the formation of the EU, European history was characterized by instability and armed conflict, and it was in the aftermath of one of Europe’s bloodiest wars that a number of individual member states came together to lay the foundation for today’s