Civilian Capabilities Research Articles

Chapter Two: Military and Civilian Capabilities for EU-led Crisis-Management Operations

In the twenty-first century, the European Union is confronted by myriad security problems that demand concerted action and cooperation. As a negotiating power, it seeks to persuade Iran to forswear a nuclear weapons programme. As a crisis manager it seeks to contribute to global peace and stability through civilian and military operations. Closer to home, it is wrestling with questions about membership enlargement, large-scale migration and terrorist threats to the security of its populations and infrastructure. European governments, already under financial strain from ageing workforces and welfare systems, face ever more difficult choices about budget cuts in security and defence after the near-collapse of the global banking system. Will it be possible to enhance cooperation between member states? How can the EU complete its transition from a security actor with great potential to a player that credibly aligns available policy instruments and resources? These and other issues about the very nature and identity of the Union are explored in this Adelphi. From the need to establish its hard-power credentials, overcome its reluctance to demonstrate them against non-compliant states, and leverage its relationships with other great powers, to attempts to break its dependence on Russian energy, it is clear the EU has its work cut out. But, by affirming its commitment to multilateralism and defining a careful balance between closer cooperation and the national security concerns of EU member states, this book suggests, the European Union can build on its status as a global security power in the making.

Stabilization and Democratization: Renewing the Transatlantic Alliance

The transatlantic disagreement over how to deal with the regime of Saddam Hussein in 2003 gave rise to a spate of warnings about the imminent demise of NATO. (1) To some extent it is easy to discount many of those predictions based on the endurance of the alliance and its ongoing expansion. But there is an underlying concern that should not be ignored: The original mission of the alliance disappeared 15 years ago and nothing has completely taken its place. Throughout the Cold War, NATO was seen as absolutely essential to the core security interests of its members. Regardless of the disagreement, nothing undermined the fundamental necessity of the alliance. That has not always been the case for the past 15 years. NATO is still a vital alliance with unique capabilities, and although it is involved in stabilization operations from the Balkans to Afghanistan, those missions are generally not viewed as essential to the core security interests of its members. If they were, the political and military leaders of NATO would not have to shuttle between European capitals begging for a few more helicopters and combat forces to be deployed beyond Kabul, nor would members of the US Congress muse openly about a rapid withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan. Yet, perhaps those missions should be seen as central to American and European common security given the interests underscored in the European Security Strategy and the National Security Strategy of the United States. Both documents outline similar threats and emphasize the importance of alleviating the underlying causes of instability in the developing world. NATO member militaries are often said to be in the process of transformation, but perhaps it is time to consider transforming NATO itself into an institution capable of coordinating the range of assets and capabilities required to perform stabilization and democratization missions likely in the coming decades. Doing so would make NATO the coordination point for long-term stabilization and democratization missions involving a broad range of military, paramilitary, and civilian capabilities. Adding this capability would involve creating deployable modules of different types of forces and capabilities. These organizations would range from military units to legal and civil administration experts capable of assisting in the creation and management of institutions vital to the promotion of long-term stability and development. This would be a radical change for the alliance, but it would refocus NATO on the issues that both sides of the transatlantic alliance recognize as central to their mutual security. It would also do so in a way that gives more weight to the civilian and paramilitary capabilities that Europe brings to the table, thus creating a more balanced alliance with a common purpose. This article explores why and how this could be accomplished by focusing on the interests and capabilities of the members of the transatlantic alliance. First, it compares the European and American strategy documents. Despite the tendency to focus on the differences, there are points of commonality that indicate broad agreement on the challenges and necessary responses. Second, it examines how European and American strengths could be combined to produce robust long-term stabilization and democratization missions. Third, it will argue that it is in the interests of both the United States and Europe to reconstitute the transatlantic alliance around stabilization and democratization missions within the institutional framework of NATO. US and European Security Strategies Since 2001 diverging threat perceptions between much of Europe and the United States have become increasingly clear, but there are still some rather strong similarities. The European Security Strategy (ESS) and the National Security Strategy of the United States (NSS) both highlight the critical intersection of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, state failure, and the danger of regional conflict. …

Organising for Nation Building

As countries and international institutions become increasingly involved in nation-building efforts, committing personnel and resources for prolonged periods of time, they often face major capabili...

NATO--Upholding Ethics in International Security Policy

From a vantagepoint of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, this commentary assesses the role of NATO in the field of ethics in foreign policy. Jamie Shea interprets the decision to invoke the 'collective defence' Article 5 of the Washington Treaty as a continuation of the acceptance of a shared destiny which is at the heart of ethics in international security policy. The focal point of this argument is the need to develop the capacity to quickly deploy civilian capabilities, such as police, to conflict hot spots. Military success for crisis management missions depends critically on civilian success--and civilian success depends on effective law enforcement. Ultimately, ethics in international affairs does not end with fine principles and stern moral judgements, but rather with credible organisations and capabilities to ensure that democratic values are upheld. NATO is and will remain indispensable to this effort.