Parliamentary Update (SEDE Subcommittee 26 April 2010), by Sebastian Bloching

Parliamentary Update (SEDE Subcommittee) 26 April 2010

Following the meeting of the Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE) on 26 April, this
update includes coverage of the Public Hearing “EU Civil-Military Cooperation: A Comprehensive
Approach”. 1

Exchange of views with Didier Lenoir from the Civil-Military Planning Department (CMPD), Daniel
Keohane from the EU Institute for Security Studies (ISS), Richard Gowan from the European
Council on Foreign Relations and Christian Mölling from the German Institute for International and
Security Affairs (SWP) on perspectives of a comprehensive approach for CSDP operations.

Opening the discussion, Didier Lenoir from the Civil-Military Planning Department (CMPD) by
reminded the audience that crisis management must not be seen as an end per se. Instead, it must be part
of an overall strategic approach. In order to avoid implementation problems, the CMPD will concentrate
on integrating key concepts of civilian and military crisis management while other, operational units will
guarantee the effectiveness of corresponding policy tools. He further stressed that the strategic and
operational phases are logically linked but not necessarily chronological.

Daniel Keohane from the EU Institute for Security Studies (ISS) mentioned that there is lack of clarity as
to what a ‘comprehensive approach’ actually signifies. EU actors often use terms such as joined-up,
holistic and integrated approach interchangeably although they define diverging aspects of civil-military
cooperation. In addition, the EU’s comprehensive approach, while only partly implemented in a minority
of CSDP missions, differs from the NATO one. Mr Keohane then presented three lessons from past and
ongoing CSDP missions. First, the higher the convergence of Member States’ interests in a CSDP
mission, the higher its chances of success. Secondly, coherence between EU institutions has to be
increased. Finally, more resources are needed and the existing resources have to be used more efficiently.

Stressing that given the UN’s good record of peacekeeping and peacebuilding operations, Richard Gowan
from the European Council on Foreign Relations 2 intoned that the EU would be well advised to base
evaluation of its own missions on lessons learned by the UN. He reiterated the importance of having a
clear political strategy before entering a country, citing EUFOR Chad as a negative example of this.
Furthermore, since leadership has been paramount for the success of some UN missions, the EU practice
of having Special Representatives that do not have at their disposal the full range of instruments needed
for effective crisis management seems counterproductive. Also, according to Mr Gowan, Member States’
interference in the conduct of CSDP missions is a big problem. Further, he criticised the tendency of
replicating structures and instruments in different and often more dangerous mission environments.
Finally, Mr Gowan called on the EU to be more self critical and to begin working on a comprehensive
report on EU crisis management comparable to the UN’s Brahimi Report.

Christian Mölling from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP)2 stated that
conceptual diversity, institutional frictions and lack of resources were the main problems in civil-military
crisis management at the EU level. More specifically, he called on the EU to develop a peacebuilding

1
See also Towards Integration? Unifying Military and Civilian ESDP Operations, ISIS Europe. By Stephanie Blair, May 2009.
http://www.isis-europe.org/pdf/2009_artrel_272_esr44-civmil-integration.pdf
2
Partner of CSDP Mission Analysis Partnership. See http://www.csdpmap.eu/ for more information.

ISIS Europe – April 2010 www.isis-europe.org

 Parliamentary Update (SEDE Subcommittee 26 April 2010), by Sebastian Bloching

strategy, to implement a whole of bureaucracy approach and to pool funds to improve interaction among
EU actors in Brussels and in the field.

In the debate, MEP Ulrike Lunacek (Greens/EFA) asked the speakers how the civilian side of crisis
management could be strengthened, as is foreseen under the Lisbon Treaty. She further recommended the
creation of a separate peacebuilding structure within the European External Action Service (EAS).
Elaborating on this proposal, Mr Mölling said that rather than creating a peacebuilding directorate, the EU
should build appropriate peacebuilding teams and invest enough resources in them.

Sabine Lösing (Greens/NGL) expressed her fear, that crisis management operations might increasingly be
conducted under military leadership in the future. MEP Reinhard Buetikofer (Greens/EFA) demanded
that political goals be defined in a transparent way. He also reiterated Sabine Lösing’s fear of seeing
purely civilian missions dominated by military thinking. On Reinhard Buetikofer’s question to Mr Lenoir
about the balance between civilian and military personnel in the CMPD, the latter answered that out of
four heads of unit in the CMPD, two have a civilian and two a military background. He then stressed the
responsibility of Member States to provide EU level structures and field missions with civilian crisis
management experts. He added that the military did not have an interest in taking over crisis management.
Mr Mölling confirmed this argument and stated that a civilian-civilian divide, e.g. between development
and human rights actors, might be more of an obstacle than the civilian-military divide. Mr Gowan added
that the civil-military balance must be guaranteed by effective civilian oversight in Brussels and in the
field.

Exchange of views with Françoise Krill from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC),
Hans-Georg Ehrhart from the Institute for Peace Research and Security Studies (IFSH), Bas
Rietjens from the Netherlands Defence Academy and Richard Wright from the European
Commission on civil-military cooperation in the Western Balkans, Afghanistan and the Democratic
Republic of the Congo.

Françoise Krill from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) presented the risks of the
comprehensive approach to crisis management for humanitarian organisations, namely that humanitarian
aid might be instrumentalised for political purposes. In her opinion, humanitarian aid must not become a
weapon. The ICRC avoids this risk by sticking to its core principles accessibility, transparency and
impartiality.

Hans-Georg Ehrhart from the Institute for Peace Research and Security Studies (IFSH)2 stated that the
comprehensive approach aims at creating conditions for political goal setting for interventions in so-
called New Wars. He pointed out several lessons for the EU. Firstly, it should increase and integrate its
civilian capabilities and especially increase its expertise in situation analysis by working together with
local specialists, NGOs and think tanks. Also, the EU should adopt a more population centric approach.
Importantly, he reminded the audience that a comprehensive approach was no panacea for conflict
resolution. According to him, while a comprehensive approach is a necessary condition for success,
winning the hearts and minds of the local population has to be the first strategic objective. Importantly,
humanitarian aid must not be used as a force multiplier. Instead, international crisis management actors
like the EU should respect the divergence of actors on the ground.

The problem of having too many different actors with multiple units in the field was raised by Bas
Rietjens from the Netherlands Defence Academy. He remarked that the local population did not care
whether civilian or military actors provide the aid. Since having a localised footprint enhances the
chances of external crisis management missions, international actors should become accustomed to deal
with the root causes of conflicts. Concerning training and education of military personnel, knowledge of

ISIS Europe – April 2010 www.isis-europe.org

 Parliamentary Update (SEDE Subcommittee 26 April 2010), by Sebastian Bloching

civilian crisis management and gender should be integrated into primary military education and applied in
role plays.

The European Commission representative, Richard Wright, stated his opinion that the EAS will enhance
progress on an EU joined-up approach. He then briefly summed up the new EU Foreign Affairs Council
Conclusions. Concerning Afghanistan, he stressed the need to strengthen the Afghan security forces,
underpin the Afghan sub-national level governance structures and channel more funding through the
Afghan government. Regarding Somalia, Mr Wright proposed the creation of a comprehensive
information sharing environment, including Member State and EU agencies as well as national navies and
civilian maritime actors. He then reported that Member States had discussed the idea of developing a
maritime security strategy in the field of CSDP. An upcoming Wise Pen report will be used by the
European Commission to elaborate such a strategy.

In response, MEP Sabine Lösing (Greens/NGL) argued that given its patriarchal structure, the military
could not bring women’s skills into conflict resolution. She also questioned the utility of EU/NATO
training of police forces in Kosovo because the newly acquired skills had recently been used by Kosovar
police forces to disband peaceful demonstrations. The Chair of the Subcommittee on Security and
Defence, Arnaud Danjean (EPP), replied that police forces must be prepared to react to violent
demonstrations and that such training should therefore be continued.

MEP Franziska Brantner (Greens/EFA) called on EU Member States to be more self critical and to revise
the CSDP mandate for the two missions in DR Congo. Mr Wright reacted to this point in his concluding
remarks by referring to the fact that EUPOL DR Congo has recently increased its capacities to deal with
sexual violence against women.

By Sebastian Bloching, Programme Officer, ISIS Europe

ISIS Europe – April 2010 www.isis-europe.org