EU-LDC Network Conference 2004
|
Multilateralism at risk - Beyond Globalisation - 2-3 April 2004,
Brussels
Session 4: Multilateralism and global security - an EU
perspective -
Summary
Sven
Biscop addressed the issue of the role of the EU on the world stage.
The EU role must be global in scope, which does not exclude specific
responsibilities in neighbouring regions. The global role is a
necessity for the EU as in a time of globalisation it is not
possible to be isolated: globalisation means that there is no more
correlation between geographical distance of events and their
impact. At global level the EU should play a leading role in
promoting its distinctive approach to security, as agreed upon in
the European Security Strategy adopted in 2003 by the European
Council. The distinctive European approach to security is
characterised by a broad and multidimensional concept: the
comprehensive notion of security. A comprehensive security strategy
looks beyond the traditional confines of security policy, i.e.
beyond the use of politico-military instruments: it aims to
integrate a range of external policies, which together offer a broad
set of instruments that have a worldwide scope and that address the
different dimensions of security. This range of policies covers all
three pillars of the EU: it includes external trade, development
cooperation, international environmental policy, international
police, justice and intelligence cooperation, immigration policy,
foreign policy (multilateral diplomacy and the promotion of the
values of the EU) and politico-military measures. A comprehensive
security strategy gives priority to active prevention of
conflict and instability as opposed to a reactive and curative
approach, which would be much more costly in both human and economic
terms. A further characteristic is a focus on dialogue, cooperation
and partnership: this sheds light on the idea of cooperative
security.
Comprehensive
and cooperative security are inextricably linked: the objectives of
a comprehensive security strategy can be realised only through
cooperation, and cooperation and partnership cannot rely on the
politico-military dimension alone, but require a broad base. The
distinctive feature of the Europan approach to security is that the
problems of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and regional
conflict are seen as symptoms and that the focus should be on their
underlying causes. This implies ensuring that global public goods
(i.e. physical security, enforceable legal order, open economic
order, human well being) are adequately provided. All aspects of
external action should be coordinated and directed at the provision
of global public goods. As it operates through institutionalised,
rule-based multilateralism, a comprehensive security strategy can be
considered as an important global public good in itself. In order to
make the notion of comprehensive security strategy a reality, the EU
Security Strategy mentions the notion of effective multilateralism
as one of its main objectives: a stronger international society,
well functioning international institutions and a rule-based
international order. The UN is considered to be the centre of an
effective multilateral system. However, the creation of an effective
multilateral system is not a one-way process and it calls for
sacrifices on the EU side (e.g. opening its markets to agricultural
products from developing countries).
Sven
Biscop concluded his presentation by arguing that the EU Security
Strategy, by being concerned with all dimensions of EU external
actions, sets out a very ambitious agenda. Its strength is that it
encompasses many different dimensions, as epitomised by the
reference it makes to the provision of global public goods. However,
it doesn’t outline any priorities in these dimensions; inspiration
could be found in the Millenium Development Goals when it comes to
assigning priorities. Nor does the Strategy elaborate a number of
key issues like the role of military intervention or the improvement
of the international institutional architecture, thereby leaving
them open to different interpretations. The crucial challenge now is
to establish the Strategy as the reference framework for external
action, effectively guiding all of the EU’s external policies. A
possible way forward would be to include a binding reference to the
Strategy in the Constitution when the IGC is resumed. This would
significantly enhance the status of the Security Strategy and would
provide a sense of direction for the decision-making process.
Mansoob
Murshed presented a paper on conflict based on rational choice
theory. Rational choice theory sees conflict as amenable to analysis
using choice-theoretic behaviour. Nowadays most wars occur between
groups within the same country and in the developing world.
Conflicts, particularly internal conflict, can be seen as a major
cause of poverty and underdevelopment. Conflicts may be the product
of rational decisions. In the new rational choice literature on
conflict, a distinction is often made between grievance, a
motivation based on a sense of injustice in the way a social group
is or has been treated, and greed, an acquisitive desire similar to
crime albeit on a much larger scale. In the case of transnational
terrorism it is intrinsic motivation, which often takes the form of
a collective sense of humiliation, which plays a greater role. The
greed versus grievance dichotomy can provide a useful beginning to
the discussion over the causes of conflict. But for these forces to
take the form of large-scale violence there must be other factors at
work, specifically a failing ‘social contract’ and conflict
triggers. Grievance, relative deprivation and contest over natural
resource wealth are common conflict triggers. A functioning social
contract and the concomitant institutions that distribute income and
resolve disputes can prevent the violent expression of greed or
grievance.
According
to Mansoob Murshed, conflict-affected nations have histories of weak
social contracts, or a once strong social contract that has
degenerated. Conflict appears when a state fails, when there are no
institutions of conflict resolution and no instruments for power
sharing. Moreover, the probability of civil conflicts is lowest both
in established, well functioning democracies, and perfect
autocracies. It is at some intermediate stage between autocracy and
democracy that the risk of internal conflict is greatest. This is
where multilateralism is of crucial importance, as well as building
new democratic institutions.
The
first discussant, Mark Duffield, described the new global security
environment by considering human security and comprehensive security.
Human security means prioritisation of the security of people
broadly defined. What is interesting about human security is that
the term implies the possibility of a universal dimension. However,
if the surface is scratched it appears that human security is
encoded within states and human security becomes a code for defining
and separating effective/secure states and ineffective/insecure ones.
Concerning the globalisation of security, Mark Duffield argued that
in the context of the EU the idea of a neighbourhood policy has been
widened to include the whole globe. This represents a radical change.
Compared to the cold war period there has been a shift from
localised threats to the whole global frontier becoming a potential
danger. Moreover, the focus is now on failed states, shadow
economies and terrorist networks rather than large and centralised
‘war machines states’. Mark Duffield also argued that the search
for comprehensive security systems derives from the fact that
threats are interconnected. There is also the attempt to reunite aid
and politics. Development and security have always been linked but
since the cold war period there have been new institutional forms to
support this relation. Development is now valued if it changes the
balance of power between groups and if it transforms society.
However, the use of development resources as a strategic tool comes
at a cost. The politicisation of aid and the idea of using it to
shift the balance of power between groups may be very ineffective
and may bring about more poverty and failed states. The second
discussant, Y.A. Ali, stressed the importance of global public goods
and their accessibility and the need to address the root causes of
conflict and instability like poverty and underdevelopment. He also
pointed out that aggressive unilateralism undermines effective
multilateralism.
In
the discussion it was argued that the notion of comprehensive
security should be treated with some caution as the risk is to
attach the label of security to issues that call for a different
approach: by way of illustration, HIV/AIDS, poverty and migration
are not necessarily a security problem. Concerning institutional
development at the EU level, one participant claimed that if the
human security agenda predominates, international development would
be severely affected. The risk is to use human security as a vehicle
to securitise development and humanitarian aid. In this regard, in
the new European Commission it is essential to have a single
development commissioner with the same authority as the external
affairs or security commissioners. During the discussion it was also
emphasised that regionalism and regional public goods can be an
effective way of dealing with security threats. The EU could explore
ways of strengthening regional public goods and using regional
integration as a way of promoting multilateralism.
Session 4: Speakers
Chair: Chris Stevens (Institute of Development Studies,
University of Sussex)
Speakers: Sven Biscop (Royal Institute for International
Relations, Brussels), Mansoob Murshed (Institute of Social Studies,
the Netherlands)
Discussants: Mark Duffield (Lancaster University, UK), Y.A. Ali (Embassy
of Sudan in Brussels)
Back
to Conference
2004 index
|
