Conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the continued threat posed by terrorist organisations, have presented significant security challenges to the international community. These conflicts have also exposed differences in how best to enhance global security.The US-led approach to the ‘war on terror’ has triggered a resurgence of unilateralist, military responses for promoting security, even at the risk of undermining the international security system developed through the UN.The publication of the EU’s Security Strategy, in December 2003, is an important counterbalance, which acknowledges the changed security environment but remains significantly committed to multilateralism and respect for international law.
The implementation of the European Security Strategy will begin under the Irish and Dutch Presidencies. It is essential that the EU advances a multilateral approach to managing crises. This must be complemented with serious efforts to address the root causes of conflict and to reduce access to the tools of violence by states of concern and terrorist organisations.
The aim of this document is to highlight practical steps that the EU could take to better link the progress being made with its developing European Security and Defence (ESDP) operations and crisis management with longer-term conflict prevention. The paper outlines four key areas for the EU Member States, officials in the Council and the Commission to address to enhance the EU’s capacity to prevent violent conflict.
1. Linking crisis management with conflict prevention
Significant progress is being made by the EU in the field of crisis management. However, military crisis management alone is unsustainable, unless supported by civilian crisis management and linked to a longer-term, conflict prevention approach. Due to the pillar structure of the EU, the ESDP approach to civilian crisis management is limited and is institutionally and practically divorced from conflict prevention, post-conflict reconstruction, and wider instruments supported by the Commission.This report assesses operations Artemis in Ituri, Democratic Republic of Congo, and The European Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia, which have taken place within these institutional constraints. It finds that greater co-ordination between the Commission and Council during the planning phase of operations, and between the EU ‘in-country’ with, for example, political leaders and international institutions, would enable a stronger balance between crisis management operations and longer-term conflict prevention. It suggests that inter-pillar conflict prevention strategies are designed for crisis operations and that a Peacebuilding, Research and Civilian Capabilities Agency is established to ensure this takes place more effectively.
This paper proposes action in the following areas:
• Ensuring that any military or civilian crisis management operation is designed as part of a comprehensive inter-pillar EU strategy for longer-term conflict prevention and peacebuilding and is directly informed by conflict analysis.
• Establishing a European Peacebuilding, Research and Civilian Capabilities Agency to improve coherence in the training and recruitment of civilian personnel for operations; monitor and review implementation of missions; better integrate civilian engagement in military and sector-wide planning, and promote coherent cooperation between the UN and OSCE.
2. Addressing the root causes of violent conflict
Preventing violent conflict reduces the massive human and economic cost of war. Whilst there is no single reason why violent conflicts erupt, experience demonstrates that most wars are fought in countries which are poor and suffer from extreme inequalities of wealth and opportunity. Since the EU is the world’s largest public donor of humanitarian aid and has the largest single market in the world, it is well placed to ensure that the impacts of its policies enhance opportunities for peace rather than exacerbate them. The EU has recognised this and begun to mainstream conflict prevention into its development policies. However, much greater conflict sensitivity needs to be applied to other areas of policy, including trade policy, private sector engagement, managing resource exploitation and countering HIV/AIDS.
This paper proposes action in the following areas:
• Ensuring that conflict prevention is integrated as a key priority into the country strategy papers during the mid-term review process;
• Assessing the impact of existing and future trade policies, including how far the implementation of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) might exacerbate conflict;
• Promoting transparency of payments made by European extractive industry companies in conflict-prone countries, and transparency of income among recipient governments;
• Identifying focal points in DG Employment and Social Affairs, DG-Trade and DG Development to increase co-ordination on the role of business in conflict;
• Acknowledging and responding to the security implications of HIV/AIDS, specifically the close relationship between aids and armed conflict.
3. Tackling weapons transfers and organised crime
Weapons proliferation represents a major threat to securing peace and development both in the EU and internationally.Tackling global weapons proliferation requires a multilateral response based in acceptance of international norms and law. To be effective this requires not only well co-ordinated controls to impede the acquisition and development of weapons by States of concern or terrorist groups, but also reducing the incentive of states to try to acquire the tools of violence. As many Member States are large arms exporters, the EU has a particular responsibility to develop effective arms export controls. The challenge of enlargement makes this even more urgent since some accession countries are a source and transit route for weapons. A range of measures are necessary to reduce weapons proliferation, including development of the EU strategy on Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), strengthening controls on legal arms exports, reducing the demand for small arms in conflict regions and tackling illicit trafficking and organised crime.
This paper proposes action in the following areas:
• Developing a practical programme of work on WMD to reduce the risk of proliferation that an enlarged EU might bring.This should address a range of issues such as developing export controls, border controls and national legislation;
• Introducing an obligation on all Member States to publish an annual report on their arms exports to an agreed minimum standard;
• Integrating support for measures to combat the spread of small arms into mainstream development and governance assistance programmes;
• Encouraging co-operation agreements between Europol and other Eastern European states which have not yet done so (eg Belarus).
4. Engaging civil society in the prevention of violent conflict
It is now recognised that the state alone cannot prevent or resolve conflict. Civil society organisations can play a variety of important roles in advancing peace and security at local, national, sub-regional and regional levels. In recognition of their role, the UN Secretary General called for action, and the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict programme was established to enhance the role of civil society in conflict prevention, and to strengthen civil society relationships with the UN and regional organisations, such as the EU.
The EU is beginning to encourage civil society participation through EU frameworks of engagement, including the EU-ACP Cotonou Agreement, the EU-Africa dialogue via the Africa Union and NEPAD and the Stability Pact for South East Europe. However, formal recognition of civil society in political dialogues often remains absent, and engagement ad hoc.The EU could play a greater role in supporting the active participation of civil society (both north and south) in the development and implementation of conflict prevention policy and programmes and in developing civil society networks through its various budget lines.
This paper proposes action in the following areas:
• Consider establishing civil society co-ordinators in EC delegations whose sole responsibility would be to ensure dialogue between civil society, the EU and host government. Information from these meetings would help inform country strategy papers and programming priorities. Delegations should also develop civil society mapping processes such as those undertaken in Sudan and Kenya;
• Supporting regional attempts at institutionalising civil society participation in structures such as the AU institutions and other regional or sub-regional bodies.
