The European Union
| Author | Thierry Tardy |
| Date | 01 September 2007 |
| Published date | 01 September 2007 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070200706200306 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
One of the difficulties encountered by EU foreign policy can be traced back
to the fact that it was defined and implemented in a constantly changing
strategic environment. The EU common foreign and security policy (CFSP)
was defined in the early 1990s in the Maastricht treaty, in a post-Cold War
context whose characteristics were very different from those that prevail
today. A few years later, the European security and defence policy (ESDP)
was framed in the midst and aftermath of the Kosovo crisis, at a time when
crisis management was seen as the core activity of any European security
actor. The events of 9/11 and the subsequent US response altered the secu-
rity environment in different ways and directly challenged the emerging
and hesitating EU security policy. This led to the European security strate-
gy (ESS) of December 2003 that, while drawing on these fundamental
changes and constraints, synthesized EU strategic thinking about threats
and threat management. By doing so, the EU positioned itself as a security
Thierry Tardy is the director of the European training course at the Geneva Centre for
Security Policy (GCSP), and visiting chargé d’enseignement at the Graduate Institute
of International Studies (Geneva). This article is an amended version of a longer
piece published in Giovanna Bono, ed.,
The Impact of 9/11 on European Foreign and
Security Policy, Institute for European Studies
(Brussels: VUB Press, 2006), under the
title “‘Conflict prevention’ versus ‘coercive prevention’: Where does the EU stand?”
| International Journal | Summer 2007 | 539 |
Thierry Tardy
The European
Union
From conflict prevention to “preventive engagement,” still a
civilian power lacking a strategic culture
actor whose views are expressed in security actors’ terms and with a posi-
tion on how the system should be regulated. This is where the notions of
conflict prevention, threat prevention, or preventive engagement intervene
alongside other crisis management activities that the EU may conduct to
tackle the threats with which it is faced. These different concepts are not
new. The way they are used in the ESS provides information about the EU
position, its coherence and ambiguities, and also about the position of the
EU in relation to other actors—the United States and the United Nations in
particular.
This article provides an analysis of the EU conception of conflict pre-
vention and of its policy implications. It argues that despite some instances
of strong wording in the ESS—with the concept of preventive engage-
ment—the EU approach to the prevention and management of conflicts
remains that of a civilian power, and is therefore closer to what can be
defined as the UN rather than to the US approach. The article includes
three parts. The first presents the concept of conflict prevention as it is
understood in a traditional way, by institutions such as the UN or the EU.
The second part proposes an analysis of the ESS and its propensity to com-
bine a traditional approach to conflict prevention that is ingrained in the
culture of the EU, and a willingness to move beyond and display a strong
stance in tackling the “new threats.” Finally, the third part argues that the
EU has not moved away from its traditional approach of conflict prevention
and is still reluctant to contemplate the use of force as a policy option. It
stresses the ambiguities of the term “preventive engagement,” the absence
of an explicit link between preventive engagement and the use of force, and
the ambiguity of the EU subordinating the use of force to the UN charter.
Altogether, these shortcomings are challenges to the emergence of a
European strategic culture.
TRADITIONAL NON-COERCIVE “CONFLICT PREVENTION”
The concept of conflict prevention has long since been integrated as part of
the foreign policy of most states. However, since the end of the Cold War, it
has acquired a new dimension as one of many activities falling within the
broad spectrum of crisis management. Furthermore, the idea that conflicts
must be prevented rather than fought or managed has gained momentum in
line with the liberal/constructivist approach that wars are not inherent in
human beings or interstate relations, and that they can therefore be prevented.
| 540 | International Journal | Summer 2007 |
| Thierry Tardy |
To continue reading
Request your trial