European Security Defence Policy by rzu11221


									                                        SIM06 / JPT

    Simulation 2006

    EU Responding to Security Threats

                                         SIM06 / JPT

Outline of this lecture
1 Intro to role-playing simulations

2 The 2006 Simulation
    • Purpose
    • Framework

3 The 2006 Scenario
    • Security crises in Europe
    • EU has three options:
        • The ’soft’ option
        • The US option
        • The EU option

4 How to Participate in the Simulation
   • Creating national teams
   • Preparing for the negotiations
    SIM06 / JPT

                                                                      SIM06 / JPT

Simulation Purpose

Key objectives for students:

1. Assess the implications of a complex external policy for the EU
2. Consider the utility of political, economic and military conflict resolution
3. Assess the financial aspects of various EU policies related to the crisis,
4. Collect and analyse information related to a state’s foreign and security
   policy; predicting its stance on a given issue
5. Train negotiating skills

    The Simulation is not a ‘test’, but an opportunity to integrate, visualise
               and use what you learnt throughout February

                                                                           SIM06 / JPT

Scenario: Serious European Instability
The Austrian Presidency of the EU have prepared for a series of
   GAERC, ECOFIN and European Council meetings in Austria on
   EU’s response to a set of security crises:
 Belarus instability
 Extremists at work in
   the Western Balkans,
   EU policies under pressure
   peacekeepers pushed back

      DISCLAIMER: This scenario is designed to make the Simulation
5     ‘playable’. It is not as such relevant to the understanding of the
      situation in the geographical areas involved. JPT
                                                         SIM06 / JPT

Scenario: The Crises
                   Crises in Belarus
                   Since the "White Revolution“ was brutally
                   suppressed in May 2006 political violence has
                   escalated. Extremists among the opposition
                   might be forming militia, and at least in one
                   case raided a police station. Belarus security
                   services, according to some sources aided by
                   Russian security forces, are responding.

                   Crises in the Western Balkans
                   US troops have practically left the Western
                   Balkans, and the EU has taken over the
                   peace-keeping missions in Bosnia and,
                   practically, in Kosovo. Now extremists sees
                   the opportunity for ethnic ‘re-arrangement’,
                   and economic gain. Violence spirals, and the
                   Belgrade government may intervene.

                                                               SIM06 / JPT

Scenario: International Response
               Russia hedges its bets: Trade favours and
              political concessions from the EU in return
              for Russian assistance to solve the crises?
              Or is Moscow’s control less than believed?

               The U.S. is leaving Europe militarily.
              However, the U.S. may assist by reinforcing
              EU in the Balkans and possibly elsewhere,
              at a price though…

               European and international public opinion
              and media agree: Either the EU acts with
              sufficient ‘punch’ to stabilise the crises, or
              quit the pretension of ‘CFSP’ and ESDP.

               The UN expresses its concern, the
              Security Council is locked between US and
              Russian unwillingness. It is up to the
                                                      SIM06 / JPT

Framework: ‟EU‟ at GAERC / ECOFIN meetings
    The Austrian Presidency and “Mr. CFSP” (4 participants)
    o    Germany (3)
    o    France (3)
    o    United Kingdom (3)      Austria (EU Presidency)
    o    Hungary (3)                    & Mr CFSP
    o    Denmark (3)
    o    Poland (3)
    o    Lithuania (3)            SECURITY BRIEF AND POLICY
    o    Italy (3)                       OPTIONS ANALYSIS
    o    Greece (3)              1. What is wrong?
    o    Slovenia (3)            2. Who did what?
    o    Spain (3)               3. What to do?
    o     ?                      4. Three EU policy options
                              5. 14 recommendations for EU
                                                                     SIM06 / JPT

Framework: PM, MFA and FinM
Each member state participates in the Simulation with
    o The Minister of foreign Affairs (in GAERC)
              Priorities are national and EU credibility, including
              the survival of EU’s CFSP and ESDP
    o The Minister of Finance (ECOFIN)
              Priorities are the national financial situation, and
              the survival of EU’s Stability Pact
     The aim is to agree on (fundable!) recommendations for a European
                   Council meeting (of EU’s heads of state).

    o The Prime Minister
              Compromise requires concessions, and the Head of
              Government decides. (PM participates in the finalising
              European Council meeting)
                                                        SIM06 / JPT

Negotiation Object

                   SECURITY BRIEF AND

         Option 1            Option 2           Option 3
 (the Soft option)     (the US option)      (the EU option)
 Crisis Management     Requesting Secu-    Enhance the Secu-
Through Diplomatic     rity Assistance     rity Capabilities
    Engagement            from the US         of the Union

     - Easy…          At a cost …          - Costly
     - Inexpensive…   - Support for Iraq   - Difficult
     - Dangerous …    - Counter Russia     - Strengthens EU
                      - Kosovo indep.      - Strategic cultures
10                    = Abandon CFSP         clash
                                                                   SIM06 / JPT

Meeting Rules

            Austrian GAERC, ECOFIN and European Council Meetings
                            12 June 2006
 • The aim is unanimity
 • Reach agreements by consensus:
     - identify areas of agreement
     - disaggregate areas of conflict
     - expand the areas of agreement
 • The target is a written agreement
     - draft articles to be included in treaties, and/or
     - Council declarations by PMs
 • The language of the Conference is English
                                                                 SIM06 / JPT

Meeting Progression

          Austrian GAERC, ECOFIN and European Council Meetings
               March 4 in the Student House 9:00 - 17:00
                           (free lunch 12-13)

  A. Official Welcome and opening of the GAERC (Presidency)
  B. „Tour de table‟ opening statements by FM

   C. Formal negotiation sessions (plenary sessions)
   D. Recesses and breaks
   E. Alternating GAERC and ECOFIN meetings
   F. EU Heads of State or Government Meeting
12 G. Presidency conclusion
                                                                    SIM06 / JPT


  The simulation is led by WZ and JPT, acting as monitors. More
   European Studies lecturers may visit and participate.

  Monitors may intervene to ensure that the simulation runs smoothly
  Monitors may give additional information during the simulation
  Radical changes of position only after consultation with Monitors.
  A limit to realism, be flexible

                                                                SIM06 / JPT

 1. Simulation lectures
  Intro plus briefing lecture (JT)
  Guest lectures: Civil servant and politician on CFSP and ESDP
 2. Web site and email
 3. National Team research and preparation
  ‘Simulation Essay’ (what you know, what you want, and how to get it)
 4. 2 X Essay hand-in
  Hand-in to Monitors by email (February 15 and 22)
  Meeting with Monitors (February 17 and 24)

 5. The Monitors
  Please consult the web-site, then feel free to ask (email)
                                                              SIM06 / JPT

Students‟ To-Do List:
 1. Fill in “Participant Profile” Form (by Thursday Feb. 3)
 • Purpose is to form the National Teams
 • Seen by WZ and JT only (mailboxes, please)
 • Destroyed immediately after that
 • You may fill in only in part
 2. Watch the web site and notice board for Teams
 3. Teams prepare negotiation
 • Delegate, meet as necessary
 • Search for national information
 • Decide on positions
 • Find ‘allies’ and decide for strategy
 • Write up essay, prepare for negotiations.
 • Use the web-page (with links)
                                                                        SIM06 / JPT

Simulation Essay
 1. Purpose
 • To prepare relevant, well-founded and realistic national positions
 • Writing to Monitors “through the eyes of the PM”

 2. Content
 • A format (in Word and RTF) is provided at the Simulation web pages
 • The format has eight sections
      • You
      • Country stats
      • Political data
      • National interests
      • Economic implications
      • Response to the three options
      • Response to Presidency’s 14 points
      • Negotiation strategy

                                 Email to and
                                            SIM06 / JPT

Simulation Spreadsheet Cost Calculator
 Informs about
 • relative and absolute defence spending
 • defence expeditionary capability
 • cost of Austrian proposals
 • differences in costs for each
   EU member state for each

 2. Content
 • Excel spreadsheet (‘live’ macros)
 • Figures needs checking
 • To be done by teams
 • Distributed through web site

          SIM06 / JPT

                              SIM06 / JPT

       Simulation 2006

              Lecture on
     ESDP History, Aims and Means
                                                                    SIM06 / JPT

1 Overview of EU‟s Military Integration
1950s           First suggestions for defence co-operation fail
1991            Maastrict Treaty links to WEU capabilities
1991-95 + 99    EU failure in the Balkans
1996-99         Link between EU and NATO capabilities
1998            UK supports EU defence. French support NATO
1999            Helsinki ’Headline Goals’ of 60.000 EU soldiers
2002-03         EU takes over Macedonia from NATO + DR Congo
2003            Iraq War CFSP collapse: GE, FR, LUX and BEL fast-track?
2004            UK support to limited independent EU capabilities, FR/UK.
                EU took over BiH in December 2004 (Operation ALTHEA)
2005--          Consolidation
Main ESDP questions not resolved:
1. Should EU’s capabilities be independent from NATO / U.S.?
2. How difficult EU’s tasks: Peacekeeping or war?
3. How strong a capability: ’Small events’ or balancing the U.S.?
                                                                                       SIM06 / JPT

2 International security: The U.S. and EU

 % of World GDP *                         16                             18
 % of World population *                   5                              7
 % of World Military spending *           35                             16
 % of GDP for military purposes *          4                              2

 “Europe is an economic giant, a political dwarf and a military worm.”
                                                         Jacques Poos

 Two „schools of thought‟ on U.S. – EU relations:
  Atlanticists Shared values, interests and fate
  Europeans      Differences essential, EU must counterbalance

                                        * 2003 figures, approximations - not to be quoted. JPT
                                                                     SIM06 / JPT

3 Using Military    Wars and 'Peace Support Operations'
 Terminology not
generally agreed     ”Wars of Aggression” “Peace Support        Wars in self-
                    (Lack of Jus ad Bellum Operations”          defence etc.
                      and/or Jus in Bello)
 No common
understanding of                                          Interventions
                                Consent from
war and doctrine                                          (No consent)

 Difficulties in                                w./w.o. UN Authority
implementation                                   Unilateral/Coalitional

                     Peace-   Peace-      Peace- Humanitarian         Waging
                     keeping building     making Intervention       ‟Just War‟

                        Low level                                    High level
                       of violence                                  of violence

                                                                SIM06 / JPT

4 EU‟s Military Integration: What ambition?

Task                              EU       NATO            US
1 Peacekeeping                     X          X             X
2 Peace building                  (X)         X             X
3 Peace Making                               X             X
4 Hum. Intervention                         (X)            X
5 War                                                       X

•     Only the U.S. and the UK can fight wars alone.
•     France may carry out a limited intervention alone.
•     Germany cannot and will
     not do anything alone.
•     EU aims at the ’Petersberg
     tasks’, perhaps 1-4.
          SIM06 / JPT


To top