La PESD et ses évolutions

Chapitre traçant un bilan et les perspectives de la PESD en 2005

The EU as a global peace actor? A challenge between EU conflict management and national paths

This paper raises the question of a policy for conflict in the making for the EU: the European Defense and Security Policy. After a brief presentation of our analytical method, we structure the paper in three axes. First, where does CSDP come from and what are its main objectives? Then, what is European specificity in developing specific crisis management tools, and how do these tools work and socialize the diplomatic and politico-military actors involved? Last but not least, how does CSDP interplay between Brussels and the member states? What does CSDP change for them, and what are its obvious and more pregnant limits up to now? CSDP constitutes a way for the Europeans to exit the world order of the Cold War and aims at providing the EU with a median way of crisis and conflict management between the approaches developed by traditional international organizations as NATO, the UNO or the OSCE. CSDP incarnates also the commitment of the three leading countries in defense and security matters in Europe–France, Great Britain and Germany- to overcome the shock of the Balkans crisis where Europe had been characterized by its division and inability to act effectively to solve the conflict. Therefore the member states had built specific organs, tools and procedures in the framework of CSDP. The originality and added value of the EU with its crisis management policy as the heart of CSDP is to propose an integrated approach combining military and civilian instruments. This however raises several fundamental questions. CSDP still lacks cross-pillar coherence, particularly regarding the financing of CSDP operations. This also raises the question of the interplay between Brussels and the member states: deploying troops is still a national sovereign decision and EU states keep on analyzing situations in the light of their national security interest. Yet CSDP combined with the new trends in military socialization since the 80’s constitute a strong incentive to reform both the armies and military education. Thus CSDP seems to be a hopeful way of developing a European crisis management policy putting into light the assets of the EU in this area.Straipsnyje siekiama apžvelgti konfliktų sprendimo strategijos įtaką Europos Sąjungos strategijos ir Europos gynybos ir saugumo politikos formavimuisi (EGSP). Pateikus trumpą analitinio metodo apžvalgą siekiama atsakyti į šiuos klausimus: kokia EGSP kilmė ir kokie jos pagrindiniai tikslai?; kokius europinius ypatumus atspindi siūlomi krizių valdymo metodai?; kaip šie metodai veikia ir kaip jie telkia į konfliktą įtrauktus diplomatinius ir politinius karinius veikėjus? Dar vienas ne mažiau aktualus klausimas – EGSP formavimas Briuselio ir šalių narių santykiuose? Kokius pokyčius ši politika įneša į jų egzistavimą ir kokie šiuo metu akivaizdūs ir spręstini pokyčių ribojimo veiksniai? EGSP – tai europiečių būdas išvengti šaltojo karo pasaulio suskirstymo; ES krizių ir konfliktų valdymo būdas, tarpinis tarp strategijų, kuriomis vadovaujasi tradicinės tarptautinės organizacijos, kaip, pavyzdžiui, NATO, JTO ar ESBO. EGSP taip pat įkūnija trijų didžiųjų Europos Sąjungos šalių – Prancūzijos, Didžiosios Britanijos ir Vokietijos, įsipareigojimus Europos gynybai ir saugumui, siekiant atsigauti po Balkanų krizės, kai Europa liko susiskaidžiusi, negebanti žengti ryžtingų konflikto sprendimo žingsnių. Dėl šios priežasties šalys narės sukūrė specialius EGSP įgyvendinimo organus, įrankius ir procedūras. ES krizių valdymo būdų, kurie sudaro EGSP šerdį, išskirtinumas – originalumas ir pridėtinės vertės suponavimas. Siūloma taikyti integruotą karinių ir civilinių įrankių visumą. Tačiau čia kyla esminių klausimų. EGSP vis dar nesukūrė atskirus politinius ramsčius siejančio mechanizmo, ypač kai kalbama apie EGSP opercijų finansavimą. Vėl kyla klausimas dėl Briuselio ir šalių narių bendradarbiavimo, t. y. karinių dalinių dislokavimas lieka nacionalinio suverenumo prioritetu, ir ES šalys analizuoja [...

De l'Eurocorps à une armée européenne ?<br />Pour une sociologie historique de la politique européenne de sécurité et de défense (1991-2007)

Réalisée en 4 ans, rédigée en 2007-2008.This dissertation deals with the construction, practices and legitimating uses of the European Security and Defence Policy since the 1990's. First we study the genesis of the European defence policy taking into account short-term factors opening a policy window (the end of the Cold War, the Balkan conflicts, NATO's reform) as well as structural factors, in this case the socializing framework of the French-German military cooperation. We demonstrate the political entrepreneurship of Mitterrand and Kohl seizing this policy window. They were later taken over by the diplomatic services of the EU states. Secondly we analyze the construction of the European defence policy as a specific social figuration within the EU framework. This new social figuration, relying on proper organs and on intergovernmentalism, interplays with the national defence figurations structured in time, modifying the interdependence games between the capitals and Brussels, and between the main actors groups (in this case officers, diplomats and defence civil servants). Moreover this ESDP figuration is deeply affected and modelled by the weight of the socialization of theses actors on a threefold level: national, professional and institutional. These several socialization weigh on the way theses actors daily practice and conceive the European defence policy .Indeed this new social space is invested on different ways by each categories of actors (military and diplomatic/civilian). Last but not least, the national security cultures are still very pregnant and go on framing ESDP in different ways according to the security representations of each state. This raises legitimating questions for this policy. Eventually European Security and Defence Policy does not aim at building a Euro-army, but fulfils latent functions as a political and symbolic substitute for European security action in the world. These latent functions appear to be at least as important as, if not more than, its manifest functions of reactivity to crisis. Thus ESDP aims at helping construct politically an international role for the EU in security matters.Cette thèse porte sur la construction, la pratique et les usages de la Politique Européenne de Sécurité et de Défense depuis les années 1990. Elle étudie en premier lieu la genèse de la politique européenne de défense en prenant en compte tant les facteurs conjoncturels comme fenêtre d'opportunité politique (la fin de la guerre froide, conflits balkaniques, réforme de l'OTAN) que structurels, en l'occurrence le cadre de socialisation de la coopération militaire franco-allemande. La thèse démontre le rôle d'entrepreneurs politiques joués par Mitterrand et Kohl, relayés ensuite par les services diplomatiques européens. Dans un second temps, la thèse analyse la construction de la politique européenne de défense comme une configuration sociale spécifique au sein de la construction européenne. Cette configuration nouvelle, dotée d'organes propres et régie par l'intergouvernementalisme, interfère avec les configurations nationales de politique étrangère et de défense structurées sur le temps long, en modifiant les jeux d'interdépendance entre les capitales et Bruxelles, et entre les différents groupes d'acteurs concernés (en l'occurrence avant tout les militaires, et les diplomates et acteurs civils de la Défense). De plus, la configuration PESD est largement affectée par le poids de la socialisation tant nationale que professionnelle et organisationnelle des acteurs, qui influence leurs pratiques et leurs représentations de cette politique. Ce nouvel espace social fait l'objet d'un investissement différencié par les principaux acteurs qui la font fonctionner. Enfin, le poids des représentations nationales de sécurité joue à un niveau macro comme un obstacle pour la PESD, ce qui soulève dès lors des enjeux de légitimation pour elle. Finalement, la PESD ne vise pas à construire une armée européenne, mais remplit des fonctions latentes de substitut politique et symbolique au moins aussi importantes, si ce n'est plus, que ses fonctions manifestes de réactivité aux crises. La PESD contribue ainsi à construire politiquement le rôle d'acteur international de l'UE en matière de sécurité

French and German officers regarding ESDP: Same profession, different practices and representations ?

My paper proposal is based on my PhD in political science (defended in December 2008) dealing with the genesis, practices and uses of the European Security and Defence Policy with a focus on the comparison between France and Germany both in the genesis and daily practices and representations of ESDP. More precisely, I will focus in my paper on one of the key aspects that I develop in my dissertation: the major impact of the professional socialization in the way that the diplomatic and military actors work inside the new social figuration generated by ESDP both in Brussels and the capitals. Moreover I aim here at focusing on the case of French and German military actors (e.g. officers) working both in Brussels, and Paris and Berlin and daily working in the framework of ESDP (either in the decision-making bodies and the executive organs, or even in the planning of EU operations). My paper proposal would particularly well fit the fourth main theme of the conference on military cultures (challenges of social change and changing nature of operations) and the working group on “The military profession” led by Giuseppe Caforio. Who are these actors? What are their professional trajectories? What kind of personal, organisational and professional resources do they have at their disposal dealing daily with ESDP ? How do they invest these resources, and with which king of career and action strategy? What are the convergences and divergences in this matter between French and German officers ? I particularly rely on theoretical resources crossing profession sociology, military sociology (mostly Janowitz and Moskos; the studies conducted by Karl Haltiner or by Giuseppe Caforio are of huge interest for me here) and historical sociology (mostly inspired by Norbert Elias in my case). These crossed sociological perspective enable me to analyze who theses officers are socially and in the frame of the military profession (question of their trajectories, of the cross checking of the ESDP networks with the French-German military cooperation networks). I will also analyse to what extent their professional ethos interacts with their national habitus in Brussels. This ethos plays both as a corporatist resource in their interaction with the non-military actors working with ESDP and as a constraint regarding the military actors of different nationalities. As a matter of fact national military culture is still the major referent for these officers according to our finings based on 135 qualitative interviews in Paris, Berlin, Bonn and Brussels. This military culture is mostly secreted by the national figurations of defence policy on the long run. There historical sociology helps us understanding the marginal changes in this culture and in the military profession compared with the relative inertia of the deep core of this culture. For instance, though military operations have changed in their very nature for every European army since the 1990's, one can still observe different representations and practices regarding the conception of what it is to be in the army, or the use of force and its justification by the French and German officers. The main advantage in comparing France and Germany here is to observe that in spite of a long tradition of close cooperation in defence policy and military exercises and exchanges, military profession is still much anchored in national military culture, which socializes the officers during the time of their professional formation. I will also as an opening section tackle the question of the marginal European socialization intervening bottom-up through the European operations, such as EUFOR Althea or EUFOR Congo for instance. All theses elements of course come together in the more global framework of the evolution of military profession in the 21st Century faced both with Europeanization, globalization and civilianization movements. Empirically my communication will be based on the 135 qualitative interviews conducted during my dissertation field work

Studying the military in a qualitative and comparative perspective: methodological challenges and issues. The example of French and German officers in European Defence and Security Policy

International audienceThis chapter is based on our dissertation dealing with the genesis, practices and uses of the European Security and Defence Policy with a focus on the comparison between France and Germany both in the genesis and daily practices and representations of ESDP actors (military and diplomats). More precisely, we lead over 130 qualitative interviews with high military officials, diplomats and political leaders in Paris, Berlin, Bonn and Brussels. Here we focus on what it means to study the military with a qualitative and comparative methodology. We will therefore raise three main issues, which are intertwined in our research. The first issue will be the qualitative perspective and the questions it raises regarding the specificity of the military mission, with is often confidential. The second issue is to raise concretely the question of the implementation of the qualitative method in the military field in a comparative perspective : how to ask questions, so as theses questions make sense to the interviewees ? The last issue will address the question of reflexivity, and more precisely of the position of the enquirer before the military officers. What does it mean, and how does it impact the research ? We will of course rely on our case study (French and German officers in CSDP) to draw empirical examples, so as to illustrate the three issues raised in this chapter

La presse écrite allemande et la PESD

International audienc

The EU as a global peace actor ? A challenge between EU conflict management and national paths

International audienceThis paper raises the question of a policy for conflict in the making for the EU: the European Defense and Security Policy. After a brief presentation of our analytical method, we structure the paper in three axes. First, where does CSDP come from and what are its main objectives? Then, what is European specificity in developing specific crisis management tools, and how do these tools work and socialize the diplomatic and politico-military actors involved? Last but not least, how does CSDP interplay between Brussels and the member states? What does CSDP change for them, and what are its obvious and more pregnant limits up to now? CSDP constitutes a way for the Europeans to exit the world order of the Cold War and aims at providing the EU with a median way of crisis and conflict management between the approaches developed by traditional international organizations as NATO, the UNO or the OSCE. CSDP incarnates also the commitment of the three leading countries in defense and security matters in Europe–France, Great Britain and Germany-to overcome the shock of the Balkans crisis where Europe had been characterized by its division and inability to act effectively to solve the conflict. Therefore the member states had built specific organs, tools and procedures in the framework of CSDP. The originality and added value of the EU with its crisis management policy as the heart of CSDP is to propose an integrated approach combining military and civilian instruments. This however raises several fundamental questions. CSDP still lacks cross-pillar coherence, particularly regarding the financing of CSDP operations

La Politique Européenne de Sécurité et de Défense et les Parlements : comparaison franco-allemande

International audienc

L'Union européenne, un substitut symbolique en matière internationale ?: Une contribution au débat sur l'Europe politique à travers l'étude des enjeux de légitimations de la Politique Européenne de Sécurité et de Défense

This communication addresses the case of the European security and Defence Policy (ESDP) and aims at demonstrating to what extent this policy is an emblematic example of a fundamental question raised by the EU: its legitimization. European defence policy is today torn between the claimed intentions on the European level (reactivity to crisis, coordinated action...) the representations that the member-states develop around this policy. From a comparative perspective between France and Germany, the author analyzes this strain and demonstrates that ESDP fulfils latent functions as a political and symbolic substitute which is at least as significant, if not more, as its manifest functions of managing crisis. First of all, there's a kind of torsion between European discourses around European defence policy and still diverging and nationally anchored representations in France and Germany on ESDP. Then a second level of strain originates between the military capacities proclaimed in the multiple European official documents and those really put at EU's disposal by the member-states. Last but not least, a third level of torsion between European reality and discourses is the crucial issue of the legitimization of this policy before the national parliaments and public opinions. Eventually the legitimizing stakes of European defence policy tend to run up against the lack of a European common identity.Cette communication s'intéresse au cas de la Politique Européenne de Sécurité et de Défense et vise à montrer en quoi cette politique constitue un exemple emblématique d'une question fondamentale soulevée par l'UE : celle de sa légitimation. La politique européenne de défense est aujourd'hui traversée par une tension entre les intentions affichées au niveau européen (réactivité aux crises, action coordonnée...), et les représentations des États. A partir d'un exemple comparatif entre la France et l'Allemagne, l'auteur étudie cette tension et démontre que la politique européenne de défense remplit des fonctions latentes de substitut politique et symbolique, au moins aussi prégnantes, si ce n'est plus, que ses fonctions manifestes de réactivité aux crises. Tout d'abord, la distorsion entre les discours européens autour de la politique européenne de défense et les représentations encore largement différentes (nationalement appropriées) que la France et l'Allemagne s'en font. Ensuite, un second niveau de tension se trouve entre les capacités militaires affichées par les différents documents officiels européens et celles réellement mises à disposition par les États. Enfin, un troisième niveau de tension consiste en l'enjeu crucial de légitimation de cette politique devant les parlements et les opinions publiques européennes. Finalement, les enjeux de légitimation de la politique européenne de défense se heurtent à l'absence d'une identité européenne commune

La construction de l'Europe de la Défense : du Corps Européen à une armée européenne ?: Une approche franco-allemande de la Politique Européenne de sécurité et de Défense (PESD)

Cet article traite de questions de méthode et compare la façon dont les acteurs politico-militaires et diplomatiques français et allemands construisent le sens de la PESD