Since its beginning the European Union has struggled to play a meaningful role in Syria’s civil war, illustrating that there is now a clear need for the EU to pursue a faster, more proactive approach in preventing violent conflicts. Tanja Tamminen writes that the Lisbon Treaty has created structures for a more coherent foreign policy and that the EU should use this to build more comprehensive regional strategies to take advantage of the local knowledge of EU delegations on the ground

Tamminen, Tanja

English

LSE Research Online

blo gs.lse.ac.uk http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/11/05/eu-early-action/Álvaro  Canive ll (Cre ative  Co mmo ns BY NC SA)The civil war in Syria shows that to prevent and manageconflicts, the EU needs a more proactive approach withgreater regional focus.by Blog AdminSince its beginning the European Union has struggled to play a meaningful role in Syria’scivil war, illustrating that there is now a clear need for the EU to pursue a faster, moreproactive approach in preventing violent conflicts. Tanja Tamminen writes that the LisbonTreaty has created structures for a more coherent foreign policy and that the EU should usethis to build more comprehensive regional strategies to take advantage of the localknowledge of EU delegations on the ground.Af ter over a year of  bloody conf lict, the civil war in Syria shows no sign of  abating.  Theinability to act ef f iciently to prevent such a violent crisis f rom escalating has tragically shown the limits ofthe conf lict prevention and conf lict management policies of  the international community.Given that the European Union is suf f ering a grave economic crisis, this also seems to have weakenedits appetite f or constructive leadership.  Yet, the Lisbon Treaty that entered into f orce in 2009 createdstructures f or more coherent f oreign policy. What would the EU require to act f aster, more ef f iciently andin a proactive manner to prevent violent conf licts or their escalation?The International Community or “a coalit ion ofthe willing” may agree to intervene in a conf lict,but is of ten crit icized f or its non-coordinatedaction in post- intervention activit ies. Manyagree that the ideal situation would be wherethe best tools are used in a comprehensivemanner to achieve a certain objective – thuseach actor needed has a specif ic role to playand there is neither overlapping nor gaps in theaction.The Lisbon Treaty, the EEAS and thestrengthened role of  the EU delegationsalready make coordination smoother. In anyconf lict-prone area, when early warning signsare detected by the EU delegations on theground, a polit ical decision-making processshould be quickly init iated on how to react andon which tools to use – all within a largerstrategic f ramework. The EU has lacked aproactive stance on smouldering conf lictzones but this should change in the f uture,especially as High Representative and European Commission Vice President Catherine Ashton has notedthat the EEAS’s main role is crisis prevention. Each crisis is unique in nature and happens in a regionalcontext. The EU has started to prepare regional strategies. To f ully embrace the regional f ocus, theEEAS should f ind ways of  strengthening the dialogue between the regional expertise, conf lict preventionand the crisis management f ield.The EU has developed two regional strategies f or specif ic conf lict areas: the Horn of  Af rica and theSahel area (2011). Both strategies are of ten quoted as examples of  comprehensive EU action, whereboth development aid and crisis management ef f orts are being jointly coordinated. None of  thesestrategies f ully ref lects the possibilit ies of  truly comprehensive crisis management and proactive crisisprevention, however.Recently, discussions have started on whether the EU should renew its Security Strategy f rom 2003.Rather than renewing a strategy f ull of  generic objectives and high- level conceptualisations, the EUshould f ocus on writ ing and agreeing upon pragmatic regional strategies, where the high- level objectives,such as peace and stability, would be operationalized into more concrete goals. These kinds ofstrategies would create a f rame whereby all the EU tools f rom diplomacy, development aid and f inancialsupport to peace mediation, dialogue f acilitation and all the CSDP instruments would be balanced andthe best tools chosen to strive towards joint objectives. Regional strategies should be made easy toupdate depending on the changes on the ground, as the agility to use the best tools in the right placeand at the right moment is the key to ef f ective conf lict prevention.It is important f or the EU to take steps towards more proactive policies and to recognize the importanceof  conf lict prevention and mediation as a tool in this f ield. Yet, mediation and dialogue f acilitation aretools that can be used all the way f rom the conf lict prevention phase to early action logic and theprocesses of  crisis management itself .In the new EEAS structures, the Mediation Support Team (Division f or Conf lict Prevention, Peace-Building and Mediation) is now placed in the crisis management structures. This may slowly change theold mindsets to see that reconciliation cannot be achieved only through tradit ional crisis managementtools such as military intervention or by mentoring the police f orces. It requires dialogue and mediation,f ields where EU capacities can be f urther strengthened.In a region-specif ic strategic f ramework, dif f erent EU instruments can be engaged in view of  long- termobjectives. But this begs the question of  whose objectives we are talking about. One of  the guidingprinciples in EU crisis management has been the local ownership and local responsibility to implementref orms. However, if  the required ref orms are based on objectives def ined by outsiders, one cannot talkabout genuine local ownership. The strategic priorit ies of  the EU itself  seem to steer its work in theconf lict areas.This year, many EU member states have endorsed the “New Deal” document elaborated by leaders of  theG7+ countries, a group of  f ragile states, to bring a local voice into the f ounding principles of  peace-building and state-building policies. Thus, these EU states have committed themselves “to supportinclusive country- led and country-owned transit ions out of  f ragility based on a country- led f ragilityassessment”, and to support inclusive and participatory polit ical dialogue.  The EU delegations present inthe region are in a key posit ion to listen to local needs. Mission planning should also be participatory andstart f rom the local needs perspective, not f rom the so of ten institutional mindset (i.e. what capacitiesdo we have, what could we deploy).How can the EU know whether it is “doing the right thing”? It is of ten easy, but f rom a long-termperspective it is also risky, to create benchmarking systems of  crisis management based on short- terminstitutional ref orms. Genuine rule of  law cannot be measured in the number of  EU-compatible laws,action plans and administrative guidelines that have been adopted under the supervisory eye of  EUmonitors. The main thing is implementation, which is much more dif f icult to measure.CSDP missions are by def init ion relatively short- term interventions and as their mandates are agreed f ora maximum of  2 years at a t ime, very of ten their objectives are in a quite short t ime f rame, compared tothe needs of  the conf lict transf ormation. Self -assessment and transparent reporting f rom the missionsand operations are necessary tools to steer the work of  the EU and f lexibly change the priorit ies andinstruments if  needed. However, they should not be taken as tools to measure the impact of  the EUstrategies as a whole. EU peace-building ef f orts should be long-term and strategic, even thoughdif f erent tools can be used along the way.External evaluation has been a central tool in the f ield of  development aid f or a long time already. Thus,Commission activit ies can be evaluated by outside experts, whereas the member-state-driven CSDP isstill a no-go zone f or external evaluators. The current economic crisis may lead to a situation where theEuropean Parliament, as well as the parliaments in the EU member states, will start asking questionsabout the CSDP budget use and “value f or money”. To provide plausible and transparent inf ormation onthe impact of  crisis management activit ies, the member states may sooner or later need to comply withthe demands of  external evaluation. This will only serve to reinf orce the ef f iciency of  the EU activit ies.This article is a shortened version of the Finnish Institute of International Affairs briefing paper Towardsefficient early action: The EU needs a regional focus and proactive tools to prevent and manage conflicts.Note:  This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics andPolicy, nor of the London School of Economics. Shortened URL for this post: http://bit .ly/Uc59Vi _________________________________About the author Tanja Tamminen – Finnish Institute of International AffairsTanja Tamminen is a Researcher in the European Union research program at the FinnishInstitute of  International Af f airs. Her research interests include EU – Western Balkansrelations, vCivilian crisis management and state building,  and regional cooperation.Related posts:1. The advent of  the European External Action Service means that governments needto start thinking in geostrategic terms in order to plan ef f ective regional f oreign policies. (8.2)2. Peace ef f orts in Cyprus must involve civil society if  there is to be any chance of  success where somany others have f ailed. (7)3. Europe is struggling to play a meaningf ul role in the Syria crisis (11)

The civil war in Syria shows that to prevent and manage conflicts, the EU needs a more proactive approach with greater regional focus

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online