External Responses to the EU European Security and Defense Policy: Russia and the United States

1
External Responses to the EU European Security
and Defense Policy Russia and the United States

• Darya Pushkina, Reed College
• Bastian Giegerich, London School of Economics and
  Political Science
• with Luc Perkins, Reed College

2
ESDP history

• Legal basis established in 1993 Treaty on
  European Union (Maastricht Treaty)
• Set in motion in December 1999/2000 (Helsinki and
  Nice European Councils) decision to create a
  rapid reaction force

3
The Nature of ESDP

• The Petersberg Tasks (1992)
• Humanitarian and rescue tasks
• Peacekeeping tasks
• Crisis-management and peacemaking
• Rapid-reaction and rapid-deployment forces
  (Battle Groups) by 2010
• Distinct from Common Foreign and Security Policy
  (CFSP)

4
ESDP and NATO conflicting views

• Scholarly debates
• ESDP should be autonomous from NATO
• ESDP should be abandoned
• ESDP should be complementary to NATO
• Debates within the EU
• Minimalism (Britain) vs. maximalism (France)

5
US stance on ESDPthe Clinton Administration

• Concerns over St. Malo Initiative (1998) and its
  effect on the Transatlantic Alliance
• Did not want to see ESDP emerge as an autonomous
  military capability
• Reassured by later developments
• Sec. Of State Cohen US supports ESDP not
  grudgingly, not with resignation, but with
  wholehearted conviction (2000)

6
US stance on ESDPthe Bush Administration

• ESDP not a major concern (in light of Iraq war,
  war on terrorism, etc.)
• Blair gives assurance that ESDP will not
  undermine NATO and will be engaged only in
  peacekeeping/humanitarian tasks
• Policy of benign neglect (Sloan)
• Concerns over opposition to Iraq war
• Acceptance of limited scale ESDP

7
Future US reaction

• Depends on ESDP/NATO relationship
• More autonomous ESDP will raise suspicion
• US heavily wedded to Transatlantic Alliance
• Future outlook on international relations (soft
  vs. hard power autonomy vs. internationalism)

8
ESDP Russias perspective

• Currently excluded from both NATO and ESDP
• Wants greater influence in European security
  policy on the model of the OSCE
• Has traditionally seen NATO as a mouthpiece for
  US interests (and hence has been favorable to
  ESDP as a counterweight)
• Has recently been on better terms with NATO due
  to participation in the war on terrorism, but
  NATO may be on the decline
• Desire to avoid marginalization rather than
  posing a counterweight? (Rontoyanni)

9
Future Russian reaction

• Strength of NATO-Russia cooperation
• Will Russia be brought into the European fold?
• Chechnya issue
• Putin and anti-democratic reforms
• Other internal developments
• Existing conflicts with EU
• Kaliningrad

10
Recent ESDP Developments (January 2004 to present)

• Financial apparatus (Athena)
• Autonomous Defence Agency
• Headline Goal
• Rapid-deployment battle groups by 2010
• Aircraft carrier by 2008
• Crisis-Management Exercises
• Rule of law mission to Georgia

11
Conclusions

• Political will
• Sufficient resources (in relation to all but US)
• Institutional strength

12
Conclusions (pt. 2)

• EU/ESDP
• US/NATO
  Russia
• NATO/ESDP is the crux of the model
• Model adds complexity and explanatory power

13
Our Contribution

• Theorization of EU-US/NATO-Russia triangle
• Other approaches have focused only on two-way
  relationships
• More theoretical than other commentary-based
  approaches
• Predictive power
• Ability to analyze process from the perspective
  of globalization (the big picture)
• Look at different US administrations
• Fundamental continuity

14
Future Research

• To what extent will the EU be able to overcome
  internal divisions in security and defense
  policy?
• Institutional structure
• International developments