Egmont papers

funding for its continuation.

This shorter paper will, no doubt, be perused by a larger number of readers than

the longer version, yet the latter contains much background material that illuminates

more clearly what has been included here, both in analysis and prescription.

It is our hope that many colleagues will be encouraged to undertake our

longer, and more detailed, ‘adventure’ into one possible future of ‘security

regionalism’.

The aim of the paper is to explore the history and the future potential of the

‘regional-global mechanism’ for maintaining international peace and security. It

is based on the recognition, accorded by the international community over the

past decade, of the need for greater involvement by regional agencies in conflict

prevention and management in all regions, in co-operation with the United

Nations.

It is clear that regionalism – drawing on the so-called ‘new regionalism’ of recent

decades – is in the ascendancy, including in the area of peace and security. Where

it fits in the ‘world order’ political system, however, cannot be easily predicted.

Previous and present world order systems – early multipolarity (1919-39); bipolarity

(1948-90); unipolarity (1990 –2004) – have rested on certain underlying

features of the international community. Whether the future system of the early

21st century will feature regionalism as an alternative to unipolarity or as a component

part of a broader multilateralism remains to be seen but it is likely that

the latter will be the case. The judgement of the international community today

appears to be that the rise of regionalism as a component of multilateralism is

both desirable and feasible – and even necessary. This is a far cry from the judgement

entered by one UN scholar only a decade ago, that ‘regional authorities

generally lack the credibility, the capacity and, hence, the clout to act effectively

as agents for collective security and peaceful settlement’.

The rise in regionalism is what underpins the stated vision of the UN Secretary-

General, of a ‘mutually-reinforcing regional-global mechanism’ for peace and

security. Indeed, whether it is desirable or not is perhaps secondary to the fact

that regionalisation is an objective feature of our time – an ongoing multifaceted

phenomenon to which nation-states and the United Nations have no choice but

to respond and adapt.

We live in fluid and dangerous times, with the traditional principles and precepts

of security thinking that have marked the UN era to date under serious strain.

The concern expressed by the Secretary-General in September 2003 over the

pressures recently placed on our contemporary doctrines and institutions needs

to be heeded carefully. That concern prompted him to establish the UN High-

Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change whose report has just been

released.

The Panel's report will shape the lines of a critical debate on the future global

order for perhaps the next half-century. Our original study, completed in September

2004, contained prescriptive comment based on an expanded Security

Council of 25 members. This shorter version has adjusted the analysis to a

Council of 24, which is the size recommended by the Panel.

The future of 'security regionalism', and in particular the regional dimension of

Security Council reform, will feature prominently in the debate on the Panel's

report, leading up to the UN 'summit meeting' in September 2005. It is our hope

that this paper will make a useful contribution to that.

Dr. Kennedy Graham, Project Director

Ms. Tânia Felício, Project Researcher

n°3: An audit of European Strategy, Prof. Dr. Sven Biscop (ed.), Dr. Christoph Heusgen, Richard Gowan, Dr. Jean-Yves Haine, Prof. Dr. Sven Biscop, Major-General (RTD.) Kees Homan, Jan. 2005.

résumé: On 12 December 2003, the European Council approved Javier Solana’s European

Security Strategy. Few EU documents represent such a clear – and clearlyworded

– advance in thinking. Since its adoption, the Commission, the Council

and the Member States have all made progress on security cooperation. In June

2004, the European Council has taken further decisions in the field of security.

It is not always clear though whether this represents the conscious implementation

of the Strategy or an unstructured process of piece-meal change. In the

short-term, recent developments have certainly been positive – but if they are

not tied to long-term strategic goals, they may prove unsustainable.

Thus there is room for an intellectual review of the direction we have taken. The

Foreign Policy Centre (London), British Council Brussels, New Defence Agenda

(Brussels) and the Royal Institute for International Relations (Brussels) joined

together to organize a seminar on the implementation of the Strategy. On 30

June 2004 the Audit of European Strategy brought together key policy-makers

from within the European institutions and original thinkers on strategic

issues. A first, analysts’ panel debated concrete recommendations to anchor the

Strategy’s innovative comprehensive approach to security into policy practice. A

second, practitioners’ panel reviewed ongoing and future elaboration of the

Strategy in the fields of CFSP, ESDP and Community matters.

In this Egmont Paper contributions by the day’s speakers are published.

The four organisers have been, and still are, actively involved in the debate on

the Strategy. The Foreign Policy Centre and British Council Brussels are jointly

responsible for the Global Europe programme, devised to promote new thinking

on the EU’s evolution as an international actor. The programme has been

supported by the European Commission Representation in the UK as part of

The Future of Europe project. New Defence Agenda offers a well-known Brussels

platform for thought-provoking analysis and debate. At the request of the

Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Royal Institute for International Relations

has produced a Belgian contribution to the elaboration of the Strategy –

which has been published in this series as Egmont Paper No. 1 – and has recently

published The European Security Strategy: Implementing a Distinctive

Approach to Security.

Prof. Dr. Sven BISCOP,

Senior Research Fellow, Royal Institute for International Relations

Richard GOWAN,

Research Fellow, The Foreign Policy Centre

Kate ARTHURS,

British Council Brussels

Linda KARVINEN,

Project Manager, New Defence Agenda

n°2: Global Governance: The Next Frontier, a concept on global governance as a guide for a new ambition in international diplomacy, April 2004.

résumé: 1. When the Cold War ended, it was generally thought that a new international

era was about to begin. Emphasis on military security seemed to

fade away. International diplomacy turned its efforts and attention to

those challenges that were of importance to everybody’s daily life. Globalisation

was to become a source of wealth for all, economic, social,

technological and cultural wealth. A series of global conferences laid the

groundwork of an ambitious global inclusive agenda aimed at the sustainability

of mankind, governed by multilateral cooperation and institutions

and binding rules for all. It was now widely recognised that anybody’s

fate ultimately depended upon everybody’s fate. The once clear

border between domestic and international had become porous.

2. The nineties witnessed the rise and fall of this sense of a shared global

fate. Intractable problems, both economic and political, challenged the

prospects of rapid successes in global governance. Member states failed

to buttress the institutions intended to deal with global problems with the

resources needed to attain the goals that they were expected to pursue.

3. The international community failed to put an early end to human suffering

in Somalia, former Yugoslavia or Rwanda. States imploded, especially

in Africa, often with the international community as a powerless

bystander. Then came September 11, Afghanistan and Iraq.

4. Moreover, globalisation turned out to also encompass a dark side. Drugs

and human trafficking, organised crime, environmental degradation,

infectious diseases and financial turmoil showed how the impact of borderless

forces have exploded faster than our ability to cope with them.

These issues are like global warming: the consequences are diffuse and

only perceptible in the long term. But at a certain point, the resulting

strains will have become uncontrollable.

5. Started in an atmosphere of euphoria and a strong belief in the feasibility

of the polity, the post-Cold War ended in its mirror image. We are now

living in times of global tensions and divisions, where consensus and

cooperation have become endangered species. Disillusion, anxiety and

uncertainty are now major characteristics all around the world. WorldGLOBAL

wide public opinion surveys indicate that people all across the globe view

their future in dire terms. Large majorities in many parts of the world,

when asked whether they think the children of today in their countries

will be better or worse off when they grow up than people now, reply

‘worse’.

system of co-operative global governance, legitimised by representative

institutions and by the rule of law. Global governance needs effective

institutions and mechanisms for global action.

n°1: A European Security Concept for the 21st Century, a Belgian contribution to a comprehensive EU Security Strategy, April 2004.

résumé: 1. The first responsibility of any government is to protect its citizens from

harm and to provide them with an environment that induces confidence

in the future. Europe as an ever closer Union shares this responsibility

with its Member States.

2. In the last two decades, we have witnessed dramatic changes in our environment.

Europe is now integrated more deeply than ever before. The end

of the Cold War and the bi-polar order are firmly behind us. The pace of

globalisation has increased. Our world once again, but in a way different

than before, became multi-polar. These changes have radically altered

Europe’s security. Based on their unique security approach of partially

pooled sovereignty and institutionalised cooperation, the Member States

of the European Union are now at ease with one another. They no longer

face any military threat amongst them. On the wider European continent,

a system of intrusive reciprocal openness has been put in place and has

replaced the balance of power. At the global level, interdependence has

proven to be not just economic. It is also a political, a cultural and a

security phenomenon, as was dramatically highlighted on 11 September

2001. Today, nobody can insulate its security from the rest of the world,

since the ramifications of globalisation are borne in upon all.

3. Radically changed times call for radical adaptation of the way we view

and handle security. Thirty-five years ago, Pierre Harmel succeeded in

updating NATO’s security policy from mere military defence into a longterm

endeavour to foster an overall European settlement, based on political,

economic and military rapprochement. Today’s security policy needs

a similar exercise.

4. The United States government has done its part of the job. In its National

Security Strategy it has radically adapted its security policy to what it

considers to be the main characteristics of today’s world. Based upon

their unparalleled military strength and political weight, the United States

has embarked upon a policy that includes pre-emptive actions so as to

forestall threats emanating from rogue states, weapons of mass destruction

and terrorist groups before they materialise. The European Union

and its Member States too are now in the process of similarly and collec-

tively defining their long-term security interests and policies. IRRI-KIIB’s

European Security Concept for the 21st Century constitutes a Belgian

contribution to this endeavour.

5. A European security concept is an essential policy tool that, starting from

our interests and values, outlines the long-term overall objectives that we

want to achieve and the basic categories of instruments that we will apply

to that end. It is a strategy that serves as a reference framework for dayto-

day policy-making in a rapidly evolving complex international environment.

Implementing the security concept requires a regularly updated

action plan. The security concept guides the definition of the civil and