The European Union and global security: is the EU becoming the indispensable partner? EU Centre Singapore Background Brief No. 11, April 2014

The European Union has developed new capacity as a security actor in third countries, in particular in the area of crisis management. Over the past two decades the EU has deployed numerous missions, both of a civilian and military nature. Moreover the EU has defined its ability to intervene all along the ‘crisis cycle’, (from prevention to mediation, from peace-keeping to post-conflict reconstruction) and using all tools at its disposal (taking a ‘comprehensive approach’). However the EU is still not perceived as a major security provider globally and interventions remain limited to some geographic areas, mostly in its neighbourhood and Africa, with just a few examples further afield. The EU also tends to avoid taking direct action and seems to prefer partnership arrangements with other players. How can we explain the growing activism and number of EU’s intervention with the low impact and lack of visibility? Can we expect the EU to become more active in the future, taking on more responsibility and leading roles in addressing conflict situations? This paper will argue that the main reason for the EU’s hesitant role in crisis management is to be found in the weak decision-making provisions for EU’s security interventions, as one of the few policy areas still subject to consensus amongst 28 European Union Member States. Lack of a clearer delegation of competence or stronger coordination structures is closely linked to low legitimacy for the EU to take more robust action as a security actor. In order to overcome this legitimacy problem, and in order to facilitate consensus amongst Member States, the EU thus privileges partnership arrangements with other actors who can provide legitimacy and know-how, such as the UN or the African Union. As there is no political desire in the EU for tighter decision-making in this area, we can expect that the EU will continue to play a supporting rather than leading role in crisis management, becoming the partner of choice as it deepens its experience. However this does not mean that the EU is playing just a secondary role in the wider area of security, in particular when looking at nontraditional security. Looking at the role of the EU in Asia, where the EU has deployed just two missions, this paper will offer a broader assessment of the EU as a partner in the area of security taking into account different types of actions. The paper will argue that in order to strengthen cooperation with Asian partners in the area of crisis management, the EU will need to define better what it is able to offer, present its actions as part of an overall strategy rather than ad-hoc and piecemeal, and enter into partnership arrangements with different players in the region.

The impact of the withdrawal from Afghanistan on Russia’s security. Egmont Security Policy Brief No. 54, March 2014

ISAF’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014 will directly impact the wider region. Not only is there a risk of instability spilling over to Central Asia, but the drawdown will also accelerate the ongoing shift in the balance of power in Central Asia towards China. Should a spillover occur, the burden will mainly fall on Russia and China. Russia will, however, only continue playing the dominant role in the security of the former Soviet Central Asia (FSCA) until China takes on responsibility for the security of its direct sphere of influence or “dingwei”. Russia’s Near Abroad, however, overlaps both with the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood in Europe and China’s dingwei in Central Asia and the Far East. It is, therefore, necessary to approach Russian reactions to these encroachments on its historical spheres of influence in a single context, taking into account the interrelationship between these three.

The Eastern Partnership Riga Summit should not be a non-event. EPC Commentary, 20 May 2015

The upcoming 21-22 May Eastern Partnership (EaP) Riga Summit will take place against the backdrop of the new geopolitical reality in the EU’s Eastern neighbourhood, in the aftermath of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and ongoing war in Eastern Ukraine. Given the extremely complex geopolitical context, the importance of the Summit and the message it delivers to the partner countries – particularly to Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, which have made European integration their foreign policy goal – cannot be underestimated. The Summit needs to send a strong, unambiguous signal reconfirming the EU’s commitment to the EaP, and offer a clear roadmap for the future. If the Summit turns out to be a non-event, with an empty declaration, it risks being perceived as rewarding the bullying policies of Russia.

The South Caucasus - Between integration and fragmentation

The South Caucasus is situated at the intersection of Eurasia’s major transport and energy corridors, making it an important geostrategic region. Traditional regional actors Iran, Turkey and Russia have jostled for influence and power in the region for centuries, and are now faced with competition from the EU, China, the US and NATO. Although Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia have been independent for more than two decades, they still continue to feel the sway, and sometimes threat, of external actors. As a response, the three South Caucasus states have chosen very different geostrategic paths since the collapse of the Soviet Union, leaving the region more fragmented and volatile than ever. In this book, various authors offer a deep and broad understanding of the developments in the South Caucasus, analyse the different foreign trajectories that each of the three state is following, and highlight the impact of external actors’ policies.

The Common Security and Defence Policy: National Perspectives. Egmont Paper No. 79, May 2015

FOREWORD. When one looks at the present state of the CSDP, one cannot help but look on with disenchantment at the energy that appears to have abandoned both institutions and Member States. Commentators increasingly take for granted that nothing much should be expected from this field of EU policy. The reasons for this state of mind are well known: the recent economic and financial strains, which have impacted all EU action since 2008, means that most of the Member States will struggle to keep their defence budgets at their present level in the future, and we may even see reductions. Furthermore, and to put it mildly, most of the recent CSDP operations have also experienced a lack of enthusiasm. Adding to this overall trend, the EU is far from presenting a common vision of what security and defence should really mean. Many of the Member States do not want to be involved in all of today’s international turmoils, and they rarely share the strategic culture which inspires those Member States who see themselves as having special responsibilities in dealing with these crises. In the end it may be that Member States diverge fundamentally on the simple question of whether it is relevant for the EU to engage in most of the ‘hot’ crises Europe faces; many prefer to see Europe as a soft power, mostly dedicated to intervening on less dramatic fronts and more inclined to mend than to fight. For whatever reason given, it remains that if there is a lack of common understanding on what CSDP should really be about, it should not come as a surprise if this policy is presently in stalemate. As an additional blow, the Ukrainian crisis, which dragged on for the whole of last year, could only add to the downward spiral the EU has been experiencing, with a new Russia aggressively confronting Europe in a manner not too distant from the Cold War days. This attitude has triggered the natural reaction among EU Member States to seek reassurances from NATO about their own national security. Coupled with the return of France a few years ago into the integrated military command, NATO’s renewed relevance has sent a strong message to Europe about the military organisation’s credibility with regard to collective defence. Surprisingly, this overall trend was gathering momentum at the same time as other more positive developments. The European Council of December 2013 dedicated its main session to CSDP: it underlined Europe’s role as a ‘security provider’ while adopting a very ambitious road map for Europe in all possible dimensions of the security sector. Hence the impression of a genuine boost to all EU institutions, which have been invited to join efforts and give CSDP a reinvigorated efficiency. In the same way, the increasing instability in Europe’s neighbourhood has also called for more EU operations: most recently in Iraq, Libya, Northern Nigeria or South Sudan. Pressure for further EU engagement has been one of the most constant features of the discussions taking place around these crises. Moreover, a growing number of EU partners in Asia, Latin America or Eastern Europe have shown a renewed eagerness to join CSDP missions in what sounds like a vote of confidence for EU capacities. What kind of conclusion should be drawn from this contradictory situation? Probably that the EU has much more potential than it can sometimes figure out itself, if only it would be ready to adapt to the new global realities. But, more than anything else, an enhanced CSDP needs from all Member States strong political will and a clear vision of what they want this policy to be. Without this indispensable ingredient CSDP may continue to run its course, as it does today. It may even grow in efficiency but it will keep lacking the one resource that would definitely help it overcome all the present shortcomings that have prevented Europe from finding its true role and mission through the CSDP. Member States remain central to EU security and defence policy. This is why this collection of essays is so valuable for assessing in no uncertain way the long road that lies ahead for any progress to be made. Pierre VIMONT Senior Associate at Carnegie Europe Former Executive Secretary-General of the European External Action Service

EU Naval Force EUNAVFOR MED sets sail in troubled waters. CEPS Commentary, 26 June 2015

Apprehending pirates in the Indian Ocean is one thing. Defeating the networks through which smugglers traffic migrants through North Africa is quite another. The European Union’s new naval force deployment in the Mediterranean - EUNAVFOR MED - drew criticism from international partners and the general public alike when plans for a “boat-sinking” operation were unveiled, raising fears about unacceptable levels of violence and collateral damage; a European version of Mexico’s drug war. Yet the problems of EUNAVFOR MED lie less in clumsy public diplomacy than in the perilous mismatch between its stated objectives and the absence of a clear strategy and mandate, and this creates both operational and political risks for member states. Phase 1 of the operation: surveillance and assessment, has begun with no legal mandate to carry out the crucial phases 2 and 3: seek and destroy, whose military planning and outcomes are undetermined. Despite these limitations, the naval force could nevertheless mark a turning point in the EU’s security narrative, because it means that the Union is finally addressing the threats to security and the humanitarian tragedies in its southern neighbourhood.

Enhancing the Prospects of the EU’s Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas in the Mediterranean: Lessons from the Eastern Partnership. CEPS Commentary, 24 June 2015

In their March 2015 Consultation paper on the review of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), the European Commission and the High Representative raised the question whether the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas (DCFTAs) “are the right objective for all or should more tailor-made alternatives be developed, to reflect differing interests and ambitions of some partners?” Such ambitious but complex trade agreements have now finally been signed with Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, but they are still on the table for several Mediterranean ENP countries. Although these Mediterranean partners have a completely different political, economic and legal relationship with the EU, some important lessons can be drawn from the ‘Eastern DCFTA experience’. In particular, the DCFTA negotiators should avoid overly ambitious and ill-defined legislative approximation commitments and develop a comprehensive implementation strategy.

From Survival to Revival: The Riga Summit 2015 and the revised ENP. Egmont Security policy Brief No. 65, July 2015

With the European Parliament’s July report on the revision of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) calling on the Commission to ‘go back to basics’, this article argues that such a move would be counter-productive and that instead, the ENP needs to move towards the future and break away with the historical elusiveness of this overarching policy. The Riga Summit serves as an illustration of what will not suffice if the EU is to strengthen or even maintain its role in its neighbourhoods. The revision of the ENP is described as 3Dimensional process which needs to yield a concrete and forward-looking new ENP. The recommendations put forth herein map out what a truly revised ENP would entail.

The 2015 ENP Review: A policy in suspended animation. CEPS Commentary, 1 December 2015

One year after the Juncker Commission took office, the long-awaited official review of the European Neighbourhood Policy ​(ENP) ​was published ​in November 2015. By prioritising interests over values in increasingly atomised partnerships, the policy ​will now aim for pragmatic realism​ in its dealings with a turbulent neighbourhood​. ​But in the absence of the necessary funding to tackle the region’s multiple crises, and without a strategic vision to guide relations with the neighbours of the EU’s neighbours, the new ENP remains in suspended animation.

The Limited Influence of the European Union in Armenia and Azerbaijan: A Domestic Explanation. EU Diplomacy Paper 9/2015

This paper seeks to explain why the European Union (EU) has had limited influence in Armenia and Azerbaijan in the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). Combining approaches from external governance, norm diffusion and structural foreign policy, it offers an explanation based on domestic factors in the two countries: the political regime, state capacity, political structures, domestic incentives and the perceived legitimacy of EU rules. Although willingness to reform appears to exist in Armenia, such willingness remains constrained by the country’s vulnerable geopolitical location and high dependence on Russia. By contrast, none of the domestic preconditions for EU influence identified by the analytical framework were found in Azerbaijan. The author argues that the Eastern Partnership has not properly addressed the extent to which the clan structures feed into informal political practices and enforce the sustainability of an existing regime in both countries, and that, in addition, the EU has underestimated the multipolar environment which the two countries have to operate in, making it unlikely that the current policy can reach its objectives in Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Nagorno-Karabakh and the arc of crises on Europe's borders. EPC Policy Brief, 3 February 2016

For more than two decades, Azerbaijan and Armenia have been locked in a stalemate over the Nagorno-Karabakh. The protracted conflict remains the biggest impediment to security, stability and prosperity in the South Caucasus. The EU has put itself on the sidelines of the conflict resolution process, allowing the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group (MG), of which Russia, France and the US are co-chairs, to take centre stage. In this Policy Brief, Amanda Paul and Dennis Sammut argue that the EU should play a more active role in the conflict resolution process, taking the lead with innovative initiatives and using its soft power skills and experience. A recent review of the European Neighbourhood Policy recognises that protracted conflicts continue to hamper development in the region. This new approach now needs to be given substance, before the conflict further escalates and becomes another crisis on Europe’s border the already burdened Union cannot cope with.

Germany’s engagement in the resolution of the Syrian conflict. OSW COMMENTARY NUMBER 194/25.01.2016

German Tornado Recce aircraft have been engaged in reconnaissance operations over Syria since January 2016. In December 2015 the German government and parliament decided that up to 1,200 Bundeswehr soldiers would take part in the international coalition fighting Islamic State in Syria. This decision marks a new chapter in Germany’s activity in the Middle East. The increasing destabilisation of the southern neighbourhood and the consequences this has for the EU and Germany have forced the German government to increase its level of engagement in the region. Even though Germany is a third-rate player in the Middle Eastern game, it is nonetheless ever more engaged politically and wants to be viewed as a neutral mediator between the competing actors in the region. It has also allocated more funds on regional development co-operation and humanitarian aid. Germany, whose attention has been directed towards Europe’s eastern neighbourhood, is currently turning its attention to the South. The Middle East (and Africa) is taking on increasing significance in German foreign and security policy. This may affect NATO’s eastern flank and the EU’s eastern neighbourhood since part of Germany’s instruments and funds may be redirected to the South.

«Cidadania em Movimento» - Projeto de iIntervenção socioeducativa no bairro Las Palmeras em Córdoba, Espanha

Trabalho de projeto para a obtenção do grau de Mestre na área de Educação Social e Intervenção Comunitária

Tabagisme et défavorisation de quartier : étude exploratoire des expériences de stigmatisation chez les jeunes femmes

La prévalence du tabagisme a diminué dans les dernières décennies, mais les inégalités sociales reliées au tabagisme s’accentuent. Les stratégies de dénormalisation du tabagisme ont amené la stigmatisation des fumeurs. Le lien entre celle-ci et la défavorisation de quartier est mal compris. Cette étude qualitative a comparé les expériences de stigmatisation de quinze jeunes femmes fumeuses dont la moitié vivait dans des quartiers très défavorisés de Montréal et l’autre moitié résidait dans les quartiers les moins défavorisés. Dans ces derniers, stigmatiser les fumeurs fait partie de la norme. Le tabagisme est vu comme un symbole de pauvreté, entraînant l’utilisation de stratégies pour se distancer du stigma. Dans les quartiers défavorisés, les participantes rapportaient une stigmatisation basée sur le genre et elles tentaient d’y échapper en se cachant pour fumer. Les résultats mettent en lumière les effets non attendus des politiques anti-tabac et pourraient contribuer au développement de politiques plus équitables.

Community justice : striving for safe, secure, and just communities /

"March 1996."