-
Making Europe and Europeans Safer
One of the criticisms associated with plans for closer European defence cooperation is that there are no new ideas around. The ‘EU Battlegroups’, ‘Permanent Structured Cooperation’, even the idea for an ‘EU Operational Headquarters’ or a ‘Defence Semester’ are seen as old and sometimes unwieldly initiatives, reminiscent of debates that have hardly made any progress. For their part, labels such as ‘EU Army’ or ‘Permanent Military Headquarters’ have counterproductively hijacked the entire public discussion. Yet perhaps the various policy ideas and treaty provisions that relate to defence need to be looked at in a different light. Perhaps the key is to experiment with combinations of old ideas with a new perspective in mind: out of the old comes the new.
EUISS Policy Brief, 2016, No. 39 (written with Antonio Missiroli)
-
The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Defence, Industry and Strategy
The Trans-Pacific Partnership, if ratified by all parties, is likely to have ramifications for the global defence market and the US’ economic and political strategy towards the Asia-Pacific region. Although the TPP excludes a number of defence-related issues such as defence procurement, the TPP’s provisions on technology transfers and intellectual property rights could bolster the US’ military-technology relations with the Asia-Pacific. For Europe, which is excluded from the Partnership, the likely impact of TPP is uncertain and could raise important challenges and opportunities related to Europe’s own defence-industrial relations with the Asia-Pacific and its wider security role in the region.
The International Spectator, Vol. 51, No. 4
-
After the EU Global Strategy: Security and Defence – Consulting the Experts
Following the publication of the EU Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy (EUGS) in June, attention has now turned to how the strategy can concretely be implemented. A Security and Defence Implementation Plan (SDIP) will focus on the EU’s ability – primarily through the CSDP – to respond to external conflicts and crises, build the capacities of partners affected by fragility and instability, and protect Europe.
The task ahead is to define a shared level of ambition on security and defence and to identify actionable proposals for the future. The EUISS organised a workshop dedicated to the SDIP in Brussels on 17 October, where leading experts and analysts shared their thoughts and ideas with key policymakers and the main drafters of the SDIP, including Nathalie Tocci, who was responsible for coordinating the Global Strategy. This volume presents a compilation of the memos that these experts drafted following the workshop, in which they outline their preferred level of ambition and priority areas for EU security
EUISS Books, 2016 (written with Antonio Missiroli and Jan Joel Andersson)
-
After the EU Global Strategy: Connecting the Dots
The EU Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy (EUGS) is quite candid about the challenges facing European defence and it understandably calls for defence cooperation to become the norm rather than the exception. The new strategy provides Europe with a realistic analysis of the present challenges and it lays the foundations for further action on security and defence. Far from calling for a panoply of new initiatives, the EUGS prudently makes the case for a calculated and proactive consolidation of existing EU policies and instruments. While it may seem frivolous to some to talk about the streamlining of institutions and existing policies at the present time, the EU can ill-afford not to further rationalise its defence policy. The forthcoming publication of the European Commission’s Defence Action Plan (EDAP) and the likely creation of a European Defence Research Programme (ERDP) make institutional streamlining and creative thinking in this field vital.
EUISS Policy, 2016, No. 33
-
The European Union
Covering the main political organs of the UN, important regional and security organizations, international judicial institutions and the regional human rights protection systems, An Institutional Approach to the Responsibility to Protect examines the roles and responsibilities of the international community regarding the responsibility to protect. It also proposes improvements to the current system of collective security and human rights protection.
Cambridge University Press, 2016 (chapter written with Marie Vincent)
-
A Revolution Too Far? US Defence Innovation, Europe and NATO’s Military-Technological Gap
The United States is launching another defence innovation initiative to offset the growing military-technological might of countries such as China, Russia and Iran. However, by utilising emerging technologies from the commercial sector to achieve greater military power the US may further open up the technology gap within NATO. This raises serious questions for NATO’s European allies. This article probes the nature of the US’s latest innovation strategy and sets it within the strategic context facing Europe today. Whether European governments, firms and militaries will join the US in its new defence innovation drive will hinge on politico-military and industrial considerations.
Journal of Strategic Studies, 2017, Vol. 40, No. 3
-
A ‘Game Changer’? The Preparatory Action on Defence Research
The Preparatory Action for Common Security and Defence Policy‐related research is currently under preparation, and it will serve as a test‐bed to prove the relevance of defence‐related research at the European Union‐level. The Preparatory Action could potentially see between €75 ‐ €100 million invested in defence‐specific research over a three‐year period beginning in 2017. The Preparatory Action follows on from a pilot project on CSDP research that was launched by the European Parliament with a budget line of €1.5 million over the 2015‐2016 period. The Preparatory Action aims to serve as a basis for an eventual, fully‐fledged, European Defence Research Programme. Indeed, should the work of the Preparatory Action prove successful, the next step would be to insert a specific thematic area on defence research within the next multi‐annual financial framework (2021‐2027) potentially worth some €3.5 billion.
The idea to specifically invest EU funds in defence research is potentially a ‘game‐ changer’. Traditionally, the EU has suffered from important constraints when using EU funds for defence‐related activities. Presently, projects and programmes funded under the European Structural and Investment Funds, COSME (Europe’s programme for SMEs) and Horizon 2020 are still largely geared towards civilian rather than military projects, even though defence‐related projects are not formally excluded. One of the chief objectives of the Preparatory Action and of any eventual European Defence Research Programme is to enhance Europe’s strategic autonomy by investing in key defence technologies.
Yet using EU funds for defence‐relevant research is not without its challenges. This policy paper analyses the likely relationships or approaches that may emerge from an EU‐funded programme on defence research, and it draws out some of the challenges that could emerge during the rolling out phase of the Preparatory Action. On the basis of this analysis, this policy paper concludes that while the Preparatory Action will be a small‐scale financial contribution to Europe’s defence research efforts, it could – if correctly calibrated – lead to a step‐change in the way the EU funds fundamental research to support the needs of Europe’s armed forces. Notwithstanding this point, this policy paper recommends that the Preparatory Action should:
- Resist any duplication of national defence R&T and R&D efforts.
- Map and coordinate national‐ and European‐level defence R&T and R&D efforts.
- Not be capability‐driven but rather make prospective, longer‐term, investments.
- Help avoid any further reductions in national defence R&T and R&D.
- Stay focused on defence R&T and R&D but converge with the civilian innovation base.
- Ensure fair and effective distribution of IPRs between the defence and civilian bases.
ARES Group Policy Paper, 2016 (written with Renaud Bellais)
-
Modernising NATO’s Defence Infrastructure with EU Funds
A quietly important element of NATO’s Readiness Action Plan (RAP), agreed at the 2014 Wales Summit, is the Alliance’s need ‘to reinforce its eastern Allies through preparation of national infrastructure, such as airfields and ports’. Put simply, without the necessary infrastructure, including transportation networks and hubs, and energy supply lines, it will be difficult for NATO to preposition or sustain military units and ensure that the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (or VJTF, also known as the ‘spearhead force’) is able to deploy within a few days. Yet the Alliance has limited collective financial means to modernise Europe’s defence transportation and supply links. The European Union, with its range of financial mechanisms, might be able to help.
Survival, 2016, Vol. 58, No. 2
-
Europe and the Pentagon’s Third Offset Strategy
Faced with the prospect of its adversaries mitigating its long-held superiority in sophisticated weapons systems, the US announced in 2014 that it was about to embark on a ‘third offset strategy’ in order to maintain its military-technology edge. In its quest to harness new technologies and operational concepts however, the third offset strategy is likely to raise important questions for Europe and NATO. Daniel Fiott addresses some of the major issues at hand related to alliance politics in NATO and some of the potential defence-industrial effects.
The RUSI Journal, Vol. 161, No. 1
-
The Responsibility to Protect and the Third Pillar: Legitimacy and Operationalization
As the RtoP moves from norm to operationalization, greater analysis of action to halt crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide and ethnic cleansing is needed. This uncovers opportunities and challenges associated with third pillar interventions by looking at legal, economic, political, military and alternative interventions in third-countries.
Palgrave, 2015
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Daniel Fiott 