Europa > L'Union europenne dans le monde > European Union @ United Nations > Speech by Crisis Management Initiative Chair Ahtisaari - From Needs to Solutions: Enhancing Civilian Crisis Response Capacity of the EU

Plan du site | Index A-Z | Emplois | Liens | Contact

English Español Français

 

 

Speech by Crisis Management Initiative Chair Ahtisaari - From Needs to Solutions: Enhancing Civilian Crisis Response Capacity of the EU

Speech by President Martti Ahtisaari, Chairman, Crisis Management Initiative, "From Needs to Solutions: Enhancing Civilian Crisis Response Capacity of the European Union" 14-15 November 2005, Brussels

Seizing the Opportunity: Enhancing Professionalism and Quality in Civilian Crisis Response"

Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to warmly welcome you to this conference on behalf of the Crisis Management Initiative, co-organiser of the event. I would also like to thank Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner for her excellent co-operation as well as her commitment and leadership in finding ways to improve the European crisis response.

Our discussions today and tomorrow should allow us to find better and more effective ways to respond to crisis more rapidly and coherently and to identify concrete means to ensure that our staff is safe where ever they implement the European Union (EU) mission.

This gathering is not meant to be a one-off event the dialogue will continue. I have understood that the Austrian Presidency will take many of these issues forward during its Presidency.

In the following I would first like to discuss some of the global and regional challenges that require EU engagement and use of its different crisis management instruments. Then I would like to outline some of the key issues for the improvement of the EU's capability to respond. Before starting I would like to note that I will be talking about the overall civilian crisis response from early-warning to state-building.

******

Internal developments within the EU are closely entwined with developments on the world scene. The sheer size of the EU in economic, trade and financial terms makes it a world player. The world community expects the EU to play a role, not only in the economic area, but also on issues of global security. Looking ahead, there are many uncertainties and dangers to world peace and stability. A stronger Europe will participate in finding solutions to these threats.

Let us consider some of the major threats in the beginning of the twenty-first century: failing states, global disease outbreaks, chronic poverty, natural disasters, climate change, terrorism, organized crime and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. How would the world deal with these threats if there were no multilateral system - no regional organisations, no World Bank, no United Nations?

I believe we are all aware of the constraints of the United Nations and of the tendency of the international community to give it demanding assignments without providing adequate resources and political support. For this and other reasons, regional security organisations are vital. Regional arrangements, such as the EU, OSCE and NATO complement and support the UN's capacity. Furthermore, I think it is extremely important that not only the European or transatlantic regional organisations are active in peace and security co-operation, but also organisations such as the African Union are looking for a more active role in peacekeeping and peace support operations and increasing their capacity to act.

Improving the EU's crisis management capacity is an asset to the UN - not competition with it. The EU has played an important, if often unnoticed role in stabilizing regions threatened with insecurity by using the economic, technical and political means available to the European Community. The development of the civilian and military capabilities under the ESDP has created the long-needed capacity for active crisis management. The work under the Civilian Headline Goal 2008 is vital in making sure that we match the capabilities both to realistic field requirements and planning scenarios.

However, there remains a lot of work to be done before the EU is as effective as it could be. Perhaps the most serious consequence of the division of the EU's crisis response capacity between Pillar II and Pillar I is the possibility that the Union's reaction to any crisis will be driven by institutional considerations rather than by a problem-solving approach. A key issue for EU's global role to my mind is that we have to be able to work together coherently and effectively. Postponement of the new Constitution cannot be an excuse for not finding means for inter-institutional co-operation in the current framework. The world community or our tax payers do not care about the internal mandates or division of labour but they will judge EU's overall performance.

Clarity about political objectives and the means to achieve them is a precondition for coherent EU security policy, including its crisis response capabilities. That is why the European Security Strategy of December 2003 represents a milestone in the development of the EU´s global role.

In addition to coherent policy, the capability to deploy and deliver response in the field is a key challenge. The EU is increasingly active in the most dangerous hot spots around the world. Therefore, one of the most important topics of this conference is the security of staff. This issue really struck me during the work of the Independent Panel on Safety and Security of the UN Personnel in Iraq when the Secretary General appointed me to chair in September 2003. It was the saddest job I have ever had. Confronting both the misery of wounded, traumatised staff members and the unpreparedness of the UN organisation to analyse and face the changed security environment was a hard thing to do. We have to make sure that the EU learns from this lesson and make sure that it has adequate security management systems in place.

******

I would like to use the EU success story in Aceh as an example how the different civilian instruments come together in a concrete case. I think that the EU action in Aceh, Indonesia, is a very good example of what the EU could do at its best when working together. European Commission and Member States responded with humanitarian and emergency aid to the Tsunami that devastated the Aceh province. In parallel European Commission used its Rapid Reaction Mechanism to support the peace negotiations between the Indonesian government and the Free Aceh Movement that were facilitated by the Crisis Management Initiative. Already during the first round of negotiations High Representative Javier Solana and his staff were consulted about the possibility of EU monitoring mission should there eventually be a peace agreement. In addition CMI's peace facilitation was supported by a network of NGOs, governments, UN and individuals. That helped CMI to concentrate on the facilitation of talks without compromising its impartiality.

In order to ensure timely preparations both the EU Council Secretariat and Commission representatives participated in the negotiations when monitoring arrangements were discussed between the warring parties. And indeed, the speed of deployment of the EU monitoring mission to the ground was probably a world record. The interim monitoring presence was already on the ground on the 15 August when the Memorandum of Understanding was signed in Helsinki. The monitoring mission was deployed four weeks from that.

As we all know, the peace agreement is just the first fragile step in the long road to a democratic and peaceful society. The first test is the decommissioning and withdrawal phase when parties start to implement in practice their agreements. I think that the implementation phase has gone surprisingly well so far and I would like to congratulate Pieter Feith and his colleagues on the ground. The process will build confidence between the parties, but it takes time. Therefore, it is vital that there is a monitoring presence on the ground for some time to come. Equally important are adequate resources for the reintegration of combatants of the Free Aceh Movement. The European Commission has reserved funds for this purpose and many NGOs are implementing programmes in the field.

The key lesson learned from Aceh is that Europe needs to work together across institutions, governments and non-governmental actors. That is the best strategy for the EU to be a credible global actor in peace and security issues.

At the same time the Aceh experience also highlighted some areas for further development in civilian crisis management. A key to my mind is an adequate civilian planning capacity. The EU also has to streamline its administration and management so that the internal systems are geared towards delivering in the field rapidly. Third, it is important to start mainstreaming human rights to all civilian crisis management operations.

*****

We all now that the wars of former Yugoslavia had a profound impact on the development of European crisis management capacity. Today, the EU has primary responsibility for both the security and economic reconstruction of Bosnia-Herzegovina - it is expected to become predominant in Kosovo in the years ahead. The Balkans, particularly Kosovo, will be still a key issue on the EU's agenda during the coming years. The negotiations on the final status of Kosovo will start in the next few weeks and I am very much looking forward to the EU playing a constructive role in the negotiation process.

As for crisis management capabilities the EU's aim to shoulder an even bigger share of responsibility of the peace and stability in Kosovo, particularly in the fields of policing and the rule of law is a new sizeable challenge. The Member States have to start preparing for this undertaking both in terms of financial resources and the significant number of personnel.

The Commission instruments, including ongoing negotiations on the Stability and Association Agreement with Serbia-Montenegro play an important role in supporting the development and transition in the Balkans.

*****

The EU is also increasingly active in Africa. There is a growing trend of argument that the EU should take a primary role in supporting not only the African continent's economic development but also its security efforts. Developing a long-term strategy for Africa is one of the priorities of the current UK EU Presidency. The African Union's (AU) intervention in Sudan's Darfur region tests the effectiveness of its own peace and security structures and those of the European Union. The AU has taken the lead both in the political negotiations between the government and the rebels and in deploying a peace-monitoring mission, the AU Mission in Sudan (AMIS). It has had to rely on outside support for AMIS, with nearly two thirds of its funding coming from the EU's African Peace Facility.

If the EU could play a role in building the capacity of African organizations in civilian and military crisis response, drawing from its own experience that would be a major contribution in global terms. It requires a well-thought out strategy in addition to financial resources to have sustainability in the long run.

*****

The roots of the new security dangers lie in unresolved political conflicts on the periphery of Europe and in more remote regions. The erosion of state structures, the dissolution of entire states, as well as civil wars, create opportunities for armed groups and non-state actors and encourage terrorism, organized crime, corruption, and trafficking in humans and drugs. These factors therefore not only have a destabilizing effect on their immediate environment. In many ways, in our globalised world, they also threaten the security of the international community as a whole.

Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated to us that turning fragile and failed states into strong and stable ones is perhaps the most difficult security challenge of our time. How can the conditions be created to enable people to live in dignity, freedom, democracy and security? How do we create the conditions necessary for prosperity, economic development, social equity and the preservation of the natural basis of life?

The EU is a Union of 25 democratic states. Some of them have recently gone through a democratic transition process of their own. This blend is a formidable asset to support democratisation processes elsewhere in the world. Europe must take the lead in improving the effectiveness of post-conflict reconstruction, to maximise its international influence and to carve out a distinctive world role.

There is broad support for the UN Peace-building Commission aimed at improving the UN's post-conflict peace-building capabilities. Europe should work together with its partners to make this new capacity a centerpiece of the UN's mission. There is a need for these kinds of reconstruction and stabilisation capabilities and they complement to the EU's own efforts.

******

Even if we are here to discuss predominantly the European capacity to respond crisis I would like to say few words about the transatlantic co-operation. I know it has been fashionable on both sides of the Atlantic to argue that differences over the Iraq war, or the Kyoto Treaty, or the International Criminal Court will end the longstanding trans-Atlantic partnership. Frankly, I just don't believe it. We share too much history, too many common values, too many core economic, political and security interests to go our separate ways.

Only on the basis of a joint international agenda and joint action can an increasingly stronger Europe and the global power represented by the U.S. effectively exploit their potentials as zones of stability on the domestic front and as exporters of stability abroad. America and Europe can tackle the complex security challenges of the 21st century. But they will only be able to do so together. In order to form an effective framework for this transatlantic partnership, Europe and the US need to embark together on the following: to begin a strategic dialogue; to undertake joint action within the context of effective multilateralism; and to use a set of instruments linking civilian and military means, oriented towards sustainable stabilisation.

Furthermore, NATO and the EU complement each other. Their collaboration is a core element of an Atlanticism based on effective multilateralism. The danger to NATO is not a strong Europe but a week Europe. Only a strong Europe can guarantee Europe's partnership within the transatlantic Alliance.

******

The challenges are numerous and I have just touched only very few of them but I think they already give guidance for the EU on how to take the crisis response agenda forward. I would like to outline a seven point agenda for the EU to improve the quality and professionalism of its crisis response capability.

1 Conflict resolution

Many European governments, institutions and NGOs are well placed to act as outside facilitators in different conflict situations. The normal work of Council and Commission top civil servants is often actually peace diplomacy in action. However, the EU could implement a more strategic approach to and investment in conflict resolution. I propose that the Commission establish a Start-up fund for Peace, which will fund small, rather high risk track 2 diplomacy efforts in conflict resolution thereby engaging directly in building peace processes.

2 Rapid deployment

In conflicts, rapid and timely action is essential. Both the concept for Civilian Response Teams and Commission Rapid Reaction Mechanism are important steps in this direction.

However, EU should ensure synergies and eliminate unnecessary overlap between Council and Commission rapid reaction instruments, particularly between CRT and planning assessment teams. Furthermore, both Council and Commission should ensure that their internal administrative systems enable flexible and rapid action and deployment.

3 Training

Training is a key component in developing the quality and professionalism of civilians working in the field. A lot of work is underway. In the light of my experiences from the field I would propose the following priorities:

• include more extensive security and safety training in the civilian crisis management training courses and organise/outsource special training courses for security management professionals to be deployed to field operations;
  
• extend existing security training programmes within the DG RELEX to other Commission DGs and training for people going to EU delegations into conflict areas
  
• ensure the coherence in training between pillars by conducting training on an inter pillar basis wherever possible; and
  
• increase the role and participation of European NGOs in civilian crisis management training activities, using the expertise for example civil peace services.

4 Coherence and Conflict sensitivity

It is often said that the EU's advantage is its wide array of instruments it can use in crisis situations. That is certainly true. However, it can also become a weakness if the instruments are not complementary, coherent, and conflict sensitive. If aid, trade, crisis management and diplomatic means are not implemented in a coherent framework they can have unintended consequences in the field and undermine each other's impact.

Therefore, is be important to fund research and evaluation on the impact and coherence of different civilian instruments (aid, trade, diplomatic means and crisis management) on the ground to get new information for policy planning purposes.

5 Civil-military co-operation

The experience in the Balkans and in Afghanistan shows that a combination of civilian and military instruments is needed in order to be successful. Indeed, it is this approach that is one of the key characteristics of ESDP and which renders it distinct from other concepts. The process of developing comprehensive planning needs to continue. A key challenge is to increase the civilian planning capacity for operations to at least partly match that of the military.

6 Work with NGOs

NGOs participate in enhancing the quality of EU crisis response in multiple ways. By working with the NGOs the EU can draw on local experience and expertise and build solidarity and partnership with local partners in conflict countries. NGOs also help in identifying emerging public issues and articulating this in debates at the European level. In so doing, they also contribute to bringing European Union development, humanitarian aid and crisis management policies closer to EU citizens.

There is an identified need to achieve greater conceptual coherence about the overall strategy and goals of crisis management missions between the European Union and non-governmental organisations. It is time to take a new qualitative step from the Action Plan for Civilian Aspects of ESDP that was adopted by the European Council on 17-18 June 2004 acknowledging the importance of including the views of civil society in its civilian crisis management policy orientations. CMI, the Civil Society Conflict Prevention Network from Finland and the European Peace-building liaison Office, EPLO have proposed to the forthcoming Finnish EU Presidency to develop a concrete Action Plan with recommendations on how to benefit from the NGO expertise and comparative advantages in the EU civilian crisis management and to ensure that the activities of the international community are cohesive and make the desired impact in the host country.

7 Staff security and mission support capabilities

When mission support works it is almost invisible but when it doesn't it can seriously inhibit the political and operational work. Logistics, administration and communications are crucial not only in enabling efficient daily work but also in providing security to the staff in the field. The EU needs a professional security management system that is tailored to the current security political reality.

Particularly in the civilian side there is need to develop a scalable and interoperable communications concept based on user requirements. Often the procurement is the biggest stumbling block for the rapid deployment. It is important to develop agreement on procurement that guarantees transparency but effectively supports the missions.

*****

In recent years the world has become less secure and international relations everywhere are going through a period of profound uncertainty. The EU must promote strong and effective multilateralism, toward respect for human rights and prevention of conflict. It should develop its civilian crisis response capacity in close co-operation with the United Nations and try to find more common ground with all the relevant players that can contribute in finding peaceful solutions.

| Haut |

Recherche Avancée

• Reinforcing civilian crisis management capacity in the EU  (11/1/2006)
• EU Presidency Statement - Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict (9/12/2005)
• EU-Canada Agreement on participation in crisis management operations signed (24/11/2005)
• Speech by EU Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner - Role of Crisis Response in External Relations  (14/11/2005)
• Speech by EUHR Solana - Europe's International Role (9/11/2005)
• Aceh: First phase of relocation and decommissioning completed  (27/9/2005)
• EU-UN relations (12/9/2005)
• Conclusions of EU External Relations Council - 2005 ESDP conclusions (23/5/2005)
• Joint Declaration on UN-EU Co-operation in Crisis Management (24/9/2003)