François Heisbourg, David C. Gompert, Klaus Becher, and Alexei Arbatov
Publication Date:
12-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for European Policy Studies
Abstract:
If the Gulf War of 1990-91 was a “defining moment” – one in which countries had to take sides – 11 September 2001 was much more, a “transforming moment”: not only was there an obligation to stand up and be counted, but with the advent of hyperterrorism, the post-Cold War era itself came to an abrupt end. Before discussing the implications of this “transforming moment”, two preliminary remarks are in order.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, NATO, Cold War, and Terrorism
Charles Grant, François Heisbourg, Kori Schake, and Dmitry A. Danilov
Publication Date:
10-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for European Policy Studies
Abstract:
It has become something of a commonplace to say that the European Union is suffering from a lack of political leadership. Where are the Delors, Kohls, Mitterrands and Thatchers of today? This dearth is especially evident in the specific area of defence policy. For the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) is a new and still largely embryonic venture. The progress made over the past three years has been striking, but there is a real risk that the ESDP that finally emerges will be much less impressive or noteworthy than had been promised.
Nicholas Whyte, Nadia Alexandrova Arbatova, and Dana H. Allin
Publication Date:
07-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for European Policy Studies
Abstract:
For most of the last ten years, Europeans have been embarrassed by Jacques Poos' rash promise of 1991; during the conflicts in Bosnia and Croatia from 1991 to 1995, the phrase seemed only to sum up the ineffective ness and the pomposity of the European Union's pretensions to be an actor of importance in its own backyard. The Dayton Agreement of 1995 was achieved only when Richard Holbrooke threatened to pull the US out of the process and 'leave it to the Europeans'. Terrified by this awful prospect (at least, according to Holbrooke's version), the warring parties agreed to the deal.
François Heisbourg, Tomas Ries, Vladimir B. Aranovsky, and F. Stephen Larrabee
Publication Date:
07-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for European Policy Studies
Abstract:
Politically, further NATO enlargement in some form is probably unavoidable. On the deepest level, because NATO at its core is an expression of the Atlantic community of liberal democratic values. Refusing entry to new applicants who fulfil the criteria and knock strongly enough and long enough is not only politically embarrassing but undermines the foundation on which NATO rests.
This colloquium brought together a distinguished list of political actors, policy makers, advisers, experts and researchers from all parts of Europe (see annex I for the list of papers presented and speakers). It was concerned with security in a broad sense, with special attention given to borders and to JHA (Justice and Home Affairs) issues.
François Heisbourg, Klaus Becher, Alexander Pikayev, and Ivo H. Daalder
Publication Date:
05-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for European Policy Studies
Abstract:
European NATO countries have been spectators to the debate about defending the US against ballistic missile attacks. While there have been national differences in Europe's reactions to the national missile defence (NMD) programme, it is obvious that most Europeans don't like it. The French seem somewhat more convinced than others that missile defence is inherently foolish and unworkable. Some British experts seem to insist more than others that any programme that might undermine NATO's nuclear deterrence and strategic unity should be avoided. And perhaps Germans, more than others, worry about perceived dangers to the ABM and other arms control treaties, and generally about relations with Russia. Most Europeans at present believe that US defence against long-range ballistic missiles is a slap in the face for Russia, a dangerous provocation for China and an inadequate response to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and missile technology.
Two sets of opposing paradigms governing the map of Europe are struggling to predominate at the beginning of this second decade of the post-communist era. At the macro (continental) level the struggle is between the Common European Home versus the Europe of Two Empires–the enlarging European Union, and a Russia newly re-assertive towards its near abroad. At the micro (state or entity) level the struggle is between the Nationalising State versus the Europe of Fuzzy Statehood. This double competition of paradigms is most intense and sensitive in Borderland Europe around the frontiers between the two empires, or in their Overlapping Peripheries. It seems that the Europe of Two Empires has much more political energy these days than the Common European Home; and in Borderland Europe the Nationalising State has more energy than Fuzzy Statehood. However these trends should be of concern, since they point to the persistence of tensions and in the worst cases conflicts. A successful and stable Europe would need to see more of the Common European Home and of Fuzzy Statehood.
Contrary to official claims, Russia and the European Union are not strategic partners. The economic and political asymmetries between them and the still divergent normative foundations on which their policies are based constitute considerable obstacles to strategically significant co-operation between the EU and Russia. These obstacles are likely to persist in the foreseeable future, and prevent the emergence of a real strategic partnership.
Mr. Emerson, Ladies and Gentlemen, Distinguished Friends of Montenegro, Let me start with my thanks to the Centre for European Policy Studies, the International Crisis Group and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation for organising this conference. The presentations of international and local experts will make a contribution to our consideration of the future of Montenegro. I find it especially important that this debate allows for a wide diversity of political views on the subject of Montenegro's future.
Joanna Apap, Christopher Mulkins, and Malcolm Anderson
Publication Date:
02-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for European Policy Studies
Abstract:
The seminar brought together 38 distinguished experts from EU countries, candidate and non-candidate countries to discuss the impact of the extension of Schengen border control regimes on EU external relations and the situation of Central and Eastern Europe and to identify alternative policy options.