United States Institute of Peace • www.usip.org • Tel. 202.457.1700 • Fax. 202.429.6063

UNITED STates institute of peace

© USIP 2013 • All rights reserved.

“Whether this growing 

normative support and institutional capacity for preventive 

action can result in decisive and 

coordinated action, however, 

remains uncertain.”

February 21, 2013

Toward a European Institute 

of Peace

Innovative Peacebuilding or Excessive Bureaucracy?

Summary

•	 The bulk of the European Union’s peacebuilding capacity resides within the European External

Action Service or EEAS, a diplomatic corpsled by High Representative Catherine Ashton. The

EEAS and relevant U.S. civilian agenciesface similar challenges and opportunitiesin their effort to operationalize conflict prevention.

•	 Several European leaders and members of the European Parliament propose the creation of

a European Institute of Peace (EIP) as an innovative and cost-effective approach to enhance

Europe’s peacebuilding capacity.

•	 This European version of the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) could practice more flexible diplomatic initiatives by engaging as an independent facilitator or participant in Track 1.5 dialogues, and serve as a knowledge center for training, best practices, and conflict analysis.

•	 Considering the financial and political climate in Brussels, a EIP is unlikely to materialize in the

next two years. Once the economic storm has passed, the creation of an EIP variant appears

very likely.

In Brussels, the Euro crisis continuesto dominate conversations both on the street and in the

hallways of the European Union’sinstitutions. One would almost forget that,since the Lisbon

Treaty came into force in 2009, Europe hastaken meaningfulstepstoward a more visible, coherent,

and effective foreign policy. Even though foreign policy remains one of the slowest pillars of the

integration process, the EU engaged militarily in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Chad, and the

Central African Republic, created a diplomatic corps with almost 4,000 staff upon completion, and

remainsthe largest development donor worldwide.

As an increasingly significant actor in international peacebuilding, the European Union continuesitssearch for new instrumentsto prevent violent conflict. The creation of a European Institute

of Peace (EIP), based on the template of the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP), represents one of the

considered proposals.

EU Conflict Prevention

For the most part, the EU’s peacebuilding capacity resides within the recently created European External Action Service or EEAS, a diplomatic corpsled by High Representative Catherine Ashton. The

Jonas Claes

E-mail: jclaes@usip.org

Phone: 202.429.1982

peaceBrieF141
© USIP 2013 • All rights reserved.

Toward a European Institute of Peace

page 2 • PB 141 • February 21, 2013

operational leverage of the EEAS is crucial for the EU’s prevention capacity asit combines various

development, human rights, military, and crisis management tools, applying both national and

supranational resources. The EEAS features a functional division dedicated to conflict prevention

and peace building, which prioritizes 1) early warning and early action systems, 2) conflict analysis,

and 3) mediation. Thisfocusseems appropriate given the EU’s primary reliance on analytical,

diplomatic, and economic instruments.

The presence of a dedicated unit and budget line illustratesthat, like in the United States, the

case for prevention is well-received by senior policymakers operating amid fiscal challenges.

Whether this growing normative support and institutional capacity for preventive action can result

in decisive and coordinated action, however, remains uncertain. The creation of the EIP alone does

not guarantee a coordinated EU prevention policy. Furthermore, as both Brussels and Washington

now consider the operational optionsfor conflict prevention policies, they face a tough selection

of geographic priority areas. The conflict prevention challenges within the EEAS mirror those faced

by relevant U.S. civilian agencies, most notably the State Department’s Bureau for Conflict and

Stabilization Operations(S/CSO) and USAID’s Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian

Assistance (DCHA):

•	 Which criteria drive the case selection for conflict analysis and prevention engagements?

•	 How to organize joint analysis and preventive action between disparate institutional

entities?

•	 How to ensure short- and long-term prevention activities are complementary?

Toward a European Institute of Peace?

In search of new instruments and peacebuilding tools, EU Member States Finland and Sweden

tabled the idea to create a EIP in 2010. An assessmentstudy conducted by consultants under EEAS

guidance in late 2012 considered how the EIP, based on the example of USIP, could fill the gapsin

the EU’s mediation capacity. As a firststep, the European Parliament agreed to create a legal basis

which would allow for partial funding of the Institute. Advocates within the European Parliament,

memberstates, and civilsociety appreciate the role a publicly funded yet functionally independent Institute could play in complementing the activities of the External Action Service. The EIP

would practice more flexible diplomatic initiatives and engage as an independent facilitator or

participant in Track 1.5 dialogues. Advocates particularly value the potential of thisinnovative

peacebuilding entity to engage with proscribed armed groups, while maintaining the required

legitimacy through close association with the EU. With a European Institute of Peace in place,

European engagement in Sri Lanka, the Kurdish question, and the Arab-Israeli conflict could have

been more effective. In Washington, foreign affairs agencies have long recognized the added value

ofsuch organizations, like USIP. Given its hybrid identity, USIP can highlight conflict areasthat do

not appear prominently on the U.S. government’sradar, anticipate structural tensions or triggers of

violence to balance the dominantly reactive culture, and serve as a knowledge center for training,

best practices, and conflict analysis.

EIP: The Right Initiative at the Wrong Time

While the EIP proposal gradually takes hold,severe impedimentsremain. Internally, EU officials

emphasize the strengthening of nascent foreign policy actorslike the EAS over the creation of

new entitiesthat may compete forscarce resources. A number of vocal critics question the added

value of the EIP compared to agencieslike the European Institute for Security Studies(EU-ISS)

and peacebuilding nongovernmental organizationslike the Crisis Management Initiative (CMI).
© USIP 2013 • All rights reserved.

USIP provides the analysis, training and 

tools that prevent and end conflicts, 

promotes stability and professionalizes 

the field of peacebuilding.

For media inquiries, contact the office 

of Public Affairs and Communications, 

202.429.4725

2301 Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, D.C. 20037

Toward a European Institute of Peace

page 3 • PB 141 • February 21, 2013

Considering the financial and political climate in Brussels, a European Institute of Peace is unlikely

to materialize in the next two years. But the creation of an EIP variant, once the economic storm

has passed, appears very likely given the political capitalsenior European officials have invested together with the innovative and cost-effective role quasi-official actors can play in today’s complex

and evolving security environment.

About This Brief

Jonas Claes is a program officer in 

USIP’s Center for Conflict Management. This Peace Brief follows a 

series of interviews conducted with 

senior EU officials and civil society 

representatives on the role of the 

European External Action Service 

in conflict prevention, and Claes’s 

participation in consultations 

on the feasibility of a European 

Institute of Peace.