Introduction and Ba c k g r o u n d

The beginning months of 2003 have witnessed historic

moments in the evolution of the policies and visions of the

Eu ropean Union (EU) and the No rth Atlantic Tre a t y

Organization (NATO) in Southeast Eu rope. On Ma rch 30,

2003, NATO forces handed over responsibility for peacekeeping operations in Macedonia to a Eu ropean Un i o n - l e d

operation. Dubbed Operation Concordia, this operation

m a rked an important victory tow a rd harmonizing the effort s

of the EU and NATO. Almost simultaneously, many countries of Southeast Eu rope we re taking important steps tow a rd

integration into Eu ropean stru c t u res: Bulgaria, Romania, and

Sl ovenia signed the protocols for Accession to NATO in

Ma rch 2003. Fi n a l l y, many Eu ropean leaders we re pointing

to the need for the EU to more fully develop its Eu ro p e a n

Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) in order to better cope

with world eve n t s .

In light of these changes, the George C. Marshall Eu ro p e a n

Center for Security Studies and the German Fo reign Of f i c e

jointly sponsored a conference in Berlin, April 7-10, 2003.

An integral part of Marshall Center efforts to consistently

reexamine the future of cooperative security in Eu rope and

Eurasia, the conference brought together 35 re p re s e n t a t i ve s

f rom Southeast Eu ropean (SEE) countries (Albania, Bosnia

& He rze g ovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, It a l y, FYROM, Ro m a n i a ,

and Sl ovenia) with observers from EU and NATO countries.

The interagency purpose of the conference was supported by

p a rticipation from a variety of ministries and organizations

responsible for their countries’ relationships with NATO and

the EU, including the Mi n i s t ry of Defense, the Mi n i s t ry of

Fo reign Affairs, Offices of the President or Prime Mi n s t e r, and

s e veral Parliamentarians. 

The purpose of the conference was four-fold. First, the conf e rence was a forum for leaders from the Eu ropean Union and

its constituent countries to provide their visions for the future

of the Eu ropean Security and Defense Po l i c y, and the role of

N ATO within this vision. Second, the conference prov i d e d

an opportunity for EU and NATO leaders to provide some

insights into the future capabilities that the EU and NATO

would need to face future challenges in Southeast Eu ro p e .

T h i rd, the conference served as a forum for a two-way communication between re p re s e n t a t i ves from SEE countries and

senior leaders from the EU and NATO concerning consultat i ve processes that sought to engage leaders from SEE into the

formulation of EU and NATO visions. Fo u rth, the conference provided a venue to discuss the future role of the SEE

countries in EU and NATO cooperative actions and the

mechanisms that would facilitate cooperation. 

The conference methodology provided a forum for EU and

N ATO leaders to present their visions during morning sessions, followed by an opportunity for SEE re p re s e n t a t i ves to

discuss these visions in smaller workshops during the afternoon. These workshops we re supported by a small number

of re p re s e n t a t i ves from EU and NATO countries who provided on the spot feedback to issues of concern. Wo rk s h o p s

p roduced common assessments and recommendations for the

f u t u re that we re re p o rted back to the larger plenary at the end

of the day. 

This re p o rt will not attempt to summarize the future visions

of the ESDP or the future vision of NATO as expressed by the

leaders present at the conference. It is assumed that there is

ample direct access to EU and NATO documents that expre s s

f u t u re visions and strategies. The primary purpose here is to

c o n vey the general themes of conclusions and re c o m m e n d ations provided by the participants from the SEE countries. It

should be noted that, like all Marshall Center events, this conf e rence followed a strict policy of non-attribution for both

speakers and participants. The conclusions that follow re p resent the author’s understanding of the general mood of the

c o n f e rence participants as well as his understanding of the

specific recommendations put forw a rd by the workshops. In

no way do these conclusions and recommendations reflect the

The EU & NATO: Harmonizing

Efforts in Southeast Europe

Sponsored by the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies 

and the German Foreign Office

April 7-10. 2003 Berlin, Germany

Compiled by Alan Gorowitz*

A Report of the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies Conference on 

GEORGE C. MARSHALL

EUROPEAN CENTER FOR SECURITY STUDIES

The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Marshall Center, the

US Department of Defense, the German Ministry of Defense, or the US and German Governments. This report is cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited.
v i ews or positions of any individual participant or the official

policy of their country or agency.

The Future of the ESDP

T h ree distinguished speakers provided the historical backg round and visions for the future of the ESDP. Dr. Klaus

Sharioth, State Se c re t a ry of the German Fo reign Office, provided the context through which the ESDP development was

continuing. Ms. Elizabeth Pond, journalist and scholar at the

German Council on Fo reign Relations, commented on the

historical background and continental forces that we re shaping the formulation of the Eu ropean Security and De f e n s e

Po l i c y. Lastly, General Rainer Schuwirth, Di rector General of

the EU Mi l i t a ry St a f f, offered a detailed view of the mechanisms that we re influencing the planning of the EU security

s t ru c t u res. 

The participants noted

the importance of the

d e velopment of the

ESDP in shaping the

f u t u re Eu ropean security arc h i t e c t u re .

Howe ve r, it was a common perc e p t i o n

among part i c i p a n t s

that the EU vision for

the future was unclear.

Many part i c i p a n t s

questioned the ability

of their leaders to consider the future of the ESDP in their planning while the

f u t u re parameters of the ESDP remained undefined. A general theme emerged from discussions that re c o g n i zed the

i m p o rtance of following the development of the ESDP, while

understanding that its unclear direction would minimize the

ability of SEE leaders to properly integrate ESDP-re l a t e d

issues into future planning.

Of critical importance is the common view held by many participants that the EU must stay engaged in the region and

should continue, even accelerate, its enlargement process in the

region. In fact, it was noted that the EU should enhance the

t r a n s p a rency of the process to better facilitate engagement by

SEE leaders. In a similar vein, participants recommended that

EU leaders consider the ramifications of enlargement; specifically suggesting that enlargement could create new divisions

within a region that has succeeded in building regional and bilateral partnerships among countries. This was a concern

echoed throughout the conference. Pa rticipants noted specifically concerns related to the Schengen Agreement, and suggested that in order to avoid new divisions within the re g i o n ,

the EU as well as the candidate countries should remain flexible and remain open to establish cre a t i ve solutions.

NATO and the ESDP

The future relationship between the Eu ropean Security and

Defense Policy and the No rth Atlantic Treaty Or g a n i z a t i o n

was a dominant theme of discussion during the confere n c e .

T h ree distinguished panelists provided insights into the current debates that consider the harmonization of effort s

b e t ween policymakers in the EU and NATO. BG Jürgen

Bornemann, Deputy Assistant Chief of Armed Fo rces St a f f

for Po l i t i c o - Mi l i t a ry Affairs & Arms Control, at the Mi n i s t ry

of Defense of Ge r m a n y, offered some insights into EU plans

to ensure that EU stru c t u res are developed in a way to minim i ze duplication and enhance cooperation with NATO

s t ru c t u res. Mr. Edgar Bu c k l e y, NATO Assistant Se c re t a ry

General for Defense Planning and Operations, offered some

insights into the methodologies in which NATO could further maintain and strengthen harmonization with the ESDP

p rocess. Fi n a l l y, Mr. Karsten D. Voigt, Coordinator for

German-American Co-operation at the German Fe d e r a l

Fo reign Office, discussed the background of these harmonization efforts and set forth the case for continuation of this

p ro c e s s .

C o n f e rence participants fully supported NATO and EU

e f f o rts to continue to harmonize their efforts in the SEE

region. They suggested that NATO and EU leaders should

form a “common appro a c h” to the region. This re c o m m e ndation was born out of a common conclusion that SEE countries did not want to find themselves in a position of having

to choose betwe e n

actions or policies that

s u p p o rted one organization over the other.

A discussion of the

f u t u re capabilities

needed for integration

into NATO or the

ESDP suggested that

countries we re using

N ATO integration

p ro c e s s e s ( Me m b e r s h i p

Action Plans and

Ac c e s s i o n / In t e g r a t i o n

strategies) as their prim a ry source of direction. Like their opinion of the EU, participants clearly supported an acceleration of NATO enlargement in the region, making the case that NATO and the EU

needed to be inclusive organizations. Lastly, they strongly re commended that both NATO and the EU also consider an

enlargement of capabilities to include those needed to fight

non-traditional threats such as organized criminals and illegal

trafficking in drugs or human beings.

The EU and NATO in Southeast Europe

The visions of future invo l vement of the EU and NATO in

Southeast Eu rope sparked a lively discussion among part i c ipants. Pieter Feith, Deputy Di rector General of the Ge n e r a l

A general theme 

emerged from discussions

that recognized the importance of following the development of the ESDP, while

understanding that its

unclear direction would

minimize the ability of SEE

leaders to properly integrate

ESDP-related issues into

future planning.

[P a r t i c i p a n t s] strongly 

recommended that 

both NATO and the EU also

consider an enlargement 

of capabilities to 

include those needed 

to fight 

non-traditional threats 

such as organized criminals

and illegal trafficking in

drugs or human beings.
Se c retariat of the Council of the Eu ropean Union and former

N ATO Di rector of Crisis Management & Op e r a t i o n s

Di rectorate and Head of the Balkans Task Fo rce, offered some

insights into the current and future roles of the EU in the

Balkans, noting specifically Operation Concordia and

expanding missions in Bosnia & He rze g ovina. Mi n i s t e r

Michael L. Du rkee, International Affairs Advisor to

S ACEUR (SHAPE) offered some insights into the NATO

planning in SEE that raised discussion of the shape and missions of NATO in the Balkans. Fi n a l l y, General (re t )

Constantine Degeratu, former Chief of Defense of Ro m a n i a

and current professor at the George. C. Marshall Eu ro p e a n

Center for Security Studies, commented on the EU and

N ATO visions from the perspective of the re g i o n .

As stated above, participants re c o g n i zed the importance of

N ATO and EU engagement in SEE, and fully support e d

continued and

enhanced engagement.

Howe ve r, there was a

concern among many

p a rticipants that the

realities of the re g i o n

we re not well understood by policymakers

in Brussels and in the

various capitals of

Eu rope. Pa rt i c i p a n t s

specifically re c o mmended that EU and

N ATO leaders enhance

the consultative mechanisms that incre a s e

d i rect invo l vement of

the SEE countries in

strategy deve l o p m e n t

and policy formulation. They suggested that there we re past problems with the

timing of EU or NATO initiatives in relation to national

e vents such as elections or local/regional initiatives. This fost e red the perception that the approaches in setting EU and

N ATO processes do not take into account the economic and

social situations in individual countries. Fi n a l l y, some part i cipants noted that the EU and NATO should re e valuate the

causes and resulting perceptions from the breakup of

Yu g o s l a v i a .

Another area of recommendations focused on the need for

consultations with other organizations and initiative s .

Pa rticipants noted some frustration with the lack of coord ination between EU initiatives (such as those supported by the

Stability Pact), NATO initiatives, OSCE initiatives, bilateral

i n i t i a t i ves (such as those supported by US Eu ro p e a n

Command or the German Fo reign Office), and re g i o n a l l y -

s u p p o rted initiatives (such as the Southeastern Eu ro p e

Defense Ministerial). This was not a call for new initiative s ,

as there was clearly a feeling that the region was saturated with

good initiatives, but rather a call for consolidation and rationalization of existing pro g r a m s .

Pa rticipants concluded that increasing the role of re p re s e n t at i ves from the SEE countries in EU and NATO strategic

planning for the region would improve the effectiveness of

their initiatives and further harmonize their activities with

ongoing initiatives in the region led by individual re g i o n a l

actors or other organizations. They recommended that these

consultations be consistent and sustained.

The EU and NATO: 

C o o p e r ative Action and the SEE Countries

The main objective of the conference was to produce a set of

recommendations for EU and NATO leaders with strategic

planning functions. Wo rkshop moderators consistently

focused their groups on the goal of providing concrete re commendations for improving cooperative action between the

EU and NATO on the one hand, and the countries of the

region on the other. To provide some context to these discussions, Ambassador Dr. Günther Altenburg, NATO

Assistant Se c re t a ry General for Political Affairs offered some

insights into the future of NATO and EU cooperative actions

in Southeast Eu rope, and Michael Schaefer, Political Di re c t o r

of the German Federal Fo reign Office, provided a political

b a c k g round to the decision-making processes that we re shaping the future of the ESDP in relation to SEE. Ambassador

Hans Jorg Ei f f, the former Special Re p re s e n t a t i ve of the

Se c re t a ry General of NATO to Skopje, suggested some of the

i m p o rtant lessons learned from the past experiences and made

some critical suggestions for the future of NATO and EU

engagement in the region. Fi n a l l y, Ambassador Boyko No e v,

former Bulgarian Minister of Defense, sparked discussion by

challenging some of the underlying assumptions that form

the basis for NATO and EU policies in Southeast Eu ro p e .

Discussions focused on the myriad of initiatives from the EU

and NATO that support security and stability in the re g i o n .

Some commented that many of these initiatives are not

focused enough and need to be streamlined tow a rd specific

o b j e c t i ves. Pa rticipants noted the importance of tying the

security initiatives to the economic re f o r m / s u p p o rt initiative s .

Others highlighted the importance of public engagement and

s u p p o rt. 

A general perception emerged that participants saw thems e l ves as re c e i vers of a product in the form of specific initiat i ves of policy visions as opposed to seeing themselves as

builders of the initiatives. A strong sense of ownership and

responsibility for the security and stability of the re g i o n

focused many of the recommendations on methods to

i n c rease consultation and engagement from the re g i o n .

L i k ewise, there was boad recognition that individual countries

in the region had to continue their own internal reforms, and

continue to improve their relationships within the region in

o rder to become integrated into Transatlantic and Eu ro p e a n

s t ru c t u re s .

[P a r t i c i p a n t s] suggested 

that there were past 

problems with the timing 

of EU or NATO initiatives

in relation to national events

such as elections or

l o c a l / r e g i o n a l

i n i t i a t i v e s ...[f o s t e r i n g]

the perception that the

approaches in setting EU 

and NATO processes do not

take into account the 

economic and social 

situations in individual

c o u n t r i e s .
The final workshops produced several important re c o m m e ndations for cooperative action that, taken as a whole, re i nf o rced the common perception among the participants that

the challenges of the region are best solved in cooperation

with the people and institutions within the region. T h e re was

a strong sense of ownership of the solutions, with little distinction as to whether the solutions come within the EU or

N ATO framew o rk or within an internal, bilateral, or re g i o nal framew o rk. Se veral participants noted that EU or NATO

operations in SEE

could be enhanced by a

g reater reliance on

countries from the

region (for example,

f u rther integrating the

n ew NATO members

into SEE operations).

The part i c i p a n t s

e x p ressed a hope that

leaders in the EU and

N ATO would consider

these re c o m m e n d ations in the spirit of

cooperation in which

they we re offered. 

R e c o m m e n dat i o n s

● C o o rdinate EU and NATO actions to pre vent the necessity for individual countries to choose between a NATO and an

EU policy;

● C o o rdinate EU and NATO actions with existing multilateral initiatives such as the South-East Eu rope De f e n s e

Ministerial Process, and cooperative groups that extend to

neighboring re g i o n s ;

● C o o rdinate EU and NATO actions with existing bilateral

i n i t i a t i ves such as those supported by US Eu ro p e a n

Command and the German Fo reign Of f i c e ;

● Focus on initiatives that have their roots within the re g i o n

and take advantage of regional contributions like the

Multinational Peace Fo rce in South-eastern Eu rope (MPFSEE), the South-eastern Eu rope Brigade (SEEBRIG), or

bilateral initiatives such as those launched between Albania

and Cro a t i a ;

● Use consultations to reduce conflicts in timing between init i a t i ves and local realities such as elections or internal re f o r m

p l a n s ;

● Include a “feedback pro c e s s” as a part of each initiative that

enhances consistent engagement;

● Take advantage of informal stru c t u res to increase consultat i o n s ;

● Take advantage of local civil society institutions and other

analytical institutions in the evaluation and coordination of

i n i t i a t i ves (for example, local universities or the Pa rt n e r s h i p

for Peace Consortium of Defense Ac a d e m i e s ) ;

● Focus some initiatives on soft security issues such as organi zed crime or illegal trafficking;

● Link specific projects to concrete financial re s o u rc e s ;

● Produce a strategy that will support the continuity of

regional and bi-lateral cooperation agreements during future

EU or NATO enlargement;

● Initiate a process to reduce the creation of new barriers during future EU or NATO enlargement (for example, as a re s u l t

of Schengen border enlargement, or trade dive r s i o n ) ;

● Enhance EU and NATO engagement with the public and

media to increase public understanding and support

C o n c l u s i o n s

The Eu ropean Union and NATO are welcome part i c i p a n t s

in the process to enhance security and stability in So u t h e a s t

Eu rope. The participants supported an acceleration of EU

and NATO enlargement and expressed a hope that these

organizations would be inclusive for the whole re g i o n .

While they appreciated the opportunity to gain new

insights into the EU and NATO visions for the future, they

s h a red the view of many speakers that the harmonization of

the future of the ESDP and the future of NATO remains a

w o rk in pro g re s s .

Separated from the constraints of official policy, the part i c ipants appreciated the opportunity to express some fru s t r ation with the limited consultations with EU and NATO

leaders about their region. Howe ve r, their frustration was

matched by a willingness to understand the constraints

these organizations face in their ability to expand the consultation process. 

Most important, the part i c i p a n t s’ visions for a more coope r a t i ve future we re supported by a set of concrete re c o mmendations on the way forw a rd. Putting forth re c o m m e ndations for increasing the quality of cooperation, the part i cipants signaled both an appreciation for their ownership of

both the challenges and solutions for the region and an

a p p reciation for the need to coordinate their actions with

leaders in the EU and NATO .

For further information on this event or other activities

at the Conference Center:

C o n f e rence Center

George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies

w w w. m a r s h a l l c e n t e r. o r g

Gernackerstrasse 2

82467 GarmischPartenkirchen

Germany

PH: 49-8821-750-760

FAX: 49-8821-750-841

ECMC-CC

UNIT 24502

APO, AE 09053

USA

DSN: 440-2760

DSN FAX: 440-2841

*Alan Gorowitz serves as a Plans Officer at the 

George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies 

in Garmisch, Germany. This report is based on the 

conclusions of the participants of the conference.

There was 

a strong sense 

of ownership 

of the solutions, 

with little distinction 

as to whether the 

solutions come within 

the EU or NATO 

framework or within 

an internal, bilateral, or

regional framework.