Newsletter. n° 13, January 2005.
Date: 2011-10-17
Institutions: European Union Institute for Security Studies
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, European defence policy, international relations, international security

Newsletter
n°13 January 2005

Quarterly published by the EU Institute for Security Studies

43 avenue du Président Wilson - 75775 Paris cedex 16 - France

phone: + 33 (0) 1 56 89 19 30  (cid:127)  fax: + 33 (0) 1 56 89 19 31

e-mail: institute@iss-eu.org

http:www.iss-eu.org

institute

European Union

for security
studies

institut

d’ études
de  sécurité

Union Européenne

editorial

L’Europe politique, une idée neuve

éditoNicole Gnesotto 

Directeur

L Europe politique serait-elle une idée neuve ? Tradition-
’

nellement, et une fois scellée la réconciliation de l’après-
guerre, le projet politique européen s’était identifié avec
l’édification d’une Europe acteur global, capable d’agir à l’unis-
son et de façonner le système international à partir de son énorme
puissance économique et financière. Finalité de long terme, nour-
rie de l’ambition d’une politique étrangère et de défense commune,
cette vision s’opposait à l’alternative d’une Europe essentiellement
marchande, grande zone de libre-échange sur laquelle continue-
raient de prospérer les puissances nationales et la primauté du lien
transatlantique. La tension entre ces deux projets ne fut jamais
résolue, même si la Constitution européenne comme la stratégie
européenne de sécurité postulent toutes deux la nécessité pour
l’Union d’un rôle international majeur. 
(cid:1) Depuis quelques années, cette ambition d’une Europe politique
semblait remise en cause par une série de développements inté-
rieurs ou externes à l’Union. Bien avant de devenir effectif, l’é-
largissement à 25 fut d’une part considéré dans certains cercles
comme sonnant le glas définitif de l’approfondissement politique
de l’Union. Le facteur américain intervint d’autre part, en 2003,
comme  un  élément  majeur  de  division  politique  des  Etats
membres, semblant reléguer aux calendes grecques l’idée d’une
influence collective de l’Union sur les grandes questions de sécu-
rité internationale. Enfin, la question turque, relayée depuis peu
par celle de l’Ukraine, a réouvert le débat sur la finalité politique
ultime de la construction européenne.
(cid:1) Pour les partisans de l’adhésion turque, et peut-être ukrai-
nienne, l’objectif politique prioritaire ne concernerait plus l’af-
firmation de l’Union sur la scène internationale mais l’aide à
la démocratisation accélérée de ses voisins. La finalité ne serait
plus l’intégration politique intérieure mais l’Européanisation
de l’extérieur, non plus l’affirmation de soi mais le sauvetage

délibéré des autres : la Turquie de ses tentations islamistes,
l’Ukraine de l’ombre portée de la Russie. Non plus l’Union
comme objectif, mais la démocratie comme horizon. A l’in-
verse, les adversaires de ces futures intégrations le sont au
nom d’une certaine idée de l’Europe politique, d’un objec-
tif de cohésion intérieure et d’identité collective que l’ex-
pansion indéfinie de l’Union risque, à leurs yeux, d’enter-
rer à jamais. Les premiers se déterminent en fonction d’une
urgence  de  solidarité  avec  la  périphérie  de  l’Union,  les
seconds en fonction du futur politique virtuel de la construc-
tion européenne.
(cid:1) Or ce moment de plus grand doute quant à l’avenir poli-
tique de l’Union est aussi, paradoxalement, celui d’une affir-
mation politique majeure des Européens sur la scène inter-
nationale. Presque tranquillement, presque à leur insu, les 25
sont en effet en train d’affirmer et de mettre en oeuvre un
modèle proprement européen de gestion des crises et de paci-
fication internationale. Qu’il s’agisse de l’Iran, des Balkans,
de l’Ukraine, c’est en effet l’Union qui est montée en première
ligne de responsabilité, sous des formes aussi variées que celle
du trio franco-allemand-britannique d’une part, de la collec-
tivité des 25 de l’autre, ou de la médiation pilotée par Javier
Solana enfin. Vis-à-vis des risques de prolifération iranienne,
la stratégie européenne représente sans aucun doute une alter-
native aux tentations américaines d’intervention, mais tel
n’est pas le cas des Balkans  (où le leadership de l’Union a
pris naturellement le relais de l’OTAN suite au désengage-
ment   progressif des Etats-Unis) et encore moins de l’Ukraine,
où la médiation européenne résulte avant tout d’un voisinage
incontournable. Dans ces trois cas, sans parler du continent
africain ou des pays méditerranéens associés à l’Union dans le
cadre du  processus de Barcelone, l’Union européenne joue

... continued on back page

Institute Activities

Seminars
continued
threats was debated, and the dilemmas
of state-building from the outside dis-
cussed. Finally, suggestions as to what
the  EU  could  do,  or  do  better,  were
made. 
(cid:1) On 15 November the Institute (Jean-
Yves Haine) organised a brainstorming
among Europeans experts on the US
elections and their consequences for
Europe.  Two  main  conclusions  were
reached: continuity will probably define
Bush II foreign policies and former divi-
sions among Europeans over US lead-
ership and policies have by and large
disappeared.

Institute publications

Chaillot Papers
(cid:1) No. 73: Afghanistan: la difficile reconstruction
d’un Etat, by Olivier Roy (Décembre).
(cid:1) No. 72: Global views on the European Union,
by Amitav Acharya, Marcel F. Biato, Babacar
Diallo, Francisco E. González, Toshiya
Hoshino, Terence O’Brien, Gerrit Olivier and
Yi Wang; edited by Martin Ortega
(November).
(cid:1) No. 71: La cohérence par la défense. Une autre
lecture de la PESD, by Philippe de
Schoutheete (Octobre).
(cid:1) No. 70: The Western Balkans: moving on, by
Franz-Lothar Altmann, Judy Batt, Misha
Glenny, Gerald Knaus and Marcus Cox,
Stefan Lehne, Jacques Rupnik, Ivan Vejvoda
and Romana Vlahutin; edited by Judy Batt
(October).

Occasional Papers
(cid:1) No. 56: From America’s protégé to
constructive European. Polish security policy in
the twenty-first century, by Marcin Zaborowski
(December).
(cid:1) No. 55: La gestion des crises en Afrique
subsaharienne. Le role de l’Union européenne,
by Fernanda Faria (Novembre).

Forthcoming
(cid:1) Chaillot Paper: What Russia sees, by Dov
Lynch.
(cid:1) Chaillot Paper: European defence: core
documents, Vol. V.
(cid:1) Chaillot Paper: Information security – a new
challenge for the EU, by Alain Esterle, Hanno
Rank and Burkard Schmitt; edited by
Burkard Schmitt.

Institute staff
Anne Asselman left the Institute at the
end of November for a post at the
European Defence Agency, Brussels.

External publications
Nicole Gnesotto
— ‘A common strategic culture’, The Euro-
pean Files no.5, October 2004.
— ‘Legitimidad interna sin legitimidad
externa’, Foreign Policy (Edición española)
no. 6, December-January 2005.

Jean-Yves Haine
— ‘ESDP: challenges ahead’, in Sven Biscop
(ed.), ‘Audit of European Strategy’, Egmont
Paper no. 3 (Brussels: Royal Institute for
International Relations, 2004).
— ‘Sécurité: les moyens d’une ambition’,
Alternatives Internationales, Novembre
2004.
‘ESDP: the Way Forward’, EuroFuture,
November 2004.
— ‘The Elusive Quest for European Secu-
rity’, in Douglas Webber (ed.), Integration in
Asia and Europe (London: Routledge, 2004).

Dov Lynch
— ‘Russia and ESDP: Toward a Greater
Europe’, Eurofuture, Winter 2004.
‘Moldova within a Wider Europe’, Südos-
teuropa Mitteilungen, 02-03, 2004.

Antonio Missiroli
— ‘The Central Europeans between the EU
and NATO’, Survival, vol. 46, no. 4, 2004.
— ‘Da Prodi a Barroso: la Commissione
nell’UE a 25’, Italianieuropei, 4, 2004. 
— ‘Italy: A Sympathetic Fellow Traveller’,
in M. Overhaus, H. W. Maull and S. Har-
nisch (eds.), The European Security Strategy –
Paper Tiger or Catalyst for Joint Action?, Part
II, Foreign Policy in Dialogue, vol. 5, no. 14,
October 2004.

Martin Ortega
— ‘The EU and the UN: strengthening
global security’, in Espen Barth Eide (ed.),
Global Europe Report 1. ‘Effective Multilater-
alism’: Europe, Regional Security and a Revi-
talised UN (London: The Foreign Policy
Centre, 2004).

Burkard Schmitt
‘L’armement terrestre : l’heure de la
volonté politique’, La lettre diplomatique,
no. 65,  2004.

Research awards
Visiting Fellows
During the period October to December the fol-
lowing studied at the Institute as visiting fellows:
— Claudio Catalano (Italian), whose research
topic was ‘EU/UN cooperation in crisis man-
agement’;
— Borut Grgic (Slovene), ‘How the new small
EU member states are shaping ESDP’.

The Institute and the Union

(cid:1) Nicole Gnesotto and Jean-Yves Haine
discussed the Institute’s report Euro-
pean defence. A proposal for a White Paper
with members of the European Parlia-
ment’s Subcommittee on Security and
Defence, chaired by Karl von Wogau,  on
29 November.
(cid:1) On  10  December,  a  workshop  on
‘NPT  2005  Review  Conference’
(Burkard Schmitt), was organised with
Annalisa Giannella, Javier Solana’s per-
sonal  representative  for  the  fight
against proliferation. Officials and aca-
demics discussed the EU’s WMD strat-
egy, effective non-proliferation compli-
ance mechanisms, progress on nuclear
disarmament, future challenges posed
by the peaceful uses of nuclear energy
and prospects for the NPT 2005 con-
ference as seen from the EU.

Seminars

(cid:1) Experts and officials attending a sem-
inar ‘Energy as a security challenge for
the EU’ organised by Dov Lynch at the
Institute on 15 October discussed the
global energy situation and projections,
in particular the EU’s future options.
(cid:1) The seminar ‘The Maghreb and the
EU: towards a privileged partnership?’
(Martin Ortega), held on 25 October,
concluded that the European Neigh-
bourhood Policy and initiatives to pro-
mote reform in the Middle East should
focus on the Maghreb region, since it
constitutes a ‘bridge’ between Europe
and the Arab world. The tenth anniver-
sary of the Barcelona process in Novem-
ber 2005 should be utilised to relaunch
relations  between  the  EU  and  the
Maghreb, and to promote subregional
cooperation.
(cid:1) The European Security Strategy has
listed ‘state failure’ as one of the key
threats  confronting  Europe.  On
8 November  the  Institute  (Judy  Batt
and Dov Lynch) held a seminar on ‘Fail-
ing  states  and  the  EU’s  security
agenda’. The meaning of state failure
and the ways in which it posed security

Analysis

Defence procurement: new ways ahead?

Important developments are on the way
in Europe’s armaments sector. Following
the official establishment of the Euro-
pean Defence Agency (EDA), the focus
has currently shifted to the Commission’s
Green Paper on defence procurement.

Published in September, the Green Paper
has opened a four-month consultation
phase for stakeholders to comment on the
Commission’s ideas for a more coherent
regulatory framework in this area. 

At the core of the debate is Article 296
TEC, which allows member states to dero-
gate from the rules of the common mar-
ket if their ‘essential security interests’ are
concerned. Such exemptions are subject
to  certain  conditions  defined  by  the
Treaty and the case law of the European
Court of Justice (ECJ). In practice, how-
ever, most governments have regarded the
possibility to derogate as an automatism,
passing almost all defence contracts on
the basis of national procurement laws. 
The latter are not only complex, they
also differ greatly from country to coun-
try. On top of that come a variety of spe-
cific procurement rules for cooperative
projects. The result of all this is a highly
complex  regulatory  framework  which
lacks transparency, is highly inefficient
and hinders fair intra-European compe-
tition,  in  particular  for  small  and
medium-sized enterprises. Cooperative
projects do not really help either, since
they are still organised on the basis of
juste retour and cover only parts of the
market (mainly those which are the most
competitive anyway). 

In  its  Green  Paper,  the  Commission
puts forward two options to improve this 
situation:
(cid:1) An interpretative Communication, which
would  not  change  the  existing  legal
framework, but clarify it. The Commis-
sion would further explain the principles
defined by the ECJ for the interpretation

of  Article  296  and  establish  criteria
enabling member states to determine, for
each individual contract, whether it falls
within the scope of 296 or not.

In this case, normal public procurement
Directives would still apply to all con-
tracts not covered by Article 296. Member
states  would  thus  continue  to  face  a
dilemma: either they use existing Com-
munity Directives, which are in general
ill-suited to the specificities of defence, or
they invoke Article 296 and use national
rules, even if they want intra-European
competition. Under these conditions, it is
difficult to see how transparency or com-
petition could be improved. The clarifi-
cation of ECJ judgements may ‘oblige’
member states to use civil Directives for
certain  defence  contracts,  whereas  the
bulk of the latter would remain under
national law. 
(cid:1) A new Directive especially adapted to the
defence market. Member states would then
still have the possibility to invoke Article
296, but could also use the new Directive
for  the  procurement  of  military  equip-
ment, in particular if the latter did not con-
cern their ‘essential’ security interests.

The usefulness of such a Directive would
depend on the way its form and content
were designed. Most importantly, it would
have to allow for flexible procedures and
include specific selection criteria, in par-
ticular security of supply and confiden-
tiality.  Moreover,  it  would  need  to  be
accompanied by measures in other related
fields, in particular transfers and transits.
Certain tricky issues like offsets would
have to be resolved as well. All these are
enormous political challenges.

However, handled in a sensible way, a
Directive could be an appropriate tool to
escape the current dilemma of whether to
apply either civil Directives or Article 296.
Coordinating  national  regulations,  it
could rationalise Europe’s fragmented

Briefings
On 14 October research fellows discussed ESDP and EU enlargement with
a delegation of Chinese academics and diplomats, and on 1 December a
party from the Estonian Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee visited the
Institute.

regulatory framework and make the sys-
tem more transparent.

However,  scepticism  is  widespread
among  both  governments  and  indus-
tries. Many fear the Commission’s lack of
experience in defence, and see a Directive
in  particular  as  an  attempt  naïvely  to
enforce radical market liberalisation. On
closer inspection, these concerns do not
seem justified:
(cid:2) Even if the Commission wanted, it
could not enforce anything. According
to co-decision mechanisms, the Com-
mission may determine the form of a
Directive, but member states would
decide on its content and scope (who
has to apply it to which items).
(cid:2) A  Directive  is  an  instrument  which
offers a considerable degree of flexibility.
If all parties involved played a construc-
tive role, there would be enough room to
adapt it to the specificities of defence.
(cid:2) A Directive would certainly not open
the door to blind market liberalism. First,
it  would  not  concern  WTO  rules  and
therefore only apply to intra-European
competition. Second, specific selection
criteria and procedures can be powerful
tools  to  ensure  that  Europe’s  defence
industrial base does not fall victim to
uncontrollable market forces.

As  with  all  reforms,  the  risk  is  that
everyone agrees in principle on the neces-
sity to do ‘something’, but shies away
when things become serious, threatening
vested interests and old habits. However,
given  the  poor  record  of  intergovern-
mental arrangements, it is difficult to see
how the regulatory framework can be
rationalised without Community tools.
Member states and industry should thus
take the Green Paper as an opportunity
to establish a serious dialogue with the
Commission that continues beyond the
current consultation phase.

Burkard Schmitt

On-line/http
All of the Institute’s publications
and  reports  on  seminars  can  be
accessed on the Institute’s website:

www.iss-eu.org

Comment

A new ‘Eastern question’

EE vents in Ukraine tell three sto-

ries that, woven together, reflect
in
the  changes  occurring 
Europe and pose a new ‘Eastern ques-
tion’.
(cid:1) The first story relates the birth of a
revitalised Ukraine. The two candidates
in the elections, Viktor Yushchenko and
Viktor Yanukovych, in themselves do not
signal this birth – but 17 days of peaceful
demonstrations in Kyiv and other cities
do, as does the decision of the Ukrain-
ian Supreme Court to call for a new sec-
ond round on 26 December. No matter
the outcome of the second round – and
one can expect further twists and turns
before (this piece was written before 26
December) a new president is inaugu-
rated – the ‘Orange Revolution’ signals
a deep change, one of quality rather than
quantity.  As  a  result  of  a  triumphant
exercise in people’s democracy, the para-
digm of politics in Ukraine is different.
At  the  most  basic  level,  Ukraine  has
finally realised its independence. The dig-
nity and pride manifested since Novem-
ber could not contrast more with the tar-
nished politics of the Kuchma era. One
should not be lured into thinking that
the scale of political and economic prob-
lems facing Ukraine has lessened, or that
the country is any less divided in orien-
tation. Still, a great European country is
back.
(cid:1) The second tale has Russia for protag-
onist. After the Soviet collapse, Moscow
declared that the former Soviet Union
constituted its ‘sphere of vital interest,’
where Russia had special responsibilities
and rights. One of these was Moscow’s
desire to be the main gateway for inter-
national  organisations  and  external
states  in  the  region.  Another  was  to
ensure that the new states on Russia’s

borders  were  ‘friendly’  –  insomuch  as
they  did  not  pursue  an  anti-Russian
agenda. On both accounts, Russia’s self-
declared responsibilities have been cur-
tailed. After 11 September, the United
States set up bases in Central Asia and
launched a military programme in Geor-
gia. 2003 saw the ‘Rose Revolution’ in
Georgia, the failure of Russia’s proposal
to settle the Moldovan conflict (with the
so-called  ‘Kozak  Memorandum’),  and
greater EU engagement throughout the
region – a difficult year. 2004 has been
worse: it will be remembered as that of
Ukraine, which saw Russia and the EU
adopting sometimes opposite views on
the nature of crisis and its solution. The
post-Soviet  ‘space’  has  shattered,  and
Moscow  has  difficulty  accepting  that
there are new orbits to which the former
Soviet republics gravitate.
(cid:1) The third tale features the rise of a new
EU. Enlargement in May brought new
member states into the Union with new
interests and priorities. It has also led the
EU  physically  into  the  former  Soviet
Union. All of this occurred concurrently
with the rise of the Union as a more con-
fident foreign policy actor, as witnessed
in the European Security Strategy and
the deployment of the first ESDP opera-
tions.  The  launch  of  the  European
Neighbourhood Policy reflects the inter-
weaving of these two strategic trends.
The  mediating  role  played  by  Javier
Solana, Polish President Alexander Kwas-
niewski and Lithuanian President Valdas
Adamkus was physical embodiment of
the new EU that has emerged, confident
of its interests and values and willing to
act  on  them.  Far  from  weakening  it,
enlargement has strengthened CFSP.
(cid:1) The implications of events in Ukraine
are also threefold. First, the contest was

never as simple as it was portrayed – Vik-
tor Yanukovych was never Russia’s man,
nor is Viktor Yushchenko anti-Russian.
However, the election of a new Ukrainian
president, who will seek to undertake
EU-orientated  reform,  will  resound
throughout  the  former  Soviet  Union.
Much more than Georgia, a new pole of
attraction and inspiration will emerge in
a region that is in desperate need of one.
Second, the need for Russia and the EU
to draft principles of cooperation in the
shared neighbourhood and the common
external security ‘space’ is all the more
pressing.  Linked  with  this  is  a  third
implication, which concerns the institu-
tional architecture of European security.
While NATO priorities are increasingly
global and the EU is becoming Europe’s
peacekeeper, the OSCE has emerged as
the forum where differences over Euro-
pean security, especially between Russia
and members of the Euro-Atlantic com-
munity, are played out. For the second
year in a row, the OSCE ministerial failed
to produce an agreed final statement. 
(cid:1) What does this mean for the EU? The
challenge  is  twofold.  First,  the  Union
must  follow  through  on  its  pledge  to
support as much as possible Ukraine’s
transformation  along  EU  lines.  This
requires not only financial support but,
perhaps more importantly, a commit-
ment of time and energy. Second, there is
the fundamental question of where the
future borders of the EU lie. There is no
need for the EU to answer now the ques-
tion of future Ukrainian accession; this is
far-off, and will occur ostensibly after the
Turkish  question  is  answered  finally.
However, Ukraine does pose a new East-
ern question. The EU should continue to
answer that the horizon is open.

Dov Lynch

editorial ... continued from front page

...
désormais son propre rôle politique, avec une autonomie de vision
et d’objectifs dont même les plus fervents partisans de l’ Europe
politique n’auraient naguère osé rêver.
(cid:1) Il ne fait guère de doute que la question turque représente à
terme  l’un  des  défis  historiques  majeurs  de  la  construction
européenne. Toutefois, au regard des chemins imprévus que prend

aujourd’hui  la  montée  en  puissance  politique  de  l’Union, 
l’attachement  aux  modèles  théoriques  censés  permettre  la
construction un jour d’une Europe politique mériterait d’être rela-
tivisé. Quitte à prendre le risque d’affirmer la compatibilité entre
ces deux projets, celui de l’intégration démocratique des autres et
celui de l’intégration politique de l’Union elle-même.(cid:3)

.
9
4
9
7
-
7
1
0
1
N
S
S
I

,
5
0
0
2

y
r
a
u
n
a
J

,
r
u
e
m

i
r
p
m

I

t
e
l
r
o
C

y
b

e
c
n
a
r
F

n

i

d
e
t
n
i
r
P

.
s

i
r
a
P

,
e

l
l
i

b
a
M
e
r
i
a
C

l

:

n
g
i
s
e
d

i

c
h
p
a
r

G

,
y
e
v
r
e
H
y
n
o
h

t

n
A

:
r
o
t
i

d
E

,
o
t
t
o
s
e
n
G
e
o
c
N

i

l

:
r
o
t
c
e
r
i
d

e
t
u
t
i
t
s
n
I