*** BAPTISTE BONNET (Editor): Turquie et Union européenne. Etat des lieux. Editions Bruylant (Groupe De Boeck, 39 rue des Minimes, B-1000 Brussels. Tel: (32-10) 482511 - fax: 482693 - Email: commande@deboeckservices.com - Internet: http://www.bruylant.be ). « Droit de l'Union européenne » series. 2012, 345 pp. €80. ISBN 978-2-8027-3593-9.
Even though this book simply provides an account of a scientific colloquy that was held in March 2011, it still remains useful because it provides clarification on the already complicated but solid legal characteristics that Turkey and the European Union have shared. This relationship and different links are dissected in this clinically scientific analysis and it is not just the Turkish commentators who are most adamant in allocating responsibility for the backtracking in this area and the, “current impasse in the accession process”, according to the terms used by Professor Gautron (Université Montesquieu - Bordeaux IV) in his summing up at the end.
In his preliminary considerations, the former vice prime minister and minister for foreign affairs, Ali Bozer provides an understated appraisal of, “a number of distortions to the principle of pre-eminence of law” committed by European leaders. The authors of the different contributions do not hold back either in this respect, quite on the contrary. For example, Professor Nanette Neuwhal (University of Montréal) refutes the thesis according to which the Union could become unmanageable at an institutional level due to the accession of this large country and that the 2004 big bang accession process proves this. In reality, it would be more appropriate to tackle the question of how this big country could be accommodated and ask ourselves what its admission could bring to the European club, rather than see it as a way of grabbing a significant part of the pie, which would subsequently be determined thus henceforward. Professor Rostane Mehdi (Université Aix-Marseille and the European College of Bruges) looks at the question of Turkey in this perspective and what the Union would lose in geopolitical terms if it slams the door on the Turks. Therefore, for example, Turkey would provide European security and defence policy with, “ a strategic depth that is missing” and in security terms would clearly be a, “net contributor”, which would also be the case on both energy and demographic levels.
What is really important, however, is illustrated by all the different contributors and succinctly summed up by Professor Bonnet (Université Jean Monnet de Saint-Etienne): “Turkey's European destiny is not a Turkish fantasy, it is based on a European commitment”! The different legal experts contributing to this book also look at the so-called “Ankara” association agreement concluded on 12 September… 1963, which is undeniably presented as a pre-accession agreement. Ali Bozer is therefore quite right to conclude that judging by the attitude adopted by certain members of the European Council, “ the cardinal principle of international law international pacta sunt servanda is not being respected” or at least is less likely to be so. Professor Maresceau ( University of Ghent) even goes as far as saying that nothing should allow the Union, even with regard to its deepening and enlargement, to unilaterally amend “ fundamental commitments” made in Ankara. This is precisely what Jean-Paul Jacqué, former director-general at the Council of the Union, sees in the available room for manoeuvre, which suggest to him that they draw on the “acquis”, which stipulate an exception to what was at the time the European Economic Community.
Michel Theys
*** GIOVANNI GREVI, DANIEL KEOHANE (Editors): Challenges for European Foreign Policy in 2013. Renewing the EU's role in the world. Fride (9 C/Felipe IV, 1 dcha, E-28014 Madrid. Tel: (34-91) 2444740 - Email: fride@fride.org - Internet: http://www.fride.org ). 2013, 109 pp. ISBN 978-84-616-2417-1.
At the start of this new year, this collective work published by FRIDE (a European think tank for global action) recommends that one should revisit the EU's foreign policy. The year 2013 must be a year of realism and ambition in Europe, writes Pedro Solbes in a preface to the work, affirming that “Europeans need to face fundamental questions on what they share and what they want to achieve together”. Giovanni Grevi underlines how urgent it is for the EU to take its destiny in its hands and to operate the key strategic choices allowing it to avoid the economic and strategic crisis that is looming over the states both individually and collectively. The clock is ticking. Of course, the consequences of decline will not be felt from one day to the next. The European Union, like a supernova, will continue to shine even though its economic and political engines have ceased to run. And that is where the danger lies - such an illusion should not reduce ambition and discourage reform of what is to be reformed. Europeans, who are excellent when it comes to giving other people advice, often find it difficult to apply such advice to themselves. They have thus left their monetary union incomplete for ten years; they have not invested in common defence; they have been unable to prevent turmoil in countries of their southern neighbourhood; and they have not even given their joint institutions the means to work with the emerging powers, on economic issues or in the security field. In order to correct the direction that Europe is taking and to raise the challenges facing the EU on the international arena, Giovanni Grevi suggests an approach based on three pillars: - the collective definition of the Union's interests; the conception of a “policy mix” calling on all EU instruments; and the leveraging of clout of EU member states for common goals. Daniel Keohane takes another look at the need for the EU to develop a “military option”, above all to meet the relative disengagement of the United States from Europe, to meet the rising power of the military capabilities of emerging countries and the risks linked to an extremely unstable neighbourhood. In 2013, Europeans should focus on three issues: - the combination of military and non-military resources; - the development of military capabilities; - and the use of defence policy as a diplomatic tool (including through joint training and cooperation in counter piracy with China and other strategic partners). Review of the way the EEAS works should aim to structure a single command chain to go from a theoretical comprehensive approach to coordinated and effective action on the ground, Daniel Keohane adds, before underlining the role to be played by the European Commission concerning the defence industry and markets in 2013, the year that will end with a European Council on Defence. This publication reviews a number of other thematic subjects and regions of the world (including Africa penned by Damien Helly, an excellent analysis of relations with Latin America by Susanne Gratius, and the challenges and opportunities of transatlantic relations as seen by Thomas Wright).
(EDD)
*** ARMIN KOCKEL: Die Beistandsklausel im Vertrag von Lissabon. Peter Lang (1 Moosstrasse, Postfach 350, CH-2542 Pieterlen. Tel: (41-32) 3761717 - fax: 3761727 - Email: info@peterlang.com - Internet: http://www.peterlang.com ). « Publications Universitaires Européennes/European University Studies/Europäische Hochschulschriften » series, No. 5323. 2012, 244 pp. €52.80. ISBN 978-3-631-622377.
In this book, Armin Kockel provides an explanation of the mutual assistance clause included in Article 42, paragraph 7, of the Treaty on European Union that has been in force since the Lisbon Treaty. In the first chapter, he explores the different interests defended by international actors such as the member states, the Union and the United Nations. He then describes the history of European security and defence policy since the end of the Second World War up until the Lisbon Treaty. In the second chapter, the author explores the different component parts contained within the new Article and examined, for example the importance of the section on “armed aggression”. The author then looks at the legal implications of Article 42 and highlights the requirement to provide assistance and related criticism, as well as the conflicts that can arise between the different organisations and defence policies. In the fourth chapter, he tackles the effects of the assistance clause, particularly those affecting German law. Finally, in chapter 5 he describes the relationship between the assistance and solidarity clauses.
(SH)
*** CLAUDIA MAJOR: La France, l'Allemagne et la défense européenne: pour plus de pragmatisme et moins de pathos. Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri, 27 rue de la Procession, F-75740 Paris Cedex 15. Tel: (33-1) 40616000 - fax: 40616060 - Email: accueil@ifri.org - Internet: http://www.ifri.org ). « Visions franco-allemandes » series, No. 20. 2013, 35 pp.
In this study published by IFRI (Institut français des relations internationales) as part of the work by the committee studying Franco-German relations (CERFA - Comité d'études des relations franco-allemandes), in the run up to the 50th anniversary of the Elysée Treaty, Claudia Major (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik) calls for “greater pragmatism and less pathos” (our translation throughout) in a bilateral relationship that is of prime importance for Europe but which remains deeply marked by prejudice and cultural misunderstanding. Recent history once more bears witness to this with, on one hand, German procrastination over operations in the Sahel and more especially Mali and, on the other hand, the aborted EADS/BAE merger. The author believes such squabbling behind the “façade of friendship” is dangerous. The two countries are finding it difficult to comprehend that the current blocking of their bilateral defence cooperation is not only detrimental to their own capacity to act but more generally threatens the political and military bases of European security and defence cooperation, within both NATO and the EU. The study goes on to point out that, without a clear decision for raising security challenges together, France and Germany could lose their capacity to take military action, both individually and at European level. Cultural obstacles obviously include the fact that France possesses a spirit of intervention while Germany has a more Euro-centrist and less ambitious view of things. “Berlin shares neither France's fear of strategic decommissioning, nor its concept of a world-scale security policy”, Claudia Major states, underlining also the deep differences between the two countries when it comes to the role of the public authorities in the industrial field. “Rather than continually churning out the same old refrain about Franco-German friendship and the same old call (Ed: which is pathetic and rather hypocritical) of the need for European commitment (…), the two countries should take on a triple task to: analyse why their cooperation is necessary; ask whether even the logic behind their relationship should be questioned; and seek to develop relevant, achievable projects desired by both partners”, the author writes. It suggests in particular: - the development by France and Germany of a common proposal with a view to the European Council on Defence in December 2013; - Franco-German reflection aimed at developing a European pillar within NATO; - and the launching by the two countries of initiatives aimed at setting in place: (1) a reinvestment fund for joint acquisitions (this proposal deserves to be clarified - it is not well understood how the fund would be added to - as there is unfortunately the risk of coming up against current budgetary constraints; and (2) a Franco-German air squadron combining training in common and the surveillance of airspace.
(EDD)
*** OLIVIER DE FRANCE, NICK WITNEY: Étude comparative des Livres blancs des 27 États membres de l'UE: pour la définition d'un cadre européen. Institut de recherche stratégique de l'École militaire (Irsem, 1 place Joffre, case 46, F-75700 Paris SP07. Internet: http://www.defense.gouv.fr/irsem/etudes ). « Étude de l'Irsem » series, No.18. 2012,87 pp. ISBN 978-2-11-129689-3.
In this study carried out for IRSEM (Institut de recherche stratégique de l'Ecole militaire), Olivier De France and Nick Witney (European Council on Foreign Relations) describe the diverse nature of the various strategic documents of the European Union member states and call for the definition of a European framework. The relevance of the former Defence Europe model has been considerably brought into question by the development of the political, financial and strategic context since 2008. It has become unrealistic to imagine that a single member state of the EU might possess all the components of military power due to the cost factor, all the more as the assessment and the dimension of the threats has become an uncertain exercise for the states, the authors say. They find it useful to identify areas of convergence and of incompatibility such as they appear within the defence and security policies of the 27 member states. This exercise will help to develop a European strategic concept likely to work well with the national concepts in a legitimate and effective way. It would take too long to summarise the different elements of this comparative study here. So let us simply point out that only seven European states have a reference document that takes the shape of a White Paper. On the other hand, Latvia is drafting its defence policy from no fewer than 12 documents. In many cases, the examination of the strategic document seems to denote a relative lack of in-depth forward-looking reflection. The question of the future main structuring trends in the international environment is hardly touched upon, as are a number of hypotheses such as the decline of the US or the consequences of a breakdown in the supply chain of energy resources or strategic natural resources. The United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands are noteworthy exceptions. After having spoken of the violence of the budgetary crisis, which imposes an effort of cooperation and the establishment of a European strategic framework, the two authors consider that European policy-makers must be aware of the reality of shared interests and of the ineluctable nature of mutual defence dependency. Defence Ministries must overcome their historic and cultural rejection of joint or even complementary planning, including when it comes to forces and capabilities. A collective reference is essential if convergence in strategic thinking is to be obtained. It is also urgent to begin building strategic convergence around the following subjects: - modification of Europe's strategic position in the world, the nature of transformation for relations between Europe and the United States, the role of the armed forces in responding to risks and threats, and their use in affirming European influence and accurate calibration between autonomy and cooperation. A group of independent and respected experts should be tasked with drafting such a European White Paper (or Strategic Defence Review) and propose a small number of cooperation projects that promote integration more, such as the establishment of joint surveillance of European airspace, the constitution of a European ability to suppress enemy air defence, the creation of a joint communication system for external operations, or the reduction and pooling of test and trial infrastructures.
(EDD)