Dr Ana Isabel Xavier, Lisbon

The European Union must give a signal to the world A design for a European Human Security Strategy

by Dr Ana Isabel Xavier, Assistant Professor, Coimbra

Human Security (HS) in the form of a philosophy or code of moral conduct has not yet been academically mainstreamed and some sceptics see it as a concept that nourishes the philosophical debate on codes of moral conduct. So is it likely that the EU will adopt the Human Security “umbrella” as a foreign policy tool and is this desirable?

Searching for concepts Ten years after being proclaimed and approved by the Brussels European Council, Javier Solana’s European Security Strategy (ESS) is still quoted as a landmark, as it acknowledges poverty, disease and ignorance as the root causes of insecurity, leading in turn to terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts, failed states and organised crime. Notwithstanding the emphasis on preventive intervention and the importance of multilateralism, the ESS does not clearly address Human Security (HS) or explain how the European institutions can implement the ESS in order to explore all possibilities for a European HS Strategy. Moreover, due to the lack of any initiative on the part of the Member States or EU Institutions to embody HS as a strategic concept for the European Union in a post-9/11 scenario, in 2008 Solana recommended a “Report on the implementation of the European Security Strategy - Providing Security in a Changing World”, in which HS is mentioned twice. On the other hand, the Barcelona (2004) and Madrid (2007) Reports prepared by 13 European researchers led by LSE Professor Mary Kaldor were never officially adopted, either by the European institutions or by the Member States. However, this does not diminish the fact that these reports present a detailed study of the operational capacities for European security, drawing a parallel between the principles and levels of action and ongoing EU crisis-management missions and operations in the framework of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Ten years after Solana’s ESS we must, then, insist on the need to come up with a European Human Security Strategy, defining a “checklist” for multilateral implementation.

A Human Security “catalogue” for action Five interdependent elements may encourage the Member States to agree on a HS catalogue for ESDP missions and operations. The first element can be defined as a holistic approach, both top-down and bottom-up, empowering a network of commit

Dr Ana Isabel Xavier is an Assistant Professor and a Post Doctoral researcher in International Relations and Political Science. She holds a PhD in International Relations from the University of Coimbra, Portugal, with a thesis entitled “The European Union and Human Security: a crisis management global player in search of a strategic culture?” She is a member of the European Commission’s Team Europe, developing training activities on European Studies, Human Rights, Non-Formal Education and Citizenship. She is frequently invited by civilian and military institutions for lectures, as well as by the Portuguese media to comment on European current events, and is a member of the Portuguese Political Science Association (APCP), Portuguese Security Studies Network and the Observatory for Human Security (OSH). Photo: private

ments at all levels amongst Ministries, Offices and local organisations. HS focuses on the development, empowerment and autonomy of local populations, taking into account their particular conditions and realities. This perspective allows them to become agents for their own change, denying a “one model fits all” solution. The second element relates to the fight against the roots of structural violence. In this element, the assumption is that we must understand the conflict – its causes, dynamics, motivations and impacts – and comprehensively analyse conflicts from prevention to reconstruction, from early warning mechanisms to post-conflict building. A third element leads us to a preference for multilateralism and local/regional coordination based upon two assumptions: firstly, effective multilateralism, which legitimises intervention by the international community; and secondly, the need for coordination with regional and local actors, both because global threats are best solved at local level and because current conflicts are, and will remain for the foreseeable future, mostly intra and inter-border, and not between states. Therefore, to avoid a domino or spillover effect, effective coordination between global, regional and local actors and instruments is essential for the successful resolution of a given conflict. A fourth point essential for ensuring that state building strengthens the mechanisms needed for the state apparatus to govern consists of creating the conditions for a state not to produce uncertainty, violate human rights or deny good governance and the rule of law.

18 Lampedusa: the journey towards a better future ends in tragedy

Source: noborder network, CC BY 2.0, flickr

The fifth and final element is strategic joint coordination between civilian and military means of action, in which the goal should be to protect civilians and not to defeat the enemy. In other words, the primary focus should not be on military victory, on winning the war at all costs, but on winning peace and avoiding collateral damage. This leads us to the positive concept of peace as first argued by Johan Galtung in the 1990’s.

Benefits of a Human Security Strategy Having listed those five elements, we should note that the implementation of a narrative based on a HS doctrine as highlighted in the abovementioned Madrid and Barcelona Reports brings with it major advantages for the purposes of this discussion. The first is that a HS doctrine strengthens the principles of respect for human rights and the promotion of democracy and of regional or global multilateral institutions (such as the European Court of Human Rights) that give individuals direct access to justice. Similarly, it can also strengthen the rules and procedures for protecting civilians in situations of crisis or violent conflict, bringing all aspects – political, military, humanitarian and development – comprehensively under the same “umbrella”. Furthermore, it pays special attention to post-conflict scenarios, where peace and ceasefire agreements do not necessarily mean the arrival of peace and hence of Human Security.

The EU as a strategic actor? The EU is already perceived as a global player concerned with issues of peace and security, as a security provider and normative power. It is recognised as a successful model for conflict transformation by regional integration, engaged in regional conflicts worldwide, especially in Africa, with its strong efforts to strengthen the security apparatus. With its civilian and military crisis-management instruments and peace-oriented policies (including peace building, conflict resolution, development aid, assistance programmes and a neighbourhood policy), the EU seems to have the ability to be a strategic actor on the global stage and to act as a community of norms and values working for stability and cooperation in many parts of the world. Moreover, if we read the conclusions of the Madrid Report carefully, the European Union seems to be moving towards a modified version of the broad interpretation of human security (one that involves both the development and crisis-management aspects, which reinforces the nexus debate between security and development). However, if the EU wants to be a global strategic player, it has a long way to go in order to avoid double standards and dissenting voices that call into question the EU’s cohesion, both internally and externally. Indeed, the EU frequently does not seem to practice what it preaches and in several EU crisis-management laboratories we find inconsistencies, negative externalities and a leaning towards an “our size fits all” model. In particular, some of the case studies highlighted by the Madrid Report show the other side of the coin: a tendency to prioritise state security over human security; securitisation of development and economic growth; systemic contradiction between theory and practice; domino effect on the neighbourhood; tension between the global and regional powers; difficulties with formulating policies and objectives for achieving freedom from fear and freedom from want; lack of political will and of a long-term perspective.

What next? The next step, therefore, is clear: creating the political will to embody a Human Security Strategy reflecting the common ground among the 28 Member States’ strategic cultures in the area of security and defence. The primary objective of the EU has not been to establish HS but rather democracy and especially stability. And the main goal of a crisis-management mission is to stabilise and maintain security, not to change the status quo as such; advice, monitoring, “making suggestions” on how to respect rights form part of the mission mandates, but not imposing changes to constitutions or people’s mindsets. So we are not there yet, given that so far there has been no such thing as a Human Security mission. There are elements of Human Security in all CSDP missions, but that does not make it a Human Security mission as such and the CSDP does not embrace a human narrative. To do so, it must cover all stages of the conflict cycle (crisis prevention, intervention and postcrisis rehabilitation) and must be always followed up by a civilian mission covering the broad spectrum of functions and tasks required. Of course, to some extent, the EU is already engaged in Human Security and, for some countries, enlargement is the ideal instrument, because it really affects the essence of institutions and people’s empowerment. But is this enough to be labelled as Human Security? Is it likely to address the issue of the EU as a “smart power” (as envisaged by Joseph Nye) within a Human Security approach? Questions that surely will remain open to discussion.