11 minute read
3.2. Challenges of Military Operations and Missions (Georgios Tsitsikostas
3.2. CHALLENGES OF MILITARY OPERATIONS AND MISSIONS
by Georgios Tsitsikostas
Advertisement
European Union
The lack of quick and spectacular results may create frustration. Nevertheless, ‘quick wins’ were never anticipated or expected, although they would definitely be welcome.
Since 2003, the European Union has launched 13 military CSDP missions and operations. Deployed on two continents, on land and at sea, these missions and operations constitute the military contribution to the European Union’s comprehensive approach to crisis management. Their objective, regardless of the geographical area in which they are deployed, is to support efforts to restore stability and build security in states and regions on the Union’s periphery. Today, six EU-led military missions and operations are active.
The mandates of these missions and operations, established through a resolution of the United Nations Security Council or via a request by the host nation, have been diverse. This underpins the inherently flexible and adaptable nature of the military approach which allowed and enabled the smooth development of the EU’s engagement, following developments in the country in question. The example of the gradual development of the executive EU military operation the in Central African Republic (EUFOR CAR) into a non-executive Military Advisory Mission (EUMAM CAR) and later into a Training Mission (EUTM CAR) has educational value in this sense.
STABILITY PROJECTION AND SECURITY BUILDING
The lack of quick and spectacular results may create frustration. Nevertheless, ‘quick wins’ were never anticipated or expected, although they would definitely be welcome. The nature of the
European Union
New threats call for new responses. Most if not all of them are transnational, multidimensional and dynamic threats that blur the boundaries of the traditional internal/external security division.
military engagement in the current CSDP missions and operations is fundamentally different from common military tasks, as undertaken under national control and within national borders. Although the military is linked to the ‘hard’ element of the power nations or organisations possess, and rightly so, in this unique EU approach, it is wrapped in a ‘velvet glove’.
Its presence in the host nation or in the seas adjacent to unstable regions is intended to project stability rather than power, and to increase security.
The European Union’s commitment to peace and security in Africa is growing, and the deterioration of the security environment in parts of that continent – which is very important for Europe – namely the Central African Republic, Mali and Somalia, creates challenges and threats that must be adequately and effectively addressed. From the European side it is acknowledged that the key to achieving a sustainable Safe and Secure Environment (SASE) is to encourage, enable and support the local security institutions in building up their own capacities. To this end, creating ownership of the endeavour and enjoying the extensive support of all concerned stakeholders in the nation in question are ‘sine qua nons’.
In this context the tasks entrusted to the military include supporting indigenous security building, providing advice to the respective security institutions in areas such as operations, plans, logistics, administration and legal affairs, as well as providing specialised training to the Armed Forces of the respective host nation.
Great emphasis is placed on advancing constitutional and democratic order over the military apparatus and on strengthening the rule of law. The strengthening of the local armed forces’ effectiveness, reforming them into a modernised, ethnically balanced and democratically accountable institution and the restoration of their credibility and overall image among the population is fundamental for a security environment that will stand the test of time. Although the mandates of each of these three non-executive EU military missions differ, reflecting the different needs and priorities of the respective host nation, they are similar in that the focus is on operating in the background and doing an in-depth job, which requires patience, persistence and commitment: these qualities are encoded into the DNA of the military.
EXECUTIVE CHARACTER AND MANDATE
The same approach can be unmistakeably identified in the EU’s military operations. Their executive character and mandate prioritise the relevant tasks. The wording used here is stronger: ‘[…] maintain a Safe and Secure Environment’ in the case of EUFOR ALTHEA, ‘[…] protection of shipping, deterrence projection, repression of acts of piracy’ in the case of EUNAVFOR ATALANTA, ‘[…] disrupt the business model of human smugglers and traffickers’ in the case of EUNAVFORMED SOPHIA. Here again, there are no quick fixes: EUFOR ALTHEA took over responsibility for maintaining a Safe and Secure Environment from the NATO Stabilisation Force (SFOR) in 2004; EUNAVFOR ATALANTA has been operating in the Indian Ocean since 2008. EUNAVFORMED SOPHIA is likely to be active for quite a long time as well. Here
European Union/EUFOR ALTHEA
Specific challenges can be addressed very quickly provided that there is a political will to do so.
again, the flexibility and adaptability of the military instrument has proven its importance. Over time, and following developments on the ground and the initial phased concept of the operation, the operations evolved to incorporate amended or additional tasks.
In certain instances, these tasks are of a rather non-executive character, such as an operation to ‘[…] support the capacity building and training of the coastguard’.
Over the last decade, the security environment in the regions adjacent to Europe has changed significantly. New challenges and threats have surfaced to join conventional, persistent ones. These include terrorism, cybersecurity [hybrid threat], the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, transnational organised crime, piracy and armed conflicts. The European Union’s Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy accurately identifies these challenges and threats and offers a vision for the European Union’s role as a credible security provider.
New threats call for new responses. Most if not all of these are transnational, multidimensional and dynamic threats that blur the boundaries of the traditional internal/external security division; a joined-up civilian-military response is thus required in order to successfully tackle them. The European Union must be inventive, adaptable and strong-willed in order to become a recognised strategic actor.
Making better use of the instruments already in its extensive tool box, as well as fine-tuning and supplementing these with a number of additional features to bridge identified gaps or cover shortfalls will be sufficient to enable the Union to fulfil this role.
European Union/EUTM Somalia
The nature of the military engagement in the current CSDP missions and operations is fundamentally different from the common military tasks undertaken under national control.
BATTLEGROUPS: RAPID RESPONSE, NEVER USED
Military CSDP missions and operations are faced with challenges that are internal as well as external to the European Union, adding to the overall complexity. All of these are quite well known and have been thoroughly analysed. The European Union has been extensively criticised over the alleged slowness of its responses. Even more criticism was generated by the reluctance it has shown to use its rapid response forces, namely, the Battlegroups. It cannot be denied that the established decision-making procedures within the European Union are indeed time-consuming. It could be argued, however, that they are designed in this way precisely in order to facilitate this process, in an institution that currently brings together 27 sovereign nations with equal votes. At the same time, whenever time was of critical importance, such as in the case of Operation Artemis or EUFOR CAR, adequate flexibility was demonstrated and decisions were made in a very timely fashion, a fact that has been widely acknowledged. This proves that the specific challenge can be addressed, provided that the political will to do so is present.
The same argument could be used in favour of the potential deployment of the Battlegroups, an instrument that this year celebrates its tenth anniversary but has never been used, despite the fact that on several occasions it could have constituted the proper response. Ten years after its inception, it is high time to revisit the Battlegroups concept and examine how relevant it still is to contemporary challenges. It is time to ask ourselves some hard questions, such as whether we still need (or want) to have this kind of rapid response capability and, depending on the answers, to take the respective decisions. If the outcome of this debate is that the challenges and threats the European Union faces require that sort of capability, then it must not only be preserved, but developed into something that is meaningful and useful. And if it is useful, then it needs and deserves to be used. Like the issue of decision-making, this one is also a matter of political will.
The military objective of CSDP engagements, regardless of the geographical area in which they are deployed, is to support efforts to restore stability and build peace in states and regions in the Union’s sphere of interest.
European Union/EUNAVFOR Somalia
COLLECTIVE FUNDING UNDER ‘ATHENA’ 1
Adequate financing is another challenge EU military missions and operations face. Military operations are usually financed through national funding, although some can be financed through collective funding under the provisions of the ‘Athena’ mechanism. This arrangement does not make participation in the missions and operations attractive, and for the most part discourages the smaller Member States, or those affected by the financial crisis, from making a more active contribution. The upcoming review of the ‘Athena’ mechanism in 2017 provides a unique opportunity to address this issue, which increases and to a certain extent explains, the reluctance to deploy the Battlegroups. In the case of the EU military missions, financing should also cover the provision of relevant material support to the recipients of their training programmes, if the latter are to be of any meaning operationally. It should be noted that the overall cost of the CSDP to the European Union budget is minimal, in stark contrast with the importance placed upon it. The revision of the ‘Athena’ mechanism in this way is likely to produce secondary effects that will improve the attractiveness of potential contributing nations, facilitating the creation of follow-on forces and improving the sustainability of the endeavour. The expectation is that this opportunity will be seized and a political decision will be made to facilitate the operation and maximise the effectiveness of military engagement under the CSDP.
PERMANENT EU HEADQUARTERS
The way the European Union will address the identified shortcomings and gaps in the way CSDP military missions and operations are currently planned and conducted constitutes a dif-
1 The current financial mechanism can be found under chapter 3.5. The European Peace Facility on page 103.
ferent kind of challenge. Amongst these shortcomings are the extended periods of absence commanders are obliged to take from their posts in order to be in Brussels. They also result in the loss of the valuable, hard-won experience, lessons learnt and valuable expertise gained after a mission or operation concludes. The procedures followed so far in the EU, which are tested, proven and coherent, differ from those used by national defence institutions. The creation of a permanent EU planning and management structure and an operational headquarters have been clearly identified as the corrective steps, streamlining EU practices with well-established and proven norms. The challenge is to strike a balance between those Member States that call for a more ambitious development of European Union military capabilities, and those that express scepticism on the grounds of avoiding unnecessary duplication with NATO, a subject on which there is unanimous agreement.
Agreement also exists on deepening cooperation with NATO in a number of commonly identified areas of mutual interest. This is also a field that presents a challenge, taking into account the different nature of each institution and the prevailing political sensitivities of certain Member States. Practical cooperation is exercised at the tactical level, by solving problems on the ground and maximising the effectiveness of the respective missions and operations.
INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL SECURITY
The blurring of the boundaries of the traditional internal/external security division and the acknowledgement of the need to address the internal/external security nexus demand, rather than require, closer cooperation between the military and security forces. This has already been witnessed in a number of Member States, which mobilised their national Armed Forces in order to respond to situations such as the migrant crisis, whose intensity overwhelmed the capacities of the responsible civilian authorities. In the future there may be a request for an EU military mission to provide this kind of support to a Member State, as some have already implied.
The invocation of Article 42.(7) (mutual assistance clause) of the TEU by France, following the deadly November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris raised the issue and fuelled discussions about the ways in which the European Union might provide assistance to a Member State in a similar situation in the future. This discussion also included Article 222 (the solidarity clause) of the TFEU.
The explicit reference of the latter to the use of the military resources available to the European Union (‘[…] mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the Member States […]’), presents an additional opportunity to reflect on the ways this could be made possible, in particular because Article 222 TFEU is not part of the Common Security and Defence Policy and therefore does not fall under the responsibility of the EUMC.
EU: GLOBAL ACTOR AND SECURITY PROVIDER
The European Union is a global actor and a security provider. As such it enjoys great respect and is highly regarded. Nevertheless, this cannot be taken for granted: an actor’s position in the international system and its relative power is constantly evaluated and recalculated, based upon its decisions and its positions. In the contemporary security environment, characterised by instability and revisionism, new actors – state and non-state alike – have emerged. If the European Union wishes to be acclaimed as a respected security provider it needs to decisively and convincingly position itself as such. At the conceptual level, the presentation of the EU Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy and the Implementation Plan on Security and Defence was very timely. It is now time for action.
