Frente a los desafíos actuales de la geopolítica global, ¿cómo se articula la autonomía estratégica de la Unión Europea en el marco de su política exterior y de seguridad?

  1. Miguel Ángel BENEDICTO SOLSONA 1
  2. María José MOLINA GARCÍA 2
  1. 1 Universidad Europea de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Europea de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04dp46240

  2. 2 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

Journal:
Relaciones internacionales

ISSN: 1699-3950

Year of publication: 2020

Issue Title: Número abierto

Issue: 44

Pages: 11-28

Type: Article

DOI: 10.15366/RELACIONESINTERNACIONALES2020.44.001 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Relaciones internacionales

Abstract

The changing global geopolitical circumstances (with a revisionist Russia, a rising and more assertive China, a withdrawing United States with values increasingly different from those of Europe, the instability coming from the East and the Southern Mediterranean, the consummation of Brexit...) are the contextual backdrop of the European Union, and following the adoption of its Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy it has developed a series of political and institutional tools to support its strategic autonomy in the field of security and defence (Action Plans, EU-NATO cooperation, permanent structured cooperation, the European Initiative for Intervention...). To these instruments can be added others provided for in the Lisbon Treaty (2009), such as the solidarity and mutual assistance clauses, the latter invoked after the Daesh attack in Paris in November 2015, as a defensive alliance to guarantee security in European countries. All this is in line with the level of ambition set by the Member States, which ranges from protecting their neighbourhood to becoming a universal provider of global security -in this respect one notes the Franco-German leadership in defence. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron approved a Declaration in June 2018 at the Château de Meseberg that included majority voting in foreign policy, security and defence matters in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of decision-making. In addition, it advocated the European Intervention Initiative and new formats such as a European Security Council, as well as strengthening European coordination within the United Nations and the development of a European fighter jet. Based on this context that is outlined in previous lines, in which diverse variables and actors concur and from the perspective offered by the science of international relations, our object of study is articulated that aspires to verify if the changes from a world order based on rules to another truffle of hard power, require a step forward for the European Union with a common strategic culture, analysed from a constructivist approach (Meyer, 2007 y 2004), along with greater leadership and political will. In other words, in the current international context, is ensuring the security and defence of Europe autonomously a necessity for the European Union? Consequently, would NATO support be reduced? At the moment, the Union needs NATO, but it cannot neglect its own capabilities. In order to articulate our research proposal, we place ourselves in one of the levels of analysis specific to international relations, on the plane of micro-internationality (Calduch, 1991, p. 13), which would be identified with that of the European Union’s foreign policy and the challenges it faces. And also in a temporal framework that responds to the line of action that has been developed since the adoption of the Global Strategy in 2016 until the present moment with a Union that is committed to a “geopolitical” Europe. From an explanatory perspective, supported by consultation of current sources (primary and derived), the analysis is structured as follows: 1) The starting point is to examine the complex and uncertain international and European scenario, from which global and regional challenges emerge, with the risk of further conflicts. We explain this context from the instability coming from the East, the Balkans and the Southern Mediterranean, as well as the references to the Trump Administration and the process commonly known as Brexit. 2) To subsequently define what is meant by strategic autonomy in the context of that European Global Strategy and to delimit the variables of analysis. This autonomy has its immediate antecedent in the Saint Malo Agreement (1998). In that agreement, both the United Kingdom and France agreed that the EU should have the capacity for “autonomous action”, supported by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them and a preparation to do so. This is with the aim of responding to international crises, and under French-British sponsorship the 1999 Cologne European Council introduced “autonomy of action” with the purpose of acting in international crises included in the Treaties, either when NATO does not do so, as an independent actor, or together with the Atlantic Alliance. 3) The foregoing considerations are complemented and contextualised by the institutionalist approach (Smith, 2004) that provides the study with the different political and institutional instruments that the Union is adopting in the face of the need to promote the generation of civilian and military capabilities, as well as to assess their suitability or otherwise for promoting European strategic autonomy. All of this is aimed at strengthening European unity and giving coherence to external action within the framework of one of its founding pillars, such as the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), launched at the Cologne Council in 1999 and renamed the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) by the Lisbon Treaty, which called for the adoption of measures to increase EU-NATO cooperation. 4) Finally, fulfilling a practical function, the conclusion is to assess whether or not the Union’s evolutionary process in this field is fulfilling its capacities and conditions, and to discern how the next stage should be approached. In this regard, we must assimilate those facts that will impact on the course and pace of the integration process and, therefore, on this desire for strategic autonomy, we refer to the departure of the United Kingdom (Brexit), the economic difficulties of certain European countries of the South in balancing their economic balance and the consequent reaction of the creditor countries of the North, the different perception of the threats and risks of the countries of the North in the face of Russian pressure or those of the South that have to deal with immigration pressure, the expansion of jihadist terrorism or the social and economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. For its part, the European Council, held in June 2018, ratified the will of the Member States to continue taking decisive steps to boost European defence, increase strategic autonomy and complement and strengthen NATO activities

Bibliographic References

  • Arteaga, F. (12.09.2018). No es el 2%, ¡son las relaciones transatlánticas, estúpidos! Blog Real Instituto Elcano. Recuperado de: https://blog.realinstitutoelcano.org/no-es-el-2-son-las-relaciones-transatlanticas-estupidos/ (12.11.2019).
  • Benedicto Solsona, M. A. (2019). La contribución federal de la Política de Seguridad y Defensa. En Bengoetxea, J. (Coord.) Europa de las regiones y el futuro federal de Europa. Balance y perspectiva de la gobernanza multinivel de la Unión Europea (pp. 157-172). Madrid: Dykinson.
  • Benedicto Solsona, M. A. (2018). Seguridad y Defensa de la UE en el Mediterráneo Sur. En Priego, A. y Bay Rasmussen, S. (Coords.). La proyección exterior de la UE hacia el Mediterráneo Sur tras las Primaveras Árabes (pp. 99-124). Navarra: Aranzadi.
  • Benedicto Solsona, M. A. (2017). Pasos de gigante en la defensa europea. Política Exterior, 31 (175), 106-115.
  • Besch, S. (2019). The European Commission in EU Defense Industrial Policy. Carnegie Europe. Recuperado de: https://carnegieeurope.eu/2019/10/22/european-commission-in-eu-defense-industrial-policy-pub-80102 (12.04.2020).
  • Biscop, S. (2019). Fighting for Europe. European Strategic Autonomy and the use of force. InEgmont Papers, 103. Recuperado de: http://www.egmontinstitute.be/content/uploads/2019/01/EP103.pdf?type=pdf (07.06.2020).
  • Biscop, S. (2018). EU-NATO relations: a long-term perspective. Nação e Defesa, 150, 85-93.
  • Biscop, S. (2016). The EU Global Strategy: Realpolitik with European Characteristics Security. Policy Brief, 75. Recuperado de: http://www.egmontinstitute.be/content/uploads/2016/06/SPB75.pdf?type=pdf (07.06.2020).
  • Calduch Cervera, R. (1991). Concepto y método de las relaciones internacionales. En Relaciones Internacionales (pp.1-20). Madrid: Ediciones Ciencias Sociales. Recuperado de: https://www.ucm.es/data/cont/media/www/pag-55159/lib1cap1.pdf (15.04.2020).
  • Colás, X. (25.03.2017). Vladimir Putin y Marine Le Pen, el eje antieuropeo. Diario El Mundo. Recuperado de: https://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2017/03/25/58d57d11ca474108128b4600.html (10.04.2020).
  • Comisión Europea (16.07.2019). Opening Statement in the European Parliament Plenary Session by Ursula von der Leyen, Candidate for President of the European Commission. Recuperado de: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_19_4230
  • Comisión Europea (2019). European Commission and HR/VP contribution to the European Council. EU-China- A strategic Outlook. Recuperado de: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/communication-eu-chinaa-strategic-outlook.pdf (07.06.2020).
  • Comisión Europea (09.03.2020). Comunicación conjunta al Parlamento Europeo y al Consejo. Hacia una estrategia global con África. Recuperado de: https://op.europa.eu/es/publication-detail/-/publication/55817dfb-61eb-11ea-b735-01aa75ed71a1 (07.06.2020).
  • Cornish, P. y Edwards, G. (2005). The Strategic Culture of the European Union: A Progress Report. International Affairs, 81(4), 801-820.
  • Csernatoni, R. (2019). The Democratic Challenge of EU Defense Policy. Carnegie Europe. Recuperado de: https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/80384 (12.04.2020).
  • De Miguel, B. (12.05.2019). EEUU amenaza a Europa con represalias si impulsa en solitario sus proyectos de Defensa. El País. Recuperado de: https://elpais.com/internacional/2019/05/12/actualidad/1557662517_974981.html (10.10.2019).
  • Dmitry, D. (2017). EU-Russia Relations in the Post-Soviet Space. En Biscop, S. The EU global strategy: implications for Russia (pp. 15-25). Moscú: Egmont Royal Institute for International Relations and Institute of Europe.
  • Drent, M. (08.08.2018). European strategic autonomy: going it alone. Clingendael. Recuperado de: https://www.clingendael.org/publication/european-strategic-autonomy-going-it-alone (07.10.2019).
  • Emmnuel Macron warns Europe: NATO is becoming brain-dead (07.11.2019). The Economist. Recuperado de: https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/11/07/emmanuel-macron-warns-europe-nato-is-becoming-brain-dead(10.07.2019).
  • Franke, Ulrike y Varma, T. (2019). Independence play: Europe’s pursuit of strategic autonomy. European Council on Foreign Relations. Recuperado de: https://www.ecfr.eu/page/-/ECFR_Independence_play_Europe_pursuit_strategic_autonomy.pdf (15.09.2019).
  • Gobierno de Reino Unido (2017). Foreign policy, defence and development. A future partnership paper. Recuperado de: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/643924/Foreign_policy__defence_and_development_paper.pdf
  • Grevi, G. (2019). Strategic autonomy for European choices: the key to Europe´s shaping power. Discussion paper. European Policy Center. Recuperado de: http://aei.pitt.edu/100408/1/pub_9300_strategic_autonomy_for_european_choices2.pdf (15.09.2019).
  • Grieger, G. (2018). China, the 16+1 format and the EU. European Parliamentary Research Service, September 2018. Recuperado de: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/625173/EPRS_ BRI(2018)625173_EN.pdf (20.04.2020).
  • Guinea, M. (2018). La política de Defensa Europea: el avance continúa. Newsletter del Consejo Federal Español del Movimiento Europeo, 11. Recuperado de: http://www.movimientoeuropeo.org/numero-11/ (10.09.2019).
  • Howorth, J. (2018). EU-NATO Cooperation and Strategic Autonomy: logical contradiction or Ariadne’s Thread? Working Paper KFG The Transformative Power of Europe, 90. Recuperado de: https://www.polsoz.fu-berlin.de/en/v/transformeurope/publications/working_paper/wp/WP_90_Howorth/WP_90_Howorth_WEB.pdf (20.10.2019)
  • Jaguaribe, H. (1979). Hegemonía céntrica y autonomía periférica. Estudios Internacionales, 12 (46), 91–180.
  • Kempin, R. and Kunz, B. (2017). France, Germany and the Quest for European Strategic Autonomy. Notes du Cerfa,141. Recuperado de: https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ndc_141_kempin_kunz_france_germany_ european_strategic_autonomy_dec_2017.pdf (20.10.2019).
  • Kramp-Karrenbauer, A. (09.03.2019). Acertar en la construcción de Europa. Recuperado en https://www.cdu.de/artikel/acertar-en-la-construccion-de-europa-getting-europe-right (10.07.2019).
  • Krotz, U. and Maher, R. (2011). International Relations theory and the rise of European foreign and security policy. World Politics, 3 (63), 548-579. Recuperado de: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23018780?seq=1 (11.04.2020).
  • Lawerence, T., Praks, H. y Järvenpää, P. (2017). Building Capacity for the EU Global Strategy. International Centre for Defence and Security. Policy Paper. Recuperado de: https://icds.ee/wpcontent/uploads/2018/ICDS_Policy_Paper_Building_Capacity_for_the_EU_Global_Strategy.pdf (20.10.2019).
  • Leonard, M. (2019). Inside Macron’s Russia Initiative. The Strategist. Recuperado de: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/inside-macrons-russia-initiative/ (07.06.2020)
  • Martinsen, P. M. (septiembre, 2003). The European Security and Defence Strategy: a Strategic Culture in the Making.Trabajo presentado en la Conferencia del Consejo Europeo de Relaciones Exteriores, Marburg.
  • Meyer, C. O. (2004). Theorising European strategic culture between convergence and the persistence of national diversity. CEPS Working Document, 204. Recuperado de: https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/theorising-european-strategic-culture-between-convergence-and-persistence-national/ (07.06.2020).
  • Meyer, C. O. (2007). The Quest for a European Strategic Culture: Changing Norms on Security and Defence in the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Milosevich-Juaristi, M. (2015). ¿Por qué Rusia es una amenaza existencial para Europa? Real Instituto Elcano, ARI 35/2015. Recuperado de: http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/rielcano_es/contenidoWCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/elcano/elcano_es/zonas_es/defensa+y+seguridad/ari35-2015-milosevichjuaristi-rusia-amenaza-existencial-europa (25.11.2019).
  • Moya, L. E. (2019). The European Intervention Initiative, Permanent Structured Cooperation and French institutional engineering. Documento de Opinión, 79.
  • Parlamento Europeo (07.10.2019). Hearing with High Representative/Vice President-designate Josep Borrell. Recuperado de: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20190926IPR62260/hearing-with-highrepresentative-vice-president-designate-josep-borrell (14.04.2020).
  • Puig, J. C. (1980). Doctrinas internacionales y autonomía latinoamericana. Caracas: Instituto de Altos Estudios de América Latina en la Universidad Simón Bolívar.
  • República Francesa (2017). Revue Stratégique de défense et de securité nationale 2017. Recuperado de: https://www.viepublique.fr/sites/default/files/rapport/pdf/174000744.pdf (12.11.2019).
  • Round, P., Giegerich, B. y Mölling, C. (2018). European strategic autonomy and Brexit. The International Institute for Strategic Studies.
  • Schüt, T. and Mölling, C. (2018). Fostering a defence industrial base for Europe: the impact of Brexit. Institute for Strategic Studies.
  • Simonoff, A. y Lorenzini, M. E. (2019). Autonomía e Integración en las Teorías del Sur: Desentrañando el Pensamiento de Hélio Jaguaribe y Juan Carlos Puig. Iberoamericana – Nordic Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 48 (1), 96-106.
  • Smith, M. (2004). Europe’s Foreign and Security Policy: The Institutionalization of Cooperation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Soler i Lecha, E. y Tocci, N. (2016). Implicaciones de la Estrategia global de la UE para Oriente Medio y el Norte de África. Menara Project, 1.
  • Techau, J. (2016). The EU’s New Global Strategy: Useful or Pointless? Carnegie Europe. Recuperado de: https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=63994 (05.11.2019).
  • Thibauld, M. (06.11.2018) Macron pour une «vraie armée européenne»: un projet réalisable? Europe 1. Recuperado de: https://www.europe1.fr/politique/macron-pour-une-vraie-armee-europeenne-un-projet-realisable-3794831(10.07.2019).
  • Tokatlian, J.G. y Carvajal, L. (1995). Autonomía y política exterior: un debate abierto, un futuro incierto. Afers Internacionals, 28, 7-31. Recuperado de: file:///C:/Users/24013/Downloads/28tokatliancarvajal%20(2).pdf (20.04.2020).
  • Varga, G. (2017). Towards European Strategic Autonomy? Evaluating the New CSDP Initiatives. Budapeste: Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Recuperado de: https://kki.hu/assets/upload/07_KKI-Studies_CSDP_VargaG_20171003.pdf (07.06.2020).
  • Vilmer J., Escorcia, A., Guillaume, M. y Herrera, J. (2018). Information Manipulation: A Challenge for our Democracies. Resource Centre on Media Freedom in Europe. Recuperado de: https://www.rcmediafreedom.eu/Publications/Reports/Information-Manipulation-A-Challenge-for-Our-Democracies (05.04.2020).
Data source: Dialnet