The European Union: Foreign and Security
Policy
Derek E. Mix
Analyst in European Affairs
August 15, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41959
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
Summary
The United States often looks to Europe as its partner of choice in addressing important global
challenges. Given the extent of the transatlantic relationship, congressional foreign policy
activities and interests frequently involve Europe. The relationship between the United States and
the European Union (EU) has become increasingly significant in recent years, and it is likely to
grow even more important. In this context, Members of Congress often have an interest in
understanding the complexities of EU policy making, assessing the compatibility and
effectiveness of U.S. and EU policy approaches, or exploring the long-term implications of
changing transatlantic dynamics.
The EU As a Global Actor
Seeking to play a more active role in global affairs, the EU has developed a Common Foreign and
Security Policy (CFSP) and a Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP). On many foreign
policy and security issues, the 27 EU member states exert a powerful collective influence. On the
other hand, some critics assert that on the whole the EU remains an economic power only, and
that its foreign and security policies have little global impact. Some of the shortcomings in the
EU’s external policies stem from the inherent difficulties of reaching a complete consensus
among the member state governments. Moreover, past institutional arrangements have often
failed to coordinate the EU’s full range of resources.
Elements of EU External Policy
The Common Foreign and Security Policy is based on unanimous consensus among the member
states. CFSP is a mechanism for adopting common principles and guidelines on political and
security issues, committing to common diplomatic approaches, and undertaking joint actions.
Many analysts argue that Europe’s relevance in world affairs increasingly depends on its ability to
speak and act as one.
The EU is currently conducting 13 operations under its Common Security and Defense Policy. To
establish a more robust CSDP, EU member states have been exploring ways to increase their
military capabilities and promote greater defense integration. These efforts have met with limited
success thus far. Civilian missions and capabilities, however, are also central components of
CSDP; the majority of CSDP missions have been civilian operations in areas such as police
training and rule of law.
External policies in technical areas such as trade, humanitarian aid, development assistance,
enlargement, and neighborhood policy are formulated and managed through a “communityâ€
process at the level of the EU institutions. (The European Neighborhood Policy seeks to deepen
the EU’s relations with its southern and eastern neighbors while encouraging them to pursue
governance and economic reforms.) These are the EU’s most deeply integrated external policies.
Given events in North Africa, the Middle East, and some of the former Soviet states, EU
policymakers have been rethinking how such external policy tools might be used to better effect.
The United States, the EU, and NATO
Although some observers remain concerned that a strong EU might act as a counterweight to U.S.
power, others maintain that an assertive and capable EU is very much in the interest of the United
Congressional Research Service
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
States. The focus of the transatlantic relationship has changed since the end of the Cold War: it is
now largely about the United States and Europe working together to manage a range of global
problems. According to some experts, U.S.-EU cooperation holds the greatest potential for
successfully tackling many of today’s emergent threats and concerns.
Nevertheless, NATO remains the dominant institutional foundation for transatlantic security
affairs. U.S. policymakers have supported efforts to develop EU security policies on the condition
that they do not weaken NATO, where the United States has a strong voice on European security
issues. Despite their overlapping membership, the EU and NATO have struggled to work out an
effective cooperative relationship. Analysts suggest that sorting out the dynamics of the U.S.-EU-
NATO relationship to allow for a comprehensive and effective use of Euro-Atlantic resources and
capabilities will be a key challenge for U.S. and European policymakers in the years ahead.
Congressional Research Service
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Issues for Congress.................................................................................................................... 1
Consensus, Coherence, and Continuity ..................................................................................... 2
Principles and Philosophy................................................................................................................ 3
The Treaty on European Union ................................................................................................. 3
The European Security Strategy ................................................................................................ 4
The Common Foreign and Security Policy...................................................................................... 5
Institutions and Actors............................................................................................................... 5
Instruments ................................................................................................................................ 6
Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 8
The Common Security and Defense Policy................................................................................... 10
Institutions and Actors............................................................................................................. 10
CSDP Missions........................................................................................................................ 11
Europe and Eurasia............................................................................................................ 11
Africa................................................................................................................................. 12
Middle East and Asia......................................................................................................... 14
Assessment .............................................................................................................................. 15
“Community†Policies ................................................................................................................... 17
Institutions and Actors............................................................................................................. 17
Trade........................................................................................................................................ 18
Humanitarian Aid and Development Assistance ..................................................................... 18
Enlargement and Neighborhood Policy................................................................................... 19
Assessment .............................................................................................................................. 20
The Enhanced Role of the European Parliament ........................................................................... 21
Conclusion: Issues for the United States ....................................................................................... 22
U.S.-EU Relations ................................................................................................................... 23
EU-NATO Relations................................................................................................................ 23
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 25
Congressional Research Service
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
Introduction
The United States looks to Europe for partnership on an extensive range of global issues. In terms
of international politics, security, and economics, Americans and Europeans tend to share broadly
similar values, and often tend to pursue common or compatible goals. Many observers assert that
the collective weight and influence of Europe and the United States, when projected through
common transatlantic positions and complementary actions, fundamentally increases the odds
that both sides will be able to achieve mutually desirable outcomes in world affairs.
More than five decades after the Treaties of Rome (1957) launched a process of European
integration, the European Union (EU) has come to play an increasingly important role in the life
of its 27 member countries. Reflective of this evolution, significant aspects of policy making have
been gradually shifting from national capitals to the EU institutions based in Brussels.
Although the United States continues to maintain strong and active bilateral relations with the
individual countries of Europe, and the transatlantic defense relationship remains centered in the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), some observers assert that much of the transatlantic
partnership is increasingly set in the context of U.S. relations with the EU.
Issues for Congress
Members of Congress and other U.S. policymakers working on transatlantic and global issues
have sought to better understand the nature and structure of EU foreign policy and the EU policy-
making process. The work of the U.S. Congress encompasses a wide range of activities and issues
that have a European dimension, including numerous security and economic concerns.
Thus, whether the topic is police training in Afghanistan or the Balkans; anti-piracy missions off
the Horn of Africa; counterterrorism and terrorist financing; Iran sanctions; political approaches
to Russia or China; free trade agreements with South Korea; aid to Pakistan; development
assistance to Africa; responses to unrest in North Africa and the Middle East; or any one of many
more issues that could be listed—Members of the 112th Congress often have an interest in
examining whether U.S. and EU legislation, initiatives, funding, operations, and political
communication are complementary or contradictory. Members of Congress tend to examine such
issues in the context of Congress’s own legislative activities, oversight activities vis-à -vis policies
of the U.S. Administration, or in the context of direct interaction with European legislators and
officials.
Many Members of Congress also remain interested in assessing the ways in which developments
in EU foreign and security policy might affect the United States and its interests over the longer
term. Possible avenues for exploring such interest include examining the EU’s global role in the
context of evolving U.S. foreign policy priorities, the relationship between the EU and NATO,
and the dynamics of the U.S.-EU-NATO relationship.
Congressional Research Service
1
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
Consensus, Coherence, and Continuity
The institutional complexity of the EU often presents a challenge to understanding the context
and significance of its external policies (policies governing relations with other regions and non-
member countries).1 Since the Treaty on European Union (also commonly known as the
Maastricht Treaty) established the modern EU in 1992, EU external policies have been
formulated and managed under one of two separate institutional processes:
• The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), which includes a Common
Security and Defense Policy (CSDP), is intergovernmental in nature: the 27
member state governments, acting on the basis of unanimous agreement in the
European Council (the heads of state or government) and the Council of the
European Union (also called the Council of Ministers), are the key actors.
• External policies in areas such as trade, foreign aid, and EU enlargement are
shaped and executed under a supranational or “community†decision-making
process involving all three of the main EU institutions—the European
Commission is arguably the most significant actor in these areas, although the
member states (represented in the European Council and the Council of
Ministers) and the European Parliament also have important decision-making
roles.
The Lisbon Treaty, the EU reform treaty that took effect in December 2009, introduced changes
designed to improve the coherence and effectiveness of EU external policies, primarily by
enhancing the coordination between these two strands. The treaty sets out to remedy three main
weaknesses that analysts have identified with regard to EU external policies and the EU policy-
making process.
First, while consensus does exist on many issues, achieving political agreement among 27
member countries can be inherently difficult. Differences between the member states can leave
the EU with a thinly developed policy or with no common policy at all. A lack of consensus and
direction can hinder the development of longer-term strategic approaches to an issue or region.
The absence of a common policy can breed confusion if the EU “speaks with many voices†as
national leaders express their own views and preferences.
Second, critics regularly assert that EU foreign policy tends to suffer from insufficient
institutional coordination and coherence. Too often, it is argued, the intergovernmental and
supranational strands of external policy are not linked in a meaningful or complementary way.
According to this view, the EU punches below its global weight because it does not fully leverage
the considerable array of policy instruments at its disposal.
Third, prior institutional arrangements—namely, the former prominence of the rotating six-month
national presidencies in external affairs—have been susceptible to shifting priorities, with results
sometimes detrimental to policy continuity.
One key Lisbon Treaty innovation designed to address these points is the creation of a new
position: High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The position
1 For a background overview of the European Union, including an explanation of its main institutions, see CRS Report
RS21372, The European Union: Questions and Answers, by Kristin Archick and Derek E. Mix.
Congressional Research Service
2
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
comes with the additional title of Vice President of the European Commission. (It is therefore
represented in EU documents as the HR/VP.) This is the job now held by former EU Trade
Commissioner Catherine Ashton for a five-year term (2009-2014). She now performs the external
policy duties previously divided between three officials: the High Representative for CFSP
(formerly Javier Solana), the foreign minister of the rotating presidency country, and the
Commissioner for External Relations. As such, the new High Representative position seeks to be
an institutional bridge linking together and coordinating the intergovernmental and “communityâ€
dimensions of EU external policy.
A new EU diplomatic corps, the European External Action Service (EEAS), was officially
launched in December 2010 to support the work of the High Representative in coordinating and
implementing EU foreign policy. The structure of the EEAS likewise reflects a concept of
institutional merger between the European Commission and the Council of Ministers: one-third of
the personnel of the EEAS is to come from the Commission, one-third from the secretariat of the
Council of the European Union, and one-third are to be seconded from the national diplomatic
services of the member states.
The Lisbon Treaty also created a new “permanent†President of the European Council, an
individual serving a once-renewable, two-and-a-half-year term, to manage the activities of the
group, promote the formation of consensus, and speak on its behalf.2 The president is appointed
by agreement among the member states. This is the position now held by former Belgian Prime
Minister Herman Van Rompuy.
Principles and Philosophy
From the time it was founded in the 1950s, the EU has regarded itself as a civilian power. NATO
was the forum where many of the original EU members could focus on questions of Cold War
defense and security. Meanwhile, the early decades of the EU were preoccupied with the
technical aspects of deep economic integration. This type of integration represented a new form
of cooperation between sovereign states that was the very antithesis of the power politics that
twice led to the devastation of Europe between 1914 and 1945. The end of the Cold War,
however, sparked debates within the EU about the desirability of developing a stronger foreign
policy identity. After some early steps in that direction, Europe’s inability to mount a strong
political or military intervention in the Balkan Wars of the 1990s lent renewed urgency to such
efforts while also stimulating initiatives to build an EU security and defense capability.
The Treaty on European Union
The 1992 Treaty on European Union outlines the broad set of principles that guide the EU’s
external policies and actions. Under the treaty, the EU aims to
a) safeguard its values, fundamental interests, security, independence, and integrity;
b) consolidate and support democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the principles of
international law;
2 Prior to the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty, the head of state or government of the rotating presidency country served
as the “temporary†president of the European Council for a six-month period.
Congressional Research Service
3
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
c) preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security, in accordance with
the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, with the principles of the Helsinki
Final Act and with the aims of the Charter of Paris, including those relating to external
borders;
d) foster the sustainable economic, social and environmental development of developing
countries, with the primary aim of eradicating poverty;
e) encourage the integration of all countries into the world economy, including through the
progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade;
f) help develop international measures to preserve and improve the quality of the
environment and the sustainable management of global natural resources, in order to ensure
sustainable development;
g) assist populations, countries and regions confronting natural or man-made disasters; and
h) promote an international system based on stronger multilateral cooperation and good
global governance.3
The European Security Strategy
The European Security Strategy (ESS), released in 2003, is another important touchstone for
understanding the basic philosophy of EU foreign policy.4 The ESS sets out three broad strategic
objectives for EU policymakers:
• First, most immediately, the EU should take necessary actions to address a
considerable list of global challenges and security threats, including regional
conflicts, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, state failure,
organized crime, disease, and destabilizing poverty. (The 2008 Report on the
Implementation of the European Security Strategy adds piracy, cyber security,
energy security, and climate change to the list.5)
• Second, the EU should focus particularly on building regional security in its
neighborhood: the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Mediterranean region, and the
Middle East.
• Third, over the longer-term, the EU should seek the construction of a rules-based,
multilateral world order in which international law, peace, and security are
ensured by strong regional and global institutions.
In outlining broad approaches to pursuing these objectives, the ESS also captures a number of
fundamental philosophical elements. The document asserts that the threats and challenges it
describes cannot be adequately addressed by military means alone, but require a mixture of
3 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union, Article 21.2, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0013:0045:EN:PDF.
4 “A Secure Europe in a Better World—European Security Strategy,†Brussels, December 12, 2003,
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf.
5 “Report on the Implementation of the European Security Strategy—Providing Security in a Changing World,â€
Brussels, December 11, 2008, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/reports/
104630.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
4
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
military, political, and economic tools. Conflict prevention and threat prevention lie at the root of
the EU’s preferred security strategy—the EU therefore ultimately seeks to address the root causes
of conflict and instability by strengthening governance and human rights, and by assisting
economic development through such means as trade and foreign assistance. Analysts assert that
these approaches play to one of the EU’s main strengths: a considerable repertoire of civilian,
“soft power†tools.6
Its preference for an international system based on multilateralism also reflects the strengths of
the EU. The EU’s own internal development in the relations between its member states
demonstrates a highly evolved system of multilateral, cooperative policy making. Many assert
that this mindset has become ingrained in EU thinking. Although extensive multilateralism
suggests a degree of pragmatism and compromise with partners, the EU at the same time seeks to
maintain a foreign policy that is distinctly principles-based and normative in its emphasis on
democracy and human rights.
The Common Foreign and Security Policy
Building on earlier efforts to coordinate member states’ foreign policies, the 1992 Treaty on
European Union formally established the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy. CFSP deals
with international issues of a political or diplomatic nature, including issues with a security or
military orientation—“high politics.†Under the EU treaties, these types of political and security
issues remain the prerogative of the member state governments—conceptually, in the case of
CFSP, “common†means 27 sovereign governments choosing to work together to the extent that
they can reach a consensus on any given policy issue.
Institutions and Actors
The EU institutions representing the member state governments—the European Council (the
heads of state or government) and the Council of the European Union (also called the Council of
Ministers)—play the defining role in formulating CFSP.
The European Council is the EU’s highest level of political authority. It meets twice every six
months (an “EU Summitâ€), and more often if warranted by exceptional circumstances. It is the
responsibility of the European Council to “identify the strategic interests and objectives of the
Union†with regard to its external action—the European Council supplies political direction and
defines the priorities that shape CFSP.7 Decisions are made on the basis of consensus.
The President of the European Council is tasked with managing its work, facilitating consensus,
and helping to ensure policy continuity, while also serving as the group’s spokesman. The High
Representative also takes part in the work of the European Council and may submit CFSP
proposals for consideration. Although the Lisbon Treaty is somewhat ambiguous in the way it
assigns representation duties to both positions, the President of the European Council may be
6 Harvard University’s Joseph Nye coined the phrase “soft power†to mean an ability to fulfill objectives based on
attraction rather than coercion, on the strength of values, culture, institutions, and policies perceived by the
international community as legitimate and credible. See Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Soft Power: The Means to Success in World
Politics (New York: Public Affairs, 2004).
7 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union, Article 22.1.
Congressional Research Service
5
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
considered the voice of CFSP at the heads of state or government level, and the High
Representative may be considered the “day-to-day†voice of CFSP at the ministerial level. The
President of the European Commission is also a member of the European Council.
The Council of Ministers is the other primary forum for developing political consensus and
direction, and it is where most of the formal mechanics of CFSP decision making are carried out.
The foreign ministers of the 27 member states typically meet once a month (the Foreign Affairs
Council configuration of the Council of Ministers). Here again, unanimous agreement among all
member states is required to adopt a CFSP decision—any one foreign minister may veto a
measure.8
The Foreign Affairs Council is chaired by the High Representative—as president of the Foreign
Affairs Council, she seeks to facilitate consensus among the group. With the support of the newly
formed European External Action Service, she is then responsible for managing, implementing,
and representing CFSP decisions.9
The High Representative and the Foreign Affairs Council are also supported by the Political and
Security Committee (PSC), a Council structure composed of ambassadors from the member
states. The PSC monitors and assesses international affairs relevant to CFSP, provides input into
CFSP decision making, and monitors the implementation of CFSP. The work of the PSC is
closely associated with the High Representative and the EEAS.
Instruments
CFSP is composed of numerous elements. The terminology involved in describing these elements
can quickly become confusing because phrases that have a specific meaning in EU parlance
overlap with expressions that are also used—and that may have a different meaning—in everyday
language.
The EU’s 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam first identified four main CFSP instruments: Principles and
Guidelines, which provide general political direction; Common Strategies, which set out
objectives and means; Joint Actions, which address specific situations; and Common Positions,
which define an approach to a particular matter.10 CFSP elements produced before December
2009 are officially referenced under the phrasing of the Treaty of Amsterdam.
The Lisbon Treaty reconceptualizes CFSP instruments into four types of Decisions: (1) on the
strategic objectives and interests of the EU, (2) on common positions, (3) on joint actions, and (4)
on the implementing arrangements for common positions and actions. Elements of CFSP
produced after December 2009 are therefore officially termed Decisions.11
8 Constructive abstention is a possibility (a country may abstain from voting and allow the others to move ahead on the
basis of unanimity). Once a CFSP decision has been adopted, qualified majority voting (QMV) may be used with
regard to implementing measures. The EU typically prefers to operate on the basis of consensus as much as possible.
9 Prior to the Lisbon Treaty, the foreign minister of the EU’s rotating presidency country chaired the Foreign Affairs
Council, and the High Representative for CFSP (Javier Solana) had the lead responsibility for execution.
10 See The Treaty of Amsterdam, Articles J.2-J.5, http://www.eurotreaties.com/amsterdamtreaty.pdf.
11 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union, Article 22.1 and Article 25.
Congressional Research Service
6
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
Principles and Guidelines (or Decisions on the strategic objectives and interests of the EU),
decided at the highest political level, shape the framework of EU policies and actions. The
conclusions and results documents published after a meeting of the European Council or the
Foreign Affairs Council are the main ways of promulgating strategic decisions agreed by EU
leaders and governments in the area of CFSP.12 Between such meetings, the High Representative
may also simply release a CFSP statement on behalf of the EU that expresses a consensus
viewpoint about an international development.13
The key strategy documents adopted by the European Council in recent years—such as the
European Security Strategy itself, the EU Strategy Against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction (2003), the EU Counterterrorism Strategy (2005), and the EU Internal Security
Strategy (2010)—also fall into the category of Principles and Guidelines (or Decisions on the
strategic objectives and interests of the EU).14
These types of high-level political direction may trigger subsequent activity that formalizes the
status of agreed concepts or applies them more specifically and concretely. Common Positions
and Joint Actions (or Decisions on common positions or joint actions) take political agreement a
step further, committing member states to their provisions after formal adoption by the Council of
Ministers.
Conceptually, these instruments occupy something of a gray zone between legislation and
political cooperation. Some observers regard them as binding legal instruments effectively
comparable to the rest of EU law. Others, citing the lack of legal enforcement mechanisms and
the weakness of EU court jurisdiction in these areas, argue that they are a separate category of
instrument apart from the majority of EU law.15 In any case, member states are bound by treaty to
“support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty
and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area.â€16
Common Positions often reiterate the EU’s objectives and define a collectively agreed diplomatic
approach to a particular region or country. For many observers in the United States, the EU’s
position on Cuba may be the most widely known act of this type, but the EU has also adopted
Common Positions with regard to countries such as Zimbabwe, Burma, Belarus, and North
Korea. As this abbreviated list suggests, the EU generally uses these types of CFSP Decisions to
address a problematic situation, often involving a foreign government that fails to respect
principles of human rights, democracy, rule of law, or international law. In addition, rather than
12 See European Council, Conclusions, http://www.european-council.europa.eu/council-meetings/conclusions.aspx?
lang=en, and, for example, Council of the European Union, Press Release – 3082nd Council Meeting (Foreign Affairs),
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/121506.pdf.
13 See Council of the European Union, CFSP Statements, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/policies/foreign-policy/cfsp-
statements.aspx?lang=en&BID=73.
14 Formal Common Strategies as identified in the Treaty of Amsterdam have fallen into disuse. The EU adopted three
such CFSP Common Strategies: on Russia (1999), Ukraine (1999), and the Mediterranean region (2000). These
documents, adopted under the auspices of the European Council, combined objectives, positions, and actions under a
comprehensive, long-term vision for the relationship—compared to the Common Strategies, the focus of a Common
Position is relatively narrower and more immediate. All three Common Strategies, however, have long expired. They
have not been replaced by updated or amended versions, and no new instruments of this type have been formulated.
15 See Paul James Cardwell, EU External Relations and Systems of Governance (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2009), pp.
10-27.
16 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union, Article 24.3.
Congressional Research Service
7
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
dealing with a single country or region, a Common Position might address a cross-cutting topic
such as conflict prevention and resolution, nonproliferation and arms control, or terrorism.
In relevant cases, sanctions are often included as part of a broader Common Position. As of May
2011, the EU had sanctions in place against governments, organizations, or individuals of 25
countries, plus the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups.17 Although the EU generally
looks to a United Nations Security Council mandate to impart legitimacy for sanctions, in almost
all cases the Council of Ministers must adopt a formal instrument for the EU to put sanctions in
place. (There may now also be a stand-alone CFSP Decision on “restrictive measures†in some
instances.)
Joint Actions often consist of launching or extending an out-of-area civilian or military operation
under the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP). (This process and CSDP missions are
discussed in greater detail in “The Common Security and Defense Policy†section below.) Past
Joint Actions have also included the appointment of EU Special Representatives (EUSRs), senior
diplomats assigned to a sensitive country or region in order to give the EU extra political clout.18
A Joint Action might also provide financial or other support to the activities of an international
organization engaged in efforts such as nonproliferation (the International Atomic Energy
Agency, for example) or peace building (the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe, for example).
Assessment
The EU has created institutional structures and instruments to develop and implement a Common
Foreign and Security Policy, and the member states of the EU have integrated their foreign
policies to a remarkable degree on many issues. When the EU speaks as one, it can speak with a
strong voice. The development of CFSP over the past two decades has allowed the EU to evolve
beyond being a merely economic actor, and its role in international politics and security issues
has added an important new layer to its identity.
At the same time, the main challenge to CFSP continues to be forming and maintaining consensus
positions among 27 sovereign countries. To some extent, this challenge may simply be an
inherent and intractable condition of the EU. In CFSP, the 27 national capitals still matter greatly.
Countries may have different perspectives, preferences, and priorities, or may simply disagree
about the best policy course. The bitter divisions within Europe over the 2003 invasion of Iraq
remain the most striking recent illustration of this type of divergence, but others may be cited—
five EU member countries do not recognize the independence of Kosovo, for example.
Consensus can also be a matter of degree, varying in depth from an agreement on general policy
parameters and objectives down to specific policy details. Disagreement on one level of policy
may not preclude a common approach at another level, but when full consensus cannot be
reached, the application of CFSP tends to suffer in terms of focus, enthusiasm, commitment, and
17 For more information and a list of EU sanctions currently in force, see European Union External Action Service,
Sanctions or restrictive measures, http://eeas.europa.eu/cfsp/sanctions/index_en.htm.
18 The EU has eight EUSRs, covering Afghanistan, the African Great Lakes Region, the African Union, Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Central Asia, Crisis in Georgia, Kosovo, and Sudan. EUSRs have now been incorporated into the
structure of the European External Action Service under High Representative Ashton. See
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/policies/foreign-policy/eu-special-representatives.aspx?lang=en.
Congressional Research Service
8
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
consistency. In some instances, the compromises involved in arriving at a common position might
produce a policy that has been “watered down†or that “lacks teeth,†and that might consequently
prove ineffective.
Some analysts assert that CFSP lacks comprehensive strategic approaches in key areas. This is
also often a function of the need for consensus. The EU is often criticized, for example, for
lacking a clearly defined strategic approach to Russia, or to China. Although EU members
certainly share many perceptions and objectives with regard to these countries, the nature of such
relations is complex, and there is a significant degree of variance. Some EU members weigh trade
and commercial concerns differently against concerns such as democracy and human rights.
Some view engagement as the best way to encourage desired reforms and behaviors, while others
prefer different tactics. Viewpoints fall along a continuum from pragmatism to a stricter pursuit of
ideals, and a consistent, comprehensive, and meaningful strategy can often be elusive. Some
analysts observe that the absence of an EU strategy in such cases might discourage member states
from forming a strong national position—member states may be reluctant to unilaterally get out
ahead of the EU and instead wait for a wider consensus to gel.
The “EU†at-large—its institutions and its representatives—is generally criticized for these
shortcomings, and institutional factors have certainly played some role. Despite the
improvements of the Lisbon Treaty, however, the EU can still only provide mechanisms to
facilitate consensus when it comes to CFSP. Ultimately, the High Representative works with the
mandate provided by the member states: she can encourage consensus, but she cannot force it.
CFSP remains a common policy, not a single policy—the EU is not a sovereign state, and its
member countries will continue to have their own national foreign ministries and their own
national foreign policies.
Integration is a process. Regular consultation is designed to achieve a broad foundation of
convergence over time, even if there are short-term divergences. Some analysts argue that Europe
must continue to strengthen CFSP if it is to remain a relevant player in the world. Although
several of the bigger EU countries remain international heavyweights in their own right, analysts
assert that, absent their membership in a strong and unified EU, these countries could someday
find themselves to be global middleweights with increasingly diminishing influence. By the same
token, although smaller member states occasionally fear that their voice is being drowned out
within the EU, they are arguably even less likely to be heard from outside the EU. As the
institutions introduced by the Lisbon Treaty settle into place, analysts assert that the EU must now
concentrate more than ever on developing and fleshing out the substance of CFSP. One of the top
immediate priorities for the High Representative and the EEAS is to work on the development of
strategic partnerships with key countries such as the United States, Canada, Japan, China, Russia,
India, Brazil, and Mexico.19
19 In her 2009 CFSP annual report to the European Parliament, the High Representative identified the consolidation of
such strategic partnerships among her main priorities. See Council of the European Union, 2009 Annual report from the
High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to the European Parliament on the main
aspects and basic choices of CFSP, June 2010, pp. 35-39, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/policies/foreign-
policy.aspx?lang=en.
See also Alvaro de Vasconcelos, ed., A strategy for EU foreign policy, European Union Institute for Security Studies,
June 2010, pp. 65-77, http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/A_strategy_for_EU_foreign_policy.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
9
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
The Common Security and Defense Policy
The Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) is the operations arm of CFSP. The member
countries formally agreed to begin work on an integrated EU security and defense policy in
1999.20 Despite its military and defense elements, it is important to note that the activities of
CSDP are not exclusively military in nature—in fact, in practice, CSDP operations have most
often consisted of civilian activities such as police and judicial training (“rule of lawâ€) and
security sector reform. During its initial decade, CSDP has become largely oriented toward such
activities, as well as peacekeeping, conflict prevention, crisis management, post-conflict
stabilization, and humanitarian missions, rather than conventional military combat operations.
Nevertheless, European policymakers have sought to establish a more robust CSDP by enhancing
and coordinating EU countries’ military capabilities. Under CSDP, the EU has set a series of
targets for improving capabilities and increasing deployable assets, including plans for a rapid
reaction force and multinational “EU Battlegroups.†Such forces are not a standing “EU army,â€
but rather a catalogue of troops and assets drawn from existing national forces that member states
can make available for EU operations. Some analysts have suggested that pooling assets among
several member states and developing national niche capabilities might help remedy European
military shortfalls amid tight defense budgets. In 2004, the EU established the European Defense
Agency (EDA) to help coordinate defense-industrial and procurement policy in order to stretch
European defense spending.
An effective CSDP also calls for an autonomous EU capability to conduct external operations.
Many European officials stress that CSDP is not intended to rival or compete with NATO, but
rather is meant to be a complementary alternative. The Lisbon Treaty confirms the primary role of
NATO in its members’ mutual defense and reiterates that CSDP does not seek to compromise
members’ commitments to NATO. The existence of CSDP gives the EU an ability to act in cases
where EU intervention may be more appropriate or effective, or in situations where NATO or the
United Nations choose not to become involved.
Institutions and Actors
Many of the key actors and institutions involved in CSDP are the same as those responsible for
the wider CFSP: the European Council and the Council of Ministers play the key roles in strategic
guidance and decision making, and the High Representative is pivotal in consensus building and
implementation. The PSC plays a major role in exercising political control and strategic direction
of CSDP operations. In addition, EU defense ministers occasionally join meetings of the Foreign
Affairs Council in order to round out discussions about security and defense issues, and an EU
Military Committee (EUMC), composed of the member states’ Chiefs of Defense (CHOD) or
their military representatives, provides input to the PSC on military matters.
A number of specialized support structures have been established to conduct the operational
planning and implementation of CSDP: a Crisis Management Planning Directorate (CMPD) to
integrate civilian and military strategic planning; a Civilian Planning Conduct Capability (CPCC)
office to run civilian missions; a Joint Situation Centre (SitCen) for intelligence analysis and
20 CSDP was called ESDP, the European Security and Defense Policy, from 1999 to 2009.
Congressional Research Service
10
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
threat assessment; and an EU Military Staff (EUMS) tasked by the EUMC to provide military
expertise and advice to the High Representative. These structures were formerly part of the
Secretariat of the Council of Ministers—following the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty, they are
now part of the External Action Service under the direction of High Representative Ashton.
CSDP Missions
There are 13 active CSDP missions: 3 military operations and 10 missions of a civilian nature. An
additional 11 CSDP missions—4 military and 7 civilian—have been concluded in recent years.
(For a map of CSDP missions, see http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-
operations.aspx?lang=en). EU missions are usually undertaken on the basis of a UN mandate or
with the agreement of the host country.21
Europe and Eurasia
The countries of the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union have been a focal point of
EU external activities for several related reasons. First, geographical proximity: following
Europe’s much criticized failures with regard to the Balkan Wars of the 1990s, European
policymakers now feel a responsibility for “taking care of their own backyard.†Second, the
legacies of history: the EU’s efforts to engage with and assist these countries, many of which are
current or potential EU membership candidates, are also driven by a sense of historical
responsibility and the vision of a European continent that is entirely “whole, free, and at peace.â€
Third, self-interest: instability in this region, including but not limited to concerns such as
transnational crime, can threaten to spill over into the EU itself.
Active Missions in Europe and Eurasia
The European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) is a civilian rule-of-law mission
that trains police, judges, customs officials, and civil administrators in Kosovo. EULEX was
launched in 2008 and, with some 1,650 staff as of April 2011, is the largest EU civilian operation
ever undertaken.22
The military operation European Union Force (EUFOR) Althea is a peace-enforcement mission in
Bosnia-Herzegovina that was launched in December 2004 with an initial troop strength of
approximately 7,000. Althea took over responsibility for stabilization in Bosnia-Herzegovina
when NATO concluded its Stabilization Force (SFOR) mission there. As of April 2011, Althea’s
troop strength stands at about 1,400.23 The EU has also conducted a civilian police training
mission (EUPM) in Bosnia-Herzegovina since 2003. The first-ever CSDP mission undertaken by
the EU, EUPM had more than 130 personnel as of April 2011.24
21 In addition to the map and official mission homepages referenced below, see European Security and Defense Policy:
The First Ten Years (1999-2009), ed. Giovanni Grevi, Damien Helly, and Daniel Keohane (Paris: EU Institute for
Security Studies, 2009) for more information on CSDP missions.
22 European External Action Service (EEAS), EULEX Kosovo, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/
eu-operations/eulex-kosovo.aspx?lang=fr.
23 EEAS, ALTHEA/BiH, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/althea.aspx?lang=fr.
24 EEAS, EUPM/BiH, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/eupm.aspx?lang=en.
Congressional Research Service
11
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
With no U.S., NATO, or Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) observer
missions operating in Georgia following its 2008 conflict with Russia, the EU Monitoring
Mission (EUMM) represents the only official international monitoring presence in the country.
EUMM was launched in September 2008, shortly following the conflict. With about 300 staff as
of April 2011, EUMM is tasked with monitoring implementation of the ceasefire agreements,
promoting stability and normalization, and facilitating communication between all parties on the
ground.25
The EU also conducts a border assistance mission to Ukraine and Moldova (EUBAM), which
was launched in 2005. EUBAM’s approximately 100 staff provide technical assistance and advice
to improve security and customs operations along the Ukraine-Moldova border.26
Concluded Missions in Europe and Eurasia
The EU has concluded three CSDP missions in Macedonia. The EU’s first military mission,
Concordia, was a military support and peacekeeping operation of approximately 350 staff,
conducted in 2003 after the EU took over responsibility from NATO mission Allied Harmony
(2001-2003).27 After the conclusion of Concordia, the EU conducted a civilian police training
mission (EUPOL Proxima) in Macedonia from 2003 to 2005, followed by a short police advisory
team (EUPAT) operation in 2005-2006. These efforts consisted of about 200 personnel for
Proxima and 30 for EUPAT.28
In 2004-2005, the EU carried out a rule-of-law-mission in Georgia, EUJUST Themis. Initiated at
the request of the Georgian government, Themis, which was the EU’s first ever CSDP rule-of-law
mission, helped Georgian authorities reform the country’s criminal legislation and criminal justice
process.29
Africa
The EU has been especially active in Africa, conducting 10 CSDP missions on that continent
since 2003. Owing largely to humanitarian concerns, geographical proximity and the potential
spillover effects of instability, and historical ties rooted in former colonial relationships, Europe
maintains a substantial political interest in Africa. This interest has often translated into a
perceived responsibility to intervene or assist in problematic situations. These missions often go
largely unnoticed in the United States, but some observers note that they have contributed to
international security in a number of situations where the United States has not been involved.
25 EEAS, EUMM Georgia, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/eumm-georgia.aspx?
lang=fr.
26 EEAS, EUBAM Moldova/Ukraine, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/moldova-
and-ukraine-border-mission.aspx?lang=fr.
27 EEAS, CONCORDIA/ FYROM, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/completed-eu-
operations/concordia.aspx?lang=fr.
28 EEAS, EUPOL PROXIMA/FYROM, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/
completed-eu-operations/proxima.aspx?lang=fr and EUPAT, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-
operations/completed-eu-operations/eupat.aspx?lang=fr.
29 EEAS, EUJUST THEMIS, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/completed-eu-
operations/eujust-themis.aspx?lang=fr.
Congressional Research Service
12
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
Active Missions in Africa
European Union Naval Force (EUNAVFOR) Somalia (Operation Atalanta) is a maritime anti-
piracy mission off the coast of Somalia that was launched in 2008 and has a force strength of
approximately 1,800 as of April 2011. Atalanta is a naval task force consisting of between 5 and
12 ships and two to four patrol aircraft at a time. Thirteen EU countries plus Norway have
provided an operational contribution to the mission, and nine others (plus three non-members)
have participated by providing staff to the operation headquarters at Northwood, United
Kingdom.30
In 2010, the EU launched EUTM Somalia, a military training mission for Somali security forces.
The mission is based in Uganda and has approximately 140 personnel as of August 2011.31
Two small civilian CSDP missions operate in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The EU
launched a security sector reform mission (EUSEC RD Congo) in June 2005, which gives advice
and assistance regarding army reforms and modernization.32 The EU has also conducted a police
training mission in DRC since 2005. The current operation (EUPOL RD Congo) was launched in
July 2007.33 As of April 2011, EUSEC RD Congo had about 50 personnel and EUPOL RD
approximately 40.
Concluded Missions in Africa
The EU has concluded three missions in DRC. Operation Artemis, consisting of approximately
2,000 troops, took place June-September 2003 and sought to stabilize the security situation and
improve humanitarian conditions in the Bunia region.34
EUFOR RD Congo was a military mission conducted in the second half of 2006 to support the
United Nations Organization Mission in the DRC (MONUC) in securing the country for
elections. The mission consisted of several hundred EU military personnel deployed in Kinshasa,
plus a battalion-sized unit on standby in neighboring Gabon, totaling approximately 2,400
troops.35
EUPOL Kinshasa was a police training mission in DRC from 2005 to2007. It was concluded in
2007 and replaced by the ongoing EUPOL RD Congo.36
30 EEAS, EUNAVFOR Somalia, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/eunavfor-
somalia.aspx?lang=fr.
31 EEAS, EUTM Somalia, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/eu-somalia-training-
mission.aspx?lang=fr.
32 EEAS, EUSEC RD CONGO, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/eusec-rd-
congo.aspx?lang=fr.
33 EEAS, EUPOL RD CONGO, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/eupol-rd-
congo.aspx?lang=fr.
34 EEAS, DRC/ARTEMIS, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/completed-eu-
operations/artemis.aspx?lang=fr.
35 EEAS, EUFOR RD CONGO, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/completed-eu-
operations/eufor-rd-congo.aspx?lang=fr.
36 EEAS, EUFOR KINSHASA (DRC), http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/completed-
eu-operations/eupol-kinshasa.aspx?lang=fr.
Congressional Research Service
13
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
EUFOR Tschad/RCA was a military mission launched in January 2008 to stabilize the security
and humanitarian situation in eastern Chad and northeastern Central African Republic. EUFOR
Tschad/RCA was a temporary bridging mission ahead of the deployment of the UN Mission in
the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT), which assumed responsibility in early
2009. EUFOR Tschad/RCA was largest CSDP military mission in Africa to date, with
approximately 3,700 troops taking part.37
From 2005 to 2007, the EU conducted a hybrid civilian-military mission in support of the African
Union’s mission in Sudan/Darfur (AMIS). The AMIS support mission, consisting of several
dozen EU personnel, included military observers, equipment, and transportation, as well as
military planning, training, and technical assistance. The mission also included civilian police
training and assistance. It concluded at the end of 2007 when AMIS transferred responsibility to a
new United Nations/African Union combined operation in Darfur (UNAMID).38
From 2008 to 2010, the EU conducted a small security sector reform mission in Guinea-Bissau
(EU SSR Guinea-Bissau). The mission, consisting of eight advisors, helped local authorities
reform legal frameworks related to the country’s military, police, and justice system. This mission
ended unsuccessfully when political developments in Guinea-Bissau ran counter to the EU’s
reform goals.39
Middle East and Asia
The EU has launched a number of missions to support its goals of fostering peace and stability in
the greater Middle East region. Active CSDP missions in the region involve three cases that
demonstrate three different levels of European consensus and involvement: one case
(Afghanistan) where European countries are deeply engaged, but mostly through NATO; another
case (Israel-Palestinian conflict) where the EU has a far-reaching political consensus that defines
a common approach; and a third case (Iraq) where the EU was unable to form a political
consensus, but in which it has chosen to engage at a smaller-scale technical level.
Active Missions in the Middle East and Asia
The EU has a police mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL) that mentors and trains Afghan police. The
mission, launched in June 2007, had about 320 staff as of April 2011.40 While EUPOL seeks to
coordinate European and international efforts in what is regarded as a key area for Afghanistan’s
development and self-sufficiency, the mission has been criticized by some observers. Some
analysts note that, owing largely to problems with recruiting qualified personnel, the mission was
slow to arrive at its mandated staff level. Analysts also assert that the effectiveness of EUPOL has
suffered a lack of a clear and distinct mandate of responsibility, a situation stemming from
shortcomings in EU-NATO coordination and cooperation.
37 EEAS, EUFOR TSCHAD/RCA, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/completed-eu-
operations/eufor-tchadrca.aspx?lang=en.
38 EEAS, EU Support to AMIS (Darfur), http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/
completed-eu-operations/eu-support-to-amis-%28darfur%29.aspx?lang=fr.
39 EEAS, EU SSR GUINEA-BISSAU, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/completed-
eu-operations/eu-ssr-guinea-bissau.aspx?lang=fr.
40 EEAS, EUPOL AFGHANISTAN, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/eupol-
afghanistan.aspx?lang=fr.
Congressional Research Service
14
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
The EU Police Mission in the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS) was launched in 2006.
This civilian mission, which had about 50 EU staff as of April 2011, seeks to improve the law
enforcement capacity of the Palestinian civil police force while advising Palestinian authorities on
criminal justice and rule-of-law issues.41
In 2005, the EU launched a small border-assistance mission to monitor the Rafah crossing point
between Gaza and Egypt (EUBAM Rafah). That mission has been suspended since the 2007
takeover of Gaza by Hamas and remains on standby, with about a dozen EU personnel, pending a
political solution to the border closing.42
The EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST LEX – Iraq) was launched in 2005.
Based mainly in Brussels, the mission consisted of about 60 EU staff as of April 2011. Nearly
2,000 Iraqi police, 1,200 prison officials, and about 850 judges and magistrates have participated
in EUJUST LEX training and coursework.43
Concluded Mission in Asia
In 2005-2006, the EU deployed a civilian monitoring mission to Aceh-Indonesia (AMM). AMM
helped monitor implementation of the 2005 peace agreement between the Indonesian government
and the Free Aceh Movement, including weapons decommissioning, military and police force
relocation, and the human rights situation. AMM began with 80 personnel and was reduced to 35
when the situation stabilized ahead of local elections, at which point the mission was concluded.44
Assessment
Perceptions about the results of CSDP thus far are mixed. Many analysts assert that CSDP
operations have made a positive, if modest, contribution to international security. There has been
a long, slow learning curve in numerous instances, and many of the missions have been relatively
small. Many CSDP missions do not receive much attention in Washington, DC, but some
observers note that the EU’s efforts have contributed to burden sharing and collective security by
taking responsibility for matters that might otherwise have fallen to the United Nations, NATO,
the United States, or other regional institutions. The EU has comparative advantages as an actor
in some cases, and it has developed the institutional support structures needed for launching and
conducting a wide range of civilian and rule-of-law missions, as well as some types of military
missions.
The fact that the majority of CSDP operations have been civilian missions reflects what many
analysts consider to be the EU’s strengths. EU member states’ substantial civilian capacities in
areas such as rule of law and police training are essential elements in situations where governance
41 EEAS, EUPOL COPPS, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/eupol-copps.aspx?
lang=fr.
42 EEAS, EUBAM Rafah, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/eubam-rafah.aspx?
lang=fr.
43 EEAS, EUJUST LEX/Iraq, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/eujust-lex.aspx?
lang=fr.
44 EEAS, Aceh Monitoring Mission, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/completed-
eu-operations/aceh-monitoring-mission.aspx?lang=fr.
Congressional Research Service
15
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
development is a key priority. Although the organization and deployment of civilian missions has
not always been smooth and ideal, these types of civilian capabilities are very much in demand,
and some observers are continually pushing the EU to do more with regard to such missions. As
the EU seeks to implement its strategic security vision and take on a more active global role,
some analysts view civilian operations involving governance building or crisis management as a
logical fit and expect that such missions will be central in defining the future of CSDP.
More than 10 years after it was launched, however, CSDP has not dramatically increased
European military capabilities. Most European militaries face flat or declining national defense
budgets, and shortfalls continue to exist in terms of key capabilities such as strategic air- and
sealift. Despite notable efforts at force transformation in many countries, a relatively low
percentage of European forces are deployable for expeditionary operations. On a more positive
note, CSDP military missions have generally achieved their modest goals, and progress has been
made in areas such as the development of the EU Battlegroups.
Members of Congress and other U.S. policymakers have long had concerns about European
defense budgets and capabilities, on the one hand, and transatlantic cooperation and burden
sharing, on the other. Such concerns have been further exacerbated by the impact of the economic
downtown in Europe, including austerity programs launched in many countries. A potential theme
of interest to the 112th Congress might be how the economic downturn in Europe, as illustrated in
the Eurozone debt crisis and a general trend toward budgetary austerity, could affect the
transatlantic partnership with regard to international security and military affairs.
Some analysts assert that European countries should consider much bolder defense initiatives.
Stretching defense budgets further with combined procurement programs or coordinated
investment in research and development remain the consensus starting points, but deeper defense
integration along the lines of the 2010 Anglo-French deal may become a more intriguing option.45
The Lisbon Treaty establishes the possibility of “permanent structured cooperation,†in which
subgroups of member states may choose to move ahead on their own in the development of
particular defense capabilities.
At the same time, national defense is one of the core elements of state sovereignty. Although EU
member states view pooling, coordination, and integration as important ways to maximize
defense capabilities, national governments can be expected to insist on retaining the decisive role
when it comes to controlling their military forces and assets.
CSDP also plays into wider assessments about changing European worldviews and threat
perceptions. Many Europeans continue to believe that traditional military threats remain a
concern that necessitate the maintenance of military power for territorial self-defense or, when
necessary, in an out-of-area context. Increasingly, however, many others in Europe do not regard
traditional military threats as a primary security concern. Instead, European threat perceptions
tend to emphasize the broad threats posed to societies by challenges rooted in economics,
demographics, climate, environment, migration, and terrorism. The utility of military force in
45 The Declaration on Defence and Security Cooperation signed between the United Kingdom and France in November
2010 initiates the development of a joint expeditionary force and an integrated carrier strike group. The agreement also
includes initiatives for deeper UK-France integration in nuclear weapons research and development, defense industry
research, military transport aircraft, unmanned aerial drones, and cybersecurity. See The Daily Telegraph, “Anglo-
French defense treaty: at a glance,†November 2, 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8105134/
Anglo-French-defence-treaty-at-a-glance.html.
Congressional Research Service
16
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
addressing such threats is limited, and it is therefore accorded a relatively diminished role in the
EU’s strategic thinking. Instead, the future roles of European militaries might center on
stabilization, peacekeeping, and crisis management.
As a corollary to U.S. concerns about European defense budgets and capabilities, some U.S.
officials and Members of Congress have been concerned that these trends in perception and
strategy could be leading Europe to focus disproportionately on soft power, leaving the United
States doing the heavy lifting and assuming the costs of providing “hard†power. In a climate of
budget austerity across much of Europe, arguments about the diminishing role of military power
could tie in conveniently with efforts to cut military forces that are deemed too expensive.
In any case, like the United States, the EU is seeking to develop new tools and mechanisms, and
to find a way to use all of its assets in a coherent and comprehensive manner to address the global
challenges it faces. Bolstering CSDP and bringing it together with the rest of the EU’s policy
tools in a more complementary fashion is a top objective for the EU; facilitating this process is
one of the primary purposes of changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty.
“Community†Policies
In contrast to the intergovernmental nature of CFSP and CSDP, many common external policies
are formulated and managed under the EU’s supranational “community†process. In areas such as
trade, aid, neighborhood policy, and enlargement negotiations—what some observers call the
“technical†aspects of external relations—the member states have agreed to pool their sovereignty
and decision making at the level of the EU institutions. Accordingly, EU external policies are
most integrated and firmly established in these areas.
Institutions and Actors
In general, for issues in these areas the member states mandate the European Commission to act
as the policy initiator or the lead negotiator with an outside country. External agreements and
legislative or funding proposals must be approved by the member states in the Council of
Ministers and by the European Parliament. Approved measures are then implemented and
managed by the European Commission.
The commission is divided into 25 departments, called directorates-general (DG). Each covers a
portfolio of issues, and each is headed by a commissioner. The DGs are, in effect, the EU’s
executive departments and agencies, and the commissioners are comparable to U.S. department
secretaries or agency heads. There are four commission DGs with a distinctly external focus:
trade, humanitarian aid, development, and enlargement. Although the work of many other DGs
(e.g., energy or transportation) often involves significant external dimensions, these four core
areas are considered the external relations family of directorates within the European
Commission.
The High Representative is responsible for coordinating the external dimensions of the
commission’s activities—she absorbs the former job of Commissioner for External Relations, and
the former DG for External Relations has been folded into the European External Action Service.
The High Representative is also responsible for coordinating the Commission’s external policies
with CFSP and CSDP.
Congressional Research Service
17
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
The President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, is the highest authority in
representing its policies. As with Van Rompuy in the intergovernmental sphere, Barroso may be
considered the voice of the EU’s “community†policies at the heads of state or government level.
As is also the case with regard to CFSP, the High Representative is the key voice of Commission
external policies at the ministerial level, although the other commissioners carry comparable
weight within their areas of responsibility.
Trade46
The European Commission’s directorate-general for trade oversees the development and
implementation of a common trade policy for what is the world’s largest trade bloc.47 Even
excluding internal trade between the member states, the EU accounted for nearly one-sixth of
global merchandise trade (imports plus exports) in 2010, valued at approximately €2.63 trillion
(approximately $3.68 trillion).48
Considered as a single entity, the EU is the largest trade partner (goods imports plus goods
exports) for the United States, China, Russia, Brazil, and India. It is also the largest trade partner
for a variety of regional groupings, including the 79 countries of the Africa, Caribbean, and
Pacific (ACP) group; the 49 least-developed countries; the 21 countries of the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum; the 12 members of the Commonwealth of Independent
States (CIS); the 10 “Mediterranean Dialogue†countries; the 7 countries of the Western Balkans;
and the 6 Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.49
Humanitarian Aid and Development Assistance
The member states and institutions of the EU have agreed to detailed frameworks and sets of
principles that affirm humanitarian aid and development assistance as key elements of external
policy.50 The EU is the world’s largest aid donor (Commission funds plus bilateral member state
contributions), accounting for some 45% of official global humanitarian assistance and more than
half of official global development assistance.51
The European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection directorate-general (ECHO)
manages the delivery of emergency EU assistance in crisis situations created by armed conflict or
46 For more information on EU trade policies, see CRS Report R41143, Europe’s Preferential Trade Agreements:
Status, Content, and Implications, by Raymond J. Ahearn.
47 The Commissioner for Trade is Karel de Gucht (Belgium).
48 See European Commission, DG Trade, Statistics – Top trading partners (Source: IMF), June 14, 2011,
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-relations/statistics/.
49 See the individual factsheets at DG Trade, Statistics – European Union and its main trading partners,
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-relations/statistics/.
50 See The European Consensus on Development, (2006/C 46/01), http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/
european_consensus_2005_en.pdf and The European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid, (2008/C25/01),
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:025:0001:0012:EN:PDF.
51 European Commission DG ECHO, Operational Strategy 2011, November 16, 2010, p. 4, http://ec.europa.eu/echo/
files/policies/strategy/strategy_2011_en.pdf, and European Commission, EuropeAid, Annual Report 2010, p. 5,
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/multimedia/publications/documents/annual-reports/
europeaid_annual_report_2010_en.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
18
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
natural disaster.52 With emergency funding increases in response to the Haiti earthquake and
flooding in Pakistan, ECHO expenditures in 2010 totaled nearly €1.1 billion (approximately
$1.54 billion). The initial ECHO budget for 2011 is €848 million (approximately $1.19 billion),
although this amount could be reinforced as circumstances warrant.53 Nearly half of EU
humanitarian aid goes to Africa.54
The EuropeAid Development and Cooperation directorate-general designs EU development
policies and delivers assistance geared toward longer-term issues such as poverty, hunger, health,
education, and governance.55 In 2009, the Commission disbursed about €10 billion
(approximately $14 billion) in development assistance (with member states donating another
€38.2 billion, approximately $53.5 billion, on a bilateral basis).56 About 40% of Commission
development aid goes to Africa.57
There has been some controversy about the role of development assistance within the EU’s new
foreign policy structure—some are concerned that by tying assistance policies into the EEAS and
coordinating them more tightly with CFSP, these policies could become too politicized.
Enlargement and Neighborhood Policy
In 2004 and 2007, two historic rounds of enlargement into central and eastern Europe increased
the size of the EU from 15 to 27 member states. The Commission’s directorate-general for
enlargement conducts accession negotiations with countries that have applied for EU membership
and that meet basic conditions for democracy, human rights, and rule of law.58 There are currently
five official membership candidates: Croatia, Iceland, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Turkey. Four
countries—Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Serbia—are currently considered
potential candidates.59 Fulfilling the EU’s accession criteria and adopting the massive body of EU
law involve a lengthy and demanding reform process with political, legal, and technical
requirements covering 35 “chapters†(subjects).60
In 2004, the EU launched the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) to develop deeper political
and economic ties with neighboring countries not (or not yet) considered potential members.
Under ENP, 12 countries of North Africa, the Caucasus, and the Middle East have agreed to
52 The Commissioner for International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid, and Crisis Response is Kristalina Georgieva
(Bulgaria).
53 Operational Strategy 2011, p. 4. According to the DG ECHO, Annual Report 2009 (p. 87), common EU funding
delivered by the commission via ECHO comprised 41% of total 2009 EU humanitarian aid contributions,
approximately €931 million of out €2.25 billion. Bilateral aid programs of the individual member states account for the
remainder (http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/media/publications/annual_report/annual_report_2009_en.pdf).
54 Operational Strategy 2011, p. 10, and Annual Report 2009, p. 87. The top 10 recipients of EU humanitarian aid in
2009 were Sudan, DR Congo, the Palestinian territories, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Zimbabwe, and Chad.
55 The Commissioner for Development is Andris Piebalgs (Latvia).
56 EuropeAid, Annual Report 2010, p. 5.
57 EuropeAid, Annual Report 2010, pp. 168, 174. The top 10 recipients of EU development assistance in 2009 were
Turkey, Tanzania, DR Congo, the Palestinian territories, Haiti, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Kenya, Pakistan, and Serbia.
58 The Commissioner for Enlargement is Štefan Füle (Czech Republic).
59 See European Commission, DG Enlargement, http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/index_en.htm.
60 Once this process has been completed, all member countries and the European Parliament must still approve the
accession of the applicant country.
Congressional Research Service
19
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
bilateral action plans containing targets for political and economic reforms.61 The program allows
the EU to advocate for the adoption of common political and economic values. In return, ENP
participants may receive enhanced trade and economic ties with the EU, as well as aid and
technical assistance. ENP also encompasses three regional initiatives—the Eastern Partnership,
the Union for the Mediterranean, and the Black Sea Synergy—designed to complement the
bilateral action plans.
Assessment
Trade, aid and development assistance, the enlargement process, and neighborhood policy are
important instruments in the EU’s external policy approach. These tools allow the EU to exert
influence and promote its values beyond the territory of its member states in the ways many
observers say it is most comfortable and adept—by fostering interdependence through deepening
economic ties; by seeking to bolster economic conditions and good governance, and linking each
to the other; and by encouraging (or, with membership applicants, requiring) the adoption of EU
norms and practices with regard to democratic government, laws, and economic policies.
Having common policies in these areas allows the EU to exert a collective weight far greater than
what any individual member state could muster on its own. Beyond the direct impact of trade and
assistance relationships themselves, the EU is a major voice in global trade negotiations and the
World Trade Organization (WTO), and a leading player in international aid forums. The
enlargement process has demonstrated a substantial transformative power capable of driving far-
reaching reforms in countries that aspire to EU membership, and ENP has made modest
beginnings in establishing enhanced relations with neighborhood countries.
Difficult questions loom over the future of enlargement and the role and effectiveness of
neighborhood policy, however. Following the expansion of the EU from 15 to 27 members in
2004 and 2007, many Europeans have described a feeling of “enlargement fatigue†that has
sapped enthusiasm for accepting additional members. Nevertheless, the working premise of most
observers is that room would probably be made for Iceland if it wants to join, and for the
countries of the Western Balkans, as soon as they meet the criteria (Croatia is expected to join in
2013). Some of those countries could take a decade or more to achieve membership, but this
scenario could result in an EU with as many as 35 member countries. Some analysts suggest that
this picture could represent an end point for EU enlargement: Turkey’s bid faces highly
problematic obstacles; countries such as Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus appear to be remote
prospects at this time; and countries such as Norway and Switzerland seem to remain uninterested
in joining. Should the enlargement process reach a stopping point, or at least enter a prolonged
pause, the EU would likely lose the ability to use the incentive of membership as a key tool for
influencing its neighborhood.
Some observers view the European Neighborhood Policy as a potential way to exert influence in
the EU’s “Near Abroad†short of offering the prospect of membership. Although one potential
objective of ENP could be to start paving the way for eventual EU membership, another
interpretation is that ENP could form the kernel of enhanced relationships—“privileged
61 See European Commission, European Neighborhood Policy, http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/policy_en.htm. Bilateral
ENP action plans have been signed with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Moldova,
Morocco, Palestinian territories, Tunisia, and Ukraine. The ENP framework was also proposed to Algeria, Belarus,
Libya, and Syria, but no action plans have been concluded.
Congressional Research Service
20
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
partnershipsâ€â€”with neighboring countries that are unlikely to become members anytime soon, if
ever. ENP was launched in 2004, making for a short time frame on which to judge it, but results
have been modest at best.
Given the political unrest in North Africa and discouraging developments in some former Soviet
countries, some critics have lamented the lack of influence the EU (particularly the Union for the
Mediterranean and the Eastern Partnership) has had in these situations, labeling the ENP as an
ineffective failure.62 Analysts and officials agree that the situation requires a reassessment of the
ENP instruments—if partnership is to eventually replace membership as the centerpiece of
neighborhood policy, then development of a robust, coherent, and well-resourced approach will
be fundamental. In the future, the EU is likely to develop a more values-oriented, conditionality-
based ENP, with the terms linked more tightly to democratic reforms.63 A first step in this
direction occurred in late May 2011 when the EU announced a revised ENP with approximately
€1.25 billion (approximately $1.75 billion) in added funding for the period 2011-2013 and a
“more funds for more reform†approach to accountability.
The Enhanced Role of the European Parliament
Although it has no formal role in CFSP decision making, the European Parliament has a degree of
influence on EU foreign policy. This influence has increased following the enactment of the
Lisbon Treaty.64
Even before adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, representatives of the Council of Ministers consulted
the EP on CFSP issues, paying regular visits to the institution to keep Members of the European
Parliament (MEPs) informed of CFSP and CSDP decisions. This exchange continues under the
Lisbon Treaty, including by the President of the European Council and the High Representative.
The EP also indirectly influences member state debates on CFSP through its own discussions and
activities: observers assert that the EP has become an increasingly prominent forum for debate on
international issues. The EP may also issue resolutions that express its view or urge a course of
action on an international issue.
The EP has a foreign affairs committee that monitors the conduct of EU foreign policy, with two
subcommittees (human rights and security and defense). The EP may also set up special
committees to investigate specific issues for a limited period of time, such as the 2006 special
committee to examine the alleged role of EU member states in hosting reported secret CIA
detention facilities and aiding CIA flights related to the rendition of terrorism suspects.
The EP also has 41 delegations (ranging in size between 20 and 50 MEPs) that maintain
parliament-to-parliament contacts and relations with representatives of many countries and
regions around the world. For example, the EP has interparliamentary delegations for relations
62 See, for example, Hans Maull, “What Europe should learn from Arab world turmoil,†GMF blog, February 11, 2011,
http://blog.gmfus.org/2011/02/turmoil-in-the-middle-east-lessons-for-europe/. Criticism has also come from high-
ranking European officials, including Enlargement Commissioner Füle. See Leigh Phillips, “Europe ‘should have
backed democrats not dictators,’ commissioner says,†euobserver, March 1, 2011, http://euobserver.com/892/31894.
63 See Charles Grant, A new neighbourhood policy for the EU, Centre for European Reform, http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/
pb_grant_neighbourhood_11march11.pdf.
64 For an overview of the European Parliament, see CRS Report RS21998, The European Parliament, by Kristin
Archick and Derek E. Mix.
Congressional Research Service
21
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
with the United States and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, as well as with Russia, Iran,
Israel, the Palestinian Legislative Council, China, India, and the Korean Peninsula.
The EP also won significant concessions during the debates over setting up the External Action
Service. Due to the EP’s role in the oversight and approval of the EU budget, the EP’s assent was
required regarding the structure, staffing, and budget of the EEAS. The EP won the right to
scrutinize the non-military parts of the CFSP/CSDP budget (previously, the particulars of these
expenses were exempt from EP oversight). The EP also won the right to hold U.S. Senate-style
confirmation hearings for some of the EU ambassadors designated to prominent postings.
The EP has a central, formal role in EU “community†decision making. Under the Lisbon Treaty,
the number of issue areas in which the EP acts as a co-legislator along with the Council of
Ministers has expanded considerably. As a result, the EP must give its consent on all external
agreements negotiated by the European Commission. This power includes trade deals (such as
EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement passed by the EP in February 2011) and agreements such
as the U.S.-EU SWIFT agreement on tracking terrorist financing and a pending U.S-EU airline
security agreement on sharing Passenger Name Record (PNR) information. The EP has openly
sought to assert itself as a more powerful actor within the EU’s “institutional triangle.†In cases
such as the EU-Korea FTA, SWIFT, and PNR, observers discern a trend in which MEPs seek to
convey that the EP’s positions must now be taken into account during (and not after) the
negotiation of international agreements or the drafting of new legislative proposals.
Conclusion: Issues for the United States
The evolution of EU external policies and capabilities ties into a related discussion about the
changing structure and dynamics of transatlantic relations. In Europe, “unfinished businessâ€
remains in the Balkans, Caucasus, and former Soviet states, and the United States will continue to
cooperate closely with Europe on these issues. Overall, however, many analysts have observed
that the focus of U.S. foreign policy has been gravitating increasingly to the Middle East and Asia
over the past decade. This trend, some argue, has made Europe in and of itself less of a U.S.
foreign policy priority. Instead, the political and security aspects of the transatlantic relationship
are now mostly about what Europe and the United States can do together to address global
challenges of joint interest and concern.65 Many of these challenges pertain to new types of
threats that have emerged since the end of the Cold War, threats that require new capabilities to
address. At the same time, some analysts perceive an increasingly multipolar world order in
which countries such as China, India, Brazil, and Russia are moving alongside the United States
and Europe as centers of power.
65 As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said after meeting with High Representative Ashton in May 2011, “The United
States and the European Union are partners working together on, I think, every global issue and regional challenge that
you can imagine.†See http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/05/163569.htm.
See also the Testimony of Philip H. Gordon, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, to the
Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs, “Administration Priorities for Europe in the 112th
Congress,†May 18, 2011, http://foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Gordon_Testimony2.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
22
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
U.S.-EU Relations
Given these trends, U.S. policymakers might ask what kind of an EU they would like to see, and
what role they might like to see the EU play in the world. The EU is occasionally viewed as a
potential counterweight, but many U.S. policymakers tend to view it more as a counterpart, a
partner with whom cooperation might help achieve common ends. Many observers argue that a
more united EU capable of acting decisively in world affairs is a better U.S. partner that can help
achieve common goals. On the other side of the coin, they assert, a disunited Europe tends to be
an ineffective and less relevant actor in dealing with major world issues. Some analysts have
suggested that an overdependence on the United States prevents Europe from acting as an equal
partner—both sides might be better off with a Europe, speaking and acting as one, that takes a
more robust, assertive, and independent approach to international security issues.66
On the other hand, skeptics question what happens when a united Europe disagrees with the
United States. Some such observers prefer to keep U.S. engagement with Europe oriented toward
a bilateral, country-by-country basis, arguing that such an approach is a better way to pursue U.S.
interests on a range of issues. Such observers also assert that each bilateral relationship remains
indispensible, countering suggestions that some national capitals could become increasingly less
relevant to the United States if EU policy making continues to shift to Brussels.
EU-NATO Relations
Discussions about CSDP inevitably raise the issue of EU-NATO relations. Despite the fact that
they have 21 member countries in common, NATO and the EU continue to have difficulty
establishing a more cooperative and coordinated working relationship. In the past, U.S. officials
expressed concern that the development of CSDP and EU defense structures would result in a
wasteful duplication of scarce defense resources and lead to the separation of the United States
from the European security architecture. While some remain skeptical, CSDP has become
increasingly viewed as a helpful means to build European capabilities and permit expanded EU
engagement in global challenges. In 2003, the EU and NATO agreed to the “Berlin Plusâ€
arrangement, allowing EU-led military missions access to NATO assets and planning capabilities,
and thereby preventing the duplication of resources and structures. The struggle with generating
more European defense capabilities has also been playing out in NATO—despite the adoption of
an updated Strategic Concept in November 2010, this struggle is a significant part of still ongoing
debates about the future role and purpose of the institution.
Some analysts assert that NATO and the EU need to work in a more complementary fashion to
permit a more efficient and effective overall use of Euro-Atlantic civil and military resources. The
new NATO Strategic Concept states that “NATO and the EU can and should play complementary
and mutually reinforcing roles in supporting international peace and security.†The document
directs NATO to “fully strengthen the strategic partnership with the EU, in the spirit of full
mutual openness, transparency, complementarity and respect for the autonomy and institutional
integrity of both organizations†and to “broaden our political consultations to include all issues of
common concern, in order to share assessments and perspectives.â€67
66 See Jeremy Shapiro and Nick Witney, Towards a Post-American Europe: A Power Audit of EU-US Relations,
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2009.
67 Active Engagement, Modern Defence: Strategic Concept for the Defence and Security of the Members of the North
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
23
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
Disagreements between Turkey (a member of NATO but not the EU) and Cyprus (a member of
the EU but not NATO) are often cited as a primary obstacle to deeper cooperation and
information sharing. Some observers also point to bureaucratic rivalry and competition between
the two institutions, and conflicting views regarding their roles. These blockages have been
known for some time, although solutions at the political level continue to remain elusive. Some
observers have suggested establishing a division of labor between the “hard†military tasks that
lie at the core of NATO and the “soft†peacekeeping and civilian-oriented missions that play to
the strengths of the EU, but others decisively reject the idea of such rigid mandates.
On the other hand, some observers note that cooperation between the two institutions is already
relatively functional at the working level. Setting aside efforts for a grand institutional fix, and
assuming the continuation of political circumstances more or less as they stand, many observers
have urged the two institutions to identify and leverage mutually beneficial synergies. This push
is reflected in the new Strategic Concept, which calls on NATO and the EU to “enhance our
practical cooperation in operations throughout the crisis spectrum, from coordinated planning to
mutual support in the field†and to “cooperate more fully in capability development, to minimise
duplication and maximise cost-effectiveness.â€68
Together, the EU and NATO represent the institutional toolbox that the Euro-Atlantic nations may
draw on to address global challenges. Institutional structures and arrangements are imperfect, but
having this toolbox presents the Euro-Atlantic community with options to choose from. The most
suitable flag to fly—EU, NATO, or other—depends on an interplay between the capabilities
offered by each institution and the political circumstances of a given situation or mission.
According to analysts, the security strategy documents released over the past five years by the
United States, the EU, and NATO, as well as by France, Germany, and the United Kingdom,
demonstrate a convergence of perceptions about the international security environment. This
trend in the direction of a shared security strategy may present opportunities to recast the
dynamics of the U.S.-EU-NATO relationship in ways that enable the Euro-Atlantic partners to
better meet the challenges they face. In other words, by bridging the remaining gaps between the
institutions’ respective worldviews, a shared security strategy might help accelerate the
development of complementary military and civilian capabilities that address the evolving set of
interrelated external and domestic security threats faced by all EU and NATO member
countries.69
For the time being, NATO remains the center of Euro-Atlantic defense cooperation, especially
from the viewpoint of U.S. policymakers. Some analysts argue that the EU must still move ahead
and develop its own military headquarters and planning capabilities in order for CSDP to become
a more credible and relevant option. (In July 2011, however, the UK definitively blocked a
proposal to consolidate the command structure for EU military missions under a single permanent
operational headquarters.) Although unlikely in the near term, the development of CSDP into a
robust military actor able to conduct high-end combat operations would affect the future of
(...continued)
Atlantic Treaty Organization, Adopted by the Heads of State and Government at the NATO Summit in Lisbon,
November 19-20, 2010, http://www.nato.int/lisbon2010/strategic-concept-2010-eng.pdf.
68 ibid.
69 See Simon Serfaty and Sven Biscop, A Shared Security Strategy for a Euro-Atlantic Partnership of Equals, Center
for Strategic & International Studies, July 2009.
Congressional Research Service
24
The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy
NATO in many ways. Conversely, a stagnant or ineffective CSDP would also have important
long-term implications for the transatlantic security relationship. As Members of Congress and
the U.S. Administration examine the U.S. role in NATO and U.S. basing arrangements in Europe
in the years ahead, broad developments in CSDP might be an area of related interest.
For all of the criticisms that may be directed at European foreign and security policy, Europe is
likely to remain the United States’ closest global partner into the foreseeable future. None of the
world’s other powers, established or rising, can claim to share Europe’s multi-faceted
compatibility with the United States, and for many Americans “going it alone†is not an attractive
option. In the emerging geopolitical and security environment suggested by current trends, the
transatlantic partnership is unlikely to be well served by “muddling through†each problem on a
case-by-case basis. Both Americans and Europeans have an interest in establishing a stable and
enhanced U.S.-EU-NATO dynamic that is as efficient and effective as possible. U.S.
policymakers may not be able to determine the choices made by Europeans, but they can express
U.S. preferences in support of solutions for overcoming resource constraints so that strategy and
capabilities adequately match threats and challenges.
Author Contact Information
Derek E. Mix
Analyst in European Affairs
dmix@crs.loc.gov, 7-9116
Congressional Research Service
25