VERA – Forward Visions on the European Research Area

VERA is funded by the European Union's FP7 programme for research,
technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 290705

Changing Multilateralism: the EU as a Global-regional Actor in Security and Peace. EU-GRASP

Code: B10

Primary project information

Lead: UNU-CRIS
Additional project partners: University of Warwick University of Gothenburg Forum on the Problems of Peace and War KUL CIGI ISS SIS CSEPS
Type of activity: FLA
Date conducted: 01-02-09 - 31-01-12
Date of Publication: 2012
Duration: 36 MONTHS
Summary: EU-GRASP in short, is an EU funded FP7 Programme. EU-GRASP aims to contribute to the analysis and articulation of the current and future role of the EU as a global actor in multilateral security governance, in a context of challenged multilateralism, where the EU aims at “effective multilateralism”. This project therefore examines the notion and practice of multilateralism in order to provide the required theoretical background for assessing the linkages between the EU’s current security activities with multi-polarism, international law, regional integration processes and the United Nations system. The project includes a foresight study, building on the project’s findings that will detail scenarios for future EU policy towards external security relations and multilateral approaches to threats and challenges. (taken from EFP mapping)
Financed by: EC funded project
Budget: around 1 M Euros
Research area/market/industry/sector: security
Main report (full title): Numerous articles, policy briefs, working papers and book chapters available at http://www.eugrasp.eu

GRAND CHALLENGES

Geopolitical Challenges: the emergence of new centres of power;redistribution of power on a global scale and in wider Europe; growing demand for multilateral policies in the global and regional arenas for a increasing number of issues (taken from EFP mapping). Due to a general lack of genuine conflict analysis, the EU’s policies are generally not adapted to the complexity of current regional conflicts. This has led to counterproductive effects on the ground. Other weaknesses include both the Union’s internal institutional fragmentation and poor cooperation with other actors. Taken together this leads to the conclusion that the EU tends to be more concerned with establishing a symbolic presence and political representation than achieving real results that may help those affected by ongoing violent conflict. (Policy brief 13, http://www.eugrasp.eu/policy-briefs) The way Europe sees itself and its role in the world, also has to be set in the context of its own complex formation, with nuclear weapons states, and others strongly committed to speedily bring about a world without nuclear weapons. (Policy Brief 11) The EU approach over terrorism has been less than ideal; and in its place, there needs to be a thorough review of policy and practice in the field of terrorism, and a move towards the politicisation of these issues. (Policy Brief 10)
Geopolitical Challenges Shortlist: Emergence of new centres of power; Redistribution of power on a global scale and in wider Europe; Growing demand for multilateral policies in the global and regional arenas for an increasing number of issues; Improve EU policies to meet complexity of regional conflicts; improve conflict analysis to this end; Need for better pan-European cooperation, and cooperation with other actors on geopolitical issues; Improve EU efforts to actually achieve results that may help those affected by ongoing violent conflict; Improve EU approach over terrorism by means of thorough review of policy and practice in the field of terrorism, and a move towards the politicisation of these issues
Mobility Challenges: The latest report delivered by the FRONTEX Risk Analysis Network (FRAN) has shown that the focus on irregular immigration at the EU’s external border has been recently shifting from the East to the Central Mediterranean, with a remarkable increase in detection of illegal border crossing in the first quarter of 2011 with respect to previous figures (FRAN Quarterly 2011). The European response to the uprisings in the region has been quite fragmented and uncoordinated. The EU was called to demonstrate its external security actorness, showing resolve and playing its role as a ‘model’ supporting democratic transitions. Also, and with a view to the mounting flows of people trying their way to Europe, it was called to show internal coordination and solidarity in accordance to its commitment to a common migration and asylum policy. Alas, the European Union has fallen short of expectations. (Policy brief 8, http://www.eugrasp.eu/policy-briefs)
Mobility Challenges Shortlist: Challenge of coping with increasing migration and illegal border crossings to European countries; Common European migration and asylum policy

Summary of relevant aspects

Background information: Even if most contemporary violent conflicts are defined as intra-state or ‘domestic’, they invariably spillover to neighbouring countries and become ‘regionalized’. An examination of the European Union’s engagement in various regional conflicts in Africa and the Middle East shows that the EU often overestimates its own achievements and impact. In a few cases, the EU has played a limited and arguably successful role. Due to a general lack of genuine conflict analysis, the EU’s policies are generally not adapted to the complexity of current regional conflicts. This has led to counterproductive effects on the ground. Other weaknesses include both the Union’s internal institutional fragmentation and poor cooperation with other actors. Taken together this leads to the conclusion that the EU tends to be more concerned with establishing a symbolic presence and political representation than achieving real results that may help those affected by ongoing violent conflict.

Scenarios

Scenario 1: Series of case studies on future regional conflicts; Series of case studies on future terrorism; Series of case studies on future WMD proliferation; Series of case studies on future energy security and climate change; Series of case studies on future severe human rights violations
Actions/solutions implied: The EU must be steady in its promotion of multilateralism as an ideal, but extremely flexible in its multilateral practice, and find ways – for which EU governance seems particularly well fitted compared to the traditional diplomacies – to engage with legitimate sub-national, multinational and transnational non-state actors and their networks. At the same time, it must find innovative ways to address the problems of absent, competing, obsolete or ineffective multilateral structures that exist both at the regional and global level. The EU institutions must be flexible enough to work with other institutional structures or simply to create alliances with groups of countries that are promoting multilateral solutions in their regions and on the global scale, such as those of Latin America and of Africa. The parallel between the EU and other regional organisations, however, should not be replaced with a tendency to see the EU in constant comparison with the USA and the emerging powers, trying to act as their mirror image, or adopting their behaviour and, even less, their interpretation of power. The sui generis character of the EU is a strength in global multilateralism, and should not be abandoned lightly. If it wants to become a successful multilateral player, the EU must expend more effort using the combined capabilities of the EU institutions and of EU national diplomacies to convince third parties, and less time negotiating amongst EU member states. The EU is more successful in global multilateralism when it has a unified voice; the best way of ensuring this simple voice is often, but not always, to occupy a single, EU chair. Being flexible in the forms and modalities of multilateralism to circumvent the rigidities of an exceedingly institutional approach opens the possibility that the EU be accused of applying double standards. Coherence is a crucial value for success in the mid- to long term, and the best way to ensure it is to apply uniformly the principles and values of the EU. (taken from EFP mapping)
Who benefits from the actions taken?: see target groups

Meta information

Time horizon: 2050
Methods: Conferences/Workshops; Expert Panels; Literature Review; Scenario Workshops; Case studies
Target Group: Government departments or ministries; Government agencies; European Commission; European Parliament; International organisations (OECD, UNESCO, UNIDO, etc.)
Objectives: Conceptual integrated analyses of the evolving concepts of multilateralism and security and the EU’s role as a security actor; Case-studies of the EU’s approach to a number of specific security issues; A transversal comparative analysis applying and integrating the case-study findings; A foresight study, building on the project’s findings that will detail scenarios for future EU policy towards external security relations and multilateral approaches to threats and challenges
Countries covered: Primarily covering England, however, some lessons from experiences in Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Europe/Global have been included.
ERA actors/stakeholders mentioned: See target groups and also panel members, speakers and participants lists of the final conference available at http://www.eugrasp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Global-Europe-Conference-Report.pdf. Also members of EU-GRASP advisory board at http://www.eugrasp.eu/advisory-board
Geographic scope:

Entry Details

Rapporteur: Effie Amanatidou
Rapporteur's organization: UNIMAN
Entry Date: 01.08.2012