Javier Solana’s wise words...

On Thursday, Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy supremo, gave a speech at St. Antony’s College at the University of Oxford. His lecture was given under the mantel of the Cyril Foster Fund, established by—unsurprisingly—Cyril Foster, a confectioner, who left his entire estate to the university so that it might be used to promote peace. And that the speech was given by Dr. Solana would seem fitting; after all, he did much in the latter 1990s as the Secretary-General of NATO to bring Slobodan Milosevic’s project of ‘Greater Serbia’ to heel, ending a decade of genocide and war on the fringes of our continent. With the independence of Kosovo at the start of February, the Wars of the Yugoslav Succession have seemingly been brought to a conclusion.

Javier Solana’s speech in Oxford was entitled ‘Europe in the World: The Next Steps’, and it was on the international position, role and security of the European Union in the early twenty-first century. He began by asking three questions: (1) Why should the European Union play a global role? (2) What have we learned in recent years? (3) And what are the next steps? The high representative then tried to answer each in succession. He began by trying to show that the reach, authority and power of the individual Member States—even those like Britain and France—is in relative but nevertheless inexorable decline, particularly as large new powers rise in Asia. He also stressed the increasingly global nature of challenges and threats to our security, which make the world more unpredictable and potentially volatile. As he put it:

It is clear, or it should be, that in the face of these broad trends, national cards have only limited reach. These days, if you want to solve problems, you must bring together broad constellations of international actors. This applies to governments around the world. But especially to Europe: a group of medium-sized countries that have out-sized influence on the world. And whose power-base, in relative demographic and economic terms, is eroding.

At first glance, some might say that he is overemphasising the level and speed of decline. After all, Germany, Britain and France rank third, fifth and sixth globally for economic output, while Britain and France have the second and third largest military budgets in the world. Indeed, on a whole range of issues, Europeans do extremely well, from economic output per head and technological prowess, to political transparency and cultural reach. And yet, while these European capabilities will likely last for several decades, they will be gradually undermined as China, India and Russia emerge as large regional powers, and perhaps even world powers in their own right. Given that so much of what has already been achieved through European integration—from a common economic space, to continental peace and prosperity—is closely entwined with what happens beyond our common borders, greater European integration in the spheres of foreign policy and ‘grand strategy’ is essential to sustain domestic cohesion. So it makes sense that a number of societies already working together in a range of areas, and unified under a common political structure, work together in other areas, so as to maximise their ability to shape and produce a world order more to their liking. If aggregated, nearly five-hundred million Europeans, generating nearly a third of world wealth, and with a military budget which, excluding the United States, is almost the same as the rest of the world’s combined, would be a force to be reckoned with, especially for Russia. We would be an effective power, capable of promoting real change in a number of areas, enhancing our own security while simultaneously contributing to others’ prosperity along the way.

And this was precisely Javier Solana’s key message: ‘Effectiveness requires us to group together.’ He then went on to show where and how Europeans—when acting together through the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the European Security and Defence Policy—have already made an active contribution to security and political reform on the ground in foreign countries, from Central Africa to the Western Balkans. Next he showed how the Union’s ability to integrate civilian and military capabilities makes us such an effective and potentially potent international actor, but he also emphasised the need for better, stronger and more integrated European armed forces and the institutional apparatus to command them. This, of course, led the high representative to think about our requirements in the future, not least the political will to get involved, instead of standing on the sidelines, leaving others make the initiatives. As he put it:

Whenever we discuss our response to a crisis, there are always voices in favour of the status-quo. Or those who say “now is not the time” to take action. But little of value is achieved in political life by standing aside. And I am glad we have taken some risks. For some of the EU’s greatest successes in recent years—take for example our operation in Aceh in Indonesia—were far from obvious at the beginning.

As such, he showed his support for the global approach to foreign policy frequently associated with London, Paris and to some extent, Amsterdam, as opposed to the more reactive and defensive posture of the so-called neutral powers or Germany. He is completely right. The timid and defensive posture is not helpful, and has no place in debates on the future of European ‘grand strategy’. Those still attached to either the defensive approach or to the old-fashioned ‘civilian power’ model must seriously reconsider their views and adjust them accordingly. European militaries need to be enhanced and reformed more quickly, particularly in Italy, Germany and Spain. Rapid deployment and sustainability is the way forward; conscripts need phasing out and troops need better pay and conditions, including better protection when fighting in battle. Helicopters, logistical support equipment and other large war machines whose role is to ‘project power’ overseas, such as amphibious assault vessels and aircraft carriers, are also required urgently. It is difficult or even impossible to move our armed forces around the world or produce the desired military effects in combat theatres without them.


The ‘dreaming spires’ of the University of Oxford*

But it goes without saying, as the high representative rightly pointed out, that modern foreign policy cannot rely on military might alone. Armed forces can punch their way into trouble spots and restore order; they can also be used to intimidate dictators and other forces working against European interests and values; and they can be deployed in overseas naval bases and aerodromes to ‘show the flag’ and remind potential aggressors of our military presence. But they cannot be used alone to rebuild societies and bring former enemies together. This is where civilians and other non-military organisations and groups are needed. They help produce a positive order, and in some ways convert raw power into lasting authority, and thus legitimacy. We need more civilian services as well, and Brussels must learn to calibrate them more effectively with our military instruments.

Finally, Dr. Solana had a few words to say on the role of the United Kingdom in building a more effective, globally-oriented and integrated European approach to world affairs. In short, Britain is vital. As he asserted:

My basic message should be no surprise: Europe needs Britain. A credible European foreign policy without the United Kingdom is simply not possible. Europe needs your contribution in terms of ideas, resources and relationships, including the United States. Your organisational capacity, your global mindset and your armed forces.

He suggested that while it is unfortunate that Britain is not a part of the Schengen zone of passport free travel, or the single European currency, it does not prevent both from functioning effectively. But on foreign policy, security or defence policy, the same cannot be said. As he declared: ‘It [Britain] can and should help to lead the project.’

So if other Europeans need Britain, does Britain need other Europeans? Here, the high representative’s words could not be clearer:

Britain needs Europe. The world I described is also your world. The choice between trying to shape the world or being shaped by it. It is of course up to the people of Britain to make that choice. Not once, but day after day. I am certain of the benefits to Britain, Europe and the wider world of you[r] making the right choice. And I am confident you will.

This, of course, brings us back to where we started. If Britain is essential for the functioning of a credible European foreign and security policy, Europe is essential for Britain—and other Europeans—to retain any international position of importance. The two are inherently linked. Many anti-Europeans would like to wrench Britain away from the European mainland, and push the country further out into the icy depths of the North Atlantic, or into some illusory construction called an ‘Anglosphere’. This approach would be a disaster, and intelligent Britons, as well as other Europeans, must agitate day after day to ensure that we all make the right choice. The European Union is the only vehicle through which we can all maintain our prosperity, our security and realise our global geopolitical reach.

* Credit for photo goes to Diliff at Wikipedia.