The EU’s military mission to ensure free and fair elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) showed just what it can achieve through the European Security and Defence policy (ESDP). A contingent of some 2,500 troops from 22 countries went there in mid-2006 to support United Nations troops, and provided a rapid reaction force able to snuff out politically motivated disorder before it could erupt into full-blown mayhem in the DRC’s capital Kinshasa. Three years earlier, Operation Artemis, a comparable EU mission in the eastern province of Ituri, had again demonstrated Europe’s resolve to use its military capability to underpin a long-term peace process.
For some people, raw military might is the only true measure of power. But the various EU missions that have now been carried out in support of ESDP have much more to commend them than may meet the sceptical eye. Large parts of Africa are in need of support, and Europe can and must lend a hand. To say that “Europe is back” is not to say “here we go again”; the EU’s new style of political-military engagement in Africa in no way recalls colonial times.
There have been 16 different European military missions of one sort or another so far, and tailoring ESDP support to so many very different situations, while keeping these operations affordable, has resulted in a wide range of commitments.
France’s military forces − long accustomed to crisis management operations in Africa − are also experiencing a paradigm shift. From now on, most of our activities in support of peace and stability in Africa will be European-led.
I am in no doubt that Africa really does have a future. It has a youthful population that will soon top one billion people, abundant mineral reserves and an inherent dynamism. I also believe that developing the continent’s future must be shared between Africa and Europe, and that our policies in the EU should be geared to that. It is true that many African countries currently suffer from instability, state failure, regional strife, violent internal political competition and other assorted ills, including, massacres and large-scale brutality, civil war, massive movements of refugees, economic disruption and much attendant environmental damage. Yet the big picture in Africa is not uniformly bleak. Some African countries are comparatively stable and prosperous, even though those that are not that tend to obscure the success stories.
There can be little question that right now large areas of the African continent are either suffering from endemic violence or are tottering on the brink. We in Europe cannot afford to sit on the sidelines and dismiss these troubles as if they had no impact on our own society: the European project has been built on values that we deem to be universal. The EU’s member states wouldn’t want, of course, to export these values by force, but we nevertheless need to make a very real effort to uphold them. And what we in Europe would see as a moral imperative also happens to be in our own strategic interest, because unchecked violence has a proven tendency to spin out of control and spill over elsewhere. The consequences of inaction are therefore worse than all the risks associated with taking action. Benign neglect is not an option for Europe.
French policymakers have always held that opinion, and I believe they have been vindicated. I draw much comfort from knowing that nowadays France is much less of a lone voice crying in the wildness than in years gone by.
In more general terms, it’s also worth saying that the ESDP will never attempt to impose “European rule” on other countries, whether in Africa or anywhere else. European civil-military intervention can usefully lend a helping hand in situations where some lasting good can reasonably be expected from it. In the early stages of a crisis, measures ranging from political and financial assistance, diplomatic intervention and even military action, can prevent it from erupting into violence. Adroit use of all the elements contained in the ESDP can help calm extremes of rhetoric and establish a new and more positive tone in the political dialogue.
At the other end of the scale, when a crisis is winding down and there are openings for moderating influences that could bring the slaughter to an end, then outside intervention can prove instrumental in enforcing peace and bringing warring factions to the negotiating table.
In countries that have experienced the horrors of civil war, the arrival of an effective military force from outside is generally welcomed, as was the case in both the 2003 and 2006 Congo operations. One of the major assets that the intervening troop force brings with it is the sense of discipline and the law-and-order image it projects. Just by virtue of being there, it shows the goodwill and commitment of the nations that sent it, and it also provides valuable leverage for honest brokers trying to bring the warlords to a peace deal. And if push comes to shove it can fight, as was the case during Operation Artemis, when we intervened militarily in support of the over-extended UN mission to the DRC.
To turn away from ESDP’s “hard power” contributions to softer issues, it is worth pointing out that the European and African economies are linked to a much greater degree than is generally realised. The European Union is by far the largest export market for African goods, which are often imported into the EU on preferential terms, and it also offers a home to large overseas communities from just about every African country. By much the same token, a large number of European citizens and dependents are scattered throughout Africa, which is in turn a significant export market for the EU.
The European Union has developed a complex array of political, economic and financial instruments to support all the countries of Africa as well as those of the Caribbean and the Pacific. The European Commission has been instrumental in supporting African development, and in certain circumstances provides direct assistance. That sort of assistance is not enough on its own to relieve poverty and ensure good governance, but the EU, along with its member states, is the largest provider of assistance to Africa, both to national governments and to various communities.
There may well be shortcomings to European policy on Africa, but at least there is a policy. And the fact that there is, is the result of sustained consultations with our African interlocutors as part of a long-term EU strategy. This is not the ESDP, but the wider picture of European policy under which ESDP operates. ESDP obviously takes into account the larger European policy, of which it is a specialised subsidiary. And where it can come into play is in stabilisation and post-conflict operations, where some level of military, police or judiciary support is required.
The European Union eschews military activism and interventionism. The whole idea is to support African states, and regional organisations such as the African Union, whenever it is practicable, necessary and, above all, requested. The recent concept of “European reinforcement of African capabilities in prevention, crisis response and conflict resolution” (Recamp) openly calls for African ownership. The idea is to provide assistance in planning, training, logistical support and so on, to missions and forces created by African states or groups of states, and operating under their own guidelines in pursuit of a mission that they themselves will have defined.
Europe has never claimed to have the means of redressing all the strategic imbalances that exist in Africa – nor does it have any intention of doing so. Yet its lack of overwhelming force is not synonymous with weakness. Taken together, the EU countries possess a considerable array of assets. As military power goes, Europe may not be a giant, but neither is it a weakling. It has the military capability needed to conduct decisive operations within certain time and space limits. Its member states have learned to operate together and can generate significant forces. They can command and control them, and deploy and operate them in the field. Yet their most valuable asset is cultural; they have soldiers who are willing and able to interact with the local population, who are cautious in their use of lethal force, and who are ready to accept the many shades of purple that exist between the enemy in red and the friend in blue; this can be hugely important in Africa.
When it comes to foreign interventions, no European country would these days consider going it alone. However pure its intentions, that country would face an uphill struggle to explain its true motives. By and large, most Africans would at best be only reluctant supporters of European intervention. European nations acting together can nevertheless achieve a modicum of acceptability – in effect, a political form of synergy, with significant psychological impact, that is well worth all the cost and pain of multinational operations, together with their attendant challenges of interoperability and suchlike.
Some of this might look like a description of Europe’s military capability for waging war in Africa, but that is most definitely not my intention. The ESDP is, in fact, currently developing a wide variety of instruments that are much more sophisticated than raw military muscle. These range from observer missions and cease-fire commissions, to long-term Security Sector Reform (SSR), and from disarmament, de-mobilisation and reintegration (DDR), to training local forces, providing assistance on logistics, planning and intelligence.
European military capabilities are, in any case, limited. The less the better should certainly be the motto for EU interventions anywhere. When considering their options, European planners will generally look for “minimal” choices. The drawback is that smaller commitments generally require a long-term perspective. In the ESDP’s few years so far, there hasn’t been enough time for a clear track-record. Yet there are hopes that our modest on-going endeavours in Congo − a police advisory mission known as EUPOL and a defence reform mission called EUSEC − will gain for the country the greatest luxury of all, time. Meanwhile, the other on-going ESDP mission is in Sudan, where 60 Europeans are providing staff support to the African Union’s AMIS II mission in Darfur.
The European Union needs to remain engaged in Africa for both moral and practical reasons. And the way it operates will be crucial to reaching its strategic objective: African self-sufficiency in achieving security and stability. It is only through a minimal footprint yet a long-term endeavour that Europe will be able to support viable African states and their economies. Outright military intervention may at times be necessary in Africa, as elsewhere, but only as a last resort, and then as briefly as possible.
The European Union’s members must above all recognise that Africa’s ills have to be dealt with by Africans. This is as much a matter of principle as the result of cold, strategic calculation. Although European soldiers and civilians have generally been successful in dealing with African mores, they must genuinely understand that Africans are the true owners of their fate.
This has led a few European countries – those most accustomed to dealing with Africa – to develop concepts in support of African efforts. And this is where ESDP, as a recent area of activity of the European Union, has so much to offer: a long-term view, supported by a powerful and willing economy, endowed with a large array of assets, covering the full spectrum from humanitarian operations to security support, from conflict prevention and crisis management to military intervention.
Foremost among the ESDP’s advantages is Europe’s cultural knowledge and understanding of Africa. Former colonial powers have evolved significantly, just as have their former possessions. The days of client states that still lived in the shadow of colonial times are over. On both shores of the Mediterranean, generations have passed and new connections have been formed. It is the knowledge, understanding and mutual respect that remain, that are the cornerstones on which Europe’s policy for Africa will be built.