relacions entre les dimensions civil i militar en el marc de a Política
Europea de Defensa són cada cop més complexes. És per això que
considero interessant la proposta que fan des de l’European Peacebuilding Liaison Office (EPLO), una Plataforma d’ONG europees i xarxes diverses que treballen en temes de Construcció de la Pau.
proposta es basa en la proposta del Consell Europeu de Desembre de 2008
en què aquest acceptava integrar les dimensions civil i militar de la
gestió de crisis en la fase de planificació estratègica. Les propostes
del Consell es troben en les Conclusions de Presidència de UE i en una
presentació al Parlament Europeu que va fer l’Alt Representant, Javier
EPLO saluda les propostes de millorar la planificació de
missions en el marc PESD i creu que el desenvolupament del Directori de
planificació i gestió de crisis (Crisis Management and Planning
Directorate -CMPD-) suposa una oportunitat d’introduir mesures que
milloraran l’eficàcia i responsabilitat de les missions PESD de
no obstant, consideren (i ho comparteixo) que hi ha també un risc que
la integració proposada de civils i militars en dimensions de
planificació estratègica de gestió de la crisi de UE comporti de fet
l’absorció de la dimensió civil per la militar.
fet, la fusió dels Directorats VIII i IX podria significar que la
planificació de missions civils acabi directament essent dirigida per
doncs, estiuc amb EPLO que allò que convé és mirar de trobar un
equilibri entre les dues dimensions, amb mesures concretes que permetin
assegurar la suficient presència i pes de la dimensió civil de gestió
de la crisi de UE.
Adjunto la proposta complerta (segueix…)
EPLO Statement on Civilian-Military Integration in European Security and Defence Policy
European Council of December 2008 agreed to integrate EU civilian and
military crisis management at the strategic planning level. The plans
were referred to in the EU Presidency Conclusions and more recently in
a presentation to the European Parliament by High Representative Javier
welcomes proposals to improve the planning of ESDP missions and
believes that the development of the envisaged Crisis Management and
Planning Directorate (CMPD) is an opportunity to introduce measures
that will improve the effectiveness and accountability of civilian ESDP
believe that there is also a risk that the proposed integration of
civilian and military dimensions of EU crisis management strategic
planning could lead in effect to the absorption of the civilian
dimension into the military dimension. Merging of Directorates VIII and
IX could mean that the planning of civilian missions is not conducted
by civilians with the relevant political, professional and operational
expertise. The increased militarization of ESDP could, in turn, have a
negative impact on civilian crisis management.
line with established good practice, the EU’s plans should seek balance
between the two dimensions, with concrete measures put in place to
ensure that sufficient weight continues to be afforded to the civilian
dimension of EU crisis management.
The Importance of Civilian Responses to Conflict
EU’s comparative advantage as an international actor is civilian crisis
management; it has a wide range of tools at its disposal. Civilian
responses to conflict should not be viewed as soft, ineffectual
alternatives to military intervention. On the contrary, in order to
build sustainable peace, in many conflict settings civilian responses
of the type that the EU supports are more effective – and far cheaper –
than military options. Civilian crisis management has a strong record
at contributing to long-term stability, conflict prevention and
development. To date, the majority of the EU’s interventions have been
civilian and this is likely to continue to be the case: there is strong
public opposition in the EU to military intervention and there is a
high demand for specialized civilian assistance from citizens and
governments in conflict-affected countries.
EU has already undertaken considerable commitments, with ten civilian
ESDP missions currently operating, and more likely to follow. The EU
faces challenges when it comes to the identification, training and
deployment of the right civilian experts to these missions.
Above all, the EU needs to do more to ensure that it builds local capacity, rather than supplanting it.
EU also faces multiple challenges when it comes to its military
response to conflict, including redefining its relationship with NATO.
Addressing these problems and strengthening Europe’s military response should not take place at the expense of civilian crisis management.
are significant risks for the EU if current and future missions are not
successful; these include the risk that the EU’s actions are
ineffective, leading to greater suffering – human rights abuses,
poverty and insecurity – in conflict-affected areas.
the worst cases, poorly planned and executed interventions can generate
conflict rather than helping to reduce it. The EU’s reputation is at
stake as it seeks to be an important player in international politics.
EPLO’s Recommendations for Effectiveness and Accountability in Civilian Crisis Management
order for the EU to realize its potential to play a significant and
positive role in the prevention of conflict and to contribute to global
efforts to build sustainable peace in areas affected by conflict, EPLO
calls on the Member States of the EU to consider the following
recommendations related to the current restructuring of the General
proposed Crisis Management and Planning Directorate should have a ratio
of military to civilian planners that reflects the EU’s ESDP
commitments. For example, as most ESDP missions are civilian, then most
of the planners in the CMPD should be civilian experts, i.e. have
extensive experience of civilian response to conflict.
leadership of the Directorate should also reflect a balance between
civilian and military experts, in line with the principles of balanced
integration of the two dimensions. For example, at the senior level
there should be a greater number of civilian experts (with significant
expertise and experience in civilian crisis management) than military
experts. All senior managers should have expertise on conflict
transformation by peaceful means, human rights and gender in line with
the EU’s policy commitments on these issues.
all levels, personnel should have requisite experience and expertise in
the areas of civilian crisis management encompassed by ESDP, e.g. Rule
of Law, police training, Security Sector Reform, etc. Former military
officers may be civilians but they are not necessarily experts on the
areas of civilian crisis management of relevance to the EU.
all levels, there should be equal numbers of men and women in the CMPD.
It is particularly important that women are appointed to senior
positions given the current lack of gender balance at senior level in
the General Secretariat of the Council and the recent adoption of the
Comprehensive Approach to the Implementation of the UN Resolution 1325.
As there are currently no female Heads of Mission, and very few women
in any senior management position across ESDP Missions, the Council
should set a positive example to EU Member States (who propose
candidates for positions in Missions).
EU should use the establishment of the CMPD as an opportunity to make
ESDP missions more accountable to EU citizens and citizens in the
countries where missions are deployed. It should establish local entry
points and mechanisms for involvement of civil society (European civil
society and civil society in countries where missions are based) in all
phases of a Mission’s work, from planning to evaluation.
pre-mission fact-finding assessments should include a thorough conflict
analysis as well as an analysis of institutional capacity. Only
personnel with relevant civilian expertise should be involved in the
pre-planning of civilian missions.
for evaluation of ESDP Missions should be broadened to cover their
impact on conflict dynamics and their contribution to creating
sustainable peace in the countries where they are based, as well as the
important – but narrower – questions relating how they meet the terms
of their mandates.
need to ensure balance between military and civilian dimensions of ESDP
and to improve the effectiveness and accountability of ESDP should be
taken into consideration in planning for the European External Action
Service (if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified). For example, personnel in
the new Directorate should have requisite civilian expertise so that
the possible absorption of the Directorate into the new service does
not have an adverse effect on the early stages of operation of the new
EU should heed lessons on civilian-military integration from the UN’s
experience of peacebuilding, and in particular the decision to
establish a cadre of civilian peace operation staff.
Member States should oversee and assess the integration plan to ensure
that it does not have an adverse impact on civilian crisis response.
Under the current committee structure, this would be the responsibility
of CIVCOM. If the committee structure changes and a new committee is
established above PMG and CIVCOM, its mandate should include oversight
and assessment of the integration of planning.
plans for the CMPD and the implications for ESDP – including the
relationship between the restructuring in the General Secretariat and
the parallel process of NATO reform – should be debated transparently
and there should be an opportunity for European citizens to provide
input, rather than being presented with a fait accompli at the culmination of the process.
Foto: Operació civil-militar a l’Afganistan. Font: USAF