Preventing conflict could be the EU’s best idea yet

Date: 15/05/1997

EUROPE is becoming increasingly Eurosceptic. With governments introducing austerity measures in the race to meet the monetary union convergence criteria, people are feeling the pinch of the EU without being shown any compensatory benefits.

Europe's citizens - its biggest asset - are being alienated by the European project.

What is urgently needed is a raison d'être, a fundamental vision to drive the Union which goes beyond fiscal guidelines and demonstrates the EU's relevance.

With just under six weeks of the Intergovernmental Conference still to run, now is the time for European leaders to address this pressing problem.

Politicians traditionally turn to foreign policy when the going gets tough domestically. “There is nothing like a war to distract the electorate,” cynical commentators have noted down the years.

But there is an alternative take on this idea. Why not re-establish the prevention of war at the heart of the EU's vision? This could be the 'big idea' which the Union so badly needs. It would simultaneously demonstrate the importance of the EU to its citizens, provide governments with a welcome diversion from EMU, raise the Union's international status, lower costs and save lives.

Preventing a further war in western Europe was the prime reason for establishing the European Economic Community 40 years ago. This task has been successfully achieved - a fact that should be enough to make us all positive Europeans.

However, although EU countries have enjoyed a period of unprecedented peace and prosperity, the same cannot be said for the world as a whole.

Since 1945, over 50 million people have lost their lives in conflict and millions more have been forced to live in abject poverty. There are currently 30 major wars and countless lower intensity conflicts taking place across the globe.

Europe clearly has a compelling moral duty to prevent conflict. But stopping wars before they start is not simply altruistic. It also makes economic sense.

European countries repeatedly face huge bills for picking up the pieces of conflict. For example, the EU has spent well over 770 million ecu on humanitarian assistance to the Great Lakes region in the last two years.

Add to this the cost of refugee flows, peacekeeping, reconstruction assistance and lost trade and investment opportunities, and the expense is formidable. Over half a million refugees have sought asylum within the EU from the countries of the former Yugoslavia. Germany alone has spent 9.3 billion ecu on their welfare.

Consider the political damage, and the harm done to the values which lie at the heart of the Union itself, when we were seen to be incapable of preventing a war 'in our own backyard' - such as in Bosnia - and the case for action becomes even more imperative.

For the EU's potential ability to help prevent violent conflict has not been fully recognised. The Union has the world's largest single market, the biggest aid budget, an unparalleled web of historic and cultural ties, representation at the top tables of diplomacy and economic planning, and access to over 600,000 professional soldiers.

Used carefully, these 'carrots and sticks' could be targeted to help relieve the tensions which can so often lead to violent conflict. However, this is clearly not happening.

Take the Great Lakes. A convincing EU response to the crisis would have been one which helped mitigate the negative effects of structural adjustment and falling commodity prices, and helped stem arms flows into the volatile area.

As it was, the causes of conflict went unaddressed and the Union again simply treated the symptoms with the expensive sticking plaster of emergency relief.

The IGC is a vital opportunity for European leaders to prioritise conflict prevention in all aspects of external relations and establish it as an aim of the common foreign and security policy.

The current draft treaty text includes crisis management amongst the Union's tasks.

While this is welcome, it is in many ways symptomatic of the reactive state of the current debate. If governments are prepared to commit themselves to managing crises, surely a logical extension would be a firm commitment to try to prevent them from occurring in the first place? Making this explicit in the treaty would provide a useful yardstick against which to measure the EU's performance.

Foreign ministers should follow the lead of their colleagues in development ministries. The Council looks set to agree a declaration at the June Amsterdam summit on Union support for conflict prevention in Africa.

This welcome move will commit member states to principles such as the need for coherence in EU-Africa relations as well as specific initiatives such as supporting the development of a multinational African peacekeeping force.

Coherence between the different strands of European policy is the key to effective preventive action. This in turn demands a common analysis of impending crises and how the Union's policy instruments could make a difference.

Sadly, this is some way off. When foreign ministers met in March to discuss the EU's response to the Albanian crisis, they did not even have a common brief on what was happening on the ground.

The creation of a forum for shared analysis - an EU early warning and policy planning capability - is essential.

Thankfully, such a unit looks likely to be established at the IGC. It should be tasked with gathering early warnings of potential conflict situations and formulating practical proposals for prevention. It is crucial that this unit is at least quasi-independent of the Council. The development of shared analysis must take place independently of the political decision-making process which is marred by national interests.

Yet all the planning in the world will go to waste if the Union does not control its arms exports.

In 1995, the EU accounted for 30&percent; of all weapons sales to the developing world, exports which have exacerbated conflicts, fuelled human rights abuses and increased instability.

There is a desperate need to strengthen the existing vague Union criteria governing arms exports, and support is growing for the introduction of an EU code of conduct to establish clear rules for weapons transfers.

Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and Ireland all support the development of a responsible common export policy, but such moves have so far been blocked by the UK and France.

However, with the new British Labour government firmly committed to establishing a code of conduct, there is now a real chance for progress. Member states should agree a declaration at the Amsterdam summit on developing a common policy which should be implemented by the end of the UK presidency in June 1998.

One welcome initiative anticipated at the Amsterdam summit is the introduction of a programme to tackle the illicit trade in small arms, such as machine-guns and mortars.

It is estimated that these weapons are responsible for up to 90&percent; of the casualties in modern wars. The Netherlands' proposals include improving coordination of customs and police operations and supporting 'on the ground' schemes to demobilise and disarm soldiers when conflicts have ended.

Ending the absurd compartmentalisation of aid is an urgent priority. The EU should adopt a 'security first' approach which integrates money for demobilisation into development assistance. If soldiers are not effectively reintegrated into society when wars end, countries can often lapse back into conflict, thus rendering development aid useless.

Security first assistance can, therefore, also save money. Compare the 880,000 ecu spent in total on the successful United Nations programme in Mali with the 880,000 ecu a day being spent on the UN peacekeeping operation in Angola.

This all sounds like an immense task - and it is. It requires vision, leadership and, fundamentally, political will. There is no bigger test for European leaders in the closing stages of the IGC and beyond.

From Albania to Zaïre, the challenge is clear. A coherent strategy of conflict prevention would project European influence on to the world stage, address the external problems which the Union faces and protect the economic and political interests of member states.

Furthermore, 40 years on from the establishment of the European Community, it would reaffirm the values of peace and liberty which are the historic foundation of today's European Union.

Paul Eavis is director of Saferworld, an independent foreign affairs think-tank.