Abstract
![endif]>![if>
This paper discusses the
changes in European security in the 1990s and their impact on
national security policies. The analysis is based on the premise
that the changes in European security primarily challenge the
legitimacy basis of security policies in Europe. The
challenge emerges as a result of the combined effects of the end
of the Cold War and the increased influence of supranational institutions.
In this context the traditional role of
security policy as an instrument to protect the national interest
of states in a system of anarchy comes into question. Security policy is increasingly becoming an instrument
to uphold the law. However, national adaptation to these broad
changes in European security has taken different paths. These
different paths highlight the continued importance of institutional
patterns, long established norms and role conceptions in European
security policy.
![endif]>![if>
Introduction
![endif]>![if>
How do national states in
Western Europe confront the challenges of security in a new millennium?
What are the implications for states� capacity to defend themselves
against a variety of potential external threats in the context
of ever more porous borders? The principal argument in this paper
will be that the changes in European security primarily challenge
the legitimacy basis of security policies of European states rather
than their capacity to defend their citizens. It is in other words
the very basis on which security policy is formulated that is
at stake. In order to clarify this argument it is necessary to
define security and identify the various changes to the security
agenda in Europe. This will be done in the first part of the paper.
The second part of the paper looks more closely at what these
changes have meant for the security policy of some West European
states. In the third and last part of the paper I discuss the
significance of the changes and possible future developments in
European security.
Continuity
and change in the European security agenda
How can we define �security�?
Is it so that the end of the Cold War radically changed the conception
of security in Europe?
![endif]>![if>
According to Arnold Wolfer
security should be defined as �the absence of threats to acquired
values�. Expanding on this David Baldwin considers security to
be a situation in which there is �a low probability of damage
to acquired values� (Baldwin 1997: 13). Such a definition is however
only a starting point. Further specification is required in order
for the concept to be helpful in empirical studies. We might start
by asking whose security it is we are talking about. Furthermore,
one might ask what values it is that should be defended? These
are essentially questions of qualities and standards. Ultimately,
they point to the issue of what kind of society we want to live
in (and thus wish to protect). However, as the responses to the
questions of �whose security� and �which values� have often been
taken as a given, at least in studies of international relations,
the fact that the security issue has a normative dimension has
often been neglected. In international relations the state has
almost automatically been considered the �referent object� of
security (Buzan 1999). As for the values to be defended, these
have also been taken for granted: ultimately it is the territorial
integrity and political independence of the state that is to be
protected. Finally, security from what? Again, the answer was
the state. Other states have usually been considered as the principal
threat to territorial integrity and political independence.
![endif]>![if>
These specifications to
the concept of security are closely linked to a particular model
of the international system- the Westphalian model. According
to this model, striving for security is in many ways the ultimate
concern of the foreign policies of states. This is linked to the
assumption of anarchy in the international system. There is no
superior authority that can 'lay down the law' from a more independent
or objective position than the individual states. The international
system is, in other words, seen to be in a 'state of nature'.
In such a system, politics is a struggle for power where each
state must look after its interests as best it can and with all
available means. Questions of values or of morality are considered
to have little or no place in such a system: they belong to domestic
politics. The characteristic features of the Westphalian model
are further outlined in the following way:
![endif]>![if>
�1. The world
consists of, and is divided by, sovereign states which recognise
no superior authority.
2. The processes
of law making, the settlement of disputes and law-enforcement
are largely in the hands of individual states subject to the logic
of �the competitive struggle for power�.
3.
Differences among states are often settled by force: the principle
of effective power holds sway.
4. Virtually
no legal fetters exist to curb the resort to force; international
legal standards afford minimal protection.
5. Responsibility
for cross-border wrongful acts are a �private matter� concerning
only those affected; no collective interest in compliance with
international law is recognised.
6. All states
are regarded as equal before the law: legal rules do not take
account of asymmetries of power.
7. International
law is oriented to the establishment of minimal rules of coexistence;
the creation of enduring relationships among states and peoples
is an aim, but only to the extent that it allows national political
objectives to be met.
8. The minimisation
of impediments on state freedom is the �collective� priority (Held
1993: 29).�
![endif]>![if>
During the Cold War the
security and defence policies of West European states were to
a large extent formulated according to the logic of the Westphalian
model. Perhaps the clearest example of this is French security
and defence policy. The French security doctrine received its
most coherent formulation with the election of Charles de Gaulle
as president of the Fifth Republic in 1958. It was maintained
by his predecessors and thus remained the basis for French security
policy until the early 1990s. De Gaulle organised French security
and defence policy around the principle of political autonomy.
He was convinced that France needed an independent defence capacity
in order to ensure this autonomy and to allow France to maximise
her national interests (Gergorin and Touraine 1998: 105). There
was no doubt, in other words about the referent object of security
or of the values to be defended in this case. France even withdrew
from the military integration in NATO in 1966 and developed an
independent nuclear capacity for the same reasons of national
autonomy. These initiatives have often been understood as an expression
of anti-Americanism. Although this may be part of the explanation,
French security and defence policy cannot be properly understood
without taking into account these basic premises upon which it
was built. At the heart of French security and defence policy
was the nation state. It was this idea that gave legitimacy to
French policy (Sauder 1999).
![endif]>![if>
Remaining within NATO, other
West European states seemed more pragmatic with regard to the
question of autonomy. Still, their security and defence policies
were organised around the same principle of territorial defence.
As a traditional military alliance, membership in NATO was for
a majority of these states seen as an efficient means to obtain
this security objective.
![endif]>![if>
The end of the Cold War
constituted an important challenge to prevailing security and
defence policies and perceptions of security in Western Europe.
With the collapse of the Warsaw pact, the perceived threat on
which much of West European security and defence policies had
been built since the end of the Second World War disappeared almost
over night. It now seemed increasingly unrealistic to suggest
that West European states� security was challenged by an �enemy
state�. Moving away from the emphasis on defending the territory
of the nation-state from an external military threat, discussions
on security and defence policy increasingly began to focus on
so-called non-territorial threats and to refer to an �enlarged�
security concept. These non-territorial threats were considered
to take the form of terrorism, drug-trafficking, nuclear waste
and also ethnic conflict that might spread beyond a particular
state-territory. It was also argued more often that economic and
social imbalances, environmental problems and humanitarian disasters
were as important or perhaps even more important security risks
than the threat of external military invasion. Thus, the way in
which the definition of security was specified started to change.
In response to the question of �security for whom�? it was no
longer self- evident that the answer was the state, neither, in
response to the question of �security for which values� was it
a given that this would be the territorial integrity of the state.
Increasingly, the focus turned from the state to the individual
as the �referent object� of security. And as to the values to
be defended, these were no longer only the territorial integrity
of the state. In fact, in several instances, this integrity was
challenged in the name of principles of human rights. However,
the most important changes to the specifications of security had
to do with the types of threats that Western Europe was expected
to have to face. As a result of these changes a debate also developed
about the legitimacy of the use of military means outside the
territory of the nation state, with the aim of protecting international
norms and rules.
![endif]>![if>
The changes in the specifications
of security also led to changes in the perception of what instruments
might be most appropriate in security policy. Whereas the favoured
instrument of the Cold War was the military this is no longer
necessarily considered the most efficient or appropriate instrument
to maintain security. Indeed much of the discussion on security
policy in Western Europe was a discussion about how to reallocate
resources from security to other policy objectives. To the extent
that military means were still considered important, most West
European states did in the 1990s begin considerable changes to
the way in which they structured their armed forces and their
strategic doctrines.
![endif]>![if>
The changes to the specifications
of security should not however be seen as the exclusive result
of the end of the Cold War. They must be must be understood in
the context of broader changes in the European system of states.
Also, these �alternative approaches� to security were not new
with the end of the Cold War. They constituted the basis on which
for example the Helsinki process (now the OSCE) was launched in
the early 1970s. However, it was only with the end of the Cold
War that these ideas gained a wider acceptance.
![endif]>![if>
A principal consequence
of these broader changes to the international system is that the
privileged status of the state is challenged. With these challenges
to the state the very basis upon which security policy has been
built is also questioned. It is possible to note three conditions
that illustrate the internal and external challenges to the state.
Firstly, the emergence of new issues at the international political
agenda in Europe. Following from this, the conventional hierarchy
of policy issues that gives priority to security and defence issues
also seems to be abandoned. The second condition is the emergence
of new transitional, supranational, economic, and political and
security actors in addition to the state, at the European level.
What many of these actors have in common is that they do not have
a territorial base and that they act without reference to a specific
national interest. A consequence of this change is that it has
become more difficult for the state to control economic and political
activities across national borders. Various groupings may, to
varying degrees, seek to defend their interest through European
institutions outside the nation state. The third condition is
the strengthening of a normative and legal dimension in the international
system. In a complex international system characterised by interdependence,
order is the result of a network of agreements and international
institutions and not exclusively of a balance of power. Such networks
of international institutions cover a wide spectre of themes from
environmental issues and human rights to defence issues. As a
consequence, decisions on international issues are no longer left
exclusively in the hands of national governments. Norms and rules
at the international level do increasingly influence state behaviour
and set standards for appropriate behaviour both between states
and within states.
![endif]>![if>
These challenges to the state constitute an opportunity
to (re-) open the questions of the basis on which security policy
should be formulated. When the referent object of security � the
nation state - can no longer be taken as a given, the legitimacy
of a security policy that relies exclusively on national security
is also questionable. Hence, the question of the basis on which
we should develop European security policy� which interests, values,
norms should be promoted and protected comes to the fore. The
normative dimension to security policy becomes visible.
![endif]>![if>
It must however be added
that although most agree that European security is changing, there
is considerable uncertainty in assessments of the extent of change to the conception of security as well in the evaluation
of the implications
of such a change. A sense of security or insecurity is subjective
to a large extent. An important question thus becomes the direction
in which policy-makers chose to take the issue. To summarise,
security policy in Western Europe now seems to hold three dimensions:
The first dimension is the traditional conception of security
and defence policy where the purpose is to defend the territory
of a nation state or a group of states from a clearly identified
external military threat. The second dimension considers the idea
of mutual interdependence between states. Thus national security
is seen to depend on overall international stability and respect
for international norms. With this dimension the focus in security
and defence policy thus shifts towards non-territorial security
threats. Sources of insecurity are often not considered linked
to other states but to issues such as ethnic conflicts, international
crime and terrorism.� In
turn this leads to a discussion of the legitimacy of use of military
means in situations which are not concerned with defending national
territory. The third dimension points to social and economic imbalances,
humanitarian crises, and environmental disasters as larger security
challenges than military threats. The tendency in the European
security agenda has been to move away from the first dimension
of territorial defence and towards the third dimension of an enlarged
security concept.
![endif]>![if>
To what extent and in what
ways have these changes in the European security agenda affected
the basis on which West European nation states develop their security
and defence policies?
Coping with
change: the weight of national idiosyncrasies
Most West European states
have sought to adapt to the external changes in their security
environment. The overall tendency has been to concentrate on two
things: first a refocus towards the ability to conduct crisis
management operations and peace keeping missions outside the national
territory and a move away from territorial defence. This has also
led to a reduction in subsidies to the armed forces. Second, there
has been increased emphasis on international co-ordination and
multilateral responses to security. Underlying these changes is
an overall agreement about the �indivisibility of security� in
Europe. In other words the idea is that security in one part of
Europe depends on security in Europe as a whole.
![endif]>![if>
Despite this seeming overall
convergence in the interpretation of the new security environment,
national adaptation has taken different paths. Some states started
reforming their policies early in the 1990s, others did not start
this process until the end of the decade. Likewise, the domestic
political reactions to change have varied in the different European
states. These differences highlight the importance of institutional
patterns, long established norms and role conceptions for the
formulation of national security policy. Security policy is not
formulated from a tabula rasa. Certain issues are taken as given
from the outset and constitute the premises on which policy-choices
are made. This also means that the general principles on which
there seems to be agreement have taken on a different meaning
in different national cultural/political contexts. To challenge
the political �givens� is not always simple. In order to illustrate
the different paths to adaptation we will look at two large states
in Europe�s core � France and Germany - and on small state in
Europe�s periphery -Norway.
![endif]>![if>
France: the end to exceptionalism?
As we have already noted
the aim of national independence was a central to French security
and defence policy. Not only did France leave the military part
of NATO in 1966; it also built an independent nuclear force. The
search for independence was during the Cold War not only directed
towards the Soviet Union, but also towards France�s ally, the
United States. France was also a strong supporter of separate
European security and defence co-operation. Such co-operation
should however take the form of co-operation amongst nation states.
European co-operation was thus seen and presented as an instrument
for French influence and French autonomy rather than as an initiative
taken for the common good. This has also meant that historically
��pressure from Paris in favour of the creation of some sort of
European defence and Security Identity (EDSI), sustained and imperative
though it has tended to be, has not always been complemented by
any actual Europanisation of French defence policy and planning.�
(Howorth 1997: 23).
![endif]>![if>
With the end of the Cold
War one can observe several modifications to the strong emphasis
on autonomy and territorial defence in French security policy.
According to Lisbeth Aggestam, changes have taken place along
three dimensions: to the conceptions of security; to the approaches
to institutional security co-operation and to perceptions of France�s
role in the European security system (Aggestam 2000). The first
changes were introduced with the publication of the White book
on defence in 1994. A new military programme law (LPM) followed
the White book in which a major review of French defence policy
was outlined for the period of 1995-2000. After Jacques Chirac�s
election to the Presidency in 1995 the changes were speeded up
amongst other things through a new LPM for 1997-2000 that replaced
the one from 1994 (Howorth 1997). The changes introduced through
these reform packages were important. They included the abolition
of conscription and the decision to rely on a professional army.
Surprisingly, however, this did not provoke much protest in French
public opinion or amongst French political and military elites.
![endif]>![if>
If we look specifically
at Aggestam�s first dimension: the conception security, France
moved from a traditional notion of territorial defence and national
autonomy as well as a particular emphasis on the military dimensions
of defence towards emphasising interdependence amongst states
as an important condition for security. France was also, together
with the United States, amongst the first Western states to call
for a change in the strategic doctrine of NATO, which would allow
NATO to take responsibility for crisis management and peace enforcement
operations in addition to territorial defence (Howorth 1997: 25-6).
This move towards the idea that Europe must share responsibility
for security and towards an idea of security as indivisible contrast
sharply with earlier years� emphasis on national autonomy. The
change is however not complete: France�s nuclear policy has only
been subject to minor adjustments. The changes to the second dimension
pointed to by Aggestam, approaches to institutional security co-operation,
follow logically from the changes to the conception of security.
The most tangible change is probably the announcement of foreign
minister Herv� de Charette in 1995 that France would rejoin Nato�s
Military committee. This decision was preceded by a number of
small steps such as French participation in the Gulf war as a
member of the Western coalition as well as French participation
in operations in the former Yugoslavia under NATO command (Le
Gloannec 1997). Several key factors in addition to the changing
conceptions of security help explain this change in French policy.
Among them are the domestic political concerns such as the economic
burden of developing European defence capabilities outside NATO
for a French economy struggling in the mid-1990s with the effects
of the Maastricht criteria for Economic and Monetary Union (EMU
). France continued however to be strongly in favour of an independent
European security capacity. The return to NATO thus most of all
indicated a changed attitude to multilateral security arrangements.
![endif]>![if>
This leads us to Aggestam's
last dimension: the perception of France in the European security
system. At the core of France�s European strategy is the relationship
with Germany. It is also here that the multilateralisation of
French security policy is most clearly demonstrated for example
through the Franco-German brigade. At the same time, the relationship
with Germany indicates that defence and security issues continue
to be sensitive issues amongst European states. This was demonstrated
by the initial German reaction to the unilateral French decision
to abandon conscription and to change its strategic concept. This
decision was made without prior Franco- German consultations.
According to Le Gloannec �Reactions in Germany to this reform
project were bitter, particularly on the part of the defence ministry
and the ministry of foreign affairs.� (Le Gloannec 1997) Tension
was rapidly defused yet they underline the continued sensitivity
of defence and security issues amongst West European states.
![endif]>![if>
French aims with European
defence concentrates on ensuring that France will be able to fulfil
the obligations entailed in the so-called Petersberg tasks, which
include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping and crisis-management.
These are not linked exclusively to French national interests.
In fact, Aggestam sees a change towards ��an emphasis on Europe
as an ethical and responsible power�. Thus, the emphasis on the
need to maximise national interests seems to have been if not
abandoned altogether then at least modified by an emphasis on
the universal principles and the indivisibility of security. This
is illustrated by the following quote of Jacques Chirac: �So a
Europe which is more ethical, which places at the heart of everything
it does respect for a number of principles which, in the case
of France, underpins a republican code of ethics, and, as far
as the whole of Europe is concerned, constitute a shared code
of ethics.� (Aggestam 2000: 75)
![endif]>![if>
To summarise, a radical
transformation has taken place in French security and defence
policy. The legitimacy of this policy was initially based on the
ability to protect its citizens from external foreign invasion
through the means of a strong and independent military force.
During the 1990s there was a move towards a conception in which
security is increasingly seem as indivisible and where multilateralism
constituted a key element in the national approach to security.
Interestingly, these changes have taken place without strong domestic
protest.
![endif]>![if>
Germany towards normalisation?
Contrary to the French case,
multilateralism was the key to German security policy also during
the Cold War. Thus, one should perhaps expect that the changes
brought by the end of the Cold War would have been easy to deal
with for Germany. This is only partly true. While multilateralism
was easy, the logical corollary of indivisibility of security,
namely German participation in �out of area� operations was a
difficult issue.
![endif]>![if>
The security and defence
policy of the Federal Republic of Germany � to the extent that
the FRG can be said to have had an independent defence policy
� was strongly influenced by the memory of nazi-Germany. This
gave a particular weight in German politics to the principle that
the use of force was considered illegitimate for any other reason
than for the defence of national territory. The strong reservations
against the engagement of German troops for any kind of operation
outside national territory were also codified in the FRG�s constitution.
A further precaution against Germany�s militaristic past was the
generalised conscription. The army was to remain under civilian
control and the conscripts ��took no oath of obedience in the
traditional sense and retained rights of individual conscience
not tolerated in the American, British, or French armed forces.�
(Hodge 1999: 182). Finally, the Federal Republic�s autonomy in
military affairs was restricted externally through the Paris agreements.
These made it unrealistic to envisage the engagement of West German
troops outside the national territory also from a legal and not
only from a moral perspective.
![endif]>![if>
With the end of the Cold
War, the formal restrictions on Germany�s security and defence
policy were removed. The so-called �Two plus Four� treaty lifted
the international legal restrictions on Germany�s sovereignty.
In 1994 the German constitutional court also gave an interpretation
of the Basic Law which indicated that German troops could take
part in combat under the umbrella of multilateral security organisations
(Bohnen 1997). The German Defence White Paper published the same
year also opened up for the possibility of German participation
in �out of area� operations. Overall however the White Paper kept
to the German tradition of emphasising the �civilian� dimension
to security and underlined that the most important security goal
of Germany was to maintain peace. The security strategy developed
to support this aim was primarily diplomatic, focusing on economic
integration, inclusive security institutions and disarmament (Hodge
1999: 190). As such it echoed the overall changes in the European
security agenda.
![endif]>![if>
The element of continuity
in Germany�s security policy lies in the continued emphasis on
multilateralism. According to the �principles of participation�
outlined by Klaus Kinkel, German Foreign Minster in 1994: �Germany
will never undertake peace missions alone� (Bohnen 1997: 54).
German security policy was already during the Cold War deeply
integrated in multilateral units in NATO. The national German
army was in itself relatively small and ill equipped to function
independently of NATO. Close integration in Western institutional
frameworks had been a deliberate policy choice made by German
chancellor Konrad Adenauer after the end of the Second World War.
Divided in two and not being allowed an independent defence capacity,
the FRG became dependent on its Western allies on security and
defence issues. However equally important was it that membership
in Western multilateral institutions allowed the FRG to operate
internationally without being suspected of renewed German hegemonic
ambitions (Rummel 1996). It follows from this that the Federal
Republic had been supportive of increased security co-operation
inside the EU. Nonetheless due to concern about the consequences
that this might have for NATO it was less enthusiastic on this
issue than France. Although the multilateral approach in German
security policy could be seen as externally imposed, it seemed
to have been assimilated into or redefined as a German tradition
and there was no question of abandoning this after re-unification.
![endif]>![if>
It was the logical corollary
to multilateralism and the principle of the indivisibility of
security that posed problems for Germany. Despite the lifting
of all the formal restrictions on the engagement of German troops
in out of area operations and peace keeping missions the reservations
against such activities were strong inside Germany. The debate
opened with the Gulf war during which German military troops did
not participate although Germany contributed financially to the
Western operation. The social democrats (SPD) and the greens argued
strongly against German participation in military operations outside
the national territory. Referring to German history, they considered
Germany to have a particular obligation to show �self-restraint�
and act as a peaceful state. Nonetheless, the Gulf war was the
last operation with explicit German non-participation. The UN
operation in Cambodia, was the first to have a German troop contingent
� consisting in a field hospital. After this Germany took part
in operations in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo (Takle 2000). Germany�s
reluctance to take part in out of area operations came to a complete
end with the participation in Nato�s Kosovo operation. For the
first time German armed forces took part in so-called peace-making
operations and not only peacekeeping operations. Nonetheless it
remains a contested issue in domestic politics in Germany.
![endif]>![if>
As a state whose tradition
since the end of the Second World War has been a commitment to
multilateralism, peaceful conflict resolution and emphasis on
non-military means � in particular economic means � in security
policy, a fully sovereign and reunified Germany was in many ways
ahead of its West European colleagues in terms of adapting to
the new security environment. However, the �normalisation� of
Germany also meant facing difficult choices about the degree of
political and military involvement in international affairs. This
became traumatic for both public authorities and citizens at large.
The justification for the change that emerged towards the end
of the 1990s in Germany�s security posture was in many ways similar
to that provided by France. The focus shifted from concerns about
German historical legacy towards an argument about Germany�s responsibility
to contribute to uphold respect for human rights and democracy
also outside its own borders (Takle 2000).
![endif]>![if>
Norway: stuck in the past?
At first sight one
would expect Norway to embrace the changes to European security
policies after the end of the Cold War unreservedly. Throughout
the Cold War, Norway supported the idea of an enlarged security
concept and spoke for a policy of conciliation rather than confrontation
in East-West relations. Norway also champions �soft security�,
sees itself a �pioneer in peace� and takes an active part in peace-keeping
operations similar to those planned for in the Petersberg tasks
of the European Union and in the new strategic concept of NATO.
However, rather than embracing the changes to European security,
Norway ardently resisted any change both to the content of Western
security policy and to its institutional arrangements throughout
the 1990s.
![endif]>![if>
Norway was one of
the last countries to accept the change in Nato�s strategic concept
in 1991. Furthermore, while most of Norway�s allies started to
redefine their military structure in response to the changes in
the strategic environment with the end of the Cold War, Norway
maintained its strategic doctrine from the Cold War, focusing
on the risk of an external invasion in the north of Norway (NOU1992).
And during the period before the NATO summit in Washington in
April 1999 Norway consistently worked to protect article 5 tasks
from being put on an equal footing with the new security tasks
within NATO (Sjursen 2000). Here, the Norwegian perspective corresponded
to that of many European states, but the Norwegian objectives
were slightly different. While the other West European states
seemed concerned chiefly about ensuring some control over American
use of NATO for non-article 5 missions, Norway�s concern was that
giving equal status to article 5 and non-article 5 operations
would weaken Nato�s defence guarantee to Norway.
![endif]>![if>
Two elements of
change did become identifiable towards the end of the 1990s. The
first was an increasing public debate about Norway�s defence strategy.
The second was the publication of a report to Parliament in June
1999 that confirmed the need for reforms in Norwegian defence
in order to make it possible for Norway to take part in international
crisis management, as well as the establishment of two parallel
defence studies that analysed Norway�s defence priorities (St.
meld 38, 1998-99). This second change came about as a result of
changes in NATO and the EU/WEU, which by civil servants were described
as constituting a �constant pressure on Norway�s defence concept�.
They were not the result of change in Norway�s perception of its
own security situation (Sjursen 2000). In the words of Iver Neumann
and St�le Ulriksen �In the academic debate about Norwegian foreign-
and security policy the end of the Cold War has not yet made a
strong impact.�(Neumann and Ulriksen�
1995)
![endif]>![if>
It could of course
be argued that the Norwegian reluctance to change was the result
of the country�s particular geographical or strategic position.
As a small state with a border with Russia, Norway is exposed
to security threats that other West European states do not face.
However, with the end of the Cold War the security context changed
also for Norway. Although the border towards Russia was still
there, the challenges it posed to Norway were much more in line
with those entailed in an enlarged security concept. The strategy
of territorial defence (�invasjonsforsvaret�) did not offer an
efficient response to these �new� security challenges. A further
pragmatic argument for the reluctance to change would focus on
the economic benefits that Norway has had from Nato�s traditional
focus on the northern regions. Throughout the Cold War, Norway
received NATO funding for developing its infrastructure. These
funds were used chiefly for investment in military projects but
did at the same time lead to economic gains for the civilian economy.
In the 1990s these subsidies from NATO were reduced substantially.
The justification for the subsidies was the importance of Norway�s
position at the northern flank of NATO. Thus the reductions are
a result of the reduced emphasis on collective defence and on
a northern threat to NATO. Hence, one could perceive Norway�s
insistence on the continuation of Nato�s �old� strategy as motivated
not only by Norwegian security interests but also by economic
interests. Nonetheless, these economic arguments, although they
probably contributed to make change in Norwegian security and
defence strategy more difficult, can hardly alone be presented
as a cause of the slow changes to Norwegian defence policy.
![endif]>![if>
Rather, the Norwegian example
highlights the importance of institutional patterns, long established
norms and role conceptions for the formulation of national security
policy. Norwegian security policy is heavily entrenched in deep-seated
identity and worldviews. Particularly important is the conception
of Norway as a country that is different from its European allies,
as a small and particularly peaceful nation that has had to withstand
the assault of great powers in Europe (Sjursen 2000).
![endif]>![if>
Due to a large extent to national idiosyncrasies,
the changes in the European security agenda have been given a
different meaning in different national settings. They have also
challenged different dimensions in the security policies of West
European nation states. As a general rule, however,
the suggestion that the emphasis on an �enlarged� security concept
has increased, seems to be confirmed. What is the significance
of this change for the future developments of European security?
Are we observing a qualitative change in the European security
agenda or are the fundamentals of European security still the
same?
The collective European security
agenda: future developments
It is a truism to observe
that if �security� is placed above everything else fundamental
principles of democracy and respect for human rights can easily
be jeopardised. As we know, reference to the primacy of security
has, and still is, used as a means to repress dissent. This means
that introducing an enlarged security concept could be a mixed
blessing. Turning new issues, for example issues of immigration,
into questions of security is obviously problematic. Such initiatives
can easily spill over into other dimensions of domestic politics
such as treatment of minorities, asylum and immigration policies.
The net result might be to create internal enemies and have these
replace the external enemies.
![endif]>![if>
Are there concrete examples
of such tendencies in Europe? It has been suggested that the EU�s
aim of developing �an area of freedom, security and justice� represents
serious risks of impeding on the individual liberties of the citizens
of Europe (Monar 2000). It may also lead to the creation of a
fortress Europe and thus to higher insecurity for non-citizens
of third country nationals through strict asylum and immigration
policies as well as visa-regimes. These individuals may also be
subject to unequal treatment within the EU. Furthermore it has
been suggested that the arguments used to justify European integration
more generally also rely to an unreasonably large extent on a
security argument. It is in other words implied that the security
argument is deliberately used to ensure the success of a political
process favoured by those in power. Political and economic issues
are redefined in terms of security in order to underline their
urgency or their particular importance. Hence, Ole Waever has
suggested that the process of domesticating security in Europe
is being used as an instrument to construct a European political
identity with the EU at its core. He argues that �Europe� is built
�through a peculiar security argument. Europe�s past of wars and
divisions is held up as the other to be negated, and on this basis
it is argued that �Europe� can only be if we avoid renewed fragmentation.�
(Waever 1996). Such observations have led to the suggestion that
it should be an aim in itself to avoid in so far as possible to
define issues as security issues (Neumann and Ulriksen 1995).
![endif]>![if>
However, returning to a
�narrow� definition of security is not in itself enough. Or to
put it differently, it is not the enlarged security concept or
the domesticating of security that is the problem. What matters
are the basis on which security policy is developed and the purposes
that security policies are supposed to fulfil both domestically
and internationally. Or to return to our initial questions, what
matters is �whose security� and �security for what values�? We
have suggested that what is taking place in Europe is a change
in terms of how the West European nation states respond to these
questions. The nation state has become woven into a complex network
of dependency with other nation states as well as transnational
actors and supranational institutions. As a consequence of this,
it is not only the capacity of the sovereign state to be autonomous
that is challenged, but the privileged status of the state � institutionalised
through the principle of sovereign equality � that is at stake.
This means that the traditional role of security policy as a policy
that aims to uphold the principle of external sovereignty also
comes into question.
![endif]>![if>
If we consider political processes exclusively as processes
of competition for power and actors as interested only in maximising
self-interest the interpretation would nonetheless be that there
are few �real� changes to security in Europe and that an emphasis
on an enlarged security concept only reflects a change of strategy
by the �real� powers in Europe. If we instead define politics
as a system with rights and duties that place additional requirements
on actors than simply the one of satisfying self-interest the
interpretation will be different. Here one would underline the
role of laws, principles and processes of deliberation within
an institutionalised system. Such a model of politics relies on
a conception of rationality where actors are seen as rational
when they are able to justify and explain their actions, and not
only when they seek to maximise their own interests. A further
important assumption for this perspective is that actors are not
just self-interested but reasonable (Eriksen and Weig�rd 2000).
This is indeed a condition for the functioning of liberal democracy,
where citizens are expected to be able to distinguish between
different forms of justification for policy-choices and to assess
which of them are acceptable and which are not. The question then
is whether or not such a definition of politics as a system with
rights and duties is suitable also at the international level
in Europe.
![endif]>![if>
The potential for such developments seems stronger today
than previously because of the high degree of institutionalisation
at the supranational level. Traditionally, international law was
not seen as an instrument that should protect individuals from
abuses of power but as an instrument that would guarantee the
sovereign control of the state over a specific territory. With
the strengthening of the United Nations, the principles of human
rights have gained more force in international politics in general.
However, unless these principles become positive legal rights
it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that they only reflect
the self-interest of the most powerful: �Things look different
when human rights not only come into play as a moral orientation
for one�s own political activity, but as rights which have to
be implemented in a legal sense. Human rights possess the structural
attributes of subjective rights which, irrespective of their purely
moral content, by nature are dependent on attaining positive validity
within a system of compulsory law.� (Habermas 1999: 270). A move
in this direction is particularly visible in Europe (Eriksen and
Fossum 2000). European states have, through the EU but also through
the Council of Europe, moved further than most states in terms
of establishing international organisations that demand a committed
international co-operation between sovereign states. The EU has
developed common legal system with a higher status than national
law. The expectation of legitimisation of political choices vis
a vis �the other� is therefore particularly strong in a European
context. National choices are more visible at the international
level. In addition, national choices concern the other directly.
There are now agents outside the nation state that can sanction
illegitimate abuses of power and that citizens can appeal to if
national decisions seem unacceptable. This is visible both in
the EU�s charter and in the European human rights. Hence human
rights are not just moral categories, but also positive legal
rights. It is expected of European states today that they respect
human rights and basic civil and political rights (Z�rn 2000).
In such a context security policy increasingly becomes an instrument
to uphold the law rather than an instrument to defend self-interest
in a system of anarchy. Respect for democracy and human rights
become conditions for security.
![endif]>![if>
![endif]>![if>
![endif]>![if>
Conclusion
We have suggested in this paper that the changes in
the European political system open up for the possibility of rethinking
the basis on which security policy is formulated. During the Cold
War the security policies of West European nation states were
primarily based on what David Held has defined as pragmatic considerations
(Held 1987: 182). Bipolarity and the need for a balance of power
between Nato and the Warsaw Pact was taken as a given. This situation
was not necessarily considered satisfactory from an ideal normative
perspective however it was accepted as inevitable. Indeed the
assumption was that the situation could not be any different.
With the combined effects of the end of the Cold War and the increased
influence of supranational institutions, the political context
is changed. What were pragmatic responses during the Cold War
might not be pragmatic responses in this different political context.
To change established policies is however not self-evident. Vested
interests in maintaining status quo may be strong. Furthermore,
large institutions such as states are often reluctant to undertake
important processes of change. Hence, although there seems to
be a rational consensus around the idea that security policy should
be built on a different basis, there is no guarantee that reason
will prevail.
![endif]>![if>
Hence, it has not been suggested
in this paper that competition for power and conflict of interests
do not matter in politics. Such a suggestion would be naive. However,
it would be equally unrealistic to assume that an analysis based
only on these premises can capture political processes in all
their complexities. What has been suggested here then is that
security policy can be seen as an expression of a particular view,
at a particular time, of how political relations should be organised.
And furthermore, that this particular view is now different from
what it was in the period called the Cold War. The new political
context suggests that those exercising power also at an international
level need to refer to a legal/rational basis for their decisions.
The continued predominance of this view will depend on how the
West Europeans go about building and expanding their collective
security institutions.
![endif]>![if>
![endif]>![if>
![endif]>![if>
References
![endif]>![if>
![endif]>![if>
Aggestam, Lisbeth, 2000, "Europe
Puissance: French influence and European independence"�
������������������������� in Helene Sjursen, Redefining Security? The Role of the European Union�
������������������������� in European security
Structures, ARENA report (No. 7):
67-82.
![endif]>![if>
Baldwin, David A., 1997, "The
Concept of Security" in Review
of International studies,��
����������������� �������(Vol. 23, no. 1): 5-26.
![endif]>![if>
Bohnen, Johannes, 1997, "Germany"
in Jolyon Howorth and Anand Menon (eds.), The�
����������������������� European Union and national
defence Policy, (London, Routledge):
49-
������������������������ 65.
![endif]>![if>
Buzan, Barry, 1991, People, States and Fear: an
Agenda for International Security Studies in
����������������������� the Post-Cold War era, 2nd ed. (Boulder, CO).
![endif]>![if>
Gergorin, Jean-Louis and Marisol
Touraine, 1998, Strategie
et relations internationales:�
les
�������������� ����������relations est-ouest, (Paris,
Foundation Nationale des Science Politiques).
![endif]>![if>
Eriksen, Erik Oddvar and Jon
Erik Fossum, 2000, �Post national integration� in Eriksen and�
������������������������ Fossum (eds.), Democracy in the European Union: Integration through
����������������������� deliberation? (London, Routledge):1-28.
![endif]>![if>
Eriksen, Erik Oddvar and Jarle
Weig�rd, 1999, Kommunikativ
handling og deliberativt
������������������������ deokrati: J�rgen Habermas�
teori om politikk og samfunn, (Oslo,
������������������������ Fagbokforlaget).
![endif]>![if>
Habermas, J�rgen, 1999, �Bestiality
and humanity: a war on the border between legality and
������������������������ morality� in Constellations, (6,3): 263-273.
![endif]>![if>
Held, David, 1993, "Democracy:
From City-States to a Cosmopolitant Order?", in
������������������������ David Held (ed.), Prospects for Democracy: North south, East, West
������������������������ (Cambridge: Polity).
![endif]>![if>
Held, David, 1987, Models of Democracy, (Cambridge, Polity Press).
![endif]>![if>
Hodge, Carl Cavanagh, 1999,
"Germany: is sound diplomacy the better part of security?"
������������������������� in Carl C. Hodge (ed.), Redefining European Security (London and
������������������������� New York, Garland Publishing Company): 181-201.
![endif]>![if>
Howorth, Jolyon, 1997, "France"
in Jolyon Howorth and Anand Menon (eds.), The
European�
������������������������� Union and National
defence Policy, (London, Routledge):
23-48.
![endif]>![if>
Le Gloannec, Anne Marie, 1997,
"Europe by other means" in International
Affairs, (73, 1):��
�
�������������������������83-98.
![endif]>![if>
![endif]>![if>
![endif]>![if>
Monar, Jorg, 2000, �Justice
and home affairs in a wider Europe: the dynamics of inclusion
������������������������� and exclusion� in Helene Sjursen (ed), Redefining European security? The
������������������������� role of the European
Union in European security structures,
Arena
������������������������� Report, (No. 7): 129-147.
��������������������������
![endif]>![if>
Neumann, Iver and St�le Ulriksen,
1995, �Norsk forsvars og sikkerhetspolitikk� in Torbj�rn
������������������ �������Knutsen, Gunnar M. S�rb�, Svein Gjerd�ker (eds), Norges
������������������������� Utenrikspolitikk, (Oslo, Cappelen): 80-105.
![endif]>![if>
NOU 1992:12, Forsvarets Langtidsmelding 1994-98, (Forsvarskommisjonenen av 1990).
![endif]>![if>
Rummel, Reinhard, 1996, "Germany�s
role in the CFSP: "Normalitet" or Sonderweg"?",
�������������������������� in Chrisopher Hill (ed.), The actors in Europe�s foreign Policy,
�������������������������� (London, Routledge): 40-67.
![endif]>![if>
Sauder, Axel, 1999, �France�s
security policy since the end of the Cold War� in Carl C.
�������������������������� Hodge (ed.), Redefining European Security, (London and New York,
�������������������������� Garland publishing company): 117-143.
![endif]>![if>
Sjursen, Helene, 2000, "Coping-or-not
coping- with change: Norway in European security
�������������������������� structures", in European Foreign Affairs Review, (5,4): 1-21.
![endif]>![if>
St. meld nr. 38 (1998-99), "Tilpasning
av Forsvaret til deltakelse i internasjonale
������������������������� operasjoner".
![endif]>![if>
Takle, Marianne, 2000, "NATO
and the EU�s new security policies require new kinds of
�������������������������� legitimation: a study of German argumentation",
Paper presented at the
�������������������������� ISSEI conference, Bergen..
![endif]>![if>
W�ver, Ole, 1996, �European
security identities� in Journal
of Common Market Studies, 34
�������������������������� (1): 103-132.
![endif]>![if>
Z�rn, Michael, 2000, �Democratic
governance beyond the nation-state: the EU and other
�������������������������� international institutions� in European Journal of International
������������������������� Relations, (6,2): 183-221.