a product message image
{' '} {' '}
Limited time offer
SAVE % on your upgrade

Page 1

ISSN 2192-6921

Independent Review on European Security and Defence − A product of ProPress Publishing Group

Volume N° 31

Migration and refugees Will Europe finally face the challenge?

Adapting the EU’s security and defence structures

How to offer a decent life to refugees

Ioan Mircea Paşcu MEP, Vice-President of the European Parliament

Andrea Quaden, Humanitarian aid worker in Iraq

www.magazine-the-european.com A magazine of the Behörden Spiegel Group

Edition 3/2018

European security can only be tackled by Europe


hen the author of these lines sat down, over ten years ago, with Hartmut Bühl, the Editor-in-Chief of this magazine, to flesh out the idea of capitalising on our experience in publishing an occasional series of monographs on European security to launch a regular magazine on European Security and Defence, we were convinced that the subject would slowly but surely gather momentum. But that is not the way things have turned out at all. Instead, there have been many ups and downs and sometimes even complete stops. However, that has never kept the editorial team from focusing on the crucial issues of European security. In doing so, it has benefitted from the contributions of many authors from politics, parliaments, administrations, science and business as well as experts from industry. As the magazine’s publisher, I should therefore like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt gratitude to all the members of the editorial team and all its guest writers. At the same time, I actively encourage them, through this magazine’s coverage of these issues to further the interests of Europe. This is crucial at a time when nationalism, populism – of which there are left and right wing variants – and a climate of euro-scepticism have spread far and wide. Most of the problems raised by these political movements could be solved by Europeans acting together. They certainly cannot be solved by pursuing national interests and an unwillingness to coalesce around a common position. I would like to illustrate the point with the example of migration and refugee policies – widely discussed in this very edition of the magazine, as these issues will require more of our attention in the next few years than they do today. Europe’s humanistic values, as well as its obligations under international law, are clear: any human being who needs help is entitled to receive it. Migration is a human right. But every nation state also has the right under international law to protect its borders and exercise control

Impressum The European − Security and Defence Union ProPress Publishing Group Bonn/Berlin

Headquarters Berlin: Kaskelstr. 41, D-10317 Berlin Phone: +49/30/557 412-0, Fax: +49/30/557 412-33 Brussels Office: Hartmut Bühl Phone: +49/172 3282 319, Fax: +33/684806655 E-Mail: hartmut.buehl@orange.fr Bonn Office: Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 57, D-53113 Bonn Phone: +49/228/970 97-0, Fax: +49/228/970 97-75 Executive Media & Content: Andy Francis Stirnal Phone: +49/176 6686 1543 E-Mail: andy.stirnal@magazine-the-european.com

over them. It is therefore all the more urgent to learn lessons from 2015. The task before Europe is to analyse such events R. Uwe Proll and develop strategies. For instance, this could involve making Africa the focus of its external and security policies with the aim of strengthening African societies and thereby making it unnecessary for people living in abject poverty to leave their country and risk their lives to come to Europe. At the same time, Europe must reach out to genuine refugees driven from their homes by war, terrorism or natural disasters. However, for now, Europe seems to be incapable of building a consensus on this issue. And yet, in addition to Europe’s historical anchoring in the transatlantic alliance and a difficult relationship with its Russian neighbour, this could become one of the decisive security issues for the “old continent”. Europe has no problem recognising it but it does have a problem of motivation to deal with it collectively! Greater challenges lie ahead for us all and particularly therefore for the editorial team. Europe is more necessary than ever. Too often the obstacles lie within Europe but the challenges are global: migration, digitalisation and fragmentation.

Photo: Nicole Schnittfincke


This magazine has a great and important mission ahead. I wish the Editor-in-Chief and his team every success. This anniversary edition is proof of the esteem in which this magazine is held throughout Europe. My warmest congratulations!

R. Uwe Proll, publisher

Publisher and Editor-in-Chief: Hartmut Bühl, Brussels Deputy Editor-in-Chief: Nannette Cazaubon, Paris; E-Mail: nannette.cazaubon@magazine-the-european.com Editor: Alexa Keinert, Berlin; E-mail: editor.esdu@gmail.com Translator: Miriam Newman-Tancredi Publishing House: ProPress Verlagsgesellschaft mbH President ProPress Publishing Group: R. Uwe Proll Layout: Beate Dach, SpreeService- und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH, Berlin Print: WIRmachenDRUCK GmbH, Backnang The European − Security and Defence Union Magazine is published by the ProPress Publishing Group. The ProPress Publishing Group is the organiser of the congress on European Security and Defence (Berlin Security Conference), the European Police Congress and the European Congress on Disaster Management. For further information about the magazine and the congresses please visit www.magazine-the-european.com Subscription: This magazine is published in Brussels and Berlin. The copy price is 16 Euro: 3 copies for one year: 42 Euro (EU subscription) 3 copies for one year: 66 Euro (International subscription) including postage and dispatch (3 issues) © 2018 by ProPress Publishing Group Bonn/Berlin A magazine of the Behörden Spiegel Group





Vol. No. 31



Migration and refugees Will Europe finally face the challenge?

3 Editorial, R. Uwe Proll 6 1Oth anniversary of the magazine

How it all began...


News, Nannette Cazaubon



10–18 In the Spotlight Progress and setbacks 10




Interview with Jean Asselborn, Luxembourg Migration crisis: national egoism versus European values European values are non-negotiable Natalia Pouzyreff, 6th constituency of Yvelines The European Intervention Initiative adds value to PESCO The need for a common strategic culture





Alexa Keinert, Berlin Brexit – suspense remains! The future EU-UK relationship Hartmut Bühl, Brussels/Paris A solemn call for peace The end of the First World War




Dimitris Avramopoulos, Brussels Working together with Africa towards a more stable and prosperous shared neighbourhood A historic opportunity Josep Borrell i Fontelles, Madrid Migration: myth and reality How fear can conceal truths Gerald Knaus, Berlin Borders, migration and refugee policy – how Europe fails Finding European solutions that work Hartmut Bühl, Brussels/Paris The UN Compact for Migration Commentary Interview with Verena Papke, Berlin The Aquarius’ daily work to save people’s lives SOS MEDITERRANEE’s mission will continue Documentation Migration and refugee movements to Europe Dina Ionesco and Mariam Traore Chazalnoel, Geneva/New York Environmental migration and displacement A reality of our times Andrea Quaden, Iraq How to offer a decent life to refugees From Turkey to Iraq Documentation UNESCO 2019 Global Education Monitoring Report

Photos cover: Laurin Schmid/SOS MEDITERRANEE; private (right); © EuropeanUnion 2017, Source: EP (left) page 4: © European Union (left); © robsonphoto, s



41–62 European security and defence

Will the promises of Lisbon become a reality?






Interview with Ioan M. Paşcu MEP, Brussels/Strasbourg Adapting the EU’s security and defence structures Time for organisational changes Harald Kujat, Gen (ret), Berlin The end of America’s commitment to protect Europe Trump’s withdrawal from the INF Treaty Michael Gahler MEP, Brussels/Strasbourg Making sense of the EU initiatives on defence A Copernican revolution Dr Wolfgang Hellmich MdB, Berlin Our future is Europe New impetus for European defence Andy Stirnal, Berlin Putting money where the mouth is The European Defence Fund





Dr Valérie Mérindol/ Dr David W. Versailles, Paris Prospective roles for the EDA in the Common Security and Defence Policy Peace demands investments Thomas Gottschild, Schrobenhausen Prospects for further European air and missile defence cooperation An industrial perspective Patrick Bellouard, Paris Galileo – a European achievement A model for future strategic European projects Nicole Robinson, Luxembourg Empowering governments to protect their nations with innovative satellite-based solutions Transforming people’s day-to-day experience

53 Interview with Martin Konertz, Brussels The crucial role of the EDA in coordinating the race for capabilities The basis for progress is mutual confidence

stockadobe.com (right)

“The European − Security and Defence Union” is the winner of the 2011 European Award for Citizenship, Security and Defence page 5: Pravin Premkumar, CC BY 2.0, flickr.com



Happy Birthday The European – Security and Defence Union 2008–2018

People with vision don’t need foresight. They accept that events will always come in the way, yet still hold to a certain idée fixe. It is a particular kind of vision that inspired Hartmut Bühl to launch The European - Security and Defence Union a decade ago. Hartmut could not have predicted most of the events of the past ten years, but he instinctively knew a simple truth: Europe needed to mature its thinking and outlook on matters of defence and security. It had to grapple with the challenges of a far more complex world where national, multi-national, institutional and technological dynamics blurred traditional boundaries. His vision and challenge to us all is an inspiration for the next ten years. Dr Christina Balis, Director Services and Products Strategy, Group Strategy & Planning, QuinetiQ, London

In an uncertain world, it is more critical than ever that Europe presents a united front in its security and defence policy, bolstering our contribution to the Atlantic alliance. Hartmut Bühl and The European – Security and Defence Union have successfully focussed minds, stimulated debate and driven that agenda for last ten years. Robert Walter (retired UK MP), President ESDA, London

Jean-Dominique Giuliani, President of the Robert Schuman Foundation, Paris-Brussels

Today we are much closer to establishing a true European security and defence union than ten years ago when Hartmut Bühl decided to launch the eponymous journal. His vision is now coming true in the EU along the same conceptual pattern that his magazine follows (and which make it a unique periodical in its own right), i.e. combining open political and strategic debate and expertise with unfettered military advice and innovative input from the industry. I look forward to being both an avid reader of and proud contributor to the magazine in further decades.  Jirí Šedivý, Permanent Representative of the Czech Republic to NATO, Brussels

A birthday signifies a continuous development. This journal is a reflection of the evolution of the EU, from the community to the global level, in its security context, discussing trends of change and stability that play a constitutive role in the development of its security and defence. The European – Security and Defence Union manages to balance an insightful approach that interconnects contemporary issues with long term implications. Europe is on its way to crystallising a single strategic culture in which disagreements, failures and successes – reflected in the diversity of subjects dealt with in this journal - constitute the common historical component necessary for a common security and defence policy.

It is fair to say that in the last ten years, The European - Security and Defence Union magazine has brought together a large community of European leaders from both civilian and military sectors, EU institutions, academia and industry. From climate change to migration, from counter-terrorism and CBRN Centres of Excellence to civil protection, the magazine has always paved the way for sound and independent articles, based on well informed interviews and extended networks of information sources. In view of this, I am looking forward to the next decade, I would like to congratulate Mr Bühl and his team for this much appreciated initiative. Henriette Geiger, Director of Directorate People and Peace in DG-DEVCO, European Commission, Brussels

Hartmut Bühl and his team have succeeded in regularly publishing a high level, independent magazine for 10 years. The magazine truly allows European defence to progress by allowing the most diverse points of view and contributions to confront each other. It was essential. It is remarkable! Happy birthday.

Dr Rachel Suissa (Ph.D), University of Haifa, Israel

Lt Gen Martin Schelleis, Chief of the German Joint Support Service, Bonn


During the past decade, The European – Security and Defence Union has turned into the leading magazine for Europe’s security and defence community. It is an important forum for readers to find an exchange on current security topics. I am also grateful to this magazine for including topics relevant to the Joint Support and Enabling Service and I wish the editorial staff continued success within the community.

10th anniversary of the magazine

How it all began… (Ed/nc, Paris) It started with a dinner in 2008. In a restaurant with a view over the Rhine, near Bonn, German publisher Uwe Proll sat down with Hartmut, who, at the time, was the Brussels correspondent of the monthly publication The BehördenSpiegel. They were enjoying a tasty French red wine while discussing the developments in Europe, shortly after the signature of the Lisbon Treaty. At the end of the evening they decided to publish a regular magazine on European security and defence. Uwe Proll said: “And you, Mr Bühl, will be the Publisher and the Editor-in-Chief”. They agreed on the title and wrote down on a beer mat: “The European –Security and Defence Union”. The idea of the magazine was born! Hartmut went home, thrilled with the idea of creating a magazine from scratch. He had an office in Brussels, a computer, and a well-furnished address book. First, he hired a Czech student, Thomas, fluent in English and with perfect computer skills, who soon started spending his evenings in Etterbek’s Avenue des Celtes, in the new magazine’s “headquarters”. The sushi man in the basement of the building must have made a fortune … In November 2008, the first edition of the magazine was published. Hartmut was proud and decided to not give up before having published five volumes. One day, Nannette, working as a journalist in Paris, was in town and called Hartmut to suggest having dinner together. Alas, it was the day before the deadline for closing the next edition, so Hartmut said: “Let’s have some sushi at home.” Arriving at the “headquarters” flooded with proofs, Nannette realised that he could use her help. Before sunrise the magazine was completed and Nannette was on board, ready to be part of the adventure. Hartmut decided to run the magazine until the 10th volume. 2011 was a turning point. The magazine was put forward for CIDAN’s European Award for Citizenship, Security and Defence under the patronage of the first President of the European Council, Hermann van Rompuy. And we won! Uwe Proll was pleased and the magazine continued, also with the support of the Director-General of the publishing house, Helga Woll.

A lady from their office in Berlin stepped in, Beate Dach, who brought a fresh perspective to the layout of the magazine with the ad-hoc support of her colleague Cornelia Liesegang. The same year the team grew to include Alexa Keinert as Editorial Assistant. Organised, well informed and a critical reader, she was promoted to Editor a few years later. A professional English translator from Paris, Mary Zulke, took on the responsibility of correcting and translating the articles, enriching the work of the team with her expertise. In 2017, Céline Merz from Aachen joined the team as the new Editorial Assistant freeing us from the time-consuming job of picture research. Dennis Schäfer, from the publishing house, started supporting us administratively, and our Berlin correspondent Andy Stirnal took over the coordination of industry contributions. Everything was going well. Then, in 2018 we were deeply shocked by the death of Mary, who lost the fight against a short but severe illness. Whilst ill, she continued her work on the magazine as much as she could because she didn’t want to abandon her team. Today, we are happy that Miriam Newman-Tancredi, a bilingual freelance consultant living in London, took over Mary’s work. She fits perfectly within our small but passionate team with its members living in different European cities. So, let’s take stock: ten years ago, Hartmut, as a lone ranger, thought that he would publish only five volumes of this magazine. Today, with this 31st volume, we think that a lot is left to do in Europe, and that there is still room for us to contribute a small piece to the promotion of the European idea… With our gratitude to all our guest writers and to Helga Woll and Uwe Proll for their confidence and support over the last decade,

Nannette Cazaubon Deputy Editor-in-Chief

Hartmut Bühl Editor-in-Chief

Dear Reader, thank you for your loyalty, and see you soon, for the 32nd volume in 2019! The Editorial Team in Berlin, May 2018




Towards a European Union of defence On 19 November 2018, the EU Foreign and Defence Ministers adopted conclusions on security and defence in the context of the EU Global Strategy. The Council noted the progress in the strengthening cooperation in the area of security and defence, and provided guidance for further work. Civilian CSDP: The Council welcomed the agreement on the establishment of a civilian CSDP compact. Containing 22 political commitments the compact marks an ambitious commitment to strengthen civilian CSDP. Military Planning and Conduct Capability (MPCC): The Council welcomed the positive impact of the MPCC on EU military training missions and agreed to further strengthen its role. The objective is for it to be ready by the end of 2020 to also take responsibility for the operational planning and conduct of one executive military CSDP operation, limited to the size of an EU battlegroup. Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO): The Council welcomed progress in the implementation of PESCO and adopted a list of 17 new PESCO projects. Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD): The Council welcomed the CARD trial run report and agreed to launch CARD as a standing activity. European Defence Fund: The Council adopted its position (partial general approach) on the European Defence Fund proposed by the European Commission in the context of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027. EU-NATO cooperation: The Council reiterates that it continues to ensure coherence and mutual reinforcement between the EU and NATO. It welcomed the second Joint Declaration on EU-NATO cooperation signed on 10 July 2018. European Peace Facility (EPF): The EPF aims to set up a new off-budget fund for the common costs of EU military CSDP missions and operations. The Council invited the relevant preparatory bodies to continue taking this work forward.

took another major “Ministers step in our work to build the European Union of defence.”

Federica Mogherini at the Press conference following the Foreign Affairs Council, Brussels, 20.11.2018 

photo: ©European Union

Military mobility: The Council welcomed the implementation of efforts in improving the mobility of military personnel, materiel and equipment. > Web: Council Conclusions https://bit.ly/2TFHhef > We have dedicated a chapter to recent developments in European security and defence matters (pages 41-62). Our authors from EU institutions, military, academia and industry give insights on how this new impetus will transform European thinking and the EU’s organisational structures.

The European – Security and Defence Union 2008-2018 2008

VOLUME 1 (1-2008): European security “Up to now, Member States define their security interests in a purely national basis. The notion of ‘European security interest’, by contrast, is politically still taboo.”


VOLUME 2 (1-2009): ESDP – achievements and next steps

“We must demonstrate that the transatlantic community has a common future. I have no doubt that that challenge can, and will, be met successfully.”

Dr Karl von Wogau MEP,

“ESDP has come a long way since 1998. We should (….) improve internal civ-mil coherence, and find solutions to the political and ideological barriers to effective multilateralism.”

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Secretary General NATO,

European Parliament Brussels/Strasbourg

Rt Hon Baroness Ann Taylor, Minister for Defence


and Security, London The author’s positions are those held at the time of publication


VOLUME 3 (2-2009): NATO at 60



Angela Merkel and the future of Europe On 13 November 2018, German Chancellor Angela Merkel discussed the future of Europe with Members of the European Parliament and the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker. During her speech, she called for tolerance and solidarity in Europe, and also supported the idea of a European army.

solidarity are “Toleranceourandcommon future.”

The soul of Europe Angela Merkel said that the soul of Europe has had a rough ride over the last few years with the sovereign debt crisis, international terrorism and wars, as well as displacement and migration; old allies are calling tried and proven alliances into question and the United Kingdom will be the first country to exit the European Union. Without European solidarity, successful action is inconceivable, and solidarity Angela Merkel during the debate in the European Parliament, Strasbourg, 13.11.2018 means that everyone must bear respon photo: © European Union, EP sibility for the community as a whole, establishing a proper European army.” That would not be an the Chancellor said: “Specifically, this means anyone who army in competition with NATO, she explained, but it could be undermines rule-of-law principles in their own country, or who an effective complement to NATO. curtails rights of the opposition and civil society and restricts the freedom of the press, thereby jeopardises the rule of law Migration not only in his or her own country, but for everyone in Europe.” On the matter of displacement and migration, Angela Merkel called for a common European asylum procedure: “It is vital European security that just as we are developing a common level playing field for Angela Merkel called for a European security council which the internal market, we make the effort to develop common would be able to prepare important decisions more swiftly. standards also on such sensitive issues as asylum law and She added: “We have made great progress on permanent humanitarian responsibility.” structured cooperation in the military domain. That is a good thing, and these efforts have received wide support here. Yet – and I say this very deliberately in view of the developments > Web: Angela Merkel’s speech: https://bit.ly/2E0e7BU in recent years – we ought to work on the vision of one day

VOLUME 4 (3-2009): Russia’s place in Europe “Any successful future European security architecture would integrate Russia better into Europe’s security structures without in any way excluding the United States.” Arcadia Diaz Tejera, Senator, Las Palmas

2010 VOLUME 5 (1/2010): Medvedev’s initiative for a European Security Treaty

VOLUME 6: (2/2010): European Security Strategy “The EU cannot accept that any great strategy planning and security white papers are ‘fantasies’ with any links between them and actual practice.”

”We are convinced that the principle of indivisibility of security should be strengthened. And that is why we need the Treaty.” Vladimir Chizhov, Permanent Representative of

Dr Rachel Suissa, Rearch Fellow at Haifa University,

Russian Federation to EU, Moskov/Brussels




In the Spotlight

+++ Migration and refugees +++

Human rights and our common established values are non-negotiable

Migration crisis: national egoism versus European values Interview with Jean Asselborn, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs/Minister of Immigration and Asylum, Luxembourg

The European: I certainly cannot! EsThe European: Minister, back in pecially considering that the concept 2015, when the numbers of refugees Jean Asselborn of burden-sharing has a long tradition fleeing through the Balkans were at has been Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minisand was not invented during the their highest, you wrote an article ter for Immigration and Asylum in the Luxemrefugee crisis of 2015. for this magazine entitled “Migrabourg Government since 2004. Born in 1949, he Jean Asselborn: You are right. Burden-­ tion: Drawing up robust solutions” joined the municipal administration of the City sharing in the EU was already applied and said: “Solidarity and responsiof Luxembourg in 1968. In 1976, he became with the shared responsibility to bility must remain the cornerstones the administrator of the intercommunal Hospital protect refugees in situations of mass of such common European action.” of Steinfort, a position he held until 2004. After influx. The preamble to the United NaIs that statement still valid today? obtaining a master’s degree in private law from tions Convention of 1951 states that Jean Asselborn: Indeed, we learn the University of Nancy II in 1981, he became the granting asylum ”may place unduly from Europe’s history that solidarity mayor of Steinfort and served in that position until heavy burdens on certain countries”, and responsibility were the driving 2004. From 2004 to 2013, Mr Asselborn served implying the need for international forces of the European integration as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign cooperation. process. Without these cornerAffairs and Immigration under Prime Minister stones, we would not have gone Jean-Claude Juncker. The European: Over the last decades, through a successful enlargement several Member States have launched process. Without responsibility or national resettlement programmes… solidarity, there is no mutual trust Jean Asselborn: …indeed, and in order to share the burden between Member States. This is sadly what we are experiencinternally at a national level, some of them have even elaborating at the moment, especially in the field of migration. Some ed distribution systems nationally. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Member States make their national egoisms prevail over Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK have introthe global EU interest. They want to benefit from the EU, but duced asylum seeker distribution schemes in their regions. My without sharing the burden. Can you explain why migrants question is: what has been introduced at national levels and should stay in Italy, Greece and Spain, but not in other Memwhy should it not inspire our work at an EU level? Especially ber States?



VOLUME 7 (3-2010): The Afghan conflict

VOLUME 8 (4-2010): Energy supply

“Only a regional solution that engages Afghanistan with its neighbours is likely to produce long lasting effects.”


“The challenge for us is to attain a low-carbon economy, with the ultimate objective of achieving emission-free energy generation and transport sectors.”

VOLUME 9 (1-2011): Disaster response “The EU needs a system that guarantees the availability of key assets for immediate employment.”

Dr Zia Nezam, Chief Afghan mission to EU,

Günther H. Oettinger, Commissioner for Energy, EC,

Kristalina Georgieva, Commissioner for Humanitarian



Aid and Civil Protection, EC, Brussels

+++ Migration and refugees +++

Jean Asselborn (left) and Hartmut Bühl meeting for the interview in Luxembourg, 20.11.2018 photo: © MAEE

since the European Court of Justice has validated from a legal point of view the concept of relocation as a proportionate measure to alleviate the burden on first entry Member States under great pressure. The European: Is this only a question of solidarity between Member States? Jean Asselborn: Within the Union, solidarity is very present in the Treaties as it is referred to six times in the Treaty of the European Union (TEU) and six times in the Treaty of the functioning of the EU (TFEU). Article 2 of the TEU mentions solidarity as a characteristic of European society while the promotion of “solidarity between Member States” is one of the aims of the Union, as listed in Article 3.3 TEU. Moreover, I think that responsibility and solidarity are not a matter of political choice but a matter of political necessity. The Schengen area is one of the greatest achievements of the European Union. The European: Schengen means free movement of people and goods... Jean Asselborn: ...without Schengen there is no free move-

ment! Without free movement, there is no economic prosperity! Schengen is an essential part of the European project and the most appreciated by European citizens. In an area of free movement, external borders are common borders. Today in the EU, we share over 50,000 kilometres of external borders. A security or migratory problem in one Member State, or at its external border, potentially affects all the others. That is why Schengen has put into place a set of compensating measures, ranging from border control standards to police and criminal judicial cooperation. However, without a distribution system, the burden is unfair for the Member States of first entry. The European: Would dismantling Schengen entail a huge impact on peoples’ daily lives? Jean Asselborn: It would, and currently, we are witnessing that Schengen cannot work if there is no responsibility (not putting into practice the Schengen rules) and no solidarity (solidarity measures towards the Member States of first entry). The result is a lack of mutual trust and national initiatives reinstating internal border controls. The European: Do you believe that the reintroduction of inter-

2012 VOLUME 10 (2-2011): Frontex and the crisis in the Mediterranean

VOLUME 11 (3-2011): Turkeys accession to the EU “Turkey’s accession will undoubtedly enhance not only economic, but also political competitiveness and puissance of the EU.”

VOLUME 12 (1-2012): The uniqueness of Europe “I believe we should stop trying to put a classifying stamp on our union. It is unique and shall remain sui generis”

“Only by implementation… cooperation with countries of origin, (...) countries of transit, border control, and a comprehensive immigration strategy within the EU, irregular immigration can be effectively tackled”

Dr Ahmed Davutoğlu, Minister of Foreign Affaires,

Dr Zdzisław Najder, Professor of the Humanities,

Ilkka Laitinen, BrigGeneral, Director General


President of the Weimar Club, Warsaw




In the Spotlight

+++ Migration and refugees +++

nal border controls might become a normal situation? Jean Asselborn: Hopefully not. Almost two years ago, the Commission presented a roadmap to bring Schengen back to normal. More than two years later, the normal functioning of Schengen is far from being a reality. If we want to protect the Schengen area, we need responsibility and solidarity from all Member States. If some of them do not play the game, then Schengen risks falling apart or becoming a smaller entity. The European: At the EU summit at the end of June 2018, the Heads of State and Government agreed that “control centres” should be set up in the EU and “disembarkation platforms” in third countries. The German migration expert Gerald Knaus has suggested that these control centres should be set up in Spain. Is this realistic? Jean Asselborn: The European Council, in its conclusions of 2829 June 2018, invited the Council and the Commission to swiftly explore the concept of ”regional disembarkation platforms”, in close cooperation with relevant third countries, as well as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM). The European Council has equally called for the establishment in parallel, on a voluntary basis, of ”controlled centres” on EU territory with full EU support, in order to ensure a rapid and secure processing of migrants saved and disembarked in the EU. Until now, we had only made progress on a theoretical basis. We know what those centres could look like based on the joint UNHCR and IOM “proposal for a regional cooperative arrangement ensuring predictable disembarkation and subsequent processing of persons rescued-at-sea”. Putting these concepts into reality is another thing. The European: What is hindering the realisation of these concepts? Jean Asselborn: First, we are in a chicken and egg situation when European leaders meet African leaders. Europeans expect

Africans to prevent departures and Africans expect Europeans to receive migrants and to share the burden internally. But who shall do what at which moment? Secondly, the link between new avenues for legal migration and cooperation in readmission puts this intercontinental partnership under tension. The spirit of the 2015 Valetta Summit incorporates this link but until now, the EU has achieved almost nothing regarding legal migration and many African partners are still reluctant to cooperate swiftly in the field of readmission. In this context, the debate on the location of a controlled centre in Spain is quite premature. Spain was the first supporter of the concept of controlled centres, and indeed Spain could set up some kind of pilot project. Nevertheless, the EU must do more than this. Migratory routes are volatile, and every Member States should take its part of the burden. The European: What could be the key towards success? Jean Asselborn: Success always depends on whether the EU will find an answer to the following question: what happens to the people that are received on disembarkation platforms or in controlled centres, regardless of the semantics? The case of Niger can be seen as a regional test to protect and host people in need of international protection. However, to be able to cope with the incoming people from the sub-Saharan region, Niger needs to be able to rely on resettlement, financial and social support from the EU. I regret the incoherence of some politicians who for years have been asking for the flows to be stemmed at departure in third countries. Political correctness would entail that they are also ready to contribute when it comes to resettlement and legal avenues. The European: In the midst of this debate in Europe, the American President announced at the end of 2017 that he would withdraw from the Global Compact for a Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration – also called Global Compact for Migration (GCM) – which is based on the 2016 New York Declaration. Hun-



VOLUME 13 (2-2012): Croatia’s accession to the EU “Croatia is establishing itself as a credible partner and stability anchor, whether in its endeavours in South East Europe, Southern Mediterranean, or elsewhere in the world” Dr Vesna Pusić, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Zagreb


VOLUME 14 (3-2012): Cyprus role in the Mediterranean region “Europe must be willing to take the lead in efforts to stabilize the southern neighbourhood, and show a determined presence in times of crisis.”

VOLUME 15 (1-2013): Civil Protection “A Fukushima-type event on Union territory or the spread of new lethal disease across Europe… (…) The EU has a unique role to play in promoting member states capacity to cope with such risks.”

Dr Erato Kozakou-Markoullis, Foreign Minister of the

Helena Lindberg, Director MSB, Swedish Civil

Greek Cypriot Administration, Nikosia

Contingencies Agency, Karlstad

+++ Migration and refugees +++

instrumentalisation of the debate about ”The migration is the most visible sign of a wider rift

gary and Austria also announced that they will not sign the GCM in December 2018 at the intergovernmental conference in Marrakech. What does that mean for the future of this compact and its impact on Europe? Jean Asselborn: It did not really come as a surprise that the Trump administration withdrew from the GCM on the eve of the stocktaking conference in Puerto Vallarta in December 2017. What saddens me more from a European perspective is the attitude of Hungary that was uncooperative throughout the technical negotiations, preventing a common European position, just to withdraw officially from the process a week after those negotiations had been finalised in July 2018. As for Austria, it has openly overstepped its role as an “honest broker” in its capacity as acting EU Presidency by letting its own national agenda rule over the need to achieve a consensus among the EU 27.

among EU Member States, which is mostly about the values the EU is based on.” Jean Asselborn

The European: Isn’t this a bad situation for the EU before Marrakech? Jean Asselborn: Since a few other EU Member States have declared that they are reluctant to adopt the GCM, the position of the EU as such has of course been weakened. That said, the overwhelming majority of partners will be at the international conference in Marrakech in December and approve the text. This is quite an achievement, the first time that a UN document addresses migration issues in its own right, with a follow-up mechanism that will allow for deeper and more concrete cooperation on an international level. As Louise Arbour, the UN Secretary General special envoy for migration, has said: “This is a beginning rather than an end.” The European: What worries me is that the debate about refugees and migrants is increasingly dominated by populist rhetoric and that the human beings who are at the heart of this

debate are being forgotten for the sake of electoral gain. The New York Declaration embodies the humanistic approach, in line with European values. Can the EU withstand the strain for much longer if individual countries opt out of our system of values? Jean Asselborn: The instrumentalisation of the debate about migration is the most visible sign of a wider rift among EU Member States, which is mostly about the values the EU is based on. Some countries, mostly in Central and Eastern Europe, would like to see a less united and more nationalistic and intergovernmental approach, trying to roll back some of the main achievements in integration that the EU has achieved over the last decades. The European: Roll back – what would be the consequences of this? Jean Asselborn: This rollback would go hand in hand with a curtailing of civil liberties and be a blow to the “citizen’s Europe” as well. We can see examples of this authoritarian approach in Hungary and Poland, those Member States where article 7 has been triggered. We need to come back to a less confrontational style if we don’t want to put the European construction as such at risk. Human rights and our common established values are non-negotiable. But I am afraid that the populist rhetoric will surge even more the closer we come to the date of the elections for the European Parliament. The European: Minister, thank you very much for this interview. The interview was conducted by Editor-in-Chief Hartmut Bühl.

2014 VOLUME 16 (2-2013): The future of Europe’s defence industry

VOLUME 17 (3-2013): Quo vadis European Defence “Europe has constantly proven its ability to adapt to new risks and challenges; but to be able to address them in an effective and efficient way, we must look for possibilities for working closely with our neighbours, partners and other international partners that share our goals and values.”

VOLUME 18 (1-2014): A new spirit for the CSDP

Antonio Tajani, VP / Michel Barnier, Commissioner for

Dalia Grybauskaitė, President of the Republic of

The Hague

Internal Market and Services, EC, Brussels

Lithuania, Vilnius

“We need to tackle the fragmentation of Europe’s defence market and RTD. Europe can no longer afford the overcapacity and duplication inherent in having 27 national markets”

“The many real threats might help us to focus our minds. Clearly, Europe must stand ready in order to serve and to protect.”

Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Minister of Defence,



In the Spotlight

+++ European defence +++

A common strategic culture is a prerequisite to any engagement scenario

The European Intervention Initiative adds value to PESCO

by Natalia Pouzyreff, Member of Parliament in the French National Assembly, Secretary of the Defence Committee, 6th constituency of Yvelines


years have passed since the failure of the European Defence Community and almost 10 years since the enforcement of the Lisbon Treaty. Today, history gives us a new opportunity to define an autonomous European defence capability. A new era has begun with a unique combination of factors: terrorism, the reappearance of Great Powers, destabilisation at our borders, interference attempts within the European Union.

The United States are pushing forward a “light footprint” strategy, especially in Africa and in Middle East. “Adapting to today’s realities, this strategy […] prioritizes preparedness for war, […] and builds a more lethal force to compete strategically”, US Defence Secretary James Mattis said on 19 January 2018. Hence, it is all the more legitimate for us, Europeans, to take care of our geostrategic environment: Africa, Middle East, the Mediterranean Sea and more particularly our back yard, the Western Balkans.

Striving for a European defence capability

Initiatives promoting autonomy

Consequently, it is now more acceptable to address matters of security and defence in Europe. The last two years have seen a multiplication of statements in favour of a European defence capability, and the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) was eventually implemented.

Indeed, several initiatives have arisen in 2017 promoting a strategic and technological autonomy. PESCO: Created under the Lisbon Treaty in 2008, PESCO provides the political framework for a European defence capability. Set up in 2017 on an inclusive basis, it brings together 25 Member States. Still, the 17 projects put forwards by PESCO are merely devoted to operational aspects. EDF: At the same time, the European Commission has launched the European Defence Fund (EDF) on a community budget. It offers great perspectives in terms of a leverage effect. Thus, European defence industries are expecting a lot from it and it should have a strong federative and incentive impact. Notwithstanding, industrial consolidation is necessary to build a stronger European industrial and technological basis that is competitive and enduring. As politicians, we are duty bound to push for it.

time for European sovereignty “The has come.” Jean-Claude Juncker (State of the Union, 12.09.2018) In addition, in September 2017, French President Emmanuel Macron called for a European Intervention Initiative (EI2). This initiative has created some misunderstandings amongst our EU partners and American allies which may have seen it as a competing structure to PESCO or NATO.



VOLUME 19 (2-2014): The future of European defence “The Union’s security environment has changed dramatically over the past 10 years. We must make an effort to build genuine solidarity within the EU.”


VOLUME 20 (1-2015): “My vision of Europe” “Europe does not exist for itself. Europe has global obligations: we must have the courage and determination to fulfil them. This is one of my political priorities.”

VOLUME 21 (2-2015): Refugee crisis – where is the EU? “Closing borders is not just immoral and illegal, it is ineffective;( …) The world is watching us to see if we practiced what we preach in the area of human rights, security, freedom and human dignity.”

Anna Elżbieta Fotyga MEP, Chair EP Subcommittee on

Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European

Ana Gomes MEP, European Parliament,

Security and Defence, Brussels/Strasbourg

Commission, Brussels


+++ European defence +++

Signature of the letter of intent to establish EI2, Luxembourg, 26.6.2018; from left to right: the Defence Ministers of Germany, France, Estonia, Danmark and Belgium photo: © European Union

In the past, several projects were established to strengthen the links amongst EU Member States. Some of these mechanisms are carried under the EU banner, such as the European Defence Agency, ATHENA, battle groups… Others are not directly in the communal field, such as the Joint Expeditionary Force, Eurocorps and other multinational units. It is worth mentioning the European Air Transport Command (EATC) which clearly responds to an operational need and contributes to bringing practices closer and mutualising capabilities. However, one should recognise that those mechanisms are not all as efficient as expected. What they lack is a common posture on foreign policy matters and a shared vision on security and defence issues. And a common strategic vision – that is what EI2 aims for.

sion, Defence Ministers agreed upon the political directives, which will guide the operational work to be carried out within the framework of the Military European Strategic Talks (MEST).

An operational dimension for European defence

EI2 and PESCO EI2 is not contradictory to the spirit of PESCO, such as expressed in Article 42-6 of the Treaty on European Union: “Member States whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments to one another in this area with a view to the most demanding missions shall establish permanent structured cooperation [PESCO] within the Union framework.” Besides, EI2 remains open to the further integration of Member States. Furthermore, EI2 gives the opportunity to continue cooperating with the UK post Brexit as well as with Denmark which had opted out on military questions of the Foreign & Security Policy.

EI2 groups together to date ten countries: Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom and Finland, the latest to join the Initiative. The first EI2 Defence Ministerial meeting took place at the French Ministry of Defence on 7 November 2018. On this occa-

Common strategic culture Designed as an agile organisation, EI2 does not require any new structures as it is not a standing force. It looks to gather operational heads from participating countries in order to

2016 SPECIAL VOLUME 22 (3-2015): The leadership role of transatlantic partners “We must work together through NATO to leverage each other’s strenghts and capabilities.”

VOLUME 23 (1-2016): Back to Cold War? “Russia’s efforts for building a common security area have never been honoured by the West.”

VOLUME 24 (2-2016): Make the EU-Turkey Agreement work ”The EU has failed to make relocation work so far. It is unable to ensure that its standards for treating refugees are implemented in EU Member States. “

H.E. John B. Emerson, Ambassador of the USA to

Alexander Grushko, Ambassador and Permanent

Gerald Knaus, Founding Chairman of the European

Germany, Berlin

Representative of Russia to the EU, Moskow/Brussels

Stability Initiative (ESI), Berlin



In the Spotlight

+++ European defence +++

develop a common strategic culture, a prerequisite to any engagement scenario that could bring together the willing States into a coalition once a political go ahead has been reached. Concrete measures To be concrete, EI2 will implement pragmatic and operational cooperation on strategic foresight, scenarios, lessons learned and support to operations. EI2 will deliver tangible results, for instance developing our common ability to respond swiftly and jointly to natural disasters (such as Hurricane Irma) or conducting non-combat evacuation operations. All this must contribute to the operational readiness of our forces. EI2 will also bring to light the existing gaps that need to be filled and will contribute to PESCO’s military policies and capabilities. Facing today the “brutalisation of the world” (General François Lecointre, French Chief of Defence, CHOD), PESCO calls for rationalisation, mutualisation and capabilities

Natalia Pouzyreff was elected as a Member of Parliament in the French National Assem-

enhancement of European armies, while EI2’s mission is to battle hardened them. EI2 and NATO As for NATO, it “remains the foundation of our collective defence and the forum for its implementation” (Article 42 TEU). Furthermore, it ensures the interoperability of our armed forces. And EI2 will noticeably contribute to a stronger European defence within NATO.

The way ahead Last August, during an official visit to Finland, President Macron called for the strengthening of Article 42-7 of the TEU, stressing the need for solidarity between Europeans and a clearer mandate for the Common Security and Defence Policy.

want Europe to under“Wetakeclearly its strategical autonomy and strengthens its solidarity in the field of defence matters”

bly for the political party, “La Répub-

Emmanuel Macron (30.08.2018)

lique en Marche” in June 2017. Her constituency is located in the Yvelines Photo: Stéphane Kyndt

department near Paris, and at the French Assembly she sits as Secre-

tary of the Defence Committee. Trained as a professional engineer, followed by many years working in the defence and aerospace sector, Ms Pouzyreff was employed by Thales for 17 years before joining the Airbus Group for the following 8 years – first at Airbus, and then in the Helicopter division. She was appointed general representative for Eurocopter in China in 2006.

There may be a long way to go before reaching an autonomous European defence capability. Still, it is our responsibility as politicians to guarantee a “Europe that protects” its citizens. Moreover, EI2 may be viewed as the first step toward a longer-term ambition that is the implementation of a common European army. To conclude, my belief, as a member of the French Parliament, is that Europeans urgently need to build a community of political objectives and share a common vision for the protection of their interests.

2016 SPECIAL VOLUME 25 (3-2016): Military Green: The future of Energy supply “Military energy efficiency, resilience and autonomy are key to sustaining operations at home and abroad, but additionally advance in this field benefit the wider national economic and environmental strategic objectives” Sharon McManus, Energy Project Officer, EDA, Brussels


2017 VOLUME 26 (4-2016): More power to Frontex?

VOLUME 27 (1-2017): Cyberwar – will it take place?

“The EU is further shifting its responsibility for refugees to countries that lie outside of Europe. It is running the risk of humans being trampled upon.”

“When it comes to cyber, most nations do not even trust their friends.”

Ska Keller MEP, Co-President of the Greens/EFA

Professor Peter Martini, Director Fraunhofer Institute

Group, EP, Brussels/Strasbourg

(FKIE), Bonn

+++ Brexit +++

The future EU-UK relationship has been set out

Brexit – suspense remains!

by Alexa Keinert, Editor, The European – Security and Defence Union, Berlin


he Brexit negotiations are now, finally, in the final round. Four months before the official exit date, the British and EU negotiators came to terms with a draft agreement1 on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on 14 November 2018 and published a political declaration2 on the future relationship between the two parties on 22 November 2018. This much awaited declaration is a non-binding document outlining the future political and economic relationship between the UK and EU. With regard to trade politics, Theresa May commented that “the EU said that the choice was binary – Norway or Canada. The Political Declaration recognises that there is a spectrum, with the extent of our commitments taken into account in deciding the level of checks and controls.” Both parties stressed that they are determinate to avoid a backstop, and they envision establishing the future relationship, after a 20-month transition phase, on 1st January 2021. With regard to security and defence, the political declaration includes a new security partnership, in which the UK and EU will work closely together in defence and cyber security as well as tackling crime and terrorism. However, other policy areas such as access to UK fishing waters and the question of Gibraltar remain highly contested. Following the special European Council Summit on Sunday 25 November 2018, where the 27 EU heads of state and government agreed on the two documents, all eyes will turn to the House of Commons and the European Parliament. The elected representatives will have the final say on the withdrawal agreement and the future relationship. In the House

A reason to celebrate? Theresa May and Donald Tusk have agreed on the Political Declaration, but this political thriller isn’t over yet. photo: © European Union

of Commons, Theresa May faces opposition within her own party, and MEPs also announced that they will not simply rubber-stamp those documents. A vote in the House of Commons is expected in early December. With regard to the transition phase stipulated in the declaration, EC negotiator Michel Barnier said that “we still need to determine the internal procedure of the Union for agreeing to extend the transition.” This being said, he assured that “globally speaking, this deal is fair and balanced”.

1 web: https://bit.ly/2B7aho2 2 web: https://bit.ly/2DE70y8

2018 VOLUME 28 (2-2017): CBRN risks and threats “CBRN risks are becoming aggravating factors that can paralyze populations, critical infrastructures and supply.”

VOLUME 29 (1-2018): How to cope with North Korea

VOLUME 30 (2-2018): Climate change and security

“Maintenance of the NPT Regime should be the primary objective of the containment strategy.”

“We are not only looking to 2030 – it is part of our vision to make the EU a true low carbon economy by 2050.”

Helga Schmid, Director General, External Action

Hideshi Tokuchi, Senior Fellow, National Graduate

Mauro Petriccione, Director General, DG Climate

Service, Brussels

Institute for Policy Studies, Tokyo

Action, EC, Brussels



In the Spotlight

+++ First World War +++

Heads of State and Government on their way to the ceremony for the armistice centenary, Paris 11.11.2018 photo: © European Union , 2018 / Photo: Etienne Ansotte

Centenary of the end of the First World War

A solemn call for peace by Hartmut Bühl, Editor-in-Chief, The European – Security and Defence Union, Brussels


rance invited 72 Heads of State and Government to Paris on 11 November 2018 for a ceremony at the tomb of the Unknown Soldier under the Arc de Triomphe to remember the centenary of the end of the First World War. Standing next to German Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel, and looking towards the Presidents of the USA, Russia and Turkey, French President Emmanuel Macron called on all to learn from the lessons of the past so as to prepare the future. He emphasised that patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism, because “nationalism is the betrayal” of ­patriotism.

1918, Macron and Merkel reaffirmed the reconciliation and friendship between their two peoples. The German Chancellor underlined that this was not only a day of remembrance but also an encouragement to work for a peaceful world order. “We must fight for peace”, she declared.

est l’exact contraire “Ledu patriotisme nationalisme. Le nationalisme en est la trahison”

Emmanuel Macron

Macron defended his worldview in which multilateral relations are a solution to “national egoisms”. He denounced extremism, racism and antisemitism as “woeful passions” and dangers for peace. On the previous day in Compiegne, where the Armistice between Germany and France was signed on 11 November


The “Big Four”: the leaders of the principle allied powers of the First World War meeting at the Paris Peace Conference 1919. From left to right: David Lloyd George (United Kingdom), Vittorio Emanuele Orlando (Italy), Georges Clemenceau (France), Woodrow Wilson (United States)

photo: © Big Four 1919, Nathan Hughes Hamilton, CC BY 2.0, Flickr.com

MAIN TOPIC: Migration and refugees

photo: Laurin Schmid 2018-01-16, SOS ls 087

In Europe, the number of migrant and refugee arrivals is decreasing, but people fleeing poverty and violence continue to die in the Mediterranean. At the same time, populist politicians in some EU countries play with people’s fears, telling about an “invasion” needing drastic measures… This chapter aims to put things into perspective and to show the reality behind the myths.

Working together with Africa towards a more stable and prosperous shared neighbourhood There is a historic opportunity to strengthen our partnership

by Dimitris Avramopoulos, Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship, European Commission, Brussels


urope and Africa are at an important crossroads today, with a historic opportunity to strengthen our partnership and deepen our shared future. For too long, the relationship between Europe and Africa was one of dependency, charity or cooperation on an ad-hoc basis. But in a world of increasing globalisation and geopolitical instabilities, the challenges we face are common – and so our response can only be a common one too. The time has come to forge equal and strong partnerships and reciprocal commitments for the future. It is with this objective in mind that the European Commission proposed in September of this year to launch a new alliance between Africa and Europe.

The essence of the new alliance The essence of this new alliance is one of a partnership on equal footing, in order to deepen economic relations and to boost investment and jobs primarily, but thereby also create more stable and prosperous societies. Managing migration and mobility better, and together, is an important element in this approach. However, it is equally important to put things into perspective. There are currently 68.5 million forcibly displaced people in the world, 58% of which


are displaced within their home countries. Africa continues to host the largest number of displaced people worldwide, with 24.2 million displaced in total on its continent, 19.4 of which are intra-regional. More specifically, Uganda, Sudan and Ethiopia remain among the major refugee host countries in the world, hosting altogether 3.2 million people. Compared to the 1 million people that arrived on its continent in 2015, Europe can hardly say that it was “invaded” by asylum seekers and refugees. Migration will remain a defining feature in the years and decades to come. Most importantly, this global issue requires a common, international and comprehensive approach. We have shifted gears in the past few years and our joint work with our African neighbours is already paying off: together we have managed to reduce the number of dangerous irregular journeys to Europe. If we look at the Central Mediterranean migratory route, the number of people arriving irregularly has decreased by 80% in 2018 compared to the same period last year. But we have to remain vigilant, especially when we look at the Western Mediterranean route where arrivals have increased.

The EU-Emergency Trust Fund for Africa We are putting in efforts and money to make sure our cooperation with Africa results in tangible change on the ground. The EU has set up a  4.1 billion Emergency Trust Fund for Africa to fund migration-related projects, which proved to be one of the most effective tools to address the root causes of irregular migration. 165 programmes have so far been approved with a

photo: Lieven Creemers/picture provided by the EC


MAIN TOPIC: Migration and refugees

too long, the relationship between Europe and Africa was one “For of dependency, charity or cooperation on an ad-hoc basis.” Dimitris Avramopoulos focus on economic development, governance, food security, healthcare and migration, including targeted life-saving assistance for people in need of protection and support for voluntary returns to home countries. We want to address the underlying reasons that compel people to move, and give them a chance to build their lives closer to home instead of embarking on often deadly journeys to Europe.

Offering genuine channels for legal migration

Counter-smuggling operations

Resettlement: We are working to increase safe and legal pathways for those in need of protection through resettlement. Since 2015, successful EU resettlement programmes have helped over 43,700 of the most vulnerable people from around the world, many of them from Africa, to find shelter in the EU. Last year, Member States made the largest collective commitment on resettlement the EU has ever seen, under the new EU resettlement scheme proposed by President Juncker. At least 50,000 persons will be resettled by the end of 2019. This is key to prevent dangerous journeys facilitated by criminal smuggling networks. Indeed, safe and legal migration channels also undermine the business model of smuggling networks and contribute to the reduction of irregular migration.

Our work goes beyond the root causes of migration: we also need to fight smugglers who are making a business off people’s desperate conditions and stem irregular migration flows. The EU has stepped up its cooperation with a number of key African countries to support the development of better border management systems and of counter-smuggling operations. Our joint work with Italy, Libya, Niger and other sub-Saharan countries helped to considerably reduce irregular arrivals via the Central Mediterranean. But we know that we must remain very vigilant as the situation is still volatile. Arrivals on the southern shores of Spain are increasing, even if they do so from a low starting point. This is why we are now stepping up work with Spain, as well as Morocco and other countries of origin and transit, to address this increased migratory pressure. The Commission approved on 6 July this year a  55 million border management programme for the Maghreb region under the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa, through which the EU will support Morocco and Tunisia to save lives at sea, improve maritime border management and fight against smugglers operating in the region.

Return and readmission We also have to be consistent about return and readmission, on both sides. Those who have no right to stay and who are not in need of protection should return to their countries of origin or transit. We should also bear in mind that ultimately, we all want less dangerous migration routes, fewer lives lost in the Mediterranean and full respect for migrants’ rights and for the principle of non-refoulement. For this, we need strengthened cooperation and coordination as we all have a collective responsibility to stop the loss of life at sea. Only by standing together can we win this challenge.

Stemming irregular migration is only one side of the coin. A comprehensive approach means that if we truly want to reduce irregular arrivals, we must also offer genuine channels for legal migration – whether for protection or for economic purposes. This is crucial to ensure that our common approach to migration management is a sustainable one.

Labour migration: We also want to offer opportunities for labour migration, based on the needs of our economies. We are currently working with EU countries on developing pilot projects on labour migration with selected countries in Africa, and we are ready to provide financial support to Member States carrying out such projects. At the same time, we proposed to improve the EU’s system for attracting highly-skilled talents with an ambitious reform of the EU Blue Card. Ultimately, the new alliance between Europe and Africa is about people, about bringing Europeans and Africans closer Dimitris Avramopoulos together, about forging strong ties has been the European Commissioner for Migraand durable links between our tion, Home affairs and Citizenship since 2014. He people. was born in 1953 in Athens and holds a Bachelor of arts degree in public Law and political Science from the University of Athens. After a diplomatic

Working together

career (1980-1993) he resigned from the Greek

Africa is Europe’s twin continent. We will continue working together as equal partners, on migration and mobility, but also on security, trade, investment and business, in order to secure a stable and prosperous future for the entire region, on both sides of the Mediterranean.

diplomatic service in order to enter parliamentary politics as a member of New Democracy. He was mayor of Athens from 1995–2002 and has served in various high-level cabinet posts, including those of Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for National Defence.



Migration: myth and reality by Josep Borrell i Fontelles, Minister of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation, Madrid


ocieties are forged on the basis of major challenges. Europeans, including the Spanish, are today facing an unparalleled challenge. How we manage the phenomenon of migration will to a large extent determine the destiny of Europe, both in the future and the present. If we think about the European elections of May 2019, the truth is that it is not easy to debate with certain political representatives when their narrative on migration is not exactly defined by its intellectual rigour.

Playing with fears Such representatives have managed to establish in the collective imagination a reality that does not exist, and with not inconsiderable success: Orbán has been elected for the third time in Hungary, Zeman for the second time in the Czech Republic, Kaczyński in Poland, AfD in Germany, Salvini in Italy, the threat of Bannon with The Movement and a project for Europe which carries on from Brexit, and the success of Liga Norte in Italy, all attempting to form in this way a large anti-Europe coalition. Fortunately, this is not the case, at least for now, in countries such as Spain, where the issue of migration does not divide society, nor has it given rise to xenophobic political parties. These politicians deal in terms of perception, and not an accurate analysis of reality. They play with fears that are capable of concealing truths. On 13 April 2018, the European Commission published the results of the Special Eurobarometer 469 survey on the “Integration of immigrants in the European Union”. According to the results, only a minority (37%) of Europeans believe that they are well informed on issues related to immigration and inte-


photo: © UNHCR/Markel Redondo

Playing with fears can conceal truths

gration. The survey respondents also tend to overestimate the number of non-EU immigrants: in 19 of the 28 Member States, the estimated proportion of immigrants in the population is at least double the actual proportion, and in some countries the ratio is much higher. As George Orwell reminded us, our first duty in the face of threats to liberal democracies is to preserve the integrity of political language. Conversely, the first task that enemies of plural and open societies such as ours undertake is to pervert that same language. This has also happened with the issue of migration. But let us not confuse eye-catching headlines with reality. A misdiagnosis will lead us to an inappropriate response. The spikes in arrivals on Spanish, Greek and Italian coasts are not sporadic events, but form part of a recurrent and structural phenomenon.

Causes underlying migration It is a panorama of poverty (36 of the 41 countries from the group with the lowest level of human development are in Africa according to the UNDP’s Human Development Index), problems resulting from climate change (drought, which affects 22% of the population, floods, poor soil quality), lack of peace and security (the number of refugees on the continent, after having declined in 1995-2014, has doubled since 2015 and today there are 6 million African people who comprise 26% of refugees worldwide, and the majority of United Nations peacekeeping missions are in Africa) and unemployment, especially among youth and women. Naturally, the greatest of all the causes underlying migratory flows is the scarcity of economic opportunities to pursue a decent living in the countries of origin. Furthermore, as a result of being a developed economy with an ageing population, the EU has become a world destination for

MAIN TOPIC: Migration and refugees

we manage the phenomenon of migration will to a large extent “How determine the destiny of Europe, both in the future and the present.” migrants, and has attracted between 1.5 and 2.5 million immigrants per year from outside the EU, though these figures are in no way substantial; in relative terms they represent only between 0.3% and 0.5% of the total EU population (508 million).

Josep Borrell i Fontelles was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs, the European Union and Cooperation of Spain in June 2018. He holds Bachelor’s degrees in Aeronautical Engineering and

A question of balance

Economics, a Master’s degree in Applied

It is simply a question of balance. It is sufficient to recall that the population of Africa has risen from 477 million people in 1980 to 1,250 million in 2017, and is estimated to reach 2,500 million by 2050 and 40% of the world population by 2100. Meanwhile, in Europe we are witnessing a demographic winter and the ageing of our population, with Spain as an extreme example of these trends. By 2050, Europe will have lost 80 million people of working age and Africa will have gained 800 million. Only if we are aware of this reality and use precise, reasonable language to describe it, avoiding demagogic manipulations, will we be well-placed to transform this challenge into a great opportunity for Africa, Spain and the rest of Europe.

Towards an effective asylum system But to do so, we must acknowledge that to date, EU Member States have not been able to agree on a European response to this issue. The asylum system has had too many imbalances and shortfalls since long before 2015. The Dublin Regulation, which sought to streamline the application processes of asylum seekers pursuant to the Geneva Convention, was not conceived for the purpose of managing the high number of irregular arrivals of economic immigrants by sea. The reform of this regulation must be approved as soon as possible, including the permanent quota system. Consequently, we need to move towards a system that is effective and, among others, capable of reducing irregular flows, which requires, in addition to fighting the mafia, establishing additional channels for legal migration – a humanitarian

Photo: private

Mathematics from Stanford University and a PhD in Economics. Mr Borrell be-

gan his political career as Secretary General for the Budget in 1982, followed by a series of positions in the Spanish government. From 1986 to 2003, he was a Member of Parliament for Barcelona and chaired the Joint Committee for European Affairs. In 2004, Mr Borrell was elected to the European Parliament, where he served as President of the Parliament during the first half of the 2004-2009 term.

system, a system that defends decent treatment of human beings and prioritises saving lives - a fair system, with a clear common dimension in management of the whole. Only in this way will we arrive at a shared migration policy as expressed in the Treaties.

An ultimate call on Europe Ultimately, Europe must, in the framework of a close association between the two continents, just as President Juncker has proposed, contribute more decisively to the long-term development of Africa, with respect to strengthening its institutions above all. In this way emigration can become a freely chosen option structured through legal and safe channels, and not a necessity arising from the pressure imposed on people by armed conflicts, widespread violations of human rights, citizens’ insecurity, or the lack of professional opportunities – especially for young people.

Definition of key terms → International migrant: “any person who

such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the

or places of habitual residence […] and

changes his or her country of usual resi-

protection of that country; or who, not having

who have not crossed an internationally


a nationality and being outside the country

recognized State border”

of his former habitual residence as a result → Refugee: “any person who […] owing

of such events, is unable or, owing to such

→ Asylum seeker: person “whose request

to well-founded fear of being persecuted

fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

for sanctuary has yet to be processed”

for reasons of race, religion, nationality,

(Ed/ak, Berlin)

membership of a particular social group

→ Internally displaced persons: “persons

or political opinion, is outside the country

or groups of persons who have been forced

of his nationality and is unable or, owing to

or obliged to flee or to leave their homes

Source: World Migration report/ www.unhcr.org



We can find European solutions that work

photo: private

Borders, migration and refugee policy – how Europe fails

A paradox lies at the heart of the current debate on migration in Europe. The number of people arriving irregularly across the Mediterranean in 2018 has fallen sharply in comparison with 2015. This has led some to argue that the “refugee crisis” is over and that the EU has learned its lessons. However, populists ideologically long opposed to the European Union itself and who blame “Brussels” have done well in a string of national elections in 2018. They paint the picture of a looming threat which only drastic policy measures can contain. What is the reality of Europe’s current migration crisis? Is there a crisis at all? We asked the founding chairman of the European Stability Initiative (ESI), Gerald Knaus, who is travelling around Europe presenting proposals for a “humane, implementable policy on borders.” In 2015, his think tank suggested the blueprint for what became, in March 2016, the EU-Turkey statement that drastically reduced arrivals by boat in the Aegean.

Interview with Gerald Knaus, Founding chairman, European Stability Initiative (ESI), Berlin The European: Mr Knaus, in September 2015 you warned that the loss of control at the EU’s external border in the Aegean was unsustainable and suggested that the best way to reduce irregular arrivals in line with international law was an agreement between Germany and Turkey. This became EU policy six months later. In June 2018, you suggested European reception centres in Spain to reduce the number of irregular arrivals. How confident are you that this time, too, your idea might be adopted? It does not look likely at the moment. Gerald Knaus: The situation in the Western Mediterranean today is like a magnifying glass, where we see everything that is wrong in European debates and policies. First, the total number of people who crossed the Mediterranean this year – to Spain, Italy and Greece – is less than 300 a day in the first nine months. This is a sharp decrease and no unmanageable invasion. However, 2018 will also have seen around 60,000


people cross the sea only to Spain, which is more than in any year in the past two decades! Three years ago, only one tenth of this number arrived in Spain by boat, and neither the Spanish reception system nor the asylum system can cope. Also, nobody has any plan regarding what to do. Europe has lost control, again. The European: You suggested European reception centres in Spain. How would this help? Gerald Knaus: What Spain needs today is the ability to send back those who arrive and who do not need protection, and to do so quickly to reduce the incentive to come. Currently it is almost impossible to send even the smallest number back to their countries of origin. It requires an asylum system that can make decisions that are fair and fast, and agreements that work. The European: Could any asylum system cope with such arrivals? Gerald Knaus: In 2017 the total number of first instance decisions in Spain was 13,300 and still there was a huge backlog at

MAIN TOPIC: Migration and refugees

put our best administrative and legal minds together now “We needandto create a system that combines control and human rights.” Gerald Knaus

the end of the year. If everyone who arrives this year applies, it would add 60,000. Including appeals in courts, it would take years. Thus, if you reach Algeciras, the coastal town in the South of Spain, closed to Gibraltar, today and apply for asylum you can stay for years. In reality, though, most who arrive via the sea will not bother to apply for asylum as they will in any case not be returned to their country. Instead many will head to France. France has many more asylum applications this year than in 2015, also a new record. For Spain and France, 2015 was no crisis. It is now, in 2018, that they don’t know what to do. And in 2019 we have the European elections. All Europeans need a plan, fast.

Spain after a chosen date is returned – this can be achieved. If West Africans know that there is an 80 percent chance of being returned within weeks, they will stop crossing the sea. Right now, that chance is close to zero. The European: But will countries of origin cooperate? Gerald Knaus: It depends on what they are offered, and on what they are asked to do. If countries take back a limited number to stop the flow and are offered legal quotas for migration, it would be in their interest. Turkey, the country in the world with the highest number of refugees today, made the EU such an offer in 2016. This is what diplomacy is for. The third pillar, of course, is that those who are not returned are relocated from such European centres to other European countries. In 2016 and 2017, some EU members relocated 20,000 people from Greece. It can be done, if there is the will.

The European: What is the plan you have been advocating recently? Gerald Knaus: The system that Spain, France, Greece, and the whole EU needs relies on three pillars: asylum, returns and relocation. The first is the ability to decide upon arrival, within The European: So what is likely to happen instead? weeks, who needs international protection in the EU and who Gerald Knaus: The far-right has a simple message: Europe does not. Some say this cannot be done. That a coalition of Eufaces an invasion, this cannot be stopped with legal methods, ropean states cannot create a system to deal with 300 people a Europe must abolish the right to claim asylum and must be day, a number that would also fall fast if we had such a system, more brutal, including letting people drown who might be is unacceptable defeatism. Of course, it would require resourrescued. Those who oppose this thinking as un-European ces and some changes in institutions, but given how much is at must show that there is a humane way to reassert control. The stake – lives lost daily at sea, control lost at borders, the future message must be: there is no invasion, we can reduce irregular of support for human rights and indeed arrivals without abandoning the right for an EU that respects human rights to asylum and we can reduce deaths – it is flabbergasting that there is not at sea. We can find European solutions Gerald Knaus more serious planning for a European that work. In early 2016, the number of is ESI’s founding chairman. He spent five system of fast and quality asylum at the arrivals on the Greek islands fell from years working for NGOs and international entry points. 2,000 a day to 50. We need to put our organisations in Bulgaria and Bosnia and best administrative and legal minds Herzegovina. From 2001 to 2004, he was The European: What is the second together now and create a system that the director of the Lessons Learned Unit of pillar? combines control and human rights. the EU Pillar of the UN Mission in Kosovo. Gerald Knaus: While processing But this is not what we are doing at In 2011, he co-authored, alongside Rory Stewclaims, we must accommodate people this moment. Spain and Greece are art, the book “Can Intervention Work?” He has humanely – unlike today on the Greek where Europe must prove its ingenuity also co-authored more than 80 ESI reports islands, where pregnant women will today. It is a hugely important test and as well as scripts for 12 TV documentaries spend another winter in tents in the right now we are failing. on south-eastern Europe. He is a founding snow. We also need the cooperation member of the European Council on Foreign of countries of origin to take back their The European: Mr Knaus, thank you Relations and for five years he was an Ascitizens from these European centres very much for having shared your sociate Fellow at the Carr Center for Human if they do not get protection. This is views with us and our readers. Rights Policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy crucial. And countries will not do this School, where he was a Visiting Fellow in unless they see it as in their interest. If 2010/2011 lecturing on state building and The interview was directed by Nannette a cut-off date is fixed – if everyone who intervention. Twitter; @rumeliobserver. Cazaubon, Deputy-Editor-in-Chief. does not need protection and arrives in > web: www.esiweb.org




The UN Compact for Migration by Hartmut Bühl, Publisher and Editor-in-Chief, Brussels/Paris

(Ed/hb, Brussels) The UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, that will be open for signature at an international conference in Marrakesh (Morocco) on 10 and 11 December of this year, is not strictly speaking an international treaty but it will be a global benchmark for migration governance. Its approval at a specially convened international conference will lend it greater weight than a simple Resolution of the UN General Assembly. Its aim is to reassert the goals set out in the New York Declaration of 2016 and make them more actionable. Review conferences will be held every four years starting in 2022. The Compact is however unwelcome to those whose dearest wish is to close their borders. First and foremost among them is US President Donald Trump, who rejects the Compact as it would stand in the way of his nativist policy towards refugees and migrants, a policy that he has expressed once again on Twitter: referring to the migrants from the North of Central America heading for the border between Mexico and the USA, he told them they could be fired on if they attempt to cross it. The European “closed border brigade” from Hungary and Austria will not sign the Compact in Marrakesh either. In other EU Member States, a heated debate is going on about the extent of commitment that it requires.

In the 34 pages of the Compact, 23 commitments are set out in detail. Some of them are a restatement of existing legal obligations. But there are also novel legal concepts addressing situations of distress like smuggling by organised criminals, human trafficking, exploitation, etc. The Compact makes it clear that migration is a right that must be upheld globally. Despite its occasional shortcomings, it will be a yardstick for migration governance for decades to come, even if it will not be binding under international law. It is however a major step forward and it can only be hoped that the Marrakesh conference will put a stop, before it is too late, to the emerging trend in some European countries to condemn the Compact for populist reasons. It will only be apparent in a decade what exactly the Compact has achieved. The European Union could have been a pioneer in its future application and in promoting more humanity, if it had succeeded in committing all Member States to uphold European values, clearly reflected in the Compact, and to a pledge, no less, that Human Rights and common established European values are non-negotiable. This opportunity appears to have been squandered. > web: www.iom.int/global-compact-migration


High-level diplomacy

The “refugee caravans” from the North of Central America Since mid-October 2018 several organised groups of people from the North of the Central American region (Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador), have been traveling north in the hope of reaching Mexico and the United States. Among them are people fleeing persecution and violence and in need of international protection. In Mexico, there are approximately 7,000-9,000 people in these groups, currently spread out between Veracruz and Baja California. Many are vulnerable and in need of humanitarian assistance, including women and around 2.300 children.  © Peter Slama


Source: UNHCR

MAIN TOPIC: Migration and refugees

The Aquarius’ daily work to save people’s lives

photo: Maud Veith

SOS MEDITERRANEE’s mission is to restore humantity at sea and on land

Interview with Verena Papke, Director General, SOS MEDITERRANEE Germany, Berlin


n the last 4 years at least 15,000 people have died crossing the Mediterranean Sea. 80% of migrants attempting this dangerous journey on small boats flee the chaos in Libya in the hope of reaching the coasts of Italy. The rescue ship “Aquarius” – operated since February 2016 by SOS MEDITERRANEE, together with Médecins sans Frontières – has saved close to 30,000 lives in more than 230 rescue missions in the Central Mediterranean. Having become a matter of controversy in the European discussion on how the situation in the Mediterranean could be managed, the Aquarius is currently blocked in the harbor of Marseille after the Panama Maritime Authorities revoked the registration of the ship. We wanted to learn more about this NGO and the people behind it. Verena Papke, General Director of SOS MEDITERRANEE Germany gave us insights of the team’s daily work and battle. The European: Ms Papke, you are the Director General of SOS MEDITERRANEE Germany, could you please briefly present your maritime and humanitarian organisation to our readers? Verena Papke: Let me start at the beginning: SOS MEDITERRANEE was founded in 2015 by a group of professional European seafarers and humanitarians in response to the humanitarian tragedy unfolding in the Central Mediterranean. At that time, the Italian search and rescue programme “Mare Nostrum” was terminated after European Member States declined to support it, and the result was an increase of deaths at sea. As seafarers

and humanitarians, but also as European citizens, we could not stand by and watch men, women and children drown. We chartered a ship, the “Aquarius”, 77m long and with a rescue capacity of more than 500 people – and launched a search-andrescue mission in international waters off the Libyan coast. The European: Could you tell us more about the people working aboard the Aquarius? Verena Papke: Three teams work aboard the Aquarius: the marine crew (Captain, engineers etc.), the SOS MEDITERRANEE rescue team made up of professionals with backgrounds in navigation, lifeguarding and emergency response, and the medical team of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) who is a partner of SOS MEDITERRANEE since 2015. The search-and-rescue coordinator, who usually has a professional background in navigation, is responsible for the coordination of a rescue. S/he coordinates with all team members on the Aquarius and is in constant contact with the responsible maritime authorities, to receive instructions and to keep them updated about our on-going operations. The European: Could you describe in more detail what normally happens during a rescue mission? Verena Papke: Usually, the Aquarius either receives a distress call from the relevant maritime authorities or our rescue team spots a boat in distress. At sea, the rescue team is on watch 24 hours a day, taking shifts, and monitoring the horizon with binoculars, looking for boats in distress. The rubber boats are so small that they can barely be spotted on the boat’s radar. Once we are close to a boat in distress, we launch our smaller rescue boats, approach the boat in distress, establish first contact



We have to understand that people do “ not run towards something or a particular

Verena Papke

through our cultural mediator and then distribute life jackets. The European: I guess that this is a delicate moment… Verena Papke: …yes, as people become agitated when they see us. They want to get off the small dinghy and out of this dangerous situation as fast as possible. Our primary aim, therefore, is to stabilise the situation by evacuating women, children and injured people first. Then our small rescue boats shuttle everyone to the Aquarius, where people receive primary care. In the case of medical emergencies, there is a clinic on board, where MSF’s medical team treats patients. From time to time, we need to request a medical evacuation, where patients need immediate care on land. The European: What happens next with these rescued people? Verena Papke: According to international maritime law, a rescue is only completed once the survivors are delivered to a safe place, where their lives are no longer threatened and where their basic human needs and rights can be met. This is crucial to understanding why we as a professional rescue organisation cannot stop after rescuing people from drowning, but are obliged to bring them to safety. For two and a half years, the place of safety was Italy, as per instruction from the Italian authorities that were coordinating all of our operations. However, in recent months, there has been widespread confusion over the assignment of a safe port since Italy has now also closed its ports to rescue ships. It seems that the very principle of rendering assistance to persons in distress at sea is now at stake.

Search-and-rescue missions operated by SOS MEDITERRANEE and Médecins Sans Frontières

photos (left to right): Guglielmo Mangiapane, Marco Panzetti, Anthony Jean , Laurin Schmid (3) All pictures provided by SOS MEDITERRANEE


Photo: Kenny Karpov

place, but that they flee from something.”

The European: In May 2017, a SOS Méditerranée rescue mission was interrupted by individuals purporting to be Libyan coast guard members firing shots. What happened that day? Verena Papke: I was on board the Aquarius that day. It was around noon. We were around 14 nautical miles from the Libyan coast and, following instructions from the Italian Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre, we had assisted a number of boats in distress. Suddenly, a boat armed with four stationary machine guns and identified as belonging to the Libyan Coast Guard approached at high speed, creating large waves and interrupting the on-going rescue. Suddenly, the guards started firing in the air and into the water, they boarded one of the boats in distress and intimidated the people on board who started panicking and around 60 of them jumped into the water. Luckily, we had handed out the life jackets just minutes before and were able to pull everyone out of the water with our bare hands. The European: What were your thoughts during this incident? Verena Papke: While the Libyan Coast Guard fired the machine guns, we were told to lie down on deck. We were looking at each other and could not believe what was happening. Was the Libyan Coast Guard, the same Coast Guard that is trained and financed by EU states, really firing gunshots in the middle of a rescue operation? Their aggressive behaviour seriously endangered the lives of the rescued people and our crew. It was

MAIN TOPIC: Migration and refugees

thanks to our professional team that no one died that day and that by the end of the day we rescued 1.004 people – more than ever before.

Verena Papke, a political scientist and social geographer, is the managing director of SOS MEDITERRANEE. In summer 2015, Verena Papke met Klaus Vogel, the co-founder of SOS MEDITERRANEE, and since then has she been work-

The European: The European Union decided in 2017 ing full-time for this NGO, initially in Communications and, since 2017, as to pursue a reinforcement strategy of Libyan coast Managing Director. In May 2017, Ms Papke took part in several rescue misguards who now operate in international waters. sions on board the Aquarius. How did you experience this development at sea? Verena Papke: We are a maritime-humanitarian organisation that is responding to a humanitarian need in the The European: The context of search and rescue interventions Central Mediterranean. Our role is not to speculate on the in the Central Mediterranean seems to have become increasstrategy and motives of the European Union. But the incident ingly complicated, and in 2018 the Aquarius eventually became I just described is not an exception. SOS MEDITERRANEE, and the only non-governmental rescue ship in those waters. Can other search-and-rescue organisations, have faced similar you explain the reasons for this? incidents in the past. According to maritime law, a coastal Verena Papke: It is true that the conditions for carrying out state has to coordinate all rescues within its search and rescue rescue operations have changed dramatically in recent months. area, which includes international waters. In June 2018, Italy Since European Member States made the deliberate choice to handed the coordination of rescues in international waters off close their ports to rescue ships, we have seen that captains the Libyan coast to the Libyan authorities. In theory, they are of commercial and other vessels are increasingly unwilling to now in charge of coordination and of assigning a place of safety respond to boats in distress due to a very high and real risk of for survivors to disembark. But we know that the Libyan Coast being stranded out at sea and being denied a port of safety. Guard is not adequately trained, they do not have enough ships to cover the whole area and they lack the necessary equipment The European: What consequences does this have for the situato perform rescues in a professional and efficient manner. tion in the Mediterranean? Verena Papke: As I said, the EU’s support of the Libyan Coast The European: In your eyes, can Lybia be considered as a place Guard has resulted in increased interceptions and illegal of safety to disembark survivors? returns to Libya. In October, returns to Libya outnumbered Verena Papke: No, it can’t. The country is torn between differarrivals to Italy for the first time. But this strategy only works in ent governments, militia and ISIS. No European state vessel combination with the criminalisation of humanitarian assisor civil rescue ship is allowed to bring rescued people back to tance at sea. As civil society’s eyes and ears at sea, SOS MEDILibya. What we have observed since last summer, however, TERRANEE and other NGOs have testified about the situation at is that Libyan Coast Guard units increasingly intercept boats sea over the past 21/2 years. We gave a voice to the people who and return people to Libya, the same place they fled in the first undertook the dangerous crossing and we have consistently deplace. They are often returned to detention centres – places nounced human rights violations whenever we witnessed them. known for human rights abuses. From the testimonies that we Almost 200 journalists from all around the world have covered collect aboard our rescue vessel, as well as from UN and other our vital work. With NGO ships currently prevented from operreports, we know that the conditions inside these centres are ating, there are no eyes to witness what is now happening, nor rife with abuse and violence. ears to listen to the stories of men, women and children.




The European: What do you respond means providing adequate search to those who argue that saving lives and rescue capacities. In the meanSOS MEDITERRANEE on this dangerous migratory route time, we ask European governments SOS MEDITERRANEE is a European organisation represents a “pull factor” encouragto create a joint and predictable working in partnership with Médecins Sans Froning migrants and refugees to attempt European approach to sea rescue and tières. Their teams in Germany, France, Italy and the journey across the Mediterraneto actively support search and rescue Switzerland jointly finance and operate the rescue an? organisations in providing humaniship Aquarius in international waters off the Libyan Verena Papke: First of all, saving tarian assistance at sea, instead of coast since February 2016. 99% of this charitable lives is not an option but a moral and criminalising them. organisation is financed through private donations, legal obligation. Under international including private individuals, humanitarian organimaritime law, all ships in the area The European: Recently, the Aquarsations and corporations. The remaining 1% stems must assist immediately when a boat ius lost its flag when the Panama from public funds. is in distress. Maritime Authority revoked the > web: www.sosmediterranee.org And we have to understand that registration of the ship, saying that people do not run towards something they had come under economic and or a particular place, but that they flee from something. In the political pressure from the Italian government. Is this the end case of Libya it is widespread violence, arbitrary detention, of the story? forced labour, sexual violence and exploitation. Aboard the Verena Papke: This is just the latest in a line of attempts aimed Aquarius, we see the bullet wounds and signs of torture all at preventing the Aquarius from saving lives and documenting across people’s bodies. We hear the stories of young women the humanitarian tragedy that continues on Europe’s doorstep. being raped on a daily basis, and the stories of young men After this happened, we registered under the Liberian flag. But whose sisters were raped and killed in front of their eyes. Peothis is only a temporary solution, as this flag does not allow us ple simply have no other option than to escape. The significant to continue our search and rescue activities. Therefore, togethimpact that sea rescue actually has is to decrease the number er with MSF, we are urgently looking for a new flag, to allow the of deaths, not influence the number of people that flee. This is Aquarius to continue its mission. also documented by recent academic studies. The European: You received a lot of support from European The European: What do you think would help improve the citizens… understanding of why people risk their lives by crossing the Verena Papke: …yes, to urge European governments to support Central Mediterranean? a new flag for the Aquarius, SOS MEDITERRANEE published Verena Papke: When we talk about migration in Europe, we an online petition that has been signed by more than 260.000 only talk about numbers. Numbers of arrivals, of deaths. But people across Europe. This shows that SOS MEDITERRANEE is when the narrative is limited to numbers and figures, the not only a European organisation but a movement of citizens people behind these statistics disappear. We at SOS MEDITERwho came together because they cannot and do not want to RANEE try our best to show the human face of migration. Hate accept that people die on Europe’s doorstep. speech has not only discredited the work of search-and-rescue organisations but it has also silenced the men, women and The European: Ms Papke, if all legal remedies were exhausted children who risk their lives at sea. Our mission is not limited and your ship condemned to stay in port, would you give up or to sea rescue. Aboard the Aquarius we protect rescued people resist? and we testify to the realities they face at sea and during their Verena Papke: As I said before, saving lives is not an option flight. but a moral and legal obligation. SOS MEDITERRANEE will continue its mission at sea and on land as long as people have The European: Is there a European long-term solution that to risk their lives on unseaworthy boats to seek protection. The could help saving lives to be done in a humanitarian and effihumanitarian crisis in the Central Mediterranean is on-going, cient way? What do you expect from the EU? whether the media reports it or not. Every person dying at sea Verena Papke: What is currently most needed is a collabois one too many. SOS MEDITERRANEE will continue to defend rative and predictable European approach to reception and humanity – be it at sea or on land. distribution of people rescued at sea. If European states do not succeed in creating sustainable solutions based on internaThe European: Ms Papke, let me thank you for these striking tional law, many more people are going to die. This will be the insights you have given us on the work of your NGO and the beginning of the end of the European project. In the long run, situation in the Mediterranean. the EU must acknowledge its responsibilities and fill the humanitarian vacuum it has left in the Central Mediterranean. This The interview was conducted by Nannette Cazaubon





Migration and refugee movements to Europe (ed/ak, Berlin) Migration and refugees coming to the European Union have dominated the public debate during the past few years throughout Europe. The issue is still urgent today, but eventually nation states, the European Union and international community have slowly moved from reacting on a crisis situation to drafting or updating much needed migration and refugee policies. With a polarising issue like migration and asylum, it is especially important to base decisions on facts and to put the data into perspective. This infographic focussing on the migration and refugee situation in the Mediterranean in 2018 is providing such data*.

Number of migrants and refugees arriving in the European Union per land and sea in 2018. Data obtained from the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) as at 26 November 2018. For a daily update: https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/mediterranean






Number of arrivals of migrants and refugees in the Mediterranean 2014–2018 (Spain, Italy, Greece, Malta and Cyprus) Total Sea arrivals Dead and missing 389,914 362,753 184,289







110,155 104,049 2,075

no data







MAIN TOPIC: Migration and refugees

Facts on migrants and forcibly displaced people worldwide Total number of international

Total number of internally

40 milliondisplaced people (by June 2018) Total number of refugees

25.4 million(by June 2018) Top 5 refugee hostingcountries

Turkey Uganda and Pakistan Lebanon Islamic Republic of Iran

3.5m 1.4m each 1m 979.400

Source: World Migrant Report 2018; www.unhcr.org/figures-at-a-glance.html

258 millionmigrant population (in 2017)



*Data collection and availability Although the availability of comparable and complete data is of utmost importance for a reliable basis for political decisions, collecting and aggregating data on migrant stocks, migrant flows and refugee movements is challenging. The UN DESA and Eurostat point to difficulties in collecting data on those issues globally (most data is only available for OECD countries) and in making them comparable as they have to rely on administrative data from the countries which have divergent collection practices and legal frameworks. Thus, the information presented here have to be seen in this light and processed with caution.

graphics: SpreeService- und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH Beate Dach



Environmental migration and displacement

photo: © scottchan, stock.adobe.com

Whether chosen or forced, environmental migration is a reality of our times

by Dina Ionesco, Head of the Migration, Environment and Climate Change Division and Mariam Traore Chazalnoel, Environmental Migration Specialist, International Organization for Migration (IOM), Geneva/New York


xamples of how climate conditions can directly or indirectly lead to the migration of people can be found in all continents, from the hundreds of thousands of people displaced overnight by floods and hurricanes in the United States, to rural populations in the Sahel unable to access water and grazing resources.1 Robust scientific analysis corroborates what common sense tells us: in a world subjected to increasing threats of climate change, people are – and will continue – migrating to cope with the impacts on their daily lives. The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) clearly outlines that global warming and increasing migration are linked.2

Migrating in unsafe conditions This issue of The European – Security and Defence Union magazine addresses the contemporary migration challenges in a Europe facing major political uncertainty. It is clear that the impacts of climate change on populations’ movements are one

of those issues that have an immense potential for destabilisation, not only in Europe but worldwide. Both the sudden impacts of natural disasters and the insidious slow destruction of nature and ecosystems brought about by environmental degradation lead to instances of people migrating in unsafe conditions. Displacement after natural disasters Massive levels of displacement of people caught in disasters are seen each year, 18.8 million people in 2017 according to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), highlighting the need to increase action on disaster risk reduction, planning and disaster management. In Nepal in 2015, 2.8 million people were forced to move because of the earthquake. One year after the earthquake, 21,000 persons had not been able to go back home and were at risk of further displacement due to floods.3 In such cases, forced displacement situations are traumatic for the population and represent an immense challenge for both the national government and the international community facing the daunting prospect of having to manage such large-scale interventions. Less well known is the fact that these types of movements often bring about secondary sets of issues, such as increasing instances of human trafficking of desperate people seeking to make a living, or questions of protection of the

scientific analysis corroborates what common sense tells us: in a “Robust world subjected to increasing threats of climate change, people are – and will continue – migrating to cope with the impacts on their daily lives.”

D. Ionesco / M. Traore Chazalnoel


MAIN TOPIC: Migration and refugees

rights of those living in displacement. The immediate aftermath of the disaster necessitates coordinated humanitarian action, but even more complex are the issues around supporting the return of these populations or ensuring that they are not displaced again in cases where recurring weather events are intensified by climate change impacts, such as the monsoon season in South East Asia.

Dina Ionesco is the Head of the Migration, Environment and Climate Change (MECC) Division at the United Nations Migration Agency (IOM) in Geneva. She authored the Atlas of Environmental Migration (2016 - Routledge) Photo: private

Migration due to indirect climate impacts Then there is another subset of “invisible” environmental migrants – those who move in search of better economic opportunities because of the indirect impacts of climate change. Of particular concern to Europe should be entire regions of the Sahel where desertification and land degradation eat away at available agricultural land, or where ocean acidification destroys fishermen’s livelihoods. It should come as no surprise that faced with often insurmountable difficulties to sustain livelihoods, many people – notably the youth – will choose to take their chances elsewhere and undertake unsafe migration journeys towards promised lands. In addition, people who are facing extreme environmental conditions, but are unable to migrate for financial or social reasons, are also vulnerable as they do not have the means to move out of harm’s way or look for alternative livelihood opportunities. These “trapped” populations are often absent from the public discourse on environmental migration. The picture depicted above is bleak and there is an urgent need to fully comprehend the magnitude of these challenges, yet, as with every type of migration, opportunities can arise. For instance, there are examples of migrants who have truly made a positive difference in the daily lives of their communities by investing in climate proof infrastructures. It is well known that migration can bring economic and social benefits to countries of origin and destination – it is no different for environmental migrants who have the potential to contribute back

and several other publications on the interlinkages between environment, climate

change and migration. She is a frequent speaker on these issues worldwide. Dina was awarded an “Inspirational woman working to protect the environment” prize as part of the International Women’s Day 2016, at the initiative of UNEP, the Geneva Environment Network and the Swiss Confederation.

Mariam Traore Chazalnoel is an Expert in Migration, Environment and Climate Change at the United Nations Migration Agency (IOM) in New York. She has been working on the environment-migration nexus since 2013, focusing on questions of Photo: privatet

global governance and policy development. Mariam has authored several papers and regularly speaks at conferences on this emerging theme.

home and to their communities of destination. Environmental migration questions have been high on the global political agenda for a few years and this heightening political interest opens up a space of opportunity for both reflection and action on how to respond to contemporary environmental migration challenges.

Managing environmental migration

© Dina Ionesco

When thinking of practical solutions, it might be useful to look at the issue through different policy “lenses”: climate, migration, development and humanitarian lenses. It is equally important to gather responses from different policy areas and build on existing good practices among different communities. Policy makers and practitioners of climate action have a critical role to play. For instance, the Task Force on Displacement4 created under the Paris Climate Agreement has developed a set of recommendations for climate action to minimise the risks of displacement due to climate change. The recently finalised Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) is currently the most advanced global policy text addressing environmental migration issues, representing a global consensus on how migration challenges should be addressed.5 This compact clearly highlights that climate adaptation and mitigation measures in countries of origin should be the first supported measure, as this helps people build resilience and afford them livelihood opportunities. These



After the 2015 earthquake in Nepal, 2.8 million people where forced to move photo: © European Union, 2015, Source: EC – Audiovisual Service, by KC Ortiz

types of responses should be driven by climate action actors, working in partnership with migration specialists such as the UN Migration Agency.6 It is also important to turn to migration policy and practice to determine what helping both environmental migrants and the states of origin and destination of these migrants looks like concretely. For instance, it is clear that some places of the world will become uninhabitable due to climate conditions in the near future, because of the rise in temperature7 or sea level,8 such as in the emblematic example of disappearing small

i International Organization for Migration

islands in the Pacific. In these conditions, migration will be inevitable, and it is in everyone’s interest that these population movements take place in safe and regular conditions, minimising risks of disruptions. Managing environmental migration flows requires looking in more depth at the migration policy tools already at our disposal and adapt them to the specific situation of environmental migrants. It means that migration policy and practice measures must innovate in order to factor in the environmental and climate change threats. For instance, countries can already look at their current migration tools and adapt them to contemporary environmental migration challenges and opportunities: visa regimes, temporary protection status, consular services for citizens abroad, planned relocation schemes, diasporas’ services, labour migration and regional movement agreements.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) was established in 1951. With 172 member

Envision the future

states and a further 8 states holding observer

Whether migration driven by environmental degradation and climate change is voluntary or forced, it cannot be ignored. To respond effectively, countries should invest in new environmental and climate change solutions, and in parallel, innovate in their migration policies and practices. Environmental migration offers us a chance to envision the future we dream for our planet and for the future generations.

status, IOM is the leading inter-governmental organisation in the field of migration. IOM has offices in over 100 countries and works closely with governmental, intergovernmental and non-governmental partners. The objectives of IOM’s work is to • help ensure the orderly and humane management of migration; • promote international cooperation on migration issues; • assist in the search for practical solutions to migration problems, • provide humanitarian assistance to migrants in need, including refugees and internally displaced people. The IOM Constitution recognises the link between migration and economic, social and cultural development, as well as to the right of freedom of movement. > Publications: IOM produces a large variety of publications in the field of migration policy and research: http://publications.iom.int/ > Web: www.iom.int


1 The Atlas of Environmental Migration provides examples of environmental migration worldwide https://environmentalmigration.iom.int/projects/atlas-environmental-migration 2 https://www.iom.int/news/nepal-thousands-remain-displaced-earthquake-exposed-impact-coming-monsoon-season 3 https://www.iom.int/news/nepal-thousands-remain-displaced-earthquake-exposed-impact-coming-monsoon-season 4 Report of the Task Force on Displacement 16 September 2018 https://bit.ly/2Rd9448 5 http://www.ipsnews.net/2018/08/perspectives-environmental-migration-10-key-takeaways-global-compact-migration/ 6 https://environmentalmigration.iom.int/ 7 https://environmentalmigration.iom.int/extreme-heat-and-migration 8 Ocean, Environment, Climate Change and Human Mobility https://bit.ly/2QoQed1


MAIN TOPIC: Migration and refugees

UNESCO 2019 Global Education Monitoring Report (Ed/nc, Paris) On 20 November 2018, UNESCO’s 2019 Global Education Monitoring Report, “Migration, displacement and education”, was released in the presence of the Director-General of UNESCO, Audrey Azoulay, in Berlin. The report shows that the number of migrant and refugee school-age children around the world today has grown by 26% since 2000. It highlights countries’ achievements and shortcomings in ensuring the right of migrant and refugee children to benefit from quality education, a right that serves the interests of both learners and the communities they live in. Excerpt (Foreword of the Report)

those who arrive are pushed or pushing,

“The 2019 Global Education Monitoring

legal or illegal, a boon or a threat, or an

Report has been brought together by a

asset or a burden.

team of international migrants. Four of its members are children of refugees. They

There is both welcoming and rejection.

two global compacts for migrants and

don’t deny that people look at migration –

Some people adjust to their new envi-

refugees show.

and migrants – from different viewpoints.

ronment while others cannot. There are

Their research demonstrates the extent to

those who want to help and those who

For those denied education, marginali-

which education can help open up those

want to exclude.

zation and frustration may be the result. When taught wrongly, education may dis-

perspectives and bring greater opportunities for all.

Thus, around the world, we see migration

tort history and lead to misunderstanding.

and displacement stirring great passions. For migrants, refugees and host communi-

Yet there are decisions to make. Migration

But, as the Report shows us in the form of

ties, there is the known and the unknown.

requires responses. We can raise barriers,

so many uplifting examples from Canada,

All that some people know, however, is

or we can reach out to the other side – to

Chad, Colombia, Ireland, Lebanon, the Phil-

deprivation and the need to escape from

build trust, to include, to reassure.

ippines, Turkey and Uganda, education can also be a bridge. It can bring out the best in

it; they don’t know whether there will be opportunity at the other end. In recipient

At the global level, the United Nations has

people, and lead to stereotypes, prejudices

communities, people may not know wheth-

worked to bring nations together around

and discrimination being discarded for

er and how their new neighbours, wearing

durable solutions to migration and dis-

critical thinking, solidarity and openness.

different clothes, having different customs,

placement challenges. During the UN Sum-

It can offer a helping hand to those who

and speaking with a different accent, will

mit on Refugees and Migrants in 2016, I

have suffered and a springboard to those

change their lives.

called for investing in conflict prevention,

who desperately need opportunity.

mediation, good governance, the rule of Migration is characterized by both order and

law and inclusive economic growth. I also

This Report points directly to a major chal-

disorder. Societies often strive to manage

drew attention to the need for expanding

lenge: How can teachers be supported to

population movements but nonetheless

access to basic services to migrants to

practise inclusion? It offers us fascinating

may face unpredictable inflows. Such move-

tackle inequalities.

insights into humanity and the age-old phenomenon of migration. I invite you

ments may create new divisions, while others have demonstrably benefited both

This Report takes that last point further

to consider its recommendations and to

source and destination countries.

by reminding us that providing education

act on them.”

is not only a moral obligation of those in In migration flows, we see both will and

charge of it, but also is a practical solution

The Right Honourable Helen Clark, Chair

coercion. Some people move proactively

to many of the ripples caused by moving

of the GEM Report Advisory Board

to work and study while others are forced

populations. It must be, and should always

to flee persecution and threats to their

have been, a key part of the response to

livelihoods. Recipient communities and

migration and displacement – an idea

politicians may argue interminably whether

whose time has come, as the texts of the

> Web: The Report: https://bit.ly/2PDrdep



We can no longer claim that “we did not know”

How to offer a decent life to refugees

by Andrea Quaden, Humanitarian aid worker in Iraq


t started in 2011 with peaceful demonstrations demanding change, then developing into one of the worst wars of our time, forcing millions of Syrians to flee their homes. By 2014, over 6 million Syrians were displaced, 2.8 million of which fled to Turkey. I could not watch the humanitarian crisis unfold without doing anything. I moved to Turkey because I wanted to understand firsthand the plight of the Syrian people who were forced to experience the horrors of war and flee their homes. I also wanted to actively assist those refugees.

There is no line between them and us Sympathy alone is never enough. My mission in Turkey would also, eventually, help me return to Europe and shape a more humane and forward-looking refugee and migration policy. I would have never imagined that I would observe from afar how much my home – the European Union – struggles to defend its core values and norms of humanity, equality and the rule of law when it comes to supporting the most vulnerable amongst us. Never would I have predicted that we would rather close our borders and turn a blind eye to the suffering of people at our doorstep seeking protection and dignity. But we did, we all witnessed Alan Kurdi who drowned on a beach and all the other nameless souls…. The fate of others remains a headline in a newspaper, a tweet


– numbers, words, pictures – until you are in the midst of an unfolding humanitarian crisis, or just simply sharing a meal with your colleagues and friends who are themselves refugees or internally displaced. All of a sudden there is no line between “them” and “us”; humanity prevails.

From Turkey… My objective in Turkey was to support Syrians who were forced to flee their country. The majority of refugees, across South East Turkey, did not live in camps, but in cities like Gaziantep, Kilis or Mardin. Unfortunately, people soon realised that the war in Syria would take years and they would not be able to return. Turkey struggled to provide the necessary services for the “guests”, as the Syrians were called, and heavily relied on assistance from the international community. Despite everyone’s efforts, hundreds of thousands of people struggled. Families lived in ruins, children were unable to go to school, work permits difficult to obtain. Resentment against refugees grew within Turkish society and social cohesion started to falter. Most refugees wanted to stay in Turkey in the hope of one day returning to Syria, but years passed and war continues on. This long wait and the uncertainty of the future of their children drove Syrians towards Europe. Thousands embarked on the perilous journey, and many died trying. It caught us by surprise. It shouldn’t have!

MAIN TOPIC: Migration and refugees

Andrea Quaden has worked in Turkey and Iraq in various positions and NGOs, ending her current position as Shelter Cluster Co Chair for Iraq with NRC. She was born in 1985 in Roding, Germany. She has a BA in Politics & Law from the Westphalian Wilhelms University of Münster and an MA in European Studies from the University of Hamburg. Ms Quaden has been working with Photo: private

and for refugees for the past 11 years starting in Germany. After 2 years in South East Turkey she moved to Iraq to be engaged in the Preparedness in

the Response for the “Mosul Operation”. She has worked for the Turkish NGO “ASAM”, German “Welthungerhilfe”, Czech “People in Need” and the Norwegian Refugee Council.

photo: Andrea Quaden

every number there is a human being “Behind with a life, a story, loved ones, dreams, fears, and rights.”

…to Iraq The European Asylum System (the Dublin Agreement) never factored in the realities of an influx of people in need of safety as we saw it in 2015. The wars in Syria and Iraq did not develop overnight, but were the result of many factors which were all well known by experts and politicians. The displacement that unfolded brought me to Iraq in 2015. This is a country whose people had to go through suffering and the massive military operation in the fight against extremist groups. The battle of Mosul was getting full media coverage. But behind every number quoted there is a human being with a life, dreams, fears, and rights. We tend to forget that – we never should! My biggest respect goes to the people I had the honour to serve. I have never seen so much strength and resilience in people! Despite the horrors of conflict and the losses endured; people’s ability to cope with their situation and stamina to strive for a better future has deeply moved me. They will do everything for their families and communities to survive in dignity and rebuild what they have lost. They deserve everyone’s respect! We should bow in front of their struggle and love for life.

Everyone should do their part Everyone should have an honest conversation with someone who was forced to flee due to violence, war, oppression, and persecution. Reach out to people who were forced to leave

Andrea Quaden speaking with a Syrian women in Ganziantep, Turkey photo: Andrea Quaden

their home and jump into an unknown future in an alien place. They might tell you that it was not really a choice. For many of us in the humanitarian world and with the very limited resources available to us, these stories are difficult to cope with. There is never enough funding to support people in need, nor political willingness to find humane and sustainable solutions. As humanitarians, it is our responsibility to continuously find solutions, alleviate suffering and save lives. In my view this is the responsibility of every citizen of the world, everyone can and should do their part. Humanitarians voluntarily go to places like Iraq. If we want to leave, we can. We are not the ones who had to witness the horrors of ISIL occupation or war, or who are dependent on



past cannot be changed. Let us learn from it and find ways to “The deal with today and tomorrow.” 

Andrea Quaden

humanitarian aid and at the mercy of decision makers in this world. Some of the hardest moments in our line of work is witnessing the suffering of the people we want to support while knowing that there is so little we can do. Many of us are deeply convinced that the situation in Syria and Iraq could have been prevented at an early stage, but the past cannot be changed. Let us learn from it and find ways to deal with today and tomorrow. In a globalised world in which the war around Aleppo City was live streamed, we cannot claim ignorance. We all have a responsibility to support each other. There should not be “them” versus “us”. We can no longer claim that “we did not know”.

Why do we perform so badly? It is unacceptable, that in the 21st century, families have to use rubber boats to cross a few kilometers to safety, children drown in the Mediterranean, men die in refrigerated trucks and women are raped while escaping the very horrors of war! It is a disgrace for Europe to “welcome” those who seek protection with mistrust, fear and racism, depriving them of their basic right to asylum. It is unacceptable that families have to put their lives in the hands of smugglers as the only escape from their despair. It is abhorrent that places like the Moria camp on the Greek island Lesbos, or “The Jungle” of Calais, exist on the European continent. We – as a community – own the resources to support people who are fleeing for their lives with basic food, water, shelter, health and legal services, jobs, psycho-social support and education. We just need to put those resources to use.

We have well-established resettlement and family reunification programmes to offer legal and safe pathways. We should use these to help those in need and not change our own laws to limit resettlement. We possess the means to support communities in post-conflict situations to rebuild their lives including the rehabilitation of basic services, livelihood opportunities and social cohesion. We just need to showcase our generosity. We have the decision making power to open safe passages to safety and to influence governments to reinforce peace and stability. Why don’t we see how these families, who are fleeing war, can contribute to our societies? Refugees overwhelmingly contribute positively to the asylum countries’ economies.

All this is in our hands With more than 65 million forcibly displaced persons in the world and almost 2,000 deaths in the Mediterranean in 2018 alone we should stand up and do something to restore dignity and protect human rights. Ghandi’s wise words are very pertinent today: “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.” This is a collective responsibility. The people of Europe and its leaders can do the right thing. We should! But do we really want to?

This article expresses Ms Quaden’s ideas and opinion only and does not represent any of her former or current employers.

Informal refugee camp at the Turkish-Syrian border after 200,000 people were forced to flee the Syrian town Kobane in autumn 2014  photo: Andrea Quaden


European security and defence

photo: Baptiste Lafontaine, CC BY-SA 2.0

A decade after the signature of the Lisbon Treaty, Europeans are finally dealing with security and defence matters. Aware since the election of US President Donald Trump that, in the long term, the US might no longer guarantee Europe’s security, initiatives like Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), a European Intervention Force (EI2), or the creation of a European Defence Fund have seen the light. How will this new European spirit forge new responsibilities, e.g. for the European Commission, the Parliament and the EDA? The authors of this chapter have some ideas.


Adapting the EU’s security and defence structures Interview with Ioan Mircea Paşcu MEP, Vice-President of the European Parliament, Brussels/Strasbourg


mong the Members of the European Parliament, one of the best-informed politicians on security and defence issues is without any doubt Ioan Mircea Paşcu, Vice-President of the European Parliament and former Defence Minister of Romania. We wanted to learn more about this expert and his vision of European security and defence in today’s unstable security environment. In order to find out, Nannette Cazaubon tra­velled to Mr Paşcu’s home region Transylvania, near the Hungarian and Ukrainian border, to meet with him and discuss current European developments. The European: Mr Pas˛cu, we are meeting here in the county of Satu Mare where you were born and where you started your political career. Today, and since 2007, you are a Member of the European Parliament (EP). In addition to your role as EP Vice-President and member of the Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE), you have been the Coordinator for Security and Defence of the Socialists and Democrats political group (S&D) since 2014. What are your ambitions in tackling all these tasks? Ioan M. Paşcu: Indeed, alas, I am all that!? Well, in my previous “incarnation” as defence minister of Romania at the time of NATO admission (2000-2004), it was simply natural that I wished to become a member of SEDE. Having then become Vice-Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee (AFET) in 2007, when Romania became an EU Member State, I have witnessed how far defence has come to reach where we are now, and I have tried to bring a contribution through my expertise. If my


photo: Jean Cazaubon for ESDU

The time for a serious organisational evaluation is rapidly approaching

work within AFET and SEDE capitalises on my professional background, as Vice-President of the Parliament my mission is more related to running, together with my colleagues, the administrative activity of the Parliament and giving it political direction. The European: And what about your activities as the rapporteur of the S&D Group? Ioan M. Paşcu: Indeed, among other reports on the situation in the Black Sea after the Russian illegal annexation of Crimea, I developed the EP Report on CSDP 2016 and I am now working on the 2018 CSDP Report. The European: A fascinating range of tasks indeed! But, when you became a MEP in 2007, security and defence were issues that the European Commission preferred not to talk about. The only EU body dealing with these issues was the SEDE Subcommittee of the EP, led at that time by Karl von Wogau. What was the reason for the lack of interest in this area? Ioan M. Paşcu: To my mind, the reason was two-fold: on the one hand, Europe was enjoying the serene dream of being “prosperous, secure and free, like never before” as mentioned in its first Security Strategy of 2003, on the other hand, defence and security were then (as they continue to remain today) firmly an exclusive prerogative of the Member States. Consequently, the EP did not need more than a Subcommittee dedicated to these matters. The merit of Karl von Wogau was indeed that he kept the fire alive, grouping together a handful of people – myself included – who felt that defence and security needed more attention than they were getting at the time. The European: Even after the signature of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, Article 42 dealing with progress on the Common Security

European security and defence

and Defence Policy (CSDP) and its protocol on Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) were interpreted very restrictively, as if to say “hands off”. And then suddenly, at the Bratislava summit in September 2016, there was a radical change. Ioan M. Paşcu: Indeed, at a time when the Union was divided by the refugee crisis and the result of the pro-Brexit vote in the UK, the idea of a meaningful Common Security and Defence Policy was suddenly spotlighted, and Europe started to reflect on its defence capabilities. The European: What happened to bring about that “change of the heart”? Ioan M. Paşcu: In Bratislava, Member States have responded to the increasing preoccupation with security and defence of European citizens following the spill over generated by the neglected accumulation of conflicts around Europe through terrorism and refugees. Besides, Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and the subsequent military destabilisation of Eastern Ukraine have played a role, as did the statements questioning the validity of the US commitment to NATO voiced during the US electoral campaign in 2016. I think that all of them have played a role in changing the hearts and minds of both Europeans and their leaders with respect to security and defence, thus contributing to the decision in Bratislava. The European: However, if the EU is now forging ahead on security and defence, isn’t it legitimate to ask whether its structures and organisation are not a little out of date? Parliament still does not have a full Plenary Committee on security and defence! It is also striking that there is no centralised management on security and defence at the Commission level. Ioan M. Paşcu: It is true, we have not been “prepared” for the increased role of security and defence in response to the recent challenges and threats. We have reacted by trying to adjust the existing structures through improvisation rather than intentional planning. For instance, the support provided by the EU Commission to the defence industry through the CARD (Coordinated Annual Review on Defence), EDIDP (European defence indus-

Dr Ioan Mircea Paşcu MEP is Vice-President of the European Parliament. He is member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Subcommittee on Security & Defence. He is also CSDP coordinator for the S&D Groupe in the European Parliament. Born in 1949

trial development programme) and EDF (European Defence Fund) has become, naturally, a task for the Commission’s DG Industry. I personally think that the time for a serious organisational evaluation is rapidly approaching. The European: So, how do you see things developing in the future? Ioan M. Paşcu: Things should be seen in their logical succession: as the EU Commission’s commitment to security and defence through common funds is becoming more and more substantial ( 13 billion in the next Financial Framework), the need for an integrated management will become more and more pressing, both at the managing and political levels of the Commission, asking for constant consultation with the HR/ VP and, consequently, the Council. As more common money is involved, the need for the European Parliament to exercise control will increase, calling for the elevation of SEDE into a fully-fledged committee. The European: Let me ask bluntly: does this mean that we need a Commissioner with security and defence in their portfolio? Ioan M. Paşcu: The creation of a special position of Commissioner for security and defence would only be a logical consequence of the need for centralisation of the management of security and defence at the Commission level. He/she would continue to share responsibilities with Commissioner colleagues, since a monopoly would be neither possible, nor desirable. The relationship with the HR/VP will be indispensable for political guidance, as it would be his/her position vis-a-vis the defence ministerials chaired by the HR/VP. The European: This means that a good, personal chemistry between the two would be desirable for the good functioning of the new mechanism… Ioan M. Paşcu: … yes, particularly in initial phases. The European: As regards the EP, would a reinforced influence in security and defence matters change the relations with national Parliaments? Ioan M. Paşcu: Inevitably, the role of the EP in relation to national Parliaments would have more importance and visibility. But it is equally true that this would not mean a role reversal: national Parliaments will continue to decide the security and defence of their respective countries, as this prerogative will remain national, while the EP will get more say when common funds are involved.

in Satu Mare, Romania, he obtained a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Institute of Political Science in Bucharest in 1980. From 1990 to 1992, Mr Pascu was presidential councilor and afterwards became State Secretary in the Ministry of Defence in Bucharest (1993). He then became Member of Parliament in 1996 and Minister of Defence in 2004. In 2007 he joined the EP as a member of the Social Democratic Party (PSD).

The European: The 2018 Annual report on the implementation of the CSDP, which you drafted, stresses the importance of developing a well-designed overarching strategic approach to European defence that could be best defined by an EU Security and Defence White Book. The former Chair of SEDE Arnaud ­Danjean already called more than a decade ago for such a White Book. Is at present something more concrete being shaped?



creation of a special position as Commissioner for security and defence “The would only be a logical consequence of the need for centralisation of the

management of security and defence at the level of the Commission.”  Ioan Mircea Paşcu MEP

Ioan M. Paşcu: The call for a White Book on EU Security and Defence has been indeed a constant request of the EP. I am encouraged that now, after so long, it appears that the idea is starting to gain some traction with Member States. That White Book, together with the European Global Strategy, would only complete the framework for EU action in these matters, bringing both coherence and efficiency to that action.

Ioan M. Paşcu: The aim is both to prepare a coalition of willing countries for joint European action in crises, and to tie the UK into the continent’s future military co-operation after Brexit. The idea to keep the British involved is sound and one should try to find the proper ways to implement it. My only concern would be that the initiative should not interfere with the EU’s own efforts in that field...

The European: One of the recent initiatives that has gained a high profile is the PESCO initiative signed by 25 EU Member States last year. Some years ago, you referred to PESCO as a “sleeping beauty”, which could get grumpy if awoken! Are you satisfied with the new efforts? Ioan M. Paşcu: In our Eastern countries, there was a fear that, once activated, PESCO would lead to a two-tier defence of the Union: a central core better defended and an outer area, less defended. The fact that such a vision was not completely unrealistic is made obvious by the relative disappointment when 25 Member States signed up, transforming PESCO from the expected “elite” club it into a rather “popular” one.

The European: …this is also my concern! But there is another fundamental tool for EU-UK relations after Brexit: the EU-NATO strategic partnership on which you reported this year. Ioan M. Paşcu: Indeed, this spring I have written a report on EU-NATO relations, adopted with a rather large majority by the EP, praising the achievements and stressing the need for more cooperation between the two differring organisations (while NATO is a political-military alliance, the EU is not), but performing complementary tasks. Indeed, if the EU concentrates on internal security, NATO is responsible for external defence, both contributing, thus, to the overall security of the European citizens. A good illustration is the joint work on hybrid threats, cyber defence and military mobility.

The European: Another recent initiative, imagined by French President Emmanuel Macron is the project of a European Intervention Force (EI2) that was signed by nine Member States in June 2018. Is EI2, which is not part of the CSDP, a valuable tool in your eyes?

The European: But haven’t you expressed concerns of a spill over from recent difficulties in the EU-US trade relationship to the transatlantic security bond? Ioan M. Paşcu: Yes it is true. My concern is the tendency of the current US Administration to view the Europeans less and less as political-military allies and more and more as commercial and economic competitors, hoping that the increasing commercial competition will not negatively impact the political-military cooperation between the two sides of the Atlantic. But only time will tell... The European: And Trump’s intention to leave the INF Treaty? Ioan M. Paşcu: It is certainly a grave decision that matters to our European security, because we lose the “final” protection. I would rather say that we hope both sides will do their duty, the Russians responding to the accusations that they were already in breach of the Treaty, the Americans evaluating all the implications of their withdrawal. On the other hand, one cannot completely exclude that leaving the Treaty would confer both sides political and geo-strategic liberty.

The Vice-President and Nannette Cazaubon on their way to a conversation with the mayor of Racşa in the region of Tara Oaşului photo: Jean Cazaubon for ESDU


The European: Indeed world is changing… Mr Pas˛cu, I thank you for this insightful conversation you accorded me in your beautiful country which I was honoured to discover.

photo: The Official CTBTO Photostream, CC BY 2.0, Flickr.com

European security and defence

The end of America’s commitment to protect Europe Withdrawal from the INF Treaty – the new geostrategic thinking by the USA

by Harald Kujat, General (ret.), former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Berlin


he signing of the INF Treaty by US President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev on 8 December 1987, brought an end to a decade in which the nuclear threat to Europe had grown steadily larger. The Western countries in which American deterrence nuclear systems were to be stationed as a consequence of the so-called “double-track” decision had experienced vigorous political opposition. The peace movement had staged mass demonstrations. In terms of arms control, the INF Treaty broke new ground: the contracting parties undertook to destroy their ground based short- and medium-range nuclear systems with a range between 500km and 5500km and to no longer develop, build, test or deploy such systems in the future.

The struggle for European security The Soviet SS-20 missiles with three nuclear warheads threatened the whole of Europe but not the American continent. This superior euro-strategic potential in Europe could have led to an uncoupling from the strategic nuclear potential of the USA, entailing the risk of a nuclear conflict confined to Europe. The German chancellor, Helmut Schmidt, therefore demanded that Soviet medium-range nuclear weapons be included in the SALT arms control negotiations between the two nuclear superpowers or, alternatively, dealt with in a separate treaty. In 1979 he finally succeeded in persuading NATO to adopt the double-track decision, according to which the deployment of American Pershing II and cruise missile in Europe would go hand in

hand with the willingness to start talks about their removal and that of the corresponding Soviet systems. On 1 June 1988, the INF Treaty entered into force. By May 1991, the United States had destroyed 846 missiles and the Soviet Union 1846. The verification regime ended on 31 May 2001. On 20 October 2018, President Trump announced his intention to withdraw from the INF Treaty, despite the fact that only on 12 July 2018, he had approved a joint statement of NATO Heads of State and Government which said that “The Intermediate Range Nuclear (INF) Treaty has been crucial to Euro-Atlantic security and we remain fully committed to the preservation of this landmark arms control treaty.”

Russia’s quest for geostrategic advantage If Russia were to attempt once again to use medium-range nuclear missiles to gain a strategic advantage in Europe, Europe’s position would be very similar to that of 1979. Will Russia try once again to foil America’s nuclear deterrence capability? For some years now, the USA has been accusing Russia of violating the treaty, in particular because of its production of land-based SSC-8 cruise missiles. For its part, Russia is concerned that the United States is taking advantage of NATO’s ballistic missile defence system, the Aegis Ashore Missile Defence System (AAMDS) in Romania with a vertical launching system possibly capable of launching cruise missiles. If Russia continues deploying SSC-8 cruise missiles against Europe, NATO’s nuclear deterrent, including US strategic nuclear systems – the decisive security guarantee for all allies – would no longer be effective. NATO’s Strategic Concept could no longer be pursued and Europe’s autonomy and security would no longer be guaranteed. The USA’s withdrawal would make little difference if Russia is indeed intending to pursue such a policy by violating the



General (ret.) Harald Kujat

It is also doubtful whether such negotiations would lead to an outcome with Russia and China that would be anywhere near as effective Forces on 1 July 1959 and completed the 20th General Staff as the zero option of the current treaty. As the Course (Air Force), at the Command and Staff College, Hamburg. New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) 1992–1995 Chief of Staff and Deputy German MilRep to agreement has led to considerable cuts in the the NATO Military Committee and Western European Union, strategic nuclear arsenals of both the USA Brussels. 1996–1998 Director, IFOR Coordination Centre (ICC), Photo: private and Russia, the two sides would be keen to SHAPE, Belgium and later Assistant Director, International maintain a sufficient second-strike capability Military Staff (Plans & Policy) and Deputy Director, IMS, NATO Headquarters, Brustowards each other as well as towards China. sels. 1998–2000 Director of Policy and Advisory Staff to the German MOD, Berlin. In view of the overall geostrategic situation, 2000–2002, Chief of Defence (CHOD), Federal Armed Forces, Berlin. 2002–2005, withdrawal from the INF treaty may therefore Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Brussels. serve the long-term interests of both the USA and Russia. Following his meeting with President Trump on 16 July 2018 in INF treaty: Russia would simply have a freer hand to continue Helsinki, President Putin announced talks on the INF Treaty. developing its euro-strategic potential, unbound by any treaty. The hope that both Russia and the USA would make a serious Preserving the INF treaty would at least make it possible to attempt to preserve the treaty and agree to extend the lapsed attempt to constrain Russia and avoid a nuclear arms race. inspection regime, including to NATO’s missile defence systems, will probably come to nothing. It is more likely that the New thinking on US deterrence US administration intends to follow the example of the NATO The USA moreover finds itself in a different situation to that of double-track decision and deploy American land-based or sea40 years ago at the time of the NATO double-track decision. borne medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe as a counterWith China building up its strategic nuclear capability as well as weight to the Russian medium-range missile systems. medium-range nuclear systems, a serious threat has emerged, particularly in the Western Pacific. If in doubt, the USA will decide to pursue its national security Europe facing a major political crisis interests in the Western Pacific to the detriment of its NATO If this were to happen, Europe could face a major political criallies. There are however, serious doubts as to whether China sis. The East European NATO member countries would probably would be prepared to join negotiations for a new INF Treaty. accept the presence of American nuclear weapons on their soil, even if, in view of their geographic proximity to Russia, they would be less effective. The West European allies however, who have already experienced the rejection of nuclear weapons by their peoples, will probably face even greater resistance than 40 years ago. It is hardly imaginable that European governments could accept the stationing of American nuclear INF-Treaty weapons on their soil in the face of a broad-based nuclear dis(ed/nc, Paris) The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) armament movement. This would be equally true if the systems Treaty is a nuclear arms-control accord reached by the United were sea-born based. States and the Soviet Union in 1987. The INF Treaty requires was born in 1942 in Mielke. He joined the German Armed

the destruction of both parties’ ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilom-

Shaking the foundations of the Alliance

eters, their launchers and associated support structures and

In these circumstances, Europe must assert itself more than ever vis à vis both Russia and the USA. Ever since President Trump took office, the allies have feared that they can no longer count on the unwavering solidarity of the United Sates. Even now, Trump is pursuing a trade war against his allies, in itself a violation of the NATO Treaty. On top of that, if the strategic interests of the United States and Russia were to be aligned in withdrawing from the INF Treaty, the European allies would be bound to conclude that this lack of consideration for their security is tantamount to the betrayal of solidarity within the Alliance. Thus, there is reason to fear that the withdrawal from the INF Treaty marks the beginning of an internal conflict between Europe and the USA that might shake the North Atlantic Alliance to its very foundations.

support equipment within three years after the Treaty enters into force. In addition, two protocols to the treaty established unprecedented procedures for observers from both nations to verify firsthand the other nation’s destruction of its missiles. The treaty was signed by US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev on 8 December 1987. At the time of its signature, the Treaty’s verification regime was the most detailed and stringent in the history of nuclear arms control, designed both to eliminate all declared INF systems entirely and to ensure compliance with the total ban on possession and use of these missiles.


Making sense of the EU initiatives on defence The progressive framing of a common Union defence policy takes place now

by Michael Gahler MEP, Spokesperson on Security and Defence of the EPP Group, European Parliament, Brussels/Strasbourg


n recent months, EU institutions have experienced a Copernican revolution, organising EU support for defence together. Both external and domestic factors triggered this development.

Time to implement a political vision Russia’s violent activities in Ukraine and Syria, fragile or failed states in the Middle East and Africa harbouring terrorists, and organised crime structures are threatening the security of EU citizens. In addition, the current US administration’s repeated calls on Europeans to spend more on security has led to increased defence spending but not necessarily better spending. However, spending the taxpayer’s money better is a necessity. Governments have to cooperate more to make better use of the overall amount of national defence budgets. That is around ­­  210 billion each year. To achieve this goal, it makes sense to

photo: © European Parliament


use EU procedures and the common budget as an incentive for more, better cooperative programmes and multilateral forces. On the domestic front, the provisions regarding defence in the Lisbon Treaty are the key to better understand the current initiatives. Going beyond the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), EU observers have witnessed, for a couple of months now, intensified efforts to activate those provisions. As outlined in the EU Treaty, ‘the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy’ takes place now, which will lead to the establishment of ‘common defence’ (article 42.2 TEU). In the end, it is up to the Member States to organise ‘common defence’ within a European Defence Union covering both operations abroad and mutual defence. In pursuing this goal, Member States implement a political vision that European Parliamentarians have developed since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009.

Intergovernmental and supranational interaction

Indeed, the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty have the chance to improve our common defence. If implemented in a spirit of European integration, the European Defence Agency, as intergovernmental actor, can serve as Europe’s military planning agency. In this ambitious role, the agency serves as the preferred partner for aligning common defence planning with a meaningful Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD). Once Member States have a better Michael Gahler MEP common vision of current capabilities and future needs, has been a Member of the European Parliament they can translate those elements via the European since April 1999. Born in 1960 in Frankfurt/Main, Capability Mechanism into the Capability Development he is currently a member of the Foreign Affairs Plan (CDP). With the CDP, Member States can review Committee, serves as the EPP Group Coordinator in input from different European sources in order to agree the Subcommittee on Security and Defence, and is on common priorities for capability development. Later a substitute member of the Transport and Tourism Photo: private on, the CDP can assist as the central point of orientaCommittee. tion for research and development (R&D) efforts at EU level.


European security and defence

The definition of military needs Once it is clear what Europe’s military needs are, the supranational European Commission can take the CDP as one source for defining priorities for the European Defence Fund (EDF). With the fund, the Commission plans to provide defence research and development expenditure at an EU level with a value of  5.5 billion per year as of 2021. If the European Parliament and the Council agree on the suggestions of the Commission, there might be future EU defence R&D programmes up

to improve their decision-making processes. Take the example of the run-up to the EU’s mission in Georgia or the CSDP operation EUNAVFOR Sophia in the Mediterranean. In both cases, Member States generated sufficient political will before engaging with EU institutions. This highlights that we already have good institutions and procedures, but in some areas we lack common political will based on a common political assessment. Going beyond current EU initiatives will be the solution.

European Intervention Initiative (EI2)

Permanent Structured “The Cooperation (PESCO) aims at

building multinational forces in a reasonable way.”  Michael Gahler MEP

to the level of a prototype. Before the European elections in 2019, the EU legislators should find an agreement on both the content and the exact budgetary figure of the defence fund. In current discussions, the degree of involvement of non-EU companies and the way to include ethical scrutiny remain controversial.

Increased interoperability through PESCO If done right, research and development efforts at an EU level would bring Europe’s isolated islands of military cooperation to an end. Often mistaken as a new EU defence pact, the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) aims exactly at that – building multinational forces in a reasonable way. In pursuing this goal Member States can increase the level of interoperability among European forces and set-up such reliable forces for both operations abroad and common defence. Unfortunately, the current PESCO financing scheme refers only to the EU budget for administrative costs. However, previous experiences of the lack of cooperation in the area of research and development have been omitted. Apparently, merely dangling the carrot of the EU budget can change the mind-sets of Member States to cooperate in the field of defence. Therefore, the current intergovernmental financing scheme for the operative expenditure of PESCO might not improve Member States’ readiness to cooperate. As one of the two EU budget authorities, the European Parliament is ready to start discussions with the Council on how to improve funding of PESCO projects.

Countering this, President Macron’s initiative of September 2017 to build a European strategic culture makes perfect sense. Only by achieving a common European threat assessment and a common way to deal with threats, will we be able to improve the EU’s decision-making procedures. This is how we should understand Macron’s European Intervention Initiative (EI2), and not as a competing project to PESCO. I share his view to build as soon as possible a common intervention force, a common defence budget and a common military doctrine. It is a pity that these relevant strategic goals have been omitted from the letter of intent setting up EI2 in summer 2018. EU White Book on Security and Defence It is necessary, after the European Elections in 2019, that the Council and Parliament set up a process leading to an EU White Book on Security and Defence. In this White Book, Europeans have to define common defence interests and how to pursue those interests. In doing so, they could set the precedent for building a European strategic culture. This process might lead to common defence within a European Defence Union as foreseen in the Treaty of Lisbon.

CARD (ed/nc, Paris) In November 2016, Member States invited the HR/ VP to present proposals on the scope, modalities and content of a Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD). The aim is to foster capability development addressing shortfalls, deepen defence cooperation, and ensure more the optimal and coherent use of defence spending plans. The EDA, in cooperation with the European External Action Service, produced a concept paper detailing the various elements of CARD, with advice from the EU Military Committee and Member States’ Defence Policy Directors, Capability Directors, and National Armaments Directors.

Going beyond the current EU initiatives During recent months, new tools and initiatives have been developed within the CSDP. Nevertheless, these tools will only improve Europe’s security and defence if the EU’s overarching Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) gets a new boost of political will. Rather than advocating for a new intergovernmental EU Security Council, it would make sense for Member States

On the basis of that work, on 18 May 2017 the Council endorsed the modalities to establish CARD, starting in autumn 2017 with a ‘trial run’ involving all Member States. This should allow Member States to test, adapt and validate the approach as necessary ahead of the first full implementation of CARD in autumn 2019. > Web: https://bit.ly/2PoGS13


Our future is Europe A robust security architecture will only be possible within a European framework

by Wolfgang Hellmich MdB, Chairman of the Defence Committee, German Bundestag, Berlin


eyond differences and geographical boundaries there is a common interest – how Jean Monnet characterised Europe’s diversity. While this view has become largely accepted in economic terms, military cooperation and integration of EU Member States still have a long way to go. The challenges range from questions involving the competence of national parliaments, such as the Parliamentary Participation Act in Germany, to differences in public service law, to European cooperation in the armaments area and the interoperability of different European weapons systems. The latter in particular represents a key capability that will enable European forces to work together in the future and ultimately develop a common strategy and leadership philosophy. The aim is not to establish a parallel structure to NATO, but rather to promote Europe’s independence in security and defence policy, strengthen its alliance capability and secure Europe’s sovereignty.

Wolfgang Hellmich MdB is the Chairman of the Defence Committee of the German Bundestag since 2015. He is also a deputy member of the German subcommittee on disarmament, arms control and nonproliferation. He is a member, Photo: DBT / Stella von Saldern

among others, of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the Interparliamentary Confer-

ence for the CFSP and CSDP and the Cyber Security Council in Germany. He has been a Member of Parliament since 2012. His prior roles have included Managing Director of the Social Democratic Party in Dortmund and Düsseldorf and Managing Director of a real estate corporation in Dortmund.


Military integration – grounds for optimism Against this background, the decisions on the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), the Coordinate Annual Review on Defence (CARD) mechanism and the European Defence Fund (EDF), as well as the envisaged Franco-German armaments cooperation for the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) and the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS), in my view offer grounds for optimism. Nevertheless, these ambitious projects also need the proper backing of financial resources and, above all, the necessary political will in order to be successful. The paramount importance of interoperability and military integration of European forces can be seen not least by the Eurofighter Interoperability Enhancement Programme between the German Air Force and the Royal Air Force. The accord for this was signed on 18 September of this year despite all the upheavals surrounding Brexit, and is intended to harmonise and intensify future projects of both air forces in conjunction with the Eurofighter.

German-Dutch cooperation – a pioneering role With regard to military cooperation and integration, German-Dutch cooperation has assumed a pioneering role, both with regard to the common history of the two states as well as in terms of practical implementation. There are three fields of exemplary collaboration: Common leadership structures: The foundation was laid in 1995 with the creation of the German-Dutch Army-Corps. In recent years, military cooperation between the two countries has been clearly pushed forward in the direction of genuine integration. Nowadays there are both Dutch units under German command and German units under Dutch command. This common leadership structure underlines the great trust and confidence between the two countries which, in view of their history, is anything but to be taken for granted. Armament cooperation: The two states have also decided to cooperate in the digitisation of their land forces. This applies in

photo: 1 (German/Netherlands), CC BY 2.0, Flickr.com


European security and defence

particular to Mobile Tactical Communication (MoTaKo), which is one of the Bundeswehr’s high-priority procurement projects. Cooperation at this point would significantly improve the interoperability of both armed forces and close a capability gap on the German side that is often rightly criticised. Workshare: German-Dutch cooperation is thus already addressing very important questions regarding future European cooperation. This includes, for example, moving away from the ineffective and economically inefficient approach of maintaining equal or parallel capabilities in the armies of EU Member States, towards an efficient, cross-force leveraging of respective special capabilities and expertise. But strengthening interoperability and significantly reducing the number of weapons systems used in Europe through increased cooperation in the area of armaments also constitute additional priorities. Thus, German-Dutch cooperation today in many respects offers a blueprint for how to move forward on the path of military integration on a pan-European basis.

A European Framework – key for success It is clear that Europe will also have to play a more important role in security and defence policy in the future. Consequently, this also means that a robust security architecture will only be possible within a European framework. None of the individual European states today would be in a position to fully guarantee their own security – either in terms of having military capabilities or financing them. The statement made by German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz in a speech delivered in Paris on 29 August of this year, to the effect that he could envisage more mergers in the European arms industry, points in the right direction. The task before us now is to push ahead with the necessary political will to consolidate the security and defence industry in an effort to open up this sector and attain greater European autonomy.

Family picture of four defense ministers visiting the 1 (German/Netherlands) Corps in Münster, 22 June 2015. In the first line (left to right): Dutch Minister of Defense Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, U.S. Secretary of Defence Ash Carter, German Minister of Defense Dr Ursula von der Leyen, Norwegian Minister of Defense Ine Eriksen Søreide photo: 1GNC Münster, CC BY 2.0, Flickr.com

Backing Europe’s endeavour for PESCO by a common defence fund

Putting money where the mouth is by Andy Francis Stirnal, Berlin correspondent, The European – Security and Defence Union, Berlin


he European Union is about to launch a European Defence Fund – the EDF. The constant perceived failure of European defence marked an altered sense of mission, and the opportunity given by the negotiations of Europe´s new financial framework until 2027 was its originator. Additionally, shifts in geopolitics and alliances could cause dark clouds to sweep over Europe. But the future is bright! Incentives for research, development and acquisition foster an innovative and competitive European defence industry, stimulate the development of an “internal defence market” and a technological and industrial base that meets Europe’s security and defence needs.

Closing capability gaps At a high-level conference on the EDF that took place in Vienna in September 2018, various actors from politics, military and industry expressed their expectation that the EDF could close existing capability gaps. Conceivable, but under difficult conditions. Governments still largely plan for and invest on a national basis and they still have different capability development priorities. The path dependencies are enormous, the investment cycles in defence extremely long, the market quite fragmented with very uneven national industrial bases. A total amount of  13 billion for the 7 year period until 2027 represents, in theory, a clear and strong incentive to develop state-of-the-art and fully interoperable technology and equipment. Still, research and development of prototypes and products are particularly expensive in defence and entail significant technical and financial risks that, too often, neither companies nor Member States wish to bear on their own. As a consequence, many innovative ideas do not make it to market. This applies all the more to highly disruptive technologies. Bridging this ‘valley of death’ is a declared aim of the EDF which shall be reached via an acquisition and procurement facility that is linked directly to PESCO. Projects selected and qualified as “PESCO-projects” will benefit from increased funding rates, while Member States will have to guarantee the procurement of developed products. Using



aspects of the EDF seem well done. The financial envelope is solid, the “Many incentive system coherent, and the planned convergence with other funding

programmes could help to achieve the ambitious objectives of this instrument. ” Andy Francis Stirnal

European funding to play off national interests is an idea that has worked well time and time again, but unfortunately not always.

Member States’ commitment During the legislative process, research institutions argued for a high financial contribution of up to 100% – this reflects the US experience from the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) which is offering such incentives for disruptive ideas. So the EU will join suit, by directly financing total costs during the research phase, in particular through grants. After the phase of mere research, the EU, Member States and associated countries will award and agree on collaborative prototype development projects. To ensure the credibility of Member States’ commitment to these projects, including cost-sharing and ownership, the financial assistance of the EU will only represent 20% co-financing for the development of prototypes.

Promoting market uptake To boost market uptake, the phases of product development that are closer to the market – testing, demonstration, certification and exploitation – can apply for a funding rate of up to 80% of eligible costs. For the sake of fairness, the new “Horizon Europe” research framework programme, will continue to incorporate the pillar of “safe societies”. Both programmes will be strongly interlinked to avoid duplication but allow for coherence and mutual benefits, especially with a view to dual-use research. Results from civil R&D will benefit defence R&D and vice-versa. Moreover, the financing rate of those projects that are closer to market can be further increased for consortia that have

strong cross-border SME and mid-cap participation. The argument that only the big fish will benefit is thus, at least theoretically, refuted. Rather, it is precisely a question of increased cooperation and greater convergence between small and medium-sized enterprises and the European big ones. Indeed, such cooperation between unequal partners represent the value-added chain of large system integrators. This is nourishing the expectations that these cooperations will work here as well.

What projects will be funded? The final proposal of the EDF regulation is to be adopted in 2018 and it provides for a date of implementation as of January 2021. So, no concrete calls for proposals or annual operational programmes so far. However, within the framework of so-called preparatory actions – PADR, the European Commission seeks to assess and demonstrate the added-value of its support with a view of developing and further designing the EDF. These calls for proposals with limited funding with a total amount of between  25 and 40 million a year issued by the EDA will continue until the start of the EDF in 2021. The topical issues covered so far in these proposals, of a pilot nature, were among others: identifying key trends in defence technologies, enhancing situational awareness in a maritime environment by using manned and unmanned systems, complex interconnected system elements worn by soldiers, adaptive camouflage, protection against sensors or the creation of protective clothing. The scenarios where “strategic autonomy” is about to be lived out – peace enforcement, conflict prevention, stabilisation and support for capacity building as well as support for humanitarian operations, rescue and evacuation – provide reliable indicators of further topics to be expected.

Critical success factors

Andy Francis Stirnal is a certified European grants consultant. He worked for several years in Brussels as a public affairs consultant covering security and defence. Photo: private

Still attached to these topics, he is the Berlin correspondent

Many aspects of the EDF seem well done. The financial envelope is solid, the incentive system coherent, and the planned convergence with other funding programmes could help to achieve the ambitious objectives of this instrument. But success will also depend on the tiny details. Administrative effort for application and project management, legal certainty, exploitation rights and IPR issues, specifics and the thematic scope of calls for proposals, award and eligibility criteria will be decisive.

for this magazine since 2014. > Web: Factsheet on the EDF: https://bit.ly/2K6ao6b


European security and defence

The crucial role of the EDA in coordinating the race for capabilities Interview with Martin Konertz, Director Capabilities, Armament & Technology, EDA, Brussels The Bratislava European Summit, in September 2016, brought a new impetus and awareness that Europe must revitalise defence cooperation against the backdrop of increasing security challenges. Since then we have witnessed the emergence of several existing EU defence initiatives such as the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD) as part of the implementation of the new European Global Strategy, the establishment of the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and the launch of the European Defence Fund (EDF) by the European Commission. But what role does the European Defence Agency (EDA) have to play to ensure coherence among them? Hartmut Bühl met with EDA Director Martin Konertz in Brussels to hear his perspective of the ongoing developments.

The European: Mr Konertz, you are one of the three Directors of the EDA, responsible for Capabilities, Armament & Technology (CAT). Could you describe your mission as the CAT Director? Martin Konertz: The Agency supports its Member States and the EU-Council in their efforts to improve European defence capabilities. One of the key tasks of the CAT Directorate is to generate collaborative projects related to capability development together with interested Member States. That also entails system related projects with a Research and Technology (R&T) background. One of the major objectives is to develop common staff targets and requirements as well as business cases for Member States who participate in the projects. This harmonisation of requirements is an essential part of collaborative capability development. The European: And with regards to the new EU defence initiative, PESCO? Martin Konertz: The CAT Directorate is responsible for contributing to the PESCO Secretariat, a new unit within the Directorate that runs the assessment of project proposals handed in

photo: © European Defence Agency

PESCO is not solely an initiative focused on capability projects

by PESCO Member States, as well as the annual assessment of their National Implementation Plans (NIPs). My task as CAT Director is to set the objectives for the units and coordinate their work. This entails overseeing that our products are developed in a cross-directorate manner. The European: What is the exact role of the newly created PESCO Secretariat? Martin Konertz: The PESCO Secretariat is composed of the European External Action Service, including the EU Military Staff (EUMS) and the EDA. It delivers secretariat functions to the High Representative/Vice President. As laid down in the Council Decision of December 2017, these functions mainly include the assessment of NIPs and PESCO project proposals. The EDA assesses them from a capability perspective, while the EUMS does the same from an operational viewpoint. Based on this assessment, the High Representative recommends PESCO projects to the Council for approval. The European: On what criteria are you working? Martin Konertz: The EDA and EUMS have developed transparent assessment criteria for the capability and operational perspectives respectively. The former is designed around the EU Capability Development Priorities (CDP) and the likely impact of the project proposals on the coherence of the European capability landscape. Moreover, the EDA is also looking to avoid duplication, be it in an EU or NATO context. The European: Since its very beginnings, the EDA has been striving to create a certain coherence of capabilities, standardisation of weapon systems and coordination of R&T. It seems only now that Member States are willing to create a “full spectrum force”. What will be the outcome? Martin Konertz: The EDA plays an important role in the implementation of PESCO. Let me recall two important aspects. Firstly, the real power and value of PESCO lie in the 20 more binding commitments which could be seen as the basic plan to implement it. Its Member States committed themselves to report back through NIPs. Thereby PESCO becomes a tool and an obligation for Member States to take defence cooperation to



will be successful if it can strike the right security and defence “PESCO balance between the European and the various national perspectives.” 

another level. Secondly, PESCO should be regarded in conjunction with CARD, which provides an overview of the entire European defence capability landscape and serves as a pathfinder for collaborative opportunities. PESCO should also be seen in relation with the new EU Capability Development Priorities (EU CDP) approved by Member States in June 2018. They provide the baseline for collaborative capability development. The European: But can you explain what is behind the Member States’ new willingness to cooperate in this way and how will this work? Martin Konertz: I am not sure that we can speak about a ‘new willingness’. We have already seen collaborative initiatives in the past, such as Pooling & Sharing and Smart Defence in a NATO context. Today, we have a rapidly changing security environment and increasing defence budgets in many Member States. In addition, we are seeing a growing common understanding that capability requirements and increasing national budgets alone are not sufficient to overcome the biggest and most obvious gap: the lack of coherence across the European capability landscape. With the CDP, CARD and PESCO we now have operational tools to tackle this problem over time and in a continuous manner. The European: In recent years, the EDA has launched concrete projects in different areas. Will these projects be integrated into PESCO, or will PESCO efforts be established around these projects?

Martin Konertz

Martin Konertz: The EDA generates and launches capability related projects in a variety of areas and the configuration of participating Member States differs from project to project. PESCO, however, is a Member State-driven process. In other words: PESCO Member States lead the generation and proposal of projects. It is the Council that decides which of the proposed projects will be taken on. As laid down in the Council Decisions on PESCO, the EDA has the task of facilitating capability development and supporting Member States in ensuring that there is no unnecessary duplication with existing initiatives or in other institutional contexts. The ongoing capability related projects are owned by the contributing Member States. It is up to them to decide whether they propose them as PESCO projects or not. PESCO has just started but is designed to take a permanent character. We should give it some time to grow. I am convinced that we should also base our future efforts on the outcomes of the first full CARD cycle and the documents implementing the new EU Capability Development Priorities. The European: You are somehow optimistic that all this might work, but will Member States be able to realise at “home” that future systems will no longer be national, but European, with technologies to be shared in every way? What about the sense of cooperation versus national egoism? Martin Konertz: Looking at the legal basis of PESCO and the notification of PESCO Member States, PESCO is not about multinationally owned capabilities. The projects are designed to deliver capabilities in a collaborative manner. But we must

Martin Konertz and Hartmut Bühl discussing the organisation of PESCO during the interview at the EDA premises in Brussels 


photo: © ESDU

European security and defence

not forget that these capabilities and the related contributions from PESCO Member States are still owned and operated by themselves, not by somebody else.

Martin Konertz has been the Director Capability, Armament & Technology at the European Defence Agency since 2018. He joined the Bundes­

The European: PESCO aims at bringing Member States’ defence apparatuses in line with each other... Martin Konertz: … and to make them more and more convergent! This will not be achieved overnight and requires further political and planning efforts. At the end of the day, PESCO will be successful if it can strike the right security and defence balance between the European and various national perspectives. To ensure Member States’ commitment, it is essential that the national benefits become evident and visible in a convincing manner. The European: Projects are the visible part of PESCO. But isn’t it more important that Member States make PESCO a real tool to take defence cooperation to new political and credible horizons? Martin Konertz: If you look at the projects, it becomes obvious that PESCO must not be seen in isolation, but in conjunction with CARD and the new CDP. It is only together that they can fully incentivise Member States to shape their defence capability profiles, taking into account the overall European perspective which will help to achieve a more coherent European capability landscape over time. The European: How does the EDA establish projects and bring nations together to commit to finally creating – as far as possible – a coherent set of capabilities which are credible through their interoperability, the ability to deploy and sustainability? Martin Konertz: The EDA is the major intergovernmental prioritisation instrument at the European level. The EDA does not impose requirements and priorities on its Member States but it supports them in implementing capability priorities in a collaborative manner. Our baseline for generating collaborative projects is the new CDP which was derived from many inputs, including the EU Military Committee, but also from Member States’ long-term capability development views. Through our continuous dialogue with our Member States, we are in a position to provide an overview of the entire European capability landscape. Based on this, the Agency is also in a position to identify and propose potential opportunities for collaboration and to provide customised assistance to the Member States concerned. The European: How do you verify the reliability of nations in their efforts to heighten defence capabilities? What are the criteria and will you be able to avoid duplication? Martin Konertz: Clearly, the Agency does not verify the reliability of its Member States. The Agency has been given a clear task by the Council to support Member States in avoiding

wehr in 1976 and has held positions as Chief of Multinational Defence Planning Photo: EDA

at the MOD in Berlin, Deputy Adviser of the German Permanent Representative to

NATO, Deputy Chief of Staff at the BW Strategic Reconnaissance Command, and Commander of the 5th Signal battalion & HQ in Koblenz. He holds a Masters from the Royal Military College of Science in the UK and has completed the CHEM course at the Ecole Militaire in Paris and the General Staff course in Hamburg.

duplication. To this end we build on the oversight that we have of the European capability landscape and on our awareness and knowledge of the related collaborative activities Member States are involved in. That applies also to activities in a NATO context. Based on this, each PESCO project proposal will be assessed and the proposing Member States will receive a recommendation on ‘next steps’ which provide feasible ways ahead to avoid duplication, to establish complementarity with ongoing activities and/or to simply clarify by providing more information. The European: Can you also influence NATO projects? Martin Konertz: The EDA clearly does not influence NATO projects. The EDA provides an overview and advice on possible roadmaps for cooperation and assistance from its Member States. The Agency’s staff-to-staff contacts at the EU and NATO aim to contribute to the coherence of the output as laid down in the EU-NATO Joint Declaration signed in Warsaw in 2016. The European: Besides PESCO, national bilateral or trilateral cooperation activities (e.g. France-United Kingdom; Germany-Sweden and many others) continue. Will you have a say on these? Martin Konertz: Obviously, bilateral and trilateral cooperation is also taking place outside the EDA framework. This has been the case in the past and will continue in the future. But the new products the Agency is delivering – from the 11 new EU Capability Development Priorities and the Strategic Context Cases to implement them, to the CARD report and the PESCO assessments – represent a consistent and coherent toolset. It aims to inform Member States’ decision-making. Since Member States have only a single set of forces at their disposal, these new products may serve as sound guidance and a path towards a more coherent European capability landscape. 


Prospective roles for the EDA in the Common Security and Defence Policy Peace comes at a price, and demands investments

by Dr David W. Versailles and Dr Valérie Mérindol, newPIC chair, Paris School of Business, Paris


he necessity to invest in defence and security capabilities has never been as strong since the end of the Cold War. Real threats loom over Europe. China and Russia have caught up with capabilities from their previous technological backwardness. The former did not wait long before it mentioned its new military power to advance its points in international trade negotiations. The European Defence Agency (EDA) was established in 2004. Its legal basis has already been adapted twice, in 2011 and 2015, to accommodate evolutions in intergovernmental cooperation. Prospects for the EDA’s future build on progress made over the last 15 years. 2016 and 2017 have, however, marked a breakthrough with the European Commission (EC) and the European Parliament (EP) taking new steps in regards to their role in Defence and Security Research, Development, Tests and Evaluation (RDTE) funding and programming. This new governance scheme adds to the complexity. In this article, we first explain the context and then address two points: the importance of building the EDA’s in-house competencies, and the necessity to articulate RDTE in a dual-use framework.

Taboo issues Discussions regarding the EDA’s future most often forget the elephants in the room: the interaction with NATO and the prerogatives assigned to the different European institutions in


defence and security domains. Debates around the European Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) come up in relation to concrete issues on the elaboration of the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB), the pinkest of all elephants. Any institutional or political development of the CSDP reveals, sooner or later, some hidden agenda. No technology is neutral The development of defence and security operational capacities requires decisions at the crossroads of technological, economic, budget-related, and doctrinal issues. No technology is ever “neutral”. It implies a doctrine for the employment of force that makes it possible for politicians to operate missions that are potentially acceptable to public opinions. Citizens in European countries don’t accept similar defence objectives or similar tax levels to install forces and equipment. Peace demands investments 2017 marks a specific cornerstone. The European Defence Fund (EDF) was launched in June 2017 under the strong influence of the European Parliament. In the same month, the European Commission guidance was expanded into a “Reflection paper” where they described options for convergence levels and mutualisation opportunities. In parallel, the USA’s constraints on public finance and reorientation of strategic priorities towards the Pacific area lead to an evolution within NATO. Numerous countries have behaved for decades as if their adhesion to NATO made it possible to avoid public spending on defence

photo: © European Union, 2017; Source: EC-Audiovisual Service, Photo: Mauro Bottaro


European security and defence

EDA should be empowered to “The install and facilitate new types of

Dr Valérie Mérindol is the co-director of the newPIC chair (new Practices for Innovation and Creativity)

synergies, to handle adapted funding and governance mechanisms transcending the boundaries of closed defence ecosystems.”

consulting missions and public positions in these areas for over

D. Versailles/ V. Mérindol

15 years and is an expert on defence-related industrial policy

at Paris School of Business where she is a Professor in management science. She specialises in the management of innovation, science policies, and creativity.

Photo: PSB

She has been mixing academic activities,

making, with a focus on the governance of public policies (S&T and DIB policies).

equipment. They now understand that peace comes at a price, and demands investments.

Competencies and capabilities Operational capabilities only materialise because industrial capabilities exist in the ecosystem. In-house competencies empower public actors to fund and orient Research & Development (R&D) activities in the long run and to supervise the interaction with the industry. It is impossible to avoid the links between public and private actors, and public and private budgets: such coordination elaborates on the analysis of operational needs, on the definition of technical specifications for each programme, and on the appraisal of dual-use opportunities. No public institution can contribute to these debates without in-house competencies. They are required to facilitate the convergence of technical and doctrinal specifications, run co-development projects with the industry and, ultimately, create the conditions for superiority on the battlefield. It is impossible to manage the arbitrations between costs, priorities and specifications without them. In the stacking of European institutional layers, the handling of all these issues presumes a convergence between contributing Member States (MS). A major aspect of the EDA’s credibility builds on its ability to be present as a trusted third party in the intergovernmental framework. It fosters the emergence of joint visions and concepts for defence-related technologies and capacities, while other European institutions are in charge of security-related issues. The EDA faces very high levels of institutional complexity, similar to or higher than EUROCONTROL’s ones. Even if its resources are growing, the EDA’s budget and human resources are smaller than the ones available for the Single European Sky, or for security-related dual-use technologies in H2020. It is therefore easy to grasp why other European institutions have an increasing influence on defence and security topics, at the expense of the EDA.

Reflection on the Agency’s future The EC’s “reflection paper” published in June 2017 describes three scenarios consistent with the evolutions of the CSDP endorsed by the Council in December 2016. We bring in a bridge between these elements and potential evolutions of the EDA.

Dr David W. Versailles is the co-director of the newPIC chair (new Practices for Innovation and Creativity) at Paris School of Business where he is a Professor in management science. He is also a consultant for ISK CONSULTING, Photo: PSB

based in Luxembourg. He specialises in defence-related industrial policies - focusing

on the management of complex programmes, technology, and related budget/public finance issues -, strategic management, the management of organisations, and industrial economics. His consulting focuses on the management of innovation and on business modeling.

Scenario 1 The EC’s minimalist scenario pictures a framework of cooperation matching the current perimeter of EDA activities and its existing competences. The EDA would contribute to the emergence of a joint consensual vision on capabilities and technologies. Scenario 2 The intermediate scenario moves forward with “shared security and defence” able to project military power and to build joint capacities. In this framework, the EDA should be able to facilitate and head up activities for a small list of domains, and take over the leadership in these areas from contributing MS. Scenario 3 The most ambitious scenario deepens cooperation and integration towards common defence and security. This scenario



engineers, researchers and end-users (soldiers) work together from “When the earliest stages of the innovation process, they create effective solutions.” D. Versailles/ V. Mérindol would transform the EDA into the agency enacting defence-­ related industrial, RDTE and acquisition policies for EU Member States (in partnership with NATO). National agencies would only preserve prerogatives in the management of local specificities without any impact at a European level. We can eventually adapt these scenarios with differentiated perimeters on targeted capabilities for contributing MS on a case by case basis. The EDA would then connect with the other MS and appropriate actors in the industry or at government level.

MS contributing to the most important list of capacities would have a decisive influence, but the global governance of such an institutional design would become highly complex.

Capabilities interaction Technological evolutions and forthcoming disruptions require a change in the ways of working: defence and security capabilities do not evolve in a closed ecosystem anymore. Military-civilian coordination in R&D remains a recurring topic, but it shall accommodate new ways of working to deal with digital technologies such as “big data” and artificial intelligence. Thinking about this brings up two different aspects. Create effectice solutions First, it is necessary to accept that linear modes of innovation management, from basic research to development, do not exhaust the topic anymore. Dual-use policies describing “spinin” and “spin-off” mechanisms elaborate on this linear vision. Today, innovation is not only of a technological nature anymore, even in defence and security domains. When engineers, researchers and end-users (soldiers) work together from the earliest stages of the process, they create effective solutions. The installation and facilitation of user-centric innovation require specific technological and managerial competences and skills. Adapt rules and regulations The second perspective addresses the issue in terms of public policy making. It is necessary to understand that user-centric innovation requires an evolution in rules and regulations, in particular in the domains of public procurement and RDTE funding mechanisms. These aspects lead to specific actions for the EDA to be able to take its part in the elaboration of dual-use technologies in the age of user-centric innovation, while it is still only structured for linear processes.

Challenging Issues The EDA should be empowered to install and facilitate new types of synergies, to handle adapted funding and governance mechanisms transcending the boundaries of closed defence ecosystems. The originality of defence and security missions should be preserved in public procurement. Complementarities may emerge from the different funding and governance schemes attached to the European Commission, the European Parliament and the EDA. The most challenging issue relates however to decisions on the “rationalisation” or the “installation” of the EDTIB. The elephant is still in the room.


European security and defence

An industrial perspective

Prospects for further European air and missile defence cooperation

by Thomas Gottschild, Managing Director, MBDA Germany, Schrobenhausen


ATO’s Framework Nation Concept (FNC) has made progress in several areas. Cooperation in capability clusters and operational cooperation of armed forces has started to ramp up. A missing link, however, has been shown to be a common major armament project: air and missile defence is an opportunity.

Air and missile threats are real NATO members have recognised the threat of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and manned or unmanned aircraft systems that could simultaneously enter European territory from all directions. It is clearly understood and recognised that air and missile threats are real and are evolving. However, European countries won’t be able to effectively combat the entire spectrum of hostile force capabilities alone. Thus, task sharing and military cooperation are essential. With the FNC, proposed in 2013 and officially enacted at the NATO Summit 2014 in Wales, Germany attempted to launch defence cooperation among NATO countries. Under this concept, a ‘Lead Nation’ provides a capability framework that other states can use to ‘plug in’ parts of their armed forces. The essence of this concept is a commonly structured development of military capabilities in European states. The idea is derived from how NATO forms structures for multinational operations, but applied to the development of military capabilities. The approach is broader than pre-existing framework arrangements in NATO. With the NATO FNC, Member States decide to organise their capabilities in multinational clusters and build bigger military formations. Nations join together in a capability cluster while keeping their full defence-planning

sovereignty. 17 nations now cooperate with Germany through this framework. As part of NATO’s Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD) system, the German Air Force has traditionally been close to the Alliance. Germany could therefore become the Framework Nation in air and missile defence for most of its Framework Nation partners, and NATO as a whole. Germany created the necessary conditions by selecting its next generation air and missile defence system (Taktisches Luftverteidigungssystem/TLVS). With that decision, Germany

essence of the Framework “The Nation Concept is a commonly

structured development of military capabilities in European states.”  Thomas Gottschild

aims to secure, for the long term, ground-based air and missile defence capabilities that are sufficient to meet current and future threats by replacing Germany’s current and increasingly obsolete legacy systems. The TLVS will offer the German Air Force the necessary flexibility to react to different mission types with a 360-degree capability and a networked and distributed approach. It will also enable armies to plug their existing air and missile defence capabilities into an organisational backbone provided by Germany as a Framework Nation.

Thomas Gottschild has been the Managing Director of MBDA Deutschland GmbH since July 2016, also joining its Executive Committee. Since January 2018, he is the Executive Group Director of Strategy. Mr Gottschild was born in 1969 in Wiesbaden and graduated in electrical engineering Photo: ©bernhardhuber.com

from the University of Siegen. After his military service, he joined AIRBUS Defence & Space in 1996. Before his

current position, he was the Corporate Secretary in the company’s general management.

The German way forward The TLVS bidder’s consortium of MBDA Germany and Lockheed Martin is currently working on a proposal and is committed to a contract award in 2019. TLVS is scheduled to be put into service as of 2027 and ready to fully replace Germany’s legacy air defence systems by 2030. As the initiator of the Framework Nation Concept, Germany will not only overcome obstacles to defence cooperation, but also will act as a reliable military partner providing necessary military capabilities to NATO.



A model for the development of future European strategic projects

by Patrick Bellouard, President of EuroDéfense France, Paris


he European satellite navigation system Galileo is a symbol for European Union strategic autonomy. It is also a competitiveness tool for Europe now in service. When the European Union Member States (MS) agreed in December 2007 on the strategic importance of such a system for the future of society, they decided to launch the Galileo programme as a civil one. Galileo constitutes the only credible alternative to the monopolistic civil-military US Global Positioning System (GPS). The other two existing satellite radio navigation systems, the Russian GLONASS, operational again since 2014, and the Chinese Beidou, currently in the deployment phase, have been developed, like the GPS initially, for military purposes.

Major stakes for Europe The importance of global positioning systems for society will continue to increase considerably in the future, although the real impact on the functioning of society is not well known. GPS signals (time and position) are more and more used in all sectors – banks, telecommunications, energy, transports, intelligent infrastructures, health, logistics, cartography, agriculture, security, defence, etc. – without forgetting personal mobility of course. Political challenge The first challenge for Europe is political: although interoperable with the GPS, Galileo will provide Europe with autonomy


and security in this domain. GPS and Galileo interoperability will benefit users, but interoperability does not mean dependence: for the Galileo system, Europe has decided to control all requested technologies, refusing any cooperation (with China in particular) which could have reduced the security of the system. New services Galileo will also have a huge impact on our everyday life: thanks to its precision, time reference, service guarantee and integrity, Galileo will allow the development of a new generation of services, not only in the domain of transports, but also in many others. Economic challenge The economic challenge is also very important. More than 7% of the European economy depends today on these systems: smart phone applications (more than 50 %), transports (40 %), infrastructure works (5%) and agriculture (2 %). It can be noted that the VAT on the sale of receptors in Europe can easily finance the billion Euros which must be invested every year in the replacement of satellites and maintenance of the Galileo system. Technological and industrial development Finally, like Airbus and Ariane, the Galileo project will contribute to technological and industrial development in Europe. The Galileo experience could eventually constitute a model for

photo: ESA/ J. Huart

Galileo – a European achievement

European security and defence

the development of future European military systems, such as telecommunications satellites for example.

Patrick Bellouard has been the President of Eu-

Independent services but complementary to GPS

roDéfense France since April

When completed, Galileo will include a constellation of 30 satellites (24 operational and spares) equally spread on three planes inclined at 56°, at the altitude of 23 616 km, two mission and control centers (Oberpfaffenhofen and Fucino) which control and use the satellites’ data – in particular their very precise atomic clocks (one second for 3 billion years), a worldwide network of reception stations and two security centres (the main one near Paris), which control the security of the system and the access to the Public Regulated Service (PRS).

2016. Born in 1952 in France, he graduated in 1975 as an engineer from the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris and the Ecole Photo: private

nationale supérieure de l’aéro-

nautique et de l’espace in 1977. During his career he has served in several important functions in the French administration. In August 2004, he was tasked by the French Prime Minister to coordinate all ministerial departments and represent France in the EU Galileo

Galileo services Galileo will offer four different services: • first an open service (OS), fully interoperable with the GPS open service, but more precise; it is operational since mid2017, • a commercial service (CS) which is a navigation service with no free access but providing information on the integrity of the signal for specific civil users (it is still in development), • a Search And Rescue service (SAR), which can already been used (in particular as a replacement to the French system COSPAS-SARSAT), • a Public Regulated Service (PRS), more resistant and precise than the open service, accessible only to governmental users for defence and security purposes (it is still in development). Galileo and GPS will be fully interoperable for users. They will receive the GPS and Galileo signals on the same receptors. This double source will provide the users with a real advantage in terms of precision and security. An agreement has been signed between the US and Europe in June 2004 to guarantee complementary use and the compatibility between the two systems. Although the US tried to prevent the development of the Galileo system twenty years ago, they are now interested in having access to the PRS signal, as most European nations already have access to the GPS military signal.

Declared operational since 2017 The first large European infrastructure, developed and deployed through cooperation between the European Commission and the European Space Agency

programme. From March 2008 to February 2013, Mr Bellouard was the Director of OCCAR-EA.

(ESA), the Galileo program started more than 15 years ago by a definition phase. The full development phase was launched by the EU Council in December 2007 and the deployment phase started in 2009. The system was declared operational for the Open Service by the end of 2017 with 22 satellites deployed. The other services are expected in 2020, as well as the connection with the EGNOS system, operational since March 2011, which already complements the GPS signal over Europe for aviation safety. Currently, 26 satellites are deployed and the last ones will be launched by Ariane 6 from mid-2020 onwards, and Galileo has already 100 million users.

Galileo – an example for the defence domain Thanks to strong political will expressed by the EU Council, and thanks to the competence of the European teams in charge of the project in the European Commission, the European Space Agency and in the Member States, the Galileo system is now operational. As the first European-wide infrastructure, Galileo will provide Europe with autonomy and security in the strategic domain of satellite radio navigation. Its services, fully interoperable with the GPS but containing better information for potential users, will be accessible all over the world. This project constitutes a great European achievement; it could be used as a model for the development of future European strategic projects in the domain of security and defence, such as telecommunications or surveillance systems.

This project constitutes a great European achievement; “ it could be used as a model for the development of future European strategic projects in the domain of security and defence, such as telecommunications or surveillance systems.”

Patrick Bellouard



Satellite capabilities are key to enable high-tech government applications

Empowering governments to protect their nations with innovative satellite-based solutions by Nicole Robinson, Senior Vice President Global Government, SES Networks, Luxembourg


he drive for sophisticated communications applications in the defence and security space has significantly increased over the past few years. Five years ago, a data rate of 5 Mbps to support ISR platforms was more than sufficient. Now, these same platforms will seek up to 100 Mbps to deliver live streaming, full motion video to enhance situational awareness. The shift towards data-centric applications is prevalent throughout all areas of defence and security activities, including mission-­ critical tasks that are at sea, land, airborne, as well as crisis response and troops welfare.

Multi-orbit capabilities for government needs Given the growing appetite for bandwidth and services, we are harnessing our strengths as the world’s only multi-orbit operator, with the fleet of over 70 satellites in Medium Earth (MEO) and Geostationary (GEO) orbits. The services managed on the MEO network are more suited for latency-sensitive applications whereas the GEO HTS payloads could be used for applications that need both reach and bandwidth. To further meet the growing data demands, we have invested in the next generation MEO system O3b mPOWER. To be launched in 2021, this multi-terabit system will further boost network-centric operations via a “virtual fibre” network, serving the needs for cloud-based applications. O3b mPOWER will have multiple layers of active and inherent security and will feature over 4,000 beams per satellite, innovative ground infrastructure, software intelligence and automation, and will enable governments to autonomously manage beam capacity and location.

Advancing innovative approaches and technologies In addition to investing in more powerful and flexible satellite systems, we also offer governments innovative solutions in areas, such as commercially hosted government payloads. The European Commission and NASA are well versed in these programes, leveraging space and power on a commercial satellite to launch dedicated missions more rapidly than with a government-owned program. We also advance cutting-edge innovation through the synergy of R&D, industry and institutions, combatting the threats of the future. Through a program called QUARTZ (Quantum Cryptog-


raphy Telecommunication System), we will witness the power of combining the scientific communities’ research and industry expertise, within the ESA ARTES ScyLight programme. SESlead consortium is developing a satellite-based Quantum Key Distribution system and service architecture, that will result in a powerful tool for providing safe and intrusion-resistant data exchange. When the mission success is at a stake, the ability to bring enhanced communications rapidly is key. An innovative way for governments to guarantee cost-efficient access to secure satellite communications is to pool and share satellite communications systems. SES is leading a consortium within ESA’s GovSatCom Precursor Program, PACIS-1, to ensure governments can access secured networks at short notice. The European Commission has taken an important step in the direction of calling on the capabilities of the satellite communications industry, when it outlined an approach to securing its Space Strategy in the EU GovSatCom initiative. Together with the EDA, the Commission recognised that space and satellite communications are key elements of infrastructure in meeting the defence and security needs. The GovSatCom initiative will help reduce the fragmentation of demand and act as an anchor to guarantee access, coordinate requirements and ensure security.

Synergy of governments and private sector Innovations also spread towards the way governments are served today, including through forming public-private partnerships. One such powerful example is a 50/50 joint venture between the Government of Luxembourg and SES, called GovSat. It reveals the advantage of government involvement, which is serving its own strategies and NATO, as well as the ability to leverage private sector efficiencies. GovSat’s satellite GovSat-1 represents an international platform and is a true game changer: it provides for many countries access to highly secure capabilities exclusively designed for governments and institutions. Secure satellite-enabled connectivity solutions transform people’s day-to-day experience while on a critical mission, help raise morale and welfare, and more importantly save lives. Leveraging engagement of governments and the efficiency of a commercial organisation is certainly the way forward in order to further innovate and make the economics of secure communications systems increasingly more attractive and accessible.

Profile for esdu

The European Security and Defence Union Issue 31