It’s SDSR-day in the UK, when we finally get to hear what the government hasn’t leaked over the weekend (more F-35s), overnight (a pair of 5000 person ‘strike brigades’ for overseas use), last week (2000 new spooks), and so on, and so forth. The Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015, has a lot to make up for, given that the fudges (carrier strike, anyone?) of the last one are already coming home to roost. In fairness, however, the four highest priority risks identified in the 2010 SDSR (terrorism, cyber security, natural hazards, preventing international military crises) all appear to have been on the money, so to speak. Of the four, Libya and the Crimea is perhaps evidence that the UK did worst on the last point. Still, after Paris, and the rise of ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh, it’s clear that terrorism is going to remain a clear focus for the 2015 SDSR. Given that the Government appears to be on a full-court press to get Parliamentary approval for airstrikes in Syria (except when they’re an act of self defence versus its own citizens), it’s a fair prediction to make. But what’s the point? What is the end that the UK is seeking?
In the aftermath of the Paris attacks, it’s understandable that the rhetoric against ISIS has been ramped up, both at home and abroad. The UK has been talking about “defeating” ISIS’ ideology for a while now, and witnessing Brussels lock itself down to raid and arrest suspected terrorists lends a sense that European states are starting to take the “Trudeau approach” to jihadists. Still, as a strategy document, I hope that the 2015 SDSR doesn’t have “defeat ISIS” written into it, because, frankly, that’s impossible. Sure, we can bomb Raqqa, send in special forces, arm Kurds, arm Sunnis, arm Syrian rebels, and, in theory at least, pull apart the Islamic State as a functional entity, but that’s not going to make these ideas go away. As Will McCants points out in his excellent new book on ISIS’s ideology, there’s no telling what lessons ISIS (and its adherents) would learn from such a defeat. They might pack up their bags, but equally, they might take it as a lesson that they need to “double down” on apocalyptic violence, bloodletting and fear. That can never be defeated by force, nor, really, can it be “defeated” or “eradicated” in the increasingly illiberal environment at home. British society is, however, littered with the remnants of violent ideologies from the past decades and centuries. The British state never “defeated” or “eradicated” anarchism, Stalinists, Maoists, and so on, and so forth. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that the British state could do to eradicate these ideologies. Although there are plenty of smart people who profess similar beliefs, at the extremes there are always those who are essentially as impervious to reason as the most warped jihadist getting his kicks with a kalashnikov somewhere in between Aleppo and Mosul. Setting out to defeat an ideology is a set-up for a fall. Anarchists once struck fear into the states of Europe, now, they are, to borrow from Douglas Adams, “mostly harmless”. The UK shouldn’t seek the end of ISIS, it should seek to make it irrelevant.
Die Wirtschaftskrise in der EU und die Maßnahmen zur Konsolidierung der nationalen Haushalte haben erhebliche soziale Folgen – zunehmende Armut, hohe Arbeitslosigkeit und insbesondere Jugendarbeitslosigkeit. Die Rufe nach Solidarität innerhalb der EU werden lauter, das Streben nach einem sozialen Europa rückt auf der europapolitischen Agenda weiter in den Vordergrund. Dabei ist die Forderung nach einer sozialen Dimension des europäischen Integrationsprozesses so alt wie dieser Prozess selbst. Soziale Belange sind seit jeher wesentlicher Bestandteil der europäischen Einigung.
Umstritten und unbefriedigend bleiben jedoch bis heute die Antworten darauf, wie ein soziales Europa aussehen sollte und welcher Weg zu diesem Ziel führen könnte. Welche Instrumente braucht eine EU-Sozialpolitik? In welchem Verhältnis sollen die Sozialpolitiken der Mitgliedstaaten und jene der EU stehen? Wäre eine verstärkte soziale Dimension primär für die Eurozone nötig, um die restriktiven nationalen Budgetpolitiken auszugleichen, oder sollte sie das Leitprinzip sein für alle 28 Mitgliedstaaten der EU?
Die Studie bietet einen Überblick über den derzeitigen Bestand des sozialpolitischen Acquis und diskutiert verschiedene Vorschläge, wie die EU ihre soziale Dimension stärken könnte. Generell gilt, dass die vielleicht wichtigste politische Funktion der europäischen Sozialpolitik darin besteht, die Legitimität des Integrationsprozesses zu stärken und das Zusammengehörigkeitsgefühl in Europa zu festigen. Solidarität ist in der Regel die Folge einer gewachsenen Identität in und mit einer politischen Gemeinschaft. Die EU muss den umgekehrten Weg gehen – durch die Institutionalisierung einer europäischen Solidarität, die für die Unionsbürger sichtbar ist, kann eine gemeinsame Identität wachsen.
Andrea Gilli received the EDA-Egmont PhD Prize during the European Defence Agency’s (EDA) Annual Conference held on 16 November 2015. The award was handed over by Prof Sven Biscop, Director of “Europe in the World Programme” at the Egmont Institute, and Rini Goos, EDA Deputy Chief Executive.
The biannual EDA-Egmont PhD prize is awarded by the European Defence Agency and the Egmont Institute to academic scholars to stimulate research in the field of European defence, security and strategy. This year’s winner, Andrea Gilli, is a post-doctoral fellow at the Centre for Security Studies, Metropolitan University Prague, and his research on armaments cooperation has received recognition. The awarded thesis is titled “Unipolarity, Technological Change and Arms Manufacturing: Industrial Alliances in the European Defense Industry”.
Before handing over the award, Rini Goos, EDA Deputy Chief Executive, raised the issue of the future visions which often combine the practitioner’s and academic perspectives: “The practitioner’s view comes from accumulated experience, realism, pragmatism and an understanding of the practical mechanics of defence and diplomacy. The academic view on the other hand is blessed by being outside the system and provides objectivity, independence, innovation and analysis in a global context. Together, these perspectives provide a complete picture.”
Prof Sven Biscot pointed out that the winner of the prize delivered a very courageous thesis based on an extensive and empirical material, and that it presents very concrete ideas for defence policies.
“It is an honour to be here today to receive this prize and to share the contents of my research with you,” said Andrea Gilli. “In the age of fast technological change and budgetary constraints, we often hear that European countries have to increase their cooperation on future military technologies,” he said and added that such cooperation may be extremely difficult because of “the process of technological disruption”. In his thesis, Gilli dwells upon, among other things, various aspects of cooperation in armaments production, technological advancement as well as implications for the European defence industrial base.
Background
EDA-Egmont PhD prize was created in 2013 to stimulate research in the field of European defence, security and strategy. The unique partnership enables Egmont to ensure academic substance while the EDA exposes the research to the heart of the European policy making.