European Union

Newly appointed Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne defended the pension reform Macron wishes to implement during his term of office in an interview with the Journal du Dimanche (JDD) on Sunday. The president has announced an increase in the legal retirement...

The leaders of Hungary and Serbia reaffirmed their strategic partnership over the weekend after being re-elected last month, with Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić saying they had agreed that Serbia could store some of its energy on the territory of its...

Of the 9,582 companies in the Czech Republic with Russian ownership, dozens have changed their citizenship since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine to avoid sanctions or outflow of clients. As news site Seznam Zprávy reported, 154 owners of...

Portugal will provide technical support to Ukraine in its EU accession process and Kyiv’s European option should be welcomed “with open arms,” Portuguese Prime Minister António Costa said on Saturday. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s deputy chief of staff will visit...

Finland will proceed towards NATO membership at the same pace as Sweden, parliament Speaker Matti Vanhanen from the Center party told broadcaster YLE in an interview on Saturday. Finland and Sweden formally applied to join the NATO alliance on 18...

The heads of each house of the Irish legislature met with several Ukrainian officials, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy,  while on a recent visit to Kyiv. Seán Ó Fearghaíl, chair of the Dáil, the lower house of Ireland’s parliament, and...

After the presidential elections last month, voters in France will elect a new national parliament three weeks from now, choosing 577 Members of Parliament (MPs) for five years through two rounds of votes in single-member constituencies. If no candidate receives...

Ukraine can defeat Russia and even regain control of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, said former Slovak Finance Minister Ivan Mikloš, noting that anything other than the military victory of Ukraine would be a dangerous compromise. Mikloš is the former advisor...

Some 630,000 weapons are listed as "wanted items" in EU police databases, amid growing worries over right-wing extremism.

Last-minute Israeli blacklistings and red lines have prompted MEPs to call off an official trip, posing the question if Israel can belittle the EU Parliament with impunity.

Written by Sofija Voronova and Piotr Bakowski.

This paper is one of 11 policy responses set out in a new EPRS study which looks first at 15 risks facing the European Union, in the changed context of a world coming out of the coronavirus crisis, but one in which a war has been launched just outside the Union’s borders. The study then looks in greater detail at 11 policy responses the EU could take to address the risks outlined and to strengthen the Union’s resilience to them. It continues a series launched in spring 2020, which sought to identify means to strengthen the European Union’s long-term resilience in the context of recovery from the coronavirus crisis. Read the full study here. The issue in short: The challenge and the existing gaps

In a rapidly changing and increasingly interconnected world, the EU security landscape has become very complex and unpredictable. When commenting on the adoption of the July 2020 EU security union strategy, Commission Vice-President Margaritis Schinas described security as a cross-cutting issue, pointing to the ‘the false dichotomy between online and offline, between digital and physical and between internal and external security concerns and threats’.

Some of these threats are indeed of an external nature and their manifold impact on the bloc’s stability calls the distinction between internal and external security into question. The crisis at the EU’s eastern borders is one illustration of such a ‘hybrid threat‘, with the Belarussian regime seeking to destabilise the EU by instrumentalising migration flows and playing on the related insecurities of EU citizens. The current war in Ukraine is likely to have a major impact on the EU, extending well beyond the military and foreign relations spheres. Possible implications for internal security are already illustrated by reported attempts at trafficking for sexual exploitation, targeting persons fleeing Ukraine (mostly women and children), as well as cases of online fraud and cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure. They also include the risk of large-scale diversion of firearms, not least given Ukraine’s key role in the global arms trade, one that has only increased in recent years. Moreover, there is a possibility of criminals making use of the situation at the EU border with Ukraine to enter the EU territory using false identity documents.

Another set of security challenges relates to societies’ growing reliance on digital technologies and the internet. This ‘online dependency’ has raised the stakes regarding the potential impact of cyber incidents, in particular large-scale attacks targeting critical infrastructure and possibly leading to the disruption of essential services. While artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to tackle these threats, it is a double-edged sword as it can also be exploited for malicious ends. The proliferation of cybercrime and difficulties obtaining electronic evidence stored in foreign jurisdictions call for the modernisation of law enforcement and efforts to seek solutions at EU and international levels so that the work of crime-fighting authorities is not impeded by territorial boundaries.

The Covid-19 pandemic has impacted on the EU’s internal security in various ways. While many activities, such as working and schooling, moved online, so did criminal syndicates. According to Europol, the number of malware and ransomware attacks has surged, as has the availability of (mostly self-produced) child sexual abuse material. Moreover, extremist narratives and disinformation spread online may have fallen on fertile ground in the times of pandemic-related insecurity, potentially leading to further polarisation and radicalisation towards violent extremism.

The EU has gradually increased its capabilities in the field of internal security, developing an arsenal of bodies and instruments to address security threats, within the strict boundaries set by the EU Treaties. Nevertheless, issues remain regarding the extent of information sharing between Member States’ authorities and the use they make of EU judicial and police cooperation tools and agencies. As for the external aspects, while the as yet slow development of the common security and defence policy (CSDP) may present a range of obstacles to effective EU action, the Ukraine crisis seems to be providing impetus to overcome them.

Existing policy responses EU action

Whereas security is primarily within Member States’ remit, according to Article 67(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), ‘the Union shall endeavour to ensure a high level of security’ through a variety of measures. In this vein, the EU has developed the ‘security union’ concept, based on the idea that the EU and its Member States need to shift from cooperating to protect the national security of each of them to protecting the collective security of the Union as a whole.

The new security union strategy, adopted in July 2020, adopts an integrated approach, aimed at ensuring security in both the physical and digital environments and takes into account the interconnection between internal and external security. The strategy sets four main priorities: achieving a future-proof security environment, tackling evolving threats, protecting Europeans from terrorism and organised crime, and building a strong European security ecosystem.

A future-proof security environment. Whereas cybersecurity is a prerogative of the Member States, over the years the EU has developed a complex and multi-layered cyber ecosystem, spanning an array of policy areas, both internal (justice and home affairs, digital single market) and external (diplomacy and defence). Under the new EU cybersecurity strategy, the Commission put forward legislative proposals to update the network and information security directive (NIS2) and the rules on critical infrastructure protection, to enhance, respectively, the cyber and physical resilience of critical entities and networks. It also intends to propose an EU Cyber Resilience Act in 2022. Work has started on setting up an EU joint cyber unit – a platform for operational cooperation, bringing together civilian, diplomatic, law enforcement and defence actors. Under its external action, the EU will continue to use its cyber sanctions regime, as part of its cyber diplomacy toolbox. A Member States’ EU cyber intelligence working group is also planned.

Tackling evolving threats. Faced with hybrid threats that are unprecedented, in both scale and diversity, the EU set out its approach to counter hybrid threats in the 2016 joint framework and the 2018 joint communication on bolstering hybrid resilience. The 2020 security strategy announced a new EU approach based on mainstreaming hybrid threat considerations into all policy initiatives. Commission is also aiming to develop situational awareness, with the EU Hybrid Fusion Cell at the EU Intelligence and Situation Centre (EU INTCEN) being the focal point for hybrid threat assessments. Another important objective is to modernise EU law enforcement, enhancing its capacity to conduct digital investigations and to use adequate tools, including electronic evidence, AI and big data analytics. The proposed EU e-evidence framework would allow competent authorities to request electronic data needed for investigation and prosecution directly from service providers, while the future EU AI act should regulate the use of AI in law enforcement, classified as ‘high risk’. In 2022, the Commission is also intending to suggest a way forward for lawful and targeted access to encrypted information in criminal justice.

Protecting Europeans from terrorism and organised crime. Tackling the terrorism threat has long been and remains a priority, as illustrated by the adoption of the new EU counter-terrorism agenda in December 2020. The main EU instrument in this area is the Combating Terrorism Directive, which harmonised definitions and sanctions for terrorist offences across the EU. The EU has also taken initiatives to prevent violent extremism, especially online, such as the regulation on dissemination of terrorist content online, to apply as of 7 June 2022, or the recent proposal to add hate crime and hate speech to the list of serious crimes with a cross-border dimension under Article 83(1).

The EU has continued to reinforce its framework for combating money laundering (AML) and terrorist financing (CFT), with an ambitious AML/CFT package presented in July 2021. The package provides for the establishment of a new EU authority: a decentralised EU regulatory agency to be in charge of AML/CFT supervision and supporting EU financial intelligence units (FIUs). The package also includes measures on crypto-assets, extending to such assets the obligation to report suspicious transactions and introducing a ban on anonymous crypto-wallets.

In order to prevent terrorists and criminals from easily acquiring firearms or reactivating de-activated weapons, the directive on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons started to apply from 2018, accompanied by an implementing regulation on deactivation standards. The new 2020-2025 action plan on firearms trafficking aims to address the ‘remaining legal loopholes and inconsistencies in firearms controls that hinder police cooperation’ and to step up international cooperation, focusing on south-east Europe (western Balkans, Ukraine and Moldova).

A number of recent initiatives address other specific forms of crime. They include strategies and action plans against trafficking in human beings, drugs, organised crime and child sexual abuse online. A renewed action plan on migrant smuggling develops, for instance, an EU response to the instrumentalisation of irregular migration by State actors. As to human trafficking, the Commission is conducting an evaluation of the 2011 EU Anti-Trafficking Directive with a view to its possible review. Regarding the EU’s preparedness and response to public health-related risks, such as chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) threats, the Commission is building up strategic reserves of response capacities through the EU Civil Protection Mechanism.

Figure 52: Consolidating EU internal security

A strong European security ecosystem. In a Europe with no internal borders, information sharing and data exchange between national authorities is of the utmost importance, in order to address complex cross-border threats. In December 2021, the Commission presented a police cooperation package, with proposals on information exchange between law enforcement authorities, on automated data exchange under a renewed Prüm framework, and on operational police cooperation. It complements and updates the already existing information exchange architecture, supporting border management and law enforcement cooperation and comprising a growing number of EU information systems, which rely increasingly on AI technologies. New legislation adopted in 2019 established interoperability rules between these systems, with technical solutions to be put in place by 2023 and to be managed by the eu-LISA. An important development was the decision to expand Frontex (transformed into a European Border and Coast Guard Agency) to include a standing corps of up to 10 000 operational staff by 2027. Improving management of the EU external borders (including in cases of health crises or hybrid attacks) is also one of the objectives of the ongoing Schengen reform.

The EU has continuously built on its institutional architecture, reinforcing the role of its agencies in the area of security and justice. In February 2022, the co-legislators agreed to strengthen Europol’s mandate, empowering the agency to cooperate more effectively with private parties, conclude international agreements, conduct research and innovation activities, and process big data sets. The Commission also made proposals on modernising the Eurojust case management system and on upgrading its Judicial Counter-Terrorism Register. It also took an initiative to extend the mandate of the newly created European Public Prosecutor Office (EPPO) to terrorism.

National level initiatives

The EU recognises the fact that in some areas, national, regional and local authorities may be best placed to address security threats. Radicalisation towards violent extremism and terrorism is one such area where the EU role has been limited to supporting the activities of various stakeholders, providing funding for research and collecting and disseminating best practices. This includes the activities of the Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN), connecting frontline practitioners from across Europe with one another, as well as with academics and policymakers. The protection of public spaces is also mostly in hands of non-EU level actors, with the EU setting up forums for the systematic exchange of information, publishing guidance and providing funding. Regarding EU security-related funding, in the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF), for the first time, a separate Heading 5 is dedicated to security and defence. The Internal Security Fund (ISF), allocated € 1.93 billion (current prices), is the main instrument aimed at ensuring EU internal security, by tackling terrorism and radicalisation, serious and organised crime and cybercrime.

EU action with external partners/international organisations

The transnational nature of many threats to EU internal security underscores the need for international cooperation. This could take form of international agreements between the EU and third countries and international organisations, as well as of agreements or working arrangements between EU agencies and their foreign partners. The 2001 operational agreement between Europol and the Interpol – allowing for the transfer of personal data – is one example of the latter. In April 2021, the Commission published a recommendation for a Council decision authorising the negotiations for a cooperation agreement between the EU and Interpol. The agreement, currently under negotiation, would be broader in scope and cover also other EU agencies, such as Eurojust, EPPO and Frontex. One of the principal benefits sought is the access of EU bodies to the whole range of Interpol’s databases.

Cross-border access to electronic evidence in criminal matters is an area regulated by a web of international agreements. The EU has been seeking to assert its role as a rule setter in this field: in parallel with the 2018 ‘e-evidence’ proposals, the Commission, on behalf of the EU, entered into negotiations on an agreement with the United States, where the largest service providers are based, and on the Second Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (known as the ‘Budapest Convention’), devoted specifically to enhanced co-operation and disclosure of electronic evidence . Direct cooperation between foreign authorities and service providers is among the issues covered by these initiatives. As for the Protocol, the negotiations have been concluded and it is set to be open for signature in May 2022.

In 2019, the United Nations (UN) passed a resolution, introduced by the Russian Federation, with a proposal meant to serve as the baseline for developing a UN convention on cybercrime. The proposal largely extends the catalogue of cyber offences while making no reference to the protection of human rights and liberties (such as freedom of expression), thus raising issues with the UN members’ obligations under the existing treaties, such as the Budapest Convention. It has been strongly opposed by the EU.

Regarding hybrid threats, and cybersecurity in particular, since the Warsaw Joint Declaration of 2016, the EU has enhanced its cooperation with NATO and its agencies and related bodies (such as the Helsinki-based European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats). Countering hybrid threats and expanding coordination on cyber-security and defence are two of the seven areas for enhanced cooperation decided at the time. Exchanges of information and assessments, joint training and reciprocal participation in cyber-exercises are among ongoing activities in the cyber realm.

Obstacles to implementation

When the ‘security union’ concept emerged in 2016, some commentators called into question the achievability of such an ambition, pointing to the diversity and fragmentation of the ‘insecurity landscape’ among the Member States. One of the aims stated by the Commission was to close the gaps in cooperation and bring about a culture change, where information exchange is guided by the principle of the ‘need to share’ instead of the ‘need to know’. EPRS reports on the cost of non-Europe in the area of freedom, security and justice do indeed point to a lack of information-sharing among various EU and national information systems, and to the limited use made of the (analytical) support and coordination possibilities provided by EU agencies. The report on the fight against terrorism highlights the need for more and better impact assessments and evaluations of EU measures taken so far, as regards their effectiveness, efficiency and fundamental rights compliance.

While there is a wealth of EU instruments in the field of internal security, they are not always used to their full potential. The framework for police cooperation is fragmented and characterised by the coexistence of cooperation agreements between Member States with a range of EU instruments, such as the ‘Prüm Decisions‘ (currently under review). One consequence is uncertainty as to which rules national police should follow when intervening in another Member State. While information exchange between police forces has improved, Member States’ security and intelligence services are reluctant to cooperate through EU channels.

Similarly, in the area of cybersecurity, a 2019 EU Court of Auditors (ECA) report pointed to the fragmentation and complexity of the EU cybersecurity ecosystem. According to the ECA, there is a lack of measurable objectives, outcomes of EU action are rarely measured, and few policy areas have been evaluated. Among the challenges, the ECA points to the need to shift towards a performance culture with embedded evaluation practices and to develop a rapid detection and response capacity.

Another obstacle that can hinder the transposition of EU measures into national laws is the difference between national legal orders in general, and criminal laws in particular. For example, the recent evaluation of the Counter-Terrorism Directive showed that in some Member States challenges arose around classifying some types of conduct, e.g. violent extreme right-wing acts, as acts of terrorism.

Evaluations of the efficiency and effectiveness of the EU security-related measures have long been scarce. In 2017, the Commission issued a first comprehensive assessment of EU security policy. It concluded that EU intervention in this area has been relevant and appropriate. It stressed however the need for proper implementation of different instruments to ensure their effectiveness, as well as the necessity to update existing tools, adapting them to evolving threats. In 2020, Commission followed-up with a report taking stock of the implementation of internal security policies between 2017 and 2020, which points to a significant increase in the number of evaluations and reports conducted in this area and their positive impact on adapting the policy and legislative framework.

The ultimate challenge for EU security policy pertains to its very foundations, as it is supposed to be grounded in common European values, such as democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (including data protection). Many security-related instruments at both national and EU levels have been criticised for not respecting these values.

Policy proposals by experts and stakeholders

Given the primary role of decentralised agencies in EU internal security, many of the suggestions offered by experts and stakeholders focus on their desired evolution. For example, to address the problem of prosecutors and police having differing powers across the EU – which hampers their cooperation in the framework of Eurojust and Europol respectively – it has been proposed that the two agencies should be merged into a single EU criminal justice cooperation body. Less radical ideas for strengthening the links between them include relocating Europol and Eurojust to a single building, connecting them with a common IT system and creating a single data protection regime for these bodies.

Although Europol’s mandate is set to be further strengthened by the ongoing reform, the possibility of turning the agency into an FBI-type body, alluded to by the European Parliament in 2017, is not among options considered under the current negotiations. However, the idea has been repeatedly floated by political leaders and parties and the subject of academic debate. Such a development would entail granting the agency executive powers, such as to conduct its own investigations and make arrests, precluded though by the current legal framework (Article 88(3) TFEU provides for a supportive rule for Europol and stipulates that the ‘application of coercive measures shall be the exclusive responsibility of the competent national authorities’).

Likewise, calls have been made to form a ‘European intelligence agency’, with the academic world divided, however, on the issue of the feasibility of such a move and the best way forward for the EU to improve its intelligence capabilities. One author presented the idea of developing intelligence cells serving the president of the Council and the president of the Commission, rather than one central agency. Enhancing cooperation among existing European bodies is a less radical recommendation: a ‘transnational committee of politicians and security experts’ could be set up to analyse the necessary procedural and organisational changes.

Specific improvements have been proposed regarding cooperation between police and security and intelligence services. As first step, liaison officers could be seconded by Europol to the Counter-Terrorism Group (CTG) and vice versa. If successful, cooperation could then develop along the lines of the German Joint Counter-Terrorism Centre (GTAZ): Europol and the CTG would jointly recommend measures on persons of interest to national security and intelligence services whose refusal to act on such recommendations would need to be justified.

In the area of common foreign and security policy (CFSP), in 2018, before the process leading to the adoption of the Strategic Compass was launched, there was a suggestion to make use of enhanced cooperation under Article 329(2). The participating Member States would commit to a division of labour between their respective intelligence services that would work on jointly agreed thematic and regional priorities. A European circle of intelligence analysis would thus be set up whereby the planning and prioritisation of intelligence resources would be coordinated at EU level, the collection and initial processing of raw intelligence would remain at national level, and the EU-SIAC would provide the final evaluation, leading to the dissemination of intelligence reports to decision-makers and feeding into the next cycle. In parallel, political forums could be strengthened to streamline the use of intelligence by policy-makers (e.g. a European Security Council could be established, as proposed by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel).

Position of the European Parliament

In its 2020 resolution on the EU security union, the Parliament welcomed the new strategy, while emphasising the need to fully implement and evaluate existing EU legislation in this area, such as the interoperability of EU information systems. It also called for proper funding and staffing of EU agencies and bodies in the field of justice and home affairs (JHA) and reiterated its calls for the assessment of a potential extension of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office’s (EPPO) mandate, once it was fully operational.

In its 2018 resolution setting out the recommendations of the Special Committee on Terrorism, Parliament had already advocated strengthening the specialised EU agencies and services and providing them with adequate means, as well as expanding EPPO powers to tackle terrorism and organised crime. On this occasion, Parliament also urged the Member States and EU institutions to work towards a common strategic culture, and called for efforts to step up international cooperation. It also called for the setting up of an EU joint intelligence academy, with common standards, in order to combine resources and develop synergies, trust and a common intelligence culture.

In 2017, the Parliament made several proposals to further consolidate the EU’s institutional framework in the JHA area. One possibility would be to provide Europol and Eurojust with genuine investigation and prosecution competences and capabilities, possibly by transforming them into a genuine European Bureau of Investigation and Counter-Terrorism, with due parliamentary scrutiny. Another would be to establish a European investigation and intelligence capacity within Europol, under the control of the judiciary. In this context, Parliament recommended making security a shared competence, considering that security would be better ensured if it were not an exclusive competence of the Member States. The Parliament also proposed to set up a European Intelligence Office to support the EU’s common foreign and security policy (CFSP).

The 2021 resolutions on AI in criminal law and the EU’s cybersecurity strategy attest to Parliament’s attentiveness to the evolution of threats and challenges linked to technological progress and digital transformation, including those of a ‘hybrid’ nature. In this context, in its 2022 resolution on foreign interference, Parliament called on the EU institutions to further develop and boost the important work of structures such as EU INTCEN and Hybrid Fusion Cell, among others, and welcomed the establishment of the EU cyber intelligence working group within EU INTCEN with a view to advancing strategic intelligence cooperation. Parliament also recommended the creation of a joint cyber unit, to close the information sharing gap and enable full use to be made of existing structures, resources and capabilities, in order to protect the EU from serious cross-border cyberattacks.

In focus: Intelligence cooperation in the European Union
Under Article 4(2) TEU, ‘national security’ – and thus intelligence activities – remains the sole responsibility of the EU Member States. Article 73 TFEU leaves it to them to organise ‘such forms of cooperation and coordination between the national security services that they deem appropriate’.
Until now, EU Member States have not gone far in sharing or pooling intelligence at EU level. National intelligence and security services have traditionally favoured (mostly bilateral) informal exchanges through other channels. These include the ‘Club de Berne’, composed of the heads of security services of the EU Member States, Norway and Switzerland, and the Counter-Terrorism Group (CTG). The CTG also acts as the interface between the Club de Berne and the EU, as illustrated by its cooperation with Europol.
There are currently three intelligence bodies within the EU structure: the EU Intelligence and Situation Centre (EU INTCEN), the EU Military Staff Intelligence Directorate (EUMS INT) – both forming the Single Intelligence Analysis Capacity (SIAC), which combines civilian and military intelligence – and the EU Satellite Centre (SatCen). INTCEN, a directorate within the European External Action Service, produces strategic analysis based on information provided on a voluntary basis by national intelligence and security services, diplomatic reporting, etc. Having no operational capabilities, INTCEN does not generate its own intelligence, with SatCen being the only EU body to do so, based on commercially available satellite images. Europol is yet another EU body dealing with intelligence and its growing role in counterterrorism could translate into more EU-facilitated intelligence sharing between police and secret services. However, the agency’s activities in this respect have met with mistrust and ‘bureaucratic resistance’ by the latter.
In her 2021 State of the Union address, President von der Leyen proposed to improve the EU’s ‘situational awareness’ as the foundation for collective decision-making, by setting up a ‘Joint Situational Awareness Centre’. The discussions on this idea were undertaken in the context of the EU Strategic Compass for the CSDP, adopted in March 2022. The Compass includes plans to boost the EU’s intelligence capacities, e.g. SIAC and SatCen, to enhance situational awareness and strategic foresight. At least once every three years, the SIAC is supposed to review – in concert with Member States’ intelligence services – the ‘EU threat analysis‘, i.e. a classified report providing a ‘comprehensive, 360-degree’ analysis of the full range of threats and challenges faced by the EU. Possible action

Welcome to EURACTIV’s Global Europe Brief, your weekly update on the EU from a global perspective. You can subscribe to receive our newsletter here. In this week’s edition: Ukraine reconstruction, NATO path and enlargement priorities. When Russia invaded Ukraine, history has...

Russia on Saturday (21 May) stopped providing natural gas to neighbouring Finland, which has angered Moscow by applying for NATO membership, after the Nordic country refused to pay supplier Gazprom in rubles. Following Russia’s February 24 invasion of Ukraine, Moscow...

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Saturday (21 May) said Turkey would not look "positively" on Sweden and Finland's NATO bids unless its terror-related concerns were addressed, despite broad support from other allies including the United States.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has warned only a diplomatic breakthrough rather than an outright military victory can end Russia's war on his country, while pushing its case for EU membership.

President Michel held meetings with the Bosnia and Herzegovina Presidency and political Leaders. They agreed to convene a meeting in Brussels in the next weeks to work upon a roadmap setting out the priority reforms and the political agreements needed to reinvigorate the EU path for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Main agenda items, approximate timing, public sessions and press opportunities.

Written by Suzana Anghel.

This paper is one of 11 policy responses set out in a new EPRS study which looks first at 15 risks facing the European Union, in the changed context of a world coming out of the coronavirus crisis, but one in which a war has been launched just outside the Union’s borders. The study then looks in greater detail at 11 policy responses the EU could take to address the risks outlined and to strengthen the Union’s resilience to them. It continues a series launched in spring 2020, which sought to identify means to strengthen the European Union’s long-term resilience in the context of recovery from the coronavirus crisis. Read the full study here. The issue in short: The challenge and the existing gaps

The EU Global Strategy stressed that ‘in a more complex world of global power shifts and power diffusion, the EU must stand united.

Both the EU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) showed unity in the weeks preceding and following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. With this ‘premeditated and unprovoked‘ attack, Russia did not only oppose Ukraine’s free choice and ability to determine its own destiny, but also aimed at breaking euro-Atlantic unity as well as at redefining the European continent’s security architecture. Ukraine’s resilience and resistance countered Russia’s plans, while NATO further affirmed its ‘open door policy’ and strengthened its eastern flank. In March 2022, in Versailles, the European Parliament President, Roberta Metsola, warned the EU leaders that ‘Putin will not stop in Kyiv, just as he did not stop in Crimea’, and urged them to ‘make the defence union a reality’.

The return of war on the European continent does not only confront the EU and its Member States with growing instability, but also with multi-faceted – both conventional and non-conventional – threats. To be able to rise to the self-imposed level of ambition set in the Global Strategy – protect EU citizens, respond to external crises and conflicts and build the capacity of partners – the EU needs to become a global security player, complementary to NATO, which remains the primary collective defence and deterrence tool for those 21 EU Member States that are also members of the alliance. The implementation of the Strategic Compass is key and could lead to a more robust EU in defence, allowing Member States to stand by the mutual obligation of ‘assistance’ deriving from Article 42(7) of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU), which the recently adopted Versailles declaration recognises as being the fundament of their solidarity.

Deep geopolitical shifts where already under way prior to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, as big powers stepped up their game. Both China and Russia have long been questioning multilateralism and an international order based on rules, reviving the concept of ‘spheres of influence‘. Some interdependencies, particularly in the economic sphere, that for a while were beneficial, have proved, in the long term, rather disadvantageous, as they pointed to vulnerabilities. The most telling case in point is energy, which over the past three decades has been largely considered in economic terms as a commodity, and not from a security perspective as a strategic public good. The European Council President, Charles Michel, stressed that building a strategically autonomous EU is the challenge of a generation. It may also well be the opportunity to address vulnerabilities, bolster partnerships and strengthen the EU’s role in the world by acting simultaneously on internal and external polices, and in particular by building a genuine European defence union based inter alia on a yet to be shaped common strategic culture and joint capabilities able to contribute in a meaningful way to both European and transatlantic security.

Existing policy responses EU action

European defence cooperation is an area where a leap forward has been made over the past decade, owing to a political consensus reached in the European Council in 2013 that ‘defence matters‘. EU leaders agreed to step up defence cooperation along three lines: 1) crisis management, 2) the development of capabilities, and 3) the defence industry and market.

As regards crisis management, substantive progress has been achieved in recent years, in particular with the adoption of the civilian compact, intended to strengthen and streamline EU civilian missions. Only incremental progress has been regarding EU military operations, mainly reflected in the establishment of a military planning and conduct capability (MPCC) as a permanent command and control facility for ‘non-executive’ common foreign and security policy (CSDP) military operations. The Strategic Compass, endorsed by the European Council on 24-25 March 2022, called for a further strengthening of existing command and control structures, including the MPCC, in order to increase readiness and to develop an EU rapid deployment capacity of up to 5 000 troops by 2025. Furthermore, the modalities of flexible cooperation on CSDP missions and operations under Article 4 TEU are to be decided by 2023. Figure 50 shows both the Strategic Compass process and initiatives to be implemented.

In focus: Strategic Compass
On 24-25 March 2022, EU leaders endorsed the Strategic Compass at the end of a process they had been monitoring closely for over a year. The Strategic Compass provides a ‘shared assessment of the [Union’s] strategic environment’. It acknowledges that the world has become more dangerous, and that the EU is facing ‘strategic competition and complex security threats’ that it needs to address collectively and in a united manner, in close cooperation with like-minded partners.
The war in Ukraine has led to a shift in focus of the Strategic Compass and to the introduction of robust language on Russia. The EU condemned Russia’s military aggression, its breach of international law and, in particular, the threat of resorting to nuclear weapons. The EU reaffirmed its commitment to a European security order based on the respect of the rules enshrined in the United Nations Charter, the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris, including the principle of ‘the sovereign equality and territorial integrity of States’.
On China, the Strategic Compass reiterated previous language from the EU-China Strategy released in 2019, which referred to the country as ‘a partner for cooperation, an economic competitor and a systemic rival’. It acknowledged China’s interest in developing its ‘military means’ and in modernising its armed forces by 2035, stressing that it was important China continued to ‘uphold global security’ and a rules-based international order.
‘A quantum leap forward’ is needed to ensure that the EU is able to act in a more resilient manner while ensuring ‘solidarity and mutual assistance’. The compass offers a detailed plan with clear-cut deadlines aimed at strengthening security and defence at the 2030 horizon in four main areas. These cover the EU’s ability to ‘act’ when a crisis emerges; to ‘secure’; to ‘invest’ in capabilities and new technologies; and to cooperate with like-minded partners globally (the UN), regionally (NATO), and bilaterally (Canada, Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States).

Taboos were broken in recent years as key inter-linked tools such as the coordinated annual review on defence (CARD) and the European Defence Fund (EDF) have been introduced and permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) (Articles 42.6 and 46 TEU and Protocol 10) activated. The overall aim was to identify the defence capabilities of which Member States dispose, or which should commonly be developed and funded in jointly cooperative projects, in order to be able to respond united to the threats and risks the EU is facing.

CARD allows existing capabilities to be identified and national defence planning cycles brought closer together. It could facilitate their ‘gradual synchronisation and mutual adaptation’. A first CARD report was released in 2020, recommending a coordinated approach to ‘defence spending, defence planning and defence cooperation’ as the only way of overcoming fragmentation and duplication. A second CARD report is expected later in 2022.

Figure 50: Timeline of security and defence initiatives

The EDF, which has been preceded by the preparatory action on defence research (PADR) (€90 million for 2017-2019) and the European defence industrial development programme (EDIDP) (€500 million for 2019-2020), is the result of a progressive paradigm shift initiated in the European Council between 2013 and 2015. Then, EU leaders agreed to boost joint defence research and fund it from the EU budget, strengthening the Community method in the area of security and defence. The EDF benefits from an €8 billion envelope under the EU’s long-term budget, the 2021-2027 multi-annual financial framework (MFF). The fund comprises two windows, one dedicated to defence research, fully funded from the EU budget, and a second one dedicated to capabilities, which draws on EU budgetary means as well as on Member States’ funding. The EDF capability window allows the development of prototypes to be co-financed, with a maximum share of 20 % of the costs being supported from the EU budget. It also covers acquisition, with the caveat that this component – the most costly – remains for now fully financed by the Member States. President Metsola stressed that the EU ‘must go beyond the European Defence Fund and make the EU budget work for our security and defence policy whenever it adds value’.

PESCO is a Treaty-based mechanism allowing for differentiated integration in defence. It was activated in December 2017, when 25 EU Member States (except Denmark and Malta) notified the Council of their intention to participate. Obligations undertaken by the Member States are legally binding, and 60 projects have been developed thus far in areas such as ‘training, land, maritime, air, cyber and joint enablers’. The flagship project is the Dutch-led military mobility, which includes 24 Member States and aims to facilitate the rapid transfer of military capabilities – personnel and equipment – across the continent. In parallel, the European Commission has issued a joint communication on improving military mobility and an action plan, a dual-use initiative funded under the Connecting Europe Facility for an amount of €1.5 billion in the period 2021-2027. Military mobility is also a key component of EU-NATO cooperation, as the more rapid transfer of national capabilities can benefit both organisations in case of need. PESCO, along with CARD and the EDF, contributes to the progressive framing of a European defence union. President Metsola stressed that an EU ‘capable of countering new threats’ needs smart defence spending and would require a PESCO reform.

More recently, on 15 February 2022, in the run-up to the EU Strategic Compass, the European Commission presented a communication on European defence, in which it reaffirmed its commitment to supporting implementation of existing initiatives, including the EDF, and outlined ‘new measures and initiatives’ on, inter alia, investments, joint procurement and strengthening space cooperation. It has also recalled, among other things, that the Member States were yet to meet the 35 % collective defence equipment spending target. In response to a request formulated by the European Council, the Commission also presented a roadmap on critical technologies for security and defence, in which it committed to boost dual-use research, technology, development and innovation, ‘mitigate strategic dependencies from external sources’, and coordinate with the US and NATO. Furthermore, again at the request of the European Council, the European Commission is, in cooperation with the European Defence Agency, to present by mid-May 2022 an ‘analysis of the defence investment gaps’.

The European Peace Facility (EPF), an off-EU budget instrument that brings together the former Athena mechanism (common costs for CSDP military operations) and the African Peace Facility (mechanism to support peace and security in Africa), has been operational since 1 July 2021. The EPF consists of two pillars, namely ‘military operations’ and ‘assistance measures’. It benefits from an envelope of nearly €6 billion for the period 2021-2027, funded by the EU Member States (except Denmark)[i] on a gross national income (GNI) basis. Prior to the start of the war, the Council pledged to provide €31 million in assistance to support the Ukrainian armed forces under the EPF, and similar decisions targeted Bosnia and Herzegovina (€10 million), Georgia (€11.4 million) and Moldova (€6.3 million). After the start of the war, the amount for Ukraine was increased by €500 million, of which €450 million for lethal arms and €50 million for non-lethal supplies, and political agreements were reached for two further increases of €500 million (thus totalling €1.5 billion). As EPF implementation begins, the question of the accountability of the money spent could progressively arise; this issue could be addressed by bringing the EPF into the EU budget and hence under the scrutiny of the European Parliament.

National level initiatives

At the 2014 Wales NATO Summit, allies committed to dedicate a minimum of 2 % of their gross domestic product (GDP) to defence spending by 2024. The European Council shared this commitment by calling repeatedly for an increase in defence spending, a requirement enshrined in the legally binding commitments to which Member States agreed under PESCO.

Prior to the war in Ukraine, only a few EU Member States, including the Baltic countries, France, Greece, Poland and Romania, were meeting the 2 % GDP defence spending criterion. In the meantime, the outbreak of the war led some of these countries to announce a further increase of their defence spending; the boldest move was made by Poland, which announced a level of 3 % of GDP in defence spending for 2023 to ‘increase the size of its armed forces, restore the reserve system and modernise its equipment’. Germany, which currently spends 1.5 % of its GDP on defence, has announced a one-off €100 billion special defence fund. It has thus opted for a tailor-made mechanism as opposed to a permanent increase of defence spending, which would have long-lasting doctrinal consequences and ‘would be harder to reverse’. Although spending is decided and implemented nationally, efforts need to be coordinated at the European level and in close cooperation with NATO to ensure best value for money, avoid duplication, foster interoperability, and stimulate the acquisition of those capabilities that would enable implementation of both the EU Strategic Compass and the upcoming NATO Strategic Concept.

EU-NATO cooperation

EU-NATO cooperation at the political and technical levels is running smoothly, and a new joint declaration is being prepared for June 2022. At the political level, the High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission (HR/VP), Josep Borrell, often attends the meetings of the North Atlantic Council, as did his predecessor, Federica Mogherini, while the European Council regularly invites the NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, for an exchange of views. The outbreak of the war in Ukraine allowed the European Council President, Charles Michel, the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, and the NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, to stress the unity and complementarity of the EU and NATO, two organisations that joined efforts in supporting Ukraine. At the technical level, cooperation focuses on the implementation of the seven priorities identified in the 2016 and 2018 joint declarations with NATO: hybrid threats, cyber-security, operational cooperation, capacity-building, defence capabilities, research and industry, and training.

Member States maintain a single set of forces, which, whenever needed, they can commit either to the EU or to NATO. Their (joint) efforts to strengthen existing capabilities and develop new ones, undertaken in the EU framework following the introduction of CARD, PESCO and the EDF, can only strengthen both organisations, and thus, transatlantic unity and security. Building a strong European pillar within NATO is not only about sharing the financial burden of transatlantic security by meeting the 2 % GDP commitment to defence spending by 2024, but also about stepping up the ability of European allies to act, at a time when European security is under threat and EU budgetary means remain under-explored when it comes to funding security and defence.

Obstacles to implementation

Member States’ sensitivities and limitations in political will remain the main obstacle for yet another leap forward in security and defense. Within the framework of Article 42(2) TEU, the EU can progressively frame ‘a common Union defence policy’. The existing policy responses, examined above, contribute to the progressive shaping and strengthening of the European defence union called for by the European Parliament and the European Commission. The European Council has not used the term European defence union in its conclusions thus far. It has nonetheless maintained security and defence as a ‘rolling’ item on its agenda, and has been a staunch supporter of strengthening European defence cooperation. Article 42(2) TEU allows the boundary between defence cooperation and integration to be pushed even further by moving towards a ‘common defence’, but this depends entirely on the European Council.

As outlined above, technical instruments to foster joint procurement of capabilities are already in place and could be further developed should Member States break away from existing patterns. Indeed, EU Member States have committed collectively not only to increase defence spending, but also to procure 35 % of defence equipment through joint collaborative projects. Nevertheless, European Defence Agency data show that only 11 % of equipment was procured jointly by EU Member States in 2020. The data also show that defence equipment procurement continues to be conducted on a national basis, despite the adoption in 2009 of the Defence Procurement Directive, which aims to foster joint procurement. In the long term, there is potential for ‘a profound change in procurement practices’ if EU Member States are willing to commit fully to the implementation of the EDF capability window, and more importantly, to go beyond the EDF and maximise the output that the EU budget could offer in support of security and defence.

The specialisation of national armed forces is another sensitive issue. This would require Member States to increasingly trust each other with their security, specialise their forces, share capabilities and adapt their procurement patterns to the needs identified as a result of the collective CARD exercise. It would allow for genuine economies of scale, reduce waste, and ensure better value for money. For that purpose, a new political consensus on defence would be needed in the European Council.

Policy proposals by experts and stakeholders

There is a rich and rapidly growing body of academic and think tank literature on the topic, which for the most part acknowledges the need to further step up European defence cooperation. In some cases, the focus is on individual mechanisms – CARD, PESCO and/or the EDF – and the challenges encountered when implementing them. In others, it is on institutional aspects, with proposals including the introduction of a European Security Council, a ministers’ of defence Council configuration, or the upgrading of the European Parliament’s Sub-Committee on Security and Defence to a full parliamentary committee. Decision-making is another area where multiple proposals have been put forward, including moving towards qualified majority voting for civilian CSDP missions. A large body of literature continues to focus on crisis management and on the over 35 civilian and military missions and operations launched to date, which represent the most tangible EU contribution to peace and security.

Russia’s attack on Ukraine will, most likely, have deeper and long-lasting effects on tomorrow’s international order, which not only Russia, but also China, wish to reshape. HR/VP Josep Borrell stressed that the survival of the post-war multilateral acquis with ‘the UN, international law and universal rights’ at its core was at stake. Analysts argue that the US and their European and Asian allies need to ‘develop a free world defence strategy‘ to counter the revisionist views that look to revive a world based on spheres of influence. Furthermore, the EU could step up its game and use its ‘soft power tools’ – trade, development, sanctions and diplomacy – more assertively. At the same time, it could move towards becoming a ‘smart power‘ by relying on its existing ‘soft power tools’ whilst developing ‘hard power tools’ allowing it to respond to the full spectrum of threats and to be a more reliable transatlantic partner.

The EU could go beyond the existing fragmentation and duplication of defence capabilities and build tomorrow’s military capabilities by fully embracing the scholarly enunciated principle of ‘pooling, sharing and specialisation’. Furthermore, a reviewed PESCO could give more space to projects such as the EUFOR crisis response operation core, which in case of clarification of the modalities of activation of Article 44 TEU could offer participating Member States the possibility of pledging forces on permanent bases, something which scholars argue would move the entire EU beyond interoperability towards integration.

Position of the European Parliament

In a February 2022 resolution, the European Parliament stressed that ‘the Strategic Compass was a starting point for implementing a common European defence in line with the provisions laid out in Article 42(2)TEU’ and ‘should constitute a major step towards a genuine European defence union’, which is part of the EU’s ‘objective of achieving strategic autonomy’. It underlined that the European External Action Service (EEAS) ‘must closely monitor and ensure the traceability and proper use of the material delivered to our partners under the EPF’. It also noted that several bodies, including the EU Satellite Centre (SATCEN) and the European Security and Defence College ‘should benefit from structural Union funding’.

Cooperation with partners, in particular the UN and NATO, is one of the elements most emphasised by Parliament, which reiterated the view that European NATO member countries needed ‘to take on more burden-sharing responsibilities in protecting the transatlantic space and respond to new hybrid threats’. Parliament has also stressed that it ‘expects the final draft of the Strategic Compass and the NATO Strategic Concept to be coherent with one another to ensure strengthened collaboration and burden sharing, and to identify ways to reinforce EU-NATO cooperation’. It considered Russia’s aggressiveness ‘as a major security threat for the European continent’, and warned of ‘severe economic and financial sanctions’ the EU was prepared to adopt in close cooperation with the US and other partners in response to the invasion of Ukraine. Parliament has also called to ‘assess and develop options for the establishment of EU standing multinational military units financed both from the European Peace Facility and the EU’s budget by making full use of the current possibilities offered by the EU Treaties’.

Possible action

Visiting Bosnia and Herzegovina, President Michel met with Šefik Džaferović, Željko Komšić and Milorad Dodik, members of the Presidency. They discussed how to give momentum to Bosnia and Herzegovina’s European perspective.

Media advisory and press arrangements for he upcoming European Council of 23 and 24 June 2022