7/12/2001
Coherence and Co-operation: The EU as Promoter of Peace and Development

The following is an abridged version of the speech given by the Rt Hon Chris Patten, the EU's Commissioner for External Relations, to the Swedish Institute of International Affairs in Stockholm, on 4 December.

Before September 11, it is probably fair to say that most people in Europe knew very little about present-day Afghanistan. They might have heard of some of the more 'distasteful' activities of the Taliban, such as blowing up the 'Buddhas,' might have known that this was a country receiving considerable humanitarian assistance. But visual images and the full extent of the human tragedy unfolding there were virtually unknown.

Of course there are a number of reasons for this worrying lack of economic and social development, including a particularly harsh natural environment. But undoubtedly the underlying reason is the conflict which this country has suffered for the past 2 decades. Because we cannot have development without peace. We live in a world where of the 40 poorest countries, 24 are either in the midst of armed conflict or have only recently emerged from it. And where a fifth of the population of Africa live in conflict zones. In the absence of peace their prospects, and their children's prospects, are grim.

We don't have to travel very far from Afghanistan to see proof of the fact that the reverse is also true. To the Central Asian republics to the north, where dissatisfaction with the glacial pace of development is resulting in an explosive mix of bad governance, intolerance of dissent and Islamic extremism. The same type of extremism that destroyed Afghanistan. Illustrating that if we can't have development without peace, nor do we have peace without development. And yet we live in a world where 10% of the people receive 70% of the income. And where the three richest men have assets equal to the output of the 48 poorest nations.

This idea of an inter-relationship between peace and development is not new. And the moral argument for tackling both conflict and poverty is clear . But the scale of the problem and the appalling dimension of recent events have added to this moral argument the argument of self-preservation. Put simply, we have no choice but to make the promotion of sustainable development as much a part of our fight for global security as the investment we make in our armed forces.

So what has gone wrong? And, more importantly, what can we do about it?

Of course there are a number of answers to both these questions. Our efforts to promote peace and development are often limited by money. By speed - of delivery and of reaction. And by awkward and unpleasant governments. However they are also limited by political will. And by a disunited international community. And it is these latter factors that I will focus on today.

Different tools
A few seconds ago, I said that the link between conflict and poverty highlights the urgency of addressing these issues. However this is not the only thing it shows us. This link also demonstrates that to have any chance of success, we must pursue action on several fronts. We must use all the tools we have at our disposal. And the EU has an entire plumber's kit to choose from.

Take the provision of development assistance for example, where the EC contribution alone is the third largest in the world. Add to this the bilateral budgets of Member States, and the EU becomes the largest provider of development assistance in the world by a street.

Or take the role of trade: The EU is the most important trading block in the world alongside the US. And nowhere was its increasing power and influence more evident than at Doha. Described by one BBC reporter as 'the major driving force on world trade,', the EU succeeded in forging more links between trade and environmental issues than anyone believed possible.

Another tool we have at our disposal is one we have actually created ourselves. I'm talking about the process of enlargement, which is probably the single most important reason why the disintegration of the Soviet Empire was managed without too hard a landing.

Admittedly our tools are not always used in complete coherence, but nevertheless, they have all been used, to considerable effect. However there is another tool of which bystanders have often questioned the usefulness. I speak of Europe's Common Foreign and Security Policy.

Different players
Now this scepticism is to a certain extent understandable. Because foreign policy goes to the heart of what it means to be a nation. If the separate members of the Union are to retain their national identities, as they can and must, they will inevitably be reluctant to relinquish control of their foreign policies. They are, after all, competitors in the world as well as partners. In this instance, it is not so much a question of different tools as different players.

Nevertheless, such a common foreign policy is necessary, and nowhere was this demonstrated more clearly than during the break-up of Yugoslavia. This was the first time that the European Union tried to do more than simply 'express its deep concern' at events. We wanted to influence them: to stop the fighting. And our approach was perfectly reasonable. In fact it was very similar to the deal eventually concluded at Dayton. But it failed, partly because the warring factions were not willing to work with a process from which the US had decided to stand back.

So overwhelming was US pre-eminence, that the American decision not to become involved made a solution impossible. The lesson this experience gave us could not be ignored. Namely that mere inter-governmentalism was a recipe for continuing weakness and mediocrity: a lowest common denominator of 15 different national positions.

This was not to say that we should form a single foreign policy. Member states have their own individual strengths and it is right and natural that they should wish to play to these. However as Margaret Thatcher said at the time of Britain's 1975 Referendum on Europe "Almost every major nation has been obliged by the pressures of the post-war world to pool significant areas of sovereignty so as to create more effective political units." And this is what we're about: selectively pooling our sovereignty to exercise our political weight more sensibly and more influentially.

Recent events have shown that this policy is beginning to work. Consider, for example, Europe's response to the present crisis, and the reactions of European countries during the Gulf war crisis. Nearly three months on, we remain united and robust, whether we are acting as Europe or as Europeans. Not a single state, but fifteen member states working more effectively together. Sometimes supranationally, sometimes inter-governmentally. But provided that what we do works, I'm not sure that most European citizens care much about these distinctions.

This greater coherence in foreign policy is no small achievement. Nevertheless, if we are to achieve the holy grail of peace and development, we need a truly global effort which comprises all those who are concerned by these issues i.e. all of us. To be blunt, we need international co-operation of a kind rarely, if ever, seen before. And if this is to happen, these different stakeholders need to believe such multilateralism will work they need to believe it is worth it.

In a recent study published by the American Enterprise Institute on 'Why Sovereignty Matters' Jeremy Rabkin argued that "America's first duty must be to protect its own democracy and the rights and resources of its own people…."

This view is understandable, and been shared to a degree by some within the European Union. But as recent events have shown, this idea of national interest with everyone going their own way does not work. US efforts to build a coalition have proven that even the most powerful nations, however big they are, cannot do everything by themselves. And as Jim Wolfensohn has said, the idea that a rich world and a poor world can co-exist without dramatic implications, collapsed along with the twin towers on September 11th.

Nowhere is this more evident that in relation to the failed state. By failed state I mean countries where the institutions, coercive power and basic services of national government have simply crumbled away. There are examples on every continent examples whose consequences increasingly preoccupy us. In some cases we are not talking about state-backed terrorism but of terrorist-backed states. Crime, drugs, mayhem spread from the collapsed state to infect its neighbours, a national calamity turns into a regional threat and a global problem. Afghanistan. Somalia. Sudan. Sierra Leone. Colombia. The list unrolls.
Last week I was in another such state, the Congo, visiting Kinshasa and then the other Great Lakes countries to see how Europe and the international community can help energise the stalled peace process, bring stability to the Congo and reassurance to its neighbours.

How loudly do the terms of the Lusaka Peace Process echo in the editorial offices and the foreign ministries of Europe and North America? How much do we care about what happens in the heart of Africa and how much will we be prepared to bother? Six months ago, you could have asked the same questions about Afghanistan. What that experience should have taught us is that we cannot afford to ignore these long-running political, economic and humanitarian calamities, believing that we can somehow cauterise ourselves from these festering parts of an anarchically dangerous world. The international community has no choice but to work together to manage and resolve the problems caused by state-failure. And to manage and resolve all the problems associated with the dark side of globalisation.

Next steps
So the hundred dollar question is - where now? And more specifically - in this image of a new world order, what role should the European Union play?

At the Goteborg Council earlier this year, the EU agreed a Programme of Action to prevent conflict and promote peace and stability in the world. One part of this was an agreement that the EU should develop 'conflict indicators' to ensure that development programming took into account factors which might lead to violent conflict - such as political exclusion, regional tension and environmental degradation. Another was that we should tackle the incoherence in EU policy making which I referred to earlier by adopting an 'integrated approach' to our relations with third countries. In other words, co-ordinating our trade, external assistance and (significantly) political instruments so as to make a coherent whole.

It is rather embarrassing to admit that this was something of a revolution. But it was. And, more importantly, it is happening. We have seen it with Pakistan where support for the coalition in the fight against terrorism, and a commitment to the restoration of democracy have led to signature of a Trade and Co-operation Agreement, the proposal for an accelerated dismantling of textile quotas and the setting up of a quick-disbursing co-operation programme. We are seeing it in negotiations on a new Trade and Co-operation Agreement with Iran, the substance of which will touch on such highly political issues as non proliferation, human rights and the rule of law.

This increased coherence is to be welcomed. But it must go even wider. Trade, environment, agriculture and fisheries. Immigration, justice, terrorism and human rights. The EU is the only political unit outside the US which has such a big role in so many policy areas which touch on third countries. And which have such a big impact on world-wide chances for peace and development. Since September 11 they have been brought together in an unprecedented way. But we must now seize and exploit this opportunity even further.

And we must also seize the opportunity presented by increased co-operation in the sphere of foreign policy. And in particular the new emphasis on crisis management. Our experiences in Bosnia and Kosovo showed us that we needed to be capable of mounting large-scale peace enforcement operations and sustaining them, calling on all the resources Europe possesses from emergency medical facilities to human rights or election monitors at short notice.

Now the EU is taking action to make that possible. In part this involves strengthening our military capability through the Rapid Reaction Force. Overall, the Union is determined to be able to deploy 60,000 troops capable of the full range of so called Petersberg tasks humanitarian and rescue work, crisis management, peace-keeping and even peace-making. However we are also developing our ability to contribute quickly and efficiently to civilian tasks. And in both cases these developments have allowed us to work more effectively together. But also to contribute more effectively to the international effort.

Which brings me to my final point. How should this international effort to promote peace and development be managed? I have already suggested that in the past couple of months we have seen a new political will to find common ground. A new political will to pursue the kind of multilateralism which will be needed to fight such a battle. Evidence of this can be found in the agreement that was reached at Doha.

However it is undeniable that we still have a long way to go if we are to develop the global coalition and the international framework which will be needed. And this is where the EU comes in. Because we are the best example of multilateralism which the world has at its disposal. We are far from perfect sometimes too inclined to legislate or harmonise for the sake of it, sometimes inefficient and we have developed slowly, and at times painfully. But where once we were a cacophony of separate voices, we are starting to sing in tune. And even occasionally in time. And in a world which desperately needs better mechanisms to manage international issues, we are a potential model of how different countries can come together around a common cause.