EU — Council conclusions on Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)

V. PARTNERSHIP TO PROMOTE SECURITY

EU-UN

84. The Coun­cil empha­sised the impor­tance of EU-UN co-oper­a­tion and coor­di­na­tion in cri­sis man­age­ment, and under­lined the need for their fur­ther strength­en­ing, par­tic­u­lar­ly in oper­a­tional the­atres where both the EU and the UN are involved, notably Soma­lia, Afghanistan, the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Repub­lic of Con­go, Guinea Bis­sau and Koso­vo. Con­tin­ued exchange of know-how and lessons learned offers the poten­tial for deep­en­ing this coop­er­a­tion. The Coun­cil took note of the progress achieved in imple­ment­ing the 2007 Joint State­ment of EU-UN Coop­er­a­tion in Cri­sis Man­age­ment, includ­ing the reg­u­lar meet­ings of the EU-UN Steer­ing Com­mit­tee, giv­ing new impe­tus to coor­di­na­tion and coop­er­a­tion in a num­ber of geo­graph­ic and the­mat­ic areas.

85. The Coun­cil empha­sised the impor­tance of enhanc­ing the vis­i­bil­i­ty of the EU posi­tions and con­tri­bu­tions on cri­sis man­age­ment in all the rel­e­vant UN fora.

86. The Coun­cil wel­comed the New Hori­zon ini­tia­tive launched by the UN Sec­re­tari­at and reaf­firmed its com­mit­ment to con­tribute to the reform of UN peacekeeping.

87. The Coun­cil also expressed its sup­port to the review process of the UN Peace­build­ing Architecture.

EU-NATO

88. The Coun­cil recalled the objec­tive of strength­en­ing the EU-NATO strate­gic part­ner­ship in cri­sis man­age­ment, in a spir­it of mutu­al rein­force­ment and respect for their deci­sion-mak­ing auton­o­my. The Coun­cil wel­comed the efforts by the High Rep­re­sen­ta­tive and the NATO Sec­re­tary Gen­er­al to fos­ter progress in this area. In this con­text, the Coun­cil stressed that the con­tin­u­ing sup­port of EU Mem­ber States and NATO Allies is of great impor­tance. It encour­aged fur­ther imple­men­ta­tion of the EU pro­pos­als for con­crete mea­sures to rein­force EU-NATO rela­tions which were trans­mit­ted to the NATO Sec­re­tary Gen­er­al in Feb­ru­ary 2010, and in this con­text efforts to pro­mote trans­paren­cy, coher­ence and inclu­sive­ness between the EU and NATO as appro­pri­ate. It par­tic­u­lar­ly stressed the impor­tance of effi­cient oper­a­tional coop­er­a­tion between the EU and NATO con­cern­ing the­atres in which the two organ­i­sa­tions are both com­mit­ted and the con­clu­sion of agree­ments on sol­id and effec­tive arrange­ments between EUPOL Afghanistan and ISAF as well as EULEX Koso­vo and KFOR. As demon­strat­ed by Oper­a­tion ALTHEA, Berlin plus arrange­ments have proven to be effec­tive and efficient.

89. The Coun­cil under­lined the need for con­tin­ued coop­er­a­tion with NATO regard­ing the devel­op­ment of mil­i­tary capa­bil­i­ties. In this regard, it wel­comed efforts to make the best use of the EU-NATO Capa­bil­i­ty Group, with­in the agreed frame­work, where require­ments over­lap. It has con­tributed towards trans­paren­cy between the two organ­i­sa­tions in accor­dance with the Capa­bil­i­ty Devel­op­ment Mech­a­nism (CDM). With par­tic­i­pa­tion of senior pol­i­cy­mak­ers from the cap­i­tals, as envis­aged by the CDM, the Capa­bil­i­ty Group dis­cussed issues regard­ing respec­tive efforts to draw ben­e­fit from multi­na­tion­al coop­er­a­tion, par­tic­u­lar­ly in the field of logis­tics. In prepa­ra­tion of the Capa­bil­i­ty Group meet­ings, all Mem­ber States dis­cussed in detail the agen­da items and were briefed accord­ing­ly after these meet­ings. As recog­nised by the Coun­cil, in order to con­tin­ue improv­ing coher­ence, mutu­al­ly rein­forc­ing devel­op­ment of mil­i­tary capa­bil­i­ties and trans­paren­cy, fur­ther efforts are need­ed to ensure effec­tive work­ing meth­ods of the Capa­bil­i­ty Group, while inclu­sive­ness through the par­tic­i­pa­tion of all the EU Mem­ber States would fur­ther facil­i­tate exchange of infor­ma­tion in the field of mil­i­tary capabilities.

90. The Coun­cil wel­comed the expand­ed meet­ings between the HR and the NATO Sec­re­tary Gen­er­al, involv­ing the strate­gic oper­a­tional exper­tise of both sides. It empha­sised the val­ue rec­i­p­ro­cal brief­in­gs of the PSC and the NAC, as well as the EUMC and the NATO MC, on oper­a­tional issues of com­mon inter­est. Reg­u­lar staff to staff meet­ings on issues of com­mon inter­est are impor­tant. PSC will con­tin­ue being reg­u­lar­ly informed.

91. The Coun­cil stressed that there is a poten­tial for increased trans­paren­cy, effi­cien­cy and coher­ence between the dis­tinct CSDP Capa­bil­i­ty Devel­op­ment and NATO Defence Plan­ning process­es, in order to bet­ter inform sov­er­eign nation­al deci­sions on plan­ning and the deliv­ery of improved mil­i­tary capa­bil­i­ties. It wel­comed con­tin­u­ing work, includ­ing at staff to staff lev­el, to estab­lish a com­mon Infor­ma­tion Gath­er­ing Tool avail­able to all Mem­ber States, and a “com­mon lan­guage” for capa­bil­i­ty devel­op­ment with­in the EU. It not­ed that the over­lap­ping capa­bil­i­ty short­falls that emerge from the two dis­tinct process­es in the EU and NATO should be addressed in a coher­ent man­ner. In this con­text, the Coun­cil under­lined the fun­da­men­tal prin­ci­ples of the EU’s integri­ty and auton­o­my of deci­sion mak­ing, of a dis­tinct EU process and of inclu­sive­ness and par­tic­i­pa­tion of all Mem­ber States.

EU-AU Coop­er­a­tion — Strength­en­ing African Capabilities

92. The Coun­cil wel­comed progress in the “Peace and secu­ri­ty” part­ner­ship between the EU and Africa and called for con­tin­ued efforts in this regard. It wel­comed the out­come of the Ako­som­bo Con­fer­ence in Decem­ber 2009.

93. The Coun­cil wel­comed the val­i­da­tion of the report of the AU/EU experts study as part of the first set of mea­sures of the planned African Peace and Secu­ri­ty Archi­tec­ture (APSA) roadmap, dur­ing the work­shop on sup­port to African Train­ing cen­tres held in Nairo­bi in Feb­ru­ary 2010. The Coun­cil wel­comed the progress achieved in AMANI AFRICA Pro­gramme and expressed its wish that the Com­mand Post Exer­cise (CPX) be held before Octo­ber 2010. The Coun­cil also wel­comed the progress in the work to sup­port African medi­a­tion capabilities.

94. The Coun­cil wel­comed enhance­ment of coop­er­a­tion between the AU sit­u­a­tion room and the EU SITCEN and the EC Joint Research Cen­tre (JRC), includ­ing tech­ni­cal sup­port for the devel­op­ment of the Con­ti­nen­tal Ear­ly Warn­ing System.

95. The Coun­cil stressed the need for the con­tin­ued imple­men­ta­tion of the joint EU-Africa Strat­e­gy and its Action Plan. In this regard, the Coun­cil also recalled the impor­tance of close coop­er­a­tion with the UN, includ­ing through the tri­an­gu­lar EU-UN-AU dia­logue for the strength­en­ing of African capa­bil­i­ties and work on the pre­dictable and sus­tain­able fund­ing for AU-led peace sup­port oper­a­tions undertaken.

Coop­er­a­tion with Third States

96. The Coun­cil stressed the impor­tance of engag­ing Third States in the field of CSDP. It com­mend­ed their valu­able involve­ment in CSDP mis­sions and oper­a­tions and encour­aged fur­ther con­tri­bu­tions in the future. At present, 14 Third States (Alba­nia, Ango­la, Cana­da, Chile, Croa­t­ia, FYROM, Ice­land, Mon­tene­gro, New Zealand, Nor­way, Switzer­land, Turkey, Ukraine and the US) are con­tribut­ing to 7 ongo­ing mis­sions and oper­a­tions.¹

97. The Coun­cil wel­comed the impor­tant coop­er­a­tion and coor­di­na­tion of a wide range of Third States with EUNAVFOR ATALANTA, and the poten­tial for the devel­op­ment of fur­ther con­tacts with Third States, by build­ing on these pos­i­tive expe­ri­ences (notably with Chi­na, India, Japan and Rus­sia as well as with the US).

98. The Coun­cil not­ed the val­ue of reg­u­lar con­sul­ta­tions with non-EU Euro­pean NATO mem­bers and oth­er coun­tries that are can­di­dates for acces­sion to the EU, as well as infor­mal gath­er­ings between the mem­bers of the PSC, the non-EU mem­bers of NATO and oth­er coun­tries that are can­di­dates for acces­sion to the EU.

99. The Coun­cil wel­comed the unique coop­er­a­tion that is being estab­lished in the con­text of EUTM Soma­lia, with the Unit­ed States, the African Union, Ugan­da and the TFG of Soma­lia, allow­ing for a task shar­ing to pre­pare a com­plete cycle of selec­tion, train­ing and rein­te­gra­tion of mem­bers of the Soma­li Secu­ri­ty Forces.

100. The Coun­cil wel­comed the con­tin­ued dia­logue and coop­er­a­tion between Euro-Mediter­ranean part­ners in the CSDP field.

101. The Coun­cil com­mend­ed the excel­lent coop­er­a­tion with Cana­da in sup­port of the AMANI Africa cycle for the devel­op­ment of African capabilities.

102. The Coun­cil not­ed the High Representative’s rec­om­men­da­tion to autho­rise the open­ing of nego­ti­a­tions of frame­work par­tic­i­pa­tion agree­ments with addi­tion­al Third States. Such frame­work agree­ments would facil­i­tate their future involve­ment in CSDP mis­sions and oper­a­tions. To date such agree­ments have been con­clud­ed with Cana­da, Ice­land, Nor­way, Turkey and Ukraine. Frame­work par­tic­i­pa­tion agree­ments with Rus­sia and Switzer­land remain under negotiation.

¹ EUPM and ALTHEA in BiH, EULEX Koso­vo, EUPOL
—————-

West­ern Euro­pean Union

103. The Coun­cil not­ed the announce­ment of the deci­sion by the States Par­ties to the Mod­i­fied Brus­sels Treaty (State­ment of 31 March 2010) to ter­mi­nate the Treaty. It acknowl­edged the impor­tant con­tri­bu­tion of the WEU in the devel­op­ment of the Euro­pean secu­ri­ty and defence archi­tec­ture, includ­ing the sub­stan­tial role of the inter­par­lia­men­tary WEU Assem­bly in devel­op­ing a Euro­pean cul­ture on secu­ri­ty and defence.

104. The Coun­cil encour­aged as appro­pri­ate the enhance­ment of inter­par­lia­men­tary dia­logue on CSDP issues, includ­ing with can­di­dates for EU acces­sion and oth­er inter­est­ed states.

Con­tacts with civ­il soci­ety / NGOs

105. The Coun­cil recalled the impor­tance of co-oper­a­tion with NGOs and civ­il soci­ety as a means to improve the impact of the CSDP mis­sions and oper­a­tions and encour­aged its con­tin­u­a­tion both in Brus­sels and in the field, includ­ing through reg­u­lar contacts.