Scott Nicholas Romaniuk,
School of Politics and International Relations,
University College Dublin

Civilian or Military Power Europe?
The Evolving Nature of European Union Power

The collapse of Soviet power in Eastern Europe surfaced expectations of a wave of civilian power in international relations (IR). The European Community was expected to shift from exercising military power in a defensive manner, and move inextricably toward non-military and economic means in order to achieve national objectives. The development of supranational structures and institutions within Europe, to manage international issues, was also expected to represent part of the core of Europe’s burgeoning role in IR. Although such trends have become manifest in the conduct of the European Union (EU), the Union’s most recent role in Kosovo—a mission that was undertaken beyond the management of the United Nations (UN)—represents a considerable sway from civilian power Europe. While the Union’s operations in the recent past has demonstrated the value in a dual soft hard power orientation, the EU’s posture of sitting astride both civilian and military roles presents potentially negative consequences for the ‘ethicacy’ and efficacy of its non-military external policies. Utilizing the Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the European Union Mission in Kosovo (EUMIK) as means of analyses, this article presents the argument that the EU has moved beyond its role as a civilian power but has not abandoned its civilian commitments or image.


I. Introduction

    The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 brought about strident change in nearly every facet of European society, and changed many traditional points of view and approaches in the field of international relations (IR). The development of supranational structures and institutions within Europe was also expected to represent part of the core of Europe’s emerging civilian conduct in regional and global affairs. As new and dynamic methods of arrangement and displays of causation developed in Europe’s geo-political arena, many scholars and policy-makers expected less emphasis to be placed on military power in the ‘New World Order,’ and greater attention on civilian influence. The expectations of many were fulfilled as the EU’s practice had gone a posse ad esse. Alastair Buchan argued that military power, the application of direct military force, was less attractive an option in addressing international concerns, employing "Change Without War" as his watchword. However, "the impact of the end of the Cold War on the European Community was not to reinforce its civilian power image," and rather than consolidating a new civilian behaviour, the new European Union (EU) established by the Maastricht Treaty set about acquiring a "defence dimension."

    The EU’s regional exercise of power points to the need for a reinforcement of the Union’s movement beyond normative power to military and security ‘actorness.’ For the first time in its history, the EU played a unique and central role not only in state-building but in state-creation. The EU’s Kosovo operations represented a truly distinctive European model of social protection and political objectivity. With the EU having presented itself as a midwife in self-determination and state-sovereignty, Kosovo’s formation echoes the pre-existing debate of the EU’s role in IR as something beyond a civilian power.

    Utilizing the Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the European Union Mission in Kosovo (EUMIK) as means of analyses, this article presents the argument that the EU has moved beyond its role as a civilian power, though it has not abandoned its civilian commitments or image. Although the EU’s conceived standard of other regional and international actors is advanced by soft and hard power, there are obvious pitfalls to this direct approach, and will be explored in the following pages. This article will also demonstrate that even though the EU’s posture of sitting astride both civilian and military power presents potentially negative consequences for the ‘ethicacy’ and efficacy of its non-military internal and external policies, the Union must adopt the utility of both civilian and military power to be an effective regional and global actor.

    The first section navigates part of the debate about the EU as a civilian power, and presents some critical questions about its role. The second and third sections show the nature of EU power in South Eastern Europe while also illustrating the approach that its institutions and authorities have taken to build peace and stability in Kosovo. The fourth section shows how the EU has moved beyond the role of civilian power, and in into a new order of supranational ‘actorness’ along military lines. It presents a framework for addressing the type of questions presented in the first section. To this end, it is hoped that a notional contribution will be made to the ongoing dialogue of Europe’s widening and ever-evolving role in IR. The legitimacy of the EU, when it engages in military intervention and peace-keeping or peace-building is likely to come under increased criticism by both Union citizens as well as those who are the subject of intervention, if external engagements are not undertaken in a purely civilian manner.


II. What Kind of ‘Power’ is the EU?

    The debate about the nature of EU power in IR has, in academic circles, persisted beyond a period of three decades. Francois Duchene, in his 1972 chapter entitled "Europe’s Role in World Peace", was the first to speak of the European Community (EC) as a "civilian power". The source of Europe’s normative influence, according to Duchene, rests in the ability to expand the model of guaranteeing stability and security through the application of economic and political force but not through military means. Europe’s nascent economic and political resources were measured as the fundamental bases for an appropriate policy instrument in Europe’s internal and external affairs. Various elements, including, trade, co-operation or association agreements, aid, monetary assistance, institutionalized dialogue, and the promise of EU membership for European states, were brought together in a unified fashion to produce a civilian power EU.

    With the civilian nature of the EU framed these elements, Europe must rely solely on it practice through such elements in order to lend credibility and sustainability to its own good governance. Given the fact that by definition, civilian power Europe was a civilian power, lacking military means, "(even as a risidual instrument), it relied on economic and diplomatic instruments to influence other actors." However, two points should be noted: (i) when the EU develops and applies a military capability and force in its foreign policy, it steps beyond its civilian power limitations; (ii) even though, as Manners suggests, "good (stated) intentions do not always translate into good practice," practice fundamentally serves as the most clear and unambiguous identity signature of any institution or organization. A pervasion of practice in a manner that accords with these two points means suggests the EU’s position of exerting normative influence on other states is inextricably altered. In considering the application of force by civilian power Europe, Ian Manners asserts, "that militarization of the EU need not necessarily lead to the diminution of the EU’s normative power", but "it is increasingly risking [emphasis my own] its normative power". Resultantly, a distinguishable and perplexing ambiguity regarding Europe’s external policy character is thus raised.

    At the beginning of the 1980s, in conditions of slowing integration, namely during a state of so-called "euro-sclerosis" but also during a period of reduced tension in East-West relations, Hedley Bull criticized Duchene’s conceptions of Europe’s normative power. The normative power concept is, according to Bull, "a contradiction in terms" given that the power and influence exerted by the EU and other civilian actors is conditional upon a strategic environment provided by the military power of states, which they did not control. As a retort, Bull advocated the development of European military capabilities. The question of whether European foreign policy exists at all has been left behind by the development of common foreign and security policies, but it is critical to note that what so distinguishes European foreign policy should be seen as the essential element(s) that distinguish Europe.

    Since civilian power Europe alters, or is at least expected or seen to alter, the identity of other state-actors by providing an attractive, but not necessarily a de novo model of good governance and peaceful relations, the use of force contradicts the essence of the EU’s normative policies. Therefore, what emerges from such discourse is a question of whether the EU should be viewed as a military power that exercises normative influence, or should it be seen as a normative power that applies military power? Even though the EU has exemplified the application of power in terms other than the use of military force, a general propensity exists to view the Union as a civilian power. Still, some scholars have reproached such a claim on the basis that the EU more accurately rests along a spectrum between two ideal types of civilian and military powers. With developments that have taken place in the IR field during the 1990s, the EU has rushed headlong into a new approach to foreign policy that transcends traditional claims.

    The characterization of the EU, as presented by Manners, represents its own contradiction when one considers how and by whom the EU’s identity is applied. In the first place, Manners’ normative power Europe is seen not through the various institutions involved in exerting each particular case of power, but through the international identity that the EU has developed as a whole, based on common values and ideologies that have been promoted as representing the Union in the past. In the second place, The EU is capable of changing the concept of what is ‘normal’ or ‘civil’ in international politics "[s]imply by existing as different in a world of states and relations between them".