Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Regional and Global Security by Paweł Frankowski & Artur Gruszczak

Author:Paweł Frankowski & Artur Gruszczak
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Springer International Publishing, Cham

Security Development Nexus

The EU, especially since the Goteborg Programme in 2001,6 has developed into a key actor in shaping and defining the agenda about issues concerning the security-development nexus. The EU has increasingly sought to influence the debate on this matter at an international as well as national level. For instance, it has provided a platform for launching discussions in the making of a ‘Human Security Doctrine for Europe’, and in these terms, the EC has proposed that the HS concept should be at the basis of bridging development and security policies. Internationally seen the HS is disputed, but at the EU level, the HS is sought with the aim to ensure that EU security policies do take into account the HS needs (Bueger and Vennesson 2009) in concerned countries, regions and continents such as Africa. The EU, by such ‘multi-functional approach’ promotes a holistic approach, through which it aims to position itself as a major actor on the international arena. The reasoning behind this is that the EU, inasmuch an international actor offering a multi-dimensional approach to security issues, can claim the status of an international power (Bretherton and Vogler 2006; Soeterdorp 1999). EU’s added value as a multi-institutional and/or hybrid structure is likely to provide all types of crisis management tools—from humanitarian to civilian to military—within one unique framework (Bagayoko and Gibert 2007, p. 9). Due to the complexity and multiplicity of problems faced—poverty, conflicts, wars, and humanitarian catastrophes—the African continent fits perfectly within this EU approach. Such debate is also welcomed by Africa/AU since it too it looks to tackle security comprehensively. African perceptions of security threats include poverty, pandemic diseases such as HIV/AIDS and malaria, food insecurity, child soldiers, bad governance etc. (Beebe 2010, p. 96; Thomas 2001, pp. 59–75). At the EU, the security-development nexus is seen as to embrace two dimensions, the one concerning the politico-legal facet mentioned above, and the other, the implementation through instruments that comprehensively tackle the security and long term development agendas. This second dimension is fully included within the instruments funding JAES P&S such as the EDF, the African Peace Facility (APF), the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) and the Instrument for Stability (IfS) (Strzaska and Moeller 2008, p. 3; Elowson 2009, p. 20).7 Although, it has to be said that, the fact that APF funds are sourced from the EDF has raised some restrictions on the type of support to be provided. APF funds are earmarked for personnel and logistical needs and cannot be used for direct military assistance. Such has, of course, created complications for the AU to effectively employ APF funds in supporting peacekeeping operations.

Coming back to the EU and African conceptualisations of the security-development nexus, both actors seem to share most of the common ground of what security for each of them is. From the official statements remarked at the Lisbon summit, it becomes clear that the JAES, its P&S partnership and especially its Action Plan/Roadmap aim at doing exactly this.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.