Crisis Management

Member states engage in crisis management, both in their immediate neighbourhood and globally, through various multilateral institutions. While the EU itself is now the primary stabilising force across the Balkans, NATO remains the primary conduit for European efforts in Afghanistan, and the EU turned to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to deploy a police mission during the Kyrgyz crisis. Meanwhile, in African crises European governments typically engage in indirect crisis management, providing financial and diplomatic support to the United Nations (UN) and African Union (AU). This fragmentation is reflected in the assessments included here. European governments have staked far greater resources and taken much greater political risks in places where troops, police or civilian crisis experts are deployed through the EU or NATO. But since the EU frequently states its support for UN and OSCE operations in high-profile trouble spots such as Sudan and Kyrgyzstan, they must also be included in any assessment of Europe’s contribution to crisis management.

A small number of European governments – France, the UK and, to some extent, Germany – play a crucial role in defining not only EU and NATO policy but also the governance of the UN and the OSCE. The European Commission has also been an essential donor to the AU’s peace operations. The activities of these organisations are an important but overlooked dimension of European power, even if they do not fly a European flag or involve many European personnel. We have also covered European activities ranging from conflict prevention (as in West Africa) to long-term statebuilding (as in Kosovo). With the all-important exception of Afghanistan, neither the EU nor NATO is at present directly involved in “hot” crises involving significant conflict. Instead, European efforts are largely focused on averting violence and, in particular, on long-term post-conflict peacebuilding.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE - COMPARE TO 2012