Paris, 3 April 2009 – Civil-military cooperation in crisis management is one of the main challenges for the ESDP in the future. On the occasion of the German WEU Presidency and at the invitation of the Assembly’s German Delegation, the European Security and Defence Assembly/Assembly of WEU yesterday held a colloquy at the Reichstag, Berlin on “Civil-military cooperation in crisis management”. Two special round-table debates focused on Afghanistan and Kosovo, bringing together political figures from those countries and senior officials from the EU and NATO.

The colloquy was opened by Vice-President of the Assembly and Chairman of its German Delegation, Gerd HÖFER, MdB, and by the President of the Assembly, Robert WALTER, MP (United Kingdom), both of whom expressed their firm view that success in the long term could never be achieved by military means alone. Smart crisis-management involved a combination of military and civil components. It was necessary to develop further a common culture of civil-military interaction.

The first session, “Concepts of civil-military cooperation”, was chaired by the Chairman of the Defence Committee, Doug HENDERSON, MP (United Kingdom, Socialist Group). Véronique ROGER-LACAN, Deputy Director of the Strategic Affairs Section at the French Ministry of Defence (Paris) pointed both to the broad consensus that existed on the need for more comprehensive and integrated coordination between civil and military action and to the difficulty in implementing it on the ground. Designing concepts for civil-military cooperation was a “non-issue”. The focus should be on political objectives rather than on conceptualising. Frank LARSSON, Director for Civil-Military Relations, Swedish Armed Forces International Centre (SWEDINT), briefed participants on the subject of “Nordic civil-military cooperation”. The military, civilian and police components had to work together right from the start of any multinational involvement, but a growing number of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were involved and civil-military cooperation (CIMIC) was becoming increasingly complex. In addition, it was frequently not enough to ensure security. Often the international community also had to engage in a wider state-building strategy. Alexander SIEDSCHLAG, representing the European Security Conference Initiative, spoke on “Civil-military interaction in EU crisis management”. As far back as its Helsinki and Gothenburg Summits, the EU had advocated the need for a comprehensive approach to crisis management, an idea reinforced in the European Security Strategy. The challenge was to coordinate ESDP structures so as to take account of EU member states’ interests and constraints. Martin LACOURT, Senior Armed and Security Forces Delegate, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Brussels, pointed out that the distinction between “civil” and “military” was becoming blurred, which was not without its drawbacks. He explained that the ICRC used its neutrality, which all parties to a conflict were obliged to accept, as an “operational tool”. This meant the organisation was able to bring relief to all victims.

The second session, “Lessons learned from Afghanistan”, was chaired by Detlef DZEMBRITZKI, MdB, SDP spokesman on Afghanistan and member of the German Delegation and former Rapporteur for the Assembly on the subject. He advocated more commitment to civil and military action in Afghanistan and more synergy between the two. Major General Erhard BÜHLER, Director Joint Commitments Staff, German Ministry of Defence, Berlin, reminded his audience that Germany was the Support Nation for ISAF North District and also provided key capabilities for ISAF troops all around the country. Speaking on “ISAF Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) in Kunduz and Feyzabad”, he explained that PRTs had a very strong reconstruction component. Germany implemented an “interdepartmental” approach between different Afghan ministries (Defence, Foreign Affairs, Interior, Development and Economic Cooperation). Coordination between ISAF troops and NGOs had also improved a lot. There was now “an atmosphere of trust” between civil and military players in Afghanistan. Aziz BABAKARKHAIL, Senior Advisor and Head of Development and PRTs Department, Independent Directorate of Local Governance, Kabul, pointed out that PRTs have a civ-mil structure comprising both military and civilian personnel. Particular successes had been achieved in building roads and other infrastructure. However some improvements were needed, especially enhanced coordination between the Afghan authorities and PRT personnel and an extended tour length for the latter, especially the civilian staff. In addition, there should be more focus on capacity building for provincial administration and paving the way for sustainable economic development. The regional situation in the different parts of Afghanistan should also be taken into account. Mr Alain BOINET, Managing Director and Founder, Solidarités (a humanitarian aid NGO in Paris), asked three questions: What was the international community’s record after eight years in Afghanistan? What was the way ahead? What would remain after it left? Despite improvements, the results were very patchy. A third of the territory was inaccessible to humanitarian workers. The country remained one of the poorest in the world. It would take decades of support to underpin the country’s development. War had pushed some Afghans towards Islamic radicalism. The main challenge was not to win the war but to restore peace. That meant abandoning the current strategy, negotiating with the rebels at the highest level of their hierarchy and strengthening the roots of democracy in Afghanistan through a bottom-up approach (from the local Jirga, or assemblies, to state level). Afghanistan was a decentralised and multiethnic country with a strong tradition of independence. A federalist political system would therefore be more relevant than a centralised one. The forthcoming elections needed to be monitored closely. Václav PECHA, Civilian Head of the Czech-led Provincial Reconstruction Team in Logar Province (until March 2009), also spelt out the need to work more closely with the Afghan state and local authorities and listen more closely to the people. Local involvement was essential for long-term stability and prosperity.

At the third session: “Kosovo and EULEX”, chaired by Mr HÖFER, Mr Roy REEVE, Deputy head of EULEX Kosovo, Pristina, reported on the state of play with the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX Kosovo) and outlined the way forward. Local ownership was the key concept underpinning the mission which had begun officially on 9 December 2008. On Monday next, this “integrated” ESDP mission (justice, police, customs and border) was to be declared fully operational. At present it comprised 1 745 international staff (from 31 countries, EU member states and also countries such as the United States, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, Croatia and, very shortly, Canada) and 850 national staff (whose numbers would double in the coming months). EULEX works in cooperation with NATO/KFOR, the UN, OSCE and other organisations. A third of the EU mission staff are police, so the EULEX-KFOR coordination framework includes military support to them where needed. Brigadier General Kurt Helmut SCHIEBOLD, KFOR, Pristina, observed that KFOR’s original tasks as defined in UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (such as the provision of assistance to UNMIK as the interim administration) had to a large extent been achieved. Furthermore, UNMIK-centred governance had been transferred to local governance structures or was being taken care of by the EULEX mission. KFOR’s adapted mission was to contribute to the maintenance of a safe and secure environment and to assist in creating the conditions for a final settlement. Bujar BUKOSHI, Deputy Chairman, European Integration Committee, Parliament of Kosovo, Pristina, described the launch of EULEX Kosovo as positive, although it was hampered by difficulties involving the secondment of officials and the lack of clarity vis-à-vis the status of Kosovo, still not recognised by all EU countries. Mia MARZOUK, Team Leader South Eastern Europe, Saferworld (NGO), Pristina, emphasised that without clarity, one could not expect real accountability. She called on parliamentarians to lobby, ahead of the February 2010 EULEX Kosovo Joint Action Review, for criteria by which EULEX could be judged successful. She also urged the EU member states to maintain the momentum for enlargement since “the EU path was the carrot, glue and hope” for all the countries in the region. Shpend AHMETI, Director, Institute for Advanced Studies (GAP), Pristina, noted that the biggest security threat in Kosovo was the economic situation. With economic prosperity, the relations between ethnic communities would automatically become easier. The country needed to achieve a better trade balance. There had to be genuine local ownership. Local people had to be given a chance to understand new legislation that was brought in if they were to implement it properly! The countries of the regions needed clear incentives from Brussels to conduct in-depth reforms, with a view to EU membership application in due course.

Following a lively debate, Mr HÖFER brought the colloquy to a close, underlining the need to “listen to expectations if you want to see happy people”. There should be a way of “harmonising expectations”, just as the ESDA found ways to harmonise views on defence and security issues through national parliamentarians working together in Europe’s “common interest”.