In a new article published in the Global Health Governance journal, Mark Rhinard and Erik Brattberg discuss pandemic preparedness in the European Union and United States. The scale of dangers posed by influenza pandemics, combined with a series of actual outbreaks, has led policymakers in both the EU and the US to frame the issue as a security threat and to call for extraordinary action. In the US, the 2006 and 2010 National Security Strategies identified pandemics as a “catastrophic challenge” while the 2006 US Pandemic Plan argued that “pandemics should be viewed as a national security issue.” The EU’s 2008 review of its own European Security Strategy broadened the scope of threats facing the continent to include pandemic influenza. Identifying an influenza pandemic as a security threat, however, is relatively easily done. More challenging is to act upon that designation, through implementing security strategies in practice and managing governance processes in multi-level governance systems. Drawing upon securitization theory and traditional implementation theory, this article compares the extent to which the EU and the US have turned words into action on pandemic preparation. The findings show that increasingly securitized rhetoric following the H5N1 and H1N1 outbreaks has indeed been followed by new policies, structures, and operational capacities. As such, the article provides preliminary evidence that securitizing a public policy problem can increase political leverage over administrative processes of implementation. Click here

 

Over the last decade natural and man-made crises requiring a joint European response have increased in number and intensity. In this evolving global security environment, the role of the European Union as a security actor is changing. With every new major crisis the EU leaders have called for new ways and means of strengthening the Union’s capacity to protect European citizens and society.

Practical experiences show, however, that EU Member States’ willingness to draw on the Union in crises and disasters is not just a question of capacities and legal frameworks but also highly dependent on national perceptions and attitudes.

This report focuses on Member States’ expectations on civil protection assistance in the EU by exploring the concept of trust. After investigating Member States’ trust in each other’s preparedness to assist the author of this book presents a set of proposals that aim to strengthen mutual reliance on EU civil protection aid. This report provides an analytical framework for studying the concept of trust, which can be applied to other fields concerning European societal security. Click here for more information.

Daniel P. Aldrich, “The March 2011 Earthquake, Tsunami, and Nuclear Crisis in Japan: A Political-Economy Perspective” The Political Economist, 2011.

Brattberg, Erik “Opportunities lost, opportunities seized: the Libya crisis as Europe’s perfect storm”, Policy Brief published by the European Policy Centre (EPC), Brussels. Click here to download.

 

Speaking before the European Parliament Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety’s workshop on “European Disaster Response” on 15 June 2011, Magnus Ekengren delivered a presentation entitled “New Challenges for EU Disaster Response”. A summary of the presentation is available below. To download the PowerPoint presentation, click here. To watch a video recording of the presentation, click here.

 

Summary of Dr. Ekengren’s presentation:

The EU Commissioner for international cooperation, humanitarian aid and crisis response, Kristalina Georgieva, has proposed the establishment of a European Emergency Response Capacity based on precommitted member states’ assets and pre-agreed contingency plans (COM Communication 26.10.2010). The aim is to take the EU from ad hoc coordination to a system of planned pooling of national resources for prevention and immediate responses to crisis, both inside and outside the Union. On 15 June, the proposal of the Commissioner was discussed in the European Parliament with the participation of MEPs and high representatives of the Commission, the EEAS and international and national organisations. Associate Professor Magnus Ekengren, Swedish National Defence College, was invited to present his views as an expert on European disaster response.

 

In his speech Ekengren welcomed the Commissioner’s proposal and pointed to the remaining challenge of transforming national capacities and thinking for the practical realisation of its goals. There is an urgent need to discuss how the EU can support domestic reforms, strengthen mutual trust and remove obstacles to cooperation for a more integrated European disaster response system.

 

According to Ekengren the EU needs new methods of cooperation aimed at change in the EU member states. It is not enough to pool and “mobilize all instruments” (solidarity clause), if these, together with national structures and regulations, are not systematically adapted to EU needs. The work for new transboundary, cross-sectoral prevention and preparedness structures can only to a limited extent be legislated “from above” or coordinated at the highest political level in the Union bodies. The EU needs to create long-term pressure ”from below” on national stakeholders to foster a European mind-set and a robust transnational organisational capacity. The goal should be to coordinate and integrate national systems to such a degree that member states can respond together in disaster situations across a wide range of areas within public administration; military, emergency services, police, judiciary and intelligence services, as well as civil society, business and voluntary organisations. 

 

This requires new thinking on the possibility of more deep acting guidelines, standards and methods to get those involved to pull together towards European goals. Dr Ekengren welcomed the steps taken towards such a system in the Commission’s work to renew EU civil protection legislation. Next steps should include:

 

  *Adoption of ”EU disaster response guidelines”

  *Adoption of “National Action Plans”, including regional and local levels

  *Joint (Commission and Council) evaluation of national plans

  *EU recommendations to individual member countries not doing enough to meet EU guidelines

  *Deadlines for establishing minimum standards in member states

  *The goal that a certain percentage of national plans should be common to all member states.

 

The aim should be to create active and flexible structures focused on how EU institutions and national capacities, when brought together, can add value to the safety of European citizens and societies. (cf. Ekengren 2006, attached below)

 

Ekengren also pointed out the high costs of the EU’s fragmented disaster response capacity, highlighted by recent transboundary disasters such as the EHEC crisis, immigration flows from North Africa, cyber-attacks on critical communications infrastructures and the Volcanic Ash crises. There is a need for the EU to remove obstacles to European cooperation such as national regulations, – financial frameworks and – calculations of risks and costs. Dr Ekengren proposed that the Commission takes the initiative for a study on the cost of non-cooperation – ”the cost of non-Europe” – for transboundary disaster response. The objective should be to calculate current aggregated (national) costs stemming from transboundary disasters and how much Europe can reduce them.

 

The goal could be to create a ”European disaster response system by 2018”.

 

As a result of the study the Commission could:

•         Propose EC legislation for harmonization of law and technical and financial standards

•         Point out areas where mutual recognition of national procedures and regulation would be enough for a well-functioning European system

•         Quantify costs of non-compliance and set strict deadlines for implementation in member states  

 

The advantage of this method is that it would spur a systematic debate on barriers to cooperation, create incentives for coordinated European response, create momentum for national reform and implementation and standards for interoperability.  

 

Most importantly, the Cost of Non-Europe project would, according to Magnus Ekengren, contribute to a shift in today’s view on European disaster response: from seeing European cooperation as just an ‘added value’ to existing national capacity to a perspective on national resources as parts of an aggregated European system. It would help Europe to take the step from a European security community to a secure European community “where there is real assurance that the members will assist each other in safeguarding democratic institutions, the civilian population and international human security”.

 

For further reading on this topic (Ekengren 2006), click here.

 

The European Security Strategy (ESS) offered the first clear expression of the EU’s global security aims. Eight years later, new attention to the ESS is needed and a new ESS may be required. This is the conclusion of a new Occasional Paper published by the Swedish Institute of International Affairs.

The paper argues that the timing is right for a discussion on the EU’s global role, against the backdrop of institutional change, shifting geopolitics, and crises in the EU’s neighborhood. Drawing lessons from previous strategic drafting processes, including in the EU and in NATO, the paper argues that a new process should be launched with one of three goals in mind: reinvigorate the existing strategy, revise the ESS, or reinvent a new document with a broader strategic scope. The analysis in this paper offers the foundation for a rigorous debate on the future of the EU’s strategic intentions in the world.

When thinking about a possible new European Security Strategy, it is important to remember that since 2010 the EU also has an Internal Security Strategy (ISS). This strategy sets out the vision, values and objectives which underpin the EU’s internal security efforts with an aim towards “integrating existing strategies and conceptual approaches”.

While many of the threats described in the 2003 European Security Strategy and its 2008 “update” (e.g. terrorism, cyber-crime, cross-border crime, and natural disasters) clearly have an internal dimension, the same is also true the other way around.  Attention must therefore be placed on ensuring close alignment not just between the two strategies but also between the internal and external security structures. One proposal put forth in a recent report on the ISS from the House of Lords is that the Standing Committee on Internal Security (COSI) and the Political and Security Committee (PSC) should hold regular joint meetings on a similar basis. Other recommendations in the House of Lords report deserve further study in the months ahead.

The Politics of Security Sector Reform: Challenges and Opportunities for the European Union’s Global Role

Edited by Magnus Ekengren and Greg Simons

 

Security Sector Reform (SSR) is increasingly becoming a cornerstone in international security and development cooperation. Indeed, the concept has often been seen as a panacea for many of the biggest threats to the world such as failed states, terrorism and poverty. In particular, this book focuses on the complexities of implementating SSR across the globe and the European Union’s role for the reform of security sectors, including the ones of societal security. As suggested in the title of the book, this involves not only opportunities, but challenges to be overcome as well. There are three core themes in this book: Policy, Policies and Practice. By  presenting the themes in this particular order a greater appreciation of the influences on the process of SSR, from conception to implementation, is relayed to the reader. The contributors take stock of SSR as practised in the EU thus far and discuss policies for the future. Moreover, they address respectively the needs for SSR and the status of SSR cooperation programmes in a selection of recipient regions and countries such as the Western Balkans, Ukraine, Sub-Saharan Africa, Liberia, Guinea-Bissau and Afghanistan. This volume appeals to audiences interested in the EU as a global actor and the interrelationships between foreign, security, defence and development policies.

  

”With its focus on understanding and linking policies and practice – ‘the politics of SSR’ – this book makes an important contribution to the process of enhancing international capacity to address SSR challenges. Bringing together key thinkers and doers, it provides a valuable in-depth analysis of SSR  experiences and prospects. It highlights the need for balance between respecting national ownership of reforms and providing support to democratic forces, and argues that international efforts should be guided to a greater extent by the long-term goals of democracy and regional cooperation rather than short-term security objectives in areas such as counter-terrorism.”

Gunilla Carlsson, Minister for International Development Cooperation, Sweden, in the Preface

 

The Politics of Security Sector Reform: Challenges and Opportunities for the European Union’s Global Role’ can be found on the Ashgate publishing website via the link below.

http://www.ashgate.com/default.aspx?page=637&calcTitle=1&title_id=10295&edition_id=13397

Framing Europe: The Policy Shaping Strategies of the European Commission

By Mark Rhinard

About the book
Public policymaking increasingly takes place on an international stage, drawing attention to how international bureaucracies set agendas and shape policy outcomes. This book focuses on the European Union and reveals a key strategy used to influence policymaking by one of its central institutions, the European Commission. While most scholarship on the Commission examines its formal means of influence, this book demonstrates how the Commission employs a more informal method of “strategic framing” to manipulate the ideational framework in which policymaking takes place. This method helps the Commission to privilege certain actors, institutional processes, and policy goals in pursuit of preferred outcomes. The effects of strategic framing are examined in four cases of policy change in the fields of agriculture and biotechnology.

“Mark Rhinard has produced a significant study of policymaking in the European Union. He points to the complex interactions of ideas and institutions in making policy. The work is especially important for linking ideas of social construction with theories of the policy process. This book deserves reading by all students of the EU and public policy.”
B. Guy Peters, University of Pittsburgh

Click here to order the book from the publisher