The EU and the challenges of Civil-Military Coordination at the strategic level

The purpose of this report is to analyse the practical framework for effective planning and coordination between different EU actors (both intra-pillar and inter-pillar) for EU crisis management. This has to do with a development during recent years where the focus of international crisis management is shifting from peacekeeping, which was about maintaining the status-quo, to peace building which has to do with managing transitions. Within such a context, the overarching approach is to describe and analyse the EU’s ability to address complex crises in a coherent manner by drawing on examples from two recent EU operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina (EUFOR Althea) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (EUFOR RD Congo in 2006). Civil-Military Cooperation (CIMIC), Civil-Military Coordination (CMCO) and comprehensive planning are three concepts that frame the debate on what kind of security actor the EU is. While CIMIC is confined to the tactical and operational levels of command and relates to practical cooperation between actors in the field, the CMCO-concept is an internal EU measure for closer cooperation and coordination between different EU actors at the strategic level. CMCO addresses the need for effective coordination of the actions of all relevant EU actors involved in the planning and subsequent implementation of the EU’s response to the crisis. Hence, central to CMCO is enhanced intra-institutional complementarity between the European Commission and the Council of the European Union. Therefore, within an EU context, CMCO should be regarded as synonymous with a comprehensive approach towards the security challenges now facing the international community. However, when analysing the EU’s comprehensive approach, there is an important distinction to make between the Commission’s long-term involvement and the Council’s more operationally driven approach which focuses on stabilisation and thus rapid reaction. Comprehensive planning refers in this respect to the systematic approach designed to address the need for effective intra-pillar and inter-pillar coordination of activity by all relevant EU actors in crisis management planning. Central to the build-up of better coordination is further institutional strengthening of the EU’s common foreign and security policy apparatus, including autonomous planning and command and control facilities. The further development of the Civil-Military Cell within the EU Military Staff (EUMS) and the newly founded Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC) are key elements in this. While parts of the research literature have underlined the difficulties the EU faces in connection with civil-military cooperation and coordination, the present report, by basing itself upon a social constructivist approach, emphasises that a “culture of coordination” is emerging, as is also a European strategic culture. The main impediment towards such a culture of coordination is, as always, the British-French disagreement on how the EU should relate to NATO and the greater Euro-Atlantic security community.