The European Union as an Actor in Security Sector Reform

Current Practices and Challenges of Implementation

Oya Dursun-Ozkanca

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9780415717762
• eBook ISBN: 9781317342014
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Política y relaciones internacionales
• Subtopic: Historia militar y marítima

This book critically analyzes the European Union's role in Security Sector Reform (SSR), a topical issue with regards to European security. While the literature on SSR has increased significantly in the past decade, too little remain in the way of comparative analyses of SSR case studies that are geared toward theory development. This collection strives to push the SSR literature in that direction. One key question it focuses on is whether the EU pursues a holistic approach vis-à-vis SSR. Another question the book addresses is why and how the EU activities towards SSR in conflict management, peacebuilding and statebuilding have produced a wide variety of outcomes that range from the failure to reform any or all of the sub-set of security sectors (police, justice, military, etc.) to complete and integrated reform.

The volume encompasses all relevant cases of SSR in terms of the financial, human, and political resources involved at the EU level. Cases are drawn from the Balkans (Kosovo; Bosnia-Herzegovina), Africa (Democratic Republic of Congo), the Middle East (Palestinian Territories), Post-Soviet Space (Georgia), and Asia (Aceh, Indonesia). The end product is a welcome contribution to the literature, providing both an empirically and theoretically grounded approach to the study of SSR.

This book was originally published as a special issue of European Security.

The European Union and Security Sector Reform: current practices and challenges of implementation

Oya Dursun-Ozkanca^a and Antoine Vandemoortele^b

^aDepartment of Political Science, Elizabethtown College, One Alpha Drive, Elizabethtown, PA 17022, USA; ^bDepartment of Social and Political Sciences, European University Institute, Via dei Roccettini 9, San Domenico di Fiesole I-50014, Italy

This article presents an introduction to the special volume, titled The European Union (EU) and the Security Sector Reform Practices: Challenges of Implementation, by framing the debate on the EU’s Security Sector Reform (SSR) activities in a variety of conflict and post-conflict settings. Drawing on the existing body of literature on SSR, the analytical model proposed here allows us to identify, categorize, and group a wide range of factors that are relevant for understanding the performance of the EU as an SSR actor. This article introduces the main themes of this special issue, summarizes each individual contribution briefly, extends the main research findings of this special issue, and concludes with broad commonalities across different cases. It is a conceptual article outlining a discussion of wider theoretical reflections based on the empirical contributions presented in this volume, and provides an explanatory framework for success or failure in the individual case studies that follow.

Introduction

Security Sector Reform (SSR) is increasingly utilized as an approach to effective conflict resolution, post-conflict reconstruction, state building, and democratization. As the security challenges in the post-cold war era are complex, they require effective measures in response, reflecting an increasing acceptance of the need for a comprehensive approach to peace-building and state-building missions. The mandates of such missions are becoming more expansive, increasingly incorporating SSR activities.¹

Due to a growing number of initiatives the European Union (EU) is taking on this realm, the Intergovernmental Approaches to SSR (2006, p. 9) report identifies the EU as ‘potentially the most important resource provider for SSR programmes.’ To illustrate, the EU at the 2000 Feira European Council underlined four priority areas of civilian action: police reform, strengthening the rule of law, strengthening civilian administration, and civilian protection. The 2003 European Security Strategy (ESS) explicitly established SSR as an objective in the EU’s overall security framework and underlined that it should be ‘part of a broader institution building’ process (Council of the European Union 2003, p. 5).

Consequently, the European Council offered its full support behind SSR in a 2005 draft concept for the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) support for SSR, noting:

the ultimate goal…to reach a situation where the security system is organized in a way which ensures an effective Security Sector, the protection of individuals as well as of sustainable state institutions through ensured democratic oversight, transparency and accountability in accordance with internationally recognized values and standards. (Council of the European Union 2005, p. 10)

Given the EU’s understanding of the relationship between security and other EU priorities such as human rights, human security, and development, SSR is considered a ‘cross-cutting’ issue for all EU institutions (Sherriff 2007; Law and Myshlovska 2008). Therefore, the EU’s involvement in SSR reveals several interlocking agendas: conflict prevention, crisis management, good governance, and enlargement (Sherriff 2007). Accordingly, the Union utilizes various community instruments, which ‘fall under Development Cooperation, Enlargement, the Stabilization and Association Process, the European Neighbourhood Policy, Conflict Prevention and Crisis Management, Democracy and Human Rights, and the External Dimension of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice,’ in order to support SSR processes in different parts of the world (Commission of the European Communities 2006, p. 3). Similarly, launched in 2007, the European Commission’s Instrument for Pre-Accession provides assistance for political reform, particularly institution building, strengthening the rule of law, human rights, protection of minorities, and the development of civil society in countries engaged in the EU accession process, with direct and indirect implications on SSR in pre-accession countries.

The SSR missions are increasingly ascending in importance within missions conducted under the framework of the ESDP and its successor the European Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), helping achieve goals of establishing secure environments where the rule of law and human rights are respected. Thus, a number of EU missions are aimed at SSR, especially capacity building in relation to police forces, border guards, and security forces, such as in Bosnia, Herzegovina, Macedonia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Georgia and the development of the culture and institutions of the rule of law, such as in Kosovo, Georgia, Aceh, and Palestinian Territories. Furthermore, as Faleg notes below, the current debates surrounding the setting up of an EU SSR mission in Libya suggest that the SSR concept and its implementation persist as a policy innovation in the EU. SSR also emerges as a vital agenda item for other countries in the Middle East and North Africa that are undergoing profound political change. As such, it is a highly topical issue with regard to the CSDP. Consequently, this special volume critically analyzes the role of the EU in SSR. The purpose of this introduction to the case studies that follow is fourfold. First, it discusses the rationale of this special volume and frames the debate on the EU’s SSR activities. Second, it provides a literature review of SSR activities today and the role played by the EU in promoting and implementing SSR policies in a variety of contexts and countries. Third, it presents the results of each individual contribution briefly. Finally, it extends the main research findings of this special issue, offers a discussion of wider empirical and theoretical reflections based on the articles presented here, and discusses future avenues for research on the EU’s SSR activities.

Rationale and outline

While the academic literature and policy documents on SSR have increased significantly in the past decade, too little remain in the way of comparative analyses of SSR case studies that are geared towards theory testing and theory building. ‘Developing tools for comprehensive SSR analyses as well as operational guidelines for implementing SSR as a follow-up to this concept can assist in the overall assessment, programming and implementation of EU/EC support in the field’ (Commission of the European Communities 2006, p. 11). This special issue strives to push the SSR research agenda in this direction by producing a series of articles that go beyond analyses of specific case studies on SSR. It provides key elements to broaden the scope and generalize key issues of SSR and the role played by the EU in those reforms. At the core of this special issue is the notions of comparative analysis and theory building.

Despite an impressive amount of growth in the literature on SSR, and an increasing number of EU SSR activities, there are still many questions in need of answers. One such key question revolves around the topic of whether the EU pursues a holistic approach vis-à-vis the SSR. What distinguishes this special volume from the rest of the academic literature on SSR is first and foremost its focus on implementation. This special volume contributes to the literature by asking why and how the EU activities towards SSR in conflict management, peace building and state building have produced a wide variety of outcomes that range from the failure to reform the sub-set of security sectors (police, justice, military, etc.) to complete and integrated reform. Besides analyzing the success and the failure of the outcome, the case studies in this special volume also explore a series of unintended consequences of EU’s SSR activities.

This special issue brings together scholars that not only have extensive knowledge of their respective case studies, but also reflect on the general questions of this special issue using their research findings based on fieldwork in countries where the EU is actively involved in SSR. The articles in this special volume are rich empirically: they contextualize the history, debates, and institutionalization of SSR strategy at the EU level.

The contributors also elaborate on the broader implications of their findings beyond their case studies to truly highlight the varieties of EU SSR practices across contexts ranging from conflict to post-conflict stages. Using the dense empirical research on EU operations in the field of SSR, this article generates comparative knowledge about variations in effects of EU SSR. Consequently, an extensive analysis of various EU SSR activities and the overall lessons drawn on the EU’s role in SSR is the main added value of this special volume.

Second, the geographical focus and the selection of cases in this special issue are truly global and reflect the growth of the EU as a foreign and security actor in world politics. Cases are drawn from the Balkans (Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina), Africa (Democratic Republic of Congo), the Middle East (Palestinian Territories), the South Asia (Afghanistan), the Southern Caucasus (Georgia), and Asia (Aceh, Indonesia). As such, the list of case studies encompasses the most relevant SSR cases in terms of financial, human, and political resources involved at the EU and its member states level. Furthermore, the selection of cases also provides an opportunity to analyze the EU’s role in SSR in a variety of settings: i.e. ongoing conflict, frozen conflict or post-conflict contexts.

Finally, this special volume adds theoretical aspiration to a field of study that has largely produced descriptive and documentary policy analysis. Thus, another value added of this special volume is theory building, which addresses a significant gap in the literature. The contributions in this special volume focus on a number of overarching research questions and underline the need for comparative analysis (either within case of different sectors in a country; across EU country assistance; compared with other actors) to grasp the similarities, differences, and specificities of EU practices across different contexts. The end product is a welcome contribution to the literature on SSR, as it provides a theoretically grounded and empirically rich collection of studies on EU SSR activities.

Besides this introduction, there are eight individual articles in this special volume. While Faleg contribution is a general piece using the epistemic community framework that provides both the background information on the origins and the rise of EU SSR activities, the subsequent contributions provide country-specific case studies. Faleg contribution offers a first theoretical possibility to generalize the findings of this volume and the subsequent contributions analyze the role of the EU in reforming the security sector in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kosovo, Palestinian Territories, Georgia, and Aceh, respectively. The challenge here is to provide a coherent analytical framework to study the EU SSR policies and activities in the field, and to explain why in some cases the EU is more successful than in others. As such, this article first surveys the current state of the implementation of SSR around the world, and then focuses on the track record of the EU in SSR. Following a comprehensive review of the literature, it then presents the original analytical approach adopted by this special volume.

An overview of SSR implementation

This section provides an overview of the current knowledge of the dynamics and practices of SSR and the roles played by the EU in promoting, developing and implementing SSR strategies in a wide variety of cases. It addresses the EU’s empirical record in SSR, identifies some key challenges the Union faces in that realm, and, finally, makes some general remarks on the current state of the literature.

As noted by Simons below, SSR has become ‘a broad catchphrase and an expectation or hope for what needs to be done,’ and ‘means different things for different actors and stakeholders.’ The definition of SSR used in this special issue is borrowed from the Security System Reform and Governance document of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)-Development Assistance Committee (DAC): processes and procedures dedicated to the reform of the security sector:

which includes all the actors, their roles, responsibilities and actions – working together to manage and operate the system in a manner that is more consistent with democratic norms and sound principles of good governance, and thus contributes to a well functioning security framework. (OECD 2005, p. 20)

The same document defines security sector as:

core security actors (e.g. armed forces, police, gendarmerie, border guards, customs and immigration, and intelligence and security services); security management and oversight bodies (e.g. ministries of defense and internal affairs, financial management bodies and public complaints commissions); justice and law enforcement institutions (e.g. the judiciary, prisons, prosecution services, traditional justice systems); and non-statutory security forces (e.g. private security companies, guerrilla armies and private militia). (OECD 2005, p. 5)

SSR implementation around the world

The post-communist transition of Eastern Europe in the 1990s (Gheciu 2005) is one of the most successful case of such reforms, alongside Sierra Leone and South Africa. In fact, the first applications of SSR policies were made within the context of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and EU enlargements in the 1990s and they remain key examples of the potential of SSR. The record of such reforms in the Balkans and the Caucasus has proven less conclusive. The long-winded road towards police reform in Bosnia and the failure to promote community policing mechanisms in Georgia are examples of the difficulties of SSR in the region (Damian and Vetschera 2006; Muehlmann 2007, 2008). Others have argued that reforms had been more or less efficient, such as in Kosovo, but have not produced fully democratic forces (Crossley-Frolick and Dursun-Ozkanca 2012).

The spectrum of the cases in Africa project an even wider diversity of empirical achievements with clear successes like South Africa (Nathan 2007) and Sierra Leone (Gbla 2006) on one side, and mixed or negative results in Liberia, Sudan and Congo on the other side. While efforts in Latin America have been less at the center stage of SSR debates, some key insights can nevertheless be gleaned from them. For instance, Haiti, one of the most frequently studied cases in the Caribbean, presents a negative SSR outcome with the police and military sectors politicized and not completely accountable to public (Donais 2006; Mendelson-Forman 2006), raising issues on the difficulties for external actors to bring about positive change. In Asia, Afghanistan and Timor-Leste are the prime examples of SSR programs. In Afghanistan, despite a clear mandate on SSR, the international actors have not been fully able to implement the major components of SSR programs (rule of law, prison, police and military); and the divergent objectives between these actors regarding the creation of a more effective versus a more accountable military have delayed the progress (Sedra 2006).

Traditionally, SSR activities have taken place in three different contexts: conflict and post-conflict situations; developing countries and countries in transition; and democratic and developed countries.² Looking at the context, external SSR missions have been implemented in conflict, post-conflict, frozen conflict, post-communist and post-authoritarian situations, as well as in the context of the EU enlargement. In the conflict and post-conflict categories, Iraq presents a good example of the difficulties of SSR during conflict situations (Papagianni 2007). Furthermore, as illustrated by Simons below, the case of Georgia demonstrates the limits of SSR in the context of frozen conflicts. While the NATO and EU enlargements have produced successful outcomes in the Eastern European transitional context in 1990s; in South Africa, local efforts led to effective reforms during the country’s transitional context. Nevertheless, while other transitional countries that have received SSR programs from the EU, such as Morocco and Algeria, have achieved more efficient security services in fighting organized crime, the reforms in these countries did not necessarily result in more democratic institutions, raising questions about the objectives of these reforms (Mounier 2007; Trauner 2009).

As SSR encompasses a large array of dimensions (defense, police, border guards, justice, rule of law, etc.), it is not surprising that implementation in different sectors have resulted in different outcomes. To generalize, the reform of the military and defense institutions are usually more successful, in part because of the universal quality of norms regarding civil-military relations (Edmunds 2007). The reform of police forces produces a more uneven record, especially in the domain of community policing where advances are more on the principle than the policy side (Peake and Groenewald 2004). Reforms of the institutions that ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Citation Information
• Foreword
• 1. The European Union and Security Sector Reform: current practices and challenges of implementation
• 2. Between knowledge and power: epistemic communities and the emergence of security sector reform in the EU security architecture
• 3. From speeches to actions: EU involvement in the war in Afghanistan through the EUPOL Afghanistan Mission
• 4. Adaptation, resistance and a (Re)turn to functionalism: the case of the Bosnian police restructuring process (2003–2008)
• 5. The implementation of the EU security sector reform policies in the Democratic Republic of Congo?
• 6. Security sector reform in Kosovo: the complex division of labor between the EU and other multilateral institutions in building Kosovo’s police force
• 7. The European Union’s role in the Palestinian Territories: state-building through Security Sector Reform?
• 8. Security Sector Reform and Georgia: the European Union’s challenge in the Southern Caucasus
• 9. Which and whose authority? EU support to security governance in Aceh
• Index