This was the preface to a declaration made by Robert Schuman, French Foreign Minister (1948-55), as Europe lay in ruins in the aftermath of the Second World War. Rebuilding Europe required a new philosophy of international relations, one based on real equality between States and the will to take concrete action together, a radically new way of building friendship, and co-operation between European nations and peoples. This foresight of Schuman put into practice a concept for securing a lasting peace for the nations of Europe and thus began the process of integration th

In the context of September 11th, it is clear that the EU has not yet found its role in a world political crisis of this kind. Progress made to unite Europe in peacekeeping and defence action has moved in reverse as national states have taken decisive action in response to the atrocities and there has been no clear ‘European’ action. The processes and response channels in place for such political situations is still in its infancy, the European Security and Defence Policy (EDSP) still theorises crises management and is still working an anti-terrorism strategy, whilst conforming to UN Security Council Resolutions.

External threats upon the EU are currently the largest impedance to securing peace and stability in Europe, and challenge the theoretical development of defence, security and diplomacy strategies currently in position.

Essentially, this concept of Europe’s ‘rich tapestry’ can be fully explored in the context of European national identity, but it is one element of peace and stability, that comes from within, a peace that starts at home. In recent years, the trend for theorizing and academic discussion has been the concept of prevention of conflict and crises rather than hindsight analysis, suggesting the EU must look at root causes of intrastate wars, such as those in Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, and Israel, leaving the clear-up process of peacekeeping to the United Nations (UN).

At this point we must consider the policies in the European Union that exist for security and defence, resolutions of the Maastricht Treaty (March 1992), intended to enhance the parity of European international affairs through the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), and as I have previously mentioned, created a relationship between the EU and WEU, which would elaborate and implement EU decisions in the area of defence. Later revision of the Maastricht Treaty through the Amsterdam Treaty, made reference to the Petersberg tasks as priorities for security policy: the humanitarian, evacuation, peacekeeping missions, and crisis management tasks (European Council, Laeken, 2001). The Treaty provided that all EU member states are entitled to participate in such tasks, and was consistent with the military neutrality policy of many member nations, for example Ireland, that was present in the original Maastricht Treaty: ‘‘The policy of the Union in accordance with this Article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States’’ (Article 17.1 of the Amsterdam Treaty).

at has continued for over fifty years.

If Robert Schuman were alive on this day, I think he would proud of what has been achieved from the stepping-stone he lay down in 1950.

Some topics in this essay:
Central Africa, European Union, European Council, Eastern Europe, Ireland Basque, Amsterdam Treaty, Western Europe, EU Europe, Nations UN, Egon Bahr, peace stability, european union, amsterdam treaty, security defence, maintaining peace, united nations, defence policy, security defence policy, maastricht treaty, weu-nato alliance, defence structure, common foreign security, treaty march 1992, peace stability europe, central eastern europe,