1 A human security vision for Europe and beyond by Marlies Glasius and Mary Kaldor (p. 3-4)

Introduction

Since September 11, many commentators have noted the growing divergence of world view between Europe and the United States. One of the most widely quoted characterizations of this divergence is that of Robert Kagan (2002, 2003). Kagan contrasts what he sees as the American Hobbesian world view, in which military power is the key factor, with the European Kantian view, which places the emphasis on the extension of international law. The former view considers the Hobbesian idea of a state of nature, a ‘war of every man against every man’, as continuing to apply to the inter-state world. A superpower, asserting its military might whenever and however it deems necessary, is therefore the only possible way to keep order and keep anarchy at bay. The Kantian view favours a law-based approach to maintaining international peace and justice, believing that peaceful and rights-based states cannot exist in isolation in a world where ‘might is right’. ‘The problem of establishing a perfect civil constitution is subordinate to the problem of a law-governed external relationship with other states, and cannot be solved unless the latter is also solved’ (Kant [1784] 1991: 45, 47). According to Kagan, the Kantian approach is typical of weak states.

Our contention is that a European world view should indeed be based on Kantian principles. As we elaborate below, the European Union itself can be viewed as a ‘perpetual peace’ project, according to which nationstates continue to exist but agree not to go to war with each other and to adhere to certain standards, particularly standards of democracy and human rights. But we differ from Kagan in two important respects. First of all, we argue that, in an era of globalization, this approach is actually more realistic than a Hobbesian world view. Because societies are so interdependent at all levels, it is no longer possible to defend the interests of a particular nation or region unilaterally. A geo-political approach, which pursues national interest through top-down relations backed by military force, will turn out to be counter-productive, as is clearly evident in the ‘war on terror’ operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Second, we do think that the European approach needs to be underpinned by military force and that Europe needs to be ‘tougher’ than hitherto. But military forces need to be con.gured in quite new ways. They need to be able to prevent and contain violence in different parts of the world; but this is different, we argue, from being able to .ght wars against other states or proto-states. They should address the real security needs of people in situations of severe insecurity; and, by addressing these, they will also make the world safer for Europeans. Indeed, in our view, there is a dangerous disjunction between traditional security instruments and actual security needs.

Naturally, internal security within the Union and within the member states remains of vital importance, and substantial resources of the member states and the EU will continue to be devoted to initiatives to enhance security internally. However, our point is that internal and external security are now inseparable, and that making a contribution to global security should be part of Europe’s security policy. This introductory chapter, like the work of the Study Group, addresses only this external security dimension.

The approach to security we propose is not peculiar to Europe. We would make the same case for NATO or the United Nations. The advantage of thinking about European security capabilities is that European security policy is relatively recent and is not mired in the institutional legacy of past wars and past military traditions. This is not a competitive approach vis-à-vis the United States. Ideally we would hope that eventually the United States would adopt a similar approach.

In the next section, we elaborate why we think the changed global context calls for a radically different approach to security. Subsequently, we discuss the concept of human security, and why we think security outside the borders should concern Europe. The next section outlines our overall vision for European security policy. The penultimate section contains a re.ection on the nature of the European polity in its relation to human security. The conclusion recapitulates the main elements of our vision.