The reasons are the following:
・Certainly, if one of the bigger states holds the Presidency, M. PESC will only have a limited role. In addition, the Helsinki Summit decisions have put the inter-governmental Council in a central position; the High Representative is only "assisting" the Council.4
・In addition, the Commissioner for External Relations of the EU will also have a strong say in the decision-making process. Commissioner Patton is already asking for a much greater role.
Certainly, there are―with regard to the goal of integration―positive features in current developments. Generally speaking, however, there is reason to assume that the CFSP will probably more resemble a slow moving big oil tanker than a fast and mobile speedboat and constitute a rather inward-looking actor when it comes to serious military questions.6
The upcoming EU summit in Nice in December this year is meant to take some decisions to improve the situation, especially with regard to majority voting in foreign policy affairs. There is, however, no substantial progress in sight when it comes to defense affairs. Even the strong pro-integration position of Germany does not support majority voting when decisions have a defense component.
NATO, being an alliance of sovereign states, by comparison, has not had many options to make the formal decision-making structures more efficient. It established through the concept of Combined Joint Task Forces (CJTF) a tool for flexibility during the execution of an operation, but there was no way for formal flexibility on the decision-making level. NATO remains a strict inter-governmental institution.
The OSCE as a niche organization certainly plays a very useful role as a crisis prevention tool as long as the problems it tackles do not become too politicized. However, the result of all these developments resembles a patchwork quilt rather than a clear design. Concerning functions and roles, there are many overlaps especially between NATO and EU/CFSP/WEU but also with the OSCE.
Operation 3: The coordination among security institutions
Whereas the reform and enlargement of security institutions represents a traditional reform strategy, a number of new requirements and needs of"organized multilaterism" will have an impact on the future security set-up:
・Firstly, the complex nature of modern regional security problems requires the cooperation of various institutions with different capacities (and different membership). To bring the wars on the Balkans to an end, for example, a close coordination among NATO, the UN, the EU, OSCE and WEU was necessary.
