The year 2008 was that of a triple anniversary and of a double illusion with regard to European defence. Fifteen years ago, the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty marks the official launch of the CFSP (Common Foreign and Security Policy), with the prospect of a possible future defence component.

The following brief overview proposes to summarize the principal developments of the year 2007 in the field of European defence. In this regard, two preliminary remarks are of order. The first one is terminological; it relates to the denomination ESDP (European security and defence policy) used up to now, present paper included. It is bound to become, once the new treaty ratified, CSDP (Common security and defence policy). The second remark consists in stressing that the developments and the debates in 2007 continue to revolve around the most controversial concept in European defence, namely the term of ‘autonomy’.

Contrary to the two dominant, albeit diametrically opposed, types of forecasts that were both highly fashionable a few years ago, it appears more and more clearly that the headaches related to the EU-NATO conundrum are here to stay. Those who, in view of the initial difficulties of establishing mutually acceptable relations between the two organizations, were talking about teething problems likely to be replaced, in due course, by a harmonious insertion of the new-born European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) into the Atlantic system, were just as wrong as those who saw in it yet another occasion to toll the death knell of the North Atlantic Alliance. As it is, neither of the two scenarios seems close to becoming a reality any time soon.

The armaments sector is the par excellence strategic field, be it in geopolitical, economic or technological terms. Due to the coincidence between the most abstract questions related to sovereignty and the most tangible nature of the products (origin, composition, design), the policies pursued in this area are particularly revealing of, and determining for, the direction Europe is about to take.

In the public relations offensive carried out from Brussels - with the explicit or implicit support of a large part of the private industrial sector - article 296 is presented as being at the origin of the European fragmentation in the armament field. The only error of this otherwise attractive reasoning is that it confuses cause and consequence. Because far from being the source, article 296 is rather the reflection of our divisions. In particular that of the divergences, not to say differences, of intra-European viewpoints on the very idea we have on Europe’s future: power or not, European or not.

As for the systematically hidden choice between European dependence or independence, in the texts, everything seems crystal clear. When the ESDP (European Security and Defense Policy) was launched in June 1999 in Cologne, the Declaration of the Fifteen immediately stipulated the need for autonomy and credibility of the Union's means and assets. This is in line with the objectives set out in Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union, in particular the "safeguarding of the common values, fundamental interests, independence and integrity" of the EU. However, not only are we still waiting to see when these beautiful words will be translated into deeds, but the very question of whether they should be one day remains an object of debate.

First of all, it is worth underlining that neither the French elections of 2007, nor those in the United States in 2008 are bound to alter in a notable way - i.e. in addition to the gestures and effect-based announcements scheduled for these occasions - the traditional orientations of the two countries’ foreign and security policies. Likewise, the calvaries of the new European treaty, the actual rhythm of the EU’s blind rush to enlargement, and the endless transatlantic initiatives based on stylistic changes in Washington are equally secondary from the point of view of the real evolutions in European integration and in our relationship with the United States.

According to a widely known phrase pronounced by then Luxemburg Foreign Minister Jacques Poos at the beginning of the 1990’s, the EU is “an economic giant, a political dwarf and a military worm”. Whereas far from being incorrect, this definition needs some updating and, most of all, serious clarification.

A casual observer of Concordia – code-name for the European Union’s first-ever military operation, conducted in Macedonia – would be first impressed by the abundance of symbols in almost every aspect of the mission. Not only do the politicians’ declarations put the emphasis on the „symbolic European message” carried by the operation[1] or present it as a „significant step forward in the long process of European integration”[2], but also the EU seems determined to plant its blue flag all over the place in order to increase its visibility – a goal explicitly identified as one of the key objectives of  the mission.[3]

The necessity for the European Union (EU) to play a more assertive role in the Balkans is on the agenda now more than ever. In fact, after the events of 11 September 2001, the withdrawal of the bulk of the US troops from the region and their replacement by European contingents is, for the first time, considered as a politically feasible (and militarily sensible) option. At the same time, the EU’s evolving defense policy has been declared “operational” at the Laeken summit in December 2001,[1] with all the related institutions in place and with the Western European Union’s (WEU) crisis management capabilities and functions transferred to the EU. The EU is therefore theoretically the actor that is most competent to play a military role (in addition to other, more traditional aspects of EU crisis management) in the neighboring Balkan region.

The European Security ESDI-CESDP Study Group (ESSG) has held his second 2002 meeting in Bern, Switzerland on April 21-23, 2002, as scheduled, on the invitation of the Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs. The meeting focused on "The Impact of the "Global War On Terrorism" ("GWOT") on European Security"