Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report

The global order is changing swiftly, emerging powers are confronting traditional players, new technologies are posing new challenges to global governance, power dynamics are more and more fragmented and the rules-based international order is more frequently being challenged. With Russia’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine, a war is directly threatening European and global security. We are also witnessing the highest level of geopolitical tensions and major power competition since the Cold War era.

This geopolitical instability, the increase of the number of conflicts and the strong link between external and internal security demand from the EU to step up its preventive diplomacy efforts and adapt its toolbox to the changing nature of conflicts. Thanks to new technology, conflicts are becoming more complex, deadly and harder to resolve. Thus, what we need is to prevent conflicts before they arise and focus on sustaining hard won peace gains in areas where conflict previously existed.

Based on EU’s missed opportunities and success stories, the Rapporteur presents a number of recommendations to the Council, the Commission, and the HRVP, which would amplify EU’s preventive diplomacy toolbox and make it the global actor in preventive diplomacy it can and should be.

The recommendations focus on six main areas where improvements in EU’s preventive diplomacy arsenal should be achieved:

1. Understanding the local and cultural context

2. EU Conflict Early Warning System

3. The role of EU Special Representatives and Envoys in preventive diplomacy, their accountability and overview of their results

4. Lessons learned from EU mediated conflict resolution and frozen conflicts

5. Strengthening partnerships and international coordination

6. From strategic autonomy to preventive diplomacy

Concerning the local and cultural context, the EU should develop preventive diplomacy tools and state-building assistance tailored to the cultural, historical and political context of the country. It should carefully select its envoys and representatives in conflict and post-conflict regions in order to avoid sparking controversy linked to appointments from Member States with historical past in these countries or regions.

When it comes to EU Conflict Early Warning System, the Rapporteur recommends to ensure that it is sufficiently proactive and based on continuous, forward-looking and robust analysis of risk factors. She also calls for regular assessment of the results of this system in order to make it more effective in the future.

EU special representatives and envoys should play a key role in EU’s preventive diplomacy efforts. While they are appointed to promote EU’s policies and interests and to act as mediators in troubled regions and countries, the effects of their work and the initiatives they undertake are not visible and not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. When it comes to their appointment, the Council and the EEAS should reflect on the possibility to appoint more recognizable politicians for these positions, in order to match the heavy-weight figures often appointed by other global players to similar troubled regions.

Looking at the lessons learned from EU mediated conflict resolution and frozen conflicts, in particular in Africa, the Western Balkans, Nagorno-Karabakh, Cyprus, Northern Ireland, Afghanistan and Ukraine, the Rapporteur recommends that future EU preventive diplomacy actions consider the missed opportunities and avoid similar situations in the future. In particular, the EU should assess and analyse carefully and continuously the risk factors and adapt its actions in conflict regions in order to prevent the creation of political vacuum that could be filled by actors that might not be acting in the best interest of the country or region in question, or the spread of false narratives.

Partnerships and international coordination are key to successful preventive diplomacy and the EU should continue strengthening its partnerships with international, regional and sub-regional actors, such as the UN, OSCE, the African Union and ASEAN, including what concerns early warning, conflict prevention and mediation. An integrated approach, combining humanitarian, development, peacebuilding, security assistance and diplomatic engagement, in coordination with partners, would be more comprehensive and deliver more favourable results in preventive diplomacy.

Last but not least, the EU should step up its strategic autonomy in order to be seen as a strong actor in preventive diplomacy. This can be achieved if the EU speaks with one voice and action on the ground is aligned between the EU and its Member States, moving away from individual interests. Building on past experience with joint EU mechanisms, like the EU civil protection mechanism or EU peace keeping missions, the EU can adopt similar approach when developing an integrated and pan-European approach to preventive diplomacy missions. It also remains important to communicate EU’s achievements and success stories better. While being the biggest development aid donor in the world, the output from this significant investment in the public diplomacy scene is insignificant and often even overridden by false narratives presented by other major powers present in developing countries.

All these recommendations should bring the EU one-step closer to becoming a leading actor in conflict prevention and resolution worldwide. By joining forces, the EU and its Member States would be able to overcome the pitfalls they have encountered in some of the previous EU mediated actions and would generate a more successful interventionist approach.