Security Integration in Europe: How Knowledge-based Networks Are Transforming the European Union

Conclusion

Conclusion There is no question that the security of a state’s borders, infrastructure , and people is as fundamental to sovereignty as a state’s “monopoly of legitimate physical violence.”1 Nevertheless, this study reveals an unexpected phenomenon: knowledge-based networks are rede‹ning the meaning of sovereignty and security in Europe. These networks are creating an environment of thick diplomacy through their multilayered and expertisedriven interaction. Integration begins with dialogue, persuasion, and shifting worldviews before leading to policy change and implementation. Thus, this study peels back the formal layers of decision making to expose this policy environment and to show how epistemic communities are constructing a unique European conception of security. Moreover, these achievements clearly are not the result of a coincidence of national interests—a desire to maximize material gain. Integration inherently requires states to give up some part of their sovereignty over policies that affect their material resources. By agreeing to integrate security research , for example, member states lose exclusive ownership of certain technologies and the potential economic bene‹t such ownership might bring. Similarly, by investing together in long-term military interoperability and capabilities development, member states increasingly conceive of operations in a multilateral framework, a view that brings constraints. Thus, the EU’s recent security developments cannot be explained through combining the various national interests of the member states to see where they converge. Indeed, even if such an approach could work, it would miss the most important part of the story. As one journalist writes, “As ever with the EU it is not just a question of agreeing ambitious goals, but creating instruments to realise them.”2 Epistemic communities are doing both. A close examination of the most central actors in this dialogue—ambas214 sadors, military generals, technology researchers, and civilian crisis experts —shows that security integration is surprisingly robust. In such areas as strategies for tackling the root causes of radicalization and recruitment, civil and military capacity building, and common technology research, security integration is clearly moving forward, albeit faster in some areas than in others. Furthermore, the line between internal and external dimensions is rapidly dissolving. In the corridors of Brussels, decisions are often arrived at informally by those who really understand the issues at stake; collectively, these individuals can be highly persuasive. Without consideration of these seemingly quiet but certainly powerful actors, it would be dif‹cult to explain how the EU holds together and what future role it is likely to play in the world. At the same time, because there is room to improve the expertise, cohesion, and common culture within some of these epistemic communities , the possibility for increasing levels of integration exists. However likely, it is not inevitable, and a few words of caution are in order. To the extent that political will is needed to move integration forward, that will does not emanate primarily from member states. Rather, explaining European security integration requires looking to the group dynamics, relationships, procedural norms, identities, and worldviews within these key epistemic communities. They are persuading states to go further in directions that states tend not to want to go. States are not acting against their national interests; rather, epistemic communities are gradually persuading states to rede‹ne the meaning of national interests with regard to security. To begin with, national interests cannot typically be reduced to a calculation of material bene‹t. More generally, states can aim to achieve economic power as an end in itself or can strategically choose to demilitarize as a means of boosting civilian power. Soft power—the ability to attract others to a society and foreign policy—is receiving increasing emphasis as a strategic aim for states and nonstate actors alike.3 In the case of the EU, national interest is increasingly tied to collective interest: the idea that more can be gained for each individual member state by working together than by working separately, especially in the longer term. This idea is manifested in a growing European security space. The de‹nition of strategic national interest ultimately must be considered in these broader terms, meaning that the norms espoused by epistemic communities are not mutually exclusive.4 Explaining why and to what degree epistemic communities matter requires examining the key properties that characterize the internal dynamics Conclusion 215 of these communities: selection, training, meeting frequency, shared professional norms, and common culture. A given epistemic community is likely to be more cohesive...