1 Leiden University
Public Administration
An analysis of the consequences of the politicization of the
European Security and Defence Policy
Master thesis
Student: Kelly Bischoff Student number: 1234110
Supervisor: Drs. R. de Ruiter
Date: 8 june 2017
2 Table of Content 1. Introduction ... 3 1.1. Relevance ... 4 1.2. Reader’s guide ... 6 2. Theoretical framework ... 7
2.1. The approaches of politicization ... 8
2.2. Consequences of politicization ... 11
2.3. Causal mechanism ... 13
3. Methodology ... 16
3.1 Case selection ... 16
3.2. Variables ... 18
3.3. Indicators and data collection ... 18
3.4. Quality of the Data ... 20
4. Results ... 23
4.1. History of the European Security and Defence Policy ... 23
4.2 The development of security and defence within the Netherlands ... 26
4.3. Politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy on EU level ... 27
4.4 The structure of conflict in the Dutch Lower House ... 30
4.5. Support for the European Security and Defence Policy by Dutch citizens ... 35
4.6. Assessing the hypotheses ... 39
4.7. Alternative explanation ... 41
5. Conclusion ... 43
Bibliography ... 44
3
1. Introduction
The role of the European Union as an international actor has been regarded with general scepticism.1 “The ambivalence of member states and the institutional fragmentation” underlies this scepticism.2 With the evolution of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and subsequently the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) in the 1990s, the European Union was acknowledged as an international actor. Recent developments regarding the European Security and Defence Policy have gradually strengthened the position of the European Union on the global stage.3 Last November 14 2016, the European Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defence decided on a far-reaching military cooperation, including the deployment of European combat troops in troubled areas outside Europe for the first time.4 This decision was at odds with the initial decision of the member states in the Lisbon Treaty not to empower EU institutions and thus not to transfer the national foreign policy to a supranational level.5 The Security and Defence Policy has been present in the political process since the beginning of the European Union and is a policy field that illustrates the challenges the European Union faces. This policy field distinguishes itself from other policy fields because it lags behind in the process of integration. Economic interests or societal interests have given rise to a deepening integration. By contrast security interests are thought of as minor importance and thence have not given rise to deepening integration. The highly political issue of security, the extremely expensive costs of defence and the determination of the fine line which outlines the balance between the national governments and the European Union are the most important components of this policy fields’ challenges. Despite the challenges this policy field faces, it still is an important element of the European Union’s politics and shows the determination of the European Union’s desire for integration.6
1 Criekinge,T. van (2012), “European Union as an International Actor”,
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0007.xml
(visited on 15 november 2016).
2 Lehne, S. (2015), "A Window of Opportunity to Upgrade EU Foreign Policy",
http://carnegieeurope.eu/publications/?fa=55491 (visited on 15 november 2016). 3 Criekinge,T. van (2012), “European Union as an International Actor”,
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0007.xml
(visited on 15 november 2016).
4 Peeperkorn, M. (2016), “EU wil naast economische ook militaire hoofdrol op wereldtoneel”,
http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/eu-wil-naast-economische-ook-militaire-hoofdrol-op-wereldtoneel~a4415243/ (visited on 15 november 2016).
5 Lehne, S. (2015), "A Window of Opportunity to Upgrade EU Foreign Policy",
http://carnegieeurope.eu/publications/?fa=55491 (visited on 15 november 2016). 6 Universiteit Leiden (2017), “European Security and Defence Policy”,
https://studiegids.leidenuniv.nl/en/courses/show/26101/european_security_and_defence_policy (visited on 27 februari 2017).
4 Threats and critical situations close to the borders of the Eurozone have often been incentives to re-analyse the European Union’s foreign policy7 and subsequently resulted in high coverage in the mass media, by demand of the severely concerned public (Statham and Trenz, 2012; 20). To this increasing saliency of international institutions and the relocation of this policy field from the technocratic elitist arena to the political arena can be referred as politicization. The concept politicization has been used to describe the support of citizens for the European Union. This thesis concentrates on the politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy within the national arena of the Netherlands. The research question, which can be deduced from the above is:
What is the influence of the politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy at the EU level on i) the structure of conflict regarding the European Security and Defence Policy in the Dutch Lower House and ii) the support for the European Security
and Defence Policy by Dutch citizens?
1.1. Relevance
The research question is relevant both from a societal point of view as from a scientific point of view. This research hopes to clarify what the consequences are of the politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy in the political arena and the public arena. Factors, among others politicization, which influence the deepening of integration of policy fields are subjected to extensive inquiry. Individual member states, especially as small as the Netherlands, are less powerful than the weight of all twenty-eight member states together. The twenty-eight member states together will want to throw their weight together more often due to the ongoing tensions in the neighbouring countries of the European Union. Moreover, a greater military cooperation is also necessary to counterbalance other superpowers such as The United States of America and Russia.8 When the consequences of the politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy in the political and public arena are exposed, politicians or civil servants can use these findings in their advantage. Politicians or civil servants can choose to actively make an issue salient in order to benefit from the effects of politicization. Or on the contrary, politicians or civil servants can choose to actively keep an issue in the shadows because politicization inhibits the deepening of integration (Genschel and Jachtenfuchs, 2015; 10).
7 Lehne, S. (2015), "A Window of Opportunity to Upgrade EU Foreign Policy",
http://carnegieeurope.eu/publications/?fa=55491 (visited on 15 november 2016).
8 Peeperkorn, M. (2016), “EU wil naast economische ook militaire hoofdrol op wereldtoneel”,
http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/eu-wil-naast-economische-ook-militaire-hoofdrol-op-wereldtoneel~a4415243/ (visited on 15 november 2016).
5 In the academic realm, the European Union is seen as an unique phenomenon (Zürn, 2016; 173). Many theories already exist to analyse the deepening and widening of the integration of the European Union and the associated issues regarding national sovereignty, partisan identity, financial reallocation and the enlargement of the European Union (Hooghe and Marks, 2009; 1 and 19). The transfer of core state powers of member states to the European level has been given much attention by the mass media. It can be concluded that the integration of core state powers has led to politicization of European issues in the past years (Genschel and Jachtenfuchs, 2015; 8). The evolution of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and subsequently the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) and the simultaneous alterations in the blueprint of the European Union caused peaks in the politicization of this particular policy field (Stetter, 2011; 722, Genschel and Jachtenfuchs, 2015; 6).
The current academic debate on the politicization of European issues is predominated by the causes of politicization, the manifestations of politicization and the there derived from definitions of politicization. Critics argue that the focus should shift to the consequences of politicization for policy fields (Börzel and Risse, 2008; 220). This thesis makes that shift. It serves as a stepping stone to stimulate the academic debate on the consequences of politicization for policy fields in the political arena and the public arena, in particular the European Security and Defence Policy. More specific, this thesis delves into the consequences of the politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy within the political and public arena in the Netherlands.
A country like the Netherlands is a peculiar case; due to its small size and similar impact it is dependent on other countries or international institutions. Its national security, economic security and prosperity is inextricably linked to the international rule of law and the promotion of stability, freedom and economic development elsewhere in the world. An active political position in international fora, a convincing security policy and if necessary participation in military- and peacekeeping operations is essential for its position in the world. Contributing to the European Security and Defence Policy seems essential for a country like the Netherlands.9 The appearance of politicization does not only vary in different policy fields, this phenomenon also occurs differently in the various areas of the European Union. Therefore, the results of this thesis cannot automatically be applied to other countries (Kriesi, 2016; 32).
9 The Heritage Foundation (2007), “The European Security and Defense Policy: A Challenge to the Transatlantic Security Alliance”, http://www.heritage.org/europe/report/the-european-security-and-defense-policy-challenge-thetransatlantic-security-alliance (visited on 7 maart 2017).
6
1.2. Reader’s guide
The results of this inquiry are presented in the following chapters and are structured as follows. Chapter two illustrates the theoretical framework. It introduces the extensive debate on the politicization of the European Union and focusses on the possible consequences of politicization. This results in two hypotheses concentrated around the concepts: the structure of in the Dutch Lower House and the support for the European Security and Defence Policy by Dutch citizens. Chapter three elaborates on the research methodology that is used in this thesis. The design of this thesis is longitudinal. By analysing scientific literature, parliamentary records, Dutch newspapers, electoral programmes and Eurobarometer in two periods over time, the consequences of the politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy at the EU level in the Dutch political and public arena are mapped out. The first period is from 1990 until 1995. In this period of time in the history of the European Union major events took place, such as the Treaty of Maastricht, the Schengen-Agreement and the enlargement of fifteen countries.10 The second period is from 2010 until 2015. In this period of time the quantity of conflict worldwide grew exponentially and the highest amount of conflicts took place since the Cold War.11 To finish chapter three, the validity, reliability and replicability will be addressed. In chapter four, there will be given a historical overview of the European Security and Defence Policy and the results of the content analysis are presented. The used data are scientific literature, parliamentary records, Dutch newspapers, electoral programmes and Eurobarometer. The results are also analysed in chapter four; the results of the empirical study are applied on the earlier theoretical framework and the drawn hypotheses. These results show that the politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy on EU-level does have an influence on the structure of conflict in the political arena of the Netherlands, but does not have an influence on the public arena of the Netherlands. Lastly, the conclusion can be read in chapter five and in this chapter there are also given recommendations for further research.
10 Europa.EU (2016), “Europe without frontiers”,
https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/history/1990-1999_en (visited on 15 november 2016).
11 Nederland en Crisisgebieden (14 december 2016), Trend conflicten wereldwijd [Facebook update],
7
2. Theoretical framework
This chapter is structured in three parts. The first part elaborates on the extensive debate on the politicization of the European Union. The second part focusses on the possible consequences of politicization. This results in two hypotheses concentrated around the concepts: the structure of conflict in the national arena of the Netherlands and the support for the European Security and Defence Policy by Dutch citizens, which are expected to determine whether politicization increases the support for further integration of the ESDP on EU level.
The deepening integration of the European Union or in other words the federalization of the European Union is noticeable. Core state powers are increasingly transferred to the European level, such as the monetary and fiscal policy; security within national borders as outside national borders and the foreign and defence policy. The sovereignty of member states is thus encroached upon. A simultaneous development that is observed, is the overspill of EU issues from the arena of the elites to the public arena (Genschel and Jachtenfuchs, 2015; 1). In past years there has been given much attention by the mass media to the transfer of core states powers of member states to the European level in the public arena and there can be concluded that the integration of core state powers has led to politicization of European issues. However, the transfer of core state powers that required the creation of new capacities on European level such as the European bailout funds and credible armed forces were most salient in the mass media (Genschel and Jachtenfuchs, 2015; 8). There seems to be consensus among scholars that the politicization of European issues in member states has taken place (Zürn, 2016; 164). Then again, there does not exist consensus on the evolution of politicization (Kriesi, 2016; 32). To start with, Kriesi argues that politicization did not evolve gradually, nor has the level of politicization been constant. Furthermore, Kriesi takes issue with Hutter and Grande’s argument that politicization is a phenomenon that occurred after the Maastricht Treaty. The pattern of politicization has always been irregular and peaks are visible pre- and post-Maastricht when certain debates take place, for example debates on the blueprint of the European Union and debates on future membership (Kriesi, 2016; 34).
The debate on the Treaty of Maastricht, that caused deepening in the integration of the European Union, is an example of a debate that caused a peak in the level of politicization. Whereas there does not exist consensus whether the Treaty of Maastricht is a critical juncture in the history of politicization, there does exist consensus that the Treaty of Maastricht is a focal point in the evolution of the European integration process (Kriesi, 2016; 34). The formerly almost evident support for the European integration process declined and the public became
8 more critical with regard to European issues, such as national sovereignty, partisan identity, financial reallocation and the enlargement of the European Union (Hooghe and Marks, 2009; 1 and 19). Permissive consensus gave way to constraining dissensus. Political parties could no longer ignore the division in public opinion on Europe. Furthermore, political parties were forced to respond to the different ideas within the electorate on the European Union and consequently limited the space to manoeuvre during negotiations on European level (Hooghe and Marks, 2009; 21).
2.1. The approaches of politicization
The article “A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive consensus to Constraining Dissensus” by Hooghe and Marks gave rise to the latest additions of the academic discussion on the politicization of European issues in the political arena of the member states (Hutter and Grande, 2014; 1002). The ambiguity regarding its definition is nearly dissolved as all contributions have drawn similar conditions that can demarcate an issue as politicised (Zürn, 2016; 164). However, the conditions that demarcate an issue as politicised continue to be debated as are the manifestations of politicization. Another theme, that is much debated, is the consequences of politicization.
The first theme that feeds the discussion on politicization is two-folded, namely the manifestations of politicization and the conditions of politicization. The different manifestations of politicization are categorized by De Wilde. De Wilde concludes, based on the existing literature on the European Union, that politicization occurs within EU-institutions, within the decision-making process of the European Union and surrounding issues concerning European integration (De Wilde, 2011; 560). The first category entails the institutions of European Union, such as the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers, member state governments and national parliaments. The second category entails the procedures and guidelines that guide the daily activities of the EU institutions. The third category entails the issues that become more salient and on which a diversity of opinions upon exists (De Wilde, 2011; 561).
These various manifestations of politicization also have different appearances in the European regions. Kriesi argues that the appearance of politicization does not only differ in periods over time, but that the appearance of politicization also differs within member states due to the political conflict structures. The political conflict structures diverge thoroughly in the three European regions, that is the Northwest region, the South region and the East region. In order to understand the impact of contemporary crisis conditions on the politicization of
9 European integration, Kriesi argues that the crisis conditions which are linked to the underlying region-specific national conflict structures have to be taken into account. Given these different national conflict structures, and given the different types of crises experienced by the populations of the three regions, the type of politicization of European integration is very different from one region to the other (Kriesi, 2016; 32).
The conditions of politicization is the other element of the first theme. The ambiguity regarding the conditions of politicization and with that its definition is nearly dissolved, as all contributions have drawn similar conditions that can demarcate an issue as politicised (Zürn, 2016; 164). The two recent considerable contributions to the definition of politicization are by De Wilde and Hutter and Grande. The definitions differ from each other in their emphasis; De Wilde definition emphasizes public resonance while Hutter and Grande emphasizes the salience of political conflict. De Wilde (2011; 560) provides the following definition: “Politicization of European integration is an increase in polarization of opinions, interests or values and the extent to which they are publicly advanced towards the process of policy formulation within the EU”. Whereas, Hutter and Grande elaborate their definition as follows: “expansion of the scope of conflict within the political system”.
The conditions that correspond in both definitions are salience, actor expansion and the polarization of opinions. Hutter and Grande designed an index, which integrates these three conditions of politicization: “salience, actor expansion and polarization” (Hutter and Grande, 2014; 1003). In this index salience is used as the nucleus of the index as it cannot be replaced by the other two conditions of politicization; actor expansion and polarization. Salience is the most necessary condition for measuring politicization as Hutter and Grande state that issues cannot be demarcated as politicized when they are not prominently present in the political arena. Solely measuring salience is not sufficient to demarcate an issue as politicized, therefore salience is linked to the expansion of actors and the polarization among actors. However, the expansion of actors and polarization among actors are not completely dependent on salience (Hutter and Grande, 2014; 1004). Furthermore, Hooghe and Marks argue that an issue does not become salient in the mass media because of its intrinsic relevance, but an issue becomes salient when a political party is convinced that it can derive electoral success when the issue is introduced in the mass media. By politicising European issues, political parties could win the loyalty of the electorate. Europe became, as a result of constraining dissensus, a subject on which political parties could distinguish themselves from each other (Hooghe and Marks, 2009; 18). Salience is not mentioned as an isolated condition in De Wilde’s definition of politicization,
10 instead salience is integrated in the other conditions of De Wilde’s definition of politicization.
The second condition that corresponds in both definitions is the quantity of actors involved. De Wilde names this condition “intensifying debate” and Hutter and Grande call this condition “expansion of debate”. De Wilde states that the existence of a required minimum of two different opinions is not sufficient to demarcate an issue as politicised, because these different opinions have to be expressed in the public debate (De Wilde, 2011; 567). Next to this, Hutter and Grande state that when only a limited number of actors participate in the public debate on European integration, this indicates that the scope of conflict is not extensive (Hutter and Grande, 2014;1004). The more the different opinions are expressed in the public debate, the more an issue can be demarcated as politicised. The intensity of the debate can be determined by two components. The first component is how frequent, how long the issue is publicly debated. The second component is how many actors are involved in the public debate. However, De Wilde alerts that there should not be assumed that the polarization of opinions and an intensified debate always synchronize. The strong differences in opinions by actors do not necessarily have to be expressed in the public debate (De Wilde, 2011; 567). In the formative phase of the European integration process the executive elites prevailed, hence the focus needs to be on the extent to which actors without executive functions and positions in government take presence in the public debate on European integration in the member states. There can be made a distinction between the expansion of actors among political arena’s and within political arena’s, for example the national electoral arena. The national electoral arena is the most important arena. In this arena the political conflicts regarding issues on de-nationalization for instance European integration are raised. Within the electoral arena where both governments parties and opposition parties are present and compete for votes, both views on European integration are expressed (Hutter and Grande, 2014;1004).
The third condition that corresponds in both definitions is polarization. De Wilde states that an issue can only be demarcated as politicized when a required minimum of two different opinions on the issue exist. Next to this, these different opinions have to be expressed by actors who are invested in this issue. Thus, actors have to be actively involved in the debate regarding the issues. When more different opinions of involved actors arise and conflicting camps take form, there can be spoken of a substantial polarization of opinions. Dimensions of conflict arise when the same opposing camps have different opinions on numerous issues (De Wilde, 2011; 567). Hutter and Grande underline this aspect. Next to this, they state that a high visibility of public debate on European integration in which many actors are involved, it does not necessarily mean that the debated issue can be demarcated as politicised. The debated issue can
11 only be demarcated as politicised when the actors occupy different positions and are in contesting groups. More specifically, the polarization of actors entails the intensity of conflict linked to the debated issues by various actors. The highest level of politicization can be found when two contesting groups argue for completely different positions with the same intensity (Hutter and Grande, 2014; 1004).
Lastly, a condition of politicization that is solely mentioned in the definition of De Wilde is public resonance and discerns the two definitions. The representation pleas of actors in the public sphere and how these movements in public discourse alter the course of European integration is at the heart of the definition by De Wilde (De Wilde, 2011; 570). The polarized and intense debate can only receive public resonance when the public has access to it. This distinguishes the three manifestations of politicization from intergovernmental negotiations, lobbying and technocratic decision making processes. Pubic resonance occurs under two conditions. The first aspect is, as above mentioned, transparency of the debate. The second aspect is the investment of the public in the debate, for example giving the public a voice through referenda or opinion polls. When a small group gradually becomes more invested in the debate, more and more people will become invested. This process resembles the snowball effect (De Wilde, 2011; 568).
A politicized policy field must comply with the conditions described above, namely saliency, actor expansion, polarization of opinions and public resonance. The following section illustrates the consequences of politicization. The conditions and consequences are closely linked to each other and are essential to unravelling the causal mechanism of politicization on conflict and support in, respectively, the parliamentary arena and among citizens in member states.
2.2. Consequences of politicization
The second theme that feeds the ongoing debate on politicization is the consequences of politicization. De Wilde has drawn two consequences based on the literature on the European Union. The consequences of politicization are that it structures political conflict, raises the question of legitimacy and alters the course of integration of the European Union.
The first consequence of politicization on the EU-level is structuring political conflict in the national political arena. The structure of conflict entails the role of political parties carrying out the initial multiplicity of views within the electorate on the European Security and Defence Policy into a more comprehensible and organized view on the European Security and Defence Policy (De Wilde, 2011; 564).
12 Nowadays, national governments feel more obligated to also take into account the Eurosceptic electorate. Political parties can no longer ignore the division in public opinion on Europe. Furthermore, political parties are forced to respond to the different ideas within the electorate on the European Union (Hooghe and Marks, 2009; 21). As a result European issues receive more attention in electoral programmes (Hooghe and Marks, 2009; 22-23). This gives the public a clear view in who the protagonists and antagonists are in this debate. Furthermore, the protagonists and antagonists are in the literature characterised by the left/right typology. Right-wing political parties are appraised as pro-military intervention, while left-Right-wing political parties are appraised as anti-military intervention. Two considerations underlie this appraisal. The first consideration is the contestation regarding domestic resources. Left-wing political parties are promoters of the welfare-states, thus are not supportive of spending resources to large armed forces and the associated excessive expenditures. By contrast, right-wing political parties do not make a trade-off between the expenditures of the welfare states and the expenditures of the armed forces. The second consideration is the purpose of the deployment of armed forces; i.e. self-defence or humanitarian. Left-wing political parties are more supportive when the purpose of the deployment of armed forces is humanitarian than right-wing political parties (Wagner, Herranz-Surrallés, et.al., 2017; 21-22). In direct opposition to this, there are two reasons that constrain political parties to politicise issues. The first reason is the ideological foundation of political parties. This ideological foundation withholds political parties to place themselves in a strategic position to win the loyalty of the electorate. It will undermine the credibility of political parties to adopt a position on European integration that is diametrically opposed to its ideological foundation. The second reason is that political leaders do not address issues that are likely to cause division in their party, because division in a political party most often leads to the loss of loyalty of the electorate (Hooghe and Marks, 2009; 19). The rationale of the motives of political parties is compatible with the developments of the debate on European integration. Mainstream parties have avoided to politicise issues concerning European integration, because the electorate had always been more Eurosceptic. By contrast, opposition parties have attempted to politicise issues concerning European integration for electoral success. Despite the efforts of mainstream parties to depoliticise issues concerning European integration, decisions regarding the enlargement and deepening of the European Union lead inevitably to the politicization of European integration (Hooghe and Marks, 2009; 21).
The second consequence is raising the question of legitimacy. The public’s lack of direct participation and the discontent concerning the lack of influence on the decisions that affect their daily lives regularly leads to the raise of the question of legitimacy (De Wilde, 2011; 564).
13 A widening public interested and actively participating in European politics can alter the support for integration in two different manners. The continuing existence of supranational institutions shows citizens that these type of institutions are a success. On the other hand, the formerly almost evident support for the European integration process has declined and the public has become more critical with regard to European issues (Hooghe and Marks, 2009; 1 and 19). At time of the Treaty of Maastricht, the public became aware that the national sovereignty was encroached upon. The formerly almost evident support for the European integration process declined and the public became more critical with regard to the transfer of core state powers to the European level. Permissive consensus gave way to constraining dissensus (Hooghe and Marks, 2009; 21). As a consequence of the politicization of European issues Hooghe and Marks state that the content and the decision-making process has altered (Hooghe and Marks, 2009; 8). This is because political parties were forced to respond to the different ideas within the electorate on the European Union and these differences limited the space to manoeuvre during negotiations on European level (Hooghe and Marks, 2009; 21). Thus, politicization does not always have a positive effect on integration (Hooghe and Marks, 2009; 21).
2.3. Causal mechanism
The causal relationship that is assumed, is that the politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy on EU-level leads to a decrease of public support in the Netherlands for the transfer of this specific policy field to the EU-level. In order to unravel this causal relationship, the extent of controversy surrounding the European Security and Defence Policy needs to be related to the number of national political institutions and subsequently how salient this controversy among the different national political institutions is to the public. Next to this, to unravel what consequences of the politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy are, there will be looked at whether the controversy surrounding the European Security and Defence Policy is reflected in the opinion of Dutch citizens and how the public support in the Netherlands for further integration for this specific policy field is affected (De Wilde, 2011; 566).
14
Figure 1: Causal mechanism
From this causal mechanism hypotheses can be derived, based on the theory of De Wilde. The hypotheses are based on the potential relationship between politicization and two consequences of politicization based on the theory of De Wilde.
In line with the theory developed by De Wilde (2011), the first consequence of politicization on EU level is that it structures political conflict in the national political arena. Thus, the first hypothesis is that the politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy on EU-level is expected to structure political conflict in the Dutch Lower House. In the debate over the European Security and Defence Policy actors such as the governments of member states, political parties and interest groups articulate their views to the public through the media. This gives the public a clear view in who the protagonists and antagonists are in this debate (De Wilde, 2011; 564). When introducing the emphasis of De Wilde’s definition on politicization ‘the representation pleas of actors’ alongside the views of the different actors, the structure of conflict entails the role of political parties carrying out the initial multiplicity of views within the electorate on the European Security and Defence Policy into a more comprehensible and organized view on the European Security and Defence Policy (De Wilde, 2011; 564).
Hypothesis 1: A high level of politicization of the ESDP at the EU level leads to a more
structured political conflict at the national level in which there exists a clearer view of opponents and proponents in the Dutch Lower House for further integration of this specific policy field on the EU level.
The second consequence of politicization, in line with the theory developed by De Wilde (2011), is that it causes a decrease of support for further European integration. Thus, the second hypothesis is that the politicization of the European Security and Defence policy at EU-level is expected to decrease the level of support for further integration of the ESDP on EU level. The debate regarding EU policies, such as the European Security and Defence Policy is often
Politicization of the ESDP at EU level
Structurs political conflict in the Dutch Lower House
Decrease in public support in NL for the ESDP on the EU level
15 accompanied with the structure of the EU polity itself. The public’s lack of direct participation and the discontent concerning the lack of influence on the decisions that affect their daily lives regularly leads to the raise of the question of legitimacy (De Wilde, 2011; 564). A widening public interested and actively participating in European politics can alter the support for integration in two different manners. The continuing existence of supranational institutions shows citizens that these type of institutions are a success. On the other hand, the formerly almost evident support for the European integration process has declined and the public has become more critical with regard to European issues (Hooghe and Marks, 2009; 1 and 19). Politicization can thus act as an essential factor for the level of support for European integration (De Wilde, 2011; 564).
Hypothesis 2: A high level of politicization of the ESDP is at the EU level leads to a decrease
16
3. Methodology
3.1 Case selectionIn this thesis there will be conducted a single case study. Given that there will be specifically looked into the consequence of the politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy within one national arena, the case study-method is a suitable method for this inquiry. Outlining the context within a country is essential for determining the consequences of the politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy, and thereby the support for European integration. Kriesi underlines the importance of outlining the context within countries, because this phenomenon occurs differently in the various areas of the European Union. Therefore the results of the inquiry cannot automatically be applied to other countries (Kriesi, 2016; 32).
A country like the Netherlands is a peculiar case; due to its small size and similar impact it is dependent on other countries or international institutions.12 Its national security, economic security and prosperity is inextricably linked to the international rule of law and the promotion of stability, freedom and economic development elsewhere in the world. An active political position in international fora, a convincing security policy and if necessary participation in military- and peacekeeping operations is essential for its position in the world. Contributing to the European Security and Defence Policy seems essential for a country like the Netherlands.13 This outline of this inquiry is longitudinal. By repeatedly carrying out a qualitative content analysis in two periods over time, the consequences of the politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy are mapped out. Through the use of two timeframes, 1990-1995 and 2010-2015, there will be attempted to give answer to the research question.
The chosen timeframes have occurred in the period after the fall of the Berlin wall and both timeframes have taken into account crisis close to the borders of the Eurozone. The fall of the Berlin wall has been a turning point in the history of the European Union. Since then, entirely new risks arose. The security policy, which was dominated by the Cold War in the eighties was given a very different meaning. Gradually the security policy became dominated by local conflict elsewhere. Hedging against the risks of globalization became a major theme. Next to this, small and large crimes received more and more attention by the mass media. What often had been dismissed as ‘Telegraaf’-news before the fall of the Berlin wall later also became
12 Europa.EU (2016), "Buitenlands en Veiligheidsbeleid", http://europa.eu/pol/cfsp/index_nl.htm (visited on 23 november 2016).
13 Europea.EU (2016), “Buitenlands en Veiligheidsbeleid”,
17 reported in quality newspapers. Risks were emphasized with the rapid spread of the news via the internet, e-mail and mobile phones. Three themes became increasingly important: the crisis of the democracy, cracks in the political left-right contradictions and the position of the Netherlands in the world and particularly in the European Union.14
The justification for the first timeframe, 1990-1995, is that in this period have been several highlights, such as the turmoil in the Balkan, the Treaty of Maastricht and the Schengen Agreement and the enlargement of fifteen new member states.15 The Western European Union was the predecessor of the European Security and Defence Policy and acted as the defence affiliation of the European Union. The role of the West European Union was only formalized in the Treaty of Maastricht when the turmoil in the Balkan reached an advanced stage. The weak role of the Western European Union called for a reform of the defence affiliation and a altering of the blueprint of the institutional design (Juncos, 2013; 88).
The justification for the second timeframe, 2010-2015, is that the period after 2010 the conflicts in the world increased exponentially. After the end of the Cold War it seemed that war was something of the past. The year 2006 was even the most peaceful of modern history with only three conflicts worldwide. Since 2010, this trend turned dramatically. The number of conflicts increased to 11 in 2015, including the continuing tensions in the Middle-East and the recent emerging conflicts in North-Africa.16 With the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union underlined its ambition to act autonomously in this particular policy field. Furthermore, the European External Action Service instituted, which was another deepening in the integration of this policy field. 17
Both timeframes are chosen after a crisis within or close to the borders of the European Union. Threats and critical situations close to the borders of the Eurozone have often been the incentive to re-analyse the European Union’s foreign policy18 and subsequently resulted in high coverage in the mass media, by demand of the severely concerned public (Statham and Trenz, 2012; 20). The most important condition to demarcate an issue as politicized, saliency, is hence assured to be present. The circumstances of the two timeframes, after crisis within or close to
14 Historiek.net (2014), Na de van Nederland na 1989”, http://historiek.net/na-de-val-nederland-na-1989/45815/ (visited on 28 november 2016).
15 Europa.EU (2016), “Europe without frontiers”,
https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/history/1990-1999_en (visited on 15 november 2016).
16 Nederland en Crisisgebieden (14 december 2016), Trend conflicten wereldwijd [Facebook update],
https://www.facebook.com/NederlandCrisisgebieden/?fref=ts (visited on 15 december 2016).
17 Europea.EU (2016), “Buitenlands en Veiligheidsbeleid”,
https://europa.eu/european-union/topics/foreign-security-policy_nl (visited on 23 november 2016).
18 Lehne, S. (2015), "A Window of Opportunity to Upgrade EU Foreign Policy",
18 the borders of the European Union, hope to imply that the level of politicization in the ESDP on EU level is equal in both timeframes. Subsequently there can be detected whether the consequences also occur in both timeframes. When the consequences of politicization of ESDP on EU level are not observable in both timeframes then politicization may not be the right explanation of the consequences.
3.2. Variables
Before proceeding to the collection of data, first there has to be explained how the used variables are conceptualized.
The independent variable, is the politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy on
EU level. The two eminent definitions of politicization, as discussed in the theoretical
framework, are drawn by Hutter and Grande and De Wilde. The definition that is used, is drawn by Hutter and Grande (2014; 1003): “expansion of the scope of conflict within the political system”. Hutter and Grande designed, based on this definition, a pragmatic index that measures the extent of politicization. The index that Hutter and Grande designed can be transformed in order that it can be applied to this inquiry. The transformed index is: “politicization” of the European Security and Defence Policy = “salience” of the European Security and Defence Policy x “(actor expansion + polarization)” (Hutter and Grande, 2014; 1005, between quotation marks is original).
The first dependent variable, structuring political conflict, is conceptualized as the articulation of views of actors such as the governments of member states, political parties and interest groups to the public through the media. Furthermore, these actors should converge the different opinions within the electorate into a more comprehensible and organized view (De Wilde, 2011; 564) The social movements, such as interest groups, will be excluded in this inquiry. The debate in the public arena is dominated by the political actors. The contributions of social movements has hardly been visible in the public arena (Hutter, Grande and Kriesi, 2016).
The second dependent variable, support for the European Security and Defence Policy by Dutch
citizens is conceptualized as public opinion by Dutch citizens regarding the European Security
and Defence Policy.
3.3. Indicators and data collection
The politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy on EU level is determined by
conducting a scientific literature review. During the review there will be focussed on whether there has occurred politicization in this policy field and in particular when the politicization of
19 this policy has occurred. Conducting a content analysis of policy documents would not have provided a complete image of the politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy on EU level. The minutes/records of the European Parliament and the European Commission are only available since 1994.
For the measurement of the structure of political conflict in the Dutch Lower House, the following indicators are used: saliency of the conflict in the Dutch Lower House and the polarization of political parties in the Dutch Lower House. Saliency of conflict in the Dutch Lower House is a prerequisite for the structure of conflict. When the European Security and Defence Policy is not salient in the Dutch Lower House, it seemingly is not a topic of debate for Dutch political parties. With the absence of the ESDP in the Dutch Lower House, the polarization of political parties in the Dutch Lower House would not be observable.
Saliency is measured as how frequent “Europese Unie”, “Defensie” and “Buitenland” are mentioned in parliamentary records through the use of the database “Staten Generaal” for the period 1990-1995 and through the use of the database ”Officiële Bekendmakingen” for the period 2010-2015. The parliamentary records entail: agenda’s, proceedings, minutes parliamentary questions with answers and without answers, non-dossier documents and attachments. Saliency is also measured as how frequent “Europese Unie AND defensive OR veiligheid OR “Buitenlands” are mentioned in the Dutch newspapers in both timeframes through the use of the database Lexis Nexis. The position of the Dutch government does not represent the whole electorate, therefore the opinions of the political parties in opposition parties should also be taken into account.
The saliency of the different views of Dutch political parties is determined by entering the above mentioned search terms in different databases; “Staten Generaal”, “Officiële Bekendmakingen” and “Lexis Nexis”. From this the amount of mentions in relation to the total amount of mentions on European Union in the different databases is determined, subsequently the saliency is determined.
The polarization of political parties in the Dutch Lower House is measured by conducting a qualitative content analysis of the electoral programmes of political parties in the Dutch parliament through the use of the database “Documentatiecentrum Nederlandse Politieke Partijen” of the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. The statements of the political parties on the European Security and Defence Policy will be compared with each other. When the statements of the political parties differ from each other in combination with the saliency of the ESDP in the Dutch public arena, it becomes clear who the protagonists and antagonists are in this debate.
20 In the first timeframe 1990-1995 elections took place in 1994. In the second timeframe 2010-2015 elections took place in 2010 and 2012. Therefore the electoral programmes 1994, 2010 and 2012 of political parties in the Dutch parliament are analysed.
For the measurement of the support for the European Security and Defence Policy by Dutch
citizens, the following indicators are used: the opinion of the Dutch citizens regarding the
European Security and Defence Policy and the support for transfer of defence to EU-level by Dutch citizens. The view of the Dutch population is derived through the use of data from the database Eurobarometer. The exact questions that are used (also listed in Annex I):
1. “Irrespective of other details of the Maastricht Treaty, what is your opinion on each of the following proposals? Please tell me for each proposal, whether you are for it or against it. One common foreign policy among the member states of the European Union, towards other countries”,
2. “What is your opinion on each of the following statements? Please tell me for each statement, whether you are for it or against it. A common foreign policy of all Member States of the EU”,
3. “What is your opinion on each of the following statements? Please tell me for each statement, whether you are for it or against it. A common defence and security policy among EU Member States”.
4. “For each of the following areas, do you think that decisions should be made by the (NATIONALITY) government, or made jointly within the European Union? Defence”.
3.4. Quality of the Data
During the execution of the inquiry, it is important to secure the validity, reliability and replicability.
The validity of this inquiry has a number of limitations. The side-note that can be placed with the measurement of the saliency of different views of the Dutch political parties in parliament is whether the Dutch newspapers publish articles on factual basis and secondly to what extent the Dutch newspapers a good reflection are of the entire European media coverage. This side-note can be rejected by the research of Hallin and Mancini (2004), which argues that the European media landscape converges and homogenizes. Thus the Dutch media landscape is possibly representative of the media landscape in other European member states.
21 Another implication is the bias of the researcher while executing a qualitative content analysis based on the electoral programmes of Dutch political parties. The interpretation of the electoral programmes by the researcher can be a constraint on the validity of this research. This bias is difficult to eliminate and therefore possibility of the presence of the bias of the researcher should be kept in mind when reading this thesis.
The validity of Eurobarometer is regarded as high (Peters, 2014; 391), however the methodological implications of inquiry regarding surveys can also be applied to Eurobarometer (Wagner, 2005; 12). Firstly, the formulation of questions can have a strong impingement on the results of the survey. Next to this, surveys reflect often current events and thereby accentuate momentary views. In this inquiry this is counteracted by choosing a timeframe instead of one moment in time. Lastly, not all questions in exact the same phrasing are asked to the respondents in both timeframes. The different phrasing can, as above mentioned, have a strong impingement on the results of the survey. Other studies claimed that results on the surveys regarding foreign policy are constant and realistic. The lack of knowledge of the public regarding foreign policy in combination with the different phrasing as “combined or jointly” does not affect the validity or reliability of inquiry (Peters, 2014; 390-391).
The replicability of this inquiry has a number of limitations. Because politicization occurs differently in the various areas of the European Union, this inquiry focuses only on the Netherlands. The results of the inquiry can therefore not be applied to other countries. This inquiry is therefore a single puzzle piece that contributes to the great puzzle of the inquiry on the consequences of the politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy (Kriesi, 2016; 33).
The measures taken to increase the reliability of this inquiry are carefully recording the search terms, the use of a coding system while conducting the qualitative content analysis and keeping a bibliography. In addition, the data used is collectively available, which is a good condition to repeat this inquiry.
22 Hypotheses Variable Indicators Data source/secondary literature 1 + 2 Independent
variable
Politicization of ESDP on EU-level
Saliency Scientific literature: Kirtali and EUR-Lex
Actor expansion Scientific literature: Tonra and Christiansen, Zandee The replacement of elite consensus with polarization of opinion of political parties
Scientific literature: Tonra and Christiansen, Zandee 1 Dependent variable Structure of conflict in Dutch Lower House Saliency of conflict in the Dutch Lower House to Dutch citizens
Saliency is measured as how frequent “European Union”, “Defensie” and “Buitenland” are mentioned in parliamentary records through the use of the database “Staten Generaal” and ”Officiële Bekendmakingen”. Saliency is also measured as how frequent “Europese Unie AND defensive OR veiligheid OR “Buitenlands” are mentioned in the Dutch newspapers in both timeframes through the use of the database Lexis Nexis.
Polarization of opinion of political parties in Dutch Lower House
The polarization of political parties in the Dutch Lower House is measured by conducting a qualitative content analysis of the electoral programmes of Dutch political parties in the through the use of the database “Documentatiecentrum Nederlandse Politieke Partijen” of the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
2 Dependent
variable
Support for the ESDP by Dutch citizens Public opinion by Dutch citizens regarding the ESDP Eurobarometer (question 1, 2, 3 in Annex I) Support for transfer of defence to EU-level by Dutch citizens
23
4. Results
This chapter is structured as follows: firstly, there will be given a historical overview from the European Security and Defence Policy since World War II to date. Secondly, the development of the European Security and Defence Policy in the Netherlands is described. Then, the politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy on EU level is determined as are the consequences of the politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy.
The level of politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy on EU level is the independent variable in both hypotheses. The first consequence of politicization of the ESDP on EU level, the structure of conflict on national level, is the dependent variable of hypothesis one (4.4). The second consequence of the politicization of the ESDP on EU level, support for the ESDP among Dutch citizens, is the dependent variable in hypothesis two (4.5).
Lastly, the results will be linked to the hypotheses and alternative explanations will be addressed.
4.1. History of the European Security and Defence Policy
Firstly, there will be given a historical overview from the European Security and Defence Policy since World War II to date. The historical overview helps to place the results of this inquiry (4.3, 4.4., 4.5) in the context of the development in this policy field.
The intention of the European Security and Defence Policy for European member states originated in 1948 when the United Kingdom, France and the Benelux signed the Treaty of Brussel. The Treaty of Brussel contained a passage that laid down the groundwork of a joint defence alliance; the Western Defence Union.19 However, the Western Defence Union seemed more than she really was on paper. She could never offer enough resistance against The Soviet Union, which was the greatest threat of that time. This country expanded its influence to Central- and Eastern Europe and therefore was regarded as a major threat to the security of Europe. Instead of developing further collaboration in the field of defence, Western European countries sought collaboration with the United States. The United States promised with the promulgation of the Truman Doctrine to support Europe in the field of defence.20
In the early fifties, the United States insisted on the rearmament of West-Germany. This was related to the increasing tensions with the Soviet Union and the outbreak of the Korean
19 European Union External Action (2016), “Shaping of a Common Security and Defence Policy”,
https://eeas.europa.eu/topics/common-security-and-defence-policy-csdp/5388/shaping-of-a-common-security-and-defence-policy-_en (visited on 28 December 2016).
20 Atlcom (2016), “De geschiedenis van de Europese veiligheids- en defensiesamenwerking na 1945”,
24 War. The rearmament of West-Germany would make West-Europe less vulnerable to an attack from the east. However, many European countries felt nothing for an independent military Germany. Therefore, the then French Prime Minister designed a plan for an European army. The German forces should also join this army and this army would be under a joint European command. This plan was to lead to the creation of the European Defence Community. Because the European Defence community lacked democratic control, there was also a plan for a European Political Community. A European parliamentary would then have oversight of the developments in the European Defence Community. Over time, the need for a European defence collaboration proved less urgent due to amongst others the closing of an armistice in Korea. The plans for the European Defence Community were eventually rejected by the Parliament in France and this meant the European Defence Community.21
There was found another solution for the German rearmament, which should have taken place in the European Defence Community. In 1954, there was decided that the Treaty of Brussels need to be renamed to the Western European Union. Germany and Italy also joint the Western European Union. The Western European Union contained (like NATO) an article that introduced the obligation to mutual military assistance. Yet, within the Western European Union there has never taken place military cooperation. The joint defence of Western Europe was entirely in the hands of NATO, which developed its own military structure since 1950. In the sixties the realisation among the European Community member states grew, that a common foreign policy was a necessity. Even countries that were not member of the European Community wanted a clearer position of the European Union on the world stage. When negotiating trade agreements time and time again the European Community spoke with multiple, often contradictory voiced. Consequently, the Foreign Ministers of Member states came twice a year together in the context of the so-called European Political Cooperation to discuss a joint foreign policy. There was still no mentioning of a real foreign policy. The European Political Cooperation only dealt with the political aspects of economic cooperation. In addition, the European Political Community merely served as a framework for informal consultations to bring the various foreign and political positions of individual member states in line.22
The West European Union continued to be the most eminent assembly together with
21 Atlcom (2016), “De geschiedenis van de Europese veiligheids- en defensiesamenwerking na 1945”,
http://www.atlcom.nl/Europeseveiligheid/geschiedenis.htm (visited on 30 January 2016).
22 Atlcom (2016), “De geschiedenis van de Europese veiligheids- en defensiesamenwerking na 1945”,
25 NATO until the 1990s for consultancy and discourse on the field of security and defence in the European Union. After the Cold War and the sequent conflicts close to the borders of the European Union, it was evident that the European Union needed to step up in their role as peace preventer and crisis manager.23 The war in Bosnia from 1992-1995 showed painfully that the European Union had no influence on the Balkan conflict. Despite frantic efforts to establish a peace agreement and the shipment of thousands of soldiers to UN peacekeeping operations, the Europeans desperately needed the leading role and military support of the United States. These developments were reason for the member states to collaborate in the field of foreign policy. Within the newly established European Union in the Treaty of Maastricht, the Common Foreign and Security Policy was formed. The Common Foreign and Security Policy was the successor of the European Political Collaboration. The Common Foreign and Security Policy did not include a defence cooperation, but was involved with questions regarding international security. Member states did decide that the Western European Union, needed to work more closely with the European Union. 24
The circumstances under which armed forces could be stationed, were already included in the West European Union in 1992. Subsequently, the Petersberg Tasks were ratified in the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999. This involves the deployment of troops for humanitarian tasks, peacekeeping and crisis management. To carry out these tasks, the Western European Union member states made military units from all parts of their forces available. There was also made an appeal on the Eurocorps.25 Furthermore, the position “High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy” was initiated, so that the European Union was able to speak with one voice regarding this specific policy field on the world stage. The member states confirmed their ambition to act autonomously in the particular field of foreign affairs at the Cologne European Council in 1999 once again. In addition, another ambition was to upsurge the credibility of their armed forces. Another extension for the Common Security and Defence Policy was the Berlin Plus agreement, which entailed that the EU had admittance to NATO facilities and competencies under certain circumstances. The following development was the Security Strategy for the European Union, which mapped out the main security contests and the
23 European Union External Action (2016), “Shaping of a Common Security and Defence Policy”,
https://eeas.europa.eu/topics/common-security-and-defence-policy-csdp/5388/shaping-of-a-common-security-and-defence-policy-_en (visited on 28 december 2016).
24 Atlcom (2016), “De geschiedenis van de Europese veiligheids- en defensiesamenwerking na 1945”,
http://www.atlcom.nl/Europeseveiligheid/geschiedenis.htm (visited on 30 January 2016)
25 Atlcom (2016), “De geschiedenis van de Europese veiligheids- en defensiesamenwerking na 1945”,
26 potential political complications.
In 2009, when the Lisbon Treaty came into force, a considerable foundation was built for the European Security and Defence Policy. The Lisbon Treaty underlined the joint defence alliance and the solidarity paragraph, and furthermore the European External Action Service was placed in it’s infancy.26 This was the last largest transformation in the European Security and Defence Policy to date.
4.2 The development of security and defence within the Netherlands
The position of the Netherlands on defence cooperation at the European level in the fifty years after World War II has been very conservative. In that period of time the Netherlands applied a division between economic integration within the European community and defence cooperation within the NATO alliance. For economic cooperation the Netherlands knocked at the door of the European Union and for defence cooperation the Netherlands knocked at the door of the United States (Hellema, 2009; 401-402).
After the Netherlands became member of NATO and committed itself to the economic integration within Europe, the course of the Netherlands remained constant. The political and economic integration was held separate in Europe in order to not threaten NATO with a too powerful political Europe.
The choice for the WEU was made by the Netherlands for security reasons, but when NATO was founded the WEU became less important. The WEU was regarded only as a means to strengthen the European pillar of NATO and therefore as a way to secure the commitment of the United States to Europe (Hellema, 2009; 148-149).
The position of the Netherlands regarding the EDC and EPC was not of a different nature. The Dutch were afraid that the Americans would not be interested in defending Europe when the EDC would get off the ground. Next to this, the EPC had to be integrated within existing institutions. Moreover, cooperation within the European Political Community had to take place in consultation with the European Commission. Then, a new intergovernmental institution would not be created.
The European Political Community continued to operate on an intergovernmental basis and the field of security and defence was also incorporated. In 1990 the Dutch state secretary of European Affairs said that the Netherlands would benefit from a supranational order led by the European Commission, supervised by the Court of Justice and a democratic chosen
26 European Union External Action (2016), “Shaping of a Common Security and Defence Policy”,
https://eeas.europa.eu/topics/common-security-and-defence-policy-csdp/5388/shaping-of-a-common-security-and-defence-policy-_en (visited on 28 december 2016).
27 European Parliament. The establishment of the CFSP and later the ESDP did not correspond to this statement (Hellema, 2009; 238-239).
The attempt that was made after the Cold War to set up a European defence policy within the CFSP was much more successful. The international security paradigm, in which the two superpowers the United States and the Soviet Union were prominently visible, changed. The road to the European Security and Defence Policy was released and was made official with the ratification of the Treaty of Maastricht (Hellema, 2009; 290-292).
4.3. Politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy on EU level
This paragraph elaborates on the variation of the independent variable in hypothesis one as hypothesis two.
The level of politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy is determined in previous studies (Kiratli, 2015; 6). The level of politicization of European issues in general has not increased steadily in both timeframes (Kriesi, 2016; 34). However, with the introduction of the European Defence Community in 1952, which is the predecessor of the European Security and Defence Policy, the level of politicization peaked (Genschel and Jachtenfuchs, 2015; 6 & De Wilde, Leopold and Schmidtke, 2015; 5). The level of politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy is not as high as the level of politicization of other policy fields in both timeframes. The cause of this level of politicization is the form of decision-making. This policy field has remained on the intergovernmental level of decision-making and on a facultative basis (Schimmelfennig, Leuffen and Rittberger, 2014; 21). When this policy field would be transferred to the supranational level, then this policy field would possibly have a higher level of politicization. Due to the intergovernmental level of decision-making the national sovereignty is not completely encroached upon. Therefore the level of politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy has remained moderate over time and thus in both timeframes (Schimmelfennig, Leuffen and Rittberger, 2014; 22). The constant change where this policy field is subjected to and subsequent the media attention that this policy field receives, demonstrates the first component of the intensity of the debate. This policy field has never been absent in the media coverage since the introduction of the European Defence Community and its ensuing evolution to the present European Security and Defence Policy (De Wilde, 2011; 567).
Though the level of politicization of the European Security and Defence Policy is moderate in both timeframes in comparison with other European issues, the issue of security and defence retains widespread media attention because it is a core state power. With the high
28 saliency of this policy area, changes such as a transfer of authority to a supranational level are picked up easily. Increasing integration on this policy area paves the way for a subject on which political parties distinguish themselves from each other (Hooghe and Marks, 2009; 18). With an increasing involvement of the European Union in critical areas worldwide the evolution of the European Security and Defence Policy is thoroughly analysed. This increasing saliency moves simultaneous with increasing opinions and results in the future possible in higher levels of politicization. Political elites gradually become more restricted in their space to manoeuvre during the negotiations on the European level, due to polarized opinions on this policy field (Kiratli, 2015; 6).
The increasing involvement of the European Union in critical areas worldwide also translates into an increasing amount of decisions made on EU-level. Figure 2 illustrates the trend in the amount of decisions made on EU-level regarding European Security and Defence Policy from 1990 until 2015. The saliency of the European Security and Defence Policy within European varies enormously between the two timeframes. The saliency of the ESDP is six times bigger in 2010-2015.
Figure 2: Amount of decisions on EU-level regarding security defence policy 1990-201527
27EUR-Lex (2017), EUR-Lex, “De toegang tot het recht van de Europese Unie”,
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=nl (visited on 7 june 2017)
550 989 1595 2281 3059 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 1 9 9 0 - 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 5 - 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 5 - 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 - 2 0 1 5
