Pri analizi dvaju suprotstavljenih narativa povezanih s temom uspostave vojske Europske unije
(EU) u europskom medijskom i političkom prostoru u ovome radu upotrebljava se teorija
sekrutizacije te se temeljem analize diskursa i javnog mnijenja dokazuje da suprotstavljeni
narativi ispunjavaju uvjete da ih prema definiciji Kopenhagenske škole svedemo pod pojam
sekuritizacije. Prema autorima Kopenhagenske škole, sekuritizacija je govorni čin kojim
provoditelj sekuritizacije do tada nepolitizirani odnosno politizirani predmet debate prikazuje
kao egzistencijalnu prijetnju prema referentnom objektu koja zahtijeva hitne mjere.
Prvi narativ koji rad analizira je neizvjesna sigurnosna situacija u Europi i oko nje koja bi mogla
prerasti u egzistencijalnu prijetnju društvu Europske unije i europskom identitetu zbog
nepostojanja vojske Unije. Drugi, tome oprečni narativ pak interpretira uspostavu vojske
Europske unije kao egzistencijalnu prijetnju NATO savezu i suverenitetu država članica Unije.
Rad postavlja pitanje je li sekuritizacija upotrebljiva poluga u nastojanju provođenja odnosno
blokiranja čvršće intergracije EU na području obrane. Analizom diskursa glavnih aktera,
provoditelja sekuritizacije i sigurnosnih strategija EU, Velike Britanije i Sjedinjenih Američkih
Država te analizom prihvaćanja narativa od strane publike, rad zaključuje da su ti oba narativa
Prvi narativ, sekuritiziran od strane europskih federalista na čelu s predsjednikom Europske
komisije Jean-Claudeom Junckerom, kao referentne objekte koji se pod hitno moraju zaštiti
postavlja društvo EU i europski identitet. Egzistencijalna prijetnja referentnim objektima dolazi
od ruske politike, ali i neizvjesne sigurnosne situacije u neposrednom susjedstvu EU-a. Ovaj
narativ kao rješenje nameće uspostavu vojske EU-a. Drugi narativ, sekuritiziran od strane
euroskeptika, NATO saveza te političkih elita Velike Britanije, SAD-a i Rusije, kao referentne
objekte koji se pod hitno moraju zaštititi postavlja suverenitet država članica EU i opstanak
NATO saveza koji se nalaze u egzistencijalnoj prijetnji od strane uspostave vojske Europske
unije, čija bi uspostava oduzela nacionalne vojske tj. suverenitet država članica u području obrane,
a postojanje NATO saveza učinilo izlišnim
|Sažetak (engleski)|| |
The thesis proves that around the establishment of the European Union army, we can infer two
opposing narratives in European Union’s media and political space and that both meet the
conditions to be called a securitization.
The first narrative (positive securitization) that the thesis analyses argues that the precarious
the security situation in and around Europe could become an existential threat to the society of
European Union (EU) and European identity because of the paucity of the EU army. The second
narrative (negative securitization) that the thesis analyses interprets the establishment of the EU
army as an existential threat to the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO) and the sovereignty of EU
Securitization is defined through the Theory of Securitisation by the scientists belonging to
Copenhagen School (Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver and Jaap de Wilde) as a speech act by which an
actor (securitizing actor) presents a specific issue, until then only politicised in the political or
public space, as an existential threat to the referent object that requires extraordinary measures.
For a speech act to be an act of securitization and not just an attempt of securitisation, public
(or a target group) needs to accept the speech as such. Thus, the Theory of Securitization affirms
that the chosen narratives are acts of securitizations through discourse analysis and public
opinion analysis. Elements of securitization are before mentioned securitization actor, referent
object and public, as well as functional actors, which indirectly affect security decisions by
lobbing or directing the securitization actors, and context, as a speech act cannot be an
independent factor in the securitization process but is dependent on historical, political, societal,
economic, geographic, and other variables.
The principal difference between Theory of Securitisation and the mainstream security theories:
Traditional Security Studies (TSS) and Critical Security Studies (CSS), is that Theory of
Securitization is not concerned if the issue that a speech act wants to present as a security issue,
really is a security issue, but how a speech act presents the issue as a security issue. Unlike the
Theory of Securitisation, TSS is a realistic security theory that examines is the issue a real security
threat while CSS is a constructive security theory that examines the reality of security threat. Both, TSS and CSS, analyze already present security threat, while Theory of
Securitisation analyses the creation of the security threat. Positive securitisation, the precarious security situation in and around Europe that could
become an existential threat to the society of the EU because of the paucity of the EU army, is
securitised by European federalists headed by European Commission President Jean-Claude
Juncker and HR/VP Federica Mogherini. Referent objects that are in urgent need of protection are the EU society and the European identity (values and principles) that are in the existential threat of Russia and uncertain security situation in the immediate neighbourhood of the EU. As a solution for the existential threat, securitising actors impose the establishment of the EU army.
Functional actors of positive securitisation are stakeholders in the European defence industry
who have a purely economic reason for the backing of positive securitisation, and European
elite which advocates the federalisation of the European Union.
The prime public, core target group, for the positive securitisation should be the Heads of 28
EU member states who make decisions concerning Common Security Defence Policy (CSDP).
As the decisions concerning CSDP must be unanimous, and some member states, mostly United
Kingdom (UK), steadily use the instrument of veto to block further development of the CSDP,
the thesis assumes that the securitising actors of positive securitisation decided to expand the
target group for their securitisation onto European Union society as a whole. Reasons behind
the expansion of the target public, which thus makes the whole society of the European Union a
the public is a pressure onto the Heads of EU member states since the citizens of the EU have a
very favourable opinion about the further development of the CSDP and mostly positive
opinion regarding the establishment of the EU army.
Negative securitisation, which interprets the establishment of the EU army as an existential
a threat to the NATO and the sovereignty of EU member states, is a complex form of
securitisation. Instead of one securitising actor or one group of securitising actors with the same
motive (European federalist with Juncker as champion in positive securitisation), negative
securitisation is securitised by several securitising actors without the leading champion with
sometimes the same and sometimes different motives: Eurosceptics, NATO, decision-makers
in the United Kingdom, the United States (US) and Russia.
Furthermore, negative securitisation accumulates the referent objects that are in urgent need of protection: the sovereignty of the EU member states and the survival of the NATO alliance.
The only element of the negative securitisation that is unambiguous is the existential threat from the establishment of the EU army whose establishment would take away the national armies, i.e. the sovereignty of the EU member states and made the NATO alliance vulnerable.
Hence, for the sake of simplicity of understanding the elements of negative securitisation and their synergy, the thesis uses the Classical Security Complex Theory (CSCT) for the proper consideration of the patterns of the security connections.
Using discourse analysis of the speech acts and official documents the thesis shows how the decision-makers in the US (regardless of their political affiliation) securitise the establishment
of the EU army as an existential threat to NATO and future of Atlantic security cooperation.
Same is evident with the NATO as a securitising actor. The decision-makers in the UK (mostly conservatives) securitise the establishment of the EU army and further development of CSDP
as an existential threat to the national sovereignty of EU member states. Russia too securitises
the establishment of the EU army as an existential threat to the national sovereignty of EU
member states but does the deed backstage financially supporting nationalist and Eurosceptic
EU parties and via cyber-attacks and disinformation campaign.
Functional actors of negative securitisation are stakeholders in the non-EU defence industry and other industries which prosper due to unstable global security situation, private military organisations, non-independent think thanks, etc. The public for the negative securitisation is the Eurosceptic part of the EU society, but the core target group are the citizens of the UK.
Securitising actors of the negative securitisation narrowed the public of their securitisation for
the same reason why the securitising actors of the positive securitisation broaden theirs –
decisions concerning CSDP must be unanimous. Consequently, the securitising actors of the
negative securitisation to be successful in their securitisation need to persuade only citizens of
the UK that their narrative is correct.
As already mentioned, the Theory of Securitisation analyses the creation of the security threat, so
very important for the understanding of the results of discourse analysis is the context behind
the construction of the securitisation. In the case of the securitisations analysed in the thesis,
the contexts of both narratives have foundations in the conflict between neorealist and
neoliberal doctrines in foreign politics, different security strategies of the countries, and change
in a global security system, as well as historical, political, societal, economic, geographic and
No EU member state can be a superpower on its own in today’s world. This notion and aim to hinder the possibility of another armed conflict in Europe prompted the creation of the Union.
After more than 60 years of enlargement and integration, the EU is an economic superpower.
Nevertheless, to protect its economic superiority as well as to impose its doctrine in foreign politics and expand its multilateral security strategy, the EU needs to be and defence union.
This idea is not a new one but exists and was attempted to be implemented from the beginning of the EU existence. The securitising actors of the positive securitisation believe that with the establishment of the EU army, the EU can keep the US hegemony in the global security system and the Russian renewal of bloc-system aspirations under control. Some securitising actors of the positive securitisation also believe that the further integration of the EU is necessary to prevent the disintegration. Above all, is the strong desire of the EU elite for the federation of the EU.
Expectedly, not least because of the postulate of the security dilemma, the US and Russia are afraid of the military-strong EU which could change the current global security system, while the UK believes that with the strengthening of the EU its military and political strength will wane or disappear. As the UK is the EU member state and its citizens are the most Eurosceptic
the public in the EU, both and the US and Russia focused most of their securitisation’s efforts
toward the UK's citizens. The US also uses the UK as a tool of disruption in the EU – it's right
to veto decisions about the further development of CSDP, integration of the EU in the defence
field and the establishment of the EU army.
The thesis hypothesises that the two opposed narratives that the thesis considers to be
securitisations have generated the status quo in the development of CSDP. Through the
discourse analysis of speech acts and the official documents of securitising actors of both
narratives as well as analysis of the acceptance of narratives by the audience (public opinion
analysis), the thesis positively answers the research question: Is the securitisation theory usable
the instrument in the effort to implement/block more effective EU integration?