Transcript 13 EU - Midlands State University

13 EU
• THE WESTERN EUROPEAN
INTERGRATION
• Integration in Western Europe begun just
after the end of WW2. Mainly as a result of
the devastation caused by war and the
realization that economic, social and political
recovery can be achieved by closer cooperation by member states.
13.1
• The process of integration begun with the
creation of European Coal and Steel
Community (ECSC) in 1951 by six members,
Belgium, France, West Germany, Holland,
Italy and Luxembourg- whose purpose was to
coordinate coal and steel production under an
independent supra-national authority which
would be guided by collective interests rather
than national ones.
13.2
• Plans form European Defence Community
failed but establishment of EEC and
European Atomic Energy Community
(EURATOM) came into force in 1958.
• The rationale was to establish a co-ordinate
economic policy and a customs union.
• The United Kingdom made two attempts to
apply for membership 1961 and 1963 but
failed because members were suspicious of
Britain close relations with the United States.
13.4
• Formally the E.C was in July 1967 bringing all
the institutions under a central organisation.
The number of member states grew with the
eventual acceptance of U.K in 1973, +
Denmark, Ireland, Greece 1981, Spain and
Portugal in 1986.
• INSTITUTIONS. The main decision – making
body is council of ministers – consists of
representatives drawn from the of the
separate member states.
13.5
• European Commission – which is chosen by
the council, is the secretariat. Initiate
Community PolicY. To propose the annual
budget. European Parliament – the legislature
body with powers to dismiss the commission
or reject the budget but it’s the weakest
institution as it can not veto laws drawn by the
commission. The Court of Justice – functions
as the arbitrator of community laws takes
precedence over national laws.
13.6
• Major achievements
• In the field of agriculture has seen the
harmonisation of policy hence the birth
of the Common Agriculture Policy which
has the highest budget allocation..
13.7
• Aims of CAP are:
• - To increase agricultural productivity.
• -To increase earnings of persons
engaged in agriculture
• -To stabilize markets
• - Guarantee regular supplies
• - Ensure reasonable prices to farmers
13.8
• The establishment of European political
cooperation process in 1970 has witnessed
an attempt to provide a co-coordinated
foreign policy.
• On Israeli-Arab conflict
• On East west relations
• In 1975 it also established special trading
arrangements with 46 developing countries.
13.9
• However, national interests seem to hamper
a well-coordinated European foreign policy.
For example there was failure to agree on
comprehensive package of sanctions against
South Africa. But with the end of cold war,
disintegration of USSR there is hope that
political union might take shape and
consensus being reached on a number of
issues.
13.10
• 1. Actors: above (EC,ECJ,CoM,etc)
and below(businesses, people bringing
governments to court.) the state. The
state becomes responsive to these
actors. Haas mainly focused on role of
elites.
13.11
• 1. Motives: self-interest. Nobody is
striving for “Europe.” Each is striving for
self-interest. Economic and others
actors for particularistic interests. Court
and Commission to expand its
jurisdiction.
13.12
• Process: spillover – economic and
political. Economic as good place to
start because not politically charged.
Then,as can’t integrate in one integrate
in one economic sector by itself
because interdependence (coal and
steel lead to transportation).Shift from
quasi-technical tasks to political union.
13.13
• 1. Context: normally apolitical.
Technocratic or economic but not
political. Judges making judicial
decisions, not political ones.
Bureaucrats making decisions about
administrative regulations not shaping
the economy. But technocratic decisions
led to major political and economic
changes.
13.14
• Conditions for integration according to
Haas:
• 1. Ideological fragmentation regarding
the value of international integration.
• 2. No strong international policy
conflicts during 1950s
• 3. No strong cultural divisions across
countries
13.15
• Look at data reveals/confirms the
importance of economic difficulties as
background conditions of integration.
• Mattli argues for two key ones:
• A) Important gains available from
integration
• b) Uncontested regional leadership
(Germany in the EU case)
13.15
• Solution processes leading to
integration: functional linkage of tasks;
cultivated linkages and political
coalitions; elite socialization; group
formations to use new forum as source
of power if possible; ideology and
identity appeal; over time, fewer
alternatives.
13.16
G8
• The Group of Eight (G8, and formerly the
(G6) or Group of Six) is an international
forum for the governments of Canada,
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the
United Kingdom, the United States and the
European Union
13.17
• The concept of a forum for the world's major industrialized
democracies emerged following the 1973 oil crisis and
subsequent global recession
• The G8 is intended to be an informal forum, and it
therefore lacks an administrative structure like those for
international organizations, such as the United Nations or
the World Bank. The group does not have a permanent
secretariat, or offices for its members. In 2008, the G8
summit might have been called the G9 because the
President of the European Union Commission participated
as an equal in all summit events.
9.18
• Together, the G8 countries represent about 65% of the Gross World
Product[12], the majority of global military power (seven are in the top
8 nations for military expenditure[13]), and almost all of the world's
active nuclear weapons.[14]
• The eight countries making up the G8 represent about 14% of the
world population, but they account for 65% of the world's economic
output measured by gross domestic product, all 8 within the top 11
countries according to the CIA World Factbook. (see the CIA World
Factbook column in List of countries by GDP (nominal))
• In 2007, the combined G8 military spending was US$850 billion. This
was 72% of the world's total military expenditures.
9.19
• The most well-known criticisms center on the assertion
that members of G8 are responsible for global issues such
as poverty in Africa and developing countries due to debt
and trading policy, global warming due to carbon dioxide
emission, the AIDS problem due to strict medicine patent
policy and other issues related to globalization. During the
31st G8 summit in Scotland, 250,000 people took to the
streets of Edinburgh as part of the Make Poverty History
campaign calling for Trade Justice, Debt Relief and Better
Aid. Numerous other demonstrations also took place
challenging the legitimacy of the G8. [15]
9.20 NAFTA
• The North American Free Trade
Agreement (Spanish: Tratado de Libre
Comercio de América del Norte [TLCAN],
French: Accord de libre-échange nordaméricain [ALENA]) is a trilateral trade
bloc in North America created by the
governments of the United States, Canada,
and Mexico.
9.21
• The North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) has two supplements, the North
American Agreement on Environmental
Cooperation (NAAEC) and The North American
Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC). The
agreements came into effect on January 1, 1994
and (as of 2007) in terms of combined purchasing
power parity GDP of its members it is the largest
trade bloc in the world and second largest by
nominal GDP comparison.
9.22
• While different groups advocate for a further integration
into a North American Community, sensitive issues have
hindered that process. The three countries have pursued
different trade policies with non-members (for example,
Mexico has signed FTAs with more than 40 countries in 12
agreements), making the possibility of creating a customs
union difficult to accomplish. Given the scope of the
agreement, which includes very sensitive issues in trade
talks such as agriculture liberalization and environment
regulation, few countries have shown interest in joining
NAFTA.
9.23
• The effects of NAFTA, both positive and negative, have
been quantified by several economists, whose findings
have been reported in publications such as the World
Bank's Lessons from NAFTA for Latin America and the
Caribbean,[8] NAFTA's Impact on North America,[9] and
NAFTA Revisited by the Institute for International
Economics.[10 Some argue that NAFTA has been positive
for Mexico, which has seen its poverty rates fall and real
income rise, even after accounting for the 1994–1995
economic crisis.[11]
9.24
• Others argue that NAFTA has been beneficial to business owners and
elites in all three countries, but has had negative impacts on farmers in
Mexico who saw food prices fall based on cheap imports from U.S.
agribusiness, and negative impacts on US workers in manufacturing
and assembly industries who lost jobs. Critics also argue that NAFTA
has contributed to the rising levels of inequality in both the U.S. and
Mexico. Some economists believe that NAFTA has not been enough
(or worked fast enough) to produce an economic convergence,[12] nor
to substantially reduce poverty rates. Some have suggested that in
order to fully benefit from the agreement, Mexico must invest more in
education and promote innovation in infrastructure and agriculture.
9.25
• NAFTA has not caused trade diversion, aside from
a few select industries such as textiles and apparel,
in which rules of origin negotiated in the
agreement were specifically designed to make
U.S. firms prefer Mexican manufacturers.
Mexican factories which take in imported raw
materials and produce goods for export) have
become the landmark of trade in Mexico. These
are plants that moved to this region from the
United States, hence the debate over the loss of
American jobs.
9.26
• From the earliest negotiation, agriculture was (and still
remains) a controversial topic within NAFTA, as it has
been with almost all free trade agreements that have been
signed within the WTO framework. Agriculture is the only
section that was not negotiated trilaterally; instead, three
separate agreements were signed between each pair of
parties. The Canada-U.S. agreement contains significant
restrictions and tariff quotas on agricultural products
(mainly sugar, dairy, and poultry products), whereas the
Mexico-U.S. pact allows for a wider liberalization within a
framework of phase-out periods (It was the first NorthSouth FTA on agriculture to be signed).
9.27
• According to the Department of Homeland Security
Yearbook, during fiscal year 2006 (i.e. October 2005
through September 2006), 74,098 foreign professionals
(64,633 Canadians and 9,247 Mexicans) were admitted
into the United States for temporary employment under
NAFTA (i.e. in the TN status). Additionally, 17,321 of their
family members (13,136 Canadians, 2,904 Mexicans, as
well as a number of third-country nationals married to
Canadians and Mexicans) entered the U.S. in the treaty
national's dependent (TD) status.[17]
9.28
• There is some concern in Canada over the provision that if something
is sold even once as a commodity, the government cannot stop its sale
in the future.[citation needed] This applies to the water from Canada's
lakes and rivers, fueling fears over the possible destruction of
Canadian ecosystems and water supply. Other fears come from the
effects NAFTA has had on Canadian lawmaking. In 1996, MMT, a
gasoline additive, was brought into Canada by an American company.
At the time, the Canadian federal government banned the importation
of the additive. The American company brought a claim under NAFTA
Chapter 11 seeking US $201 million,[20] and by Canadian Provinces
under the Agreement on Internal Trade ("AIT"). The American
company argued that their additive had not been conclusively linked to
any health dangers, and that the prohibition was damaging to their
company.
9.29
• An increase in domestic manufacturing
output and a proportionally greater domestic
investment in manufacturing does not
necessarily mean an increase in domestic
manufacturing jobs; it may simply reflect
greater automation and higher productivity
9.30
• Impact on Mexican farmers
• In 2000, U.S. government subsidies to the corn sector
totaled $10.1 billion, a figure ten times greater than the
total Mexican agricultural budget that year.[31] Other
studies reject NAFTA as the force responsible for
depressing the incomes of poor corn farmers, citing the
trend's existence more than a decade before NAFTA's
existence, an increase in maize production after NAFTA
went into effect in 1994, and the lack of a measurable
impact on the price of Mexican corn due to subsidized corn
coming into Mexico from the United States, though they
agree that the abolition of U.S. agricultural subsidies
would benefit Mexican farmers.[32]
9.31
• Public opinion toward NAFTA in the United States,
Canada, and Mexico is mixed. A July 2004 survey
conducted by CIDE and COMEXI in Mexico showed that
64 percent of the Mexican public favored NAFTA. The
Program on International Policy Attitudes reported in a
January 2004 poll that 47 percent of Americans thought
that NAFTA has been good for the United States, while 39
percent thought it had been bad for the country.[44] A
recent Rasmussen report shows that only 16% of likely
Democratic voters in the 2008 presidential election support
NAFTA, while 53% disapprove of the trade
agreement.[45]
9.32
• Border restrictions were largely unaffected by the
1988 Free Trade Agreement, and NAFTA gave
mobility rights to only listed professionals[48]
(admittable to the USA under the TN status, or to
Canada as "business people covered by
NAFTA"[49]). Also, the border has been tightened
in response to concerns about drugs and then
terrorism. This freedom of mobility has had
important qualifications. It can be suspended or
terminated by either government at will.