Transcript Established in 1970 First concrete beginnings of a common foreign policy Initially run entirely by member states Agreement by states to act in.

Established in 1970
First concrete beginnings of a common foreign policy
Initially run entirely by member states
Agreement by states to act in unison
Specifically kept separate from the EC and especially the
Commission which was considered too powerful
Long-resented by member states as “out of touch”
Power unchecked, not many restraints
Initially kept separate from EPC until 1980s
Steadily expanding: accredited to 158 countries and
organizations
Can implement external policy
Negotiates on behalf of member governments
in the GATT or WTO
Policy entrepreneur/driver
Increasing in power
Shaping and voicing the EU’s international position
Foreign policy being negotiated at ever-higher levels
Very influential: comprised of heads-of-state
Initially rather weak but increasing involvement
Updated frequently on foreign policy issues
Holds forums and debates over external policies
Strong emphasis on human rights
Only EU institution elected by the people
Focal point for Non-Governmental Organizations
Historically encourages enhanced cooperation
French & German Agreement essential
Bridge-Building – especially significant for smaller
countries
UK = powerful voice, encourages establishment of
military
All agree instruments should be coordinated
Policies driven by desire of internal security
• Colonies and overseas territories of member
states
• Lomé conventions provided framework for
relations with ACPs
• Adaptability of Lomé- scope widened to include
human rights- provided for a dialogue on noncompliance- led to Cotonou Agreement
• EU enlargement as a catalyst in strengthening
foreign economic policy with a wide range of
regional groupings in ACP areas
• Member states wanted to ensure stability in
North Africa (Maghreb) and proliferation of
Mediterranean market.
• Complex series of agreements between EC/EU
and Maghreb
• Due to worries over instability stemming from
legal and illegal migration through North Africa,
Barcelona Process (or Euro-Mediterranean
Partnership) was instituted in 1995 with its 3
“baskets”- economic, political, and cultural
• End of Cold War resulted in countries of Central and
Eastern Europe (CEECs) looking to both accede to the
EU and join NATO for fear of uncertainties to the East
• Phare program as an instrument in preparing
prospective countries to join the EU
• Although the 10 CEECs finally acceded in 2004, the
process was fraught with the difficulties arising from
the predominance of individual domestic interests of
the member states in the policy making process.
• Raised intergovernmental question of whether so
many CEECs should be admitted to EU
• Russia has occasionally played with the idea of EU membership, but
has settled on a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) in
order to resolve sensitive trade issues
• Dependence on the US during the Kosovo Crisis of 1998-99 led to
both a move towards a European Security and Defence Policy and a
coherent policy towards the Balkans as a whole
• The initially reactive and regional approach has been replaced with
the Stabilisation and Association Process (SAP), which puts an
emphasis on making sure that states are economically and
politically sound by offering an Association Agreement in exchange
for commitments to political, economic, or human rights reform
• The Neighbourhood Policy of 2004 provides an alternative for the
EU that both keeps them from having to admit all countries that
want to join the EU while still preventing against the emergence of
dividing lines between the enlarged EU and its new neighbors
• Though important trade partners, a point of
contention in transatlantic relations is the
question over security and its role in EU-US
relations
• EU is pushing towards a collective security
agreement within its member states with CFSP,
but what does this mean for NATO and the US’s
place in the international defense paradigm?
What actions do you think that the EU and the US
will eventually take?
• Links to Asia are relatively weak when compared with EUUS relations
• The relationship between Asia and the EU is based mainly
on trade issues, but the active pursuit of human rights by
the European Parliament has led to some strains in the
relationship between the EU and some Asian countries
• Burma’s, a country with documented human rights
violations, membership in ASEAN and China’s brutal
oppression as seen in Tian’anmen Square in 1989 are some
examples of problems between these countries’ actions
and the EU’s high-minded ideals that show that although
the EU is interested in common economic growth in these
areas, political differences are providing an obstacle
• There has been an agreement on a Security
Strategy and examples of successful policing
operations in the Balkans, but there is not a
widespread awareness of these successes.
• This damages the credibility of the EU’s ability as
a common defense community, and this can only
be rectified through a continuation of successful
military and policing operations
• Despite the repetition of lofty aims, the EU has
proved unable to promote common actions, with
the split over Iraq being an example.
• Establishment of CFSP created a common
foreign policy for the EU, but the individual
states have more military power than the CFSP
and NATO is much stronger and more
organized
• What do you think the next step will be in
terms of collective security for the EU? Will it
include an “Article V” section such as NATO
that says an attack on one is an attack on all?
• Larger states in the EU have become restless with the number of
smalls that has increased through successive rounds of enlargement
• Both France and the UK tend to view the CFSP as an instrument of
their own national foreign policies, and small states often feel
disrespected by their exclusion in meetings that only include larger
states.
• The general assembly of the UN provides one vote for each country
and because of this, is an arguably weak part of the institution and
without a whole lot of credibility. Similarly, the seats apportionment
in the European Parliament is not done simply according to
population, which hurts the big states and helps the small states.
Do you think that this hurts the credibility and overall power of this
governing body?
Agreement by original six to create a customs union,
common market and relating factors of production laid
framework for an eventual common external policy
Necessitated the negotiation of bilateral trade
agreements and also within the WTO and GATT
Coordination of best policies enhances global
competitiveness, stronger world-voice
But member states have feared loss of individual voice
Commission seen as “beyond control”
Desire to protect culture and intellectual property rights
Manners: EU will lose normative power if it chooses to
wield military power in a peace-making manner
Short-term force will replace traditional, long-term efforts
Countries less willing to join if they fear the EU will be
getting involved in countries they don’t want it to
EU will “slide” into always using peace-making tactics over
peace-keeping, especially when faced with guerrilla tactics
EU is a special case therefore past examples are not
relevant
EU has made efforts to create a more efficient system for
imposing economic sanctions while at the same time
improving its Rapid Reaction Force, for example
EU has unprecedented amount of “normative power” and
will therefore not resort as quickly to force
Will still only act when NATO does not
Iraq example: did not send troops as a unit but rather held
internal deliberations, which affected US policy there
EU currently has military power and yet has maintained
normative (countries still desire to join EU)