external policies i: cfsp and common commercial policy. prof. andreas bieler

External policies I: CFSP and Common Commercial Policy.

Prof. Andreas Bieler

Structure of lecture

I. Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP);

II. Common Commercial Policy (CCP);

I. Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP):

1. Theoretical remarks:

Neo-functionalism: the logic of spill-over implies integration in more and more related areas including issues of foreign policy and political union more generally;

(Liberal) intergovernmentalism: there is a clear distinction between low politics including areas such as economic co-operation and areas of high politics consisting of foreign, security and defence policy. Integration will only take place in the former;

What is EU foreign policy?

foreign policy also includes issues such as EU enlargement and common commercial policy, not only matters of security and defence;

problem: too much focus on institutional set-up and on the activities in Pillar 2, when analysing EU foreign policy;

supranational institutions are more involved in EU enlargement and common commercial policy and the EU acts as a stronger and more unitary actor in these areas;

2. History of CFSP:

1954 failure of European Defence Community;

1970 establishment of the European Political Co-operation (EPC);

1991 Treaty of Maastricht including the second pillar of a Common Foreign and Security Policy;

3. The Treaty of Maastricht and CFSP:

confirmation of European Council as main decision-making institution;

West European Union is linked to EU;

defence policy: the Treaty pointed to ‘the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence’;

Empirical reality – break up of Yugoslavia and the conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo:

July 1995 NATO air attacks on Yugoslav army after massacre of Srebrenica;

November 1995 Peace Deal in Dayton under US leadership;

March/April 1999: air attacks on Serb forces in Kosovo by NATO, but united EU position throughout the conflict;

4. The Treaty of Amsterdam:

institutional improvements: (1) new policy planning and early warning unit; (2) M. PESC, heading this unit and bringing together officials from the Council, WEU, member states and the Commission;

incorporation of the WEU-Petersberg tasks into the EU remit: humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking;

no further clarification about common defence policy;

5. Recent Developments:

December 1999: at the Helsinki European Council the EU agrees on the formation of a rapid reaction force of 50.000 to 60.000 soldiers by 2003;

December 2000: the Treaty of Nice agrees on closer integration of WEU in EU via the Political and Security Committee and confirms the formation of the rapid reaction force;

war on Iraq demonstrated continuing deep-rooted differences between EU members on foreign policy;

2005 command of the military stabilisation force in Bosnia & Herzegovina was transferred from Nato to the EU;

6. Why is it so difficult to forge a common foreign policy?

a) Weak institutions;

b) No convergence of national interests;

c) Lack of common European identity;

d) Complex institutional web in European security;

e) ‘Brusselisation’ rather than integration;

7. Points for further reflection:

In what way is the EU superior to military organisations such as NATO?

Is a military capacity for the EU desirable?

What is the purpose of such a military capacity?

II. The EU as a global actor: the common commercial policy (CCP).

1. General background:

the Commission is the EU’s main representation within the area of the common commercial policy, a Pillar I issue, and within the World Trade organisation;

what is the social purpose underlying the EU common commercial policy?

2. EU foreign trade policy:

clear understanding of the social and political project underpinning foreign policy by EU policy-makers: trade partners have to commit themselves to neo-liberal restructuring in tandem with commitments to human rights, the rule of law and representative democracy;

social purpose: strengthening of European competitiveness on the global market in view of competition with the US-led North American regional bloc and Japan;

3. The EU’s wider role: Global Europe;

the ACP-EU partnership agreement based on preferential treatment was signed in Cotonou in 2000, but is no longer compatible with WTO regulations;

the EU intends to move towards WTO-compatible Economic Partnership Agreements with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, which are presented by the European Commission as ‘trade and co-operation agreements at the service of development’;

critical NGOs such as War on Want question this benevolent interpretation: attack on developing countries’ economy in the interest of European capital;