how common is the eu foreign and security policy [presentation]

Paul Luif

How Common is the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union?

The Center for Transatlantic Relations at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins

University, and the EU Center of Excellence Washington D.C.April 7, 2008

Univ.-Doz.Dr. Paul LuifAustrian Institute for International Affairs (oiip)Operngasse 20B, A-1040 ViennaTel: +43/1/5811106-21, Fax: +43/1/5811106-10E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.oiip.at

Overview

• My study does not try to explain the politics and policies of the EU member states and other countries. It wants to show the development of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy with the help of quantitative measures, using the voting in the United Nations General Assembly.

• Before the showing the results of my research, I give some background information on the legal basis, the practice of EU coordination in the UN General Assembly and the data I used here.

• The first quantitative measure is simply the percentage of votes where the EU member states had identical voting behavior.

• The second measure calculates the distance of the EU member states from the EU “mainstream” (= majority position of EU states).

• The third measure gives the distance of selected third countries from the EU consensus position.

Legal Basis 1: Article 19 EU Treaty(in force, Nice Treaty)

1. Member States shall coordinate their action in international organisations and at international conferences. They shall uphold the common positions in such forums.In international organisations and at international conferences where not all the Member States participate, those which do take part shall uphold the common positions.2. … Member States which are also members of the United Nations Security Council will concert and keep the other Member States fully informed. Member States which are permanent members of the Security Council will, in the execution of their functions, ensure the defence of the positions and the interests of the Union, withoutprejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

Legal Basis 2: Article 34 EU Treaty(according to the Treaty of Lisbon)

1. Member States shall coordinate their action in international organisations and at international conferences. They shall uphold the Union’s positions in such forums.In international organisations and at international conferences where not all the Member States participate, those which do take part shall uphold the Union’s positions. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall organise this coordination.2. … Member States which are also members of the United Nations Security Council will concert and keep the other Member States fully informed. Member States which are [permanent deleted] members of the Security Council will, in the execution of their functions, defend the positions and the interests of the Union, without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations Charter.3. When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those Member States which sit on the Security Council shall request that the High Representative be asked to present the Union’s position.

The Practice of EU Coordination in theUN General Assembly

– The coordination among the EU countries at the United Nations inNew York is regarded as part of the EU’s CFSP.

– Preparations of the EU start with the Presidency preparing the “Priorities Paper” for the upcoming UN General Assembly. The Paper is discussed in the Council working group on the UN (CONUN).

– The coordination for common statements, joint positions on resolutions and for negotiations with third countries during theGeneral Assembly is mostly done in New York.

– In the second half of each year, during the main part of the General Assembly session, there are about 600 meetings of EU representatives in New York (EU member states’ missions, Commission Delegation, Liaison Office of the EU Council).

– They are held at three levels: the level of the UN ambassadors of the EU member states, the deputy chief of missions level and theexpert level. Between September and December, several meetings take place each day, usually before the UN bodies meet.

The Analysis of Voting in theUN General Assembly (1)

– With the admission of Switzerland and Timor-Leste in 2002 and Montenegro in 2006, 192 states (and only states) are members of the General Assembly.

– The (regular) sessions of the General Assembly usually start on the third Tuesday in September in New York. They last just before the Christmas holidays. The following year meetings are held if necessary, until the next General Assembly session begins.

– Countries of the Third World (from the Non-aligned Movement and the Group of 77) usually dominate the agenda setting.

– The large majority of resolutions and decisions is accepted by consensus in the General Assembly. Only some 20 to 30 percent of the resolutions each year are passed by a “recorded vote”where each member state votes openly with “yes”, “no” or “abstaining” (or is “absent” from the vote).

– These “recorded votes” can be used to analyze the voting behaviorof the states in the General Assembly.

The Analysis of Voting in theUN General Assembly (2)

– I use on the one hand the votes on resolutions passed. These are well documented and can be downloaded from the Internet.

– On the other hand, I also use the votes on resolutions rejected, parts of resolutions, decisions and motions. This data has to be extracted from the Official Records of the General Assembly (e.g. A/61/PV.1 etc.).

– With these additional votes, I add a qualitative element to my quantitative analysis.

The First Yardstick of the Voting Behavior of theEU Member States in the UN General Assembly

– The first quantitative measure is simply the percentage of votes, where the EU member states had identical voting behavior.

Consensus (“Cohesion”) Among the EU Member States in the UN General Assembly (1)

Percentage of (recorded) votes with identical voting behavior

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

*19

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

02**

2003

2004

2005

2006

All Votes Middle East Security

© Paul Luif 2008

Consensus (“Cohesion”) Among the EU Member States in the UN General Assembly (2)

Percentage of (recorded) votes with identical voting behavior

0

20

40

60

80

100

1995

1996

*19

97

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

**20

03

2004

2005

2006

All Votes Middle East Security Decolonization Human Rights

© Paul Luif 2008

Influence of the Enlargement on the Cohesionof the EU Member States

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

EU-15EU-25

© Paul Luif 2008

The Second Yardstick of the Voting Behavior of theEU Member States in the UN General Assembly:

The Distance from the EU “Mainstream”

– The second quantitative measure is a “distance index”. Here I use the distance of EU member states from the EU “mainstream”, defined as the (absolute) majority position of the EU states.

– A full disagreement between the EU majority and the EU member gets value of “1”; each partial disagreement gets a value of “0.5”, a full agreement gets “0”. These values are added for all the votes under consideration.

– At the same time, the “maximum” disagreement for each pair of countries/groups of countries is calculated. The actual value calculated (the sum of all 1, 0.5 and 0) is compared with the “maximum” value possible.

– The actual value is now expressed as a percentage of the “maximum” value possible. This means that the maximum distance a country (or a group of countries) can have from another country is always 100, the minimum distance is always 0, independently of how many votes are analysed.

Distance from the Majority of the EU Member Statesin the UN General Assembly — All Votes (1)

Maximum Distance = 100, Minimum Distance = 0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

*19

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

02 **

2003

2004

2005

2006

Austria Greece UK France Luxembourg Germany, FR

© Paul Luif 2008

Distance from the Majority of the EU Member Statesin the UN General Assembly — All Votes (2)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

*19

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

02 **

2003

2004

2005

2006

Cyprus Hungary Malta Poland Romania Turkey

© Paul Luif 2008

Comparison: All Votes — Old/New Members

0

10

20

30

40

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

*19

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

02 **

2003

2004

2005

2006


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

*19

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

02 **

2003

2004

2005

2006


© Paul Luif 2008

Distance from the Majority of the EU Member Statesin the UN General Assembly — Votes on Middle East (1)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

*19

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

02 **

2003

2004

2005

2006


© Paul Luif 2008

Distance from the Majority of the EU Member Statesin the UN General Assembly — Votes on Middle East (2)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

*19

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

02 **

2003

2004

2005

2006


© Paul Luif 2008

Comparison: Middle East — Old/New Members

0

10

20

30

40

50

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

*19

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

02 **

2003

2004

2005

2006


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

*19

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

02 **

2003

2004

2005

2006


© Paul Luif 2008

Distance from the Majority of the EU Member Statesin the UN General Assembly — Votes on Security (1)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

*19

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

02 **

2003

2004

2005

2006


© Paul Luif 2008

Distance from the Majority of the EU Member Statesin the UN General Assembly — Votes on Security (2)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

*19

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

02 **

2003

2004

2005

2006


© Paul Luif 2008

Comparison: Security — Old/New Members

01020304050607080

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

*19

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

02 **

2003

2004

2005

2006


0

10

2030

40

5060

70

80

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

*19

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

02 **

2003

2004

2005

2006

Cyprus Hungary Malta Poland Romania Turkey© Paul Luif 2008

Comparison: Middle East/Security — Old Members

0

10

20

30

40

50

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

*19

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

02 **

2003

2004

2005

2006


Middle East

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

*19

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

02 **

2003

2004

2005

2006


Security

© Paul Luif 2008

Distance from the Majority of the EU Member Statesin the UN General Assembly — Votes on Human Rights (1)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1995 1996 * 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 ** 2003 2004 2005 2006


© Paul Luif 2008

Distance from the Majority of the EU Member Statesin the UN General Assembly — Votes on Human Rights (2)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1995 1996 * 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 ** 2003 2004 2005 2006


© Paul Luif 2008

Comparison: Human Rights — Old/New Members

05

10152025303540

1995 1996 * 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 ** 2003 2004 2005 2006Austria Greece UK France Luxembourg Germany, FR

05

10152025303540

1995 1996 * 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 ** 2003 2004 2005 2006Cyprus Hungary Malta Poland Romania Turkey

© Paul Luif 2008

The Third Yardstick of the Voting Behavior of theEU Member States in the UN General Assembly:

The Distance of Non-EU States from the EU Consensus.

– The third quantitative measure is again a “distance index”. Here I use the distance of third states from the EU position (defined as the consensus position of the EU member states).

– Here the “pivot” are those votes where the EU states vote identically. A full disagreement between the EU consensus and the non-EU state gets value of “1”; each partial disagreement gets a value of “0.5”, a full agreement gets “0”. These values are addedfor all the votes under consideration.

– The actual value is once again expressed as a percentage of the “maximum” value possible; the maximum distance a third country can have from the EU consensus position is always 100, the minimum distance is always 0, independently of how many votes are analysed.

The Distance of Selected Third Countries from the EU Consensus — All Votes


05

1015202530354045505560657075

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

*19

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

02**

2003

2004

2005

2006

Australia Canada China India Norway USSR/Russia USA

© Paul Luif 2008

The Distance of Selected Third Countries from the EU Consensus — Votes on Middle East


05

101520253035404550556065707580859095

100

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

*19

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

02**

2003

2004

2005

2006


© Paul Luif 2008

The Distance of Selected Third Countries from the EU Consensus — Votes on Security


05

1015202530354045505560657075

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

*19

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

02**

2003

2004

2005

2006


© Paul Luif 2008

The Distance of Selected Third Countries from the EU Consensus — Votes on Human Rights


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1995 1996* 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002** 2003 2004 2005 2006


© Paul Luif 2008

The Bottom Line (1)

• In the 1990s, there is a clear increase in the cohesion of the EU in foreign policy.

• Since then, the consensus among the EU states has remained at about 70 percent of the votes in the UN General Assembly; the recent enlargement has only slightly reduced the overall consensus.

• The consensus for votes on the Israel-Palestine conflict was most of the time higher than average; the recent enlargement brought a decrease.

• In human rights issues, the consensus is also higher than average, it even increased after the last enlargement.

• In international security matters, the consensus among the EU member states has been clearly lower.

• Most of the EU members have adjusted their voting to the EU “mainstream” over time, the big exceptions being France and the United Kingdom.

The Bottom Line (2)

• In calculating the “distance” of third countries from the EU consensus, one sees that e.g. Norway, Japan and Australia are close to the EU, except for the two latter countries in recent years.

• The USSR was rather distant from the EU. But Russia soon came closer to the EU.

• Third World countries (India, but also China) are quite distant from the EU.

• The United States has been rather distant from the EU consensus, in particular during the G.W.Bush Administration.

• The most important issue causing that distance between EU-US has been the Israel-Palestine conflict.

• In security issues, the EU-US distance has clearly increased during the Bush years.

• In human rights, the US is closer to the EU than Russia/India/China.

Thank you for your attention!

how common is the eu foreign and security policy [presentation]

Technology