Lessons for the Practice and Analysis of EU Diplomacy from an 'Outside-in' Perspective (original) (raw)
2011
"This book’s chapters are framed within three sections, linked by an introduction (Chapter 1) and a conclusion (Chapter 12). The first section (Looking forward), consisting of a single chapter, highlights the practical transformation that the EU is likely to undergo with the establishment of the European External Action Service foreseen by the Lisbon Treaty. This analysis is important to the extent that it introduces the changes which are expected to influence the EU’s external action and suggests the direction in which these may take the EU. The second section (chapters 3-5) (Challenges from the EU’s close and wider neighbourhood: External action vis-à-vis Russia, China end Iran) looks at some of the relations that the EU is concerned about because of their interference with its own regional and wider security. Russia, China and Iran are considered here in the light of these countries’ specific way of relating to international affairs. The third section (chapters 6-11) (The military: Legal aspects, processes and action, and Peace and Security Policy in Africa) focuses on the EU and its military action within the framework of the Common Security and Defence Policy and inspects the EU’s commitment to bring peace to the African region. Whilst each contribution can be read separately to the advantage of the reader, combined they offer a richer vision of EU engagement (or not) in approaching security issues, and of whether the EU is developing an innovative policy. In some instances there may be overlapping analyses which inevitably bear repetitions, such as in chapters 7 and 8 both focusing on the same CSDP operation. However chapter 7, from the legal expert’s eye, deals with the legislative aspects and with the extent to which the design and implementation of that CSDP action is coherent with the commitments and values expressed by the EU in the ESS, while chapter 8 is the expression of a EU official involved in the institutional control and coordination of that CSDP mission. In some other occasions, there may be different judgements of the same CSDP operations (e.g. chapter 10 and 11) which are due to different angles of observation and experience. Chapter 2, by Antonio Missiroli, provides the functional context within which the EU’s external action is expected to evolve. Per se, it offers a sound introduction to the idea of the challenges that the EU ought to confront, and the progress that it should secure to increase its influence and advance its position within an international system which is made rather more complex by the interaction of the forces and ad hoc alliances. Missiroli argues, that with the operational launch of the European External Action Service, a year after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, a key piece of the new EU external action puzzle falls into place. From now on, the game is likely to change, internally and externally. Yet, the change will be gradual and its pace will depend on a number of political and institutional factors. This chapter analyses the preparatory steps that, throughout 2010, led to the eventual establishment of the new service, the positions and stakes of the main players, and the uncertainties that still linger in its development. Missiroli views the European External Action Service from the perspective of a crucial test of the EU’s capacity to operate more effectively in the international scene, as well as for a more pragmatic and “hybrid” approach to its institutional and policy set up. In Chapter 3, Laure Delcour focuses on the EU-Russia partnership, explaining that the 2008 Georgian conflict is widely considered a watershed moment in EU-Russia relations for three reasons. She argues, instead, that that conflict does not represent per se a turning point in the relations between the two actors. It is a further illustration of the existing flaws currently underlying the strategic partnership. To a large extent, the framework of EU-Russia relations, designed in the early 2000s, has proved ineffective for tackling issues of common interest, one of the most important being security in the shared neighbourhood. However such ineffectiveness, rather than demonstrating the inadequacy of the institutional framework underpinning their partnership, reflects the deep divergences between the two parties regarding their agendas and their principles. This chapter’s examines the emergence of multilateralism as a joint EU-Russia response to a growing interdependence, and highlights the tension stemming from different conceptions of multilateralism. Through examples relating to conflict resolution, energy and security architecture, it shows that the agreed-upon multilateral frameworks and principles have largely remained empty shells in the EU-Russia partnership. In Chapter 4, Jing Men offers a vision of the incompatibility of China and the EU as partners. She questions the causes of the problems, and whether these can be overcome, and the partnership maintained despite the increasing difficulties. The chapter, first, looks at the EU’s promotion of norms in China: its pressure on the Chinese authorities to improve human rights and the tools that it has at hand while negotiating with Beijing. It then examines how pragmatism has been developed in China, and analyses China’s different understandings of human rights and national sovereignty. Finally, it uncovers whether there is any convergence between the normative power and the pragmatic player, before looking at the prospects for EU-China relations. In Chapter 5, Roxane Farmanfarmaian offers an assessment of the European role on the dialogue with Iran. She situates the discussion within the theoretical debate regarding the EU’s normative foreign policy goals, means and impacts. The first section considers not only the EU’s shift in behaviour toward non-normative approaches in other settings within the Middle East and North Africa but, likewise, the attendant loss of influence to affect the conflicts with which it is beset. The second section reviews the key points of the exchange between the E3 (France, Britain and Germany) and Iran during the 2002-2004 period, when European mediation used civilian means to construct policy, reaping gains from the Iranian negotiations, though opening up a gap between the US and EU positions. The third section analyses the breakdown in early 2005 that introduced conditionality into the negotiations, shifting to offers with sanctions under the authority of the United Nations Security Council and the P5+1 (the five permanent members plus Germany). The prioritization of the trans-Atlantic relationship, coupled with the adoption of securitizing policies, engaged the EU mediation efforts, under the direction of the High Representative of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Solana, in increasingly coercive measures. The fourth section addresses the growing ineffectiveness of the EU-designed initiatives demanding suspension as a condition of negotiations, and the intercession of other players adopting normative positions to achieve progress. In particular, the discussion revolves around the Turkey-Brazil nuclear fuel exchange deal, towards which the EU and US acted as spoilers in the face of a substantive achievement over which they had no influence. This provides the context in which to analyze the EU’s shifting role, and its loss of initiative and influence. In substituting pressure for persuasion, this chapter’s author argues that no further progress has been achieved. Not only have Iran’s capabilities increased substantially, but the EU’s ability to work with it to achieve agreement rather than increasing international sanctions and friction has fallen. Farmanfarmaian suggests that, if the EU exercises the civilian power at its disposal, a return to direct engagement with Iran concerning its nuclear dilemma could lead to a better understanding of Iran’s motivations (whether it plans on developing the bomb, or the latent capability). However, by prioritizing the trans-Atlantic relationship over the exercise of its own normative goals, the EU has instead become increasingly unable to effect either the psychological or practical developments in this fast shifting conflict. Chapter 6 and the following turn from the challenges of the EU’s enlarged neighbourhood proper to the specifics of the EU’s military crisis management. In chapter 6, Frederik Naert’s description of the development of the legislative framework within which the CSDP becomes operative is essential to the understanding of the procedural and incremental changes prompted by the EU to deal with the foreign policy security and defence issues confronting Europe. Naert explains that the CSDP has mainly manifested itself through a wide array of civilian and military crisis management actions. In the period from 1 January 2003 until 31 December 2009, some 22 operations were launched, including 6 military, 15 civilian and one mixed civil-military operations. His overview of the norms addresses features of the EU law, covers the main international law and deals with domestic law, including the law of both the sending States and the Host State. The author discusses the role and importance of the legal aspects of EU military operations. Etc.
The study of the EU as an international actor - Bringing the outside back in
2015
Concerns on EU-centrism in EU foreign policy analysis have become more frequent in recent years. In contrast to the mature debate in International Relations, however, a systematic toolbox for diagnosing and remedying this problem is still lacking. This article’s contribution is twofold. First, it proposes a new typology of five approaches to foreign policy analysis, giving conceptual body and nuance to the debate on EU-centrism. It draws on publications on EU-China relations to further illustrate the proposed categories. This typology can be used for scrutinizing existing analyses, as well as for shaping new research projects. The second part of the article applies this typology in a meta-analysis of post-Lisbon EU foreign policy scholarship. To this end, it analyses a built-for-purpose dataset of 482 articles, which covers all work on EU foreign policy published in 2010-2014 in seven key journals. It finds, first, that academic work on EU foreign policy is indeed rife with EU-centr...
The European External Action Service: Towards a More Coherent EU Foreign Policy
2016
From the inception of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) to the new institutional reforms brought about by the Lisbon Treaty in the European Union (EU)'s external relations realm, the EU has constantly tried to improve its institutional structure in order to enhance its international role. Undeniably, the Lisbon Treaty and its series of institutional reforms can be deemed as a major step to improve the consistency and effective engagement of the Union's external action. However, this engagement often brings in the foreground issues of member states' heterogeneity and EU (in-)cohesion that are extremely relevant to our understanding of the EU's role in the international system. The establishment of the European External Action Service (EEAS) comprises a significant evolution and, perhaps, the most innovative institutional development fashioned by the Lisbon Treaty. Not only does Union now have an independent actor to deal with all issues relating to its external relations: the EEAS᾽ synthesis, with personnel coming from the Commission, the Council Secretariat plus diplomats from the 28 EU member-states, also constitutes a unique body to manage all supranational and intergovernmental aspects of EU foreign policy under the same roof. Hence—almost six years after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and the EEAS genesis—the scope of this paper is threefold: a) to explain the nature, scope and structure of this new institutional actor in the EU's foreign policy system, b) to shed light on its position vis-à-vis all major players of the EU foreign policy system including the European Council, the Commission and the European Parliament (EP), and c) to postulate a preliminary assessment of its function from 2010 onwards. Our analysis is based on official EU documentation, secondary literature and twenty-one semi-structured interviews with officials in Brussels from October 2014 to February 2016.
2014
With the end of the political and ideological confrontations of the East-West confl ict in 1989/90 and the opening of state borders within Europe, democracy, peace and prosperity EU´s One Voice On the other hand, scholars and practitioners in the fi eld of EU´s external relations proved a standstill in the development especially of the Common Foreign Security Policy (CFSP) and the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP). They also impressively argued the need for an innovative approach towards confl ict resolution and confl ict management. One of the reasons for the standstill is identifi ed in the lack of willingness amongst the EU member states towards the improvement and innovation of European security. As an example, Nicole Koenig analyses the case of Libya, a "fi rst major test for the Union´s High Representative." She argued, that the "Libyan crisis showed that the member states continue hold on to their national sovereignty, particularly in the areas of diplomacy and defence. When faced with a politicised crisis that requires an immediate and forceful reaction, the Heads of State or Government will certainly not ask the High Representative or consult with the EEAS before acting in line with their national preferences, interests, and priorities." The rationale behind these tendencies is the acceleration of national interests and the confi rmation of an engrained need which equally serves as the heritage of the Cold War: the approach to strengthen national sovereignty at maximum with a minimum loss of the ability to act. Nevertheless, the various departments within the EEAS and within the other relevant actors dealing with EU external relations need to continuously and steadily network in all areas of the EU's politico-strategic level. "A number of mid-term challenges remain", say Andrea Frontini and Paul Ivan in their paper. The "full implementation as well as the more substantial consolidation of an EU 'foreign policy identity' will undoubtedly still require a considerable amount of inter-institutional negotiations, resource investment and political commitment by all parties involved." The 2013-review process of the EEAS is crucial in that matter. In their study, Ryszarda Formuszewicz and Dorota Liszczyk call for an "agreement on criteria of how to measure the success of the EEAS in terms of contributing to a more effective EU foreign policy, in particular the use of the full potential of the still relatively new Service."
The study of EU foreign policy
Manchester University Press eBooks, 2018
The European Union's foreign policy is an ongoing puzzle. The membership of the enlarging European Union has set itself ever more ambitious goals in the field of foreign policy-making, yet at the same time each member state continues to guard its ability to conduct an independent foreign policy. As far as the EU's ambitions are concerned, foreign policy cooperation led to coordination, and coordination in turn gave way to the aspiration of developing a common foreign policy. Concern over foreign policy was the precursor to endeavours to cooperate in matters of security and eventually defence policy. And the desire to maintain the national veto over decision-making within the 'second pillar' of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) gave way to the acceptance that, at least in some agreed areas, detailed policies-joint actions and common positions-would be determined by qualified majority vote. Yet, despite these advances the reluctance of member states to submit their diplomacy to the strait-jacket of EU decision-making has remained. Individual states have maintained distinct national foreign policies, whether this is about specific regional interests, specific global issues or special relationships with other powers. This has been reflected in the institutional arrangements based on the principle of unanimity. Indeed, the very pillar structure of the EU treaties-separating the 'Community pillar' from the special regime that governs CFSP and parts of Justice and Home Affairs-is a hallmark of an arrangement in which member states have sought to minimise the role of supranational institutions and preserve national autonomy. And yet, despite the sensitivity of member states in the area of foreign policy, and their caution to move beyond intergovernmental decision-making mechanisms in this field, foreign policy has been one of the areas in which European integration has made the most dynamic advances. This includes institutional innovations such as the establishment of the post of High Representative for the CFSP and the creation of an EU Military Staff, both based within the