Great Powers should have Global Interests, and the political will to pursue and protect these interests. Such interests could be trade and businesses or military bases and allies around the world. The E.U. has global interest in terms of trade negotiations also the World Trade Organisation (W.T.O) the E.U. speaks with one voice via the E.U.’s trade commissioner. Some members do posses global interests outside of their borders. These are known as the old imperial powers, who still retain territories across the world, despite decolonisation, also historic and cultural affiliations with their former subjects. This applies to members such as; G.B, France (Fr), Spain (Spn), Netherlands, Belgium and Portugal, all which can be termed as the Atlantic wing of the E.U. G.B and Fr, in particular have considerable global interests. Britain still has links with Commonwealth. (There was also the Commonwealth Games this summer in Manchester, which shows strong links). Some states still want to join the Commonwealth, even though they have nothing to do with it! France still has links to the Francophone nations of Africa. Both countries’ foreign policies take into account these links.
The E.U. itself has no tangible interests outside of its own borders. But the old imperial powers links have actually caused disputes within the E.U. . For example, during the Falklands Crisis of 1982, Britain obtained the support of the U.S. due to Margaret Thatcher’s close relationship with Ronald Regan. However the European Council (E.C) (as it was known then, now the E.U), and its members showed no support for Britain’s actions. This was mainly due to the fact at the time Spain was negotiating to enter the E.C, and were closely associated with Argentina. France was also found to be against international opinion, when they tested nuclear weapons in the South Pacific islands during 1996. This angered Britain as it was near Commonwealth members like Australia and New Zealand. Germany too was upset by the actions of the French, as they are the largest E.U state of Green Party representation.
With Managerial Role a great power state should be recognised by people and leaders to hold special rights and duties. They have the right to play a part in determining the issues that affect peace and security of the international system. They also recognise they have a duty to modify polices and maintain their managerial responsibilities in the international system. Neither, Napoleonic France or Nazi Germany recognised this duty. The members of the E.U. have positions in world multilateral organisations, which play a significant role in the management of the International System. Most notably both Britain and France hold permanent seats on the United Nation (U.N) Security Council, and have the power to veto. E.U member states have made important contributions to peacemaking efforts around the world. During the 1991 Gulf War Crisis, an armada defended the sovereignty of Kuwait and other Middle Eastern states under U.N declarations. This action secured the oil resources in the Middle East, and protecting the foundation of the world’s industrial economy. The E.U is able to settle disputes between its member states,
by the use of the European Court Of Justice, to uphold E.U law which supercedes the national law of its member states. This very effective judicial process, reduces conflict between states, and prevents disruption in the world economy. Part of the reason the E.U itself was created was to avoid the kind of conflagrations of the twentieth Century that emanated from Europe. It has succeeded in keeping the peace within Western Europe, by binding traditional enemies together as partners.
However, few of the managerial roles across the globe is held by the E.U itself, except in the W.T.O., where it speaks on behalf of its member states. Although this management role is highly valuable in keeping a stable and peaceful international system, the E.U is unable to perform this function beyond its borders, with one voice. Leach notes that this position could be overcome by France and Britain combining their seats at the U.N Security Council into one, and handing it over to the E.U. This could also be achieved in all the multilateral institutions that the E.U members take part. Either this takes place, or the E.U member state votes could be wielded in concert as a block vote, making the E.U’s voice particularly powerful in international affairs. The Single European Act of 1986 was supposed to improve community action over foreign and security policy by putting it on a legal basis. The ending of the Cold War pushed European Political Cooperation (EPC) up the agenda, and at Maastricht a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was to be a second pillar of the E.U. Under the CFSP the European member states do confer with each other and vote together whenever possible. However, policy disputes mean this procedure is little more than an ‘exchange of information.’
Great Powers should be able to maintain their security against all others, independently. They must be in the front rank of military powers, possessing a Strategic Nuclear Capability. Indeed rank suggests they should be self-sufficient military. There should be no other power superior to them, although there could be others of comparable status. The ‘Common Foreign and Security Policy’ (CFSP) (the successor of the EPC), came into being with the Masstricht Treaty, which looked to a European Military Dimension. It covers “all questions related to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence.” Its objectives are; -To safeguard the common values, fundamental interests, and independence of the Union. – To strengthen the security of the Union and its Member States in all ways. – To preserve world peace and strengthen international security. – To promote international cooperation. –To develop and consolidate democracy and the rule of law, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The West European Union (WEU), this military organisation was defunct for 45years before it was rejuvenated by the Maastricht Treaty 1992. It had been established in 1948 as the Brussels Treaty Organisation. NATO overshadowed it so much so that it was unnecessary. The Maastricht Treaty re-booted it due to the fact that it already possessed an institutional framework, so that the E.U did not thrash out a new one, all it did was secure the existing WEU onto the E.U. By 1998 Portugal, Spain and Greece had joined the WEC. Its institutional framework consists of a Council of Ministers, a permanent Council, and an Assembly of member state Parliamentarians. Another organisation is Eurocorps, which was founded in 1993. It consists of 35,000 French and German troops. By 1995 it had grown to 50,000 troops, from Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain. Belgium has committed half of its national army! These forces are also available to NATO. The role of this corps is for peacekeeping and crisis management. The WEU provides a political framework, and NATO acts as its military umbrella. Therefore it is not suited to fast moving operational conditions.
Two of the E.U’s member states possess nuclear weapons, however, yet once more control of these remains with the individual states and not the E.U. Europe’s military position is extremely complicated due to the continent’s history. The Cold War and detente have all lead to the European nations being bound together within numerous criss- cross security arrangements. Whilst some countries are part of the E.U, they may not be in arrangements, whilst some countries are in all of the arrangements but not in the E.U! Another military problem with the E.U is that NATO serves to defend Europe, but it is in fact lead by the U.S! The success of NATO (U.S) in defending Europe means that it continues to serve many of the European states well, and few see any real need to develop an alternative. Its also crucial to state that the E.U even with the WEU and the Eurocorps, plus individual state armies, is unable to sustain action without the help of the U.S surveillance and the logistics. This dependence upon the U.S was recognised in the Luxembourg Declaration of 1993 with the WEU defining itself as the European pillar of NATO. The Luxembourg position is probably what the US is happy with, as it still retains the key decision making-role. The European Parliament is not capable of acting as a safe valve for the feelings of the sort of occasioned by war and the threat to vital interests. Unlike national Parliaments, which are able to respond to the powerful emotions of a threatened nation when lives are at risk. So the question of sovereignty emerges once again. If the EEC/EC was unable to develop a CFSP during the Cold War when it was faced with a common foe. So how is it likely to do so today without one, and when it faces more complex security environment? The E.U has failed to act quickly, effectively, or in a unified fashion to the following international crisis; 1982 Falklands War, where Britain didn’t obtain the support of the E.U which caused problems within Europe. The 1990’s Balkans Wars. 1991 Gulf War, where disagreements over a common approach, and the E.U action divided Europe along the Rhine. Greek and Turkish dispute over Aegean Islands. 1995 Rwanda. In Albania 1997, the WEU agreed to contribute forces to a European peacekeeping initiative, it sent only 35 policemen! Kosovo 1999- again the E.U was unable to act alone, over a crisis upon its own borders. Even though 19 states (many of them E.U members) went in to help the crisis, the U.S had to contribute a fair share of the vital war-wining equipment. Another downfall with the E.U’s military force is that the annual spending on the military falls extremely short, when compared to the likes of the U.S and Japan. For obvious reasons the E.U’s military does not possess the capabilities to match the U.S and other leading states across the glob.
Looking at the member states of the E.U, we have to ask the question, which of the leading members are able to provide the drive and vision to lead the E.U into a Great Power role?
Schroder’s Germany, is the E.U’s most populous state, however the Finance Minister claimed the Germany’s finances, “are in a ruinous state”. Its small and medium sized firms are struggling to be part of the ever-growing globalised economy. Schroder has been advised to concentrate on his state, before he can look further a field. Chirac’s France has no real interest into Eastern Europe. The leadership in France is divided between ‘Conservative’ and ‘Socialist’, so France itself is unable to speak as one voice. But Germany and France did decide to adopt the E.U’s single currency. Whereas Blair’s Britain has still yet to decide. But Blair is seen as the most ‘Euro-friendly’ Prime Minister ever.
He provides the best-looking economy, with prospects. He has played leading roles during the Kosovo crisis, and the ‘fight on terrorism’. However Britain is still very much divided upon Europe, and only time will tell which route Blair decides take.
Is the European Union a Great Power, well I believe in terms of the economic status they, they could be described as an ‘Economic Giant’. It has created the European Economic Area, which is infact the world’s leading trading area. More and more European states are showing increasing interest in joining E.U. Plus it could be categorised economically with the likes of the United States and Japan. What is more, the E.U is likely to continue to grow throughout the 21st Century. However the likes of Britain is yet to have decided whether or not to join the single currency. Splits have nearly occurred over the Maastricht Treaty, over how they should coordinate the economic policies of the countries wishing to create the Euro currency. So yes economically the E.U is a great power. The E.U’s global interest has shown that it has the potential to be a great power. The E.U possess the old imperial power. But the member states seem to work with their links as a state, rather then as the ‘E.U’. Which caused conflict in the past. But the E.U itself has no tangible interests outside of its own borders. In terms of its managerial role, it could be described as great power, due to Britain and France holding permanent seats on the U.N’s security council, and so has the power to veto. Members have made important contributions to peacemaking across the glob, for example the Gulf War 1991. However, few of these positions are actually held by the E.U itself. Also the E.U is unable to deal with crisis upon its borders. Yes the E.U possess nuclear weapons, but they belong to the state members, rather than the E.U. NATO serves to defend Europe. (The U.S.A). It has Eurocorps, which is expanding, but it is not much of a military force. The E.U’s military on a global scale has no comparison to the likes of; China who possesses the world’s fastest growing military budget. Japan’s high-tech equipment and of course the U.S who has the best and strongest military army and forces in the world. The E.U is too dependent on the U.S to even think about challenging them or any other of the states, stated. The E.U could be described as a ‘Regional Power’, but not really a Great Power. But it is a state with a lot of potential.
David Jacobs “Analyse the European Union
