Is the European Union a Global Power?

The E.U has also built extremely strong economic ties with less economically developed nations (LEDCs) becoming the lead international figure in attempts to “establish a basis for a new North-South partnership”.  It established this role originally with the treaty of Rome agreements which established “bilateral free trade areas with overseas territories” primarily with former colonies.  These agreements were then replaced by the Cotonou Convention, which came into force in 2002,  establishing relations between the E.U and 79 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states setting itself the goals of poverty reduction, new economic and trade partnerships and improved financial co-operation”.  These global ties the E.U has created are strengthened by its aid programmes which has grown from “0.2 percent in 1966…to 6.0 in 2000” of its budget.  Indeed it is recognised that “the Union has indeed gone further than any other developed country or region in meeting the demands made by the developing world”.  These trade and aid programmes however don’t just demonstrate E.U global economic ties, but also demonstrate how the E.U is attempting to promote global political change, not just by creating more stable LEDCs but by trying to encourage political change within them as these aid programmes and trade agreements have become politised as “aid is now conditional on respect for human rights and democratic principles.

The most important economic change in the E.U has been the creation of the Euro, which may develop into the world’s economic dominant force. Venezuela and Iran have begun to trade oil in euros, and with the continuing downturn of the Dollar caused by the sub-prime mortgage crisis taking hold of the markets the euro is likely to continue to strengthen “with its rapidly growing euro-dominated bond market comparable to the United States”.  With the euro’s stability due to its ‘stability pact’, which seeks to “prevent government deficit spending” , some are speculating that in time it could replace the dollar as the world reserve currency.  As the British pound shows signs of collapsing under similar economic pressures, and other E.U members feel the brunt of world recession, Euro-zone membership will undoubtedly expand.  This expansion, will not only shore-up the euro in the face of world economic crisis but, if one should happen, it would  allow the E.U to effectively exploit its position and project its economic power on a global scale. With a unified economic policy and as, perhaps the world’s leading economic force, the E.U‘s euro could go unchallenged unless, as has been suggested, the dollar is replaced by the proposed ‘Amero’ that could become the unified currency of NAFTA members.

The E.U is also active in attempting to interact with the new global economic forces that are trans-national corporations.  It has attempted to do this by “encouraging the growth of large European firms”.  While at the same time suppressing the growth of large competing firms based in other competing global economic actors.  The best example of this being when the E.U used extraterritoriality to block the merger of General Electric and Honeywell which “represented for the first time the “merger between two U.S companies had been squashed solely by European Regulators”.  This move was a clear show of global economic power by the E.U, as General Electric pointed out “The commission took a fundamentally different approach to…its counterparts in the US and Canada and nearly a dozen other jurisdictions”.

Overall I would say it is clear that the E.U is a Global economic power, it acts as the unified voice for all 27 members states, representing a huge amount of global wealth. It is the world’s largest trading partner, while also leading the world in aiding development in LEDCs.  The creation of the euro has generated a viable alternative to the hegemony of the dollar which could lead to huge economic and political power for the E.U and “The community has increasingly wielded its instruments for political purposes” as demonstrated by its blocking of the General Electric and Honeywell merger.

Global Military Power and Security

 “In the realm of international relations, power has traditionally been associated with military capacity”.  In today’s modern military climate, the requirements to be considered a global military power are a large self-sufficient professional military force with nuclear capability and the infrastructure and allies needed to project this force on a global scale.  At the forefront of E.U military policy is the Common Foreign Security Policy (CFSP), which was designed to cover “to safeguard the common values fundamental interests, independence and integrity of the union”.  Another key agency which, while not fully integrated into the EU, is the Western European Union (WEU), which classifies itself at this current time as a “Defence component of the European Union”  , “to this end it will help formulate common European defence policy”.  The WEU, a once almost defunct European defence and security institution, was revived by the Maastricht treaty of 1991 and grew in 1998 with the addition of Portugal, Spain and Greece.  It contains conventional military forces from various European countries, most predominant of which is the Eurocorps which, as of 1995, boasted 50,000 troops including half of the Belgium national armed forces, but it also contains an air force in the European Air Group (EAG), a navy the EUROMARFOR and a rapid deployment force the EUROFAR.  However, when compared to even modest state military forces, this is actually an insignificant force given the size of the EU.  Nonetheless, the very existence of the WEU is a demonstration of how multiple European states are willing to offer national military forces to a unified European military force.  Also, the WEU does have the authority to act on an international level outside of E.U borders with forces being allowed to be deployed for “humanitarian and rescue tasks, peace keeping tasks and crisis management”.  

However, these organisations no way equate to military power in any conventional sense.  The reason why the E.U has not been successful in the area of creating a properly unified and powerful modern military force is due the success of  North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in providing both military protection and leading intervention, as they did in Kosovo in 1999 which was actually a crisis of the borders on the E.U.  The fact is that the U.S “is responsible for 46% of the world toal”.  So because of NATO, the need to generate a unified military system in the E.U is not necessary or even desirable when in fact the E.U would probably not be able to act without the logistical support of the U.S on a global military level anyway.  There are also many divisions in the E.U and historical connections that E.U members hold that are not shared on a universal basis.  For instance during the Falklands War Britain did not gain E.U support for military action,  partly due to the fact of the impending membership of Spain which had close ties with Argentina.  

So, at this point in time, the E.U cannot be classed as being a modern global military force in the conventional sense.  However, the E.U could be said to add to global security in other senses, particularly through its attempts to lift LEDCs out of poverty and into economic growth and prosperity as it is fighting “the spreading of poverty, and resulting instability ”.  The E.U has also created security and stability in a region that has twice plunged the world into two global conflicts “today it is inconceivable that…any of the E.U members could go to war against one another”.  Thus it could be argued that a peaceful Europe creates a peaceful world and the achievements of the E.U in creating a peaceful Europe has been more important to global security then any actions by the U.S or any other military force in history.  The expansion of the E.U also could be said to play a role in security as the requirements it places on states who wish to ascend to membership do not make allowances for warfare and international antagonism.  However expansion has also led to contentions with Russia, who is beginning to view the E.U as a possible threat to its national security, the recent request for membership by the Ukraine being a good example of this.

It is true to say that the E.U could classify itself as a regional power in terms of security and possible military capability; however it cannot be classified as a global force.  Nonetheless, “The most conspicuous change of the modern era has been the declining value of military power”.  Thus it may no longer be necessary for the E.U to have a traditional military force in order to be classified as a global power. Choosing to enforce its global security concerns through the use of economics and requirements it places upon to states to gain ascension and access to aid may be sufficient.  Especially according to traditional liberal international relations theory as Immanuel Kants perpetual peace hypothesis suggests that social demoncratic states being “pacific in their international relations”   

Conclusion

“latent power has achieved a new significance, and the value of example and attraction has superseded that of force and coercion”.   The argument for the E.U being a global power is on the basis of its economic and other international links, these links encourage political change in the international sphere.  While at the same time the E.U as the economic ability to wield global political power and forcibly effect change.

The idea that the EU is a global power comes into conflicts with realist and neo-realist theories of international politics.  Practitioners of these theories believe that the only true global political actors are states; these states exist on the global political level in a state of anarchy.  So for a realist, the EU could never be considered a global power, as only the states within the EU could be considered thus.  At this moment in time I would agree with realism on this issue, as the EU is clearly not a state, and thus cannot be a global political power as most states still carry out their international relations on an individual level.  However, it seems likely that the EU is moving towards becoming a new federal state, that could well revival the US, and if that happens I believe it most certainly will gain the title of world power in the most traditional power.

Bibliography

Books

Frank Vibert, Europe Simple, Europe Strong, Blackwell press

J. Mccormick, The European Superpower

John Baylis and Steve Smith, The globalization of world politics, Oxford university press

Lyden Moore in the Economics of the European Union,  Oxford University press

Maki M, Japan and World Politics, Pacific Affairs,

Michelle Cini, European Union Politics, Oxford university press

Peter Coffey, The Future of Europe-Revisited, Edward Elgar press

Simon Bulmer in:- the Economics of the European Union, Oxford university press

Articles,

WEU Declaration:- The role of the western European Union and its relations with the European Union, 1993

J.Eggers, Observations on the EU Anti-Dumping Regulation

Loukas Tsoukalis, The European Union and Global Economic Governance

Pascal Lamy, is the EU an economic superpower?

Ronald McKinnon, The Euro versus the dollar: Resolving a Historical Puzzle

Steven b. Wolinetz, Comparing Canada, the European Union and NAFTA

Websites

www.globalissues.org/geopolitics/armstrade/sepnding.asp

www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business