During our class discussion of competing institutional architectures, I thought about Antonio Missiroli’s assertion that “The EU and the NATO that the central European applicants have recently entered are very different organisations from those they set out to join a decade ago.” It seems like a good observation. By the time these states got their membership cards, important aspects of both organizations had changed.
Missiroli says the EU has “acquired a more ambitious foreign and security policy” and moved towards “becoming a single-currency area.” He says NATO is “assuming a more global role” and the EU and NATO are essentially building the same capabilities in the same areas. Professor Egan also talked about how NATO has become a political entity.
Do you guys think this is an accurate analysis? In the case of the EU, I think one could argue that Central and Eastern European states have had the opportunity to chart the course of European integration. Common Foreign and Security Policy has been around for a while, and European Security and Defense Policy was a topic of debate several years before enlargement. Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Yes, I agree that the EU has moved towards being more independent, especially in regards to becoming a single-currency area and inter-European alliances.
I think that this point is highlighted in Sloan's book as well. Europe is engaged in NATO, but less than in the past. They now have their own defense community, as well as an organization that was created with the sole purpose of strengthening security and cooperation in Europe.
I also agree that the new EU member states will determine the path taken by the EU in terms of policy, economic relations and future alliances.
the EU CFSP is still very closely linked to NATO through Berlin Plus and the EU and NATO Defense liaisons in Brussels are often double hatted. So while the EU CFSP is often duplicating NATO and they are both working toward similar goals in changing the force structures, if it remains under Berlin Plus it is not a huge problem. in my view if the British and CEE have their way the EU CFSP will continue to be a parallel structure dependent and closely linked to NATO.
additionally, nations like Sweden, Austria, and Denmark are happy to have a limited foreign policy. force projection linked to an "ethical foreign policy." using soft power and intervening in failed states and preventing regional conflicts (as suggested in Solana's EU Security Strategy) seems to be their path for the CFSP.
i wanted to through this into the mix and figured that this is as good a place as any. the EU fails to capture economies of scale in defense production. there have been attempts to bridge this gap including the creation of EADS and its investment in the EuroFighter. the Eurofighter has suffered from different national visions and demands, infighting about production shares, and shifting procurement contracts. given these problems with collaboration and the dominance of the US military industry a common European defense industry becomes a necessity if Europe is to have a defense industry at all (good brookings paper: http://www.brookings.edu/fp/cuse/analysis/jones20050505.pdf). anyone else have anything to say about the European defense industry or market?
I think that Missiroli and Amelia's analysis are right on several fronts, but do not completely agree with his assertion that these institutions are "very" different from the ones they set out to join, particularly the EU. Both organizations have definitely evolved and redefined their roles in both the late 20th and early 21st centuries. In the case of the EU, it has rapidly changed into a body that has probably exceeded the role its founders' had envisioned in terms of both political and economic power/cooperation. But the new accession countries "grew up" watching the European integration bond mature in the 90's, so it somewhat hard for me to believe that they did not have a feeling of what they were getting into and the general direction of the union (EMU etc). With the EU the formula has always been clear: economic integration will lead to further political cooperation and continental stability. While the face of the EU has changed to incorporate accession countries, this is still the driving force. The success of this model is one of the driving forces behind political efforts such as CFSP. So while much has changed institutionally, I don't think any of the Eastern or Central acession countries are too suprised with the role or direction of the EU today. NATO? That may be a different story.
Ted Booth
Post a Comment