scholarly journals Foreign Policy Dimension of the European Integration: Lessons of COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Vol 99 (6) ◽  
pp. 41-51
Author(s):  
Irina Bolgova ◽  

The European solidarity was challenged by the coronavirus pandemic both at institutional regulations and nation-state levels. The presented analysis is based on a review of the official speeches of the heads of European institutions and expert publications of leading European think-tanks and researches demonstrating that the geopolitical dimension of the EU foreign policy today is a new basis for intra-European consolidation in light of growing frustration about the global role of the US and China. The European foreign policy is nevertheless regarded as a new consensus within the integration alliance. Actually, the EU geopolitical role is an updated foundation for domestic consolidation, as it allows to push aside the contradictions on the value-based internal political development, which were clearly associated with the growth of nationalism, and to articulate the external conditions for political identity. The need for a stable consensus on foreign policy priorities creates the preconditions for the formation of new principles of relations with China, the emergence of Africa as a promising area for the application of the common foreign policy and a decrease of interest in integration projects in Eurasia.

2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (11) ◽  
pp. 38-46
Author(s):  
A. Kokeev

Relations between Germany, the US and NATO today are the core of transatlantic links. After the Cold War and the reunification of Germany, NATO has lost its former importance to Germany which was not a "frontline state" anymore. The EU acquired a greater importance for German politicians applying both for certain political independence and for establishing of a broad partnership with Russia and China. The task of the European Union Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) development has been regarded by Berlin as a necessary component of the NATO's transformation into a “balanced Euro-American alliance”, and the realization of this project as the most important prerequisite for a more independent foreign policy. Germany’s refusal to support the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 led to the first serious crisis in US Germany relations. At the same time, there was no radical break of the deeply rooted Atlanticism tradition in German policy. It was Angela Merkel as a new head of the German government (2005) who managed to smooth largely disagreements in relations with the United States. Atlanticism remains one of the fundamental foreign policy elements for any German government, mostly because Berlin’s hope for deepening of the European integration and transition to the EU CFSP seems unrealistic in the foreseeable future. However, there is still a fundamental basis of disagreements emerged in the transatlantic relationship (reduction of a military threat weakening Berlin’s dependence from Washington, and the growing influence of Germany in the European Union). According to the federal government's opinion, Germany's contribution to the NATO military component should not be in increasing, but in optimizing of military expenses. However, taking into account the incipient signs of the crisis overcoming in the EU, and still a tough situation around Ukraine, it seems that in the medium-term perspective one should expect further enhancing of Germany’s participation in NATO military activities and, therefore, a growth in its military expenses. In Berlin, there is a wide support for the idea of the European army. However, most experts agree that it can be implemented only when the EU develops the Common Foreign and Defense Policy to a certain extent. The US Germany espionage scandals following one after another since 2013 have seriously undermined the traditional German trust to the United States as a reliable partner. However, under the impact of the Ukrainian conflict, the value of military-political dimension of Germany’s transatlantic relations and its dependence on the US and NATO security guarantees increased. At the same time, Washington expects from Berlin as a recognized European leader a more active policy toward Russia and in respect of some other international issues. In the current international political situation, the desire to expand political influence in the world and achieve a greater autonomy claimed by German leaders seems to Berlin only possible in the context of transatlantic relations strengthening and solidarity within the NATO the only military-political organization of the West which is able to ensure the collective defense for its members against the external threats. However, it is important to take into consideration that not only the value of the United States and NATO for Germany, but also the role of Germany in the North Atlantic Alliance as a “representative of European interests” has increased. The role of Germany as a mediator in establishing the West–Russia relations remains equally important.


Author(s):  
Hylke Dijkstra ◽  
Sophie Vanhoonacker

The member states of the European Union (EU) coordinate, define, and implement foreign policy in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). This policy area, often referred to as EU foreign policy, has a broad scope covering all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to security and defense. The CFSP is supported by a unique institutional framework, in which member states diplomats and officials from the EU institutions jointly make policy. It is led by the High Representative, who is the “face and voice” of EU foreign policy, and supported by the substantial European External Action Service and 140 EU delegations in other countries and international organizations. Because foreign policy is normally the business of sovereign states, the exceptional nature of the CFSP has long been a subject of inquiry. The CFSP has particularly puzzled advocates of the traditional theories of European integration and international relations, who have failed to appreciate what the EU does in the field of high politics. Given the absence of formal diplomatic recognition and a strong reliance on the resources of the member states, the EU is still not a full-fledged actor, yet it has a strong international presence nonetheless. Its presence and the gradual increase in “actorness” have also raised questions about whether the EU presents a different type of actor, a civilian or normative power, which derives its influence from non-traditional sources of power. Under the assumption that the EU has some actorness, the Europeanization of foreign policy has become an area of interest. Member states can act through the EU structure to achieve more impact internationally, can adjust national foreign policy on the basis of EU positions, and are socialized into greater European coordination. The relationship between national and EU foreign policy is thus a significant topic of debate. Finally, governance perspectives increasingly provide insight into the organization of the CFSP. How the member states and the EU institutions collectively coordinate, define, and implement EU foreign policy is not only an important question in itself but also matters for policy outcomes.


Author(s):  
Beatrix Futák-Campbell

This chapter focuses on norms and the functions of norms in EU foreign policy. The analysis presented here offers an evaluation of the EU’s role as a normative power in the region, examining what EU practitioners understand as norms. It also offers insight in the context in which EU foreign policy is practiced through norms which in turn guide the practices of EU practitioners. The following patterns emerge from the data. First, how norms are constructed, what norms the EU can spread to its neighbours and how practitioners can urge neighbouring states to embrace these norms through the EU’s prescribed reform process. Second, practitioners’ attention shifts to the EU model of norms itself. They strive not only to make the specific EU model relevant but also attractive to the neighbours. In addition, they claim to have the necessary expertise to assist these countries to emulate this model. Third, practitioners address two sources of non-compliance: one is non-alignment with the EU model, and the second is the existence of a competing model, the Russian model, that does not quite meet EU standards of norms. Finally, practitioners put forward an all-encompassing EU-centric view that reveals a particular ethnocentric view.


2003 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sofija Siriski

Constructive and cooperative European Union and NATO relations are very important for global stability. But today transatlantic relation are in crisis and there is some evidence that the growing number of the disputes, including over Iraq, the Israel-Palestine conflict, dealing with "rogue states" and terrorism, are having a major impact on European foreign and security policy, and even the process of European integration. NATO adapted well after the end of the Cold War but since September 11th, however, NATO has faced something of an existential crisis. The US chose to fight the Afghan and Iraq war largely on its own, alongside European allies. Many American are stressing that NATO can only remain relevant if it is prepared and able to tackle pressing international terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. To safeguard NATO's future role the US has proposed that the European allies should help to develop a Rapid Response Force inside NATO. It wants the EU to provide troops that would be able to operate alongside America's forces. European, meanwhile, have their own set of concerns. The EU has no concept of how to deal with the world's only superpower. Too often there is a preference for bilateral as opposed to EU channels, and because of that the EU urgently needs a security strategy. The lack of a coherent EU foreign policy also inhibits the ability of the EU and if the Europeans can build a more coherent foreign policy, the US will have a greater interest in listening to what they say. EU leaders also need to assess the suitability of the EU's military doctrine and institutions for the challenges it faces. The transformation of transatlantic co-operation requires changes on both sides. Differences between the US and Europe exist but they should not be exaggerated. What is needed is to broaden the transatlantic dialogue to include the critical security challenges for both sides.


European View ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-87
Author(s):  
Jean Crombois

The role of small member states in EU foreign policy is increasingly being challenged, especially in view of the reforms being proposed to make the EU more effective as an international actor. These reforms, if adopted, will require the small Central and Eastern European member states, such as Bulgaria, to rethink their old foreign-policy strategies and practices. Instead of band-wagoning and balancing conflicting interests, these small member states will have to learn to be more proactive, to build their reputations and to form alliances if they want to continue to have any influence on EU foreign policy. These issues are discussed in the light of the EU sanctions adopted against Russia in the aftermath of the Ukrainian–Russian conflict of 2014.


2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 70-73
Author(s):  
Veronika Bílková

The approaches of EU institutions and the US to democracy assistance often vary quite significantly as both actors choose different means and tactics. The nuances in the understandings of democracy on the part of the EU and the US lead to their promotion of models of democratic governance that are often quite divergent and, in some respects, clashing. This book examines the sources of this divergence and by focusing on the role of the actors’ "democratic identity" it aims to explain the observation that both actors use divergent strategies and instruments to foster democratic governance in third countries. Taking a constructivist view, it demonstrates that the history, expectations and experiences with democracy of each actor significantly inform their respective definition of democracy and thus the model of democracy they promote abroad. This book will be of key interest to scholars, students and practitioners in democracy promotion, democratization, political theory, EU and US foreign policy and assistance, and identity research.


2021 ◽  
pp. 43-59
Author(s):  
Tomasz Dubowski

In the discussion on the EU migration policy, it is impossible to evade the issue of the relation between this policy and the EU foreign policy, including EU common foreign and security policy. The subject of this study are selected links between migration issues and the CFSP of the European Union. The presented considerations aim to determine at what levels and in what ways the EU’s migration policy is taken into account in the space of the CFSP as a diplomatic and political (and subject to specific rules and procedures) substrate of the EU’s external action.


2019 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-158
Author(s):  
Ognjen Pribicevic

Leaving the EU is one of the major political decisions made in the UK over the past half-century. Brexit brought about a virtual political earthquake not only in EU-UK relations but also in terms of UK future place and role on the international scene. Immediately after the decision of UK citizens to leave the EU at a referendum held on 23 June 2016, the question arose as to whether the UK will lose some of its international influence, whether Scotland will remain part of the Union, whether the UK will retain its privileged relations and special status with the USA, and what its future relations with the EU will be. The purpose of this article is to point to the basic priorities of the contemporary British foreign policy as well as to place and role of the UK on the contemporary international scene particularly in view of its decision to leave the EU. We shall first try to define the status of present-day Britain in international relations. Second, we shall address the traditional dilemma of the UK foreign policy - what should be given priority - relations with the USA, Europe or the Commonwealth? After that, we shall discuss in more detail the phases the UK foreign policy went through following the end of the cold war. In the third phase, we shall analyze the British contemporary foreign and economic policy towards Gulf countries and China. In the fourth part of the article, we shall discuss relations with the USA. It should be pointed out that the article does not seek to analyze all aspects of British foreign policy, even if we wanted to, due to a shortage of time. Of course, the topic of Brexit will be present in all chapters and especially in the last one and conclusion remarks. By its decision to leave the EU, the UK appears to have given priority to its relations with the USA, China, Gulf countries as well as Commonwealth countries instead of the EU which has been economically and politically dominant over the past few decades. This decision taken by UK citizens will no doubt have a great impact not only on their personal lives and standard of living but on the UK role in international relations. Despite its military, political, economic and cultural capacities, it is highly unlikely that the UK will manage to overcome the consequences of an exit from the single market, currently generating 18 trillion dollars on an annual basis as well as the loss of a privileged partner role with the USA within the Union. We are, therefore, more likely to believe that in the foreseeable future, the role of the UK on the international scene will continue to decline and be increasingly focused on its economic and financial interests. Project of the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Grant no. III 47010: Drustvene transformacije u procesu evropskih integracija - multidisciplinarni pristup]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document