вход по аккаунту



код для вставкиСкачать
A New Role of Europe in the
New World Order
Student: Popova Victoria, TSU, 101
Describing the world order today we can
infer that:
It is no longer bipolar and is not organized vertically like it
used to be during the Cold War;
The strict resistance between two opponent �camps’
supported by the deterrence policy does not exist any
A number of new actors, able to play a part, were
introduced into the international system;
A new set of structures (�poles’) was established;
So, the world order has been transformed and the the role
of actors in it has also changed completely.
The idea of my report is:
to define, what the role of Europe in making such
structures distinctive for the world today is and find out
how strong Europe is to overcome the difficulties that exist
to achieve the aim to act independently on the world stage
and be active in such a �new’ world.
The challenges that Europe faces
today are:
The Members of the European Union are sovereign states
and the big amount of them exist now within the enlarged
The presence of special relations with NATO, which is a
separate security structure and where some European
sates have membership, and with the USA as a dominant
actor in particular;
The internal institutional weakness, where mechanisms of
decision-making do not work sufficiently, especially in such
strategic issues like Common Foreign and Security Policy
Concerning the first obstacle there are
two controversial points:
from one side the states aspire to have a strong Europe
with its clear weighty role and a voice heard on the world
stage, but from the other side the states, showing
themselves here as national states, have their individual
interests and do not want to loose their sovereignty;
Because the states, which have joined the EU are not big
and do not dispose a significant influence they are to
choose whom to stick to, if they want to declare their
importance. To obtain this they can share European values
to get protection from the Union. But from the other side,
these new Members do not want to be absorbed by the EU
and begin to seek some support in another directions.
The practical examples are:
The rejection of the European Political Community project
known as Pleven plan (1950) by the French National
Assembly in 1954. This project was aimed at establishing a
federal structure;
The floundered negotiations on two Fouchet plans in 1962.
These plans envisaged closer political cooperation, a union
of states and common foreign and defense policies;
The everlasting British support of the US policy in terms of
Great Britain own preferences, what still causes the
discrepancy between states like it recently towards Iraq in
The complication with the second
difficulty for Europe exists in some
specific points like:
Many of the EU Members are at the same time the
Members of the Alliance, what banns Europe to act
independently in developing its separate security goals;
The supremacy of NATO law: everything should be
coordinated with NATO;
Not the whole EU as a coherent actor is involved in the
NATO today, some states inside the EU this way can be
strictly pro-US, some of them are not and stay in the
Union framework;
The EU before the Petersberg tasks being introduced had
no joint military capabilities under a centralized command:
to launch a military operation at the continent Europe were
to act inside the NATO order;
The position of the USA, which is uncertain: does the USA
need a strong independent partner capable to react at
what happens in the world, but sometimes unpredictable
and uncontrolled or does it expect to see Europe
constrained, but obedient?
The view of the US on forming the
European common political values
after the Cold War:
The USA in the framework of NATO maintained the initiatives of
European states to strengthen their security and develop their
mutual political solidarity under the working out of European
Security and Defense Identity (ESDI). But it was developed to
balance transatlantic relations and strengthen Alliance as a
Europe was allowed to develop the CFSP initiatives under the
Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. But it was an intergovernmental
pillar of the EU and was not so efficient;
Since the Cologne Summit in 1999 Europe became ready to work
for international conflict prevention and crisis management, even
deploying the rapid reaction force (RRF) of its owns, if necessary;
Europe was allowed to drawn up the Security Strategy of its own
(�A secure Europe in a better world’, 2003).
Concerning the internal institutional
weakness it is quite simple, but still
very problematic:
It is still very early for Europe to agree upon these
questions unanimously. To reach the consent of 25 states
is unlikely to be simple or seems even impossible. To
overcome this some new mechanisms are to be developed.
The possible solutions of how to
overcome the challenges:
The flexibility of the EU: the series of the overlapping clubs
inside the Union, where the membership is optional;
The concept of �multi-layered’ Europe, which means almost
the same: the different level of cooperation among the
states depending on how deep they agree to integrate.
To my mind, to prevent disagreements
among the members, caused by
national peculiarities, the EU should:
Develop efficient mechanisms to establish common
decision-making institutions (in CFSP and ESDP) at the
supranational level of cooperation, and thus getting rid at
the end of these ineffective unanimity procedures – not
realizable in a Union of 25 member states;
Guarantee the obligatory involvement of each member into
the decision-making process within the frame of the EU
structure. It should be done especially for beginners to
give them a belief in the strength of the Union. For them it
is essential, because since joining the EU, they desire to
increase their significance on the world stage and be
supported by a powerful unity;
Share European identity based on the principle of law,
priority of human rights and peace.
Consequently, a successful EU is a strong EU. If its
Members are inside a strong Union, they will not maintain
to seek protection or support somewhere else. This way, to
my concern, Europe can get much closer to its aim to act
independently on the world stage. It will become more
capable to overcome the difficulties within the transatlantic
relations transforming them into a constructive dialogue of
two separate partners, different from each other.
Размер файла
107 Кб
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа