The European Union as an International Actor: Strengths of the European Civilian Power

Abstract

Millainen on Euroopan unionin kansainvälinen asema? Onko Euroopan unionilla uskottavaa ulkopolitiikkaa?

Vaikka Euroopan unioni on yksi maailman merkittävimmistä toimijoista kaupan ja kansainvälisen vaihdon alalla sekä maailman suurin avunantaja, vaikuttaa siltä, että poliittisesti sillä ei ole vaikutusvaltaa.

Väitöskirjassani tutkin, onko talouden jättiläinen todellakin poliittinen kääpiö. Tutkimuskirjallisuutta analysoimalla olen etsinyt niitä EU:n piirteitä, joiden on nähty estävän unionia toimimasta todellisena kansainvälisenä toimijana; samalla olen pyrkinyt selittämään, millainen kokonaisuus EU on verrattuna tavanomaiseen ulkopoliittiseen toimijaan, valtioon, ja miten EU sopii kansainväliseen ympäristöön. Lopuksi tutkin EU:n politiikkaa laajentumisprosessissa, jossa jäseniksi otettiin Keski- ja Itä-Euroopan valtioita.

EU:n ulkopolittisen toimijuuden esteinä on usein nähty puuttuva tai vaillinainen sotilaallinen aspekti ja heikko päätöksentekojärjestelmä. Kun ulkopolitiikka perinteisesti ymmärretään sotilaalliseksi toiminnaksi kriisitilanteissa, EU:n on nähty olevan kyvytön sekä määrittelemään intressinsä ja tekemään päätöksiä että toimimaan sotilaallisesti tilanteen ratkaisemiseksi.

Miksi kansallisen identiteetin ja intressin puuttuminen sekä sotilaallisten toimintamahdollisuuksien vajavuus ovat niin merkittäviä ongelmia globalisoituvassa maailmassa, jossa taloudellisen vallan uskotaan olevan poliittista tärkeämpää? Kun valtiot yhä enenevässä määrin määrittelevät turvallisuusuhkansa toisin kuin sotilaallisin termein, miksi kyky sotilaalliseen toimintaan on yhä olennaista?

Valtio on ollut kansainvälisen politiikan hallitseva toimija niin kauan, että meidän on vaikea tunnustaa, että tämän hetken kansainvälisessä politiikassa toimija tarvitsee erilaisia piirteitä kuin ne valtion tunnusomaiset piirteet ja kapasiteetit, joiden avulla se saattoi vahvistaa asemansa ensisijaisena toimijana. Tämän hetken kansainvälisessä järjestelmässä EU:n monenkeskisyyteen ja neuvotteluihin perustuva päätöksentekojärjestelmä saattaa osoittautua pikemminkin vahvuudeksi kuin heikoudeksi. Parhaassa tapauksessa EU pystyy hyväksikäyttämään globalisaation aiheuttamia muutoksia valtion suvereenisuuteen ja tehtäviin, ja rakentamaan tehokkaamman hallitsemisen järjestelmän. EU:n asema ei-valtiollisena toimijana mahdollistaa erilaisten toimijuuden tapojen käyttämisen, minkä seurauksena EU saattaa olla valtiota paremmin varustettu ratkaisemaan uusia turvallisuusuhkia vaikka unionin tavat vaikuttaa ovat näkymättömämpiä kuin sotilaallinen hyökkäys, ne eivät ole vailla vaikutusta.

EU ei ole vähemmän kuin valtio, vaan enemmän. Sen kehitys vastaa kansainvälisen järjestelmän kehitystä ja vie sitä osaltaan poispäin valtiokeskeisyydestä. EU:n merkittävin ongelma ei ole sotilaallisen aspektin vajavaisuus, vaan se, miten rakentaa uskottava identiteetti ja saada kansalaisten kannatus Eurooppalaiselle hallinnolle. Tutkimus osoittaa, että vahvistaakseen kansainvälistä asemaansa EU:n ei tarvitse kehittää itseään federalistisempaan suuntaan, vaan käyttää hyväkseen globalisoituvan järjestelmän tarjoamia uusia mahdollisuuksia.

Dwarf, adolescent or superpower? The European Union on the international field

It seems to be a part of common knowledge that the European Union is an economic giant but a political dwarf. Although none can claim that the EU does not possess significant resources, for some reason these resources do not seem to help the EU to have much influence in foreign policy matters. Despite its large network of diplomatic relations, and its position as one of the most significant aid donors and trading partners in the world, many suggest that it has not succeeded in its attempts to develop its economic influence also into a political one.

In my study I wish to examine if the EU is such an unfit actor on the international field. I will analyze how the international system (of states) defines the properties of actors, and how the definition is changing. There are two basic questions in this work: First, what position does the international system offer to the EU? Secondly, how does the EU utilize the position given to it? To find answers, I will examine a state as an actor, the international system of states, and the properties and actions of the EU.

The EU in the system of states

Since the international system is a system of states, the position of a state as a primary actor seems to be universal and eternal. In this thesis it is claimed that the EU is a new kind of a polity challenging the position of a Westphalian state. If the EU succeeds in this, it will have consequences for the whole international system. Yet, to be able to act in the system, the EU must not only challenge the position of a state, but also adapt to the requirements of the actorness; the EU must resemble a state in some respects to get recognized as an actor. There still is an on going test of statehood, and as long as the EU does not pass it, it is hard to consider it as an actor in its own right.

The position of a state is connected to the development of the international system overall. The effects of globalization, modernization and democratization are creating new kinds of environments and cultures with new possibilities and threats. Increased interdependence between national economies and production added to the fact that all types of exchange are becoming ever more global restrict the ability of a state to act as fully sovereign . Globalisation includes many processes that affect the position of a state. The meaning of properties like sovereignty and military resources is changing, as well as a state s position on the international field. Change does not happen only inside a state and in its position, however, but also international structures change, affecting the way actors behave with each other.

I claim that although the state is losing its position, it is still the dominant actor in international politics, and other polities hoping to get a position of an actor must be comparable with it: after all, structures do not change so quickly, and actors are constituted by them. The changing international context opens up the possibility to increase the importance of the EU. Sovereignty and military resources that once determined the state s position as a dominant actor have partly lost their meaning; not having them should not prevent the EU from being an actor. Furthermore, the EU might have properties that make it better capable to manage in the globalizing and fragmenting world.

A foreign policy actor

Rather than an international organization, the EU is a new type of political system, made up of national and European institutions that are constituted in relation to each other . The national institutions of member states and the EU institutions are so closely interwoven that they cannot be conceived as separate political systems. On the other hand, the EU is not a state, and we have many reasons to assume that it will not be one (unless the definition of a state changes). While it has some capabilities states traditionally own, it lacks others. This appears to make it an actor in some issue-areas, but not in all of them.

Foreign policy has traditionally been connected to a state, it is concerned with the relation of a state to other states in the international system; it is connected to the idea of national aims and interests, and involves mobilizing national resources. Although foreign policy in its most visible form is high politics concerning high diplomacy and war, in practice most of the time it is low politics including low-level diplomatic practices between ministries and also economic policy as a means of reaching foreign policy aims. Foreign policy does not entail military force; as Karen Smith puts it, the recourse to military instruments can indicate a failure of foreign policy . In this work I will suggest that the reason why foreign policy is connected solely to states is not that making foreign policy is possible only for nation states and governments; rather it has to do with states position as primary actors in the international system. When certain conditions are metconcerning among others, a decision-making system non-state actors are also able to conduct foreign policy.

There is no single EU foreign policy, but on some occasions member states agree on common interests and objectives, and mobilize national and collective resources to fulfill them: they conduct common foreign policy . For the EU, foreign policy means that its member states and institutions, to use Smith s words, have expressed a unified position in response to external events and/or formulated a plan of action directed towards the fulfillment of specified political/security objectives, and have agreed to use Community/CFSP instruments and/or instruments under national competence in a coordinated way to implement it . Even though the common foreign policy is important for the EU s ability to act as an actor, it must be put into the larger context of external relations, otherwise we fail to see the EU s importance on the international field. The division between political and economic matters has always been vague, but it is even more so at the time of globalization. It seems that those foreign policies connecting intergovernmental and community issue-areas, like the enlargement policy, have been among the most successful policies. The enlargement policy can be considered foreign and security policy because of its political and security-related aims, although the EU has applied the practices of the CFSP ­ common position and joint action ­ only a couple of times during many years of the enlargement policy.

Although the EU may appear as a weak actor in high policy areas, it is an effective negotiator of low policy matters, including trade and aid, that belong to the Community issue-area . The EU does not act like a traditional foreign policy player. But what usually is seen as its weakness, may turn out to be a strength. In the contemporary international system it may be a benefit that an actor is able to take different forms in different situations, as the EU is forced to do due to its nature of lying between an international organization and a state.

A civilian power

There are certain requirements for an actor presented in the literature of IR, and usually these requirements do not include statehood or military resources. However, the polity´s own properties do not determinate totally the entity s position on the international field. Entry to the system is dependent on whether or not the other actors give recognition. It is claimed in this work that usually only states are recognized as actors, but even though the EU is not a state, it has at least partial recognition in practice, since it is accepted as a partner in negotiations, diplomatic relations, trade and aid. But the EU seems to suffer from a lack of credibility, or prestige that prevents it from having much of an influence especially in international crises, like in the Palestinian question. Still, by recognizing the EU as an actor in its own right ­ even partially states decrease the significance of sovereignty, and weaken their own position as primary actors. Hence, the EU may change the structure of the international system, and make room for other polities too; or, it may become a state.

One possible direction of developing the EU is to strengthen its image as a civilian power. According to Hans W. Maull, a civilian power accepts the necessity of cooperation with other actors when pursuing international objectives; utilizes non-military, primarily economic means to secure its goals; and is willing to develop supranational structures to address critical issues of international management. In this thesis the term civilian power refers to an actor who trusts in cooperation, respects and enforces international values and norms as defined by international institutions and treaties, and acts through diplomacy, economic means and international institutions. Manners suggests, on the other hand, that the EU may be more important normatively than in an empirical way, since it sets normative world standards. He continues that due to its power over opinion , idée force , or ideological power , the EU would best be conceived as a normative power Europe. The EU s normative power is a significant dimension of this thesis, but I will also examine other ways of using power including the Union s foreign policy instruments. I agree with Manners that the EU s ability to shape conceptions of normality in international relations is what makes it a normative power , but I suggest that it is a part of its special nature as a civilian power ­ although also military powers may use and have used normative power. The EU clearly attempts to gain legitimacy through expansion of democratic and human rights norms, but this is not the whole picture of the EU. It is difficult to evaluate in which direction the EU will develop; even more difficult is to describe the outcome of European integration.

More than a state

I will propose that the EU lacks some of the properties of a state ­ although I do not see that the difference is so remarkable in the end ­ but that it does not make the EU an unfit actor in the international system; quite the contrary, the European integration includes elements that may make the EU better suitable to the international system than the traditional sovereign state. Hence, it will be suggested that instead of being less than a state the EU is actually more than a state. Within changing structure of the international system, resources and properties of states ­ sovereignty, structure of hierarchy and military resources, among others ­ will not be so significant that they guarantee the state s dominant position; quite the contrary, the strong actor have to be able to handle with global capitalism, regionalism, interdependence, and security threats raising from various sources. When the system has been increasingly perceived as interdependent, and states ability to govern has been deemed to be in question, an entity like the EU seems to be well placed to act on behalf of its members as a manager of the interdependence. Through European integration we also may find new answers to some of the problems caused by the nature of the international system itself. In this connection I will especially consider democracy and security issues, although there exists other similar issues too, for example minorities and refugees.

The EU might be ­ or it might become - the first truly post-modern polity, and it is impossible to explain its significance by concentrating only on its CFSP. The change of the international system is important in giving room for an actor like the EU, but structures do not totally create actorness; the development and action of the EU reflects the dynamic relationship between structures and agency. The EU is born from the combination of external demand and opportunities, and political will and imagination of its founders. Hence, the importance of the EU cannot be evaluated by studying either its internal capacities or external opportunities; they both together create the EU s capacity to act and have an influence on the international field. Yet, internal factors associated with legitimacy and efficacy of policy processes influence the perceptions other actors have of the EU, and create expectations of the EU s ability to act. Additionally, states must create new ways of acting in the changing international system, this suggests that our picture of an actor and its ways of having an influence and making policy may be at least partially out-dated. I wish to suggest that by studying the EU within an approach that takes both structures and internal capabilities into consideration we might get new ideas about actorness overall.