European Union Should Have Remained a Civilian Power - Essay Example

? European Union should have remained a Civilian Power The concept of ‘civilian power’ was developed in the 1970s by Francois Duchene, and refers to an act of deliberately abandoning military power and use of economic and diplomatic means to maintain international order (Koops, 2011, p.166). The view of European Union (EU) being a civilian power has gained significant considerations and this has certainly led to animated deliberations since its inception, whereby often the concept of civilian power has been used to define and designate the role of EU as an actor in the international politics. According to Stavridis, civilian power can be defined as an entity that has influence on international systems using economic, financial and political means in absence of any military means (Stavridis, 2001, p.3). Many wonder which type of power the EU exercises, whether civilian, military, or normative power, as they try to identify the roles of the EU in the international politics. This paper presents a very thoughtful discussion, specifically arguing for why the EU should have remained a civilian power. The first part of this paper focuses on the meaning of civilian power; the second part presents arguments explaining why the EU should remain a civilian power, then it lays out a counterargument detailing why EU should not remain civilian and at the end, it draws a conclusion of the discussion. The main considerations focus on the normative dimension of the EU’s foreign and security policy, its mandate as a trading power, and the EU as a substantial donor of humanitarian and development aid. Furthermore, the view of civilian power has been used to evaluate EU’s foreign policy based on its promotion of human rights, democracy as well as the rule of law, and its contribution in peacekeeping and stability efforts aimed at keeping the international system peaceful and stable. Moreover, EU’s participation in conflict resolution process and peace building efforts reflect the foreign policy of a ‘civilian power’. However, as America struggles to dominate and maintain her military power, Europe claim to be a global civil power. Nevertheless, the absence of European defence identity is as a result of the desire to protect the integrity of NATO, arguing that the EU had become a civilian power only by default (Wright, 2011, p. 13). Civilian power and military power are very different this is because civilian power unlike military power does not involve the use of armed forces, but mainly involves the use of economic, diplomatic and cultural policy instruments. In addition, peacekeeping strategies are also associated with civilian foreign policy, but military power is characterized by the use of military forces. A civilian power not only entails the means used by an actor but also the end to pursue it; therefore, being civilian power involves combination of four elements, which are means, ends, use of persuasion, and civilian control over foreign policy making (Smith, 2005, p.2). Moreover, one of the most prominent scholars of the civilian power concept, Francois Duchene did not clearly define it, but used two elements, which are means and ends to explain who can be termed as a civilian power (Smith, 2005, p. 3). Unlike a military power, which entails military means, military ends, hard power, and lack of democratic control, civilian power is actually the opposite. Therefore, when defining a civilian power, it is indispensable to consider all the four elements that include civilian means, civilian end, soft power, and democratic control (Smith, 2005, p.6). However, the use of military means can be associated with civilian power especially when they are used to protect human rights and democracy (Stavridis, 2001, p. 17). According to Sjursen, lack of military instruments is what defines a civilian power (Sjursen, 2006, p. 236). Furthermore, Hans Maull presented a clear definition of civilian power stating that civilian power refers to the recognition of the inevitability of collaboration with others in the quest of the transnational goals. In addition, he said it is the concentration on non-military, primarily economic, means to secure nationwide objectives, with military power left as a residual mechanism that is meant to defend other means of global collaborations, and a disposition to cultivate multinational structures to address critical issues of global management (Trott, 2010, p. 5). Maull argued that when defining a civilian power, there are three key elements that need to be considered, these are co-operation in pursuit of international objectives, a concentration on non-military primarily economic instruments, and the development of supranational structures that are able to deal with critical issues of international management (Wright, 2011, p. 14). Generally, the two main features that define a civilian power are the absence of military means and the presence of economic and financial importance in the international system (Stavridis, 2001, p.6). Duchene acknowledged EU as a civilian power, and according to him, a civilian power promotes its foreign policy by focusing on democracy, human rights, economic development, and International Corporation (Stavridis 2001, p.6). However, Maull points out that a civilian power is characterized by pro-active attitude, building institutions, following and enhancing the rule of law, seeking partners in the international politics, and use of military force as ultima ratio (Stah 2010, p.4). The EU should have remained the world’s global power as Duchene claimed that there existed a civilian power over Europe and should have continued to being a civilian group through exercising and practising economic power and shying away on the use of armed forces (Manners, 2002, p. 4). Duchene contended that the European community could be a civilian power because it lacked military power as the case of the USA and the USSR (Stavridis, 2001, p. 4). During early 1970s, there were inferences stating that the importance of military power was deteriorating at the same pace with that of economics. The others claimed that the influence of the European community on the international system was based on trade and diplomatic powers as opposed to military power. Accordingly, the European Security Strategy (ESS) of 2003 was a clear reflection of the civilian power Europe. This strategy was guided by the principle of undertaking a multilateral approach to address international issues (Trott, 2010, p.6). European security strategy sets out various objectives for the EU policy makers stating that EU should be capable of addressing global challenges and international security threats like terrorism and in addressing these issues require combination of military, political and economic intervention (Mix, 2013, p.4). In addition, multilateral is the core of the ESS (Sjursen, 2006, p. 245); hence, an effective multilateral system forms a strong foundation in dealing with the global threats and international security and prosperity. Therefore, conflict and threat prevention as indicated in the EU’s security strategy meant to promote human rights and help in economic development through trade and foreign aid are a reflection that the EU is indeed a civilian power (Mix, 2013, p.5). In addition, EU should remain a civilian power because Western Europe behaved universally by putting emphasis on the diplomatic instruments, which are not based on military instruments. Moreover, in the Post-Cold War era, Western Europe controlled the world trade and provided a second western voice in the international diplomacy (Trott, 2010, p.5), all these actions reflect on the qualities of a civilian power. The EU’s civilian power is appreciated through its promotion of democracy and development of the world through international trade, foreign assistance, and peacekeeping efforts in the world for the purpose of ensuring the world is stable and peaceful (Trott, 2010, p. 5). Additionally, EU should continue being a civilian power since it plays a very significant role worldwide by providing necessary assistance to the Third World countries. Indeed, EU is one of the major donors in the world providing aid to about 145 countries and dominates other countries when it comes to foreign aid since there are no any other unions that distribute aid to needy countries apart from the EU (Trott 2010, p.6). By means of providing aid, EU is capable of imposing economic sanctions on various countries and by doing so, it is regarded as an influential economic instrument of power thereby matches the qualities of a civilian power. However, even if the EU is determined to be the global civilian power, scholars like Smith have argued that it is no longer a civilian power and just like every other international actors, it falls between civilian and military power (Smith 2005, p.17). With the increasing international security threats, EU has increased its militarization in order to respond to this issue. Indeed, this critical matter can never be addressed without any military intervention. Therefore, this confirms the claims that EU should not have remained as a civilian power because handling and maintaining intervention security would have been impossible. Moreover, international security threats like terrorism, which led to the destruction of the WTA-world trade centre in the USA, and this has been the reason why the EU sought to increase its military capabilities in order to overcome these threats and maintain international peace and security. In contrast, a civilian power Europe had no chance of using military tools even if there were insecurity threats, which exposed some of its member states to international threats. However, security for member states especially based on cooperation for the achievement of international security objectives can be achieved through cooperation of all member states with the external world. Moreover, militarization of the EU was meant to act as a means of interaction between its member states and the rest of the world, but not as a core means of achieving national goals of individual member states. In addition, EU should not remain a civilian power since in spite of its founding principles there were areas within Europe that were still in a state of conflict making the foreign policy of EU to be both coercive and persuasive, as is the case with Bosnia and Herzegovina. As a result, the application of normative and civilian power in this situation would assert the EU is a soft power that is endearing and is a power without punitive measures economically, politically, as well as socially. Moreover, militarization of the EU should be embraced due to its foreign policy towards other military powers such as NATO and the USA, where all the bodies seek to achieve similar goals in transatlantic security. Overall, a civilian EU would have been powerless and fully dependent on NATO, and considering the present EU military state, there is large potential for the EU to influence politics of different countries. However, Bull stated that EU would only be powerful in foreign policy if it had an independent deterrent and military force that was led by Britain and France. The challenging issue experienced when classifying EU as either a civilian or military power is its comparison with the USA and NATO. This problem arises because these two are very different from the EU, since EU is not a military power and will not have a standing army (Cheetham 2012). In conclusion, a civilian power entails four important elements, which are civilian means, civilian ends, persuasion, and democratic role; a civilian power does not use military means but economic means and mainly focuses on promoting human rights, and international peace and security. The European Union should have remained a civilian power since it plays a very significant role in humanitarian invention though trade and foreign assistance. For instance, the EU is the main donor and provider of foreign assistance to many developing countries. In addition, the influence of the European community on the international system was based on trade and diplomatic powers as opposed to military power. Moreover, EU ought to remain a civilian power since it mainly emphasizes on economic and diplomatic instruments and not military means, and even after the post-cold war, EU managed the world trade and provided international diplomacy. Nonetheless, to a smaller degree the EU should not remain a civilian power because it operates between civilian and military power just like any other international actor in the world. In addition, it needs military intervention in addressing issues concerning international security threats like terrorism. References Cheetham, A. 2012, The EU In Foreign Policy; A Military Or Civilian Power?. Viewed 24 October 2013, < http://www.e-ir.info/2012/02/06/the-eu-in-foreign-policy-a-military-or-civilian-power/> Koops, J. A. 2011. The European Union as an integrative power: assessing the EU's 'effective multilateralism' with NATO and the United Nations. Brussels, VUB Press. Manners, I. 2002, Normative Power Europe: The International Role Of EU, pp. 1-30. Mix, D., 2013, The European Union: Foreign And Security Policy. Congressional Research Service, pp. 1-25. Sjursen, H. 2006, The EU As A ‘Normative’ Power: How Can This Be?. Journal of European Public Policy 13:2, pp. 235–251. Smith, K. 2000, The End Of Civilian Power EU: A Welcome Demise Or Cause For Concern? The International Spectator, Vol: 35, No. 2, pp. 11-22. Smith, K. 2005, Still ‘Civilian Power EU?’European Foreign Policy Unit Working Paper, pp. 1-19. Stah, B. 2010, “The EU’s Power Play in the Balkans – How Soft, How Civilian, How Effective?”, Viewed 24, 2013. < http://www.phil.uni-passau.de/fileadmin/group_upload/61/Stahl_EU_as_softpower.pdf> Stavridis, S.2001, Why the Militarizing Of the European Union Is Strengthening the Concept of A Civilian Power Europe. European University Institute, pp. 1-21. Trott, W. 2010, An Analysis of Civilian, Military and Normative Power in EU Foreign Policy. University Of Leeds. POLIS Journal, Vol.4, pp. 1- 44. Wright, Nick, 2011, The European Union: What Kind Of International Actor?, Political Perspectives, Volume 5 (2), Pp. 8-32. Read More