EU as an International Actor - Essay Example

Theoretical approaches and EU as an international actor  The subject matter of international relations is purely infinite, ranging from war, population change, global warming, the war on terror, unequal development, international organizations like the EU and the changes in power between china and the United States. The aspect of IR has become an aspect of political science as the twentieth century invention that started on the margins of the wider study of politics. The two world wars and the cold war resulted due to existence of certain phenomena like war, diplomacy, the balance of power, the several implications of sovereignty, international law and strategy that were insufficiently treated elsewhere in the social sciences. In the contemporary world, a whole host of issues compete for attention due to the proliferation of issues that every world theory seeks to privilege. These theories are realism, liberalism and constructivism (Lott, 2004, p 58). Realism centers of the changing allocation of power between countries, liberalism focuses on the mounting amount of democratic states and the unrest of democratic transitions. Constructivism (idealism) highlights the changing customs of sovereignty, international justice, human rights and the rising potency of religious ideologies in politics. The impact of these intellectual constructs stretches far beyond classrooms and committees. EU legislators and public observers appeal to elements of all hypotheses when articulating solutions to international issues quandaries. International relations theories informs and shapes and the thinking of the community thinkers who interpret and propagate academic ideas (Kagan, 2004, p 42). Realist theory Realism theory perceives that global politics are driven by competitive self interests. As such, its proponents believe that the critical dynamic among nations is a struggle for supremacy in a bid by each nation to preserve and/ or to improve its military security and economic wellbeing in rivalry with other nations. Proponents view the power struggle as a zero-sum game whereby a gain in one nation is inexorably a loss for others. The realism extends to view humankind as inherently being divided by national loyalty to nations or other foci like culture and religion. Realist theory developed resulting from the failure to safeguard peace after the First World War. World War I caught many by surprise, and the blame was directed on the real politic strategies pursued by the major European powers. An idealist movement emerged that campaigned for lofty rules like morality and democracy in while conducting global relations. President Wilson was among the idealist who held that peace can only be restored and maintained by a partnership of democratic countries (Griffiths, 2007, p 3). Wilson helped form the League of Nations in a bid to bring reality with regards to partnership. The idealist vision resulted in other initiatives like Kellogg- Briand Pact of 1928 with the main aim of renouncing war among the signatories. The aggression of Germany and Japan to go into war regardless of them being signatories proved that such pact was naive and dangerous as it had resulted in nations abandoning realpolitik, which may have strengthened them to respond more forcefully to trends like the early stages of rearmament of Germany. This may have prevented the Second World War. As the realism theory developed, two opposing schools of thought emerged; the classic realism and the neorealism. Classic realism proponents believe that political struggle among mankind results because people have a dark side; thus, it is foolhardy to trust other countries and their people. Classic realist base their arguments from the sayings of Thomas Hobbes (English political philosopher) that individuals have innate drive to dictate, which often makes them rivals and attempt to destroy/subdue one another (Lott, 2004, p 59). Neorealism views politics as a fight for power and that conflicts arise as a result of unregulated structure in the international system. The system is anarchic as the sovereign actors (countries) answers to no higher authority. Classic realists hold that a country should and normally does follow the orders of power, though they do not believe that they are doing so. They hold that national leaders may and do go wrong by permitting morality ideology and other things besides power realities to govern foreign policy. Neorealists pay little attention to internal policy making, but believe that nations are rational actors, who respond to power realities in a given state of affairs regardless of who is in office (Waltz, 2000, p 9). Realists hold hat struggles between countries to secure their often conflicting countrywide interests are the chief act on the global arena. As such, realist theory maintains that nations should and normally found their foreign policy on the existence of ‘Darwinian” world, where power is the key to the national survival for the fittest. Thus, realists view national interest as anything that preserves and maintains a state’s influence, security, military and economic prowess. Further, realists view as unconscionable for a country to follow policies founded on morality and justice. A country has no right to allow its morals obstruct its successful moral action, since it is governed by the ethical doctrine of national survival. However, this does not connote that realists are unethical. It implies that enduring and thriving in a precarious world necessitates that morality be evaluated discreetly against national interests (Griffiths, 2007, p 9). With regards to dark view of politics, realists hold that there is insignificant hope for considerably reforming the anarchic international system. Realism key proponent Morgenthau stated that only a worldwide government can lastingly secure international peace and justice, though he asserted that a global state cannot be set up. Nations should embrace a realpolitic methodology in world politics (Chad, 2001, p 209). One of the principles of real politic is for a country to secure its own interests first, and concern the wellbeing of others second, which is founded on the assumption that other countries only help to sustain their interests. Secondly, realpolitic asserts that countries have to embrace balance of power politics. This entails a country attaining equilibrium by allying with others to build its own strength, or dividing its enemies. Realism also holds that the excellent way to uphold peace is to be influential. For instance, President George Bush held that America will build its defenses beyond challenge, lest weakness invite challenge. Therefore, nations must be armed because the world is precarious. The final principle that realism upholds is that a nation should not waste its power on peripheral objectives, or chase ambitions that it does not have power to accomplish (Legro & Moravcsik, 1998, p 12). One criticism is the U.S involvement in the Vietnam War and the Iraq invasion in 2003, arguing that Iraq was not an immediate risk to us, and thus the war was unnecessary. From a realist’s perspective, EU is a weak international actor, and when it acts, the most influential states retain ultimate control. Additionally, in the area of military power, EU lacks independence of action in a strategic environment that is dominated by great powers by United States. In the absence of an effective military component, EU could never become an effective international actor. EU efforts to develop a CFSP (common foreign policy and security) are criticized for doing the opposite due to the existence of a “capabilities-expectations Gap”. The gap arises from the discrepancy involving the actions EU claimed it can embark on one hand, and the limitations placed on it by its actual incapacity to reach decisions, resources and instruments (Jolyon, 2007, p 35). Therefore, the realist view on EU rests on the following grounds. One is that EU should be able to deploy military capacities if it is to be a true international actor, and that it should be responsible for maintaining global security. Secondly is the inherent inability to do so. Smith noted that EU lacks strong military power because some member states believe that EU should only use soft power because of ideological reasons, while others hold that militarizing the EU will undermine NATO (Smith, 2000, p 13). As such, inability for a military power is a negative effect of integration which is worsened by the need for consensus decision making, and lack of a set of shared foreign policy goals and objectives among member countries. However, integration has been triumphant in areas of trade and economic policy because member countries have specified clear gains from close cooperation. No such consensus exists in terms of defense and foreign policy. The capabilities-expectations gap has shifted to be a consensus–expectation gap, where member countries carry out sanction actions by picking those subjects where consensus may be attained, instead of where intervention may be most effective (Hill, 1998, p, 20). For instance, the 2011 revolutions in Tunisia exhibited the extent of EU’s indecision, where the body was acting carefully in its declarations, partly due to various national interest and the changing positions of countries. For instance, France offered assistance to President Ben Ali, only to withdraw its ties with Ben’s regime a few days later. EU is a smaller power than the greater power it professes to be, which is evidenced by the continuing dependence on the United States through NATO. Integration is the enemy of the European military strength, and thus a global role (Kagan 2004, p 65). For realists, EU’s dependence of U.S is the unavoidable upshot of attempting to balance the diverse interests of numerous member states and the impracticality of creating shared interests essential for a common defense and foreign policy (Smith, 2004, p 12; Wright, 2011, p 16). This makes EU a weak actor in a realist perspective. Liberal theory Liberalism asserts that people and nations representing them are capable of finding joint welfare and collaborating to accomplish them through intercontinental organizations in accordance to international law. The main drivers influencing the conduct of national leaders and the path of global politics are; power, ideology, morality, mutual identity and friendship, cooperation habits and altruism. Liberalists believe that global politics may be a non-zero-sum game, reflecting win-win situations where a country’s benefit does not arise at the expense of others. This theory views humans as having a common bond that they may draw on to establish themselves past the narrow boundaries of their nation and set up and forge ties with people around the globe. Liberalism dates back in 2500 B.C when justice was recognized as a basic human right in Mesopotamia, with President Woodrow Wilson drive to form the League of Nations is a recent phenomenon. The aspect of liberalism gained prominence following the two world wars and the cold war era when realism tricked the world into a conflict mind-set that could wipe out development. Liberalism pursued a disciplinary inquiry on ways to realize justice and peace international politics by emphasizing the spread of democracy. This saw the expanding role of the United Nations and the development of the European Union (Charlotte & Vogler, 2006, p 65; Wang, 2011, p 453). Liberalism is divided into two schools of thought; classic liberalism and the neoliberalism. Classic liberalists assert that mankind joined together in civil societies as they find it easier to enhance their survival by coming together to create a cooperative and global society. Neoliberalism holds that the global system is characterized by complex interdependence. This implies that countries are joined together through trade, social, economical and other myriad exchanges, which enhance cooperation and lessen conflict. Complex interdependence promotes the increased use of international law and the creation of stronger global organizations to handle the expanding ties among countries. The spread of international law and the significance of international institutions in turn act to lessen anarchy and the conflict system. Liberals assert that foreign policy is formulated in accordance to altruism and cooperation. Nevertheless, this does not connote that liberals do not use coercion and military force to stop gross violations of human rights. Passive liberalism holds that using force is counterproductive and yields imperial dominion even if the initial intents were superior. Liberals assert that a country’s national interests and the common interests of the world are inextricably linked. For liberalists, this entails improving international economic state of affairs, human rights and democracy (Griffiths, 2007, p 14; D'Anieri, 2011, p 110). Liberals assert that mankind is attempting to have a more orderly global system, and can and may succeed in that objective. Liberals highlight on the United Nations and other INGOs as proof and promoters of greater global cooperation (D'Anieri, 2011, p 101). The willingness of some nations to surrender some of their sovereignty is a recent trend that offers future hope for liberals. For example, the European Union currently exercises some political and economic power over its member states, in spite of member countries joining voluntarily. Unlike realists, liberals view realpolitik results in an unending cycle of conflict and miser where safety is temporal. EU leans most on liberalism as seen from its actions to defend the integrity of NATO. The weakness of the EU military weakness becomes strength in a liberalist’s perspective, forming a basis of its strength in exerting international influence. It also defines the EU in the global system, with its position as a civilian power remaining the focus of its role in global relations. EU operates in ways that seek to diffuse its norms and values through institutionalization of relationships between EU and third parties. Applicants for EU membership must be exercising democracies, whilst clauses in human rights have been included in trade agreements with third parties (countries) (Sjursen, 2005, p 5). Additionally, EU leans on the liberal side resulting from the use of conditionality to promote human rights between member states and the union’s common institutions (Smith, 2000, p 16). The need to promote human rights has become institutionalized as well as becoming part of the European norms and values in conditioning how EU acts cooperatively. Therefore, liberalism views EU as a strong actor in the international system. Constructivism theory Constructivism theory perceives the route to international relations as an interactive process in which ideologies and communications among actors serve to create structures like global institutions, treaties and law. The actors could be social structures, groups, people and states. These structures apparently influence the ideas and communications of agents. Constructivism opposes the realist and the liberalists view on actors of world politics like states and structures like the anarchistic global system. Instead, constructivism theory sees states as prime, which are fluidly founded on the willingness of agents (citizens) to define themselves politically in terms of the national political identity and behaving in ways that support it. Constructivism reflects political identities as the mental pictures of whom citizens are, and that both citizens and political structures delicate than people may assume (Chebakova, 2008, p 10). For instance, Soviet Union was the globes biggest country with a complex governmental structure in 1991, with a vast nuclear and military inventory. Nevertheless, the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 2001 because constructivists view that it Soviet Union was constructed in part in the minds of those within its borders. When its members changed their political identities to being Kazaks, Russians among other nationalities instead of soviets, these citizens ‘constructed’ new sovereign states and ‘deconstructed ‘ the soviet union. Constructivists hold that nonmaterial elements such as morality and ideology play a great role in achievement of a country’s goals on foreign policy. Since constructivists contend that the world is what people make of it, it does not share the view that the world is characterized by competition and conflicts. For example, comprehending that influential nations may define their global role in different ways may help avoid conflicts. In explanation to a story in 2006 where the secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said that U.S was alarmed by the china’s rising military buildup. For realists, this would cause alarm, whereas constructivists would look at the history of china, which has commonly wanted to drive china’s military further than its borders (Kegley, & Raymond, 2011, p 46). Constructivists would be concerned that discussing china’s military buildup as a menace may result in tensions involving Beijing and Washington, eventually rocketing armaments by both countries. The future depend on the ways in which humankind communicate and think about the globe and their position in it according to constructivists (D'Anieri, 2011, p 111). Further, they assert that the labels used and the values attached to them are essentially significant politically because people act on the foundations of what such labels mean to them. For instance, a label like foreigner means that a person is different from others, and this may imply that others may not have a responsibility towards that person. In the constructivists’ view, the humanity should such conventional labels as they result in confrontations and divisions. Unlike realists who contend that the anarchical situation of the international system forces countries to take actions like being armed, constructivism asserts that how countries view lack of a global central authority is what determines interactions. As such, conflicts is not the result of structural power politics, it rather results from the discordant worldwide views and the incapability of humanity to speak and write in manners that would enable them to construct a mutually gainful vision and create structures to achieve that vision. Constructivism entails human awareness and its task in global life that rests on the ability and will of people to embrace a purposeful attitude towards the world and to make it worth. Structural realities, international relations and other elements of international system may change in a similar manner like values and perceptions do (Kegley & Raymond, 2011, p 48). In the European context of constructivism, ideas such as the united Europe or Europe without borders have eventually constructed normative instruments and rules in European institutions (Jan, 2008, p 472). The ideas once articulated by influential individuals of the EU finally obtained a cooperative intentionality. Currently, the European approach to international actorness would be a fully recognized function of the global player and of an international actor, which is able to restructure and construct global environment by developing new comprehensions, norms and practices of worldwide politics (Zhou, p 9). Conclusion A careful analysis of the three dominant theories of international relations, EU exhibits much of the liberalism approach, rather than constructivism and realism. Realism views EU as a weak actor due to its inability to exercise coercive military powers in pursuit of national interests. EU is not aggressive in military power at the international level, as compared to other actors like the United States. However, its liberal policies on cooperation and diplomacy have given it a clear position in the international system. EU is seen as a strong actor in terms of its capacity to deploy economic and diplomatic influence in its quest for international objectives. Constructivism views integration as influencing and changing the underlying choices, interests and preferences of member states in the long term. However, constructivism approach is not clearly developed. This leaves the EU as strong liberal actor in the global system. Bibliography: Chad, D. (2001). Building an International Identity: the EU and Extraterritorial Competition Policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(2): p.208-226. Charlotte, B. & Vogler, J. (2006). The European Union as a Global Actor (2nd Edition). London: Routledge. Chebakova, A. (2008). Theorizing The EU As A Global Actor: A Constructivist Approach. Accessed on 22 February 2013 from: http://web.uvic.ca/ecsac/biennial2008/Conference%20Program_files/Chebakova.pdf. 1- 14 D'Anieri. P. (2011). International Politics: Power and Purpose in Global Affairs. Connecticut: Cengage Learning. Griffiths, M. (Ed.). (2007). International relations theory for the twenty- first century. (pp1-70) London: Routledge. Hill, C. (1998). “Closing the Capabilities-Expectations Gap?” in A Common Foreign Policy for Europe? Competing Visions of the CFSP. John Peterson and Helen Sjursen, eds., pp.19-41. New York: Routledge. Jan. Z, (2008). Europe as a Global Actor: Empire by Example? International Affairs 84(3), 471-484. Jolyon, H. (2007). Security and Defence Policy in the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kagan, R. (2004). Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order. London: Atlantic Books. Kagan, R. (2004). Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order. London: Atlantic Books. Kegley, C.W. & Raymond, G.A. (2011). The Global Future: A Brief Introduction to World Politics. Connecticut: Cengage Learning. Legro, J. & Moravcsik, A. (1998). Is anybody still a realist? Accessed on 22 February, 2013 from: http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/WCFIA_98-14.pdf. 1-66. Lott, D.A. (2004). Creating Insecurity: Realism, Constructivism, and Us Security Policy. London: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Sjursen, Helene. (2005). Towards a post-national Foreign and Security Policy? ARENA Working Paper 4/12 (Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo). Smith, K. E. (2000). The End of Civilian Power EU: A Welcome Demise or Cause for Concern? The International Spectator 35(2), 11-28. Smith, M. (2004). Europe's Foreign and Security Policy: The Institutionalization of Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Waltz, K.N. (2000). Structural Realism after the Cold War. International Security, 25(1), 5-41. Wang, Y. (2011). Transformation of Foreign Affairs and International Relations in China, 1978-2008. Brill: Netherlands. Wright, N. (2011). The European Union: what kind of international actor. political perspectives,5(2), 8-32. Zhou, B. (nd). the EU as an international actor. Accessed on 22 February 2013 from: http://www.personal.ceu.hu/students/06/Bin_Zhou/Current%20Research%20Project/The %20EU%20as%20an%20International%20Actor.pdf. Read More