Failure of Foreign Policies in the EU - Case Study Example

Failure of Foreign Policies The lack of resources is not associated with the failure of EU countries to bridge consensus and agreement on the foreignissue of vital interests. The lack of co-ordination is considered to be the major reason behind the failure of the EU member countries to reach consensus on foreign issues. The attachment of the individual member country towards national freedom of maneuver has considerably affected and influenced the understanding and approach of the EU members towards foreign matters.’ This means that they seriously under perform in terms of international influence. The member countries have contradicted each other on several occasions not only with reference to the dealing with the foreign countries, but have reservations regarding the nature of role to be played by the EU. The strong members of the EU are of the opinion that EU should be reflected as European Power, but few member countries have come up with objections against such strategies, and have led to further divisions in approach and understanding of the member country (Roland, 2004). The chief of EU Solana has concluded that the involvement of the EU can not be merely judged by the presence of the EU in different countries and international organizations, but the influence of the EU authority is important element, and unfortunately the EU due to lack of co-ordination has failed to achieve that particular status and principal role. The chief has offered different solutions in this regard, which includes, 1. improve communication and co-ordination between member-state 2. the EU actions use more ‘sunset clauses’ for aid programs, setting out when and how they should end 3. prepare country fiches or strategy papers that summarize all the financial and other assistance that the country in question receives from the EU and the member-states (Andrease, 2006) The foreign ministers of the member countries have agreed with these principles, and it was discouraging to observe that EU has not conducted that suggested approach towards any of foreign government, therefore it has been realized that there is need for greater synergy between the EU and member-state activities, but the Union found it difficult to implement such approach and understanding. The Union has to work constructively in this regard, but unfortunately the member countries have reflected the similar status of ineffective co-ordination and hopelessly noncommittal which existed after the formation of European Political Cooperation (Winters, 2002). There is requirement for the introduction and implementation of radical reforms which can contribute towards the achievement of Common Foreign and Security Policy. The reasons attributed with the failure of the EU towards commonality of interests and understanding on foreign issues, is also explained by following reasons, The EU administrative officials, Brussels based, are national capitals have increase differences on wide range of issues. The divisions within the EU administration have led to the emergence of the first, second and third pillars of the EU. The economic contributions and foreign policies of EU have separate horizons, and conduct, the grant for poverty stricken countries continued although the countries rejected and were reluctant to adopt the policies of the EU, the EU even then continued its economic assistance, which was independent of any prerogative actions of the other countries, therefore it was believed that foreign policy of EU was mainly based on declarations, and the implementations of those declarations was not essential (Michael, 2004). It is believed that the differences among the member countries and the EU administration have much to do with the clash of interests and failure to implement the remedial measures to avoid such differences. There is large difference between the views and actions of the member countries and EU administration, the members countries are disapproval of common approach and exhibit strong differences and contradictions in sensitive nature of foreign policy decisions. The lack of coordination between the member countries, and their actions has been another blow to the foreign policies of the commission. The decisions made by the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) has failed to yield the expected results, and in most of the accounts, the decisions of CFSP is reactive and slow-moving because of the difference in the understanding of the member countries towards international politics. Even after the association of the countries with EU, the member countries are in struggle to retain and execute their foreign ideology, and this has further aggravated the situation (Cremona, 2003). The EU members are still in quest to implement and introduce their national identity, after their association with EU. The EU members have failed to develop understanding on the nature of role the Union intended to perform on foreign issues; the members have difference of opinion about their role and participation in the world affairs. The member countries share difference in perspective towards international problems, and therefore the member countries have failed to evolve consensus. In many of the cases the member countries contradict the solutions towards the global issue. The EU members in particular Britain has different approach towards US, therefore the British government has forged strong understanding and relationship with US (Hocking, 2002), on contrary the EU members are reluctant to support the formation of coalition with US on many military and political issues the members have difference of understanding regarding the formation of alliance with other countries (Smith, 2004). The British foreign policy is unmistakably the product of a particular history and self-image, the country has strong support and affiliation with the Common Wealth, and is staunch support of free trade, and the country has support for open markets. The approach has kept British distant from EU, however the influence of the British government on the policies of EU is not minimal, the economic and military strength of the Britain has given due strength to the British opinion within EU forums, but such opinions are welcomed with criticism and objections, much because the member countries and Britain share clash in foreign policies, and of course none of the country is willing to shuffle their understanding, and amend their policies, therefore the purpose of common wealth is considered void, from the perspective of foreign policy (Steven, 2002). The French government has to compromised a great deal to ensure the success of EU foreign policy, the French government has been more sacrificial and has failed to tried its utmost to ensure that the member countries reach understanding and commonality of interests. The reluctance of the German government for avoidance of national interests is been condemned and associated with the failure of the EU foreign policy. Spain has more affiliation towards Latin Americans countries with reference their past, and Netherlands has been staunch support for the implementation and abidance by the International laws. Finland has preferred to maintain close relationship with Russia, and Ireland has contradicted the democratic principles and the presence of Military neutrality is the clear violation of Democratic values. The differences of these influential members of the EU has therefore resisted the successful implementation of stance by EU, every other member is either found guilty of contradicting the decisions of the commission, or express their displeasure over its approval (Karen, 2001). Unless the EU member countries adhere by their historic perspectives, it is difficult to expect that the members can reach common positions, the members countries are under the influence of their histories and past affiliations, and therefore it is their egoistic and self-centered approach which has harmed the establishment and functioning of EU. The members countries have failed to initiate debate and review of their differences, and the platform of CFSP is therefore lacked its usefulness. The differences among the member countries and the commission are also attributed with the lack of coordination between the aid programs conducted by the EU and the individual counties, under their capacity, through different forums (Ashkaan, 2005). Considering an account of EU helpless and failure to develop consensus due to the fierce opposition of member country, the EU commission has failed to handle its affairs with Macedonia. The reason behind the failure is attributed with the strong opposition of the member country Greece which has main objection against the countrys name. Greece is of the opinion that name Macedonia is the reflection of the territorial claims of Northern Greece, and Greece has expressed that formula ‘Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ (FYROM) is acceptable to them. This is the reflection of the concern that a single member country on the basis of their not-so-concrete concerns has the right to protest and disagree with the policies of EU, and therefore bring the performance and operations of EU to complete cease. It is therefore feared that the expansion of the member countries will lead to further diplomatic escalation, and therefore the process of policy making is expected to suffer major debacle in due course of i.e. which can be only avoided if the member countries practice flexibility and creativity in their policies and stance. The lack of strategic leadership and coordination is major reason for the debacle of EU. The failure is not only based on the lack of understanding between the members, but even as unit the commission has failed to implement comprehensive approach towards foreign issues. It is important for the EU to ensure that the policies and the program of the EU are complementary and coherent. The critics have accused the EU administration for the mismanagement of scarce resources, and commission is further criticized for its overlapping responsibilities (Pehe, 2004). The EU commission on many occasion has developed strong differences with initiatives of the member countries, and has publicly condemned those. The EU commission has also failed to develop understanding with international organizations including UN, the EBRD, the IMF and the World Bank. The former foreign minister of Germany, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, introduced the concept of interlocking institutions for the promotion of European security and development. In May 2001, the Macedonia counties was under grip of intense violence, the IMF introduced a plan which asked the Macedonian government to reduce its public spending, in return for the economic assistance from international donors. The EU already offered more than $18 billion in the region (Everts, 2003), and the contribution of the individual member countries was also remarkable, therefore the Macedonia has stable finances although it was under the threat of civil war. The IMF took hard stand against the spending of Macedonia, on contrary the EU members were supportive, and the results were negative. Macedonian government was charged of corrupt practices, and political leadership was accused of financial plunders. It is the EU who has to take the responsibility, it failed miserably to handle the crisis of Macedonia, and the approach of the EU towards Macedonia proved wrong, and much has to do with the lack of coordination and strategic understanding between the member countries. Success of Trade Policy The formation of EU Commission is responsible for economic progress, and enhanced trade cooperation between the member countries. The core of the trade policies is based on the creation of opportunities. In terms of trade, the EU commission has introduced and amended certain provisions with reference to the services in the Single Market, of new and improved goods. It was the efforts of EU which led to the improvement in the mans of communications, and provisions for the implementation of certain new functions were also implemented, all these efforts with special emphasis towards communication was responsible for the increase in the production of communication products, and offered job opportunities for the enthusiastic and qualified professionals. The EU played crucial and significant role for the implementation and success of GSM technology, the commission launched such measures which were specially laid down for the benefit of mobile operators through out Europe. Beside mobile communication, the commission has given due consideration to the issues related to medical services and its accessibility. The economic integration of the business has led towards The Single currency system implemented by EU which has been beneficial for the people of EU, but some critics have warned that the system had developed negative impact on those EU members have firm economy as compare to those in transitional phase. The implementation of Single Currency is responsible for the rise in inflation, and has overall affected the performance of the member countries on economic front (Billiet, 2006). The EU administration has rejected the claim with reference to rise in inflation, and has stated that inflation has been controlled, performance of the member countries is based on their role and policies, therefore if there are those who claim to have negative fall out on their economy, and certainly there sis another list of those countries which have performed exceptionally well in terms of their economic and trade activities. The EU has further expanded and enhanced the trading features of the countries through implementation of relaxed and flexible norms which facilitate the traveling of the Europeans within Europe. The concrete advantages for citizens that have been identified are the low interest rates stemming from the anti-inflationary credibility of the European Central Bank. These low interest rates have been taken up by citizens particularly in the form of mortgages (Hill, 2001). The countries that previously have recorded high inflation, and countries which were heavily indebted countries, the EU offered revised scheme of public debt service, which reduced the cost and interests margin to major level (Young, 2006). The EU has offered policies which support lower taxes, and has offered high level of economic services. The effective trade policies of EU has been responsible for the development of e-commerce, the Europeans were offered such incentives and scheme through which the Europeans were able to shop throughout the euro zone, without any risk. Therefore these implementations and scheme has further broadened the scope of trade related activities within EU, the EU business people and industrialist are much interested in availing any opportunity within EU, instead of looking towards Asia and America for partnership. Previously Germany was the largest importers of good from Asian and American countries, but EU has given Germany an opportunity to make use of the cheaper and qualitative goods, as per the agreed standards of EU Commission, and has remarkably reduced the transportation time. Germany has availed the better opportunities provided via the platform of EU, and this has contributed towards increased in jobs and income achieved through export for exporting countries. The trading policy has also introduced low prices which can be availed by any of the interested importer; it has further provided the importer with the choice, in terms of selection of goods. Galileo is considered to be suitable example and explanation of large scale project which has economic and non-economic advantages, Galileo is an example of the EU as an orchestrate. References 1. Andrease Marchetti. The European Neighborhood Policy: Foreign Policy at the EUs Periphery. Center for European Integration Studies Publication. 2006 2. L. Alan Winters, Neil McCulloch, Andrew McKay. Trade Liberalization and Poverty: The Empirical Evidence. Brighton: University of Sussex 2002. pp.5 3. Ashkaan Rahimi. The Evolution of EU Asylum Policy. Bonn: ZEI. 2005. pp.35 4. Steven Everts. Shaping a credible EU foreign policy. CER Publication. 2002 5. Jiri Pehe. Europe’s New Frontiers: Enlargement, its Implications and Consequences. Lisbon. 2004 6. Steven Everts. The European Convention and EU Foreign Policy: Learning from Failure. Centre for European Reform Publication. 2003 7. M. Smith. Between Two Worlds: The European Union, the United States and World Order. International Politics. 2004 8. C. Hill Renationalizing or Regrouping: EU Foreign Policy since 11 September 2001. Journal of Common Market Studies. Edition March 2004 9. A. Young. The EU and the New Trade Policies. J. Peterson Journal of European Public Policy. Published September 2006 10. Billiet. From GATT to the WTO. The Internal Struggle for External Competences in the EU. Journal of Common Market Studies. December 2006 11. B. Hocking Government Business Strategies in EU-US Economic Relations. S. McGuire Journal of Common Market Studies. Published September 2002 12. Karen Elizabeth Smith, Margot Light. Ethics and Foreign Policy. Cambridge University Press. 2001. pp. 164 13. Michael Eugene, Smith. Europes Foreign and Security Policy: The Institutionalization of Cooperation. Routledge. 2004. pp. 241 14. Marise Cremona. The Enlargement of the European Union. Cambridge University Press 2003. pp. 102 15. Roland Dannreuther. European Union Foreign and Security Policy: towards a neighborhood strategy. Routledge. 2004. pp. 210 Read More