Home >> Europe >> European Union

     Email   Print 

Outlook Of EU International Relations

Angelique van Engelen - 6/6/2005

Europe's future international relations hinge on the outcome of the debate about what to do with the rejected constitution. During the upcoming 16-17 June EU summit, a start will be made tackling the most pressing issues. Should Europe's landscape change from a combined vast geographical area to individually portioned up countries again, this likely will overthow established international relations globally too.

Europe plays a vital role in a few areas of international policy, namely China, Iran, the Middle East and to some extent Africa. One bellweather indicator of change in a possible future common defense strategy will be the European decision on lifting its arms embargo against China, a move that's on the agenda for this summer. Not all the countries agree the ban should be lifted and France, notably, has a large say in the matter.

Europe is also playing a vital role in the Iranian nuclear issue, and its role in the Middle East peace process is even more important, because until the second Bush administration and Foreign Affairs Secretary Condolleezza Rice got a handle on the issue again recently, it has been the EU that's been spearheading mediation between Palestinians and Israelis.

Not any of the issues on the international agenda have been affected immediately by any of the recent 'No' votings. It is way too early to see what is going to happen in the internal European structure, let alone on the foreign policy front, most diplomats in Brussels will tell you.

French representatives' participation is required for the tri-partite negotiations that are taking place with Iran and which recently amounted in another negotiating of a two-month unconditional halting of the program.

Significant delays in major foreign policy issues are not unheard of in Brussels. In the early 1990s, the EU also failed to deal adequately with the violent break-up of Yugoslavia because the event of the EMU was looming on the horizon. In matters of domestic interest, the vast administrative collossus that's called the EU has a myriad of ways of making sure outsiders are kept waiting indefinitely. To indicate the scope of the work that's to be done still; if the internal problems are fixed first, there are no precedents to hold onto. If France wants to opt out, there's no formal mechanism in place. In 1982, Greenland - an overseas territory of Denmark and not a member state as such - did leave the Union officially, following massive opposition to the Common Fisheries Policy and growing demands for home rule, but the situation now is incomparable.

So far there are no reports of official cancellations of foreign affairs agenda issues. The prime issue is of course Turkey's planned accession, an invitation for which has been sent. Turkey is eagerly working toward meeting the criteria for accession. The latest drastic change this Muslim country made to its domestic legislation was a revision of its penal code. But Turkey's economy is also undergoing drastic change as a result. Some might be right saying the country that stands to lose out most from a demise of Europe, might actually be Turkey.

The issue will likely be high on the agenda in June, now that people are calling for an end to the EU-Turkey venture, a move much inspired by anti Muslim sentiment. Any speculation as to a change in stance on Turkey's future membership is premature. "Turkey's best interest is to disregard the current turmoil in Europe caused by the mounting rejection of the EU Constitution and to concentrate exclusively on the substance of its reforms", says EU Ambassador in Ankara Hansjoerg Kretschmer.

With the option of chucking France out being virtually as impossible for the time being as a second round of voting on a rewritten constitution, the practical considerations for things like US-EU relations pretty much stay the same for the time being. The most recently forged relationships between the US and Far Eastern countries is likely to continue, as the US continues to build its base in strategic locations around the world.

Whatever is going to evolve in terms of EU-Russia, EU-China relationships is likely to still be watched intensively from a distance by the US policymakers. The US recently revived frozen military ties with Indonesia, the world's biggest Islamic country, ties it had cut off over a decade ago because of alleged human rights violations. The country's leader, General Endriartono Sutarto, said the full restoration of military links was a matter for the political leaders of both nations to decide, but said he would like to see this happen. This has been explained as a move to back up any forces in the Far East against overwhelming domination by China and India. The US, also signed a deal with Pakistan to provide high tech military aid, a move that was inspired by similar feelings. It also has very cosy relations with Japan, which is also jittery about Chinese Indian plans to make sure the world's power structures are going to develop in multi polar ways, something the Russians are also not adverse to.

"A unified EU that develops close ties to a democratic Russia would prove a potent obstacle to the Bush administration's plans", believes Roberta Manning, a professor of history at Boston College. "The real problem of the world today is to manage America's decline while dealing with an ideologically driven US leadership that lives in a world of fantasy and cannot deal with the rise of China and India much less a real European Union no longer under its political control."

Should the US have any feelings of relief if the European Union falls apart with the implication that China might have to continue to rely on sub standard Russian arms rather than high tech European arms, this might be misplaced. European weakness is not going to be of much help in a world that's much bigger than China and in which the United States has little friends to count of the same size as Europe. Some Germans are for one quite happy to align their stance on Chinese arms with Washington.

The cooperation between Europe and the US has proven fruitful on other counts too, not least shown recently when they were successful at pulling Iran out of the danger zone, only shortly before the referendum in France. Should the situation with Iran's nuclear capability come to blows, then chances are slim that Europe would want to put forward a united front along the lines that the US EU alliance against Iraq was structured.

Europe's defense capability has yet to be developed. For all its efforts to preserve its economic prowess, the Europeans sport a faltering defense industry on a mutual basis. Only a handful of countries have the use of what one could call a defense organized around defense industries, notably France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain. There is hardly anything that the European Defense Force has been able to affect in its short one-year existence, and to make matters worse, the ill fated constitution's stipulation that Nato would dominate the industry shows just what the lacklustre attitude in Brussels is toward defense issues.

Much of the future debate around the French Non will center around the assessment of just how much power France will manage to hang on to after it leaves Europe. In its own right, the country is likely to feature on the world drama, but France has over the last decades been perceived as a force deriving its power from Brussels, not least due to its pivotal role in getting the continent going on its integration process. "By putting European integration on hold, a "no" vote would deprive France of one of her main assets as a major player on the international stage", one article in the IHT states.

Many of the old issues that have been brought to bear recently are likely to resurface and will make the debate about European matters in this vast hinterland feature more in coffee table talk than before. Which might not be a bad thing. Creating more emphatic feelings with the European Union among the population was a prime reason for Brussels to come up with the idea in the first place.

The constitution in this sense is believed to have been effecting something positive, but not according to everyone. Certainly not to one Irishman on the writers' ring samizdata.net who does not hide his belief that the role of Europe is rather non-existent. His 'so what' attitude about a united and economically integrated EU is shared by many, who believe that integration does not equal stronger relations.

His words are a slap in the face of the Brussels spin doctors who repeat the message almost daily that further integration of European countries is an absolute must unless the continent wants to play second fiddle to a get-up-and-go United States and a hungry, aggressive China.

"Firstly", this Irishman asks, "who is 'we'? I live in Ireland and have no interest in some imaginary geo-political struggle being carried out in my name. Secondly, how does having Europe harmonized to be more like declining sclerotic France, Italy and Germany make the rest of Europe 'stronger'? We have quite enough rules and regulations as it is, thanks. I quite like the idea of us emulating 'get-up-and-go' USA a great deal more that 'lie-down-and-snooze' France, Italy and Germany. Closer union? Sorry to be impolite but "get stuffed".

Colorful language encapsulating the opinions of many Europeans. Many say they still don't feel involved with Brussels or that they are members of a powerful European 'Land'. But you might wonder if people had any different experiences about being part of their own countries' foreign policy in years hence. The immediate reaction to the 'No' vote is that it is something that might lead to a weakened Europe internationally. But the end of the constitution, let alone the end of Europe, is hardly certain, despite people's ideas to the this effect. A more aligned foreign policy is however what has transpired as something that's more warranted than ever with the rejection of the constitution. People have said that the appointment of a Foreign Minister might just fill the gap left by the rejection of the constitution. It is an alternative that lawyers are actually pondering. This would be building on from the initial idea to create the EU into a more affable entity that the population would be proud of.

Even though the much feared era of 'protracted institutional and political introspection', that all the commentators wrote about ahead of the actual French debacle, officially started on the day the French said 'No', not a single thing can be asserted for certain about any pending changes in European international relations. 'Apres Moi Le Deluge' might be something that's been overly used and hollowed out in recent weeks. No sign of even a splatter.