JOHN FENZEL

The European Union: Politics and Policies, by John McCormick

Thesis: The EU is, along with the United States, one of the two most important economic, military, and political actors in the world. It changed the balance of power in the world and helped to bring the region the longest uninterrupted spell of peace in its recorded history. But what kind of organization is it? The author explores the EU’s history and several governance model options before settling upon a confederal system, best understood as an agglomeration of independent states rather than a union of states.

At the time of this publication (2004), the EU had 25 member countries, 450 million citizens, and the national economies of Western Europe almost completely integrated:
- 28% of global GNP
- 1/3 of global exports
- The euro
- Virtually unlimited free movement of people, money, goods, and services
- Own flag
- Anthem
- Uniform EU passport

History:
1951 – European Coal and Steel Community (France, W. Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg) – coord production and distribution, elim duplication of effort
1957 – European Economic Community (same 6 countries) – set out to build an integrated multinational economy, estab single customs union, encourage free trade, harmonized standards, laws, and prices among members
1960s – European Community (same 6) – established HQ in Brussels, own executive (European Commission), protolegislature (European Parliament), and judiciary (the Court of Justice), and its own set of laws.
1973 – Britain, Denmark, and Ireland joined
1980s – Greece, Portugal, and Spain joined
1990s – East Germany plus Austria, Finland, and Sweden
2004 – added 10 new mainly Eastern European member states

5 Main Institutions:
1. The European Commission. Executive and admin branch
2. The Council of Ministers. Major decision making body. Works with Parliament to turn Commission proposals into laws
3. The European Parliament. Can’t introduce new laws, but discusses Commission proposals and has equal status as Ministers
4. The European Court of Justice. Interprets EU law. Will be primary guardian of EU Constitution if/when signed
5. The European Council. Forum consisting of individual heads of gov’t of the EU member states. Makes broad decisions on policy, details worked by Commission and Ministers.

Implications of EU: real possibility of becoming an economic and military superpower.

What is the EU?
- An experiment in regional integration
- The product of declining faith in the state system where states not able to deal effectively with critical social problems (poverty, discrimination) and WAR
- Mechanism to address shared problems by pooling authority and resources, opening markets, building common laws and policies, and working together in areas of shared interests
- More than a conventional international org, but still less than a European superstate
- An experiment in pooling sovereignty, not in transferring it from states to supranational institutions
- *Confederalism: power is held by independent states, the central gov’t derives authority from the states, and there is no direct link between the central government and the citizens. The states transfer specified powers to a higher authority for reasons of convenience, collective security, or efficiency

o Units in a confederal system are sovereign and the higher authority is relatively weak (it exists solely at the discretion of the local units and can do only what they allow it to do).
* The author presents arguments for 9 types of governance, but settles on confederalism.

Improving NATO’s Operational Capabilities

NATO is putting into place a series of measures to increase the deployability and usability of its forces. These are aimed at ensuring that the Alliance can fulfill its present and future operational commitments and fight new threats such as terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

This is particularly important as NATO takes on new missions in faraway areas such as Afghanistan. These new missions require forces that reach further, faster, can stay in the field longer but can still undertake the most demanding operations if need be.

What does this mean in practice?

The Alliance is reviewing its defence and operations planning process and implementing a package of projects launched at the 2002 Prague Summit. It has created a high-readiness NATO Response Force and streamlined its command structure. Work is also continuing on an Alliance Ground Surveillance system, defences against weapons of mass destruction and theatre missile defence.

How did it evolve?

At their April 1999 summit in Washington, D.C., NATO Heads of State and Government launched the Defence Capabilities Initiative (DCI) and the Weapons of Mass Destruction Initiative. DCI identified 58 major areas as shortfalls after NATO’s Kosovo 1999 air campaign.

DCI was refocused at 2002 Prague Summit. NATO adopted a three-pronged approach to improving its defence capabilities - launching of the Prague Capabilities Commitment, creation of the NATO Response Force and streamlining of the military command structure. It also adopted a Military Concept for Defence against Terrorism and initiated a new Missile Defense Feasibility Study.

Which NATO bodies have a central role?

The NATO Defence Review Committee is responsible for streamlining the Alliance’s defence planning process to assist in the transformation of NATO's military capabilities. Allied Command Transformation (ACT) is responsible for the transformation of NATO’s military capabilities.

For a snapshot view of NATO, here is a summary with all the member nations with flags. It outlines the very complex structure of civilian, military, and other agencies and organizations in the alliance. Download nato_summary.doc

Marc Plattner :: “Competing Goals, Conflicting Perspectives”

Here is a summary of Mark Plattner's 2003 article, "Competing Goals, Conflicting Perspectives," a useful view of the European Union's history, structure, and important issues.

Thesis: The European Union has been most successful in the economic and justice spheres; the largest outstanding issue is what direction, if any, revolves around the political role/authority of the EU – is it an intergovernmental agency or more than that and what should be its future? Making the EU more democratic would necessarily involve reducing the democratic function of individual member states.

• It seems that the European public’s lack of interest in the future political course of the EU is based on perception that EU is mainly an economic institution with complicated bureaucracy;
• Such view is likely based in origins of EU, formed as an economic integration organization with idea that would produce spillovers into other areas and eventually fuel need for greater political integration;
• Therefore, little political debate about EU’s ultimate goals; many view EU process as open-ended, i.e., European integration is “a journey rather than a destination:”
• Thus, EU means different things to different people, ranging from peace assurance, economic integration, and prosperity, more power in international affairs, step toward global governance, etc.;
• Also, debate about EU’s nature – supranational org. or basically an intergovernmental entity?

• History: EU founded in 1952 in the form of European Coal and Steel Community involving 6 countries;
o Attempt in 1950’s to form defense and political integration org. was unsuccessful [scuttled by the French – what a surprise!];
o broader economic organization, European Economic Community, formed in 1957; British not accepted until 1972 [again, the French were the obstacle];
o Single European Act, 1986, aimed at eliminate barriers to free movement of good, services, capital, and people, and extended authority of EC;
o Maastricht Treaty 1992: approved European Economic and Monetary Union, which included common currency and created three pillars: 1) EC; 2) Common Security and Foreign Policy; and 3) Cooperation on Justice and Home Affairs; also affirmed concept of EU citizenship for all citizens of member states, freedom to move and live anywhere in EU;
o Maastricht only narrowly approved due to growing concerns about lack of democratic processes in EU decision-making;
o 1995; Austrian, Sweden and Finland join;
o 2002: accession of 10 new member sates approved, eastern block, plus Cyprus and Malta;
o In response to increased membership, and increasingly complex legal requirements for accession, EU held Laeken Convention 2002 to examine org.’s strucuture and processes; (at the time of this article, Laeken process was still underway;)

• Institutions and Policies:
o European Commission combines both executive and legislative functions, plus serves as EU’s bureaucracy; Commissioners are appointed by national governments; note: must take an oath renouncing any defense of national interests (!)
o Council of Ministers, officially Council of the European Union: national ministers of members states with responsibility for the issues under review; decisions taken by majority vote on “first pillar” issues only; second and third pillar issues require consensus;
o European Council: head of state and government of the member states, plus president of the Commission;
o European Court of Justice: 15 judges, appointed for six-year terms; greatly expanded its authority through decisions which established doctrine of “direct effect” ( EU law produces and creates individual rights which national courts much protect) and primacy of EU law over national law (!); very successful in getting member state compliance;
o European Parliament: directly elected, but least powerful;
o Monetary Union was most dramatic advance;
o Common Agricultural Policy most controversial, since it includes price supports for farmers and protectionism [again, due to the French] which resulted in overproduction and exclusion of imports [– a very contentious issue in current international trade negotiations];
o “Structural Funds” to aid poorer regions and member states; very important in assisting development of Greece, Spain, and Portugal, Ireland;
o Schengen Agreement (1985): free movement of persons within EU borders, but tougher controls at Union’s external borders;

• Nature of the Beast: intergovernmental organization or emerging federal state of a hybrid?
o intergovernmental b/c: controlled by member states; no military or police force; little success in forging common foreign and security policy;
o more than intergovernmental b/c: common currency; supremacy of EU law; extensive EU economic regulations;
o maybe partway to European federation, but support for European federal state seems to be waning;; currently “a halfway house between intergovernmentalism and supranationalism:”
o But, how stable is the current compromise between these two “isms:”
o Some Europeans favor reduction of national sovereignty, inevitable reduction or power of nation-state, emergence of multiple allegiances and overlapping jurisdictions, rise of transnational rule of law –all inevitable due to globalization; therefore debate over nature of EU isn’t important; example is EU member states’ voluntary compliance with EU law, even though there’s no enforcement mechanism;
o But can such an arrangement satisfy the member states?; some leaders, like France and UK, seem to want greater, more assertive role for EU on world stage;

• Democracy:
o Critics see “democracy deficit” in EU operations and decision-making; Parliament is weakest institution while Commission and Council deliberate in secret;
o Resulting debate: create genuine, full-fledge parliament or roll back power of EU, giving more to member states;
o But, if democracy is inherently connected to a nation-state, difficult to favor an EU parliament which would unavoidably reduce the authority of and subordinate the individual members;
o Alternatives, involving multiple regional institutions, would require radical rethinking of basic ideas on citizenship, nationality, accountability, etc.;
o If EU isn’t to become a unique “postmodern policy,” its prospects for a strong org. aren’t good, since the methods used historically to form a united, predominant state, e.g., universal conscription, would be unacceptable in today’s Europe;
o Combination of high political aspirations but an aversion to state-building may condemn EU to continuing disappointment, instability and possible irrelevance;