The EU may present a perplexing and ambiguous image to the rest of the world.
It is more than an international organization, but less so than a state; to conceptualize its identity is a complex task; as McCormick argues, however, whereas the EC was once a political exercise of limited scope, it is now a global superpower.
Outside actors might contemplate whether to think of the Union as a single body, or to conceive of it as a unit of 27 Member States united around a wide range of common interests and normative values. The complexity of the organization is illustrated by its multifaceted character, complex institutional machinery and the range and width of its policy areas, but also of its significant international influence and, alas, its “frequent inability to wield it”. Former US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, once said that to “understand Europe you have to be a genius or French”, in a way reiterating Kissinger’s famous remark that “there was no focal point for contact with Europe”. What Kissinger implied was that if he wanted to call Europe, whom should he call?
One possible reason for the inability of the rest of the world to comprehend and understand the EU might be that it is an entirely new phenomenon in world politics, “the first truly post-modern international political form”. In that respect, the Union can be considered to be “the most highly evolved example of regional integration in the world”; rather than working together on a set of issues, the Member States of the Union have transferred significant powers to a supranational decision-making system and bodies of common law. Even though cooperation and integration around certain policy and interest areas have had its difficulties and impediments, and despite the blow suffered when the Constitution was rejected, the Member States seem to have converged on vital issues.
The Union is in a constant state of change and evolution, as new reforms are passed through and efforts are made to streamline the institutional machinery, and how much power and influence the EU could attain is at the end of the day up to its member states. Ultimately, membership in the Union is voluntary and if a member state should chose to opt out of the Community, this would not be treated as secession.
The Union came into existence as a means of ensuring that conflicts such as the World War II would never occur again. Thus, the Union was from the very beginning a peace project and it is hard to contest the notion that it is also a very successful one. In that sense the EU has without a doubt achieved what it set out to do.
The question is what kind of influence the Union would wield in the world. Would it look foremost to its own interests, or would it remain faithful to its original moral values and to the principles of peace and democracy that have guided it through 50 years? If the latter comes true, and the Union's aspirations and endeavours could be transformed into concrete action, the world could gain from its combined economic and political power in the shape of a better environment, long-term engagement in peacebuilding, development aid, promoting democracy, and restrain unilateral military actions.
It is more than an international organization, but less so than a state; to conceptualize its identity is a complex task; as McCormick argues, however, whereas the EC was once a political exercise of limited scope, it is now a global superpower.
Outside actors might contemplate whether to think of the Union as a single body, or to conceive of it as a unit of 27 Member States united around a wide range of common interests and normative values. The complexity of the organization is illustrated by its multifaceted character, complex institutional machinery and the range and width of its policy areas, but also of its significant international influence and, alas, its “frequent inability to wield it”. Former US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, once said that to “understand Europe you have to be a genius or French”, in a way reiterating Kissinger’s famous remark that “there was no focal point for contact with Europe”. What Kissinger implied was that if he wanted to call Europe, whom should he call?
One possible reason for the inability of the rest of the world to comprehend and understand the EU might be that it is an entirely new phenomenon in world politics, “the first truly post-modern international political form”. In that respect, the Union can be considered to be “the most highly evolved example of regional integration in the world”; rather than working together on a set of issues, the Member States of the Union have transferred significant powers to a supranational decision-making system and bodies of common law. Even though cooperation and integration around certain policy and interest areas have had its difficulties and impediments, and despite the blow suffered when the Constitution was rejected, the Member States seem to have converged on vital issues.
The Union is in a constant state of change and evolution, as new reforms are passed through and efforts are made to streamline the institutional machinery, and how much power and influence the EU could attain is at the end of the day up to its member states. Ultimately, membership in the Union is voluntary and if a member state should chose to opt out of the Community, this would not be treated as secession.
The Union came into existence as a means of ensuring that conflicts such as the World War II would never occur again. Thus, the Union was from the very beginning a peace project and it is hard to contest the notion that it is also a very successful one. In that sense the EU has without a doubt achieved what it set out to do.
The question is what kind of influence the Union would wield in the world. Would it look foremost to its own interests, or would it remain faithful to its original moral values and to the principles of peace and democracy that have guided it through 50 years? If the latter comes true, and the Union's aspirations and endeavours could be transformed into concrete action, the world could gain from its combined economic and political power in the shape of a better environment, long-term engagement in peacebuilding, development aid, promoting democracy, and restrain unilateral military actions.
No comments:
Post a Comment