James Arter 4115653 18/03/2011

Economic giant, political dwarf and military worm. Is this an appropriate assessment of the EUs role in the world? The EU is undoubtedly an influential actor on the world stage. Is it fair however to suggest that the bulk of its influence is down to its economic power and not through its political or military influences? In this essay I will assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of the EUs approach to the wider world and try to determine if it can be described as militarily weak, politically stronger and economically very powerful. The EU has only had a common foreign policy since 1992, whereas economic cooperation began in 1951 with the setting up of the ECSC. Even when a common foreign policy had been agreed on military matters took a back seat; as Haseler (2004:172) points out a separate EU defence system was way down the agenda for Europes leaders for most of the 1990s. Kosovo brought into focus many deficiencies in the EUs military capability, the UKs defence committee (1999-2000:cxiv Article 313) remarked in a later report that ...operation allied force demonstrated just how far the European NATO members are from having a capability to act without massive US support. Indeed, away from the purely military aspect of the conflict the Bosnian case...illustrated the (limited) powers and policy instruments of the CFSP( Peterson and Shackleton 2002: 211). Further weaknesses were exposed with the 2003 Gulf war when any coherent military strategy was hamstrung by bitter intra-European squabbles(Who 2006:150). This exposed one of the fundamental weaknesses of the EU- it lacks a clear military identity and suffers from internal divisions. A split between atlanticist members such as the UK who would prefer NATO to be the 1

major player in the EU and Europeanists like France and Germany who would prefer a more autonomous European military strategy have added to divisions over scope of EU operations and capabilities, particularly between the nuclear and non nuclear nations.

Since the Balkans, however, there have been developments in the EUs military capabilities and recent years have seen an increase in successful operations. For example, shortly after the antipiracy mission Operation Atalanta was set up it saw the ratio of successful attacks fall from one in three to one in eight (European scrutiny committee 2010-11 :116). Other important missions have been carried out including operation Artemis in which the EU established a peace keeping force in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The mission demonstrated that ... the EU is capable of undertaking decisive military operations... (Abass, 2007:153) This success shows that the EU now has the capability to act militarily of its own accord without NATO and so demonstrates a more confident EU military policy. Furthermore the member states themselves have large amounts of military power, for example France and Britain are the worlds third and fourth biggest military spenders1 respectively. In addition to these two large nuclear states Germany, Italy and Spain all have significant military assets. Therefore in terms of manpower and combat capability at least, Europe has significant military ability. As the EU becomes more confident militarily observers think that a more militarily autonomous Europe will appear viable in roughly a decade (Who 2006:185) this shows that although only small at the moment the EUs military influence is growing. Therefore, although I think that Europe was previously a military worm, recent successes and collaborations between member states like the Eurofighter project and agreement on the Petersberg tasks saw the EU achieve greater international presence.

Stockholm international peace research institute yearbook 2010.

The EU is regarded as a stronger political than military power. The appointment of Cathy Ashton as the European Unions foreign policy chief has given the EU a foreign affairs figurehead and should go some way to answering Henry Kissingers question if I want to call Europe who do I call?. The fact that the EU as an entity has a seat at organisations like the G20 shows that the region has a certain degree of political influence. The EU was the worlds largest aid donor, donating over half the worlds overseas aid in 20092 and continues to be so, allowing it to exert additional soft power particularly with developing countries. However, despite these factors it is still less powerful than other major political players, such as the U.S.A. Splits between member states often prevent outcomes from matching ambitions (Bomberg and Stubb 2003:197); an example of this is the current conflict in Libya with some EU nations (UK and France) calling for a no fly zone to be established and other nations (Germany) holding back. This lack of a clear political identity hamstrings the extent to which the union can act as a global political force. This causes the EU to react slowly to global events; for example during the Middle Eastern protests an American special envoy reached Tunis before his European counterpart (The Economist,02/05/2011 :42). This reticence to act quickly and decisively is caused by all 27 member states having to agree before they can act, meaning that compared to other single nation states, EU diplomacy is cumbersome (The Economist,02/05/2011 :42) When trying to ascertain how powerful the EU is its difficult to isolate political from military or economic power as they are all closely linked; ...there is no way in which the economic can be separated from the political(Strange 1988:165). It is becoming widely accepted that relations between countries and regions are increasingly determined by their economic strength (Bossuyt 2007: 10). Therefore, I consider it unfair to suggest that the EU is an economic giant yet a political dwarf as the two are heavily reliant on each other and such a large gap between respective powers wouldnt be realistic.

ECHO annual report 2009.

Possessing nuclear weapons gives a nation a powerful world voice; the EU contains two such nations and many other states with significant military capability. Therefore, the EU gains political power from its military strength and vice versa. For example, the political relationship developed with Kenya has allowed operation Atalanta to use Kenyan air and sea space; the EUs political strength helped to bolster its military influence. I think that it is unfair to propose that the EU has such a gap between its political and military power as the two are closely related (similar to the economic and politic relationship). An area where the EU definitely has major world power is its massive economic influence. The EU accounted for 16.7% of world exports in goods in 2008 (more than both China and the US3); it is responsible for almost 28% of the worlds GDP (McCormick, 2005). Furthermore, the creation of the Euro has underpinned the economic weight of Europe by giving it a currency that stands alongside the U.S. dollar and the Japanese yen in terms of credibility and influence (McCormick 2005). All of these factors give the EU massive global influence. This economic power can act as a spill over into the fields of politics and military power; countries are more likely to engage in political discourse with the EU if there is a chance of a preferential trade agreement. With regards to military power, a powerful economy helps to maintain high levels of spending so the EUs economic power also boosts its influence in the political and military spheres. To conclude, at the time that Eyskens made his initial comment in 1992 I believe he was accurate in his assessment of the EU. The Union was a massive economic power but a smaller political and military power. However, Im not sure that his assessment still holds true today. The EU has undergone many changes since the early 1990s; for instance, the introduction of the Euro has undoubtedly strengthened its economic power. It is unclear whether the EU will have such a share of the world economy in years to come, particularly with the rise of countries like China and India. Politically, change has been introduced with the appointment of a single foreign policy minister;

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/International_trade_in_goods.

although recent political arguments over the Middle Eastern protests have shown that the union is still quite fragmented on foreign policy which weakens its world standing. Finally the military power that the EU can now exert has increased significantly since the early 1990s. With the agreement on the Petersberg tasks and by signing the Helsinki headline goal the EU now seems focussed on achieving some level of global military influence which was lacking in the 1990s. Successful operations such as those in the DRC and the Gulf of Aden have boosted both confidence in EU ability and raised hopes amongst some that the EU can continue to increase its military influence. Although I agree with the relative influence of economic, political and military power, I believe that as military and political powers have increased the gaps between the three have shrunk.

Abass, Ademola, Extraterritorial collective security: The EU and operation Artemis, in Trybus and White (ed.), European security law Bomberg, E. And Stubb, A. ,2003, The European Union, How Does It Work?, New York, Oxford University Press Bossuyt,F. 2007 An Economic Giant, Political Dwarf And Military Worm? Introducing The Concept Of Transnational Power Over In Studies Of (The EUs) Power In IR, The 4th ECPR General Conference Pisa, Italy,( 6-8 September 2007) ECHO (Formally European Community Humanitarian Aid Office), 2010, Annual report 2010,Belgium, European Union Eurostat, 2010, International Trade In Goods, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/International_trade_in_goods, date accessed 3/03/2011 European Scrutiny Committee, Published, What?,London ,when Haseler, S. 2004, Super-state- The New Europe And Its Challenge To America, London, I.B Tauris McCormick, J. (2005), The European Superpower, (http://www6.miami.edu/eucenter/mccormickfinal.pdf), Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol 5 No.8 Peterson, J. And Shackleton, M. , 2002, The institutions of the European Union, New York, Oxford University Press Stockholm international peace research institute,2010, SPIRI yearbook 2010, New York, Oxford University Press. Strange, S. ,1988, States And Markets, London, Pinter Publishers UK Defence Committee, Published?, Lessons of Kosovo Volume 1- Report and proceedings of the committee, London, by whom By whom Security states thingy