Katja Keisala The European Union as an International Actor: Strengths of the European Civilian Power ACADEMIC DISSERTATION To be presented, with the permission of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Tampere, for public discussion in lecture room B661, Yliopistonkatu 38, on December 11th, 2004, at 12 o’clock. U n i v e r s i t y o f T a m p e r e T a m p e r e 2 0 0 4 ADADEMIC DISSERTATION University of Tampere, Department of Political Science and International Relations FINLAND Copyright © Katja Keisala Editorial Board: Matti Alestalo Marjatta Hietala Jouni Häkli Briitta Koskiaho Jyrki Käkönen Eveliina Permi Sales Bookshop TAJU Yliopistonkatu 38, 33014 Tampereen yliopisto Tel. (03) 215 6055 Fax (03) 215 7685 email taju@uta.fi http://granum.uta.fi Cover: Cityoffset Oy Layout: Aila Helin Printed dissertation ISBN 951-44-6156-8 Electronic dissertation Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis 400 ISBN 951-44-6157-6 ISSN 1456-954X http://acta.uta.fi Cityoffset Oy Tampere 2004 A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS More than the main product, my thesis is a by-product of my life during the last six years that has been full of events and new turns. I have had only a few academic contacts, and most of the people I wish to thank have been important to me other than for professional reasons, although they all have participated in this project by off ering support and practical help. First I wish to express my gratefulness to the reviewers, Iver B. Neumann and Hanna Ojanen, for the valuable comments that helped me to fi nish my thesis. I am deeply indebted also to my supervisor Jean Monet professor Jyrki Käkönen, who has not only off ered professional and scientifi c guidance but also supported me in my choices in life that have been diffi cult to reconcile with the academic environment. I am very grateful to my mother Riitta Lassila, who, over many years, has taken care of Monika my daughter off ering me time to write and rest. Many thanks also to my sister, who took care of my children when I was making the fi nal changes to my thesis. I am indebted also to my father and his wife for the same reason. I am especially grateful to my “jeune fi lle au-pair” Miia Hänninen who has taken care of my daughter – and of me – both in Finland and France. She accompanied me through the darkest time of my life, for that I am indebted to her forever. I owe special thanks also to my very good friends Elina Penttinen and Niina Repo who have off ered the shoulder that I have needed a lot during these years. I am grateful to my husband Remberto Martínez for off ering joy and hope. His existence strengthens my belief that compromises are not worth making. I wish to thank my three children for teaching me how to be a good human being and take care of others – it is the most diffi cult lesson of my life. I owe special thanks to Roland Caldbeck for proof reading my thesis and to Aila Helin for the layout. Th is research has been fi nancially supported by the University of Turku, the University of Tampere and the city of Tampere. Part of the research has been made within the doctoral school for cultural interaction and integration. C ONTENTS 1. Dwarf, adolescent or superpower? European Union on the international fi eld ....................................7 1.1. Th e EU in the system of states .........................................................8 1.2. A foreign policy actor ....................................................................13 1.3. A civilian power .............................................................................16 1.4. More than a state ...........................................................................20 2. Agents and structures in the international system ..............................23 2.1. Social structures and agents ...........................................................23 2.2. Th e problem of agents and structures .............................................28 2.3. Th e social system of international politics ......................................33 2.4. Properties of a state ........................................................................38 3. Th e international system – a system of states? .....................................43 3.1. Th e anarchic system of states .........................................................47 3.2. Globalization overrules the Westphalian system .............................52 3.3. An emerging common identity in Europe ......................................58 4. Th e European Union in the international system: earlier approaches ................................................................................67 4.1. From the debate between realism and liberalism to the debate between intergovernmentalism and supranationalism ....................70 4.2. Concepts of actorness and the EU .................................................80 4.3. Constructivism ..............................................................................86 4.4. Th e EU – an anomaly forever? .......................................................96 5. Th e EU as a foreign policy actor ........................................................105 5.1. From political cooperation to the CFSP .......................................107 5.2. Th e EU´s foreign policy capabilities .............................................114 5.3. Case study: the EU´s enlargement policy towards Central and Eastern Europe .........................................................140 5.4. Strengths and weaknesses of the EU as a foreign policy actor ...............................................................154 6. Th e European Union, more than a state ............................................161 6.1. Th e EU is compatible with the international system ....................162 6.2. Th e EU is facing a challenge of democracy ..................................166 References ...............................................................................................171 1. D , ? WARF ADOLESCENT OR SUPERPOWER T E U HE UROPEAN NION ON THE INTERNATIONAL FIELD It seems to be a part of common knowledge that the European Union1 is an economic giant but a political dwarf. Although none can claim that the EU does not possess signifi cant resources, for some reason these resources do not seem to help the EU to have much infl uence in foreign policy matters. Despite its large network of diplomatic relations, and its position as one of the most signifi cant aid donors and trading partners in the world, many suggest that it has not succeeded in its attempts to develop its economic infl uence also into a political one. Th e EU is often compared to the U.S. in foreign policy matters, and in this comparison the EU seems to be clearly the much weaker player; whereas the U.S. can reach the decision to solve an international dispute by using military force, the EU appears to be unable to reach a common understanding concerning such a situation and in particular ways to solve it. Th ere are certain theoretical assumptions behind the conclusion according to which the EU is a political dwarf. Th e fi rst one clearly claims that economics can be isolated from politics. According to the second assumption, a foreign policy actor cannot be effi cient without a military dimension − some even doubt if there could be a foreign policy actor without military resources. Although states without military resources exist, some kind of military dimension is often seen as a necessary element of a state, and statehood itself is considered to be a prerequisite for an international agency. Because the EU is not a state, and does not have the same capabilities that states have, or not at least all of them, it is seen as unable to act as a coherent and powerful foreign policy player. Still, economic issues aff ect foreign policy aims, and foreign policy is often executed by using economic means. Th e EU in particular connects its aid and trade policies with the larger aims of the Common 1 Th e European Union (EU), established by Article A of the Treaty of the EU (TEU, or Maastricht Treaty), is a new entity, which operates through its component parts, the European Communities, the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), and the Cooperation on Justice and Home Aff airs, and in some cases through member states (Bradley & Sutton 1994, 237). By the European Community (EC) I refer to the EU’s fi rst pillar, which existed independently before the EU. 7 Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) by making aid and trade contracts conditional upon certain democratic and human rights standards. In addition, foreign policy is usually executed by non-military means; military power is actually used quite rarely, and mostly foreign policy is conducted through every-day practices between ministries. However, there seems to be a strong connection between a state, an actor and military resources. Th e connection is so strong, that being an infl uential economic actor created strong incentives to develop the military aspect to the “same” level as the economic one; this is seemingly in contradiction with the theoretical assumptions (also presented in this thesis) claiming that the signifi cance of military resources is declining. In my study I wish to examine if the EU is such an unfi t actor on the international fi eld. I will analyze how the international system (of states) defi nes the properties of actors, and how the defi nition is changing. Th ere are two basic questions in this work: First, what position does the international system off er to the EU? Secondly, how does the EU utilize the position given to it? To fi nd answers, I will examine a state as an actor, the international system of states, and the properties and actions of the EU. 1.1. Th e EU in the system of states Th e EU has been compared to a state, but it is still unclear what a state is. Although a state is a central concept in the study of international relations (IR), scholars do not share one defi nition of it. States as historical units have changed, and so has the meaning of being a state. Scholars have used other concepts, such as sovereignty or autonomy, to clarify the state’s “essence”, but also the meaning of those is vague.2 Th is has made Yale H. Ferguson and Richard W. Mansbach to argue that “[t]he state has so many diff erent, competing, and loaded meanings that it is largely useless for theory-building”3. I will not make an attempt to defi ne a state, instead it will be analyzed how the international system constructs its agents, and how the state has retained its position as the main actor in the international fi eld – or has it? Th ere are also other entities that might be understood as international actors, such as multinational 2 See Yale H. Ferguson and Richard W. Mansbach (1988), especially the chapter “Th e State as an Obstacle to International Th eory”. 3 Ferguson & Mansbach 1996, 10. 8 corporations, and non-governmental organizations or international organizations, the latter being another option for organizing the EU. Th ey are, however, secondary actors on the international fi eld, since their power is dependent on states, and they must act in the framework of rules defi ned by states. States could, for example, decide to set more strict restrictions on trade, multinational corporations could not do much about this. In the case of international institutions, on the other hand, states decide how much power they have and what they use their power for. Hence, international politics is inter-national by defi nition. Since the international system is a system of states, the position of a state as a primary actor seems to be universal and eternal. Indeed, concentrating on states and state power does not leave room for studying the change. Still, a state is only one form of a polity among many, and during the history many diff erent polities have been dominant. As Ferguson and Mansbach put it, “there is no logical, historical, or empirical justifi cation for universalizing the Westphalian polity”.4 Th ey defi ne a polity as a political organization that has, fi rst, a distinct identity; secondly, a capacity to mobilize persons and their resources for political purposes; and thirdly, a degree of institutionalization and hierarchy (leaders and constituents)5. Th eir analysis corresponds to Alexander Wendt’s explanation concerning the requirements which a structure must fulfi ll to be an agent (presented in the chapter two). Whilst Wendt argues that an agent must have recognition of other actors (external sovereignty) to become an actor in the international fi eld, Ferguson and Mansbach suggest that only a Westphalian polity is recognized as an actor. Th e Westphalian state is only one polity type, distinguished less by criteria focusing on loyalties or resources than by legal claim to legitimacy and the formal recognition of other members of the “sovereign club” that is what it claims to be. Unfortunately, there is no offi cial certifi cation board comparable to the community of Westphalian states to provide formal recognition for other polities.6 In this thesis it is claimed that the EU is a new kind of a polity challenging the position of a Westphalian state. If the EU succeeds in 4 Ferguson & Mansbach 1996, 16. 5 Ibid., 34. 6 Ibid., 401. 9 this, it will have consequences for the whole international system. Yet, to be able to act in the system, the EU must not only challenge the position of a state, but also adapt to the requirements of the actorness; the EU must resemble a state in some respects to get recognized as an actor. It is necessary to defi ne some of terms to be used. Th e term “polity” will be used here to refer to political organizations that fulfi ll certain requirements (defi ned above and more carefully in the chapter two). However, since the term “polity” lacks an external dimension, I will use the term “actor” to refer a polity (or an agent) that is recognized as an actor on the international political fi eld, and who executes external policy – and most importantly, foreign policy − of its own. According to this defi nition, actors are always international, since they act on the international fi eld, but sometimes I use also the concept “international actor” to emphasize the EU’s ability to make external policy in contradiction to internal one. Why do sovereign and territorial states have a right to be the primary political actors? Th e answer lies partly in the historical conditions of the international system, and partly in the production of states. Th e origin and history of the concept of sovereignty, and of the world order based on it, are closely related to the nature and evolution of the state, and in particular to development of centralized authority in early-modern Europe. Most contemporary formulations of the concept are deeply indebted to the philosophical and theoretical positions advanced during that era7. As Ferguson and Mansbach put it, “[t]he European conquest overwhelmed other forms of political organization and produced the antihistorical idea that the Westphalian polity is a universal form”8. Th e meaning of sovereignty and the position it entitles are recreated in discourse. [W]ays of speaking about state sovereignty reproduce certain assumptions and resolutions of philosophical and political questions that are constitutive of the principle of state sovereignty itself. To speak about state sovereignty is to engage in forms of political practice, to become caught up in immense powerful forms of political action that appear to be mere abstractions or ideologies.9 7 Camilleri & Falk 1992, 15. 8 Ferguson & Mansbach 1996, 22. 9 Walker 1990, 169. 10