Established in 1970First concrete beginnings of a common foreign policyInitially run entirely by member statesAgreement by states to act in unisonSpecifically kept separate from the EC and especially the Commission which was considered too powerful

Long-resented by member states as “out of touch”Power unchecked, not many restraintsInitially kept separate from EPC until 1980sSteadily expanding: accredited to 158 countries and organizationsCan implement external policyNegotiates on behalf of member governments in the GATT or WTOPolicy entrepreneur/driver

Increasing in powerShaping and voicing the EU’s international positionForeign policy being negotiated at ever-higher levelsVery influential: comprised of heads-of-state

Initially rather weak but increasing involvementUpdated frequently on foreign policy issuesHolds forums and debates over external policiesStrong emphasis on human rightsOnly EU institution elected by the peopleFocal point for Non-Governmental OrganizationsHistorically encourages enhanced cooperation

French & German Agreement essentialBridge-Building – especially significant for smaller countriesUK = powerful voice, encourages establishment of militaryAll agree instruments should be coordinatedPolicies driven by desire of internal security

• Colonies and overseas territories of member states

• Lomé conventions provided framework for relations with ACPs

• Adaptability of Lomé- scope widened to include human rights- provided for a dialogue on non-compliance- led to Cotonou Agreement

• EU enlargement as a catalyst in strengthening foreign economic policy with a wide range of regional groupings in ACP areas

• Member states wanted to ensure stability in North Africa (Maghreb) and proliferation of Mediterranean market.

• Complex series of agreements between EC/EU and Maghreb

• Due to worries over instability stemming from legal and illegal migration through North Africa, Barcelona Process (or Euro-Mediterranean Partnership) was instituted in 1995 with its 3 “baskets”- economic, political, and cultural

• End of Cold War resulted in countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEECs) looking to both accede to the EU and join NATO for fear of uncertainties to the East

• Phare program as an instrument in preparing prospective countries to join the EU

• Although the 10 CEECs finally acceded in 2004, the process was fraught with the difficulties arising from the predominance of individual domestic interests of the member states in the policy making process.

• Raised intergovernmental question of whether so many CEECs should be admitted to EU

• Russia has occasionally played with the idea of EU membership, but has settled on a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) in order to resolve sensitive trade issues

• Dependence on the US during the Kosovo Crisis of 1998-99 led to both a move towards a European Security and Defence Policy and a coherent policy towards the Balkans as a whole

• The initially reactive and regional approach has been replaced with the Stabilisation and Association Process (SAP), which puts an emphasis on making sure that states are economically and politically sound by offering an Association Agreement in exchange for commitments to political, economic, or human rights reform

• The Neighbourhood Policy of 2004 provides an alternative for the EU that both keeps them from having to admit all countries that want to join the EU while still preventing against the emergence of dividing lines between the enlarged EU and its new neighbors

• Though important trade partners, a point of contention in transatlantic relations is the question over security and its role in EU-US relations

• EU is pushing towards a collective security agreement within its member states with CFSP, but what does this mean for NATO and the US’s place in the international defense paradigm? What actions do you think that the EU and the US will eventually take?

• Links to Asia are relatively weak when compared with EU-US relations

• The relationship between Asia and the EU is based mainly on trade issues, but the active pursuit of human rights by the European Parliament has led to some strains in the relationship between the EU and some Asian countries

• Burma’s, a country with documented human rights violations, membership in ASEAN and China’s brutal oppression as seen in Tian’anmen Square in 1989 are some examples of problems between these countries’ actions and the EU’s high-minded ideals that show that although the EU is interested in common economic growth in these areas, political differences are providing an obstacle

• There has been an agreement on a Security Strategy and examples of successful policing operations in the Balkans, but there is not a widespread awareness of these successes.

• This damages the credibility of the EU’s ability as a common defense community, and this can only be rectified through a continuation of successful military and policing operations

• Despite the repetition of lofty aims, the EU has proved unable to promote common actions, with the split over Iraq being an example.

• Establishment of CFSP created a common foreign policy for the EU, but the individual states have more military power than the CFSP and NATO is much stronger and more organized

• What do you think the next step will be in terms of collective security for the EU? Will it include an “Article V” section such as NATO that says an attack on one is an attack on all?

• Larger states in the EU have become restless with the number of smalls that has increased through successive rounds of enlargement

• Both France and the UK tend to view the CFSP as an instrument of their own national foreign policies, and small states often feel disrespected by their exclusion in meetings that only include larger states.

• The general assembly of the UN provides one vote for each country and because of this, is an arguably weak part of the institution and without a whole lot of credibility. Similarly, the seats apportionment in the European Parliament is not done simply according to population, which hurts the big states and helps the small states. Do you think that this hurts the credibility and overall power of this governing body?

Agreement by original six to create a customs union, common market and relating factors of production laid framework for an eventual common external policyNecessitated the negotiation of bilateral trade agreements and also within the WTO and GATTCoordination of best policies enhances global competitiveness, stronger world-voiceBut member states have feared loss of individual voiceCommission seen as “beyond control”Desire to protect culture and intellectual property rights

Manners: EU will lose normative power if it chooses to wield military power in a peace-making mannerShort-term force will replace traditional, long-term effortsCountries less willing to join if they fear the EU will be getting involved in countries they don’t want it toEU will “slide” into always using peace-making tactics over peace-keeping, especially when faced with guerrilla tactics

EU is a special case therefore past examples are not relevantEU has made efforts to create a more efficient system for imposing economic sanctions while at the same time improving its Rapid Reaction Force, for exampleEU has unprecedented amount of “normative power” and will therefore not resort as quickly to forceWill still only act when NATO does notIraq example: did not send troops as a unit but rather held internal deliberations, which affected US policy thereEU currently has military power and yet has maintained normative (countries still desire to join EU)