The EU as a Diplomatic Actor in Recent Conflicts - Essay Example

The EU as a diplomatic actor in recent conflicts Conflicts in Iraq Iraq and Iran have in fact been in conflict like situations for many-many decades now. While earlier it was the Iran-Iraq war which resulted in engagement of the world community in varying degree, depending upon the degree of dependence on these two warring nations. In later years, Iraq became a major flashpoint. European Union, comprising of 27 member countries with their respective interests had its own view on the excesses being committed by Iraqi leader Saddam Husain and the weapons of mass destruction (WMD). While on the one hand America was all in 'attacking' mood, European Union wanted to explore the route through United Nations and negotiations. When America appeared to disregard even a consensus on the matter, EU came out with a view that, 'the European Union does not support a war on Iraq without the backing of the United Nations' (Reuters, 2003). A team of weapon inspectors was on a 'fact finding mission in Iraq', but America appeared to eager to strike and was in no mood to wait for their report. On the other hand the European Union together with governments from other parts of the world wanted to have a firm proof for punishing Iraq. After the 9/11 attacks, US appeared desperate to take on the terror outfits. Iraq and Afghanistan were the first in the firing line. UK, an important partner of EU, having good relations with US as well, formed the backbone of support for US policies. The official stand of European Union on the other hand was to start off the attacks after debating the issue and seeking a sanction from UN. But the moot point is, to what extent the European diplomacy was in action. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 was instrumental in coming out with a common foreign and security policy (CFSP) for the European Union (Bruter, 1999). This implied that the 'Union' will have a unanimous opinion about an issue. But the factual position has been somewhat different. The CFSP appeared in some common declarations only and not on issues involving diplomatic rows. It is worthwhile here to mention that the European Union and CFSP appeared to provide a semblance of unanimity on paper, but on the surface, the interests of nations forming part of the union forces them to take different stand on a range of issues. Anderson (2001) lists out factors like, lack of participation or concern by the Member States; perceived competition between the Commission and the Member States; inconsistent Member State positions; and slowness as the reasons for the EU not being able to come out with effective and unanimous stands. The Iraq war happened to be one such issue on which the EU could not come out with a strong and unanimous view. The official statement from EU on Iraq is that1, "The EU is committed to working with Iraq and international partners in order to bring about a secure, stable, unified, democratic and prosperous Iraq." But the actual implementation of this commitment is yet to be seen. While on a visit to Greece after the war started in Iraq, the UN Secretary General Mr. Kofi Annan also called upon the EU leaders to come out with a common stand on the issue of Iraq (Barringer and Bruni, 2003). Once the war on Iraq was declared by the US and allied forces, on the basis of 'concrete proof', it appeared irreversible. But as days went by, it was all too apparent that the 'proof' that were being used as an alibi for initiating the attacks were nowhere visible on the surface. Even the so-called 'weapons of mass-destructions' were nowhere to be seen. This resulted in protests in UK and USA against the excesses being committed in Iraq. Today, even after executing Saddam Husain and thousands of deaths the WMDs are still proving to be illusionary. On the other hand the war has become a trap for US and allied forces; now they are finding it difficult to come out of it. Realising the differences in opinions of world leaders in general, UN Secretary General, Mr Kofi Annan said, "No issue has so divided the world since the end of the Cold War. It is vital that we heal that division now. The world cannot afford a long period of recrimination" (Barringer and Bruni, 2003). This difference of opinion was also visible when in April 2003, George Bush called upon the United Nations to lift sanctions against Iraq, so that USA and allied forces could handle the issue without any intervention from Iraq. On the other hand European Union leaders were not in a hurry to take off the UN role. Holding the coalition forces responsible for the war on Iraq, the European Union came out with statements suggesting that for UN to start the reconstruction activities a secure environment must be ensured by the coalition forces2. Such declarations were actually an effort to showcase the unity of EU states, but in practice there were differences on the issue depending upon national interests, which resulted in relegating the CFSP to the sidelines. While UK and France on the one hand took a conscious decision to be a part of coalition forces from the very beginning, other EU members also failed to see any advantage of their diplomacies. Today, even after five years into the Iraq war, the situation appears as complicated as ever. While on the one hand the safety and security environment for general public in Iraq remains grim, the coalition forces too are not finding it easy to come out of the war. But, it appears; officially the EU doesn't seem to be affected too much by the Iraq situation. EU nations like UK, France and Germany form the major components of the coalition forces, besides a huge US contingent. But these EU partners have been handling their affairs at national levels only, without seeking much assistance from other EU states. Divisions among them due to perceived differences of 'national interest' are at the heart of the conscious marginalisation of CFSP. In particular, the crisis demonstrated that the UK and France do not see any advantage in sharing their diplomacies. The prolonged Iraq war is being considered by many European partners as an episode resulting in losing the battle for 'Muslim hearts and minds'. EU members also denounce the treatment meted out to the prisoners of war at the detention centres like Guantnamo Bay, as they believe that it is resulting into degradation of human rights (CRS, 2007). Overall, the war has resulted in creating fissures amongst the EU member states on the one hand while adversely affecting the US-EU diplomatic ties. The fact the EU could not play a deciding role in this conflict further highlighted the failure of the Union in coming out with a diplomatic solution to the issue. Iran's Nuclear Program Iran, another Islamic state on the world map, appears to be at loggerheads with some countries in general and USA in particular. The Nuclear program being carried forward by Iran is an issue which has put the international community on notice. Iran is in fact a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which makes it obligatory on the part of Iran to allow international observers from IAEA, to visit the nuclear facilities as and when required. Iran is allowed to make use of Nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but not for making nuclear arms. In 2003 some activities were discovered at Iran's nuclear facilities which raised doubts about the intentions of the Iranian government. The international community led by the UN came out with statements denouncing such efforts of Iran governments and called upon Iran to come clean on the issue. A number of resolutions were also passed by the UN on the issue. While USA adopted very aggressive stand on the subject, the European Union opened diplomatic channels with Iran with an intention to resolve the issue amicably. Officially, European Union maintains that there's great potential for deeper relations between Iran and the EU. The nuclear programme issue appeared to have resulted into limiting this potential3. But United States was quick again to come out with a united stand in league with UK, France and Germany, the three major components of the EU. These three member states together with USA were even able to secure UN Security Council approval for limited sanctions on Iran (CRS, 2007). US has been making efforts towards convincing all EU member states to deal with Iran in such a manner that Iran's international interests get affected. It is worthwhile here to mention that while on the one hand the international community has no firm evidence suggesting production of nuclear arms, Iran on the other hand thinks allowing the weapon inspectors led by a country like USA, as an attack on its sovereignty. This is where the EU diplomatic channel should have come as an important assistance in persuading Iran to agree to the terms and conditions of the mutually agreed international conventions. But the fact that EU has not been able to come out with a firm stand on majority of the contentious issues has resulted in diminishing the authority of EU as a united force. Iran is known to have a nuclear program for about 50 years. Its beginning can be traced back to the purchase of a nuclear reactor in 1959 from US (CRS, 2008). The program could not be pursued on account of a number of developments on the domestic front in Iran. While the Iranian leaders maintain that country's nuclear program is meant only for peaceful purposes, but the international community led by US in particular doesn't seem to believe on these statements. If we take a look around the happenings on the international scene, one point which cannot be missed is that the terror network seems to have a backing of Islamic governments and organizations. The doubts being raised against Iran's nuclear programme find its genesis from such developments. The international community's apprehension that if the nuclear programme of Iran somehow goes into the hands of people sympathising with the terror network, that might prove dangerous for the survival of the world community. While considering the Iranian Nuclear program a diplomatic challenge, the US called upon the European Union community to come out in support of the steps being initiated by the American diplomats. But, the fact that EU member states to have their national interests on the hand while the apprehensions on the intentions of America being the other major reason for not being able to come out with a united stand. While this issue was being discussed, North Korea undertook a nuclear test; this further put the EU community on notice. Subsequently EU nations started deliberations on the subject and in one such outcome called for 'incremental steps' to counter the threat (Reuters, 2006). The joint declaration called upon Iranian leadership to cooperate in warding off the doubts being raised on its nuclear programme. But, the EU differed with United States of America on the subject of enforcing sanctions on Iran, citing the futility of such measures on North Korean nuclear programme. The issue has been discussed in UN Security Council a number of times with a number of resolutions condemning the unauthorised weapon's programme and calling upon the Iranian leaders to open up its nuclear facility for international inspection teams, but so far, none of the resolutions seems to have an effect on the Iranian government. The war of words is still on, while diplomatic efforts also continue towards settlement of the issue. On its part the European Union member states have supported the UNSC resolutions, but all member states do not go along with USA on the proposal of initiating full-fledged attacks on Iranian Nuclear establishments. Though the European Commission has no delegation in Iran but it works in close coordination with the embassies of EU member states in Tehran. The UN Security Council has so far adopted four resolutions viz. 1696, 1737, 1747 and 1803. All these resolutions have requested Iran government4 'to suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and heavy water-related projects, and to take steps to build confidence regarding the nature of its nuclear programme.' The European Union has so far came out in support of all such efforts leading to a negotiated settlement of the issue. The Georgian Issue This is a relatively newer development on the horizon. The issue got escalated in recent days when Russian forces went inside the territory of Georgian and carried out operations to defend the separatist's movement leaders from an attack by Georgian forces. Russia accused Georgia of going for ethnic cleansing the South Ossetia's civilians, most of them having Russian citizenship. Georgian on the other hand wanted that Russia to remain out of its internal matters. From the historical perspective the story can be traced back to 1991-92, when Russia disintegrated into many states, Georgia being one of them. The bilateral relations between European Union and Georgia are regulated by the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA)5 which came into force in July 1999. After the recent escalation of the issue, EU and USA appeared to be of common view that Russia should immediately stop the aggressions. EU and USA also agreed to send a joint delegation to the affected region to seek a ceasefire after the escalation of the issue in August this year (BBC, 2008). But, what is interesting to note here is that despite the unanimity in views of EU and USA, the UN Security Council was not able to agree on a joint statement on the crisis. This indicates towards some other aspects of the crisis as well. In order to help out the people affected by the recent escalation of the conflict in Georgia, the EU on its part sanctioned a humanitarian aid of 6 million. The United States too joined a group of nations, financial institutions and private sector donors, in an effort to help out Georgia. This group of donors delivered $4.55 billion to Georgia, for coming out of this crisis (USEU, 2008). European Union maintains that after the 'Rose Revolution' at the end of 2003 followed by new presidential and legislative elections in early 2004, the Georgian government has been doing commendable efforts towards fighting endemic corruption and promoting democracy, the rule of law, good governance and a market economy. Therefore at this crucial juncture, EU considered itself duty bound to help and support the Georgian government in all possible manners (EC, 2007). On its part, the present Georgian government too considers integration with EU as one of the topmost priorities on the external policy agenda. While realising the compulsions of EU for not being able to include Georgia in its fold, the Georgian government has clearly spelt out its choice as far as forging an international alliance is considered. As a first step Georgia was included in the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) once the EU states satisfied themselves with the efforts of Georgian towards good governance. In its efforts towards helping the Georgian government, the EU provided 33 million Euros during the period 1997-2006, mainly supporting the economic rehabilitation and confidence building measures6 (EC, 2008). The EU also developed an action plan (known as ENP Action Plan) towards closer relationships, economic integration and better political co-operation. This action plan was also aimed at advancing the approximation of Georgian legislation, norms and standards to those of the European Union. Adopted in November 2006, this five year action plan focuses on; Strengthening democracy, rule of law, human rights; Socio-economic reform, improvement of business climate, poverty alleviation; Conflicts resolution; Justice and security issues, including border management; Regulatory approximation in various sectors, including energy and transport; Regional cooperation. The EU in fact, appeared more as a union in this particular issue actually. With plans for a long term cooperation with Georgia while not saying much against Russia, EU seems to be handling this issue quite well. In fact, the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) between EU and Georgia forms the backbone of long term relations amongst the two dispensations. This agreement provides a legal framework for7 'wide-ranging cooperation in the areas of political dialogue, trade, investment, economic, legislative, and cultural cooperation'. A number of joint institutional mechanisms have also been set up under the PCA to monitor the implementation of the PCA. References: 1. Anderson, Stephanie (2001). The Changing Nature of Diplomacy: The European Union, the CFSP and Korea. European Foreign Affairs Review 6: 465-482. 2. Barringer, Felicity and Bruni, Frank (2003). 'A NATION AT WAR: DIPLOMACY; U.N. and European Union Consider the Future of Iraq'. The New York Times. Available online at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.htmlres=9A04E6D7173AF93BA25757C0A9659C8B63 (November 1, 2008) 3. BBC (2008). Russian forces battle Georgians. Available online at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7550354.stm (November 3, 2008) 4. Bruter, Michael (1999). 'Diplomacy without a state: the external delegations of the European Commission'. Journal of European Public Policy 6:2 June 1999, Routledge. 5. CRS (2007). 'U.S.-European Union Relations and the 2007 Summit'. CRS Report for Congress. Available online at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22645.pdf (November 1, 2008) 6. CRS (2008). 'Iran's Nuclear Program: Status'. Available online at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL34544.pdf (November 2, 2008) 7. EC (2007). European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument-Georgia-Country Strategy Paper: 2007-2013. European Commission. Available online at http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/country/enpi_csp_georgia_en.pdf (November 3, 2008) 8. EC (2008). European Commission-External Relations. Available online at http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/countries/index_en.htm (November 1, 2008) 9. Reuters (2003). 'EU Says No to Iraq War Without U.N. Approval'. Available online at http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27c/241.html (November 1, 2008) 10. Reuters (2006). 'Europeans Back Gradual Steps Against Iran's Nuclear Program'. The New York Times. Available online at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/world/middleeast/18iran.html (November 2, 2008) 11. USEU (2008). 'U.S. Pledges New Assistance at Georgia Donor Conference'. The United States Mission to the European Union. Available online at http://useu.usmission.gov/ (November 3, 2008) Read More