EU as a Civilian Power - Literature review Example

The European Union ceased to be a civilian power the moment governments in Europe took over membership and acceptance of members, as well as its administration making the European Union a governmental force that has full political influence. This is in addition to the force and influence it has in policy making in aspects relating to the world such as economies, social aspects and even its foreign policy. Then policies that it makes are also enforceable by a military force that is constituted by member states making it a force to reckon with, and all this serves to show it lack of civilian operations, but rather full governmental forces working behind the scenes and the frontline, as well. These changes in how the European union has been transformed to longer look after the interests of civilians but those of respective member governments raises questions of whether it was best for the body to turn from a civilian power and into one that focuses on the needs of governments instead (Smith 2000). Therefore, the EU body, as it is in the moment is more powerful than it was as a civilian body making the argument over its status quo and its situation moot. The current situation of European Union as a political, continental, economic, social and world power is the best position it could ever be in and turning it back to a civilian power would be a disaster. In order to illustrate how better the European Union is at its current state as compared to its being a civilian power, there are certain aspects to be considered. These include the factors that have changed since its transformation from a civilian power in relation to political, social, economic and foreign relations policies that are applied by the union to member states and other countries that are not members. Thus, by considering these factors this essay will discuss how the economic situation of Europe stands to gain in its current situation, how foreign policy influences the world and how the European society has been transformed due to the shift from civilian control and into governmental systems. The EU should not have remained as a civilian power this is despite the fact that its current state remains to be conflicting due to its consideration as both a normative and a military power. The EU as a military power has achieved more than any other civilian power in that over the past decade it has managed to increase its militarization in an attempt to respond rapidly to international threats, something that a civilian EU could not have done under any circumstances (Trott 2010). In addition, considering recent developments over the past decades, large economic powerhouses have been targeted by international threats such as terrorists who destroyed the world trade centre in the USA (Acikmece 2002). As a result the European union sought to increase its military capabilities to overcome these threats, which was a bold move at enhancing security from within so that member states were strategically protected from terror threats, especially with then ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009 (Trott 2010). In comparison to a Civilian power Europe, there was no chance of military engagement even in times of security threats such as terror, which left some members of the European Union vulnerable to international threats that were a concert to the world as a whole. However, there may be counter arguments relating to the security for member states, especially concerning cooperation for the achievement of international objectives of security, which could easily be achieved through cooperation of all member states with the external world. This does not stand a chance in that militarization of the European Union serves the interests of both normative and civilian powers. In addition to this counterargument, militarization of the EU was meant to act as means of interaction of its member states with the rest of the world, and not as a core means of achieving national goals of individual member states. In addition to the aspect of militarization, there is the impact of its foreign policy this is largely related to the influence it has had on the union unlike while EU was a civilian power. In regard to the application of EU foreign policy, it borrows heavily from the inception of the EU from the need to minimize potential war from within member states of Europe. Therefore, based on this policy the EU could not have remained as a civilian power since in spite of its founding principles there were areas within Europe still in a state of conflict making the foreign policy of the EU to be both coercive and persuasive as is the case with Bosnia and Herzegovina. As a result, the application of normative and civilian power in this situation would assert the EU as a soft power that is endearing and as a power without punitive measures, both economically and politically, as well as socially since there would be no standing force to enforce its policies unlike the current case with its militarization. In addition, militarization of the EU should be embraced due to its foreign policy towards other military powers such as NATO and the USA, where all the bodies seek to achieve similar goals in transatlantic security. Overall, a civilian EU would have been powerless and fully dependent on NATO, and in the present military state of the EU, there is large potential for the EU to influence the politics of different countries. As mentioned in transatlantic security affairs, the EU is largely influential in political sphere due to the large-scale consideration that the USA gives to the EU in terms of generating security policies. In these instances, a military EU gains more support and is influential by using the USA to help them come p with means to protect their interests, which are both economic and military, as well as political since some of the members of the EU also overlap as members of NATO (Mix 2013). In addition to the political power of military EU, the EU manages to influence member states to embrace democracy through partial application of its foreign policy. The treaty of the European union is used to govern most if not all aspects of political power that the EU applies bearing in mind it mentions consolidation and support for democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the principles of international law. As a result, military EU tends to focus on spreading part of its founding principles of democracy and human rights all over the world in an attempt to have free and fair world. In particular, this part of EU militarization may appear to be overlapping with aspects of a civilian EU in that civilian powers tend to endear themselves through persuasion, but in cases where persuasion fails then coercion takes over using punitive measures taken by military action, as well as political and economic sanctions. In addition, the EU should have remained as a civilian power loses power in that there are certain political aspects that civilian powers cannot take care of or handle (Wright 2011). These aspects include preserving peace, preventing conflict and strengthening international security, of which some aspects have been mentioned in international policy and security issues. Military powers are required for such strongly motivated political aspects such as peace, where countries with largely civilian rule have militaries for similar aspects, as is the case with Sweden and Switzerland, where their militaries take on defensive positions. The same case applies for the militarized European Union, where militarization has seen it exercise this political power of peace keeping instead of applying persuasion as would be the case in civilian power. Militarized EU also tends to go against the grain in terms of political power, where it does not necessarily impose its ideologies, but rather there is a choice s was the case with Yugoslavia although the EU failed in its political influence quest (Wright 2011). Economically, although the EU is militarized, it should stay this way as it serves both the interests of a military power, as well as a civilian power, especially when focusing on its power of attraction. The EU, while serving its military and political functions has also developed economic that overlap with what a civilian EU could do in creation of bilateral and multilateral trade regimes. These are such as the Association Agreement with Mercosur, which has also seen adoption of EU standards and regulations across the world showing how strong and economically powerful a militarized EU is, and this serves to increase its all rounded nature in power. As a result, the EU manages to regulate the quality of products, which is part a civilian EU could manage, but not as well as military EU due to enforcement of its policies, as well as political power, which largely what gives the union much of its largely recognized authority across the globe. In this regard, a military EU is deemed to be irrelevant since all these are aspects that a civilian power can deal with, especially considering economic standards and regulatory policies of the union, and how well normative and civilian powers deal with these (Smith 2005). Challenges of these arguments, however, accrue from the lack of enforcement and authority powers considering that the EU, in being a military power, is backed by governments and is not an independent body. Therefore, this means that as a military body the different member governments are capable of ensuring the success of their union rather than wait for the collective umbrella body, which is the EU to enforce standards. In addition, as military EU it has sought peace through economic unification, where militarization has granted authority to the union to ensure their core values are streamlined and integrated (Stivachtis, Price & Habegger 2013). Socially, a military EU has also been powerful in enforcing certain aspects that could have been if the civilian power of the EU had remained. This is because the military EU in the EU security strategy imposes spreading good governance, supporting social and political reform, as well as dealing with corruption and abuse of power, which is in addition to establishing the rule of law and protecting human rights as the best means of strengthening international order (Krohn 2007). Therefore, because of this strengthening the military power that is the EU wields much power socially as it attempts to protect the needs of the people, both within the EU and outside it. It has managed to influence the world into embracing democracy and other principles it advocates through its state of being an economic power, an aspect which can be attributed to two aspects of its state of being, which are its political power and militarization (Krohn 2007). In addition, the military power that is the EU should not have remained as a civilian power due to its social issues in that it is a widely open society, where open societies are open to all manner of threats. In guaranteeing the security of member nations, the European social system is provided with adequate security and order is maintained making the European Union not have any failed states, which tend to harbor criminals and act as bases for transnational criminal organizations (Cakir n.d.). In conclusion, the European Union, as a military power should remain as a military and not revert to being a civilian power due to the amount of authority that being militarized has brought to it. This is beginning with its foreign policy that has seen its increase in political power albeit with certain failures, as was the case in Yugoslavia. There is also the economic power that has come with militarization through influencing standards of quality and regulations, which have been adopted world over. All this thanks to military power, which is able to enforce through individual member governments making the union even more powerful. The same goes for social order influenced by security and foreign policies that have seen order maintained within the union. References Acikmece, S. 2002. Has the period of "civilian power Europe" come to an end? Ankara Review of European Studies. Vol:2 No:3 p.1-14 Smith, K. 2000. The End of Civilian Power EU: A Welcome Demise or Cause for Concern? The International Spectator. Vol:35, No. 2, Wright, N. 2011. The European Union: What Kind of International Actor? Political Perspectives .Vol: 5 (2), 8-32 Mix, D.2013. The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy. Congressional Research Service. Smith, K. 2005. Still ‘civilian power EU?’ European Foreign Policy Unit Working Paper 2005/1 Trott, W. 2010. An analysis of civilian, military and normative power in EU foreign policy. POLIS Journal Vol.4 Stivachtis, Y. Price, C. & Habegger, M. (2013). The European as a Peace Actor. Review of European Studies; Vol. 5, No. 3. Cakir, A. n.d.. European Union: A civil or a political Power in the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. [online] Available from http://www.fscpo.unict.it/EuroMed/Emre.pdf [Accessed 23rd Oct. 2013] Krohn, F. 2007. What kind of power? The EU as an International Actor. [online] Available from http://archive.atlantic-community.org/app/webroot/files/articlepdf/Fabian%20Krohn.pdf [Accessed 23rd Oct. 2013] Read More