Presence of the European Union in Africa - Essay Example

Articles review The role played by the European Union in Africa s one that has raised more questions than benefits as policy analysts tend to argue. Based from a policy point of view, different policy analysts have dismissed EUs mission in Africa in the fact that it is based on one-sided beneficial deals that only benefit the European Union and not the Africans. Besides, other texts have refuted the claims regarding EU’s move into Africa citing lack of proper international policies to guide such moves. Proper channeling of policy goals and needs is the most significant aspect that determines the success of internationally bound policies. EU foreign policies in Africa and the world have not properly geared towards attaining any balanced form of development for the African regions. According to (), the EU policies tend to reflect the interests of individual countries rather than that of the entire union. Much, therefore, need to be done before the EU ventures into international affairs controls. This paper reviews two articles that have addressed various aspects of the EUs operations with respect to its policies at the international levels. Specifically, the article reviews EUs mandates in Africa by assessing its programs and the policies that guide such programs. The two articles that are reviewed in this paper are Adrain, Hyde-Price, "A ‘tragic actor? A realist perspective on ‘ethical power Europe." International Affairs 84.1 (2008): 29–44. and Fredrik, Soderbaum, "The European Union as an actor in Africa: internal coherence and external legitimacy." Maurizio, Carbone, The European Union in Africa: Incoherent policies, asymmetrical partnership, declining relevance? Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, (2012). 25-39. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. In conducting the review, this paper will look at the various policy areas such as security, humanitarian assistance, and other development programs initiated and funded by the EU around the African continent. The European Union is today one of the most active development partners to most African countries. These collaborative alliances stem from the fact that most African nations are former colonies of the twenty-seven countries making up the European Union. Partnering in development prospects in the region is, therefore, justified on the basis that such partnerships are jointly undertaken between the colonies and their respective colonial powers. Ideally, the European Unions policies towards the African continent are pegged upon three key pillars. These include security, humanitarian assistances, and development projects initiated and funded by the respective colonial powers in their respective colonies. Fredrik, for instance, discusses the operations of the EU in Africa based on the three primary goals. According to the article, the European Union is the most active security complementary in Africa compared to any other security partners in the region. Despite the action of the respective colonial powers in response to any insecurity situation in the Africa, the decisions to undertake these actions rest purely with the EC. However, the disorganization according to the article come in owing to the fact that each colonial state in Africa exercises their mandates in their respective colonies independent of the other countries making up the European Union. This move has been seen by policy makers as a major hindrance to foreign policy jurisdictions around the world. The fact that each EU state acts independently, of course under the umbrella of the EC, washes away the existence of the union while strengthening the individual statutory powers. According to Fredrik, the claim for the existence of the European Union in exercising its foreign policies in Africa is a null claim that has no basis of proof (Fredrik). Instead, the EC is seen as an active actor compared to the European Union. Besides, the interests of the individual states surpass those of the Union further making the union weak and lacking in terms of policy agenda and their respective implementations. The claims brought forward by Fredrik in this article are somehow true from a policy point of view. A total of twenty-seven countries makes up the European Union. Out of these, none of them is committed to collaborating with one another and exercising their mandates jointly as members of the same commission. This is seen in the manner in which various projects from among the respective countries making up the Union are executed in the region. Various development agencies have been implemented in Africa by the Danish development agency. Other agencies run by other countries within the EU in their respective colonies are also commonly seen running independently from the EU. This show of lack of commitment to the union among the respective states creates an internal disintegration thus making the commission even weaker in terms of unified policies and commands. Again, the security forces of the Union operate more under the umbrella of the EC rather than the union. For instance, the response of the NATO forces to security situations in West Africa (Cote dIvoire, Senegal, and Guinea are examples were implemented and controlled by the EC rather than the European Union. Under the EC, therefore, the member states can come together and act as a single force as opposed to working under the EU. As can be seen, the EC is a strong umbrella compared to the union hence the refuting point at which policy analysts dismisses the existence of the EU as a policy body in the region. Adrian, on the other hand, focuses his arguments on the way in which the EU carries out its mandates in light of the policies guiding its various undertakings in the African continent. Regarding these facts, Adrian addresses the loose ends in the EU policies in addressing various issues relating to security. Pegging his arguments from an ethical point of view, Adrian maintains that EUs mission in Africa is not ethical and cannot, therefore, qualify as an outstanding union that is capable of running international affairs. According to Adrian, the fact that the union is split between steering the vision and mandates of the union amidst those of the individual states is a weakening point which often lead to the collision of interests thus unethical from the polices point of view. Due to this lack of commitment on the side of the EU while exercising its mandates in Africa, disregard to the human nature and ethics is commonly evident in their actions. For instance, a lot of poor people living in Africa survive in less than one dollar a day. A typical cow in the EU states lives son up to 2.28 dollars a day. What EU gives to the African states for humanitarian purposes is what the typical cow consumes in a day. This shows total disregard for humanity which they claim to be of their major concern. There have been debates about what is ethical for humanitarian aids. Inconsistencies are realized in the definition of adequacy. In response to this lack of proper definition, some people have argued that the amount of aids given to the African countries by their European masters is reciprocal to the living standards and requirements of each family in need. The standards of living in most African countries is not as high as that in most of the EU nations hence cannot be comparable in terms of expenditures per day. The support systems given to most African nations by the members states belonging to the EU is tainted towards private interests and not offered purely on a humanitarian basis as per the claims. In exchange for offering support of various kinds, most of the EU nations have personalized interests to exploit resources and look for markets for their manufactured goods in exchange. Such intentions are not humanitarian at all and are based on tainted rather than pure interests. According to Adrian, this false offer in demand for exchange partnerships is an unethical basis through which the EU states find their ways and develop their roots within the African continent as the most trusted donors. Such moves are deceptive rather than grounded on sincere wills. Any aid must be offered without an expectation of any favour in return hence the arguments on unethical dealings of the EU in Africa. To conclude, the presence of the EU in Africa had been long overdue dating back to the colonial times when the European states moved into Africa to get colonies. Today the ancient colonial powers are still exercising their jurisdictions within the African continent disguised under the umbrella of the EU as an assistance agency to Africa. The fact that the member states making up the EU; do not hold much significance to its mandates and policy frameworks make it weak and lacking in terns of policy developments. As seen in the manner in which these states exercise their mandates in Africa, they do so as distinct and independent states not belonging to any union at all. In fact, each country is more concerned with the need to propagate their agenda as opposed to that of the union thus making it a weaker union that is incapable of meeting international demands. Works Cited Adrain, Hyde-Price,. "A ‘tragic actor’? A realist perspective on ‘ethical power Europe’." International Affairs 84.1 (2008): 29–44. Fredrik, Soderbaum,. "The European Union as an actor in Africa: internal coherence and external legitimacy." Maurizio, Carbone,. The European Union in Africa: Incoherent policies, asymmetrical partnership, declining relevance? Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, (2012). 25-39. Read More