Is_a_Common_European_Foreign_&_Security_Policy_Feasible_&_or_Desirable

Is a Common European Foreign & Security Policy Feasible and/or Desirable The European Union has progressed from a trade agreement on coal and steel formed in 1951, to the highly integrated organisation that is today which includes a single currency, a European parliament and common laws. Therefore it would seem logical that a common foreign and security policy would be a natural progression for the European union, however there can be much debate over the feasibility of it and whether the end result and consequences would indeed actually be desirable. Nonetheless it is not like the European Union has not overcome problems before whilst introducing new policies and measures, for example with the Euro and having monetary policy for all Euro member states. Therefore from previous experience the European Union has had with what it has encountered and its substantial progression suggests that in theory a common foreign and security policy could be enabled and made a success. However there are many obstacles that could make this ambitious policy totally infeasible. In 1970 the first step of European Political Cooperation was taken, when there was an intergovernmental network between the foreign ministries of the member states whose aim was to coordinate civilian diplomacy within the Atlantic security framework. Over the years to the present day it has progressed hugely and transformed the workings of national foreign ministries by gradually becoming more and more involved. However one of the major obstacles to a common foreign and security policy, states putting their own national security policy into one central body has continued to make it questionable just how feasible it would be to introduce a true common foreign security policy. As mentioned above for a common foreign security policy to work, states would have to pass their own national security to a central body, who, rather than doing what is best for one state, would do what is most beneficial to the European Union as a whole. That is a huge loss of control for a state, especially with the knowledge that another state may be gaining on what they are losing out, for example with security measures if armed forces are spread between member countries then one country may have less protection than if they were in control of it themselves. Whilst another, most likely smaller, less powerful country could have significantly more protection from threats. This is a feasible option that could be implemented, though states would have to be reassured and guaranteed that by agreeing to a give up control of their national security they would be not putting the security of their country and people on the line. Moreover however is whether this is a desirable option states is another matter, on the positive side one large body to organise security on such a huge level could prove to be more effective over lots of states individually organising it. However trying to arrange a policy that suited all member states, especially with the addition of ten new member states which have increased the diversity of the European Union greatly could just prove to be too difficult and some states would be highly likely to lose out. In giving up national security to a central body a state must also therefore give up all use of military force to that central body as military decisions and actions would now be acted on collectively rather than individually. If there is to be a common foreign and security policy then it would no longer be necessary for states to have their own military force as they would no longer be making their own individual decisions on security. Instead all states would pool their resources, resulting in one large armed force for the European Union. Again like giving up responsibility of individual national security, letting go of military force is a feasible option for states, but it is a major step and leaves states with little options if they disagree with other states over a decision relating to security and foreign policy. For the European Union as a whole, one army in some ways is a very desirable option, it would be an immense force in the international system due to the large area it would cover and the number of states it would involve. With one military force the European Union could begin to take on the United States power. However problems could arise if not all states wanted to go into an area of conflict and they could withhold their troops that would help make up the European army. It may also be too unhealthy to have such a large army, with just two military forces, Europe and the United States, dominating the international system, especially if they joined forces in a conflict. The most important part of a common foreign and security policy working would be for all participating states to trust one another, without that there is no hope of states releasing weapons and giving up national security. Just how possible that is though seems very unlikely. There is massive amounts of history, which in some cases is very recent, between all member states especially with the addition of states from the Eastern Bloc and former Yugoslavia. That states simply will not be willing to give up such vital parts of their sovereignty like their armies and control of their own national security. Keeping those options may prove to be much more desirable than going into common foreign and security policy. Those are just the key principles for states to conform and agree too, if those are decided to be feasible and desirable for all states there is a whole multitude of other issues to consider on the desirability of a common foreign security policy. Firstly states within in the European Union have a very deep rooted history with historical ties and divisions still playing a significant part in the international relations within Europe. With so many wars, happening right up to the last decade with the Gulf War, border changes and a shared history it is inevitable that that this going to have an affect on the success of a common foreign and security policy. These complicated histories could cause distortion and complication when decisions are going to be made, as countries are invariably to choose options that are beneficial to themselves and their allies. On the other hand countries with strong ties are likely to stay loyal to one another and support one another’s decisions. Also countries with a shared common history are likely to have a similar shared political lookout so agreements will be easier to reach with less conflict. At the moment any decisions made within the European Union must be made unanimously, however with twenty five member states decisions made for a common foreign and security policy would not be made with the necessary speed and efficiency that is needed often security related issues. If it were changed to majority voting to accommodate a common foreign and security policy then although this would enable more effective decision and policy making, it would result in disgruntled states who do not agree and may not want any participation in the final result and refuse to put any of their resources towards it. Consequentially resulting in animosity and resentment within the E.U, an organisation of that complexity, importance and high status cannot run successfully or effectively with conflict carrying on within it. Although there are positive benefits of a common foreign and security policy like increased influence and weight in the international system A common foreign and security policy has been on the agenda for a long time, and steps like the European Parliament and single currency could be regarded as progression towards it with the introduction of a common foreign and security policy a natural progression. There are aspects which are very desirable, it would considerably strengthen its position in the European Union, enabling the E.U to rival the United State’s current immense power. It’s impact and dominance over other states and during conflicts would no doubt increase significantly, resulting with positive and negative effects, it would be more effective at attacking and eliminating unsavoury aggressors, however it could go into conflicts and turn a local conflict into an international one. On the feasibility side there are many issues to be considered, the E.U now consists of twenty five diverse member states over a large area of Europe. Policies will have to passed unanimously, so getting twenty five states, all vying for their own national interests, to agree on a single issue seems very remote. Getting states to accept that national interests are no longer to be their priority but rather that they must now think in terms of the whole community instead and giving up security to a common body, plus giving use of military force seems totally unfeasible and when it comes to it I believe states are going to be very reluctant to do so. Although a common foreign and security policy has been regarded as an integral part of political union within the European Union, and that without it political union would not be the same effective or powerful force with it, there is too much for a state to lose to release its security into the hands of one central body. If it was however to go ahead the first and foremost important thing for states to do would be to gain a complete trust between one another before attempting to progress to anything more. However that it is also the hardest part for twenty five states to do between each other so again it goes back to it appearing that a common foreign and security policy is neither feasible or desirable.