Oil 1 Peak Oil 21


Neg Answers- EU ineffective



Download 9.54 Mb.
Page135/195
Date28.05.2018
Size9.54 Mb.
#52014
1   ...   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   ...   195

Neg Answers- EU ineffective



EU universal consensus requirements kill effectiveness

(Harvard Political Review, 4/22/08, written by Rachael Burns, “The European Union: Successes of Soft Power”, http://hprsite.squarespace.com/the-european-union-042008/)
On April 18, 1951, six European nations came together to form the European Coal and Steel Community in an effort to mend the relationships World War Two had torn apart. The economic alliance of these six countries planted the seed for a growing movement towards a more peaceful and united Europe. Now, more than 50 years later, there are 27 members of the European Union and three candidate nations awaiting membership. Of the many regional organizations that have emerged over the past half-century, the European Union is the only one to have achieved successful economic and political integration, making it a model organization. However, the large number of member nations inhibits efficient change and quick responses on foreign policy issues, preventing the European Union from transcending its regional status. The economic success of the organization has established it as a global leader in a more nuanced way, giving it an important voice for democracy in Europe and around the world.

Slow but Sure
A number of inefficiencies are born from the number of member states, most prominently the slow passage of treaties. In 2001, when the European Union voted on the Treaty of Nice, only one country, Ireland, voted against it, and it was not until 2003 that a reformed version of the treaty came into effect. Similarly, in 2003, France and the Netherlands voted against a constitution that had been proposed the previous year, effectively stopping its progress. The European Union’s reliance on cooperation and its respect for sovereignty inhibit agreements to reform or enlarge the organization, and provide obstacles to policy unification efforts as well.

The European Union has undergone much difficulty in presenting a united front on foreign policy. Jonas Tallberg, author of Leadership and Negotiation in the European Union, told the HPR that member states have differing regional alliances on foreign policy issues. He pointed to the current turbulence surrounding Kosovo as an example of these allegiances coming into conflict. A stronger voice on foreign affairs, however, would require a centralization of power that would necessitate member states giving up a degree of sovereignty, which they hold very dear. In an interview with the HPR, Éamon Ó Cuív, Irish Minister for Community, Rural, and Gaeltacht Affairs, said that every member nation has a list of boundaries that they would not be willing to cross in relinquishing sovereignty. Ireland’s, he said, included military affairs, social issues, and taxation.

Neg Answers- EU Ineffective- Procedure



Long and complicated consensus procedures kill the EU’s ability to deal with major issues like Iran

(Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, 1/12/07, Financial Times, Asia Edition 1, comment: pg. 11, “Europe must pull its weight on human rights,”)


Even accepting the unanimity rule, improvements are possible. The EU demands consensus at an absurdly petty level. At the United Nations Human Rights Council, for example, rather than approve a broad strategy and trust their representatives to pursue it wisely, EU members insist on signing off on each proposed resolution, word by word. This micromanagement makes the quick diplomatic give-and-take needed to build majorities impossible partly explaining why abusive governments are running circles around the Union.

Neg Answers- EU Ineffective- Leadership



The EU’s rotating leadership system and lack of delegation kills EU effectiveness

(Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, 1/12/07, Financial Times, Asia Edition 1, comment: pg. 11, “Europe must pull its weight on human rights,”)


Even when a common position is reached, the EU's insistence on working almost exclusively through its "presidency" often undermines its clout. It is difficult to imagine a less effective way to maintain continuity or build expertise than the EU's rotating blur of six-month leaders, even when bolstered by the incoming president and other EU officials to form a leadership troika. The refusal to assign long term responsibility on certain issues to the governments best placed to address them is a recipe for dysfunction.

Neg Answers- EU Ineffective



EU ineffective- three reasons

(Raj S. Chari and Francesco Cavatorta, Dept. Political Sci. Trinity College, Dept. Politics University College Dublin, 2003, Microsoft Doc, “The Iraq War: Killing Dreams of a Unified EU?*”, doras.dcu.ie/472/02/eps_3_1_2003.doc)


For students of EU public policy, the EU's reaction during and after the Iraq War may represent the same story of impotence that has historically plagued the EU when trying to speak with a single voice and act with a united front during a major world crisis. Despite some achievements with the EU's Common and Foreign Security Policy (CFSP) of the early 1990s (Ginsberg 1997; Holland 1995), the Iraq War perhaps best reflects Cameron's concerns: "in handling serious political crises, especially those involving armed conflict, the Union has rarely acted as one", or acted effectively (Cameron, 1998, 66).

Seeking to better understand why the EU did not act effectively during the Iraq War and to consider what lessons can be taken from this experience, the paper has three main objectives. First, the paper considers the theoretical reasons that help explain why the EU has historically failed to create a common defence and security policy. The section thereafter analyses developments during the Iraq war and tests which theoretical explanations (or combinations thereof) are of most value to understand the EU's stance. The final section then considers the future of the EU as an international actor in light of the fundamental concepts introduced by Hill (1993) regarding 'capabilities' and 'expectations' of EU foreign policy.

Based on broader analyses offered by Peterson (1998, 11-13) and Hix (1999, 348-54) one may argue that the literature has offered at least three larger explanations for EU foreign policy failures, although one must note from the outset that there is some overlap in the theoretical issues raised in each.i

The first explanation highlights (as an independent variable) the member states' (MSs') desire to maintain sovereignty regarding foreign policy decisions (Hill, 1996). The argument here is that while MSs ceded sovereignty is issues such as monetary policy, they have maintained a strong-hold on external political and security issues which, in Hoffman's conceptualisation (1966), are representative of 'high politics.' This is coupled with other factors that have played a part of the states' calculation of foreign policy interests: states such as the UK have favoured 'Atlantic' ties; those such as France and Germany have sought to solidify links with each other in order to become leaders on the world stage within Europe; and smaller states such as Ireland remained ambivalent about the future of CFSP based on pure cost-benefit analysis and concerns regarding the loss of foreign policy 'neutrality' (Hoffman, 2000, 191-192). A corollary to this would be that the EU has been delegated with promoting the 'normative values' of the Union (Manners, 2001)ii upon which it is relatively easy to find agreement by all MSs, while major crises have been the exclusive domain of national decision-making.

A second explanation, which focuses less on developments at the domestic level and more on those at the supranational one, argues that the ineffectiveness of policies such as CFSP can be explained through the weak institutionalisation of the supranational decision-making structure (Forster and Wallace, 1996). Given the importance of intergovernmentalism, inevitably requiring agreement of the MSs when decisions are to be made, coupled with the lack of leading role for the Commission and almost insignificant input of the European Parliament (EP), the EU institutional structure seems almost handcuffed, if not doomed, when seeking to find a unified voice regarding foreign policy (Cameron, 1998, 66; Allen, 1998, 56). Although the new position of Mr. PESC - the Secretary General of the Council/High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy - was created in Amsterdam, to date the literature has not fully evaluated whether or not the position has remedied the institutional quagmire during a major crisis.

A third explanation, which goes beyond developments at both the domestic and supranational level and instead focuses on those at the international one, is that "the EU's behaviour as international actor is conditioned by transatlantic relations" (Peterson, 1998, 11). The argument here is not so much that different MSs may or may not have ties to the United States that subsequently influence their behaviour, as the first explanation suggests. Rather, the attitude taken by the USA towards the EU as a whole helps explain why the latter has been unsuccessful in attaining the position of significant international actor with clearly defined security and defence policies that are respected globally. Examples of this have been seen during the Arab-Israeli conflict when Europe had been "…pushed aside and told to be quiet in Washington” (Hoffman, 2000) as well as when America took the lead in the Bosnian conflict in the wake of EU confusion (Ullman, 1996).




Neg answers- Europe Econ Resilient



Europe’s economy is resilient

(International Monetary Fund, 5/21/08, “Resilient Europe Faces Further Test”, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2008/CAR042108A.htm)


"There is no escaping the fact that we have a global shock to the financial system, and it is bound to affect Europe as well," said Michael Deppler, Director of the IMF's European Department. "The slowdown in the United States will pervade the world economy, and the IMF is steadily bringing down its forecasts for Europe. Some people have expressed great pessimism about Europe's prospects. I would not go that far.

"In my view, Europe will experience a couple of years of slow growth. Unemployment, which until now had been declining steadily, will probably start to rise again. That being said, I remain reasonably sanguine that Europe's economy will be more resilient than that of the United States," he added in an interview with IMF Survey magazine.


Download 9.54 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   ...   195



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
united states
discursive construction