Europe diary: Europe (EU) and the world

BBC ^ | Thursday, March 29, 2007 | Mark Mardell

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

29 March 2007

BBC Europe editor Mark Mardell on the European Union's growing, but often unrecognised, role in the field of foreign policy, and continuing support for the idea of an EU foreign minister.

The diary is published every Thursday. To always see the latest edition, please click here and bookmark this page.

FINGER-WAGGING

EU peacekeepers have been very active in the Balkans

Do tyrants cower when the European Parliament denounces their misdeeds? I thought we were going to find out this week. After all, the parliament passes regular motions condemning appalling behaviour, here there and everywhere. They've just adopted a report that describes China's human rights record as of "serious concern", views the situation in Iran with "deep concern" and is "appalled" at some measures in Russia.

There is little doubt the parliament has a fair deal to say about foreign affairs generally. This week there's a statement on relations with the Arab world, meetings with the president of Ukraine and a visit from an Assembly delegation from Iraq. Members of the European Parliament are on visits to Nigeria, Japan and East Timor.

So I was genuinely looking forward to getting my hands on a document called "The impact of the resolution and other activities of the European Parliament in the field of human rights outside the European Union". I'm interested in whether, for instance, politicians in Belarus take more or less notice of finger-wagging from MEPs, than from say the Finnish or German parliament.

But the document turns out to be an argument that it would be better to have a full committee looking into torture and illegal imprisonment than just a sub-committee. It doesn't examine whether people get released as a result of the reports that come out.

A WORLD POLICEMAN

Whatever impact the Europe Parliament might or might not have, there's little doubt that the European Union as a whole is big in foreign affairs. It's a growth area, "mushrooming" according to one deeply involved, and I suspect few realise how seriously it is taken in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

Although Kissinger once famously complained he didn't know Europe's phone number, I am less sure what the Americans make of an EU foreign policy. Obviously, it partly depends on what is being said, and I suspect Iraq wasn't the last time that attitudes towards the United States' policy will be the pivot on which the European Union's foreign policy swivels.

The EU didn't have such a thing until the Maastricht treaty 15 years ago. But things really kicked off in 1999 with the establishment of a common security and defence policy and the appointment of the former Spanish foreign minister and Nato chief, Javier Solana, to the job of High Representative.

The EU is playing a very active role in the Iranian crisis and attempting to get Middle East peace talks back on the roadmap. There are special representatives in 12 of the world's hot spots, from the African great lakes to Moldova, from Sudan to Afghanistan. Insiders say the call often goes out "Can Europe help?"

As a result there are EU missions in action in nine parts of the world. They're mostly police and customs officials, but some military too. There is all the usual stuff of any foreign ministry as well. Europe's energy policy is partly a foreign policy tool, aimed at circumventing Russian power, and leading the world by example. At the moment, one of the biggest preoccupations at the top of the European Union is preparing for the US-EU summit later this year, and there's a similar meeting with Russia also in the pipeline.

PROPHETS IN THEIR OWN CONTINENT

All this is well known. Or is it? The above facts are basic for anyone interested in the subject but I'm pretty sure most people are unaware of the EU's reach and ambition. I have a gut feeling that the EU's foreign policy is taken a lot more seriously outside Europe than inside. My colleague Jonny Dymond confirmed my suspicions that prophets are not honoured on their own continent, when he returned from a trip round the Middle East with Mr Solana.

Solana's busy Mid-East tour

The local papers were full of the visit, he was treated with the utmost seriousness and respect. But within Europe it hardly got reported (except by Jonny). Of course this is not that surprising, as there was no great breakthrough, no momentous news.

I have a gut feeling that the way many of us report the European Union rather downplays its impact outside its own borders. In most countries, news desks would all rather have copy about their prime minister or president than some EU official, especially when they are hazy about what they actually do.

It's only natural. And I am not bleating about news desks that don't understand: I do the same. If I had an interview with Javier Solana announcing an EU policy and Tony Blair backing it, and could only use one, I would have no hesitation about which I would use, and no doubt which my main audience would be more interested in. This is hard to avoid, but I worry it may give a less than accurate impression of the EU's impact in the world.

This alarms those hostile to the EU project, who are constantly warning that the union is ever extending itself and trespassing in areas that belong to sovereign countries. It also worries fans of the EU who feel its doing a good job and should go on doing more. But perhaps I am wrong about the way the EU is seen abroad? How would diplomats in a middle-sized state in Asia or Africa rate the importance of visits by the British foreign secretary, the Swedish prime minister, Javier Solana and the Lithuanian president?

TWO-HAT PLAN

The idea of an EU foreign minister hasn't gone away. It was one of the big ideas in the constitution and one of the bits that some countries will try to save. When I spoke to the Italian Prime Minister Roman Prodi just before the Declaration of Berlin recently he said this was one of the main priorities for the European Union, adding that countries should only be allowed to veto foreign policy in exceptional circumstances.

Benita Ferrero-Waldner: From Vienna to Brussels

I observed that he of all people, caught up in a row about Afghanistan with his own coalition partners, knew how difficult it was getting agreement even at a national level, but he brushed this aside. I suppose that although the EU rarely speaks with one voice, when it does it may be listened to closely.

The plan is not just to give Mr Solana a nicer, or more logical title. It would be a powerful new role. At the moment he answers to the Council, in other words the governments of the 27 EU countries. This wouldn't completely change, but crucially, under the constitution's proposals, he would take over all the functions of the commissioner for external relations, currently the Austrian Benita Ferrero-Waldner.

This would give him access to a bigger budget, an embryonic diplomatic service and a seat on the commission, as vice-president. This is important because the commission can propose laws and policies. He would have the legal basis to become more of a player, rather than a follower of policy set down by others. Being at the pinnacle of two streams of power is known in the jargon as "double-hatting".

Anyone who can wear two such hats with out getting too big for their boots... well I take my hat off to them.

Please use the post form below to comment on any of the issues raised in the diary.

---

The EU is indeed portrayed solely as a bad thing in mainstream British media, the man on the street not knowing anything about it except that which Murdoch deigns to tell him. However, those of us who do know what it does are indeed aware of the good that "pressure from the EU" can do and will do in the future. It is a benign force for positive reform and growing in influence all the time. Was it not through pressure from the EU that Russia eventually signed up to Kyoto?
Graeme, Redditch, UK

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

	pan-Europe pinglist.* This pinglist covers a broad range of topics relating to Europe: culture, current events, politics, science, history, arts, etc. Warning: This could be a high volume pinglist. Note: This pinglist covers--but not as much--Eastern Europe. There is already a moderate volume pinglist for that region. Ping if you see a pertinent thread.
*To get on or off this list, freepmail with the subjects Europe on or Europe off . No message is necessary. To get on or get off this pinglist, freepmail here, with the appropriate subject.
There is also a: pan-Africa pinglist. pan-Asia pinglist. pan-Latin America pinglist. John 3:16 (New King James Version): "16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
This pinglist can terminate at any time, without notice.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Graeme's comment suggests that he isn't aware that Russia's economy is much smaller than it was in 1990, and thus its greenhouse gas emissions are much lower. Therefore, they would have carbon credits which they could sell to other Kyoto countries.

Russia didn't need the EU to persuade them.

[Rummenigge]

I agree the last one spoiled it all.

The power of the EU lies in it's power to change things after the iron curtain fell.

What whould have happenend if the USA had to bring Mexico and Venezuela on course ?

[Vicomte13]

Actually, the real power of the EU is very vast indeed, but almost invisible.
It is not the ability to do anything overt.
Rather, it is the ability to set the legal standards by which the world operates.

It is in the grey, dull, plodding lines of text, of contracts and laws and regulations, that European power is really felt.

There is no agreement in the EU about foreign policy or farm subsidies, but European corporate law is standardizing at a rapid rate, European trade law, European standards of accounting, European standards of judgment, European contractual norms, European organizational norms on European lines. Consider the Anglo-Saxon holdout, England, with its Common Law. And yet...and yet...even Parliament is now subject to European judicial oversight. When the European Human Rights Court said that Britain had to end their military policy of excluding homosexuals, the British obeyed without much of a fuss. Sure, emotions were raised, but there was never any doubt at all that the plodding legal norms of Europe were going to be the law of the land, even in Britain. When European labor directives call for works councils within businesses, the Anglo-Saxon holdout did what? Adopted legislation phasing them in.

Europe can't do anything dramatic and agressive, but it's in controlling the language of law itself, the very definition of terms, that Europe wins by default.

Consider these two cases:
The American Federal Trade Commission approves a merger between the American aviation giants Boeing and McDonnell Douglas. But the European Trade Commission, in its turn, vetoes the merger because it would constitute, in their eyes, restraint of trade. And the AMERICANS meekly obey.
Why? These were American companies operating in America. They could just IGNORE the EU directive, right?
Sure. And then not sell any more Boeings to any European country, ever again. Just hand all of British Airways and Air France, KLM and Lufthansa, Virgin Atlantic and the rest over to Airbus, as Boeing is EXCLUDED BY LAW from selling any aircraft in Europe for defying European law.

In another case, MicroSoft won the anti-trust suit in the US, but Microsoft may still be broken up after all, because the EU has not concluded its own anti-trust case. If the EU orders Microsoft broken up, Microsoft will either break up, or Microsoft products will be excluded from the entirety of Europe, and Microsoft will have to make its profits just selling to the Americans. Meanwhile, the competitors WILL be able to sell in Europe, and will thereby rise and dwarf Microsoft.

Global companies cannot defy European law, because if they do, they can sell nothing in Europe, and their European competitors will gain the entirety of the world's largest, and growing, market.

THAT is where Europe's power ultimately lies. MOST OF the world lives under the Civil Law system that came out of France, not the Common Law system of England. England herself is being brought systematically into European norms. The English Common Law isn't what it was 50 years ago; European Law trumps it, and the English themselves understand that. The whole neo-colonial sphere of Europe trades with Europe, on European contracts. Latin American legal norms are more European.

Europe cannot rule the world, but European forms of law are destined to become the world standard, sort of like metric is. The US will be the lone holdout, but this will not be a struggle the US can win outside of the US.

How does European Law becoming the world standard MATTER, really? Ask Boeing and Microsoft. It matters, because law is an expression of morality and policy. If your law is the world standard, then the principles that went into your law govern human interactions, and change those interactions morally.

A huge example: discovery. American-style discovery in litigation doesn't exist anywhere outside of the US. Most people find it intrusive, appalling and expensive. Thus far, the Americans have succeeded in forcing their discovery rules on anybody who deals with the USA, but the Europeans don't like it, they don't like it at all, and they've enacted various blocking statutes against that. Thus far, those things have not been much enforced, but they COULD BE, and if they were, as a European policy, not only would every country in Europe (England included) enthusiastically embrace the policy, but all of Europe's, and America's, trading partners would too. American discovery is extremely aggressive, and gives tremendous power to American courts and government to supervise foreign companies.

But suppose Europe, through the EU, enforced its rules on discovery in opposition to the USA's rules? Suddenly the balance of power would shift, and American companies, subject to American discovery rules, would find themselves uncompetitive with European companies, because American law is incredibly expensive, burdensome, intrusive and dilatory, while European law isn't.

Europe's greatest power is a soft power, but a real one: it is Europe that is slowly but surely building the legal norms that will govern the whole world. America will be forced into them for all of its external dealings as well. And actually, that will be a MERCY, even for Americans, because American law is almost unbelievably bad. It is the very worst aspect of the American system. It is horrendously expensive, intrusive, unpredictable and unjust. America needs to be saved from its own legal system, and that can't happen from within. But it will be imposed from without, by means of trade channels. Boeing was the first big case of it. Microsoft may be the second.
Small, slow incremental steps establish legal norms. Europe has the advantage because of the number of countries that have already aligned their systems.

It's not a little thing, setting the rules themselves by which business and civil life operates. Usually, you have to win a war to do that and impose your rule on everybody else. But Europe has been able to do it through persuasion and evolution. That's never happened anywhere before, ever, and it gives Europe a unique lead, and unique power, in that regard.

The Europeans are only vaguely aware of it, and do not think of this systematically, yet, but they are growing aware of their reach. Ergo Boeing and Microsoft.

[Vicomte13]

Actually, the real power of the EU is very vast indeed, but almost invisible.
It is not the ability to do anything overt.
Rather, it is the ability to set the legal standards by which the world operates.

It is in the grey, dull, plodding lines of text, of contracts and laws and regulations, that European power is really felt.

There is no agreement in the EU about foreign policy or farm subsidies, but European corporate law is standardizing at a rapid rate, European trade law, European standards of accounting, European standards of judgment, European contractual norms, European organizational norms on European lines. Consider the Anglo-Saxon holdout, England, with its Common Law. And yet...and yet...even Parliament is now subject to European judicial oversight. When the European Human Rights Court said that Britain had to end their military policy of excluding homosexuals, the British obeyed without much of a fuss. Sure, emotions were raised, but there was never any doubt at all that the plodding legal norms of Europe were going to be the law of the land, even in Britain. When European labor directives call for works councils within businesses, the Anglo-Saxon holdout did what? Adopted legislation phasing them in.

Europe can't do anything dramatic and agressive, but it's in controlling the language of law itself, the very definition of terms, that Europe wins by default.

Consider these two cases:
The American Federal Trade Commission approves a merger between the American aviation giants Boeing and McDonnell Douglas. But the European Trade Commission, in its turn, vetoes the merger because it would constitute, in their eyes, restraint of trade. And the AMERICANS meekly obey.
Why? These were American companies operating in America. They could just IGNORE the EU directive, right?
Sure. And then not sell any more Boeings to any European country, ever again. Just hand all of British Airways and Air France, KLM and Lufthansa, Virgin Atlantic and the rest over to Airbus, as Boeing is EXCLUDED BY LAW from selling any aircraft in Europe for defying European law.

In another case, MicroSoft won the anti-trust suit in the US, but Microsoft may still be broken up after all, because the EU has not concluded its own anti-trust case. If the EU orders Microsoft broken up, Microsoft will either break up, or Microsoft products will be excluded from the entirety of Europe, and Microsoft will have to make its profits just selling to the Americans. Meanwhile, the competitors WILL be able to sell in Europe, and will thereby rise and dwarf Microsoft.

Global companies cannot defy European law, because if they do, they can sell nothing in Europe, and their European competitors will gain the entirety of the world's largest, and growing, market.

THAT is where Europe's power ultimately lies. MOST OF the world lives under the Civil Law system that came out of France, not the Common Law system of England. England herself is being brought systematically into European norms. The English Common Law isn't what it was 50 years ago; European Law trumps it, and the English themselves understand that. The whole neo-colonial sphere of Europe trades with Europe, on European contracts. Latin American legal norms are more European.

Europe cannot rule the world, but European forms of law are destined to become the world standard, sort of like metric is. The US will be the lone holdout, but this will not be a struggle the US can win outside of the US.

How does European Law becoming the world standard MATTER, really? Ask Boeing and Microsoft. It matters, because law is an expression of morality and policy. If your law is the world standard, then the principles that went into your law govern human interactions, and change those interactions morally.

A huge example: discovery. American-style discovery in litigation doesn't exist anywhere outside of the US. Most people find it intrusive, appalling and expensive. Thus far, the Americans have succeeded in forcing their discovery rules on anybody who deals with the USA, but the Europeans don't like it, they don't like it at all, and they've enacted various blocking statutes against that. Thus far, those things have not been much enforced, but they COULD BE, and if they were, as a European policy, not only would every country in Europe (England included) enthusiastically embrace the policy, but all of Europe's, and America's, trading partners would too. American discovery is extremely aggressive, and gives tremendous power to American courts and government to supervise foreign companies.

But suppose Europe, through the EU, enforced its rules on discovery in opposition to the USA's rules? Suddenly the balance of power would shift, and American companies, subject to American discovery rules, would find themselves uncompetitive with European companies, because American law is incredibly expensive, burdensome, intrusive and dilatory, while European law isn't.

Europe's greatest power is a soft power, but a real one: it is Europe that is slowly but surely building the legal norms that will govern the whole world. America will be forced into them for all of its external dealings as well. And actually, that will be a MERCY, even for Americans, because American law is almost unbelievably bad. It is the very worst aspect of the American system. It is horrendously expensive, intrusive, unpredictable and unjust. America needs to be saved from its own legal system, and that can't happen from within. But it will be imposed from without, by means of trade channels. Boeing was the first big case of it. Microsoft may be the second.
Small, slow incremental steps establish legal norms. Europe has the advantage because of the number of countries that have already aligned their systems.

It's not a little thing, setting the rules themselves by which business and civil life operates. Usually, you have to win a war to do that and impose your rule on everybody else. But Europe has been able to do it through persuasion and evolution. That's never happened anywhere before, ever, and it gives Europe a unique lead, and unique power, in that regard.

The Europeans are only vaguely aware of it, and do not think of this systematically, yet, but they are growing aware of their reach. Ergo Boeing and Microsoft.