4. The EU Foreign Policy: challenges and perspectives
Last September a brainstorming group of 11 foreign ministers called for a radical overhaul of the European foreign and defence policies to create a powerful new pan-European foreign ministry, majority voting on common foreign policies to bypass a British veto, a possible European army, and a single market for EU defence industries. This panel aims at assessing the major innovations introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon to improve the EU’s Foreign policy and, in this respect, to evaluating the strategy (or the lack of) and the role played (or not played) by the EU in the most recent crises. Giving the current internal hindrances, is there a window of opportunity for strengthening the EU’s “actorness”? Are the Treaty reforms and the latest proposals going in that direction or rather are they further puzzling the EU’s Foreign policy? Is there any room for more coherence and effectiveness despite the EU’s hybrid nature? What are the lessons we can draw from the arch of instability stretching from the post-Soviet space to the Middle East and, Africa? The aim of the panel is to investigate how should the EU translate power into influence. The paper givers are expected to contribute with proposals and suggestions for the EU to better perform on the international scene.
Chair: Serena Giusti and Enrico Fassi (Ispi and Unicatt)
Discussant: Andrea Locatelli (Catholic University - Milan)
1. Nicoletta Pirozzi (Istituto Affari Internazionali and Catholic University of Milan) - EU crisis management after Lisbon: towards a more coherent and effective model to address security challenges in the 21st century?
Is the EU post-Lisbon crisis management model adequate to tackle current international security challenges? The Lisbon Treaty has introduced a number of innovations in the field of EU crisis management, which have the potential to reinvigorate the Union’s security actorness, both as a norm setter (model by being) and an operational crisis manager (model by doing). This paper will analyse the prospect for the European Union to become a credible security actor in the 21st century in connection with its capacity to: (1) translate the ambitions of the Lisbon Treaty into conceptual elaboration – possibly through the development a new doctrine along the lines of a European Global Strategy, architectural refinement; (2) make institutions work according to the Lisbon set-up and internalizing the comprehensive approach, and (3) implement effective action.
2. Serena Giusti and Enrico Fassi (Institute for International Political Studies and Catholic University of Milan) - The European Endowment for Democracy, can it work?
The paper analyses the interests, the objectives and the box of tools of the newly instituted EED. Is the EED to complement the other EU instruments of democracy promotion or rather will it overlap with them? What will be the role of the EU institutions and of the member states? Is the organisation suitable for supporting democracy at a grassroots? How the “actors of change” will be selected and supported? What are the parameters to measure the EED performance?
3. Donatella M. Viola (University of Calabria) - The European Parliament's response to the 'Arab Spring'
Since the first demonstrations in Tunisia in December 2010, a wave of popular discontent has later spread in Egypt, Morocco, Libya, Syria and Yemen, with people calling for dignity, democracy, and social justice. The unexpected magnitude of these uprisings which have shaken the Arab world, collectively known as the ‘Arab Spring’, have made the European Union (EU) and the European Parliament (EP) recognise the challenges of the political and economic transition faced by the region as a whole and the need to adopt a new approach to relations with its Southern neighbours. The paper intends to look at the European Parliament’s response to the crisis by assessing its resolutions and its initiatives to support the Arab people’s request for their civil, political, social and economic rights, including the award of the Sakharov Prize for freedom of thought in 2011 to five representatives of the Arab people, in recognition of their actions.
4. Nona Mikhelidze (Istituto Affari Internazionali and Istituto Italiano di Scienze Umane) - Juggling Security, Democracy and Development in the Caucasus: What Role for the EU?
Since 1990s Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan has been engaged with the turbulent statebuilding process attaching prime importance to hard power, i.e. to the military build-up, while casting (and covering) this through a broader peace-building rhetoric. Statebuilding reforms were concentrated on the reconstruction of infrastructure, city rehabilitation projects, the establishment of patrol police, the creation of free industrial zones, establishing a liberal tax policy, the privatization of state property, the introduction of a liberal labour code and a free trade regime with the neighbouring countries. The challenges to democracy, good governance, the rule of law, media freedom and the judiciary were neglected or tackled superficially. What we have observed from the European Union's side towards the above described statebuilding process in the region was the accommodation of local forms of governance. Bearing this context in mind, the paper will analyse the governance culture in the South Caucasus and the EU democracy promotion there in order to understand what are the future prospects for the EU’s regional policy.
5. J. Tyson Chatagnier and Emanuele Castelli (Fbk-Cerpic) - The Modern Peace: Industrialization and the Investment-War Tradeoff
Building on the democratic and capitalist peace research programs, we outline a simple mechanism whereby modernization – more than democracy or the free market alone – fosters peace. In particular, we suggest that modern states are largely peaceful because they can gain more by investing at home than by pursuing foreign military conquest. We draw on the writings of Schumpeter to argue that our conception of modernity is independent of, and possibly prior to, both democracy and capitalism. Empirically, we propose a measure of modernity that is based on the size of a state's industrial GDP. Using World Bank sector-specific economic data, our analysis shows that a large industrial GDP significantly reduces the likelihood that a state will be involved in a fatal military conflict. This result holds at both the monadic and dyadic levels, even in the face of democracy and a variety of measures of capitalism. Our finding that modernity – as measured by industrialization – plays a larger role than democracy or capitalism in fostering peace also has strong policy implications for the European Union, which received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012 for its international role in fostering democracy and human right in the world. Our analysis provides guidance for the EU, as it attempts to export its successful model to conflict-prone regions.