Speech to the Australian Defence Force Academy

UNSW@ADFA

John Hesketh Richards – Minister Counsellor,

Delegation of the European Union to Australia,

19 April 2010

“The European Union's Status and Role as a Great Power: Aspirations and Challenges"

INTRODUCTION

It was only when I started to prepare this talk that I realized what a challenge it actually is to try to do justice to this topic!

To start with, I think we need to consider what a 'great power' is in the modern world. The term is relatively recent. It became current at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 when the world - for which at the time read European - order was settled among five 'great powers'.

The classic definition as propounded by the historian AJP Taylor was along the lines: 'The test of a Great Power is the test of strength for war' (1). But other criteria are now also conventionally applied including: political stability and reach, population and territory, resources, economic weight and, finally, military strength.

It is not difficult to see why the definitions have evolved. The world of 1815 had a population of just over 1 billion while today the world's population is nearly 7 billion. Population growth, the exponential growth in world trade, globalization, and increasing interdependence in an ever more crowded world have all made major changes to the way power is exercised. And, of course, one major change is the amount of effort devoted to preventing war and conflict in the modern age, as opposed to seeing it as a legitimate means to further national ambitions as was more the case in the past.

As we have moved from the classic definition of great powers in terms of military might, so also we have developed a new terminology: hard, soft, smart are now all applied to 'power' to give nuances in describing how power can be exercised.

Hard power classically derives from the international relations discipline of realism, where military and economic means can be used to achieve, or coerce, a result in relations with third states. Hard power lies at the command end of the spectrum of international relations, with the classic levers of military force and economic dominance as its key components.

Soft power depends on obtaining results from means such as diplomacy, persuasion and example setting. The main attributes of soft power reside in the values, institutions, policies and culture of the power in question, all of which can be projected as means to get others to become likeminded and so achieve the desired policy results.

Smart power essentially consists of achieving the right balance of hard and soft power, in mutual reinforcement, to advance the relevant cause in the most effective way possible.

We have been invited to consider the question whether we should distinguish between hard, soft or smart power when identifying leading states in the world order. My initial reaction is that we should look first at the results achieved - i.e. the degree of success of a power - before considering how the result was achieved. The means used may, however, also be instructive of what is most likely to succeed in the modern world.

Before we make any value judgements on whether the European Union qualifies as a great power, or on what sort of power it exercises and how, I'd like to run through a number of the conventional criteria and relate them to the EU.

First, political power and stability

The EU represents the modern world's greatest political experiment, which has been running now for over 60 years. Starting with 6 European States it now has 27 Member States, which have all come together in a highly ambitious political venture, where they take collective decisions over a wide range of policies, with a large social component including transfers of major funding from the richer to the poorer members.

Because of the EU both history and geography have been rewritten. Historically, the European Union introduced lasting peace to a continent previously divided by war; in terms of political geography we have changed the map of Europe - the Iron Curtain division has been conclusively removed with the inclusion of our new Member States.

Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union states that: 'The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States'.

Because the genuine application of these principles is an essential precondition for membership of the EU - you can't join unless you have genuine and fully working democratic institutions, and unless you really apply the rule of law - the EU has some of the most stable and developed political systems in the world.

Second, population and territory

The EU now has just over 500 million citizens (2) – third behind China and India , with high life expectancy and a very high Human Development Index. It is, however, also an aging population.

The EU stretches from the Arctic to the Mediterranean and from the Atlantic to borders with Russia, a land mass of some 4 million square kilometres.

This picture may, of course, change, in that the EU has already grown from 6 to 27 Member States and has a number of candidates both official - Turkey, Croatia, FYROM, and, probably soon, also Iceland – and those recognized as having a future perspective within Europe such as the countries of the Western Balkans, not to mention others with potential aspirations for membership.

So both territory and population could grow substantially in the future.

Third, resources

Here the EU cannot match Australia . Europe still has resources such as coal, oil, iron ore but it is a large net importer of resources, heavily dependent on imported energy – both oil and gas - especially from Russia .

However, again this energy dependence could change as a result of Europe 's policies. Europe has a leading role in the deployment of renewable energy – 75% of the world's wind power is generated in Europe – with very ambitious targets of 20% renewable energy by 2020. And cooperation with our Southern neighbours may see large solar power supplies from the Sahara in the future.

Fourth, economic clout

The EU is top of the economic league table. This is sometimes not fully appreciated in countries which tend to continue to breakdown our statistics by Member State . EU citizens, 7% of the world's population, generate 22% of global GDP. The 27 Member States have come together to create an integrated Single Market where goods, services, labour and capital can move freely throughout the Union .

The EU model is increasingly looked to by other groupings to provide ideas if not necessarily to be emulated in full. For example, ASEAN and Mercosur both look closely at the way the EU has reached its current level of development.

The EU is the world's largest trader in both goods and services and has used the power this brings to shape the world trade landscape through its membership of the World Trade Organization. The EU was highly active in the Uruguay Round negotiations and is now playing an equally active role in the DDA negotiations – as is Australia .

With the euro, the EU launched a new currency on the world, which has rapidly become the second reserve currency after the US dollar, with 28% of world currency reserves. As a currency, the euro is facing challenges but workable, balanced solutions will be found to meet them, as has been shown in the concerted actions in favour of Greece .

Europe is still struggling with the global financial crisis but the signs of recovery are there. And, Europe has its recovery plan and this is being implemented. A key issue now is the coordination of the fiscal exit strategies to start in 2011 at the latest.

Europe's economic pre-eminence has had a number of consequences reaching beyond Europe . Thus, the EU has effectively become the world's main regulator. For example, Coca-Cola bottles are made in European metric sizes. EU standards for large numbers of products have become the norm over time. Market forces tend to align standards on the largest markets if they can and this process has been ongoing now for decades with the result that European standards tend to be the 'default' standard across much of the world.

Fifth, Military capabilities

EU Member States total defence spending lags behind the US but is still far ahead of China : see below (3). EU Member States have some of the most disciplined and well equipped armies in the world, numbering some 1.6 million armed forces. EU Member States have provided many times the numbers of UN peacekeeping troops as the US . Two Member States – UK and France - are nuclear powers.

While the EU's military power does not function as a single force it is able to respond decisively and efficiently. The EU has become a global player in terms of security.

This has developed slowly over time and the Common [formerly European] Defence and Security Policy has jostled to find its place alongside NATO and the Western European Union [a collective defence organization of European states founded in 1948 but soon overshadowed by NATO]. In 1992 the WEU adopted the 'Petersberg tasks', to be implemented via cooperation between its members. These included:

•  Humanitarian and rescue

•  Peacekeeping

•  Combat forces in crisis management including peacekeeping.

The European Union then used these tasks as its own blueprint for a common security and defence policy in the Amsterdam Treaty.

The EU's Lisbon Treaty has given CSDP a prominent place. The Petersberg tasks have been enlarged to cover joint disarmament, military advice nad assistance, conflict prevention as well as post-conflict stabilization. The Treaty takes pains to provide clear limits for CDSP, both as regards national powers and also as regards interaction with NATO and the UN. Unanimity among the Member States is still needed for any decisions on defence policy, with no possibility of a switchover to qualified majority voting [a feature of the Lisbon Treaty in other fields]. The European Court of Justice has no jurisdiction over defence matters.

The Treaty establishes a common defence clause requiring all member States to provide aid and assistance by ‘all means in their power' in the event of an attack on any country of the Union . In addition, the Union and its Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity in the event of terrorist attacks or natural disasters.

Who pays? Military or defence expenditure cannot be charged to the Union 's general budget. Costs are shared out between Member States in accordance with gross GDP. However, there are exceptions for rapid access to urgent financing of preparatory activities under the Petersberg tasks and the Council may set up special funds to finance Petersberg and CDSP tasks on a proposal of the High Representative. Lisbon formally abolished the WEU.

The means to execute policy and operational missions have been via cooperation among willing Member States. Past initiatives by Member States have included Eurocorps, based in Strasbourg , and resulting from Franco-German cooperation within the WEU, and the Euro Gendarmerie, of armed police, based in Italy , for use in post-conflict situations.

The Lisbon Treaty formalizes these means in what is called 'permanent structured cooperation'. States willing to take part must agree to provide combat troops that can be deployed outside the EU, with all the necessary support elements [transport, logistics, etc.] at brief notice [5 to 30 days]. States must notify the High Representative and this is followed by a decision establishing cooperation. Other Member States may enter – or withdraw at a later date – and these decisions are taken by qualified majority. Within the established structured cooperation decisions between member States require unanimity.

The Council may also entrust the execution of a task to a group of Member States to protect the Union 's values and serve its interests. The European Defence Agency is also enshrined in the treaty, with a role of harmonizing operational needs, evaluating capability and covering R & D and technology in the defence sector.

The EU has mounted some 23 security operations to date, deploying over 70,000 men and women – peacekeepers, troops, police, and other civilians across a range of missions.

These missions are innovative, tailor-made solutions mixing civil with military components. We do crisis management the European way - with a comprehensive approach, in support of international law and agreements, and in close co-operation with key partners. Australia is of course in this category, particularly for the Asia Pacific region. This is precisely where the EU delivers added value and what the complex security challenges of our time require.

The operations the EU has undertaken demonstrate some important characteristics:

•  Security in our own region: EU soldiers have replaced NATO ones in the Balkans; the EU plays a crucial role in Kosovo:

•  Speed : EU soldiers were able to get on the ground quickly in Chad to protect Darfurian refugees as a holding exercise while the UN got its force together:

•  Brokering a ceasefire and then making it work: The ceasefire in Georgia , brokered by the EU, was made to stick largely because the EU was quickly able to get EU cease-fire monitors into Georgia , thereby reinforcing the political process:

•  Helping in post-conflict situations: Aceh – the EU joined with ASEAN countries in the monitoring mission which helped implement the peace agreement.

In all of these cases the EU remains as a major donor in the countries concerned.

It is often stressed that the EU is a singular being. There is a story often told about a camel being a horse designed by a committee but perhaps this is not quite the analogy I am looking for. However, the sui generis nature of the EU means that some less conventional features may be relevant in assessing the EU's exercise of power.

First, development aid

The primary objective of EU development policy is to eradicate poverty in a sustainable way. The 8 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted by world leaders in 2000 with a 2015 deadline are key.

The EU collectively is the largest donor of development assistance globally – giving some 60% of all donor aid, some €50bn annually to around 160 countries. This amounted to 0.4% of GDP in2008 and should be 0.56% this year.

The EU is the global player in development assistance, which gives it to some extent a privileged position among the countries receiving aid. Depending on whether you are a cynic or an idealist, this area could form part of soft or hard power. We prefer the first alternative.

In addition, since the EU's 2001 'Everything But Arms' initiative, all imports from Least Developed countries have been duty free and quota free.

The EU is also the world's largest importer of agricultural products from the developing world, importing more that most of the rest of the developed world combined.

All of this builds up as credit in the bank of world opinion, both with the beneficiaries but also in terms of credit accorded by others, who may be doing proportionately less.

Second, values and policies at home and on the world scene

The EU's policies and values are shaped for our perception of where we want Europe to be and where we want it to be in the world. On the world stage the EU is a highly visible presence in international organizations – whether the UN, WTO, G8 or G20

Thus, the EU is a leader in the world fight against the death penalty and mainstreams human rights in all its policies such as development assistance.

All agreements with the EU contain what is called an essential elements clause. This recognizes the shared importance the parties attach to respect for human rights. Importantly, it also allows the agreement to be suspended in the event of a breach of the provision. A bilateral dialogue on human rights forms part of the package. Thus third states entering into agreements with the EU, whether comprehensive agreements or trade agreements, need to share, or at least sign up to, certain human rights principles, with potential sanctions if they are not adhered to.

Interestingly in earlier negotiations between the EU and Australia to conclude a formal agreement Australia baulked at this clause – not because we do not share common values but because of a suspicion, on the Australian side, that the provision could in some way be used against Australia to suspend trade concessions under the agreement. But this was at a time of much greater mutual suspicion because of Australian perceptions of the Common Agricultural Policy and can be explained in that light.

On climate change, the EU is a world leader in terms of action and is working to ensure that, post-Copenhagen, progress will continue to be made to reach an ambitious global solution – i.e. it hopes to be a world leader also in terms of a result reflecting its policies and views.

Since 2005 Europe has had an ETS, the first to connect up different countries, now covering 30 European countries - the EU and Norway , Iceland and Liechtenstein and 40% of emissions.

The EU has taken a unilateral and unconditional target of cutting GHG emissions by 20% by 2020 compared to 1990 – this is now written into EU law – and we are prepared to go to -30% if other developed countries commit to comparable emission reductions and developing countries contribute adequately according to their responsibilities and respective capabilities.

In the G20 the EU has played a major role, in addition to the member countries which are also EU Member States, by representing the economic policies of the EU as a whole, i.e. the world's largest economy.

In terms of quality of life, the EU presents a highly developed social model in areas such as health care, social security, non-discrimination on grounds of age, sex, race, religion and sexual orientation, education standards, consumer rights, protection of the environment, to name only some EU policies. These policies reflect a balance between the individual and his surroundings, whether the power of the state or of corporations, which gives Europe a distinctive way of life.

In a way, these values and principles create of the EU a model, in the way the US is often also cited as a model, for a way of life, forming a potential example and attraction, which can be more effective than the use of force or coercion. Robert Cooper, responsible for foreign policy in the EU's Council of Ministers, has described this as Europe 's ‘magnetic allure'.

All of this also means that Europe is a pole of attraction for the oppressed and the disadvantaged. EU27 is by far the major destination for those seeking asylum worldwide. UNHCR statistics for 2009 show 246,200 persons seeking asylum in the EU [6,500 in Australia and New Zealand] (4).

Third, the Lisbon Treaty – new tools for today's challenges

The Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, is all about making the EU stronger and more efficient both internally and as a global partner.

I have already said something about the changes in CDSP brought about by the Lisbon Treaty. More generally, the democratic underpinning of the EU is strengthened through increased roles for the European Parliament, national parliaments and even through a citizens' initiative.

The headline change has been the creation of two important new posts – the permanent President of the European Council, Mr. Van Rompuy, and the High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy who is also a Vice-President of the European Commission, Baroness Ashton.

The HR/VP will have a new EU diplomatic service to help her – the European External Action Service.

So what will be the major challenges for the EU over the coming years?

The first challenge will undoubtedly be to ensure that the tools of the Lisbon Treaty, which create the opportunities for a more coordinated EU foreign and defence policy are exercised successfully. Europe is going through a phase of building something new in which decision makers need to adjust their mental maps and institutions have to find their new place.

This brings the chance to build the stronger and more credible European foreign policy needed to protect our interests and promote our values. As HRVP Ashton said in a recent speech, ‘No one can hope to be an island of stability and prosperity in a sea of insecurity and injustice. Ours is a world in flux. To engage with it effectively, we need to frame it first'

In a highly interdependent world power is shifting – from governments to markets, media and civil society – from the ‘old' world to the emerging economies, such as China, India and Brazil.

So, the second challenge is adaptability. The new systems will need to deal with complex problems in a new geo-political landscape. Economic weight is rapidly transforming into political clout and self-confidence.

The third challenge is to build comprehensive strategies based on strong international organisations and the rule of law relying on a network of strategic relations with key countries and organisations.

The Lisbon Treaty brings what the High Representative has called a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build something that finally brings together all the instruments of our engagement in support of political strategy, where we mobilise all our levers of influence – political, economic, development and crisis management tools – in a co-ordinated way.

As can be deduced from the military operations already mounted by the EU, the EU does not shrink from intervention. However that intervention is operating within a very distinct defence dimension, where military intervention is used to protect and to promote universal rights. Crisis conflict resolution is the centrepiece of this policy, followed up by other appropriate means of assistance.

One of the most recent changes in this area has been the agreement at the informal meeting of Defence Ministers in Palma de Mallorca, to the proposal of the HRVP to hold Foreign Affairs Councils in Minister of Defence formation. This will enable Defence Ministers to take decisions, for instance on capabilities development.

Finally, for those who want to approach these issues with some humour, can I recommend you to an article by Parag Khanna, then at the Brookings Institution, entitled ‘The Metrosexual Superpower' under the by-line ‘The stylish European Union struts past the bumbling United States on the catwalk of global diplomacy'. One main, and serious, conclusion is that through massive deployments of ‘soft power' such as economic clout and cultural appeal, Europe has made hard power less necessary.

I quote: ‘Brand Europe is taking over. From environmental sustainability and international law to economic development and social welfare, European views are more congenial to international tastes and more easily exported than their US variants'.

To paraphrase a fictional Prime Minister in a UK TV series: 'He might say that but I could not possibly comment'.

So, can we reach any judgements about whether the EU qualifies as a 'great power'? I think we can, but in a nuanced way. As we have seen from the above, the EU comes out rather well even using the conventional comparators. And it is clear that the EU exerts considerable leverage on world events. However, it is in the area of values and attraction that the EU scores particularly highly in my view. This is reflected by the very distinct defence and security dimension the EU has developed, essentially designed to protect and promote human rights and values. Most people questioned in third states perceive the EU as a 'force for good' - a response containing two elements: force implies achieving a result. Opinion polls also show that the EU is the only power that people feel does not need a counter balance if its influence grows. This is in contrast to some other ‘great powers'. Overall in today's world we should perhaps regard the EU as a ‘modern' power, but one that gets results.

And the question whether the European Union is a ‘great power' is one I feel I can safely leave in the hands of the audience.

Thank you for your attention.

(2) Eurostat estimates the EU population at 1 January 2010 to be 501.3 million

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/data/main_tables

(3) US Military Budget 2009: $711 billion
European Union Military Budget 2009: $289 billion
China Military Budget 2009: $122 billion
US GDP 2009: $14.4 trillion
European Union GDP 2009: $16.5 trillion (PPP)
China GDP 2009: $8.8 trillion (PPP)
US economic growth 2009: 0.2%
European Union economic growth 2009: -4%
China economic growth 2009: 8.7 %

Source: http://www.visualeconomics.com/military-spending-worldwide/

This page updated April 29, 2010