The development of a collective foreign and security policy for Western Europe was shaped by both the international environment and the policy of West European regional integration. Although initially put on the back burner, a common European defense has been defined as a goal within the Treaty on European Union. Unification in the three areas—economic (European Community), diplomatic (European Political Cooperation), and military (Western European Union)—has advanced differently but, as a whole, has reached a stage where comprehensive union is possible. Western Europe is currently in a transitional period and is still feeling the pains associated with being thrust into the position of a world power after years of comfortable existence under the umbrella of one of the two antagonistic superpowers. In the beginning of the 1990s, a much more assertive role than in the 1970s and the 1980s is being expected of Western Europe by the international community.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Throughout this article, the notion “Community” is meant to encompass both the European Community (EC), based on the Rome Treaty, and the European Political Cooperation (EPC) regarding foreign policy cooperation between the 12 EC member states. The expression “European Union” adds the Western European Union (WEU) to the Community and refers to the union established by the Maastricht Treaty. The term “Western Europe” is used to describe all of these multilateral bodies plus the nation-states in this region.
2.
For the post-Cold War era changes, see David Armstrong and Erik Goldstein, eds., The End of the Cold War (London: F. Cass, 1990), particularly the contributions of Ieuan John and Pierre-Henri Laurent.
3.
3. For the discussion of the pros and cons of security integration, see Mathias Jopp, Reinhardt Rummel, and Peter Schmidt, eds., Integration and Security in Western Europe: Inside the European Pillar (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991).
4.
4. See Peter Schmidt, ed., In the Midst of Change: On the Development of West European Security and Defence Cooperation (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1992).
5.
5. For a comprehensive analysis of the EC's external relations, see Roy H. Ginsberg, Foreign Policy Actions of the European Community: The Politics of Scale (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1989).
6.
6. For an insider's history of EPC, see Simon J. Nuttall, European Political Cooperation (New York: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press, 1992).
7.
7. For a view into the inner dynamics of EPC, see Philippe de Schoutheete, La coopération politique européenne (Brussels: Editions Labor, 1986).
8.
Optimizing international influence can also mean avoiding loss; see Janice Gross Stein, “International Cooperation and Loss Avoidance: Framing the Problem,”International Journal, 47(2):202-234 (Spring 1992).
9.
9. Meetings of the Council and the working groups of WEU are now attended by 15 countries. The integration of the Independent European Program Group in WEU and WEU's adoption of some of Eurogroup's activities result partly from these enlargements.
10.
10. In the Yugoslav crisis, WEU has played a modest role, first, following a decision by the Council in July 1992, dispatching warships, under WEU control, for surveillance of navigation, then extending this role to enforcement of the embargo. Later, through its members, it provided the United Nations with 5000 troops for the protection of humanitarian relief convoys in Bosnia-Herzegovina (UNPROFOR 2), the cost of this operation being borne by individual WEU member countries. By April 1993, when the enforcement of the no-fly zone was established in Bosnia-Herzegovina, NATO had become the United Nations' major military help.
11.
11. Following the June 1992 Petersberg Council of Ministers, the member countries of WEU and eight countries of Central Europe created a Forum of Consultation, which will meet regularly in Brussels at both ministerial and ambassadorial levels. At Petersberg, WEU also decided to establish a gradual and phased dialogue with the Maghreb countries.
12.
European Policy Unit at the European University Institute and Institut für Europäische Politik, eds., European Political Cooperation Documentation Bulletin (Luxembourg: Office of the Official Publications of the European Communities, semiannual collections since 1985).
13.
13. For a case study regarding this issue, see Christopher Hill, “EPC's Performance in Crises,” in Toward Political Union—Planning a Common Foreign and Security Policy in the European Community, ed. Reinhardt Rummel (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992), pp. 135-146.
14.
14. See Michael B. Dolan and James A. Caporaso, “The External Relations of the European Community,”The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 440:135-155 (Nov. 1978).
15.
15. A survey in all 12 Community countries draws the conclusion that the potential differences between them are rising rather than decreasing. See Alexis Jacquemin and David Wright, eds., The European Challenges Post-1992: Shaping Factors, Shaping Actors (Brookfield, VT: Edgar Elgar, 1993).
16.
16. For the process of rebalancing transatlantic relations, see James B. Steinberg, “An Ever Closer Union”—European Integration and Its Implications for the Future of U.S.-European Relations (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1993).
17.
17. For more reflection on the subject, see Richard Rosecrance, “A New Concert of Powers,”Foreign Affairs, 71(2):64-82 (Spring 1992).
