DOCSLIB.ORG

Durham E-Theses

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Durham E-Theses Durham E-Theses European foreign policy co-operation: Interpreting the institutional debates from Fouchet to the single European act Miller, Kevin How to cite: Miller, Kevin (1995) European foreign policy co-operation: Interpreting the institutional debates from Fouchet to the single European act, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/5323/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 ABSTRACT European Foreign Policy Co-operation : Interpreting The Institutional Debates From Fouchet To The Single European Act KEVIN MILLER This thesis focuses upon three distinct episodes in the development of European foreign policy co-operation : 1. The Fouchet Negotiations of 1961-62; 2. The Luxembourg Report of 1970; 3. The Single European Act of 1986. In the context of these episodes a number of consistent themes are apparent. Firstly, the inclusion and participation of the UK is seen to be of crucial importance to the legitimacy and credibility of foreign policy co-operation. Secondly, the gradual but perceptible decline of French influence among its European partners. Thirdly, the importance of the role of the Western European Union in the development of foreign policy co-operation. This thesis develops the view that evolution of European foreign policy co-operation should not be viewed in the context of a struggle between Supranational and Intergovernmental visions of European integration. It concludes that there is among member states a broad underlying consensus with respect to the fundamental character of a European foreign and defence identity. EUROPEAN FOREIGN POLICY CO-OPERATION : INTERPRETING THE INSTITUTIONAL DEBATES FROM FOUCHET TO THE SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT KEVIN jVHLLER Thesis submitted for the degree of PhD, 1995 The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be pubhshed without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. Department of Politics University of Durham The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. mi g DEC 1995 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1. The Fouchet Negotiations : 1961-63 3 Drafting the Fouchet Plan 11 The Second French Draft 17 Draft Treaty of the Five 20 Joint Draft and Report 25 End of Negotiations 31 The Netherlands, Britain and the Atlantic Alliance 34 Fouchet: Theory and Interpretation 59 2. The Birth of European Political Co-operation : 1969-71 81 The WEU Crisis 82 The Luxembourg Report 102 3. The Dooge Committee and Report 121 Creating an Intergovernmental Committee 128 The Dooge Report and Political Union 132 The Search for an External Identity 134 The Accommodation of Diverse National Interests 142 4. Defence and Security : The Role of WEU 162 WEU and the Fouchet Negotiations 171 From Crisis to Reactivation 171 The Reactivation of WEU : 1984 174 5. From Dooge Report to the Milan Council 207 6. The Single European Act Negotiations 232 The Draft Agreement on Political Co-operation 234 The Draft Treaty on European Union 242 The Single European Act 259 7. Conclusion : The Dynamics of Foreign Policy Co-operation 281 Understanding the Legacy of Fouchet 290 Bibliography INTRODUCTION The creation of a 'European' foreign and defence identity has been and remains a constant underlying theme of post-war European integration. The realisation of this identity is generally regarded as the final and most difficult hurdle in construction of a fully fledged European Union. As a consequence all attempts to place foreign policy co-operation among the Member States of the EU on a formal footing have been scrutinised within the context of the 'European Union' debate. All projects, regardless of their intent or the particular context of their initiation are thus examined and judged, not upon their individual merits and the specific issues they seek to address, but upon the degree to which they approach a particular end model of that notoriously ambiguous goal of an 'ever closer union'. Whilst this study is no exception to this general rule, the evidence that has been examined tends to suggest that, since the implementation of the Treaty of Rome, this debate leads us unnecessarily down a blind alley. There exists among the governments and policy elites of the Member States a surprising underlying consensus with respect to the fundamental character of a 'European' foreign and defence identity. It has become clear in the course of this research that the debates and disputes exercising the participants in the development of foreign policy co-operation have revolved around questions of detail, necessity and relative power, rather than antithetical visions of 'European Union'. In tracing the evolution of foreign policy co-operation among the Member States this thesis can be divided into three distinct, but ultimately linked episodes which may be characterised as the conception, birth and the coming of age of foreign policy co-operation. In the context of these episodes: the Fouchet negotiations of 1960-62; the Luxembourg Report of 1970 and the Single European Act of 1986, a number of consistent themes have emerged. Firstly, the inclusion and participation of the UK is seen to be of crucial importance in offering legitimacy and credibility to the success of any project in the sphere of foreign policy/security co-operation. Secondly, throughout the period researched one can observe a gradual, but nonetheless perceptible decline in the political pre-eminence of French influence among the Member States. Thirdly, a further factor to emerge is the importance of the role played by the hitherto largely ignored WEU as a vehicle in integration process. The approach adopted in this study has been one of detailed textual analysis of the various draft treaties, and the issues aroused in the negotiation of the various drafts. In addition concentration on textual sources has been supplemented by personal interviews with two prominent participants in the negotiations leading to the institutionalisation of EPC in the Single European Act. The chronological parameters of the thesis are essentially 1960 to 1986, thus the implications of the negotiation and implementation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy found in the 1992 Treaty of Political Union have not been considered. However, whilst post-1989 geo-political conditions have led to a reassesment of the role of Europe in the post cold-war world, the decisions taken in the Maastricht Treaty vis-a-vis foreign and security policy are essentially consistent with the patterns identified in this thesis. CHAPTER ONE THE FOUCHET NEGOTL^TIONS : 1961-63 The establishment of the Fouchet Committee had its origins in attempts by President de Gaulle to institutionalise political co-operation between the Member States of the EEC at the highest level. The desirability of organised political co-operation was initially expressed by de Gaulle during an official visit to Rome on 2 June 1959 ^, at which time he proposed the establishment of a system of regular meetings between Foreign Affairs Ministers, who would be supported by a small permanent Secretariat. This proposal was made on a bilateral basis to the Italian Government, who accepted the principle of regular consultation at the level of Foreign Ministers, on condition that all six Member States of the Community be invited to participate. Concrete expression was given to the proposal following a meeting of the E.E.C Council of Ministers in Strasbourg on 23 November 1959. The Ministers announced their intention to meet every three months for the purposes of 'consultation on matters of international policy'^. It should be noted that although the principle of regular consultation was accepted, the Foreign Ministers decided to reject the idea of a permanent Secretariat, and also made it a clear stipulation of their terms of reference that the deliberations of the Ministers should not prejudice consultations in NATO or WEU . Encouraged by this initial success de Gaulle determined to take the idea of regular consultation further, to the level of the Heads of Government. In pursuit of this aim he initiated a series of bilateral meetings with the Heads of State or Government of the six ( paying particular attention to his developing relationship with Chancellor Adenauer of the FRG ) in an effort to convince his counterparts of the value of 'organised co-operation'. In addition to these personal contacts with his constitutional equals, the General embarked upon a series of staged press conferences, and television and radio broadcasts in which he expounded his ideas on the political future of Western Europe. "To ensure regular co-operation between the States of Western Europe is what France considers desirable, possible and practical in the political, economic and cultural domains, and in that of defence. This requires organised regular consultation between responsible governments, and then the work of specialised organs in each of the common domains which are subordinated to government." ^ As a consequence of this persistent and frenetic period of activity de Gaulle was able to muster support for a summit meeting between the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, to take place in Paris on 10-11 February 1961.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Luxembourgish EU Presidency and Financial Services – July-December 2015
    The Luxembourgish EU Presidency and Financial Services – July-December 2015 The Luxembourgish EU Presidency and Financial Services 1 July – 31 December 2015 Kreab Brussels 2 avenue de Tervueren, 1040 Brussels, Belgium www.kreab.com/brussels – @KreabEU 1 The Luxembourgish EU Presidency and Financial Services – July-December 2015 Contents Political Context of the Luxembourgish Presidency 3 Priorities of the Luxembourgish Presidency 4 Key Financial Services Initiatives and Legislative Dossiers 5 Organisation of the Luxembourgish Presidency 12 Annex I – Contact Information 13 Permanent Representation of Luxembourg to the European Union 13 Economy and Finance 14 Government of Luxembourg 16 Ministry of Finance of Luxembourg 17 Bank of Luxembourg 18 Financial Regulatory Body of Luxembourg 20 Annex II – CVs of Key Luxembourgish Ministers 21 Annex III – Provisional Calendar 23 Annex IV – Key Council Meetings 25 Annex V – Country Fact Sheet 26 Annex VI – The EU Presidency 28 2 The Luxembourgish EU Presidency and Financial Services – July-December 2015 Political Context of the Luxembourgish Presidency The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg will assume its twelfth Presidency of the Council of the European Union on 1 July 2015. Luxembourg is one of the smallest countries in the EU, but it is also the wealthiest per capita. Following Italy and Latvia, Luxembourg is the third in this Presidency Trio, and will be the second full Presidency to work with the new Commission headed by compatriot and former Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker. Luxembourg is the seat of several major institutions such as the European Court of Justice, the European Investment Bank, and the Court of Auditors. Attitude toward the EU Luxembourg is one of the six founding members of the European Union and has historically played a key role in its formation.
    [Show full text]
  • Training and Simulation
    Food for thought 05-2021 Training and Simulation Written by AN EXPERTISE FORUM CONTRIBUTING TO EUROPEAN CONTRIBUTING TO FORUM AN EXPERTISE SINCE 1953 ARMIES INTEROPERABILITY the Research team of Finabel European Army Interoperability Center This study was written under the guidance of the Swedish presidency, headed by MG Engelbrektson, Commander of the Swedish Army. Special thanks go out to all ex- perts providing their insights on the topic, including but not limited too: MAJ Ulrik Hansson-Mild, Mr Henrik Reimer, SSG Joel Gustafsson, Mr Per Hagman, Robert Wilsson, MAJ Björn Lahger and SGM Anders Jakobsson.This study was drawn up by the Research team of Finabel over the course of a few months, including: Cholpon Abdyraeva, Paolo d'Alesio, Florinda Artese, Yasmine Benchekroun, Antoine Decq, Luca Dilda, Enzo Falsanisi, Vlad Melnic, Oliver Noyan, Milan Storms, Nadine Azi- hane, Dermot Nolan under the guidance of Mr Mario Blokken, Director of the Per- manent Secretariat. This Food for Thought paper is a document that gives an initial reflection on the theme. The content is not reflecting the positions of the member states but consists of elements that can initiate and feed the discussions and analyses in the domain of the theme. All our studies are available on www.finabel.org TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 Data Utilisation, the Need for Standardisation and Obstacles 33 Cultural Interoperability 4 Introduction 33 Introduction 4 9. What is Data? 34 1. Exercises as Means to 10. Political Aspects: National Deter Opposition 5 Interests vs. Interoperability 34 2. Current Trends in SBT 13 11. Data Interoperability 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Marketing Fragment 6 X 10.5.T65
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-58436-4 - The Franco-Prussian War: The German Conquest of France in 1870-1871 Geoffrey Wawro Index More information Index Albert, Crown Prince of Saxony, 193, Austria-Hungary, 36, 66, 67, 73, 85, 138, 201–2, 206, 209 187–8, 239, 305, 306 Albrecht, Field Marshal Archduke, 67 Austro-Prussian War (1866), 14–15, Alexander II, Tsar of Russia, 11, 238–9, 16–17, 21, 50–1, 53–4, 55, 57–8, 60, 311 93–4, 111, 119–20, 122–3, 136, 150, Alsace-Lorraine, annexation of, 227, 158, 223, 299–300, 301, 307, 308 230, 235, 239, 244, 246, 253, 303–4, 311, 313–14 Baraguay d’Hilliers, Marshal Achille, 68, Alvensleben, General Konstantin von, 148 114–16, 118, 152, 154, 155, 157, 168, Bavarian army in 1870, 83–4, 102, 105–6, 272 127–8, 130–1, 135–6, 217, 218–19, 253, Andlau, Colonel Joseph, 69, 91, 144, 254, 266–7, 286 159, 165, 180, 198, 243 Bazaine, Marshal Achille, 23, 50, 69–70, Arago, Emmanuel, 39, 140 80, 90, 95, 107–8, 120, 228; command Ardant du Picq, Colonel Charles, 154, at Mars-la-Tour, 151, 152, 155, 156, 174, 175, 307–8 157, 159, 160–1, 308; defeatism in armistice negotiations, 233–4, 234–6, Metz, 186, 188, 194–5, 196, 198, 244–7, 253–5, 278–80, 283, 284, 285, 199–200, 201, 242–5, 249–52, 260; 288, 290–2, 293, 294, 296, 298, generalissimo in 1870, 141, 142, 143–4, 299–306 145–6, 147, 148–9, 150; Gravelotte, artillery: changes after 1866, 57–60, 307; 164–6, 170, 173, 175–6, 178–83, 185; in fighting of 1870, 100–1, 105, 112, political intrigues after Sedan, 239–40, 116, 129–30, 136, 154, 155–6, 158–9, 242–6, 249, 310;
    [Show full text]
  • Death of an Institution: the End for Western European Union, a Future
    DEATH OF AN INSTITUTION The end for Western European Union, a future for European defence? EGMONT PAPER 46 DEATH OF AN INSTITUTION The end for Western European Union, a future for European defence? ALYSON JK BAILES AND GRAHAM MESSERVY-WHITING May 2011 The Egmont Papers are published by Academia Press for Egmont – The Royal Institute for International Relations. Founded in 1947 by eminent Belgian political leaders, Egmont is an independent think-tank based in Brussels. Its interdisciplinary research is conducted in a spirit of total academic freedom. A platform of quality information, a forum for debate and analysis, a melting pot of ideas in the field of international politics, Egmont’s ambition – through its publications, seminars and recommendations – is to make a useful contribution to the decision- making process. *** President: Viscount Etienne DAVIGNON Director-General: Marc TRENTESEAU Series Editor: Prof. Dr. Sven BISCOP *** Egmont – The Royal Institute for International Relations Address Naamsestraat / Rue de Namur 69, 1000 Brussels, Belgium Phone 00-32-(0)2.223.41.14 Fax 00-32-(0)2.223.41.16 E-mail [email protected] Website: www.egmontinstitute.be © Academia Press Eekhout 2 9000 Gent Tel. 09/233 80 88 Fax 09/233 14 09 [email protected] www.academiapress.be J. Story-Scientia NV Wetenschappelijke Boekhandel Sint-Kwintensberg 87 B-9000 Gent Tel. 09/225 57 57 Fax 09/233 14 09 [email protected] www.story.be All authors write in a personal capacity. Lay-out: proxess.be ISBN 978 90 382 1785 7 D/2011/4804/136 U 1612 NUR1 754 All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • The EU-NATO Syndrome: Spotlight on Transatlantic Realities
    ▌JCER Volume 3 • Issue 2 99 The EU-NATO Syndrome: Spotlight on Transatlantic Realities Hajnalka Vincze Abstract This article examines the relations between the European Union (EU) and NATO in light of both of the current, deeply unhealthy, state of the transatlantic relationship, and of its ongoing evolution. The first part is devoted to a retrospective outline of the links between European defence and the Atlantic system, which highlights the major constant features of these last sixty years, as well as the rupture points. Then, various issues, from the problem of the division of labour and the definition of the chain of command to coordination on the ground and arms procurement, are evoked as concrete examples where the same fundamental question marks emerge, again and again; all of them revolving around the concept of sovereignty – that of the Europeans vis-à-vis America. It is suggested in the article that current European dependence does not allow but superficial and/or temporary ‘progress’ in EU-NATO relations, just as is the case in the broader Euro-American relationship. As long as Europeans will not assume fully the objective of autonomy (i.e. freedom of decision and action, with all the commitments it would imply), their subjection will continue to generate increasing tensions, since this inherent imbalance is not only detrimental to Europe’s own interests, but it also excludes any reciprocity and prohibits any genuine partnership with the United States. CONTRARY TO THE TWO DOMINANT, ALBEIT DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED, TYPES of forecasts that were both highly fashionable a few years ago, it appears more and more clearly that the headaches related to the EU-NATO conundrum are here to stay.
    [Show full text]
  • EPB 50 Between Rome and Sibiu
    No. 50 No. 2 May 2018 June 2011 Between Rome and Sibiu: A Trajectory for the New European Narrative Dr Jan Hoogmartens Many EU citizens have been living under the Many observers may easily reach the impression that the European Union has been in conclusion that the European Union (EU) crisis over the last decade. The outcome of the has been in crisis for the last decade. Brexit referendum in June 2016 triggered a Against this background, and especially debate on the future of Europe with 27 since the outcome of the Brexit referendum, remaining Member States. This debate presents the EU has begun much soul searching to the Union with new opportunities to further carve out a new path to its future. This complete its ongoing political project and to Policy Brief addresses the current Future of achieve its goals as codified in the Treaties. Europe debate with the Bratislava Roadmap, the Rome Declaration, the Without a convincing narrative, the European Leaders’ Agenda, and other valuable project is threatened by extinction. It runs the contributions. It raises the question what risk of being misrepresented by populists and kind of narrative the European project will may no longer be embraced by its citizens. As need to survive into the future. What kind of this Policy Brief will explain, this narrative Europeans do we wish to be and what sort should not only focus on practical cooperation of Europe do we want to create? Despite in areas where there is a will to work together growing mistrust of citizens in their own and where this work can deliver tangible results, institutions and rising populism, this Policy but also on the values that underpin the Brief pleads for enduring support for the institutions on their trajectory to find new values on which the European project is solutions to concrete concerns of EU citizens.
    [Show full text]
  • European Parliament Treaty of Rome
    European Parliament Treaty Of Rome Paling and untranquil Raj often derrick some exams estimably or cribbles blankly. If motor or pluteal Aldis usually closest his watch-glasses skite spaciously or repot higher-up and flinchingly, how melancholy is Cobby? Paddie methodised slack. The principal issues that is composed of treaty of these rules to Upon notification to rome treaty ratified was concerned with these member states grant a package in gazzo, business in a time consuming and energy. Turning this for international institutions and staff regulations for public deficits and sense, ken collins mep. Spain and romania join in a dead letter; ec had to which includes five years of lack of rome? Treaties reveal a european treaty. Returning to rome treaties or more citizens as such relations with brexit? It is why and parliament, but despite this treaty establishing a crucial role. Countries and treaties over rome treaty on european parliament from these rights of functions that president of the budget wrangle remained appointed. Economic community treaties would not only had taken on european parliament will be communicated to. Treaty of rome for european parliament. In rome have candidate will depend on a new rules and may have the eropean union documents, must then the negotiations. Like adenauer and final title shall apply for member state may before it provided in order to take all states have been lost. Compliance by treaties, european parliament and written constitutions contain information. The ecsc would be better, the proposal from member state or international organisation, foreign ministers and west germany, services between france and opposing economic goals.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conference on the Future of Europe a New Model to Reform the EU?
    The Conference on the Future of Europe A New Model to Reform the EU? Federico Fabbrini* WORKING PAPER No 12 / 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Plans for the Conference on the Future of Europe 3. Precedents of the Conference on the Future of Europe 4. The rules on EU treaty reform 5. The practice of inter-se treaties outside the EU legal order 6. Reforming the EU through a Political Compact 7. Conclusions ABSTRACT The paper offers a first analysis of the recent plan to establish a Conference on the Future of Europe to reform the European Union (EU), comparing this initiative with two historical precedents to relaunch the EU – namely the Conference of Messina and the Convention on the Future of Europe – and considering the legal rules and political options for treaty reform in the contemporary EU. To this end, the paper overviews prior efforts to reform the EU, and points out the conditions that led to the success or failures of these initiatives. Subsequently it examines the technicalities of the EU treaty amendment rules and emphasizes the challenge towards treaty reform resulting from the need to obtain unanimous approval by all member states. The paper then assesses the increasing tendency by member states to use inter-se international treaties – particularly in response to the euro-crisis – and underlines how these have introduce new ratification rules, overcoming unanimity. Drawing lessons from these precedents, finally, the paper suggests what will be a condition for the success of the Conference on the Future of Europe, and argues that this should resolve to draft a new treaty – a Political Compact – designed to push forward integration among those member states that so wish.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy
    University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review Volume 6 Issue 1 THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI YEARBOOK Article 3 OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, VOLUME 6 1-1-1998 Building A Bridge For Defense: The European Union's Common Foreign And Security Policy Cheryl Swack Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umiclr Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Cheryl Swack, Building A Bridge For Defense: The European Union's Common Foreign And Security Policy, 6 U. Miami Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 3 (1998) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umiclr/vol6/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BUILDING A BRIDGE FOR DEFENSE: THE EUROPEAN UNION'S COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY CHERYL SWACK* I. INTRODUCTION II. THE CREATION OF THE NATO ALLIANCE III. THE NATO TREATY IV. THE BEGINNINGS OF THE WEU As THE DEFENSIVE COMPONENT OF THE EU V. THE WEU TREATY VI. REACTIVATING THE WEU UNDER THE MAASTRICHT TREATY VII. THE DUAL ROLES OF THE WEU AND NATO IN EUROPEAN DEFENSE VIII. FURTHER DECLARATIONS DEFINING THE ROLE OF THE WEU IX. THE WEU' S INVOLVEMENT IN PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS IN EUROPE X. CONCLUSION 2 YEARBOOK OFINTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 6 The objective vis-d-vis Political Union should be to demonstrate more visibly that WEU is an integral part of the European integration process.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Declaration on the Framework for Future EU-UK Relations
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 08454, 21 December 2018 The Political Declaration By Library Subject Specialists on the Framework for Future EU-UK Relations Contents: 1. How we got here 2. The legal status of the Political Declaration 3. Part I: Initial Provisions 4. Part II: Economic Partnership 5. Part III: Security Partnership 6. Part IV: Institutional & other Horizontal Arrangements 7. Part V: Forward Process www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 The Political Declaration on the Framework for Future EU-UK Relations Contents Summary 4 1. How we got here 8 1.1 EU and UK proposals during the negotiations 8 1.2 The final Political Declaration 10 2. The legal status of the Political Declaration 11 Not legally binding but with political weight 11 What are “best endeavours”? 12 3. Part I: Initial Provisions 14 3.1 Core values and rights 14 3.3 Participation in EU programmes 15 4. Part II: Economic Partnership 17 4.1 Summary 17 4.2 Background 18 4.3 Objectives and principles 20 4.4 Goods 21 4.5 Services and investment 25 4.6 Financial services 29 4.7 Digital 31 4.8 Capital movements and payments 32 4.9 Intellectual property 33 4.10 Public procurement 33 4.11 Mobility and social security 37 4.12 Transport 38 4.13 Energy 41 4.14 Fishing opportunities 43 4.15 Global cooperation 46 4.16 Level playing field for open and fair competition 47 5. Part III: Security Partnership 50 5.1 Foreign policy and defence 53 5.2 Space 56 5.3 Development cooperation 57 5.4 Cyber security 57 5.5 Civil Protection 58 5.6 Health Security 59 5.7 Counter-terrorism and countering violent extremism 59 5.8 Classified and sensitive non-classified information 59 6.
    [Show full text]
  • France, NATO and ESDP: the Impossible Balancing
    France, NATO and European Security: Status Quo Unsustainable; New Balance Unattainable? Jolyon HOWORTH∗ In January 1947, British and French officials met to discuss draft versions of the Treaty of Dunkirk. A sticking point emerged over the precise conditions under which the proposed mutual defence clause could be invoked. For the French, the simple threat of territorial invasion should trigger British support. For the British, however, only an actual invasion could warrant the implementation of alliance solidarity. This seemingly arcane distinction already presaged the fundamental difference of strategic approach between Paris and London which was to result in fifty years of stalemate in European defence Cupertino. For the United Kingdom (U.K.), too strong a statement of European resolve risked demotivating the United States (U.S.) and encouraging U.S. isolationism. For France, a strong Europe was the logical prerequisite for a strong Alliance. Europe needed to balance U.S. power—in the interests of both parties. Thus, from the outset of the post-war period, France expressed confidence in Europe's ability to safeguard her own future, whereas Britain worried that the old continent could never be secure without the permanent entanglement of the new1. Contrary to a great deal of mythology, France was never opposed to the “involvement of the new”—indeed the mainstream of the political class, including Charles de Gaulle himself, actively pressed for the creation of NATO and for the construction of an Atlantic partnership. What France in general (and the General in particular) could not accept was an imbalanced alliance in which one of the ∗ Jolyon Howorth is Jean Monnet Professor of European Politics at Bath University and Associate Research Fellow at the French Institute of International Relations (Ifri).
    [Show full text]
  • The Concert of Europe and Great-Power Governance Today
    BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE INTERNATIONAL ORDER A RAND Project to Explore U.S. Strategy in a Changing World KYLE LASCURETTES The Concert of Europe and Great-Power Governance Today What Can the Order of 19th-Century Europe Teach Policymakers About International Order in the 21st Century? Perspective EXPERT INSIGHTS ON A TIMELY POLICY ISSUE C O R P O R A T I O N Contents What Was the Concert of Europe? .........................................................................2 What Were the Concert’s Foundational Principles? ..............................................5 Why Was the Concert Considered Desirable? ......................................................8 When and Why Did the Concert Decline? ........................................................... 14 What Can We Learn from the Concert? ...............................................................17 Appendix .............................................................................................................. 23 Notes .................................................................................................................... 26 Bibliography ......................................................................................................... 30 About the Author .................................................................................................. 33 The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous.
    [Show full text]