The german PP developp a summary of their main programme pionts for the European Elections. The idea of the different message posted on discourse concerning the proposals is to discuss and to see if there is some other things youd’like to see or reformulation you wish to propose.
Goal of the European Foreign Politics has to be to avoid crises.
The Focus has to be on avoiding sustainable imbalances by the exchange of goods and services.
I’m not a specialist regarding foreign policies. However, it seems to me that France is known in the world for its experience in diplomacy and for its armed strength (which seems to be a paradox).
Should France be an example of what the European Union should tend to ? Or are there other examples of “good” foreign policies ?
France is well known for its agressiv, arrogant and imperialist diplomacy…=> refer to the “Discours of Dakar”, a master piece of the Art…
The diplomacy of the European Union cannot be uniform. It is strong depending of the countries we interact with…
On one hand, you have countries with a “will to strengh” like China or Russia. They are building strong sphere of influence through the economy, the politic, and their military power. The question is not to determine wether it is good or bad, but how we (as European Union) can interact with this strong actors.
On the other hand, you have our own sphere of influence : the mediterranean countries. How do we want to interact with our “backyard”…(Is it a backyard ? => the question is not solved)
Then you have our “old allies” from the “west”: USA, UK, Japan, Australia, NZ
Latine America is for me a blind point…How are the stand of the relationship with them ? What should we expected from them and what are we waiting…
The diplomacy in Africa is still suffering from old colonial leadership structure (Françafrique…). Inside the european Union some countries are trying to balance the weight of the old colonial power. As a result on a Union level it is still really difficult to coordinate the diplomacy.
So, at the end, to answer your question, i’m not sure there is “good foreign policies” : we used to say, “in international relationship, there is no good or bad, there is only interest”. And if the interest of the nation of the european union are not the same…then we got a real problem to set up a common diplomacy : that’s explain a large part of our weakness imho.
To come back to the german proposal, I’m not sure that we can always “avoid crisis” : sometime we have to cope with it and we shall get involved. But not alone and not without the UNO.
On the contrary, this focus, seems balanced and could answer a common need on a european level:
Well, I really do not agree with several of your points. And I really wish some of our friends from other countries could bring some light from their own points of view.
Regarding the speech at Dakar, it was one speech from one specific of our Presidents and it has been denounced by a lot of people in France. I agree that France can be arrogant. I agree that our country was agressiv and imperialist in the past. However, I think that the aggressiveness and the imperialism have been greatly reduced
Regarding the countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea, I think that the use of backyard is at best tactless, at worst racist. (I do not think Antigone is racist, I think it was just a misuse of the word.) We have to leave this term and what it entails behind us.
I agree with Antigone : not all crises can be avoided. Europe will have to cope. Europe is not the Mistress of the world and some other powers wil act on their own. Nevertheless, I think that Europe should be as proactive as possible and take a strong diplomatic role, even where it is not directly concerned.
“in international relationship, there is no good or bad, there is only interest”
Well, i don’t know about you or our leaders, but my own interest is a world at peace, if possible united by some global laws. And I file this under “good policy”.
Just a precision, the terme of “backyard” refers to a theory of international relationship. It’s related to the US foreign policy and you could critize this use concerning the EU. The term is highly questionable for sure and refer to a certainr form of imperialism, but it don’t include the idea that some “race are superior to other” (lets be clear : “race” doesn’t exist but the human race!).
Fact is : we are treating (and abusing) the mediteranean countries as a backyard. My parenthesis was just underlining and questionning that. How to inverse the trend? Shall we continuing considering the south mediterranean countries as our “near abroad” ?
I think, we could have a word on the neighbourhood policy of the EU and we shall aim to a new balance in the relationship.
Behind this neighbourhood question come a larger question that we could ask : Do we want the European Union to be a major actor in the international relationship ? If yes, then we may need to ask ourself how to be a major actor without developping imperialistic manner.
If we decide not to be a major actor, we need to be aware that other nations want it and developp strategy of strengh. How to face their influence without beeing in a logic of power ?