Constitutional Paradise
Question:
​
Discuss the main arguments on the ´constitutional paradise` of Europe provided by Robert Kagan in relation to the notion of the EU as a normative power. How do you view his perspective on Europe as a foreign policy actor?
​
Answer:
​
Kagan (2003) argues that European has been transformed into a post-modern entity that is different from the modern state. The European believe that law and institution can establish sustainable international peace. The European does not base its foreign policy on balance of power and zero-sum logic. It rather acts on the belief that cooperating and and strengthening relation with third countries is the best means to pursue European interests.
In Of Paradise and Power, Kagan attempted to persuade the reader that European must increase the military effectiveness in order to overcome international security threat, such as terrorism and state war. Serbian crisis shows that Europeans are weak and relying significantly to the United States (US) military power. “The lesson for many Europeans was that Europe needed to take steps to release itself at least partially from a dependence on American power that, after the Cold War, seemed no longer necessary. This, in turn, required
that Europe create some independent military capability” (Kagan, 2003, p.52).
This article disagree with Kagan and argues that European and the US must focus on using international institution to protect national interest and international peace. First of all, genocide and massacre must be stopped by every means including military operation. The world has condemned massacre in Kosovo, Bosnia and current Libya and there have been appropriate military action toward the regime.
However, positive economic measure and multilateral approach shall be the first priority. To some extent, the US is also a constitutional paradise. The US used international institutions to “lock in” a favorable postwar position and to establish sufficient “strategic restraint” on their own power as to gain the acquiescence of weaker and secondary states (Ikenberry, 2001). The US pioneered the establishment of the the United Nations (UN), North Atlantic Organization (NATO), Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and North America Free Trade Area (NAFTA), General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in order to achieve cooperative, stable, interdependent, and highly institutionalized international relation in the world.
Why the US gained success in using multilateralism and can the European replicate it? Maull (2005) identifies that there are several requirements for an effective multilateralism: “Effective multilateralism requires not only broad international support and legitimacy, but also the capacity to generate initiatives, and political leadership to set the agenda, define deadlines, mobilize resources and promote effective implementation. A key qualification in this context is the ability to form and sustain broad-based coalitions.” (Maull, 2005, p. 786).
Of course, the US has all the requirements for the success because he is a single entity, the economic superpower and the biggest contributor to the international institutions they made. Meanwhile critics says that European don’t have the similar capability. Hill (1993) mentioned that there are three challenges that the European has to face: the ability to agree, resources and instruments at its disposal.
Aggarwal and Fogarty (2004) argues that the European Union (EU) can use trade and development measures as the basis of European influence in the world. Since trade and development policies already aggregates the member states into a coherent unit, and the basis of European influence in the world is more economic than political, the EU can best punch its weight in international politics by granting access to the large and rich European market and giving generous aid to poor countries. The EU is the biggest aid donor in the world which nearly three times US’ official development aid (OECD, 2007).
Other resources that need greater attention is the normative power Europe. Manner (2002) argues that the EU’s power is not only located in what it does or what it says, but also what it is. He argues that EU is a normative power which can be defined as the ability to define what passes for ‘normal’ in world politics. The EU has declared normative basis* in the constitution and has various way to diffuse them. He further elaborated on the case study of EU’s promotion of abolition of death penalty. Scheipers and Sicurelli (2007) confirmed the normative power Europe in the EU’s ratification of Kyoto Protocol and Rome Statute.
Then is normative power exclusive to Europe? In her research Tocci (2008) concluded that normative power is not exclusive to the EU. There are two vital components of normative power: normative goals (i.e. peace, human rights, environment) and normative means. Here Tocci emphasized that the normative goal should not be achieved through conditionality, sanctions or military action. Instead, the method must be based on joint ownership, cooperation and dialogue. Marshall Plan, for example, can be considered as the US’ normative power because it is intended to create a stable and peaceful Europe by using tremendous financial assistance. In conclusions, there are some similar characteristics between the US and Europeans as the great foreign policy actor.
Notes:
​
*Five core norms: peace, liberty, democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights. Four minor norms: Social solidarity, anti-discrimination, sustainable development and good governance. (Manner, 2002, pp. 242-3)
Comment from Daniel Silander: Good use of sources. Very good analysis of material. Excellent approach on Ikenberry and perspectives on U.S. as soft power. Weak analysis of Kagan´s thesis.
​
​
​
​