A Coherence Perspective from EU-China Relations

EU-China Relations: A Coherence Perspective Overview 1. Coherence and EU Foreign Policy 2. Strategic Pragmatism and EU Foreign Policy 3. Coherence and Strategy: Do the new clothes suit the EU? 4. EU-China Relations from a Coherence Perspective 5. First Lessons from CAI 6. Conclusions Coherence and EU Foreign Policy - Coherence is a << coordinated (...) behaviors (...) where comparable and compatible methods are used in pursuit of a single objective and result in an uncontradictory (foreign) policy » (Krenzler and Schneier, 1997:134) - Negative definition (absence of contradictions) - Positive definition (creation of synergies) - Goal-oriented definition (effectiveness, legitimacy, credibility) Vertical Level Horizontal Institutional External - Definition Examples Between different levels of The EU versus Member administration States Between different policies CCP versus development policy - Between - Commission versus organizations Council - Between branches of - DG Trade versus DG an organization Devco Between one's action and the The EU versus its clientele perception of one's action Expectations created by coherence from practitioners' perspective: 1. Effectiveness (increase of) 2. Legitimacy (increase of) 3. Credibility (keeping level of) Three Theoretical Accounts Of Coherence: 1. 'Normative Power Europe' and its account of coherence 2. 'Administrative Power Europe'/Governance approach and its account of coherence 3. Realist 'Tragic Power Europe' and its account of coherence Normative Power Europe (NPE) 'Normative Power Europe' (NPE) and its account of coherence: 1. Power of the EU to transform other societies based on its own norms and principles 2. Legitimacy for such action derives mainly from the assumption that EU norms and principles are universal NPE suggests that EU action needs to be coherent: 1. The EU has to provide arguments that persuade others to adopt EU norms and principles 2. Need that they are to be "applied equally to everyone" and everywhere 3. "Living by virtue" (Manners 2008) 4. Hypocrisy is the last thing NPE should want Administrative Power Europe'/Governance Approach • 'Administrative Power Europe'/Governance approach and its account of coherence • EU is characterized by a multi-actor, multi-institutional and multi-level decisionmaking setting • 'Polycentric' and 'compartmentalized' system • Administrative actors have to be considered to explain governance outputs • Governance approach resembles Allison/Zelikow's "organizational model" • Decentralized specialization vs. overall action • Coherence constitutes a crucial element of the governance approach • "Imposed coherence" embedded in the EU external policy system • • effectiveness of the EU can be strengthened and output-legitimacy can be enhanced Realist 'Tragic Power Europe' ∼ Realist 'Tragic Power Europe' and its account of coherence ∼ "vehicle" of EU member states' interests (Hyde-Price 2006) ∼ Realists reject the idea that states apply universal norms ∼ Some "tragedy" as the EU sees itself as being ethical, while in reality it contradicts itself with pursuing politics that serves national interests (Hyde-Price 2006) ∼ Realists: pragmatic political strategies and action in the MS interests ∼ Variation from one geopolitical decision to another ∼ Coherence is not necessarily always beneficial ∼ Coherent external action of the EU can lead to an increase of external credibility (while at other times it might be more beneficial to the EU if its actions remained unpredictable) ∼ Incoherent action is a rather 'natural' situation Strategic Pragmatism and EU Foreign Policy • "External crises include a deteriorating geopolitical environment in the Southern and Eastern neighbourhoods, the rise of Islamic terrorism and thethreat represented by ISIS, hybrid threats and the refugee crisis. To this, one can add a broader crisis affecting the international liberal order, which has questioned the "liberal peace”and Western interventionism (Mac Ginty and Richmond 2013, Mazarr 2014), and in so doing the EU's own global liberal project." (Juncos, 2018, highlights by K.R.) • "The resilience paradigm draws on existing EU discourses and practices such as the comprehensive approach or effective multilateralism and brings them together under a unifying logic. This approach has at its core pragmatism and flexibility and requires several elements to make it work: local ownership, capacity-building, partnerships, responsibility and a joint (comprehensive) approach (Juncos, 2018, highlights by K.R.)) • "The EUGS introduces the new notion of "principled pragmatism", alongside an emphasis on resilience-building. According to the EUGS: We will be guided by clear principles. These stem as much from a realistic assessment of the current strategic environment as from an idealistic aspiration to advance a better world. Principled pragmatism will guide our external action in the years ahead. (EUGS 2016,p.8)" (Juncos, 2018, highlights by K.R.) • "A more pragmatic approach will be thus based on a "realistic assessment" of international politics. In other words, the EU will take into account both the need for cooperation, and the fierce competition it faces on the part of other international powers, in particular, in its neighborhoods. (Juncos 2018, highlights by K.R) • "By adding "principled" to its pragmatic turn, the EU has sought to square the circle between the promotion of universal values and doing so on the basis of practical consequences. However, the EU cannot have it both." (Juncos 2018, highlights by K.R) • Unfortunately, principled pragmatism will leave the EU open to the same, if not more, criticisms about inconsistencies an double standards in its external action. Why does the EU privilege stability over democracy in some cases but not in others? How can one promote freedom and human rights without democracy? And what happens when security (stability) trumps freedom or economic equality? (Juncos 2018, highlights by K.R) Coherence And Strategy: Do The New Clothes Suit The EU? ∼ EU expects coherence to lead to an effective, legitimate and credible action ∼ Literature on coherence has mostly taken up these general expectations and failed to question whether coherence can be seen as a virtue in general ∼ BUT: External international environment changing and the EU responds ∼ Consequence: the mismatch between the positive expectations of practitioners ("coherence is a virtue") and the more critical approach of the academic literature ("coherence can be a virtue or a vice") is complemented by a new component: a rather realist geopolitical and geostrategic approach based on the idea of 'principled pragmatism' that may run square to the idea of coherence ∼ EU External Action In "Coherence Mode" And Legitimacy • Interests/Principles • Vertical, Horizontal and Inter-Institutional Coordination of Instruments Orchestration • Internal-External Coherence, External and External Coherence • Internal and External Output Legitimacy Credibility ∼ EU External Action In "Strategy Mode" And Legitimacy • Interests and Principles • Pragmatic Choice of Action and Instruments; Coordinated Action • Internal-External Inconsistency; External-External Inconsistency • Internal and External Output Legitimacy; External Recognition ∼ The European Union has increasingly focused on strategic responses to tackle the manifold challenges that it faces in its global affairs. ∼ Not only has the EU's Global Strategy (2016) set the tone for a so-called principled pragmatism in the EU's approach to external relations, also regional strategies like 'Connectivity' (2019) have emphasized the need for greater strategic orientation of the EU. ∼ But how well do the 'new clothes' suit the European Union? - Discuss the EU's strategic ambitions in the context of the EU's overall objective of delivering coherent external action. - Zooming in on EU-China relations, the talk tries to understand if the EU's is able to achieve coherence in EU external action. EU-China Relations from a Coherence Perspective • Global Context ∼ US-China Relations as Power Struggle ∼ EU-US Relations and Increased Cooperation ∼ EU-China Relations between Cooperation and Contestation • EU Foreign Policy Context (I) ∼ Principled Pragmatism (2016) ∼ Bilateral and Multilateral Approach: EU-China Strategy and EU-China Between Systemic Rival and Economic Competitor (March 2019) ∼ Indirect Relationship Connectivity and Geopolitics (September 2019) • EU Foreign Policy Context III • Trade Ambitions: 'Harnessing Globalization' • Trade for All • Bilateralism in the absence of effective multilateralism • Action Plan Human Rights and Democracy/ Roadmap - Enhance the EU's leadership in promoting and protecting human rights and democracy worldwide, - Strategic perspective on EU's actions on human rights and democracy and - Streamline a coherent EU approach to human rights and democracy in the world (January 2020) • A framework for targeted restrictive measures to address serious human rights violations and abuses worldwide (December 2020) First Lessons from CAI - Signing CAI • EU willingness to sign (China as Economic Competitor) • Prevailing Market Access, (Inter-)dependence (Harness globalization) • Commission DG Trade in the lead • CAI was scrutinized by MEPs and NGOs for whether it sufficiently took into account non-investment policy aspects, including human rights (Systemic Rival, Shadow of the Future) - Council Implementing Regulation 2021/478: Sanctions introduced as a coordinated effort by European Union, UK, US and Canada • Systemic Rival: EU-China Relations as Contestation • Increased Transatlantic Relations and Increased Cooperation with US (Biden Administration) - Retaliation measure by PR China: Sanctions against MEPs, the EP (DROI), the Council (PSC), MPs and academics - • China-EU Relations as Contestation • China-US Power Struggle Interpretation of the PR China-retaliation as a: • Reciprocity Tool (tit-for-tat) • Dividing Tool (tit-for-tat plus) ∼ Vertical division: EU Institutions vs. MS ∼ Horizontal division: EU Institutions ∼ Intra division: European Parliament/ European Commission • Leading to Substantive Choice: Making EU look to choose between pragmatism or principles - Council and Parliament jointly decide whether to approve • The Council examines the proposal for conclusion and sends the agreement to the Parliament for its consent (approval) ∼ Lisbon Treaty as a game-changer / Empowerment of EP ∼ Asymmetric power vis-à-vis national parliaments, unless 'mixed' agreement (see also CJEU Opinion 2/15) • EP: 'Saisine' / 'Anrufung des Gerichts' / 'Verdict of the Court' ∼ EP 'excluded': Shadow of the Future ∼ EP 'attacked': Shadow of the Present • INTA report upon which the European Parliament will vote (Yes/no) Conclusion 1. Realist vs. Normative Coherence 2. Dividing Europe or uniting EU institutions towards a coherent pragmatic and principled strategic action • [Rather than: one pragmatic and one principled approach] 3. End of the Investment Agreement? • Unlikely that European Parliament can agree in view of the shadow of the future and the shadow of the present - Unless a compartmentalized (overcoming shadow of future and present) - But: EP as guardian of consistency (see also CJEU case law in the context of Article 218 (10 TFEU)) - EP calls Agreement as 'frozen': EP resolution was passed with 599 MEPs in favor, 30 against and 58 abstentions (Financial Times, 20 May 2021) • Unlikely that European demands will be met (shadow of the present) • Unlikely that EU will prioritize competition with China over transatlantic ties with the US (again) • Challenge of Vertical (In-)coherence