European Union is a big actor in international relations right now and one of the most interesting features of this artifact is this huge gap between economic cooperation and political.
Economically EU is very close to the homogenic entity, while as political union it's only a new-born baby with no exact prospects for its future.
Foreign policy is one of the key aspects where EU is expected to conduct jointly elaborated overall policy.
In the founding treaty of the European Union Title V is dedicated to this area of cooperation. Let's look at it closer.
The point of this outlay is not to retell you this part of the Treaty but to figure it out with you how CFSP did start and how far has it gone by now. I hope you'll look through the Treaty itself here so that our conversation wouldn't be pointless.
Does EU's CFSP differ formally and critically from making decisions in other international organizations?
"Whenever it deems it necessary, the Council shall define a common position", – reads the text of the Treaty. And how does it differ from other international organizations' position? The latter sign their founding agreement based on some basic common position. EU does not even have one yet.
So this organization is not about some ideals, this organization is about staying together, in one herd. We won't freeze as long as we're together, so as long as we need to stay together we'll agree upon the direction towards which our herd is heading.
That's what it reminds me of.
At this point is important to remember the term common position. They say it will be mentioned later.
Sometimes the Council may decide upon joint actions. That seems to be an undertaking as long as the procedure is described.
These two terms – common position and joint action – are considered to be of high value right now although way ago they were obviously just a substitute for bureaucratic institutes any joint EU policy needed.
I love the formulations in this CFSP Title: "might in time lead to a common defence" – I don't understand why they at all write so much of the subject they don't actually want to be under the influence of common decisions? Or... I guess I know why – in order to be sure that there won't be any legal ground for any obligations in this field for any state as EU member. And not only empty space of no ground (as we all know in physics no empty space stays empty for long) but the space filled with cautious "might" and "in time".
So we can of course remember that EU wants to take part in peacemaking all over the world, be involved in the processes of different international cooperation within itself and outside, but still we realize (as well as the authors of the Treaty) – this is not the major way EU is likely to go in the examinable future. It's just another slippery path where EU has all chances to break its neck.
So better put illusions away and stay away itself. 1992 was the year they still knew it.
