International Governance
The world needs
international governance regime to channel polarized regions towards effective
and unified common action. In the modern times, no country (irrespective of how
powerful it is) can respond to multiple challenges in an increasingly
globalized planet[1].
Some of the rising matters include instability in the Middle East, global
warming, and financial crises. Similarly, several international governance
regimes fall short in their mandate to lead the nations on a path towards economic prosperity and improvement of health
standards. Therefore, the parties involved should introduce more legitimate and
effective forms of international leadership to guarantee compromises and
agreements for a collective action.
The European Union is
gradually curving its role in international governance, especially in this time
of growing interdependence between countries and the rebalancing of power. The
emergence of China, India, and Russia as potential superpowers accelerates EU efforts to solidify its position on the
global stage. International governance refers to the collaboration of sovereign
powers on shared challenges that in the past were limited to security and peace
but have remarkably risen over the past three decades.
Today, the issues
include trade negotiations, environmental conditions, human and drug
trafficking, counter-terrorism, and pandemics. Practically, an establishment of
formal institutions like EU and G20 ensures cooperation in handling these
problems. However, the growing distrust among members in recent years has led
to diverging nationalistic interests, hence making it harder for them to
implement the agreed policies[2]. For
instance, free-riding within EU states imposes a heavy burden on a handful of
countries such as Germany and France while the benefits are universal. On a Global
scale, the major developed countries incur a heavy
economic cost in reducing greenhouse gas
emission while the developing countries reap the benefits.
Undeniably, the institutions to boost international
corporations are still in their infancy.
In the West, Union’s member states call for the reformation of representation
to accommodate global changes and the union’s growth. While boasts 25 member
states, it is interesting to note that only 13 countries claim the founding
membership status. Furthermore, since the European Union joined Lisbon Treaty, has
set unrealistic ambitions to establish itself as a cohesive and strong force in
international affairs. Even the most optimistic international relations experts
cannot be certain on EU’s ability to define long-term rules without being
marginalized by China, Russia, and most recently the United Kingdom.
In the year 2009, the European Union entered Lisbon
treaty to boost its international ambitions. Resultantly, it introduced the
European External Action Service but failed to secure a full UN General
Assembly representation. While more than 180 countries voted in favor of the organization, the UN leadership
accorded EU an honorary membership status
which denies it voting rights. The European block’s inability to fairly handle
global issues led to its failure to secure a key spot in the UN. As the
developing countries in Africa and Asia emerge, the EU’s global governance role
shrinks due to a sluggish economy, stringent policies, and neglect of core
international values such as sovereignty. In fact, the 2008 economic crash
reflected the waning power of EU and its inability to effectively manage the
aftermath in a path towards recovery. A decade later, several Eastern European
countries still grapple with soaring
rates of unemployment. In addition, the influx of refugees from Africa and the
Middle East not only amplifies the organization’s incompetence but also raises
concerns among the citizens of the member states. Arguably, EU’s international
influence is neither directly proportional to its diplomatic operations nor the
expenditure in foreign aid.
The diplomatic activities of EU countries cost more
than 9 billion dollars annually, whereas the United States spends $8.3 billion
in international governance. Furthermore, the European Union employs 80, 000 staff, while America hires less than 30,000
workers. Regarding the development aid, the US spends $30 billion dollars and
the European commission spends $64 billion.
It is normal for any large global governance regime to
have challenges in the implementation phase of international policies. However,
the EU’s failures emanate from deeply settled
and recurrent inter-institutional disagreements over diplomatic details[3]. For
example, some member states like the United Kingdom have backtracked due to an
ineffective implementation of Lisbon Treaty. Moreover, countries like Russia
and the US sharply criticize the EU over alleged passivity and cautious
approach to sensitive international issues.
During the 2011 Libyan Crisis, Britain and France
played leading roles to assert EU’s position as a global leader. In fact,
France contradicted and overshadowed EU leadership. On the other hand, EU
members like Italy and Germany expressed the importance of passiveness and
caution in decision making to avoid participation in costly wars. Disagreements
such as these revealed emerging cracks in the Union. Today, a section of
international relations experts cite the Libyan crisis and subsequent failures
in international governance as some of the contributing factors to a British exit from the EU. The organization is
yet to earn the respect of Asian and South American trade partners due to its
elusiveness, unstable leadership, a slow integration process.
Reshaping EU’s international governance role calls for
adequate representation of member states[4].
Countries like France and Germany are over-represented while Spain and Eastern
European members are under-represented. There are more than 9 European
representatives in G20 summits, hence a failure to address the issues of the
emerging world. Consequently, this persistent disparity dilutes the voice of
European Union in the UN Security Council. Additionally, the majority of EU
states have representations in the Council’s rotational non-permanent
membership. It implies that the EU (which comprises less than 6% of the world
population) is responsible for more than a quarter of the global economy, has
two UN veto powers, and holds a third of UNSC’s seats. The latest attempts to
reform the United Nations Security Council have been futile. Mostly, the
emerging countries put forward Brazil, India, and Japan as the potential new
permanent seat holders. In the year 2010, nearly all the developing countries
shot down EU’s plans to attain full speaking rights in the UN General assembly
citing unfairness.
Further, the EU should demonstrate stability through
coherent and timely response to crises within Europe and in the rest of the
world. In this way, the organization will seal the fault lines revealed during
British exit vote, refugee crisis, and the economic meltdown. It should also
appreciate the current changes in the world economic order and the dramatic
rise of Asia. Given that the European Union is one of the highest determinants
of political well-being and regulation of economic activities across the
planet, its operations should be independent of dominant states and hegemonic
powers such as the United States, Germany, and France. If the member states
equip it with appropriate mechanisms and finances to meet its goals, the
organization may attain the respect of other global entities like IMF, AU, and
UN. Truly, it is highly impossible for EU to attain a total autonomy but
independence in dispute resolution is the first step towards success in
international governance.
Moreover, the European Union should be efficient in
imposing penalties to transgressors and in the execution of policies as
implemented. Any organization with a mandate to regulate global affairs should
exhibit objective internal governance. Global governance actors ought to act
responsibly to regulate globalization outcomes and to strengthen the
cooperation between its members[5]. The
adopted leadership style should be sufficient to handle NGO proposals and
political heat. Most importantly, the EU should balance the attention accorded
to social issues and economic matters. Studies indicate that the Union of
European States (in its current composition) concentrates on the global market outcomes
and the existing form of governance such
that it leaves a significant social gap.
In summary, the United Kingdom’s exit shows that EU
will always face crises and setbacks. However, history proves the Union’s
excellent recovery from crises due to the political
will of dominant countries like France and Germany. Still, this should not be
used as a justification of the subsequent failures that has eclipsed its global
governance efforts in the recent past. Therefore, it is recommendable for the
European Union to review its strategies and policies to accommodate the desires
of emerging word powers. Particularly, the organization should learn from its
experience to avoid future failures.
Bibliography
Barnett, Michael, and Raymond Duvall,
eds. Power in Global
Governance. Vol. 98. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Benz, Arthur, and Ioannis Papadopoulos,
eds. Governance and Democracy:
Comparing National, European, and
International Experiences. London: Routledge, 2014.
Eberlein, Burkard, and Abraham L. Newman. "Escaping the International
Governance Dilemma? Incorporated Transgovernmental Networks in the European
Union." Governance 21, no. 1 (2012): 25-52.
Eising, Rainer, and Beate Kohler-Koch,
eds. The Transformation of
Governance in the European Union. London: Routledge, 2014.
Windhoff-Héritier, Adrienne. Common
Goods: Reinventing European and International Governance. Pennsylvania:
Rowman & Littlefield, 2013.
[1] Barnett, Michael, and Raymond Duvall,
eds. Power in Global
Governance. Vol. 98. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
[2] Eberlein, Burkard, and Abraham L.
Newman. "Escaping the International Governance Dilemma? Incorporated
Transgovernmental Networks in the European Union." Governance 21, no. 1 (2012): 25-52.
[3] Windhoff-Héritier, Adrienne. Common Goods: Reinventing European
and International Governance. Pennsylvania: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013.
[4] Eising, Rainer, and Beate Kohler-Koch,
eds. The Transformation of Governance
in the European Union. London: Routledge, 2014.
[5] Benz, Arthur, and Ioannis Papadopoulos,
eds. Governance and Democracy:
Comparing National, European, and International Experiences. London: Routledge,
2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment