Towards Development Policy

The European Union has, from its inception, sought to introduce an entirely new form of integration between nation states. Its creation was driven by a political dynamic inspired by theories that had existed for some time prior to their realisation. Indeed federalism, as an antidote to the divisions that had made Europe a cockpit of conflict through the ages, had a long provenance. Even in the immediate run-up to World War II it had its advocates, notably in the federalist movement in Great Britain in the 1930s that so influenced later activists such as Altiero Spinelli. The first practical step was taken through the creation of the Coal and Steel Community created by the Treaty of Paris in 1951. Later, following the failure of the Defence Community in 1954 (which foundered in the French Parliament) the Treaty of Rome brought us the European Economic Community and this has been the main focus of integrationalist attention for the last fifty years. Inevitably this almost exclusively economic dimension created an internal focus but this should not blind us to the growing contribution of the European Union in areas of foreign, trade and development policy.

When the process of integration began following World War II at least one of the Founding Fathers, Jean Monnet, foresaw European integration as a step on the road towards global governance. (He wrote of this in his Memoirs). Certainly the ability of Europe to come together in a new supranational entity based on a concept of shared sovereignty has inspired other parts of the world to seek methods to co-operate on a regional basis. The most obvious of these examples are to be found in NAFTA and Mercosur. But others too seem to be moving in the same direction elsewhere in Latin America and in the Asean States. None however share sovereignty in the same way as we in Europe do. However, apart from these, at the global level the World Trade Organisation has been influenced by the EU. There are a number of reasons for this influence. Firstly, there would have been no concluded Uruguay Round, and thus no WTO, if the European Union had not an embedded institutional structure that permitted it to speak with one voice. Secondly, its experience in contesting and essentially defeating internal protectionism through the creation of a single market for goods and services permitted it to take a constructive role in global liberalisation. Thirdly, many of the mechanisms for liberalisation that had been tried out and developed in the European Union were used in the global talks within the WTO. Finally the fact that the WTO was a substantial player of broadly similar weight in trade negotiations to the USA created a sense of balance that, otherwise lacking, might have made reaching a consensus with the others more difficult to achieve.

The EU too has demonstrated by practical efforts that its agenda is about much more than creating a viable and efficient market economy. From the very beginning it underlined a concept of solidarity that had much to do with the Christian roots of European society. This was not merely evidenced by mechanisms of internal transfer of resources through such instruments as the Regional Fund and the Social Fund but also through the application of exceptions to other policies such as in competition policy that were designed to take account of regional disadvantages. So too in development policy the EU created its own funding mechanism to provide aid to areas of the world that were in dire need and to foster co-operation in doing so. This was another example of the principle of solidarity that should be central to the EU. In addition trade policies have sought to provide advantages through regional preferences to developing countries. However, although these policies have resulted in the EU being the largest aid donor in the world and, in some respects, the most forthcoming in trade concessions to the least developed economies, it must also be conceded that great damage has been done to some developing countries by the subsidised export of agricultural products. Export subsidies and indeed some internal agricultural support mechanisms have been legitimately and seriously criticised not merely NGOs but also by multilateral agencies and their leadership. So also it may be said that some trade preferences have had damaging effects in influencing economic policy in some developing countries towards inappropriate areas or, at least, towards production not best suited for them.

Finally in international politics it must be conceded that the EU has sometimes failed to present a coherent and united face. Largely this has been the result of a failure to create the necessary institutional base in order to forge common positions. A classic example of this failure was in the case of the Iraq war where even the existing mechanisms for co-ordination and communication were effectively ignored by a significant number of Member States. The failure to develop this side of the EU was also influenced by the reluctance of some Member States to commit to significant developments in common security and defence. These inhibitions continue to a greater or lesser extent and the changes introduced by the proposed Constitution, whilst useful, do not introduce anything more than enhanced intergovernmentalism of a kind that does not go to the core of the issue. However having a more visible face through the nomination of a Foreign Minister at least moves us forward a little.

There can be no doubt that a more united Europe is and will be a good thing for global development, peace and human rights. It is unlikely that it could be otherwise because of the inherent checks and balances provided by the collaboration of so many Member States that are steeped in understanding of the sins of the past and in real values that they share. What we need to do now is to make the EU work effectively and to extend the community method into foreign policy matters generally and to create a more effective development strategy.

Peter Sutherland (Biography)