Expansion to the East: EU and NATO Introduction and overview Lecture 1 7 May 2009

Overview Why EU and NATO were created Why enlarge these organisations Theoretical explanations End of the Cold War: a new world Enlarging to Eastern Europe: problems and benefits Enlarging to South Eastern Europe: obstacles and incentives

Post-war urge for peace Integration as a tool to promote and sustain peace Tie up Europe’s states tightly together Contain Germany (Coal and Steel) Keep Soviet Union “happy”

EU enlargement Four rounds: 1. UK, Denmark, Ireland (1973) 2. The Mediterranean enlargement: Greece, Spain, Portugal (1981 and 1986) 3. The EFTA Enlargement: Austria, Finland and Sweden (1995) 4. 10+2 Enlargement/Big Bang :Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Malta and Cyprus (2004), Romania and Bulgaria (2007)

Integration Both deepening and widening a relationship Political or Economic? Four aspects of (EU) integration studies EU is an international organisation, integration=IR EU is regional, and can be compared with NAFTA, etc. IR a reasonable theory umbrella EU as a tool for studying policy making dynamics= focus on the inside of the organisation. Organisation studies EU as a sui generis, a particular case in itself.

Integration Three roots for integration theory Federalism Functionalism Transactionalism

Federalism Political movement Create a European Federation Promote peace, efficiency and democracy How to realise it? Direct formula (Consitution) Gradual popular movement Federalism a political movement to raise awareness and promote the project

Functionalism I Main assumption: rational peaceful progress is possible Function not form Human beings need to be: rational about needs creative regarding institutional design Focusing on the function of the institutions Technocratic approach to governance State and politicians ar not taken as given Functional institutions on different (transnational) levels

Functionalism II Peace because loyalty does not lie with the nation state Technocrats (bureaucrats) should solve needs and design institutions Functionalism is not compatible with European integration (Mitrany) Criticism: Technocratic exercise highly political Hopelessly naive

Transactionalism Central concern is to prevent war (post 1989 enlargement?) Security communities People have to be integrated Share a sense of community Amalgamated (EU?) Pluralistic (NATO?) Communication and mutual transactions help establish such communities (building of trust)

Neofunctionalism I The “true” integration theory? Goes hand in hand with the creation of the EU (“Monnet method”) Federal Union Technocratic process Functionalistic (incremental and strategic) ECSC 1950 Economic integration through purposeful institutions lead to political unity

Neofunctionalism II Spillover Integration in one sector creates pressure for integration in another sector Economic and technological integration requires political integration

Enlargement? The founding fathers stated that “all European states” can become members (Rome Treaty) Not discussed per se Not an issue until the fall of the Berlin Wall