Advertisement

Expanding Europe, Decreasing Security

  • Simon Duke
Part of the St Antony’s Series book series

Abstract

The Treaty on European Union made provision for an Intergovernmental Conference in 1996.1 The European Council meeting in Corfu, on 24–5 June 1994, established a Reflection Group, chaired by Carlos Westendorp, and mandated that it focus on those areas of the TEU that were subject to revision, including the CFSP. Two questions had risen to the top of the agenda as the IGC approached. First, the development of a CDP/CD and second the nature of the EU—WEU relationship. Prior to the unveiling of the Reflection Group’s findings, a number of other proposals surfaced. In relation to the first issue, the 1994 Reflections on European Policy paper prepared by German Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) Parliamentary leader Wolfgang Schäuble and party foreign policy spokesman Karl Lammers, is worthy of note.2 With regard to the second issue, the WEU’s 1995 Contribution to the European Intergovernmental Conference of 1996 is important.3

Keywords

Security Council Security Policy European Security General Account Office Common Defence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. Simon Nuttall, European Political Co-operation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), p. 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. David Allen, ‘The European Rescue of National Foreign Policy’, in Christopher Hill, The Actors in Europe’s Foreign Policy (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 298.Google Scholar
  3. Gediminius Vitkus, ‘Lithuania and the European Union: Membership Conditions – the Security Dimension’, in Klaudijus Maniokas and Gediminas Vitkus (eds), Lithuania’s Integration into the European Union (Vilnius: European Integration Studies Centre, 1997), p. 29.Google Scholar
  4. For further details of the MCG see, Jette Nordam, ‘The Mediterranean Dialogue: Dispelling misconceptions and building confidence’, NATO Review, Vol. 45(4), July–August 1997, pp. 26–9.Google Scholar
  5. Jonathan Dean, ‘The NATO Mistake: Expansion for all the wrong reasons’, The Washington Monthly, Vol. 29 (7), July/August 1997, p. 36.Google Scholar
  6. Ronald D. Asmus, Richard L. Kugler and Fa. Stephen Larrabee, ‘Adapting NATO: What Will NATO Enlargement Cost?’, Survival, Autumn 1996, Vol. 38(3), pp. 5–27. The figures represent the total of incremental costs plus the cost of measures to improve modernization and restructuring incurred between the years 1997–2009 (two/three years prior to accession and ten years thereafter). For full details see Report to Congress on NATO Enlargement, pp. 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. For a particularly good examination of the methodological pitfalls of public opinion data in the European security area, see Richard Sinnott, ‘European Public Opinion and Security Policy’, Chaillot Papers, (28) July 1997, (Paris: Institute for Security Studies WEU, 1997).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Simon Duke 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Duke
    • 1
  1. 1.European Institute of Public AdministrationMaastrichtNetherlands

Personalised recommendations