Abstract
The main purpose of this article is to critically examine the EU’s policies toward North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. By analyzing the EU’s approach to North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs, this article contributes to the debate about what kind of an actor the EU really is—i.e., whether it is a military power, a civilian power, or a normative power—in the security arena of world politics. As an autocratic regime with fundamental problems in relation to the proliferation of WMD and human rights, North Korea presents a good test case for considering the contested concept of EU’s international identity. The central thesis explored in the present article is that the EU is, strictly speaking, neither a military, nor a civilian, nor a normative power. That said, the EU’s international identity is closest to the concept of a global civilian power.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For instance, in terms of its role in the security domain, the EU has been criticized for its lack of coercive instruments. See Hyde-Price (2006, pp. 217–8).
See “EU–Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) Relations.” Available at https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage_en/8899/EU-Democratic%20People's%20Republic%20of%20Korea%20(DPRK)%20relations
The institutional framework of the EU’s policies on North Korea’s WMD issue is based on the strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction adopted by the European Council in December 2003. This strategy, together with the European Security Strategy (ESS), outlines the principles and direction of the EU’s foreign and security strategy in the twenty-first century.
The CSDP, which has its origins in the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP), was first proposed in Saint-Malo in 1998.
Both the NPE and the CPE share this normative goal.
See the 2003 European Security Strategy, which describes the EU as “a formidable force for good in the world” (2003, p. 13).
Not all scholars agree on the existence of universal norms. For instance, Sjursen (2006, p. 247) argues that it is almost “impossible to come to a rational agreement on universally acceptable norms.”
The EU and South Korea signed a free trade agreement in 2009, which came into force in July 2011. In 2016, South Korea was the EU’s ninth largest partner for exports and eighth largest partner for imports. See Eurostat (2018), “South Korea-EU Trade in Goods.” Available at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/South_Korea-EU_-_trade_in_goods
By the end of 2000, the EU’s financial contribution to KEDO was 75 million euros. It was the fourth largest after South Korea, Japan, and the USA. In December 2001, the EU promised to contribute a further 100 million euros to KEDO (Lee 2005, p. 37).
Council of the European Union (2006), “Council Common Position 2006/795/CFSP of 20 November 2006.” Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32006E0795&from=EN
Council of the European Union (2017), “North Korea: EU expands sanctions against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).” Available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/04/06-eu-sanctions-dprk/
.
EEAS (2015), “EU-DPRK Political Dialog—14th Session.” Available at https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/6336/node/6336_ko
“European NGO Initiatives.” Available at https://vtncankor.wordpress.com/european-ngo-initiatives/
Most former Communist countries, many of which were North Korea’s allies, normalized their relations with South Korea as well as with the Western countries in the aftermath of the Cold War, thereby further isolating North Korea diplomatically.
See “EU–Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) Relations.” Available at https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/20170407_eeas_eu-dprk_fact_sheet.pdf
Council of the European Union (2017), “EU Restrictive Measures against North Korea.” Available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/history-north-korea/
Unlike the USA, Europe has never been North Korea’s primary target. Instead, Pyongyang tends to treat the EU as an alternative dialog partner to the USA.
Here, we follow Robert Dahl’s definition of power: “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do” (Dahl 1957, pp. 202–3).
For instance, the 2003 European Security Strategy reflects the EU’s interest in fostering and acting in accord with shared values: “The development of a stronger international society, well-functioning international institutions, and a rule-based international order is our objective” (Council of the European Union 2003, p. 9).
Council of the European Union, “Guidelines on the EU’s Security and Foreign Policy in East Asia.” Available at http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/asia/docs/guidelines_eu_foreign_sec_pol_east_asia_en.pdf
European Union External Action, “EU Ministers Discuss New Sanctions on North Korea.” Available at https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage_en
The Six-Party Talks were formed in 2003 to deal with North Korea’s nuclear program. The six parties here are the USA, China, Russia, Japan, North Korea, and South Korea.
The political dialogs between the EU and North Korea took place as follows: December 1998 in Brussels (first political dialog), November 1999 in Brussels (second political dialog), November 2000 in Pyongyang (third political dialog), October 2001 in Pyongyang (fourth political dialog), June 2002 in Pyongyang (fifth political dialog), December 2003 in Pyongyang (sixth political dialog), November 2004 in Pyongyang (seventh political dialog), March 2007 in Pyongyang (eighth political dialog), December 2007 in Pyongyang (ninth political dialog), May 2008 in Brussels (tenth political dialog), March 2009 in Pyongyang (eleventh political dialog), October 2009 in Pyongyang (twelfth political dialog), December 2011 in Pyongyang (thirteenth political dialog), and June 2015 in Pyongyang (fourteenth political dialog).
See “DPRK and the EU.” Available at https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage_en/4186/DPRK%20and%20the%20EU
Prior to 2014, most EU member states cut their defense spending over several decades. At the 2017 NATO summit in Brussels, US President Donald Trump strongly criticized NATO allies (23 of which are EU members) for not spending enough on defense: “Twenty-three of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they are supposed to be paying for their defense. This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States.” See David M. Herszenhorn (2017), “Trump Slams NATO Allies on Defense Spending.” Available at http://www.politico.eu/article/trump-nato-foreign-policy-slams-allies-on-defense-spending/.
Council of the European Union (2012), “Guidelines on the EU’s Foreign and Security Policy in East Asia.” Brussels, 15 June. p. 8.
References
Dahl RA (1957) The concept of power. Syst Res Behav Sci 2(3):201–215
Diez T (2005) Constructing the self and changing others: reconsidering “Normative Power Europe”. Millennium J Int Stud Vl. 33(3):613–636
Duchene F (1972) Europe’s role in world politics. In: Mayne R (ed) Europe tomorrow: sixteen Europeans look ahead. Fontana, London
Duchene F (1973) The European Community and the uncertainties of interdependence. In: Kohnstamm M, Hager W (eds) A nations writ large? Foreign policy problems before the European Community. MacMillan, London
Duchene F (1994) Jean Monnet: the first statesman of interdependence. Norton, New York
Ferenczy, Z.A. (2017) ‘The European Union’s engagement policy towards North Korea’. Paper presented at the “International Literature & Human Rights Conference”, Seoul, 29 March. Available at https://hrwf.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/0405-EU-and-North-Korea.pdf. Accessed 24 March 2018
Frank R (2002) EU-North Korean relations: no effort without reason. Int J Korean Unification Stud 11(2):87–119
Galtung J (1973) The European Community: a superpower in the making. Allen & Unwin, London
Gerrits A (2009) Normative Power Europe in a changing world: a discussion. Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael, The Hague
Hyde-Price A (2006) “Normative” Power Europe: a realist critique. J Eur Publ Policy 13(2):217–234
Jorgensen, K.E. and Laatikainen K.V. (2004) ‘The EU and the UN: multilateralism in a new key?’. Paper presented at the Second Pan-European Conference on EU Politics, Bologna, 24–26, June. Available at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.507.9348&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 10 Feb 2018
Kim, M-h (2016) Why provoke? The sino-U.S. competition in East Asia and North Korea’s strategic choice. J of Strategic Studies 39(7):979–998
Lee J (2005) The two faces of EU-North Korea relations. Korean J Def Anal 17(1):33–52
Lee, J. (2010) ‘Between confrontation and cooperation: is there a security role for the European Union on the Korean peninsula?’ IP-Global Edition. Available at https://dgap.org/en/article/getFullPDF/15406. Accessed 18 March 2018
Lee JS (2009) The EU’s economic cooperation with North Korea: the possibility as a useful tool to complement Korea-US cooperation. Int Area Rev 12(2):125–149
Manners I (2002) Normative Power Europe: a contradiction in terms? J Common Mark Stud 40(2):235–258
Manners I (2006) Normative Power Europe reconsidered: beyond the crossroads. J Eur Publ Policy 13(2):182–199
Maull H (1990) Germany and Japan: the new civilian powers. Foreign Aff 69(5):91–106
Mcdonagh K (2015) Talking the talk or walking the walk’: understanding the EU’s security identity. J Common Mark Stud 53(3):627–641
Niblett, R. (2011) ‘Strategic Europe: still a civilian power’. Carnegie Europe. Available at http://carnegieendowment.org/2011/10/05/strategic-europe-still-civilian-power-pub-45665. Accessed 5 April 2018
Paldo, RP. (2014) ‘The EU and North Korea: stopping bombs, encouraging shops’. ARI 32 (June). Available at https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/181885/ARI32-2014-PachecoPardo-EU-and-North-Korea-stopping-bombs-encouraging-shops.pdf. Accessed 7 April 2018
Paldo RP (2017) The EU and the Korean peninsula: diplomatic support, economic aid and security cooperation. IAI Working Papers 17(02):1–15 Available at http://www.iai.it/sites/default/files/iaiwp1702.pdf. Accessed 22 March 2018
Portela, C. (2015) ‘The EU’s evolving responses to nuclear proliferation crises: from incentives to sanctions’. Research Collection School of Social Sciences. Paper 1687, pp. 1–14. Available at http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2942&context=soss_research. Accessed 10 April 2018
Puigserver JG, Nasieniak M, Petillo R, Romaniuk SN (2014) From mere presence to “actorness” in international affairs: upgrading the EU’s role to global. Politikon: IAPSS Political Science Journal 22:21–26
Ramadani B (2015) The European Union military power: the new challenges with odd dilemmas. Journal of Liberty and International Affairs 1(2):1–8
Rosecrance R (1998) The European Union: a new type of international actor. In: Zielonka J (ed) Paradoxes of European foreign policy. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Salmon TC, Shepherd AJK (2003) Toward a European Army: a military power in the making? Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder
Sjursen H (2006) The EU as a “normative” power: how can this be? J Eur Publ Policy 13(2):235–251
Tocci, N. (2008) ‘The European Union as a Normative Foreign Policy Actor’. Center for European policy studies working paper no. 281. Available at http://aei.pitt.edu/7582/1/Wd281.pdf
Trott W (2010) An analysis of civilian, military and normative power in EU foreign policy. POLIS Journal 4(Winter):1–44
Twitchet K (ed) (1976) Europe and the world: the external relations of the common market. St. Martin’s Press, New York
Whitman R (1998) From civilian power to superpower? The international identity of the European Union. Macmillan, Basingstoke
Whitman R (2011) Normative Power Europe: empirical and theoretical perspectives. Palgrave, London
Wood S (2009) The European Union: a normative or Normal power? Eur Foreign Aff Rev 14(1):415–435
Funding
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2016S1A3A2923970).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, Mh., Choi, J. What kind of power is the EU? The EU’s policies toward North Korea’s WMD programs and the debate about the EU’s role in the security arena. Asia Eur J 18, 1–16 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-019-00533-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-019-00533-7