Advertisement

The Discourse: Why the E3/EU Endured

  • Riccardo Alcaro
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics book series (PSEUP)

Abstract

France, Germany, the UK plus the High Representative (the E3/EU) shaped their initiative towards Iran’s nuclear issue in ways that were compatible with the EU foreign policy discourse spelled out in the 2003 Strategy against the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction and especially the European Security Strategy (ESS). The E3 framed Iran’s behaviour as a deviance from the conduct it was supposed to follow as a non-nuclear party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This was clearly in keeping with the underlying theme of the ESS that proliferators put themselves “outside the bounds” of the international society. The EU had a responsibility to bring them into the fold of multilaterally accepted rules and practices. Both diagnostic and prognostic frameworks used by the E3/EU to construe the problem (Iran’s behaviour) and the solution (restoration of a rules-based non-proliferation system) were compatible with the established EU foreign policy discourse, whereby the E3/EU group could endure over time.

References

  1. Agence Europe. (2003a, January 24). Bulletin Quotiedien Europe 8385.Google Scholar
  2. Agence Europe. (2003b, September 2). Bulletin Quotidien Europe 8532.Google Scholar
  3. Agence Europe. (2003c, October 23). Bulletin Quotidien Europe 8570.Google Scholar
  4. Agence Europe. (2004a, September 8). Bulletin Quotidien Europe 8780.Google Scholar
  5. Agence Europe. (2004b, September 14). Bulletin Quotidien Europe 8784.Google Scholar
  6. Agence Europe. (2004c, October 4). Bulletin Quotidien Europe 8788.Google Scholar
  7. Ahlström, C. (2005). The EU strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In S. N. Kile (Ed.), Europe and Iran. Perspectives on non-proliferation (pp. 27–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bailes, A. J. (2005). The European security strategy. An evolutionary history. Stockholm: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=190
  9. Barnier, M. (2005). Conseil Affaires Générales et relations exterieures point de presse du Ministre des Etrangères.Google Scholar
  10. BBC News. (2004, November 4). US attack on Iran ‘inconceivable’. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_politics/3981307.stm. Accessed 2 Apr 2016.
  11. BBC News. (2005, August 13). Germany attacks US on Iran threat. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4149090.stm. Accessed 12 Nov 2017.
  12. Beckett, M. (2007). Keynote address: A world free of nuclear weapons? Speech to the Carnegie international nonproliferation conference, 25 June.Google Scholar
  13. Béland, D., & Cox, R. H. (2011). Introduction: Ideas and politics. In D. Béland & R. H. Cox (Eds.), Ideas and politics in social science research (pp. 3–20). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bergenäs, J. (2010, February 10). The rise of a White Knight State: Sweden’s nonproliferation and disarmament history. Nuclear Threat Initiative. http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/swedens-nonproliferation-history/
  15. Black, I., & Wintour, P. (2003, April 3). Straw distances UK from threats to Syria and Iran. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/apr/03/uk.syria. Accessed 16 Oct 2015.
  16. Council of the European Union. (2003a, June 16). 2518th council meeting. External Relations, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  17. Council of the European Union. (2003b, June 10). Action plan for the implementation of the principles for an EU strategy against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Note by the Council Secretariat. 10354/03.Google Scholar
  18. Council of the European Union. (2003c, July 21). 2522nd council meeting. External Relations, Brussels.Google Scholar
  19. Council of the European Union. (2003d, September 29). 2527th council meeting. External Relations, Brussels.Google Scholar
  20. Council of the European Union. (2003e, October 13). 2533rd council meeting. External Relations, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  21. Council of the European Union. (2003f, December 8–9). 2553rd council meeting. External Relations, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  22. Council of the European Union. (2003g, December 10). EU strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, 15708/03 PESC 768/CODUN 50/CONOP 64/COARM 21. http://eeas.europa.eu/non-proliferation-and-disarmament/wmd/index_en.htm
  23. Council of the European Union. (2004a, February 23). 2563rd council meeting. External Relations, Brussels.Google Scholar
  24. Council of the European Union. (2004b, September 13). 2604th council meeting. External Relations, Brussels.Google Scholar
  25. Council of the European Union. (2004c, November 22–23). 2622nd council meeting. External Relations, Brussels.Google Scholar
  26. Council of the European Union. (2004d, December 13–14). 2361st council meeting. External Relations, Brussels.Google Scholar
  27. Council of the European Union. (2012, January 23). 3142th foreign affairs council meeting. Council conclusions on Iran, Brussels.Google Scholar
  28. Council of the European Union. (2015, July 20). 3404th foreign affairs council meeting. Conclusions on Iran, Brussels.Google Scholar
  29. Douste-Blazy, P. (2005, August 8). Interview with Europe 1. http://www.iranwatch.org/library/government/france/france-mfa-europe-1-interview-douste-blazy-8-8-05. Accessed 15 Oct 2015.
  30. E3/EU+3. (2008, June 14). Proposal to Iran by China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the European Union presented to the Iranian authorities on 14 June 2008 in Tehran. www.bits.de/public/documents/iran/EU-proposal-iran140608.pdf
  31. E3/EU+3. (2010, June 9). Statement by the E3+3 with the support of the EU high representative following the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1929 on the Iranian nuclear programme. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/115039.pdf
  32. Ellner, A. (2013). British nuclear non-proliferation policies towards Iran and the Middle East. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 26(1), 225–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. European Council. (2004). Presidency conclusions, 16238//1/04 REV 1, CONCL 4, Brussels.Google Scholar
  34. European Council. (2009, December 11). Presidency conclusions, EUCO 6/09, CO EUR 6 CONCL 4, Brussels.Google Scholar
  35. European Union. (2003). A secure Europe in a better world. European Security Strategy. Brussels: Secretariat of the European Council. http://www.eeas.europa.eu/csdp/about-csdp/european-security-strategy/
  36. Eurostat. (2015). GDP at current market prices, 2003–2004 and 2012–2015. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:GDP_at_current_market_prices,_2003%E2%80%9304_and_2012%E2%80%9314_YB15.png. Accessed 27 Oct 2015.
  37. Frankopan, P. (2015). The silk roads. A new history of the world. London/New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  38. Grabbe, H. (2002). European Union conditionality and the ‘acquis Communautaire’. International Political Science Review, 23(3), 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hanau Santini, R. (2010). European Union discourses and practices on the Iranian nuclear programme. European Security, 19(3), 467–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. IAEA. (2004, November 26). Communication dated 26 November 2004 received from the permanent representatives of France, Germany, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United Kingdom concerning the agreement signed in Paris on 15 November 2004, INFCIRC/637. www.bits.de/public/documents/iran/Paris_Agreement_infcirc637.pdf
  41. IAEA Board of Governors. (2003, June 6). Implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, report by the Director General GOV/2003/40.Google Scholar
  42. Iranian Government and Visiting EU Foreign Ministers. (2003, October 21). Statement by the Iranian Government and visiting EU foreign ministers. www.bits.de/public/documents/iran/Tehran_EU_Iran_Agreement03.pdf
  43. Kienzle, B. (2013). The role of ideas in EU responses to international crises: Comparing the cases of Iraq and Iran. Cooperation and Conflict, 48, 423–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lindh, A., & Papandereou, G. (2003, 10 April). Så undviker ett nytt Irak” [How can we avoid another Iraq]. Dagens Nyheter. Online. English version available URL: http://archive.papandreou.gr/papandreou/content/Document.aspx?d=6&rd=7739474&f=1360&rf=1307380017&m=3669&rm=22185145&l=1
  45. Linzer, D., & Lynch, C. (2005, September 16). U.S. Agenda on Iran lacking key support. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/15/AR2005091502465.html. Accessed 17 Oct 2015.
  46. Meier, O. (2013, February). European efforts to solve the conflict over Iran’s nuclear programme: How has the European Union performed? Non-proliferation papers no. 27, EU non-proliferation consortium. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/168617/EUNPC_no%2027.pdf
  47. Narkive. (2003, October 22). Bundeskanzler dankt Joschka Fischer für erfolgreiche Vermittlung im Iran. Newsgroup Archive. http://de.soc.politik.misc.narkive.com/h3cbeln5/bundeskanzler-dankt-joschka-fischer-fur-erfolgreiche-vermittlung-im-iran
  48. Portela, C. (2004). The EU and the NPT: Testing the New European nonproliferation strategy. Disarmament Diplomacy, 78. www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd78/78cp.htm
  49. Quille, G., & Keane, R. (2005). The EU and Iran: Towards a new political and security dialogue. In S. N. Kile (Ed.), Europe and Iran. Perspectives on non-proliferation (pp. 97–121). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. RFE/RL. (2003, July 3). EU concerned about Iranian nuclear activities RFL/RL Newsline. http://www.hri.org/news/balkans/rferl/2003/03-07-22.rferl.html#69. Accessed 16 Oct 2015.
  51. Sasse, G. (2008). The European neighbourhood policy: Conditionality revisited for the EU’s eastern neighbours. Europe-Asia Studies, 60(2), 295–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sauer, T. (2007). Coercive diplomacy by the EU: The case of Iran. Discussion paper in diplomacy. The Hague: Netherlands Institute for International Relations ‘Clingendael’. http://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/20070100_cdsp_diplomacy_sauer.pdf
  53. Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schröder, G. (2005, February 12). Speech by Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schröder at the opening of the 41st Munich conference on security policy. http://gerhard-schroeder.de/en/2005/02/12/munich-conference/
  55. Sciolino, E., & Bennhold, K. (2007, February 1). Chirac strays from assailing a nuclear Iran. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/world/europe/01france.html?pagewanted=print
  56. Select Committee on Foreign Affairs of the UK House of Commons. (2004). Foreign affairs. Third report. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmfaff/80/8002.htm
  57. Shipman, T. (2007, October 8). Britain ‘on board’ for US strike on Iran. The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1565411/Britain-on-board-for-US-strikes-on-Iran.html. Accessed 16 Mar 2016.
  58. Smith, K. E. (2005). Engagement and conditionality: Incompatible or mutually reinforcing? In R. Young (Ed.), Global Europe report 2: New terms of engagement (pp. 23–29). London: Foreign Policy Centre, The British Council, the European Commission, in association with Wilton Park.Google Scholar
  59. Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. In B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi, & S. Tarrow (Eds.), From structure to action: Social movement participation across cultures (pp. 197–217). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  60. Straw, J. (2003, June 30). Interview with BBC Radio 4 on the topic of his visit to Iran. BBC Radio 4. www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today3_straw_20030630.ram
  61. Straw, J. (2006, March 13). Iran: The path ahead. UK Foreign Minister Jack Straw remarks on Iran at the International Institute of Strategic Studies. http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.it/2006/03/iran-path-ahead.html
  62. Tertrais, B. (2006). A European perspective: The European Union and nuclear non-proliferation: Does soft power work? In E. Greco, G. Gasparini, & R. Alcaro (Eds.), Nuclear non-proliferation: The transatlantic debate (pp. 37–46). Rome: Istituto Affari Internazionali. http://www.iai.it/sites/default/files/quaderni_e_07.pdf
  63. Tisdall, S., & MacAskill, E. (2003, October 18). France warns against Iran action. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/oct/18/iran.france. Accessed 16 Mar 2016.
  64. Toje, A. (ed.) (2004). A security strategy for Europe. Oxford Journal on Good Governance, 1(1). http://ocgg.org/fileadmin/Journal/OJGG_Vol_1_No_1.pdf
  65. Tran, M. (2010, September 1). Tony Blair: West should use force ‘if Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons’. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/sep/01/tony-blair-west-use-force-iran-nuclear-weapons. Accessed 16 Mar 2016.
  66. Weisman, S. R. (2003, November 25). U.S. acquiesces to allies on new Iran nuclear resolution. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/25/world/us-acquiesces-to-allies-on-new-iran-nuclear-resolution.html. Accessed 20 Oct 2015.
  67. Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zimelis, A. (2011). Conditionality and the EU-ACP partnership: A misguided approach to development? Australian Journal of Political Sciences, 46(3), 389–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Riccardo Alcaro
    • 1
  1. 1.Istituto Affari InternazionaliRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations