Politik Eropa

December 4 2021

Draft of EU’s Strategic Compass, Progress for EU Army?

Chatrine Debora America, Europe, Politics, Security and Defence, Think Pertahanan dan Keamanan, Politik Eropa, Uni Eropa 1

The European Union has been discussing the creation of the European Army to a more significant military role. The plan has made little progress, but recently the EU released a new draft of “Strategic Compass for Security and Defence,” which outlined defense cooperation mechanisms in Europe. One of the main scenarios is a plan to build a Rapid Development Capability (RDC) of up to 5,000 thousand troops in an emergency for the EU by 2025. The draft of the strategic compass that Josep Borrell, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, prepares will have further discussion in March 2022.

Though the plan is expected not to be in force until 2023, the discussion is still on the floor. The high representative at the EU stressed that the EU needs an EU army for the sake of EU long-term defense capability and strength. The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, also stressed the importance of European military power to strengthen the role of the European security force both on a domestic and global scale. The lack of political will and internal disagreements are still a substantial burden for the plan to be in force.

The proposed thousands of soldiers of the “European Army” have similarities with the United Nations Peacekeeping, which will consist of the troops from the member states. But how would it progress, and why has the discussion been rising, again, now?

The EU should develop its own ‘capable’ military forces.

The EU’s decision-making body, the European Council, will discuss, develop, and agree on the foreign and security policies, which require consensus from all member states. All member states need to consent as it will be binding legally and financially according to policies. Strategic Compass, which focuses on improving troops’ capacity, proves a forward move by the EU, but the lack of unity within the EU will obstruct the plan. Strategic Compass regards the geopolitics theory, which focuses on an interrelation between the politics of a nation with its geography. Geopolitics tries to examine how foreign policy is created regarding the geographic features in the international system.

A joint EU army is needed now that the geopolitics focus has changed. Several factors need to be focused on, such as the EU political surrounding, EU-US relations, domestic security issues, and EU global vision to promote stable and secure international order. Historically, the EU has no army and relies most of its security purposes on NATO and contemporary or ad-hoc forces from the member states. Many EU member states, especially in Eastern Europe, such as Poland, always reject the idea of an EU army.

The need for building common basic understanding and goals regarding the EU army is critically needed. At the same time, the political dynamic and interest of national and global actors are changing, so does the EU-US relations. The political relations between the EU and the United States have dissented since the former US President, Donald Trump. Now the leadership changed, some agreements were back in force, but some visions are still the same. The geostrategic competition between US-China made Biden focus more on the Indo-Pacific, looking at the creation of Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) and the current nuclear submarine plan with Australia and the United Kingdom (UK), AUKUS. The feeling of ‘left behind’ drives the EU to build its own ‘self-defense,’ such as the chaos of the troops’ withdrawal from the US-led mission in Afghanistan and the Poland-Belarus border crisis.

Geostrategically, the European region is also highly concerned about the stability in the Baltic and its neighbor, Russia. Unpredictable moves made by the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, who is currently ‘testing the water’ of the EU and the US using the Ukraine border crisis. The provocation by Putin reflects a clear warning of a security threat to the whole European region. Putin stated that the aggressive and reckless moves would only happen if they felt threatened. Only zero to little possibilities of Putin’s next actions in Ukraine. Therefore, the open military threats from the neighbor need a response. EU’s autonomy and collectives move while cooperating with the US for support measures. The potential of using military force at the border is necessary for deterring the Russian military capability. Solid and high-capable army forces and defense systems within the European Union need to develop from now.

The European Army Needs to Keep Progressing

Building a country’s military force will not be easy, instant, and cheap work. The problem is not every EU member state is willing to spend more on the military budget, as in NATO, the biggest military spending came from the US. One way or another, the EU needs to pace its security capability for its security interests. Germany and France have the highest military spending with $52.8 (billion) and $52.7 (billion) in 2020. Eckhard Lübkemeier (2020) argues that Europe has four essential requirements to develop its self-defense: sufficient military capability, effective strategy, political leadership, and a broader and greater European integration.

According to the data from Eurostat, in 2019, the member states of the EU have only spent up to €168.5 billion, which represents only 2.6 percent of total government expenses. The expenditure is only an equivalent of 1.2 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is lower than NATO expected to be around 2 percent. The amount is only a slight increase every year. Generally, the percentage remained the same; therefore, the expectation of increasing the average of spending on the military budget will not change a lot.

The idea of building an EU army will also raise concern on the current US-led NATO, as the army for the EU army and NATO will overlap, and the government budget will also increase and divide. It might raise a ‘competition’ or conflict among armed forces to secure the European region’s political and security interests. The cooperation between EU-US within NATO has expanded. The NATO officials’ welcome’ the EU ambition to increase its military ambitions while stressing that the ‘EU Army’ should not duplicate the current NATO structures. The concern relates to political leadership and practical strategies, as in a military context, there is a line of authority that affects the chain of command.

Internally, the lack of European forces’ capability and weapon defense system raises skepticism. The need to develop military capability is a long-term project and process. The President of the European Commission, Ursula Leyen, has numerous domestic and global challenges to advance the idea of an EU army. For sure, all member states’ political will and consensus is critical to develop and build a strong and effective military strategy and capability for the EU Army.

November 5 2021

Polexit: Another Challenge for EU Legitimacy?

Chatrine Debora Europe, Politics, Social and Culture, Think Morawiecki, Politik Eropa, Uni Eropa 0

Poland has challenged the rule of law of the European Union (EU) by refusing to obligate the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decisions regarding judicial reforms. As stressed by the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, Poland’s refusal to the EU’s foundation has been considered a ‘direct challenge’ to the unity of the EU legal order. The confrontation made by Poland is a straightforward question on the EU rule of law legitimacy. Flathman (1993) defines legitimacy as “a consent that allows (people) to transfer some or all of their authority to others, to authorize others to act on their behalf.” Within the EU, member states accept the EU authority since some policies are formulated at the EU level and implemented into the national law.

Consent is critical in European law since it becomes the legitimate obligation for domestic actors to their commitments in the EU. The legitimacy of the European law is based on Article 2 of the Treaty on EU, which correlates with monism theory. Kelsen (1992) defines monism as “the view of international law and the various state legal systems taken together constitute a unified normative system.” As stated in the monism theory, the EU law has supremacy over national law as some policies are directly applicable and legally binding to the national rule. The European Law integrates with the national law; thus, member states must respect EU law within their national legal system.

It should note that the direct effect of EU law over national law will only prevail if the EU law is incorporated and applicable on a national scale. Even if the law can be directly applicable, it does not mean it will always be directly effective for every member state. The European Court of Justice (ECJ), which consists of judges from all member states, is created to ensure the full application and same interpretation of the European law in national law. Therefore, any conflicts, misinterpretation, and violations of EU law are part of the ECJ for final decision.

The ECJ shared that Poland has violated the rule of law values by appointing non-independent judges, which raised conflict between the EU and Poland’s ruling nationalists. The dispute jeopardizes the rule of law and EU integration and even further Poland from the EU. Nonetheless, The Poland Exit (Polexit) will not happen soon as almost ninety percent of Poles and the government favor Poland’s membership in the EU. Then, what is at stake?

Poland’s Conflict of Interest and the EU Law Supremacy

EU integration aims to build trust for all member states and promote the common EU’s values such as the rule of law and democracy. The rule of law makes the EU unite and, at the same time, restricts member states from acting according to the bloc’s shared values. The ongoing dispute between the EU and the Polish government was raised in 2015 when Poland’s Law and Justice (PiS) took power and planned to reform the judiciary in Poland.

The Polish Constitutional Tribunal (PCT), a body that adjudicates domestic constitution and international agreement compliance, asked the Prime Minister of Poland, Mateusz Morawiecki, to verdict Poland’s constitutional tribunal. The PCT, dominated by anti-Europe parties Law and Justice Party (PiS), wanted Poland judges to use national law rather than the EU law regarding judiciary reform. Poland disagrees, especially with Article 1 and 4 in the EU Treaty regarding EU supremacy over Poland law, which is viewed as degrading Poland’s sovereignty.

Moreover, Morawiecki said that the highest law in the EU is the country’s constitution, and he stressed the difference in Poland’s judiciary system would not affect the EU. According to the monism theory, the EU law is directly applicable in national law; therefore, the policies and rules formulated are all binding to member states. Poland expressed a violation of the idea that the EU law has precedence over national law. The contradictions of national and EU values are also backfired to the EU integration and law authority.

Back to domestic politics, Poland’s Law and Justice (PiS), led by Jarosław Kaczyński, had been at odds with the EU, particularly on judicial independence laws within the EU. Kaczyński is always skeptical and even creates a joint declaration with other right parties to ‘protect’ Poland’s sovereignty. For protecting this ‘sovereignty,’ Kaczynski pressed for judicial independence. Judicial independence is a critical foundation for the rule of law as it must be free of influence and functions to protect the public interest.

The problem lies in the different perspectives on the judgment of Poland and the EU. Poland wanted to reform as it wished to the judges to be free from corruption, which in fact, the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ) was dominated by the PiS supporter. The EU believed that the PiS only install and choose the judge who is politically in favor and support the PiS. The situation raised concern on politically motivated of Poland, particularly the PiS, for reforming the judicial for their interests. Furthermore, The Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) published a report regarding the assessment of judicial reforms in the Polish government. The report showed a deep concern for judges’ independence as the law for disciplining judges creates a vulnerable state for judges from any political influence.

The problem in Poland is not a misinterpretation but a mere political motivation to have more control in the judiciary reforms. In addition, the report also found that the Polish government has trouble with its integrity issue in the principal executive functions. For Poland, the EU has no right to intervene in the national constitution. In contrast, the EU laws are directly effective and enforceable, including in the national court. The ECJ has every right to uphold and defend the EU’s values and treaty and observe the conflicts and disputes within the EU member states.

Poland could not choose what law to agree or disagree.

The violation shows that some elite politicians, PiS and Morawiecki, want to gain more control over the domestic law system for their interests rather than binding to the EU. The EU can not stand still, as the EU authority and integration are at risk. The EU has imposed financial sanctions on Poland up to USD1,2 million, which Poland refuses to pay. The economic sanction is just the first step to worsen Poland if it violates the EU laws and values.

The Polish government needs to respect the EU rules. The EU Commission, on the other hand, will secure the bloc’s integration. The membership does not mean the EU has degraded their members’ sovereignty, as PCT stated, because all member states remain sovereign and independent. Poland has signed an agreement with the EU, and then they already know the consequence of the rights they have enjoyed within the EU. Poland’s stubbornness will only cost more for the economy and political credibility within the EU. As Poland did not want to exit the EU, then it must comply with the EU law. Poland could not decide which treaty or law to accept and other laws to against. If negotiation only would not make Poland back off, further economic sanction and political isolation will.

March 18 2021

Pasca Brexit: Lika-Liku Hubungan Inggris dan Uni Eropa

Chatrine Debora Europe, Politics, Social and Culture, Think Brexit, Inggris, Politik Eropa, Uni Eropa 0

Meski sudah resmi keluar dari Uni Eropa (UE), namun hubungan antara UE dan Inggris terus memanas. Komisi Eropa, sebagai badan eksekutif UE melayangkan pemberitahuan formal pada Inggris hari Senin lalu terkait pelanggaran ketentuan Protokol Irlandia dan Irlandia Utara sebagai bagian dari kepatuhan terhadap Perjanjian Brexit (Withdrawal Agreement), yang menjadi babak baru perjanjian antara UE dan Inggris. Lalu, mengapa perseteruan antara UE dan Inggris ini bisa terjadi?

Pemutusan Hubungan Inggris dan UE
Withdrawal Agreement yakni perjanjian internasional mengikat pada hukum internasional yang sudah diratifikasi sejak awal Januari tahun 2020 lalu merupakan perjanjian keluarnya Inggris dari keanggotaan UE.^[1] Perjanjian ini mengatur perekonomian dan keuangan, hak asasi, perjanjian perbatasan, dan penyelesaian perseteruan antara UE dan Inggris ke depannya, termasuk terkait perpindahan barang jasa ke Irlandia Utara.

Withdrawal Agreement ini penting dalam mendukung perdamaian dan stabilitas pasar tunggal UE serta menghindari perbatasan barang berlebihan di Irlandia Utara. Perjanjian ini memiliki masa transisi 3 (tiga) bulan sejak berakhirnya masa transisi Brexit (British Exit) pada 1 Januari lalu sehingga berbagai kesepakatan yang mengatur industri makanan perlu melakukan adaptasi batasan baru perdagangan di sepanjang Laut Irlandia.^[2]

Perjanjian ini ternyata memunculkan tensi politik antara Inggris, UE, dan Irlandia Utara karena berkaitan dengan pengaturan perekonomian dan politik, termasuk perlindungan kesepakatan Irlandia Utara (The Good Friday Agreement)^[3] mengenai masa depan kedaulatan Irlandia Utara, antara menjadi bagian Inggris atau persatuan Irlandia, di mana menurut survei terkait Brexit, mayoritas di Irlandia Utara memilih tetap di UE.^[4] Permasalahan UE dan Inggris terkait Irlandia Utara dimulai saat Inggris secara sepihak melakukan kesepakatan dengan Irlandia Utara yang memperpanjang periode pemeriksaan impor makanan ke Irlandia Utara hingga 1 Oktober 2021.

Inggris masih merasa “superior” atas Uni Eropa?
Inggris menyatakan kesepakatan dengan Irlandia Utara tidak melanggar protokol.^[5] Inggris juga sejak tahun lalu sudah menetapkan Undang-Undang Pasar Internal Inggris (The Internal Market Bill) yang bertujuan memastikan pasar internal Inggris secara hukum siap pada akhir masa transisi Brexit, yang sebenarnya berpotensi mengesampingkan kekuatan hukum internasional, termasuk Withdrawal Agreement dengan UE.^[6] Secara historis, baik Irlandia dengan Inggris atau Inggris dan UE memiliki hubungan politik rumit. Namun pada dasarnya hal ini berkaitan dengan kepentingan nasional Inggris untuk domestik dan peran globalnya.

Menggunakan konsep realisme Jackson dan Sorensen, realisme menilai kebijakan luar negeri dan kepentingan nasional penting untuk pencapaian kekuasaan dan kelangsungan hidup negara yakni dalam keamanan, politik, dan ekonomi.^[7] Mengingat realisme menilai aktor negara paling penting dibandingkan organisasi supranasional seperti contoh UE, Inggris memandang bahwa kedaulatannya lebih tinggi daripada UE sehingga setiap keputusan harus diputuskan oleh Inggris dan untuk Inggris tanpa pengaruh dari pihak lain.

Keputusan Inggris yang melanggar perjanjian internasional dengan UE menggambarkan Inggris lebih memprioritaskan kepentingan nasionalnya terutama ekonomi dibandingkan risiko tensi politik dengan UE. Hal ini dikarenakan dampak awal keluarnya Inggris dari UE ditambah pandemi corona membuat perdagangan antara Inggris dan UE merosot tajam hingga ekspor menurun 40,7% dan impor menurun 28,8% yang membuat perekonomian Inggris dari bulan ke bulan menurun sebanyak 2,9%.^[8] Mengingat UE merupakan rekan terdekat perdagangan bagi Inggris, maka tensi politik ini berisiko memperburuk hubungan dagang satu sama lain karena semakin meningkatnya batasan perdagangan dengan UE dan bisa berdampak pada perekonomian jangka panjang di Inggris.

Uni Eropa sedang menunjukkan “kapabilitas” nya
Pelanggaran perjanjian yang dilakukan Inggris bukan yang pertama karena September 2020 lalu Inggris mengakui melanggar UU Pasar Internal Inggris yang secara otomatis melanggar perjanjian internasional Withdrawal Agreement juga.^[9] Pada tahun 2020 tersebut, UE juga melayangkan surat peringatan pada Inggris namun tidak digubris, sehingga UE sudah dua kali mengambil jalur hukum atas tindakan Inggris. Kontroversi UU Pasar Internal Inggris terutama pada Pasal 42,43, dan 45^[10] ini dianggap UE melanggar hukum internasional karena pada pasal 42 ayat 5 khususnya, membuat menteri memiliki kekuasaan untuk mengubah atau melunturkan prosedur terkait protokol Irlandia Utara, yang merupakan bagian dari Withdrawal Agreement.

Keputusan UE dalam menindak tegas pelanggaran yang dilakukan Inggris tidak terlepas dari kepentingan UE baik secara ekonomi dan politik, yakni disatu sisi untuk memberikan sanksi pelanggaran bagi Inggris dan di sisi lain menunjukkan kapabilitas serta kekuatan UE pada negara anggota dan global dalam menjaga keadilan dan integritas pasar tunggal UE serta kepatuhan terhadap Withdrawal Agreement.

Dampak jalur hukum Uni Eropa atas Inggris
Pasca surat pemberitahuan, terdapat beberapa skema^[11] yang mungkin terjadi, yakni pertama, Inggris memiliki waktu 1 (satu) bulan untuk membalas atau mengirimkan hasil observasi dari pemberitahuan formal dari UE. Setelah itu, baik jika sudah selesai atau belum, Komisi Eropa akan memutuskan untuk mengeluarkan Reasoned Opinion yakni permintaan formal untuk patuh dalam hukum UE, di mana berdasarkan Protokol Pengadilan Hukum UE, maka UE memiliki kekuasaan penuh untuk melakukan tindakan sesuai perjanjian, termasuk pemberian denda. Skema kedua yakni jika Inggris tidak setuju dengan konsultasi pada Komite Gabungan setelah waktu sebulan tersebut, maka UE melalui ayat 169 Withdrawal Agreement akan melakukan mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa hingga arbitrase yang juga akan berujung pada sanksi finansial termasuk tarif impor dari Inggris.

Tensi politik antara Inggris dan UE ini perlu ditindak dengan tegas namun tetap mengutamakan diplomasi berdasarkan nilai demokrasi yang dijunjung di Eropa. Hal ini dikarenakan tensi berkepanjangan antara UE dan Inggris berisiko melunturkan prinsip kepercayaan dan kepentingan bersama di area Eropa. Meski memiliki pandangan dan kepentingan yang berbeda, baik UE dan Inggris tetap perlu bertindak sesuai dengan kesepakatan yang sudah ditandatangani bersama untuk mendukung kestabilan, perdamaian, dan perekonomian nasional dan regional Eropa dalam jangka panjang.

^[1] HM Government, -, TECHNICAL NOTE: IMPLEMENTING THE WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT, Service of the Government of the UK, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/628116/Technical_note_implementing_the_withdrawal_agreement_FINAL.pdf

^[2] Kara Fox dan James Frater, 2021, EU launches legal action against UK over Northern Ireland protocol, CNN Edition, https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/15/europe/eu-uk-brexit-grace-period-northern-ireland-gbr-intl/index.html

^[3] Tom Edgington dan Chris Morris, 2021, Brexit: What is the Northern Ireland Protocol and why are there checks?, BBC, https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-53724381

^[4] BBC, 2020, EU Referendum Result, BBC, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results

^[5] Philip Blenkinshop, 2021, EU launches UK Northern Ireland legal case, Canberra Times, https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7168387/eu-launches-uk-northern-ireland-legal-case/

^[6] Steeve Peers, 2020, How does the Internal Market Bill breach the EU Withdrawal Agreement?, Prospect Magazine, https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/internal-market-bill-break-international-law-brexit

^[7] Munafrizal Manal, 2015, Foreign Policy and National Interest: Realism and Its Critiques, Global & Strategis, Th. 9, No.2, https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/JGS/article/view/6902

^[8] Richard Partington, 2021, Exports to EU plunge by 40% in first month since Brexit, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/12/exports-to-eu-plunge-in-first-month-since-brexit-uk-economy

^[9] European Parliament Think Tank, 2020, UK Internal Market Bill and the Withdrawal Agreement, European Parliament, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2020)659359

^[10] Sahil Thapa, 2020, The Internal Market Bill: A New Threat to the Rule of Law, The Oxford University Undergraduate Law Journal, https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/ouulj/blog/2020/10/internal-market-bill-new-threat-rule

^[11] Press release European Commission, 2021, Withdrawal Agreement: Commission sends letter of formal notice to the United Kingdom for breach of its obligations under the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_1132