Mediaboss Marketing

It is now a public fact that Donald Trump and his cabal, including Republican members of Congress, attempted a coup on Jan. 6, 2021. This de facto conspiracy was sophisticated, multidimensional and nationwide in scale, and included what became a terrorist attack on the U.S. Capitol. We know that Donald Trump was aware of at least some details of this plot and was involved in its planning and execution.

To deny these obvious facts is to either be a believer in the Big Lie and supporter of Trump and the Republican Party's war on American democracy or to be in an extreme state of willful denial. As a practical matter, it is much the same thing.

Within a few weeks, the House select committee investigating the events of Jan. 6, 2021, will finally hold televised public hearings. Their primary task will be to explain to the American people how serious the events of that day actually were and to establish a case that Donald Trump and his co-conspirators should be punished for their crimes.

RELATED:Lt. Col. Alex Vindman: How Trump's coup attempt encouraged Putin's Ukraine invasion

One question that demands much more public attention than it has gotten is how close Donald Trump came to invoking the Insurrection Act, declaring martial law, or to using other presidential emergency powers in an effort to nullify the 2020 election. In the weeks and days before Election Day, military and other national security leaders publicly sounded the alarm through editorials, interviews and other means that the Trump regime might try to order the armed forces to intervene on his behalf. That such figures would feel the need to declare that they were loyal to the Constitution, and not to a particular political leader, is almost unprecedented in American history.

Because of a combination of normalcy bias, cowardice, and outright denial about Trump and his cabal's obvious plans, the mainstream news media and most other public voices did not give these unprecedented warnings the sustained attention they merited. As a result, the American people still do not properly understand how close they came to losing their democracy on Jan. 6, 2021. That danger has only increased since then as the Republicans and their larger movement have escalated their plans to overthrow the country's multiracial democracy.

To discuss this urgent question and others, I recently spoke with Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center's Liberty & National Security Program and a senior practitioner fellow at the University of Chicago's Center for Effective Government. Sheis an expert on presidential emergency powers, government surveillance and government secrecy. Herwriting has been featured in theNew York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal,USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the Atlantic, the New Republic and elsewhere. She has also appeared as a frequent guest on MSNBC, CNN and NPR.

In this conversation, Goitein details various scenarios through which Trump could have declared a "national emergency," perhaps including martial law, as a way of remaining in power and discusses whether that gambit would ultimately have worked. Thepresident of the United States, she explains, has access to immense powers in a time of national emergency, many of which are secret and not subject to any effective oversight from Congress or the courts.

It is also publicly known that Trump wanted the military to use lethal force to suppress the marches and other protests that took place across the country in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police. Goitein explores what would most likely have happened if Trump had given such an order. Shealso shares her concerns about America's current democracy crisis and her perception that the events of Jan. 6 are part of a much larger plan to impose a type of "competitive authoritarian" system in place of genuine electoral democracy.

This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

How do you feel about this moment, with America's democracy crisis and all the other challenges facing this country?

I'm worried, because after the transition to the Biden administration it seemed that people understood there was work to be done before the next presidential election to address some of the weak points in our system that are vulnerable to a leader with autocratic impulses. It also seemed that people understood that what happened with Trump was not necessarily a one-time aberrant occurrence, that there was a real danger of such a movement to undermine democracy trying such things again. Notice I said "movement" and not "moment." We would be seeing it again in future elections.

There seemed to be a decent level of understanding that meant we had to take steps to shore up the guardrails of democracy. I've heard the phrase "guardrails of democracy" a lot. But I don't see those guardrails being strengthened fast enough. I also don't see the urgency and priority being placed on that by either members of Congress or the Biden administration. That's what worries me, because we are running out of time.

How do you make sense of that lack of urgency?

I think there is a theory at work where if the Biden administration shows the American people that democracy can work for them, such an outcome will be the best thing that can be done to push back against anti-democratic forces. Thus, the priority is on laws and policies that will increase the well-being of Americans in their everyday lives. I support that. I believe that is an important part of the equation. I also believe that outcome is worth advancing for reasons totally unrelated to saving our democracy.

There are people in the United States, especially since COVID, who are in dire need of help from the government and some kind of social safety net. But I do not think that can be a substitute for laws that make it harder for a president, and especially one who is a would-be autocrat, to consolidate power. I think it's a mistake to de-prioritize the latter in favor of the former. I don't know for sure that's what's happening, but it's a theory that would explain what we're seeing in terms of the administration's priorities.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

The Democratic leadership in Congress is not going to prioritize something that isn't a priority for the Biden administration. The Biden administration is not necessarily eager to pass laws that rein in its own powers during a term when there are so many crises. Whether that's COVID, or whether it's Russia's invasion of Ukraine, this is a time when it would take an administration with a very long view to embrace laws that would restrict the president's own power. Very few presidents think that way.

I do believe that if legislation that reformed emergency powers came onto President Biden's desk, he would sign it. I can't say that for other presidents, certainly not for the last president, Donald Trump. But that is very different from saying that Biden is going to force Congress to pass emergency powers reform. If it is not on the White House priority list, it is going to be very difficult to make that happen in Congress.

With so much happening in terms of the challenges to American democracy, what advice would you give to people about how to make sense of it all? What should they prioritize?

It would take an administration with a very long view to embrace laws that would restrict the president's power. Very few presidents think that way.

I'm an expert on civil liberties and national security, with a specific focus on presidential emergency powers. That is what I spend my time worrying about. That does not mean it's the only thing that anyone should be worried about, by any means. For example, my colleagues at Brennan Center who work on voting rights are being consumed by that work right now, as well they should. That is another area that the American people should be extremely worried about. There is an attack all around this country, by conservatives on the state and local level, on voting rights.

I understand that with so much going on at the same time, it can be hard to figure out what to make of it all. What I would say is: Do not let the worries become paralyzing. Pick something that you care about. Pick something that you think is important and do something about it.

Call your congressperson. When someone actually picks up the phone and calls their representatives in Congress, that gets noticed. Even today, with all the big money in politics, phone calls to a congressional office get noticed. Do some googling to see what local organizations are working on the issues that you care about.Try to be a force for preserving our democracy. It can seem overwhelming, but once you start biting off pieces of it and putting one foot in front of the other by taking steps to be part of the solution, that work can be very fulfilling.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

What were you thinking as you watched the events of Jan. 6, 2021?

I have never been so aware of watching history unfold. As I was watching the events that day, I kept thinking that whatever comes of this, the world and the United States of America are not going to be the same after this. I've never seen anything like what happened on Jan. 6. None of us have in this country. I was in awe. I wouldn't say I was frightened, because I was pretty sure I knew how it was going to end. I was certainly concerned for the safety and well-being of the people inside the Capitol. I was pretty sure that even a few thousand people attacking the U.S. Capitol were not going to keep President Trump in power.

Perhaps there was a part of me that was thinking, "OK, when people see this, they will understand the threat, and they will reject this. They will reject this anti-democratic movement because they will finally see it for what it is. Democracy means enough to most of us in this country that these people attacking the Capitol will finally be marginalized."

That really didn't happen. Republicans have embraced these anti-democracy forces.

It shows how serious the threat is. It also shows that we have to be just as serious in resolving it. Our democracy is under threat. That doesn't mean that our democracy is lost by any means. We should be scared, but as I said before, being scared shouldn't lull us or intimidate us to inaction. It's the opposite. We have to be just as fierce in our defense of democracy as its opponents are in attacking it.

What would have been the worst-case outcome on Jan. 6, with Trump attempting to stay in power. Could he have invoked the Insurrection Act or perhaps even staged a military coup?

There was a scenario where Trump tries to construe the transfer of power on Jan. 20 as an insurrection, and invokes the Insurrection Act to stop Biden from becoming president.

The worst-case scenario has nothing to do with emergency powers. The real worst-case scenario is that the president attempts a military coup, which is not legal. There is no emergency authority that gives the president the power to declare a military coup. We are extremely fortunate that Trump did not have the military on his side. Military leaders, including [acting] Defense Secretary Miller and the chair of the Joints Chiefs, Gen. Milley, were extremely concerned about the potential for misuse of the military around the time of the presidential election and were determined not to let that happen.

That is one of the country's democratic institutions and guardrails that held: Senior national security officials within the administration retained their loyalty to the Constitution and understood that was their first loyalty. It was a loyalty that went beyond any they might feel toward the president or to their party. That was one of the silver linings of Jan. 6.

A military coup is the worst thing that could have happened. Short of that, I do believe that President Trump could have invoked the Insurrection Act. In fact, I actually believe that on Jan. 6 there was an insurrection, so the Insurrection Act would have been appropriate if the purpose were actually to suppress the attack on the Capitol. But what might have happened instead is that President Trump could have invoked the Insurrection Act as a pretext to get the military involved for the wrong reasons.

There's also a scenario where the president, with or without an attack on the U.S. Capitol, could have somehow construed the transition of power on Jan. 20 itself as an insurrection. Trump could have said, "I won the election despite Congress' certification. Therefore any attempt by Joe Biden to take office is in fact an insurrection. I'm going to declare the Insurrection Act to put down the insurrection."

Obviously, that would have been a clear abuse of the Insurrection Act, and I believe the courts might well have put a stop to it. In any event, it wouldn't have worked in the sense that on Jan. 20, under the Constitution, Trump was no longer president. Even if he somehow managed to prevent President Biden from walking into the White House, he still would not have been president himself. At that point, Nancy Pelosi, as speaker of the House, would have been next in line.

My ultimate point is that there are no emergency powers, and certainly the Insurrection Act is not one of them, that would allow the president to remain in power when there's been an election and someone else has been elected.

Trump was attempting a "self-coup" or "legal coup." But by definition, a leader like Donald Trump does not respect the rule of law. The scenarios you outline seem to assume that the law holds, and that the president and his administration respect it.

It is entirely true that the rule of law means absolutely nothing to an autocrat. It matters in the sense that they need to keep in mind what they can get away with in the courts. They also need to keep in mind what they can get away with politically. If for no other reason than those, I think that the reason why Trump didn't do some of the things that were urged by people such as Michael Flynn was, at least in part, because those actions were so plainly unlawful.

There were various people who were urging Trump to invoke emergency powers to seize the voting machines. If there was in fact an emergency power that authorizes seizure of voting machines, do you think for a second that President Trump wouldn't have exercised it? Of course he would have. The reason he didn't is because there isn't any such power, and he didn't think he could get away with doing it. The other possibility is that there were people, high up in his administration, who knew that they could not get away with seizing the voting machines. Therefore, Trump and his administration did not try it.

What if Trump had ordered the military to seize the voting machines? Or if he had invoked the Insurrection Act? What do you think would have happened?

If Trump had ordered one of the senior officials in his administration to do something that was blatantly illegal, and potentially unconstitutional at the level of preventing a peaceful transition of power, I believe someone like Gen. Milley probably would have refused or resigned. Alternatively, he would certainly have refused, and possibly then been fired.

If there was in fact an emergency power that authorizes seizure of voting machines, do you think for a second that President Trump wouldn't have exercised it?

A future president might be a little more crafty than Trump about putting people in place ahead of time who would be willing to execute such unconstitutional and illegal orders. Ultimately, if Trump had ordered such measures, he would have faced resistance from within his administration. He would have to fire people and then get some other person in an acting position to implement the order, and then it would have gone to the courts.

I think the courts would have stopped a blatantly unlawful power grab. Yes, I know many people are skeptical about that. They will say, "These are Trump judges, and they'll do anything Trump wants them to do." But we know that's not true because after the 2020 election, Trump and his supporters filed upwards of 60 lawsuits in an attempt to invalidate the results in various places around the country. Every judge but one rejected those lawsuits. That includes not only many judges appointed by Republican presidents but several Trump appointees as well.

The courts would have stepped in. At that point, when the courts have said, "You can't do this, you have to stop," if the president continues it is no longer a legal coup. Then it is just a plain coup, meaning potentially a military coup, and then we're back to the fact that the people who were in charge of the military were not willing to go along with such a plan.

What emergency powers does a president actually have?

There are two categories of powers. The first are statutory emergency powers. These are the emergency powers that Congress has delegated to the president. These are public. You can read them and know what is permitted and what is not permitted. They're limited. The president, when he declares a national emergency, can avail himself of these statutory powers, but he can't do anything that's outside of those powers. This is particularly true in the national emergency context, which is governed by the National Emergencies Act. When the president declares a national emergency, that action unlocks powers that are contained in more than 120 different provisions of law. They all say some variation of: "In a national emergency, the president can do X." That means the president can do X, but not Y or Z.

That having been said, some of those powers available in an actual emergency are pretty alarming. They include the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, which is what some Trump supporters suggested could authorize the seizure of voting machines. That law allows the president to essentially freeze any assets or prohibit any financial transactions in order to address a foreign threat. While the threat has to be at least partly coming from overseas, the assets that the president freezes can be assets held by Americans.

The IEEPA is extremely powerful because it basically allows the president to freeze any American's bank accounts and prohibit anybody else from engaging in transactions with that person. The president can do this simply by saying, "I think this person is associated with a foreign threat."

The president also has broad powers to shut down communications as well. Correct?

That would be the Communications Act, which allows the president to take over or shut down radio communications facilities during a national emergency. If a president declares a threat of war, he can go further and he can take over or shut down wire communications facilities. The Communications Act could conceivably be interpreted to allow the president to take over or shut down U.S.-based internet traffic. There are also emergency powers that allow the federal government to control domestic transportation.

There are also powers that do not require the declaration of an emergency. This would be the Insurrection Act, whichgives the president very broad discretion to deploy federal military forces as a domestic police force. This law is dangerously broad and outdated. The whole concept of using military troops as a domestic police force is really contrary to the principles of the U.S. Constitution and to the traditions of this country. In general, using the military as a domestic police force is prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act. But the Insurrection Act is an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, and it is written in such a broad and frankly confusing way that it gives the president a dangerous amount of power.

I grew up during the 1980s and the end of the Cold War and read a great deal about what would happen in the aftermath of a nuclear war. One of the things that was often referenced during movies and books about nuclear war were the secret emergency powers that a president has. These powers are very ominous and most American have no idea about them.

What you're worried about are the "claimed inherent emergency powers." Presidents for decades have claimed that the Constitution gives them all manner of inherent powers that are not spelled out, by virtue of them being deemed the commander in chief of the armed forces. There are supposedly these broad inherent powers, established and detailed for the most part in Department of Justice memos, many of which have never been seen. We don't actually know the full scope of what presidents believe their emergency powers to be.

Presidents for decades have claimed that the Constitution gives them all manner of "inherent powers" that are not spelled out. We don't actually know the scope of what presidents believe their emergency powers to be.

There are a set of documents known as Presidential Emergency Action Documents. These are drafts, directives and orders that are prepared in advance of a range of potential worst-case scenarios. They are ready for the president's signature if one such event was to happen. None of these Presidential Emergency Action Documents, these drafts, directives or orders, has ever been leaked or released. The only way we know what's in them is by secondary sources, including some official sources such as FBI memos and things of that nature which describe their content.

From those secondary sources, we know that, at least in the past, some of these documents purported to implement martial law and purported to suspend habeas corpus unilaterally. Some of them provided for the roundup and detention of Americans who were on a list of so-called subversives. Some of the actions contemplated in these documents are blatantly unconstitutional, but presumably somebody at the Department of Justice who rubber-stamped them was taking the position that there are inherent constitutional powers that the president has under Article 2 [of the Constitution] to take such measures.

To me, these unknown secret claims of emergency power are in some ways the scariest, because we have no idea how far they go. Even Congress doesn't have access to these documents.

It has been confirmed that Trump wanted the military to shoot protesters during the George Floyd protests. What would such an order have looked like? How would it have been translated down to troops on the ground?

I highly doubt that there's any Presidential Emergency Action Document that gives a president authority to order protesters to be shot. I do not believe there's even any claim to some sort of legal authority to do something like that. Essentially, if the president ordered the military to shoot protesters in the legs, that would clearly be an illegal order and members of the military would have an obligation to disobey it. These people aren't posing any threat, they're not being shot in self-defense. We should not imagine that emergency powers are so capacious that they would ever encompass something so blatantly unlawful. That's an order from the president that the troops would have to disobey.

I'm more worried about a scenario in which, let's say, there are Presidential Emergency Action Documents that provide for the imposition of martial law in a scenario where there is an insurrection. The term "insurrection" is in the eye of the beholder. If the beholder in that scenario is a president who believes that he is entitled to stay in power no matter what, at that point a declaration of martial law would enable the military to take the place of civilian government.

Now, that's very different from what's in the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act allows the military to act in support of civilian authorities in order to suppress an insurrection or to quell domestic violence. The military remains subordinate to civilian authorities in that scenario. A scenario in which the military takes over the functions of civilian government is what would be commonly referred to as martial law.

What worries me is that there is no single statute that flatly prohibits martial law. In its absence, I could see a president and the Justice Department arguing that he has that inherent constitutional authority.

The Brennan Center has analyzed this question and has concluded that the president actually has no authority to invoke martial law. That's because Congress has ruled it out by virtue of enacting an extensive network of laws governing domestic deployment of the military. Martial law would be inconsistent with this network of laws. That said, there is no single statute that flatly prohibits martial law, and in its absence, I could see a president and a Department of Justice taking the position that the president has an inherent constitutional authority to declare martial law.

To me, that is a more realistic fear and a major potential concern, one that could be alleviated by Congress.

How do we find that balance, between making sure that a president has the necessary power and latitude to act in response to an emergency, and preventing the abuse of those powers by an autocratic leader?

Checks and balances. It is appropriate to give the president much more flexibility in times of crises, but that flexibility can't be boundless. It should be time-limited, and it should have checks built in to address instances of overreach. Those checks, for the most part, are the other branches of government, the courts and Congress. Any extension of emergency powers to the president should come along with the potential for meaningful judicial review, which means there have to be standards articulated that the court can look to. In my expert opinion, saying that the president can declare a national emergency whenever he wants is problematic. What one can do is come up with a basic definition of what an emergency is, and what an emergency isn't. That definition should not constrain or micromanage the president, but still give the courts some ability to step in.

If the president invokes the Insurrection Act or declares a national emergency and abuses that authority, right now the only way for Congress to stop the president is to pass a law by veto-proof supermajority. When you're talking about powers that are so potent and so vulnerable to abuse, there needs to be a more meaningful check than that. One of the reform proposals that has gained traction in Congress is to require a declaration of national emergency to terminate automatically after 30 days, unless Congress votes to approve it. That would give the president lots more flexibility when he needs it most in the immediate aftermath of a crisis, but then would allow Congress to step in and serve as a check against presidential overreach if the president takes things too far.

When I warn people about how dangerous Donald Trump was and is, and the extreme nature of the country's democracy crisis more generally, I inevitably receive emails and messages telling me to stop scaring people, that this is too frightening and is somehow counterproductive. Given what you have explored in this conversation and your work, what would you say to those people?

If they're scared by what I've said, I take that as a good sign. I don't want anyone to feel hopeless, and I think the trick to taking the edge off the fear is to take action. As I said before, I think when there is a problem that's frightening, as soon as you start doing something about that, it takes the fear and turns it into intention. I think that's a better solution than simply hiding your head in the sand. If you do that, you're going to find out that a lot more scary things happen when you do nothing than when you tackle the problem.

What is your diagnosis of American democracy right now?

I've never seen anything quite like this before. I can tell you what I've seen happen in other cases, but I cannot predict the future. The truth is, we haven't seen something like this in this country before. We know it's serious. We know that the patient requires immediate help, but we just don't know how it's going to end. That's up to us.

Read more on Jan. 6, 2021, and its aftermath:

Go here to see the original:
Trump considered a military coup: Would he have gotten away with it? - Salon

Donald Trump Jr. is an avid hunter, and, in 2019, he traveled to Mongolia and shot a rare Argali mountain sheep but only afterward did he get the government's permission for the kill (via ProPublica). The trip also reportedly cost thousands in taxpayer money to fund his Secret Service detail. He and his brother Eric also raised eyebrows in 2012 when they went on a safari in Africa and killed a host of animals, including an elephant, kudu deer, and crocodile (via TMZ). Now, one of his recent hunting expeditions may land him in court.

In 2018, Don Jr. went on a guided hunt in Utah, during which he killed a bear and a cougar. Now the hunting guide, Wade Lemon, faces felony criminal charges for allegedly "baiting" the bear setting out food to lure it to a spot where it could easily be shot. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Lemon's camera with his name and contact information was found near the illegal bait. Lemon has been suspected of game-baiting on a number of occasions, but this is the first time he has been charged.

The county attorney for the case has called Don Jr. "a victim andnow a possible witness in a fraudulent scheme to lead the hunter to believe it was actually a legitimate Wild West hunting situation." The former first son whose comments are sometimes confusing has not yet responded.

The rest is here:
Here's Why One Of Donald Trump Jr.'s Hunting Trips Might Land Him In Court - The List

Former President Donald Trump speaks during the American Freedom Tour at the Austin Convention Center on May 14, 2022 in Austin, TexasBrandon Bell/Getty Images

Former President Donald Trump spoke via video at CPAC Hungary on Friday.

Zsolt Bayer, a notorious Hungarian journalist, spoke shortly after Trump, The Guardian reported.

Bayer has previously made antisemitic and anti-Roma comments and has used the N-word in his journalism.

Former President Donald Trump shared a platform at a major right-wing conference in Hungary with a journalist who has previously made antisemitic comments, referred to Roma people as "animals," and used racist slurs, according to The Guardian.

Trump spoke on Friday via a video call at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Hungary, an offshoot of the right-wing US political conference, The Guardian reported.

The conference also featured speeches by Tucker Carlson, Mark Meadows, and Candace Owens, per the conference's website.

Trump's speech saw him heap praise on Hungary's authoritarian prime minister Viktor Orbn, The Guardian reported, and came shortly before journalist Zsolt Bayer took to the stage.

Bayer, a Hungarian ultra-conservative media figure, has received widespread criticism for offensive comments.

In 2011, per The Guardian, he used the phrase "stinking excrement" to refer to British Jews.

In 2013, Bayer wrote a piece in which he described Roma people as "animals" who are "unfit to live among people." The publication was fined and the content was ordered to be removed from the internet.

During the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, Bayer used a racist slur to describe Black people in a blog. He also wrote an opinion article, in November 2020, in which he used the N-word.

Bayer was awarded the Knight's Cross of the Hungarian Order of Merit in 2016 by Orbn a move that was condemned by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. "Bayer has a long record of racist speech and has written highly provocative antisemitic and anti-Roma articles in the Hungarian media," the museum said in a statement in August 2016.

The last speaker at the CPAC Hungary even was the far-right US blogger Jack Posobiec, said The Guardian.

Story continues

Insider reached out to Trump's post-presidency office and did not immediately receive a response.

Insider also reached out to the organizers of CPAC, who also did not immediately reply, but published a statement on the conference's website describing criticism as "coordinated smears by the Leftist media."

"CPAC happily takes the arrows aimed at us by the globalist, socialist Left whose objective is the submission of humanity to serve their radical agenda," said the statement.

Read the original article on Business Insider

View original post here:
Donald Trump shares platform at CPAC Hungary with notorious journalist who has used the N-word and described Jews as 'stinking excrement,' report says...

This is an excerpt from Understanding Global Politics by Kevin Bloor. You can download the book free of charge from E-International Relations.

This final chapter examines the magnitude of regionalism as a force within global politics. This chapter seeks to analyse the causes of regionalism, evaluate its relationship with globalisation and outline the development of regional organisations. A primary focus will centre on the European Union (EU), an organisation which continues to provide something of a blueprint for deeper integration. The chapter also considers the significance of the EU as an actor on the global stage, before concluding with the manner and extent to which regionalism attempts to resolve issues such as the avoidance of conflict.

Regionalism

Different Modes of Regionalism: Economic, Political and Security

Regionalism can be defined in the context of international relations as the expression of a shared identity and purpose. It is combined with the creation and implementation of institutions that manifest regional identity and shape activity within that particular region. There are a wide number of regional organisations to consider with varying levels of integration. For instance, the depth of integration within the Arab League or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is considerably weaker than the EU.

It should be recognised that regionalism is the process through which larger geographical or even continental areas emerge as political organisations through integrated international institutions. This may provide a forum for cooperation between various states. The formation of regional blocs has often been driven by the growing impact of economic globalisation. As borders have become more porous, states have sought to co-operate more closely in order to deal with the consequences of interdependence. However, it could also be argued that regional free trade agreements function contrarily, against the process of globalisation.

The driving forces behind regionalism can derive from economic, security and/or political grounds. The European Economic Community (EEC), the forebearer to the EU, is a clear example of economic regionalism. The whole justification for the EEC was to enhance economic growth and development within the European continent. The economic success of the organisation in its early years managed to attract countries around it who soon sought membership. For instance, the United Kingdom was drawn towards the European project partly due to the relative economic success of the EEC.

The creation of the European Union in 1993 was emblematic of regionalism. As a result of the Maastricht Treaty, the EU adopted three separate pillars. These pillars consisted of the European Communities, the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and cooperation in the field of Justice and Home Affairs. This was later abandoned when the Treaty of Lisbon came into force in 2009, and the EU obtained a legal personality. By contrast, NATO is an organisation based entirely upon security concerns. The principal justification for NATO is contained within Article Five of the North Atlantic Treaty, in which an attack on one is interpreted as an attack upon all, ensuring collective security. The European Union has also sought to develop its security dimension via a joint foreign and security policy. The emphasis is upon soft power, such as developmental cooperation, humanitarian aid and the EUs diplomatic presence.

Allied to the three-dimensional character of regionalism is the distinction between old regionalism and new regionalism. Old regionalism is rooted in the experience of interwar nationalism, and as such held a tendency towards protectionism in the economic realm. The formation of the EEC is a clear illustration of the former. Contrastingly, new regionalism entails a more spontaneous process that emerges from within the region itself. In doing so, the process of regionalism adopts towards the dynamics of the region in question. Inevitably, some regions are more conducive towards regional integration than others. The extent to which a particular region accommodates regionalism will also differ considerably over time. For instance, the process of European integration developed from economic to political regionalism. New regionalism is a more complex process that may take place simultaneously at a variety of levels.

The Relationship Between Regionalism and Globalisation

Regionalism is consistent with globalisation in three ways. First and foremost, regional economic blocs have formed due to the adverse impact of globalisation on national sovereignty. States have therefore been more inclined to work closely with other states in the same region, as borders have become porous as a result of normative adaptation within the wider discourse of international politics. This has been striking economically, due to financial markets and multinational corporations (MNCs) having such an impact upon the character of national sovereignty. It is worth noting that even the wealthiest and most powerful economies have been affected by the seemingly unstoppable trend towards globalisation. Membership of a regional bloc does provide at least some level of political influence for the member state in question.

A second reason for the formation of regional economic blocs is that they enable nation-states to resist pressure from external global competition. A regional bloc acting as a customs union can therefore act as a fortress against the pressures from the wider global economy. Perhaps the clearest illustration of this argument is the European Union (EU). The organisation has often been accused of creating trade barriers against states outside of the organisation. This argument is particularly salient towards many of the poorest economies within the Global South. Similarly, the EU can adopt a negotiating position that enables members to resist the competitive forces unleashed by globalisation. For example, the EU can adopt a common position in a trade agreement with China or the United States. It is more likely that a nation-state will have their voice heard as a part of one of the largest single markets in the world than if they were outside of such an organisation. In this manner, the power such a unit may hold will be greater than the sum of its parts, retroactively adding to the perceived power of its member-states.

Thirdly, member states rationalise that the path towards prosperity is by gaining greater access to regional markets. In an increasingly globalised economy, membership of a regional bloc firmly committed towards free trade is a positive. Membership of a free trade area provides access to a larger market. In doing so, it facilitates economies of scale for firms within the regional bloc. Furthermore, regional trade agreements enable the free flow of capital and labour. It is perhaps worth noting that the number of regional trade agreements has risen from just 50 in 1990 to well over 300 today (Fernandes et al.. 2021).

From the opposing angle, the relationship between regionalism and globalisation can be considered a contradictory one. Carving up the global economy on the basis of regional integration is clearly at odds with the actual meaning of globalisation. The rapid growth in the scope and scale of regional agreements is inconsistent with the creation of a truly global economy. Regionalism could therefore be described as the very opposite of the supposed global interconnectedness of states and non-state actors, centring focus on the regional as opposed to the global.

In order to substantiate this argument, the creation of regional organisations generates intra-regional trade rather than globalised trade. The existence of free trade areas, customs unions and common markets on a regional basis fosters trade amongst its members rather than with non-members. Regional integration also enables those organisations to place restrictions on those states outside of the organisation.

In economic parlance, regional integration fosters both trade creation and trade diversion. The motivation behind regional trade agreements is to enable increasingly free trade amongst the member states. However, it also leads towards trade diversion. This can present a major issue if protectionist measures are imposed against non-members. The practice of trade diversion contradicts the aims of the World Trade Organisation and the broader Washington Consensus. It is therefore inconsistent with the process of globalisation as it is usually grasped.

Whilst the terms are often presented on a binary basis, it is certainly plausible to claim that regionalism is intrinsically linked to globalisation. If globalisation is widely thought to be the mutual dependence of states, regionalism can be said to enable such dependence. This is a more nuanced understanding of international relations and one that arguably offers an increasingly convincing explanation of the actual reality of global politics.

The Prospects for Political Regionalism and Regional Governance

The prospects for political regionalism and regional governance are driven by a combination of internal and external factors. The former relates to those factors that characterise the region itself. External factors, however, relate to events that originate from outside of the region (such as the 200708 Global Financial Crisis). The internal forces that shape regional governance may be far greater in one area of the world than another. For instance, the devastation caused by the Second World War undoubtedly provided the impetus behind early moves towards European integration. In addition, the impact of external forces may be significantly greater in one area of the world compared to others.

In order to identify the prospects for regional governance and political regionalism, it is perhaps necessary to consider the issue on a region-by- region basis. In doing so, it is possible to highlight the prospects for political integration and governance. Within the European Union, the prospects for deeper integration appear to be negligible. Due to a combination of forces both inside and outside of their immediate control, the European Union failed to implement an effective convergence criterion. The European Union has also been affected by the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the organisation in 2016. Given the depth of Eurosceptic feeling within many countries, the prospect of deepening regional governance seems limited.

Unlike the European Union, integration within East Asia has been primarily of an economic character. The impetus behind recent political integration was provided by the dramatic impact of the financial crisis during the late 1990s. The financial contagion that swept throughout such relatively open economies required a co-ordinated response from the member states affected. The crisis exposed the dramatic nature of globalisation and the need for some level of political integration to mitigate the overall impact. This led to the Chiang Mai Initiative (CMI). The CMI began as a series of bilateral swap arrangements after the ASEAN plus Three (China, Japan and South Korea) held a meeting of the Asian Development Bank. This provided an Asian solution to the crisis, rather than the region becoming reliant upon the IMF. Having said this, progress towards regional governance remains slow, due to a lack of institutional integration.

In South America, regional governance has been limited by a number of familiar issues. These include the absence of economic convergence, a shift in the balance of global economic power and of course state sovereignty. The present situation consists of incremental attempts towards political regionalism in order to bolster democracy and regional security. The main impetus in recent times has centred upon liberalisation of trade. There are a number of complementary organisations within the region ranging from the Andean Community of Nations to the Southern Common Market Mercado Comn del Sur (MERCOSUR). The region also has a parliament acting as a consultative assembly similar to the early format adopted by the European Parliament. There are also plans to establish the institution as the legislative branch of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). Created in 2010, the organisation reflects a decade-long push for deeper integration. In addition, the Pacific Alliance was created in 2012 amongst countries that border the Pacific Ocean. The aim of the Alliance is to establish the four freedoms in a manner comparable to European integration.

The path adopted by the European Union has also provided a blueprint for the African Union. The organisation has embedded several of the political elements of integration adopted within Europe. There are also signs that economic integration within the region is gathering pace. Although such institutions have not yet been established, there are moves to establish a single currency. This will entail the creation of a central bank based in Nigeria and a monetary fund within Cameroon. There are also plans to adopt an investment bank in Libya. In contrast, integration within North America seems unlikely due to the indifferent approach adopted by Washington. The United States is such a powerful country that integration with their neighbours does not offer anything like the same benefits as integration does for weaker states.

The Impact of Regionalism on State Sovereignty

The process of regionalism is widely viewed as having a negative impact upon state sovereignty. As states cede their authority towards regional organisations, they lose most of their ability to shape their own destiny. This was brought home in stark manner during the UK Brexit referendum, when a majority of the British public voted to leave the European Union. However, the picture is more nuanced than it might first appear.

There has long been a debate over the impact of regionalism on state sovereignty. There are those who claim that regionalism undermines the sovereignty of the state. This is based upon a zero-sum view of sovereignty. As a member of a regional bloc, decisions reached upon the basis of unanimity must be implemented by all the signatory states. This may be supported via the existence of supranational institutions. For instance, the African Union (AU) has recently strengthened its capacity to impose sanctions against member states who fail to meet their financial obligations. The Court of Justice of the European Union is another common illustration of this argument.

From the opposing angle, it could be convincingly argued that states merely pool (or share) sovereignty within any given regional organisation. In doing so, they are better able to shape their own destiny. They are also free to leave at any time. Crucially, this means that the sovereignty of the state has not been compromised. The salience of this argument is supported further by the broader process of globalisation. Issues within international relations tend to be of a cross-border nature (e.g. protection of the environment). Inevitably, this provides a persuasive reason for states to join regional blocs.

In recent years, it should be noted that certain countries have been able to reassert their sovereignty. Despite the combined forces of regional integration and globalisation, predictions about the demise of the nation-state and its associated sovereignty are overstated. Under the Trump administration, a number of decisions were consistent with isolationism. For instance, in 2017, the newly elected President decided to take the US out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The United Kingdom has also decided to counter the trend towards regional integration by leaving the European Union. Conversely, it must be recognised that these decisions have not slowed down the process of regional integration and globalisation. For instance, it is notable that when the United States withdrew from the TPP, in 2017, the remaining countries simply negotiated a new trade arrangement that incorporated most of the provisions from the former agreement. Equally, the European Union has continued with the process of deeper integration despite a major power leaving the organisation.

The Development of Regional Organisations (Excluding the EU)

The North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA)

The North American Free Trade Association is a trilateral trading bloc that consists of the United States, Canada and Mexico. NAFTA aims to reduce or eliminate barriers in the field of trade and investment between those three economies. One of the largest trading blocs in the world, the agreement came into effect during the mid-1990s.

In terms of its positives, the agreement ensures a more open trading system that represents just under 30% of the worlds Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Free trade has also contributed to a series of knock-on effects, such as lower transaction costs and a more efficient allocation of resources consistent with market forces. However, the impact has been controversial in terms of employment and the environment. In the US, NAFTA has been depicted as a source of job losses and lower wages. This criticism has been echoed by figures from both sides of the political spectrum. During the US electoral campaign in 2016, both Democrats (such as Bernie Sanders) and Republicans (such as Donald Trump) voiced anxieties felt within the Rust Belt over the loss of jobs to lower-cost producers in Mexico. Trump, whilst president-elect, even referred to the agreement the single worst trade deal ever approved in the US.

During initial negotiations over the trade agreement, there was significant vocal opposition within the US over the potential impact on American employment. Supporters however claimed the economic benefits of the agreement would be significant. Revealingly, a recent congressional report into the economic impact of the agreement confirms that NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters (Villarreal et al.. 2017). Overall trade with their two immediate neighbours is relatively modest by US standards. Whilst in office, President Trump sought to replace NAFTA with a United States-Mexico- Canada Agreement (USMCA) which took effect in July 2020. Given the similarities with the previous agreement, USMCA is often characterised as NAFTA 2.0.

The environmental impact of NAFTA has also been a source of controversy within Mexico. On the day the agreement came into force, the Zapatistas declared war on the Mexican government for its endorsement of NAFTA. The left-wing political organisation is aligned to the wider alter-globalisation movement and seeks indigenous control over agricultural land. The trade liberalisation that lies at the heart of NAFTA is contrary to their ideological platform. Whilst the USMCA enhances environmental and working regulations, the impact upon the environment remains subject to criticism.

The African Union (AU)

The African Union (AU) represents just over one billion people and includes all states that form the African continent. The AU replaced the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) which was regularly criticised as the dictators club. Since its founding in 2002, the African Union has sought to defend human rights in a more effective manner than its immediate predecessor. One of the inherent weaknesses within the OAU was the manner in which national sovereignty was placed above concerns about human rights violations. The African Union has taken firm action in this area. For instance, Sudan was suspended from the organisation due to violence used against protestors in 2019.

The long-term objective of the organisation is the creation of an economic and monetary union. Following the approach adopted by the EU, the AU seeks to create a single market underpinned by a central bank and a common currency. The aim is to establish an African Economic Community with a common currency by the year 2023. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) came into effect with trade commencing on 1 January 2021. The AfCFTA is the largest in the world in terms of the number of participating countries since the formation of the WTO. This would represent the process of deeper regional integration amongst the member states.

The highest decision-making body within the AU consists of its member- states premiers. Given its status within the organisation, the Assembly has the authority to act upon proposals sent by the African Court of Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR). There is also a representative body of the African Union called the Pan-African Parliament. In contrast, the Commission of the African Union adopts the role of an executive and administrative branch. The organisation also consists of an executive council, a committee of permanent representatives, and a consultative body that considers economic and cultural issues. There is also a quasi-judicial institution responsible for interpreting the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights. The governance of the AU is therefore comparable to the structure adopted by the EU.

Law-making within the organisation derives from a number of sources, such as constitutional documents, treaties and soft laws. Examples of the former consist of those documents that protect the welfare of the child and outline the conduct of democratic elections. The Abuja Treaty (signed in 1991) established the African Economic Community, whilst soft law tends to cover the issues concerning human rights. In common with the EU, the organisation has also developed a military dimension. Its first military intervention occurred in 2003 when peacekeeping forces were dispatched to Burundi. Troops from the African Union have since been deployed in failed states like Somalia on the basis of humanitarian concerns. Integration has also been fostered through various documents (most notably the New Partnership for Africas Development) that have enhanced levels of governance. There has also been progress amongst the member states in terms of improving education and infrastructure. However, there are still issues to resolve, such as discrimination against minority groups.

The Arab League

Formed in 1945, the principal objective of the Arab League is to foster cooperation between member states and promote the common interests of Arab states. Over its lengthy history, the Arab League has provided a forum for member states to deliberate on matters of interest, settle disputes and construct a united voice.

One of the main achievements of the organisation is the development of a common security or military dimension. In 1950, an agreement was reached that committed the signatories to coordinate defence measures. In more recent times, the Arab League launched the Joint Arab Force (JAF) in order to combat the growing threat posed by Islamic extremism within the region. Participation is voluntary and the Army will only intervene at the request of one of the member states. Unlike the EU, the Arab League places a firm emphasis upon national sovereignty and independence.

In the absence of supranational institutions, decision-making is based upon cooperation and negotiation. Although the Arab League does have elements of a representative parliament, it would be highly misleading to make any comparison with the European Parliament. Without supranational institutions to draft and supervise policies, the Arab League has been hamstrung by the need to reach a unanimous position. The governance of the organisation has often been criticised as inefficient.

In contrast to European integration, Arab states have proved resistant to share economic wealth. Members have also found it problematic to resolve ideological differences between them. In particular, the ruling elites within the Gulf region have been reluctant to embrace the concept of Arab nationalism. Equally, vested interests with external powers have proved a major obstacle to the Arab League adopting a system that would compare with the depth of integration achieved by the EU.

In terms of the Middle East conflict, the Arab League has long been supportive of a homeland for the Palestinians. The framers of the initial Pact included the Palestinian Arabs from the very outset and, in 1964, the Arab League created a group designed to represent the Palestinian people. The group later became known as the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO). At the Beirut Summit in 2002, the Arab League adopted the Arab Peace initiative at the behest of Saudi Arabia. The proposal offered a normalisation of relations with Israel in exchange for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from occupied territories. Under the plan, Israel would recognise Palestinian independence in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. The initiative was later promoted by representatives from Jordan and Egypt in 2007.

The Arab League has also reached a common position vis-a-vis the politics of the region. For instance, the League supported the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen and passed a resolution calling for Turkish forces to withdraw from northern Syria. The Arab League also condemned Benjamin Netanyahus plans to annex the Jordan Valley in 2019. Yet having said this, smaller organisations within the Arab world have often been more effective in terms of securing economic objectives. For instance, the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) often uses its valuable resources to exert global political pressure, as it has done in the past.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations is an intergovernmental organisation that consists of ten countries within South-East Asia. The organisation aims to promote cooperation and facilitate political and economic integration amongst its members. ASEAN is one of the most important political organisations within the region alongside the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).

ASEAN has made considerable progress in terms of establishing an area of free trade and political stability. In terms of the former, the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) is one of the most important in the world. Unlike the EU, AFTA does not impose a common external tariff on imported goods. Back in 2008, member states launched the ASEAN Charter, committing the organisation to move towards an EU-style community. The Charter aims to establish a trading area encompassing around 500 million people. It marks progress within a region of the world that like Europe was once riven by warfare. However, there are doubts as to the ability of certain economies to meet the requirements of closer economic integration. In terms of political stability, the organisation has also managed to ensure a nuclear weapons-free zone within the region, despite marked differences between the member states on the issue.

The organisation has also made some progress in the field of human rights. In 2009, the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) was established in order to promote human rights within the region. However, the AICHR lacks the ability to impose sanctions against those countries that violate the rights of its citizens. Criticism has been made over the inability of the organisation to address ethnic cleansing within Myanmar. Corruption also remains an issue within the region, as do several border disputes.

ASEAN works closely with states from outside of the region. Since 1997 ASEAN plus three has provided a forum for cooperation with China, Japan and South Korea. As a result of the late-1990s financial crisis, the Chiang Mai Initiative has sought to establish greater financial stability within Asia. ASEAN Plus Six incorporates India, Australia and New Zealand and provided the framework for the planned East Asia Community and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. ASEAN has also played an active role in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

On a final note, the phrase ASEAN way describes an approach to resolving issues that reflects the cultural norms of South-East Asia. Decision-making is informal, consultative and characterised by the desire for consensus. Quiet diplomacy amongst the member states enables leaders to communicate effectively without resorting to bellicose jingoism. However, this method has been criticised for contributing towards wording based upon the lowest common denominator. It also makes it very difficult for the organisation to take effective action in the face of a serious problem. ASEAN is sometimes viewed as a talking shop thats big on words but small on action.

The European Union

Factors That Fostered European Integration

There are several factors that are readily identifiable as having driven forward the process of European integration. Although the significance of these factors has fluctuated over time, the two constant themes throughout have been economic and political. From the very outset, European integration was designed to provide tangible economic benefits and prevent conflict within the continent.

After the disruption caused by the Second World War, a number of continental countries sought a new pathway towards a more peaceful and stable Europe. France and Germany had engaged in three major wars in the space of just seventy years. In order to break the cycle of conflict, it was agreed that the industries of war would be placed under the control of a supranational institution. In doing so, the ability to create a war machine would be removed. The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was a success, and it paved the way for deeper integration. By the end of the 1950s, both the European Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) a single market for nuclear materials and technology had been established.

In an economic sense, the original six member states of the European Community sought to improve trading links via the removal of trading barriers. France, Germany, Italy and the BENELUX countries all recorded high levels of economic development as a result of trade liberalisation. It is no exaggeration to say that the lure of economic benefits persuaded countries within the second enlargement (such as the UK) to join. During the 1980s and 90s, a framework for economic and monetary union was outlined amongst the member states. The eurozone was established and the European Central Bank (ECB) in Frankfurt sets a common monetary policy within participant states. The eurozone consists of 19 EU member-states and the euro is one of the major global trading currencies on the foreign exchange markets. Given the tradition of state sovereignty over an area of considerable importance, the depth of integration achieved within the economic realm is remarkable.

Alongside political and economic factors, the process of integration has also been driven by a habit of cooperation amongst the member states. Former rivals have placed their differences to one side and embarked upon a European project that has transformed inter-state relations within the continent. Out of the depths of the deadliest military conflict in history, the member states of the European Union have forged a genuine zone of peace. The process of integration within Europe has established a significant actor on the world stage. The European Union is a hybrid of both supranational institutions, such as the ECB, and intergovernmental forums such as the European Council. The existence of both types of institution reflects the debate about supranational versus intergovernmental approaches.

In a theoretical context, the concept of spillover has played a key role within the development of European integration. The founding fathers of the European project sought to provide a practical path towards an ever-closer union. Alongside Altiero Spinelli and Robert Schuman, Jean Monnet outlined a blueprint for a European federation. The Monnet plan entailed taking control of the German coal-producing areas and redirecting production towards the French. The aim was to weaken Germany and strengthen the French economy. Monnet and his allies later put forward the idea of a European Community. Prophetically, it was said that this proposal represents the first concrete step towards a European federation. Jean Monnet also prophesied that Europe will be forged in crises, and that the bloc would end up being the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises. Whether this depiction of the European Union remains a valid one is open to deliberation.

From an initially negative mindset (in the sense that countries were focused upon avoidance), integration amongst the European states has adopted a more proactive approach. Integration in one area has also created a momentum towards integration in other policy areas. Over time, deeper integration has enabled the European Union to perform the role of a major global power. The European Union now boasts a Common Foreign and Security Policy, harmonisation over policymaking and a diplomatic presence throughout the world. It also co-operates extensively with partners such as its relationship with NATO which is depicted as separable, but not separate.

Formation, Role, Objectives and Development of the European Union

The core aim of the European Union is to make progress towards an ever- closer union. The unmistakable tone of this phrase is very much towards further integration. Right from the very outset, the direction of European integration pointed towards the creation of a United States of Europe in the notion of an ever-closer union. From an original community of just six states, the organisation is now one of the most important non-state actors in global affairs with twenty-seven members. During the historical development of the European Union, the organisation has created a quasi-federalist system.

Another key objective of the EU is the existence of the four fundamental freedoms. Since the early-1990s, the EU has been pledged towards free movement of: (1) goods, (2) services, (3) capital and (4) people. This is an integral element of the single market and associated moves towards closer economic integration. The four freedoms are maintained by the role of member states and the various institutions (particularly the Commission). Consistent with the principle of spillover, the organisation has developed from the common market towards a single market with freedom of movement.

Implementation of the four freedoms has not been without controversy. Freedom of movement for goods and services tends to benefit the wealthier economies at the expense of those on the periphery. However, this is to some degree offset by the provision of regional funding. The main problem has undoubtedly been that of immigration. The influx of immigrants from the twelve new member states in the noughties caused anxiety amongst the wealthier states. Cheap labour from Central and Eastern Europe was one of the main causes behind the defeat of the proposed EU constitution during the French referendum. Concern over uncontrolled and unprecedented levels of immigration has also been highlighted by several populist parties and politicians. Furthermore, it was a decisive factor in the result of the 2016 Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom.

Establishment and Powers of its Key Institutions and the Process of Enlargement

When seeking to comprehend the various institutions of the European Union, the first point to consider is the distinction between supranational and intergovernmental institutions. In basic terms, supranational bodies take decisions above the nation-state. An intergovernmental institution, however, retains the sovereignty of the state. The former tends to drive forward the development of a federal Europe, whilst the latter emphasises the importance of unanimity and the protection of national interests.

Another point to grasp is that the various institutions approximate the three branches of government. In terms of the executive branch, the European Commission consists of appointees from each member state. It is responsible for implementing decisions, upholding the treaties and managing the administrative functions of the EU. The Commission also proposes legislation and operates on the basis of a cabinet government. As with other executive branches, the term Commission is used in a collective sense towards the civil servants in the de facto capital Brussels. They work within departments known as Directorates-General.

The European Parliament (EP) is the main law-making branch of the EU. Alongside the Council of the European Union, the EP adopts legislation proposed by the Commission. The EP consists of members directly elected from the member states. The European Parliament has grown in terms of competence and now shares equal legislative and budgetary powers with the Council. The legislative branch also holds the Commission to account. For instance, the EP approves the appointment of the Commission and can force the entire executive body to step down.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) interprets EU legislation to ensure that rules are implemented in the same manner across all twenty- seven member states. National courts may require clarification from the CJEU in terms of how to interpret existing law. This supranational body also adjudicates upon legal disputes between national governments and EU institutions. Individuals, companies, and organisations can also bring cases to the attention of the court provided it relates to EU law. The judicial body enforces the law when an infringement has taken place. Finally, the CJEU can annul any EU law when there is a violation of existing treaties or fundamental rights. The CJEU is sometimes confused with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). However, it must be recalled that the ECtHR is not an EU institution but rather enforces the ECHR and is attached to The Council of Europe, not to be confused with any EU body, and is the institution formed after the Second World War to uphold human rights on the European continent.

The main intergovernmental body of the EU is the European Council. Given that it consists of member-states premiers, the European Council is well- suited to debates over major projects. For instance, the practicalities of enlarging the EU during the noughties were discussed in depth at the Council level. As a collective body, the European Council shapes the overall direction and priorities of the organisation. Although it has no law-making power, it does provide a forum by which strategic planning can be achieved. Decisions taken within these EU summits are taken on the basis of consensus unless the existing treaties provide otherwise.

The Council of the European Union (sometimes referred to simply as the Council, or sometimes The Council of Ministers) is also an intergovernmental institution. It consists of representatives from member states to create a particular policy area. Alongside the European Parliament, the Council serves to amend and approve proposals made by the executive branch via its legislative role. The presidency of the Council rotates every six months amongst the national governments. Unlike the European Council, decisions are usually made on the basis of qualified majority voting (QMV), whereby each state is given a plurality of votes in relation to population density. Employed within intergovernmental forums, qualified majority voting (QMV) enables the decision-making process to move forward without the need for unanimity within the European Council and Council of the EU. QMV is arguably the inevitable consequence of an organisation that has expanded significantly since its inception. Less important decisions are made via simple majority, although in some cases the national veto is retained.

The accession process is formally launched when a country submits their application. This is addressed to the Council of the European Union, which then asks the Commission to assess the application. On the basis of agreed criteria, known as The Copenhagen Criteria, the Commission issues its recommendations for further steps that the applicant must take. Depending on these details, the Commission may recommend that the Council grant the applicant candidate status. On the basis of the opinions provided by the Commission, the Council has to agree on a unanimous basis whether to accept the application and whether accession negotiations should begin. The Council also decides whether or not the applicant should be given candidate status.

The lengthy process of negotiation focuses upon when the candidate country is to adopt the rules and obligations of membership, and under what conditions. Since the 2004 enlargement, the negotiating framework entails a suspension clause if the candidate makes a serious and persistent breach of the principles of the organisation (such as democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law). The negotiating framework also contains a clause that considers the EUs capacity to absorb a new member. These two areas have proved to be a stumbling-block regarding Turkeys potential membership of the EU.

Key Treaties and Agreements

Ratified by all of the member states, the EU treaties outline the role of the institutions alongside its remit and objectives. The EU acts within the competences granted via these treaties (and subsequent amendments ratified by the member states). However, the actual constitutional basis of the European Union derives from the Rome Treaty and the Maastricht Treaty.

The Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (more commonly known as The Rome Treaty) was signed in 1957 by the six original members. The Rome Treaty established the European Economic Community (EEC) and laid the foundation for integration amongst member states. In 1992, the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht was primarily responsible for the creation of the single currency, the euro. It also renamed itself as the European Union in recognition of the expanded competences of the organisation, and established a pathway towards further integration within high politics (such as foreign policy and home affairs).

Since the passage of the Maastricht Treaty, there have been three further agreements. The Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) transferred certain powers from national legislatures to the European Parliament alongside institutional changes to accommodate planned enlargement. The Nice Treaty (2001) agreed to further institutional reform in order to accommodate the planned expansion towards Central and Eastern Europe, which took place in 2004. From a similar angle, the Lisbon Treaty (2007) moved from unanimity voting to QMV in several areas. It also expanded the powers of the European Parliament, created a legal personality for the EU and made the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding. Finally, it gave member states the right to leave the EU and outlined the means to do so.

The EU also has a number of agreements that match its multi-speed approach. Although not a formal part of EU law, since 1995 the Schengen agreement enables visa-free travel amongst its participants. Most member states participate within the Schengen zone; 22 member-states currently fully participate, with Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania and Cyprus holding a legal obligation to join in the future, and Ireland opting out. The EU has managed to bypass the problem of gaining unanimity via securing agreements regarding the creation of Eurocorps, the European Gendarmerie Force, and the European fiscal compact. This serves to underline the overall importance of agreements reached within a multi-speed Europe.

Economic and Monetary Union

Economic and monetary union (EMU) is one of the major achievements of the European Union. In accordance with the incremental nature of European integration, EMU has been established at various stages. The latest stage is the creation of a eurozone, which is characterised by a common monetary policy and a single currency. In order to become a member, participant states need to meet the convergence criteria. With the exception of Denmark, all EU member states must comply with the convergence criteria with the expectation of eventual membership of the eurozone.

During the 1950s and 1960s, the process of European integration provided tangible economic benefits to its members. This was an era of stable economic growth within and between the original six members. The practical path offered by the founding fathers of the European project seemed to deliver genuine economic benefits. However, the record of the eurozone is more mixed. There are several reasons for this, not least the slowdown in the global economy that was out of the direct control of the EU. That said, the lack of convergence within the organisation is partly due to unrealistic targets. Poorer performing economies such as the Mediterranean PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain) were allowed to join the eurozone by including the hidden economy within the figures. The level of public sector debt recorded within these economies has meant bailouts funded by the more efficient economies and significant political unrest within those affected by the sovereign debt crisis, the events in Greece during the 2008 financial crash illustrating this case in point.

Another problem specific to the eurozone is the inflexible nature of monetary policy. Within such a vast economic unit, it is difficult for the central bank to adopt the correct measures. Adopting a level of interest rates suitable for the German economy may not match the interests of those economies on the periphery (such as those in Southern Europe). This may relate to other economic problems such as high levels of unemployment. The degree of youth unemployment within the eurozone is a particular concern for the long- term prospects of the European project. The inability of European integration to provide the economic benefits associated with its previous success continues to cast a considerable shadow over EMU.

Debates about Supranational Versus Intergovernmental Approaches

The debate concerning supranationalism versus intergovernmentalism concerns the thorny issue of how to proceed with European integration. This reflects a difference of opinion that was present at the very beginnings of the European project between those who wished to retain national sovereignty, and those who believed in the formation of a, so-called, United States of Europe. During the historical development of the organisation, the influence of these two distinct perspectives has fluctuated.

To clarify the distinction between supranationalism and intergovernmentalism, the Maastricht Treaty introduced the principle of subsidiarity, which was the notion that decision making capabilities are retained by member-states if EU intervention is unnecessary. Since then, the EU is obliged to take action at the most appropriate level of decision-making. For example, there are certain areas of policymaking that are more properly dealt with on the basis of unanimity. In such cases, the intergovernmentalist approach is adopted. However, there are other areas in which a supranational institution such as the Commission should make the decisions. In recent years, the powers of the European Parliament have also increased, for example to include supervising EU budgetary and institutional matters.

The founding fathers of the European Union could see the necessity for supranational institutions to drive the project forward. From the very outset, it should be recognised that integration was never intended to be wholly democratic in the manner that political action would be on the domestic level of the nation-state. Instead, there was a recognition that the forces of nationalism should be suppressed in order to prevent the outbreak of warfare, as had cursed Europe for centuries. For instance, during the Second World War, Altiero Spinelli and fellow prisoner Ernesto Rossi compiled a draft manifesto for a united Europe (Union of European Federalists 2019). They claimed that the war against fascism would have been pointless if it re- established a discredited system based upon shifting alliances. The proposal for a European federation of states with supranational bodies offered a tangible path towards a lasting peace. In tying all European nations so closely together, the possibility for any future wars would disappear, following a liberal grasp of International Relations.

The intergovernmentalist approach stipulates that member states are the primary actors within the process of integration. Intergovernmentalism marks an attempt to defend the national interest against communality and harmonisation driven by supranational bodies. The European Council and the Council of the European Union can halt those projects put forward by the supranational institutions. The institutional structure of the EU therefore provides a brake upon the process of political, social and economic integration. Equally, the intergovernmental forums within the EU have provided the right environment for planning major European projects like the single market.

The Significance of the EU as an International Body and Global Actor

The importance of the EU presents a fascinating case study to consider within global politics. Often identified as sui generis, any assessment of the EU and its agency must recognise that it holds a unique set of characteristics. For instance, it would be unhelpful to make a direct comparison with great powers in terms of political and military influence. Given its structure, there are obvious limitations placed upon the EU that are distinct from that of a nation- state. Yet, having said this, the EU exerts considerable influence within global affairs on the basis of its soft power potential within the economic and diplomatic realm.

Over its historical development, the EU has facilitated the spread of democracy and respect for human rights. This has been achieved via encouraging former dictatorial regimes to join the organisation and therefore accept the rules and obligations of membership, transforming these previously non-democratic societies into open, democratic states. Many of the member states from Southern and Eastern Europe were at one time characterised by their dictatorial systems. The EU has also fostered liberal values in terms of the rule of law alongside free, fair and regular elections upholding the liberal democratic peace thesis.

In diplomatic terms, the European External Action Service performs the role of the EUs diplomatic service with delegations and offices throughout the world. The EU is represented at the high table of global governance with a seat at the G20 and the WTO. It also holds observer status in the IMF, the UN General Assembly and G7 summits. The EU is a signatory to 50 free trade agreements with other countries, and works in partnership with emerging and regional groups on the basis of mutual interests. The level of humanitarian assistance provided by the organisation is second only to the United States. For an organisation initially created out of the wreckage of warfare, it seems symbolic that the EU was once awarded the Nobel Peace prize, in 2012. The success of the EU as a political organisation is tacitly underlined when other regional organisations seek to implement a comparable structure (most notably the African Union and ASEAN).

The political capacity of the EU has expanded alongside the enlargement of the organisation itself. Membership of the EU could be said to foster a zone of stability in a continent with a troubled history of conflict. It could be argued that the most significant political achievement of the organisation is its expansion from the original six to twenty-seven members, covering just under 4.5 million square kilometres and housing the third largest population in the world, if taken cumulatively. This has led to an increasing number of states applying to join the union. At the time of writing, there were five official candidate countries: Montenegro, the Republic of North Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey and Albania. It is worth noting that as recently as the 1990s some of these applicants were ravaged by warfare and instances of ethnic cleansing. Membership of the EU remains an attractive pull in terms of regional funding, global standing and access to the single market.

There are of course several constraints and obstacles that limit the EUs political influence. In terms of its relative importance, the EU is undoubtedly weaker than the United States. Whilst there is a debate over how to characterise the power balance within international relations, it cannot be denied that the US is the dominant political power.

The EU also finds it problematic to adopt an effective unified position. The EU is an organisation forged through compromise and consensus. In the search to speak with one voice, the European position can at times be something of a whisper. The complexity of its internal structure is one obvious limitation to consider here. In an organisation built upon a hybrid of intergovernmentalism and supranationalism, the EU cannot always act in a rapid and effective manner. Ultimately, it lacks the federal structure and political weight of a potential hegemon such as the United States, and as such is limited by its internal structural fractures, divisions and debate.

In economic terms, the EU is undoubtedly a significant actor within global affairs. Measured by the share of global GDP, the EU is the second largest economy in the world with a population size of approximately 450 million. This alone enables the EU to utilise its economic resources to exert influence. This is perhaps to be expected given that the project itself began essentially as an economic union. As the common market proved to be a success, countries sought membership for its economic benefits. The process of economic and monetary union has created a distinct European market that operates in a similar manner to any domestic economy. The single currency is the second largest reserve currency and the second most traded currency in the world, following the US Dollar in both cases. Moves towards implementing the four freedoms make it far easier to move abroad for work, and the Schengen Agreement even allows for largely unrestricted free movement of labour.

Having said this, the process of economic and monetary union has faced major problems since the sovereign debt crisis of the late 1990s. It could be argued that the lack of convergence between the more developed economies such as Germany and the less efficient economies of Southern Europe was always going to present a problem. The institutions of the EU fudged the issue of convergence and the resultant difficulties were to some extent a problem of their own making. Attempts to resolve the issue (such as debt restructuring) have only partially addressed the economic difficulties facing the organisation. For instance, there is a clear limitation presented by the divergent levels of public debt within the EU. In the context of economic and monetary union, those who support deeper integration may have placed political rhetoric over economic reality.

In structural terms, the EU has developed a highly developed and unique system of governance. This has enabled the organisation to act effectively and drive forward the process of integration. In relative terms, the progress made via European integration is indeed considerable. The EU has a common fisheries policy, a common agricultural policy and has harmonised over thirty separate policy areas. The laws, court decisions and directives passed by the institutions of the EU (otherwise known as the Acquis Communautaire) are of undoubted political importance.

However, the main constraint upon the EU is its democratic deficit. This refers to a lack of democratic legitimacy within the organisation. The main source of criticism centres upon the executive branch. It is undeniable that an unelected number of bureaucrats lie at the very heart of European decision-making, placing the accountability of the EU in the line of critique. Another related element to consider is the lack of public support for European integration. It is revealing to note that turnout in European Parliamentary elections has tended to decline, whilst the powers awarded to the institution have increased.

Pro-Europeans argue in favour of institutional reform in order to make decision-makers more accountable. Eurosceptics however believe that the project is inherently undemocratic. They point out that EU institutions have a habit of gaining powers over time despite the lack of public support for such measures. Powers should therefore be transferred to the national level in order to restore a sense of accountability. The UKs 2016 referendum and subsequent withdrawal from the organisation in 2020 has undoubtedly changed the contours of debate over this matter. Eurosceptic parties and politicians have gained support in several member states as a reaction against federal overreach from Brussels.

In terms of its military influence, the EU is relatively weaker than in the case of its economic might. The Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) involves military or civilian missions. Troops are deployed in order to preserve peace, prevent conflict and maintain security in accordance with the requirements of the international community. Military missions are carried out by EU forces established from the member states. Similar to Article Five of NATO, the CSDP consists of the principle of collective self-defence amongst the member states.

See the rest here:
Regionalism and the European Union - E-International Relations

The Biden administration has come out strongly against Prime Minister Boris Johnsons government in the deepening row between the UK and European Union over the Northern Ireland Protocol.

The protocol governs post-Brexit trade. It was ostensibly designed to prevent the return of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, a European Union (EU) member state. However, it did so by effectively creating an EU border in the Irish Sea, which is anathema to the norths unionist parties and, especially on account of its substantial bureaucratic obstacles to trade, to the majority of the UK Conservative Party.

The Irish nationalist Sinn Fin for the first time secured the most votes of any party in the May 5 Northern Ireland Assembly elections, while the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) suffered heavy losses. The DUP responded by continuing to block the power sharing executive from meeting, by refusing to support the election of a new speaker. The Johnson government has used this to threaten a unilateral rewriting of the protocol, including by targeting the role of theEuropean Court of Justicein overseeing disputes and restoring Westminsters power to decide VAT sales tax rates. Last week Foreign Secretary Liz Truss proposed a bill to these ends, without releasing its contents, that could be adopted as early as next month.

This has raised genuine fears among many workers that the constitutional arrangements that ended the civil war in Northern Ireland, embodied in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, could unravelbringing a return to sectarian conflict led above all by the hardline Unionists.

For British imperialism, the Tory/Unionist response not only threatens trade war with the EU but open conflict with the Biden administration. The US, which presided over the 1998 agreements, holds a dominant position in the Republics economy which it uses as a staging ground for accessing the Single European Market and as a tax shelter for its major corporations. But the threat to US operations in Europe is now meeting up with concern that the UK is endangering the coalition Washington has assembled to pursue military hostilities against Russia.

A delegation of US politicians this weekend began a tour of Europe and the UK, which continued Monday in Dublin and now moves on to Belfast. It is led by Richard E. Neal, the Democrat chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. On Friday Congressman Brendan Boyle announced that a statement had been agreed with members of the European Parliament declaring that renegotiating the protocol is not an option. Speaking from west County Kerry in Ireland Sunday, Neal told RT, President Biden, Speaker Pelosi and I have made our position known that nothing can jeopardise the Good Friday Agreement.

He referred to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosis tweets Thursday repeating the warning by Biden that there would be no chance of Congress supporting a US/UK free trade pact if the Good Friday Agreement is undermined. She wrote, As I have stated in my conversations with the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and Members of the House of Commons, if the United Kingdom chooses to undermine the Good Friday Accords, the Congress cannot and will not support a bilateral free trade agreement with the United Kingdom.

In some ways more damaging still for Johnson, who has positioned himself as the number-one military ally of the US, Derek Chollet, the senior adviser to Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, told the BBC that a big fight between the UK and the EU was the last thing Washington wanted. Speaking after meetings in Downing Street Friday, he said Russian President Vladimir Putin would use any opportunity he can to show that our alliance is fraying We want to see this issue resolved and we want to see the temperature lowered and no unilateral acts.

It is a measure of the crisis gripping the Johnson government that the threats from the US met with an overtly hostile response. After what were described as frank talks with the US delegation at her country retreat ofChevening onSaturday, Truss tweeted that the UK is defending the Good Friday Agreement and warned that she would not let the situation drag on.

Former Brexit minister Lord Frost, who negotiated the protocol, told BBC Radio 4 that Pelosis intervention was ignorant because It is the protocol itself thats undermining [the Good Friday Agreement] and people who cant see that really shouldnt be commenting on the situation in Northern Ireland.

In the Daily Telegraph, Conor Burns, a Northern Ireland minister and Johnsons special Brexit envoy to the US, said, We seek an ambitious [free trade agreement] with the US. But there can be no connection between that and doing the right thing for Northern Ireland. None.'

One reason for the UKs intransigent pose is that many Tories have already given up on any prospect of a US trade deal, despite this being placed at the centre of the argument for a post-Brexit economic policy that would compensate for lost European trade. The New York Times commented that it is no longer clear how much leverage Pelosis threat has in the UK. The White House has signalled that striking a deal with Britain is not high on its list of priorities, anyway.

Such is the international isolation and emphasised weakness of British imperialism post-Brexit that the Tories are extraordinarily reliant on the Unionists, with all the dangers this entails. On Friday, DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson warned, You cannot have power-sharing without consensus in Northern Ireland, describing Pelosis contributions as entirely unhelpful and repeating a mantra that frankly is hopelessly out of date. DUP Economy Minister Gordon Lyons described Neal as a supporter of Irish unification who had worked closely with Friends of Sinn Fin. Traditional Unionist Voice party representative Stephen Cooper denounced the interference of foreign figures and said that the Stormont parties should treat the belligerent meddling of Irish premier Michel Martin with the contempt it deserves.

This right-wing political block is facing off against an emerging alliance led by the US and encompassing the European imperialist powers, the Republic of Ireland, Sinn Fin and the pro-EU Alliance Party in the north, as well as Britains Labour Party and the Scottish National Party (SNP).

Underscoring the prospect of the break-up of the UK, SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon met with Sinn Fins deputy leader Michelle O'Neill Saturday at her official Edinburgh residence. Sturgeon linked separatism to Brexit, telling the media that Scotland and Northern Ireland both voted against Brexit, bringing to the fore a system of government thats been at play in the UK for some time now that is not serving all of our interests.

The struggle over the protocol has become the focus of extraordinary inter-imperialist and national tensions, in which the essential concerns of the working class find no genuine expression. For workers the only outcome of such conflicts in ruling circles, whatever democratic rhetoric is utilised, will be an escalation of already crushing levels of austerity as all sides seek competitive advantage at their expense while the availability of essential goods is jeopardised and prices go through the roof. Meanwhile all sides will continue with the war drive against Russia, even as they employ sectarianism and nationalism to and divide and politically demobilise the working class.

Faced with a deepening economic and social catastrophe and the headlong descent of the imperialist powers into a planet-threatening war, the working class must reject all siren appeals to line up behind opposed blocks of capitalist parties and states. The democratic and social aspirations of workers and youth in Northern Ireland, Catholic and Protestant, can only be realised through a politically conscious struggle for a united and socialist Ireland. But this fight must be linked with the emerging struggles of British workers against the hated and crisis-ridden Johnson government, and those of the entire European working class against their own exploitersagainst trade and military war and for the United Socialist States of Europe.

Sign up for the WSWS email newsletter

Visit link:
US aligns with European Union against the UK on Northern Ireland Protocol - WSWS