Europe and america region: monroe doctrine, eu 2009 common approach, transatlantic relations in george bush jr. period, and relation between eu and latin america

Introduction

In facing the era of globalization, the development of the world is increasingly fast, effective, and the boundaries between countries are also increasingly unclear. From the fact of this globalization, countries in the world are unconsciously dependent on each other and have different levels of integration in different regions. The region that will be the focus of this paper is the Europe-America region. This region is considered to be equally full of developed and competing countries while cooperating in various fields such as economics, business, technology, geopolitics, and others. Europe has an EU where each member country is concerned about what is owned and what the EU does not have at present and it is not uncommon to compare what happens in the EU and what happens in America, a federal country that has a 40% higher GDP rather than EU-15 and higher employment than citizens in Europe or can be said in one entity, namely the European Union (Irvin, 2006). The EU itself has the power of strong integration and is the only perfect example of an economic union with a common currency for one region. This greatness cannot be achieved without the strength and attention of each country. Comparing Europe and America cannot be answered by who wins and who loses. The economy is not that simple especially coupled with other factors that follow with the current swift globalization and the development of science and technology. There are many unique things that surround this region where developed countries and the originators of economic liberalization were born in the western region of the world. As a final assignment, the author of this paper will answer a number of research questions that is not connected to each other but they remain in one scope, namely business diplomacy and political Europe and America region and will conclude with conclusions that become summary answers to research questions about Monroe Doctrine, EU 2009 Common Approach, Transatlantic relations in George Bush Jr. period, and relation between EU and Latin America.

Monroe Doctrine: The History, Effects, and Actors

Monroe Doctrine was coined on December 2, 1823 and this document is one of the important documents in American history about America’s move against colonialism from Europeans and at that time mainly mentioned Great Britain and Spain in Latin America. The originator was the President of the United States of America, James Monroe, in the seventh annual message to Congress (Documents, 1995). According to him, Europe must respect the Western Hemisphere with important points such as the United States will not interfere with matters of internal conflict in the European countries, the United States will not interfere with European affairs with colonies and dependencies that existed at that time in the region the west, the western hemisphere closed the opportunity for Europe to colonize the area, and any attempt made by Europe to colonize or control the western hemisphere would be considered an act against the United States (Augustyn, 2019).

The parties involved in this doctrine have their own economic and political roles. Like Great Britain, which indirectly accepted this doctrine because of the practice of mercantilism by Spain which could threaten the future of the Great Britain market that carries the principle of free trade. But even though the United States of America is on the same side as Great Britain about quelling Spanish colonialism in Latin America, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams disagrees about the clear cooperation between the two parties because with this doctrine that mentions the hemisphere separation, Great Britain is included in the European side mentioned. He also argued that bilateral cooperation between Great Britain and the United States of America could threaten the development of the United States itself because Great Britain was also not too committed to recognizing the independence of countries in Central America and Latin America (Historian, 2017).

In addition to the actors already mentioned, there are other actors who have become the concern of America in triggering this doctrine, namely the Soviet Union or now known as Russia. Russia at that time began to spread its influence to the South, namely from Alaska to Oregon. Secretly Russia became a concern that was quite confusing and at the same time still wary of the United States (Historian, 2017). This is evidenced by the violation of this doctrine when the Soviet Union built military bases in Cuba and the United States gave responses that was air quarantine and military threats for this action (Documents, 1995).

The United States also shows its tactics and political interest in this doctrine, namely the expansion of territory such as buying several Mexican regions and its surroundings (Relations, 2009). The United States also becomes freer in trade because this country shows its neutrality in war in this era so that the country’s elite can determine which are good and which are bad for their trade. From regional expansion, the United States also invests in natural resources and finally buys their economy (Relations, US Foreign, 2009). The examples is the discovery of gold mines in Nevada and California, which used to be the territory of Mexico. The economy has the greatest impact from this doctrine. Trade and transportation are two things that have become the focus of the United States in developing their economies in the Central America and Latin America.

The essence of this doctrine is to liberate America from European colonialism, especially in Central America and Latin America where this doctrine also confirms the hemisphere differences as well as the existence of United States political strategies in this colonial intervention.

European Union’s 2009 Common Approach: Implications and Implementation

The common approach is basically more about the EU structure and the way the agencies working under decentralization system. The specifications of the workings of EU agencies are expected to be more effective, more improved, and fulfill important aspects such as accountability, transparency and integrity, which are realized in the form of a non-binding document adopted by the European Parliament, Council and Commission (Vos, 2018). This document was initiated from 2009 and was inaugurated in 2012.

In March 2009, after a Commission Communication entitled ‘ European organizations: the way forward’, the three establishments propelled an inter-institutional working gathering (IIWG) led by the Commission, to talk about the administration and working of EU offices. The IIWG tended to various key issues, including the job and position of the offices in the EU’s institutional scene, the creation, structure, and activity of these offices, together with subsidizing, budgetary, supervision and the executives’ issues. With everything taken into account, 34 actuality sheets were drafted distinguishing the current circumstance, the issues, the conceivable arrangements, and their execution. After arrangements on that premise, the EP, Council, and Commission achieved a casual understanding in Strasbourg on 12 June 2012. The regular methodology concerns 31 decentralized offices, spread over the Member States, working in various arrangement zones and playing out a wide scope of assignments (Commission, 2012). For some people, organizations are the nearest noticeable nearness of the EU in their lives. Offices’ exercises fluctuate – some convey backing to the Union’s basic leadership process by pooling accessible ability, some embrace singular choices applying concurred EU models, and others help the usage of Community approaches.

The implications of the common approach can be implemented as an international trade strategy. The EU prefers bilateral relations rather than relations between regional entities such as the EU preference that builds better relations with one of the ASEAN countries than with ASEAN itself. In addition to faster agreements in decisions, this strategy is also more intimate than with one regional entity. The common approach used in the trade example is the EU-Singapore relationship. On February 20, 2019 in Brussels, an agreement was reached between EU and Singapore, represented by the Vice President of the European Commission for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union, Valdis Dombrovskis, and the Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, Tharman Shanmugaratnam. They agree to use the common approach to support derivative trading venues to support the G20 reforms for standardized derivatives to be traded on trading platforms. The aim is to facilitate the EU financial counterparties’ obligation under Article 28 of the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (‘ MiFIR’) by executing swaps transactions on organized markets authorized in Singapore. Likewise, Singapore counterparty can engage with EU counterparts on the EU’s Multilateral Trading Facilities (‘ MTF’ or Organized Trading Facilities (‘ OTF’) in compliance with Singapore’s derivatives trading obligation. The trading obligation would be the cover of denominated interest rate swaps in several currencies such as US Dollar, Euro and Pound Sterling (Financial Stability, 2019). The strong commitment between these two entities is expected to be able to transmit the common approach as well as a good strategy for the economy in the future. The common approach can also be used in other fields such as legal aid and public health equity.

This agreement proves the openness of the EU in terms of cooperation with other countries, especially in matters of trade, business and transactions like this. Both parties agreed to supervise the agreement and ensure that the agreement and its impact will run smoothly and be in line with the targets of both parties. Here the common approach is proven to be used not only as a non-binding document used in the EU agencies work structure, but can be calculated as a trade diplomacy strategy.

Transatlantic Relations Analysis under the George Bush Jr. Government.

In understanding the relations between Europe and the US, the effects of World War II and Cold War still contribute to this. Europe and US are both big powers in the international world and indeed compete in various ways. But competition is also followed by close cooperation and awareness of each of the need for diplomacy and cooperation rather than another war or colonization. European and US relations can be referred to as Transatlantic relations because they are both at the Atlantic Rim. These two parts of the western hemisphere ‘ get along’ in the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) as a post-Cold War effect where they now unite their military power.

About the specifications of what happened in the transatlantic relations under the leadership of George Bush Jr. as president of the United States at that time there were indeed many things that tended to be negative and cornered political projections and steps in Bush’s leadership. Many factors cause a crisis in EU-US relations. The first factor is that cooperation between the EU and the US is not as dominant as it was in the past. The EU does not focus on US foreign policy anymore and the strength of the US image can still be matched by the EU itself so that cooperation between the two can be said as an option, not an urgent need. The second factor is that Bush prefers coalitions rather than the overall alliance. Coalitions in certain parts of the government aspects are considered more important, based on EU-US cooperation is a choice, not necessity. The third factor is George Bush Jr. was the first US president who did not focus so much on cooperation with the EU, since the inception of the Marshall Plan and the formation of NATO where US wanted to help Europe in order to build a new Europe that was stronger and more stable after World War II. The fourth factor, George Bush Jr. personalizes every US foreign policy issues and the attitude of the government are considered likely to often offend other US allies. His administration’s attitude is more to make-it-or-break-it attitude (Daalder, 2003).

From the EU’s side, during the Bush administration, transatlantic relations was also influenced by the EU’s focus which was able to stand stronger in various matters and partnerships that were not only focused on the United States and developed its sector more after Cold War, German unification and the collapse of communism from World War II. This is also the effect of the big development of the European Union at this time. The free trade area which is the EU’s special attraction in the world while its economic openness is very helpful in projection of trade and investment with other countries outside the EU and apparently, from US (Heuven, 1994). But this crisis of relations began to be corrected in the second term of the Bush administration. One milestone in which the US was aware of the great effect on what the Bush administration did in its first term was Ireland which rejected the Treaty of Lisbon. It is the great power of democracy in Ireland that causes Ireland to be different from the decisions of other EU countries. Bush’s image is indeed quite bad at this time, but the US has good faith to improve this relationship, as evidenced by visits with several leaders in Europe and large aid in NATO from EU member countries (Gwertzman, 2008).

No matter how bad the relations crisis between EU-US, the two parties are aware of the big role of each other party and the cooperation of the two is still maintained until now with improvements in various sectors. EU and US who are fellow western hemisphere and have their own foreign policies and strengths, can be used simultaneously and correlated to achieve the goals of each region and country. This awareness is the most important in the present, reflecting on what has happened in the Bush era. These two big allies are indeed still counted rivals but need each other with each other coupled with the era of globalization like now.

EU-Latin America: Economic, Political, and Trade Relations

Relations between the EU and Latin America, precisely the EU and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), are running strategically and this partnership began since the first bi-regional Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1999. This is the first meeting point between EU and Latin America. The relations between the two that will be discussed are economic cooperation, political dialogue, and trade relations that have developed until now and what is the status quo between the two parties. The EU and Latin America have a long history of strengthening between other sectors such as culture and forming natural partnerships between each other.

The economic cooperation between the EU and Latin America itself was greatly helped by the rapid development of Latin America which began in the 1990s where Latin America progressed to high commodity prices and produced a healthy economy as well as domestic policies that helped to succeed. The EU collaborates with CELAC, Cariforum, Mercosur, and The Andean Community. This proves the openness of the EU in establishing good relations with Latin American and Central countries.

Because of the different economic conditions and conditions in Latin America, when there was a crisis like in 2008, the economic treatment and cooperation from Latin America also varied. Like Mexico which actually introduced new regulations or like Panama which was more open with international cooperation. But the EU opens the opportunity to strengthen relations with Latin America in three ways, namely trade, foreign direct investment and preferential trade agreements. Even EU is suggested to consider TTIP which is possible for Latin America (Summit, 2015).

In political dialogue between these two regions, the latest summit carried out by the EU and Latin America, represented by CELAC, took place in Brussels in June 2015 and produced a revised EU-CELAC Action Plan and two declarations. They have identified the priority areas for bi-regional cooperation ranging from science and research, over sustainable development or energy to investment and entrepreneurship. Political dialogue is routinely carried out and specific in matters that are to be achieved by both parties. The leaders of the countries involved in sending their respective foreign ministers to hold regular meetings and strengthen this political dialogue (Action, 2018).

In trade relations, EU and Latin America relations are quite close. Latin America (CELAC) is the fifth largest trading partner of the EU (Ramirez, 2016). The EU has concluded free trade agreements with 26 Latin America and Caribbean countries out of 33. EU investments are high quality, diversified (covering the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors), and conducive to sustainable development with technology transfer and innovation (Action, 2018). Whereas Latin America is active in primary goods exports and continues to grow along with the passage of democratic dynamism which is characteristic of Latin America (Summit, 2015). Because Latin America is still focused on primary goods, the EU also helps the development of science and technology in developing market potential in Latin America and is expected to be more competitive internationally.

Conclusion

In the current development of globalization, the problems faced by various regions in the world are also increasingly complex and the level of need between each other is increasingly high. Likewise in the Europe-America region. The conclusion that can be obtained is that Monroe Doctrine is a pioneer in the separation of the western hemisphere and America supports Central America and South America to be independent from European colonization, especially Spain, but also shrouded in political interests from both America and Great Britain in trading against the Spanish system. From the EU side, the 2009 common approach focuses more on the decentralization structure of agencies within the EU and for example in trade diplomacy is the EU-Singapore relations where they apply the common approach well in this collaboration. For EU-US post-Cold War relations, the Bush administration is also an iconic milestone in international relations history. The first term of the Bush administration did indeed seem to distance itself from Europe because of factors such as Bush’s different political views and his focus was not on Europe. But this has been corrected in Bush’s second term. The last is the EU-Latin America relations which can be concluded that Europe plays a major role in the development of trade in Latin America and its surroundings and this reciprocal relationship has great prospects in the fields of economy, politics and trade in the future.

Bibliography

1. Action, E. E. (2018, July 16). EU-CELAC relations. Retrieved April 24, 2019, from European External Relations Service: https://eeas. europa. eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage_en/13042/EU-CELAC%20relations
2. Augustyn, A. (2019, April 3). Monroe Doctrine. Retrieved April 21, 2019, from Brittanica: https://www. britannica. com/event/Monroe-Doctrine
3. Commission, E. (2012, June 13). Breakthrough as EU institutions agree common approach on agencies. Retrieved April 24, 2019, from European Commission: http://europa. eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-604_en. htm
4. Daalder, I. H. (2003, August 21). George W. Bush’s Transatlantic Crisis. Retrieved April 24, 2019, from Brookings: https://www. brookings. edu/opinions/george-w-bushs-transatlantic-crisis/
5. Documents, M. (1995). Monroe Doctrine (1823). Retrieved April 21, 2019, from Our Documents: https://www. ourdocuments. gov/doc. php? flash= false&doc= 23
6. Financial Stability, F. S. (2019). European Commission and Monetary Authority of Singapore joint statement on a common approach on certain derivatives trading venues – 20 February 2019. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved April 24, 2019, from https://ec. europa. eu/info/sites/info/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/190220-joint-statement-ec-mas_en. pdf
7. Gwertzman, B. (2008, June 16). Bush Second Term Repairs Damage to European Relations. (C. A. Kupchan, Interviewer) Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved April 24, 2019, from https://www. cfr. org/interview/bush-second-term-repairs-damage-european-relations
8. Heuven, M. V. (1994). Europe in Transformation. In M. V. Heuven, The U. S Role in Post-Cold War Europe (p. 8). RAND. Retrieved April 24, 2019, from https://www. rand. org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR404. pdf
9. Historian, O. o. (2017, January). Monroe Doctrine, 1823. Retrieved April 21, 2019, from Office of The Historian: https://history. state. gov/milestones/1801-1829/monroe
10. Irvin, G. (2006, November). Europe vs. USA: Whose Economy Wins? Retrieved April 21, 2019, from The Federalist Debate: http://www. federalist-debate. org/index. php/current/item/300-europe-vs-usa-whose-economy-wins
11. Ramirez, E. G. (2016, March 11). EU–Latin America trade relations: Overview and figures. Retrieved April 24, 2019, from European Parliament Think Tank: http://www. europarl. europa. eu/thinktank/en/document. html? reference= EPRS_IDA(2016)579086
12. Relations, U. F. (2009). Monroe Doctrine’s affect on Land/Territory. Retrieved April 21, 2019, from HST 325 – U. S. FOREIGN RELATIONS TO 1914 (MSU): http://projects. leadr. msu. edu/usforeignrelations/exhibits/show/monroe-doctrine-and-latin-amer/land-territory
13. Relations, US Foreign. (2009). The Monroe Doctrine’s affect on Economics. Retrieved April 21, 2019, from HST 325 – U. S. FOREIGN RELATIONS TO 1914 (MSU): http://projects. leadr. msu. edu/usforeignrelations/exhibits/show/monroe-doctrine-and-latin-amer/the-monroe-doctrine-s-affect-o
14. Summit, E. P. (2015). EU-LATIN AMERICA RELATIONS. Brussels: Europe’s World. Retrieved April 24, 2019, from https://eulacfoundation. org/en/system/files/foe-report-latinamerica-2015-web_charting. pdf
15. Vos, E. (2018). EU Agencies, Common Approach, and Parliamentary Scrunity. Brussels: European Parliament. doi: 10. 2861/656418