The European Unions Neighborhood Policy - Case Study Example

THE EUROPEAN UNION’S NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICY: TO WHAT EXTENT IT AIMS TO SECURE THE STABILITYAND SECURITY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ITSELF INTRODUCTION: The European Union’s engagement with its immediate neighbourhood over the past decade can justifiably be considered a highly distinctive and dynamic feature of Europe’s foreign and security policy. This also most clearly differentiates EU foreign and security policy from the Cold War period. The end of the Cold War and the collapse of Soviet hegemony after 1989 quickly created the demand, not only from the newly liberated countries but from Western capitals including Washington, for Europe to assume the responsibilities of economic and political stabilization of the region (Nuttall, 2000: 125). As a consequence, this dimension of Europe’s foreign and security policy has gained a new centrality and significance since the end of the Cold War, partially overshadowing the other dimensions and responsibilities of the EU. The future of European integration is very much linked to the success and failure of the strategic engagement of the EU with the countries and regions in its immediate neighbourhood. This challenge can be considered to have three major dimensions to it: First, there has been the challenge of the enlargement of the European Union, to take on new members and to define the new borders of the Union. The second dimension of this challenge has been the impact of the EU’s ambition to provide a political union to complement its economic union. The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) represent the most visible aspects of this political ambition. There are numerous studies highlighting the weaknesses and failures of the CFSP, and the lack of progress on ESDP, and expectations of what these policies are likely to produce has become increasingly more realistic, if not pessimistic. The third dimension is driven by the security challenges emanating from Europe’s periphery and the demands for an effective crisis management capability. The Balkan conflicts first exposed this need for such a capacity and demonstrated the complete lack of preparedness of the EU (Dannreuther, 2004: 1-3). DISCUSSION: The Chairman of the European Security Forum, Francois Heisbourg stated that there is a striking difference between the external challenges facing the European Union (EU) and its members and the great, increasing internal difficulties within Europe, which impair the ability of the EU to act as a significant player on the international scene (Emerson, 2007: 1). The French and Dutch “no” votes against the Constitutional Treaty in May-June 2005 left the EU at an institutional impasse. Undertakings between allies need to be honoured while the scale of the challenges in Afghanistan require a more direct involvement of the regional players such as Iran as part of an integrated international venture, rather than to continue as an essentially Western effort (Emerson, 2007: 4). The French and Dutch rejections of the Constitutional Treaty have opened up a period of deep and protracted difficulties for the European Union. The strategic implications of the new situation are compounded by the fact that foreign and security policy was one of the areas in which significant innovations have been provided for by the Constitutional treaty (p.6). According to Charles Grant, Director of the Centre for European Reform, London, the European Union’s malaise from 2005 is the result of at least four problems: economic failure, institutional blockage, diminishing legitimacy and lack of leadership. The Commission is weak, while most of the larger member states have leaders who appear to care little about the fate of the European Union. Revival of prospects for EU enlargement, and a kind of associate membership for countries that have no hope of joining the EU are suggested (Emerson, 2007: 15). The European Union’s Neighbours: According to Dannreuther (2004: 205), there appear to be emerging three broad categories or concentric circles of neighbouring countries surrounding the enlarged EU. First, there are the countries that have a short- or medium-term perspective for membership. These include Romania and Bulgaria, which have missed out being in the first tranche of candidates for accession but are projected to join in 2007-8. It also includes Turkey and the countries of the western Balkans. The second category of countries includes those that are neighbours of an enlarged Europe, that can be considered to be part of a “wider Europe” but that have no immediate or medium-term perspective for membership. These are the countries of the southern Mediterranean rim, from Syria and Lebanon to Morocco, and the countries of the western NIS, meaning Belarus, Russia, Ukraine and Moldova. The third category designates those countries that are considered to be geographically proximate but that neither are immediate neighbours of the enlarged Union nor have any medium-term perspective for membership. These include the countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia and the non-Mediterranean countries of the Middle East, such as Iraq, Iran and the Gulf States (Dannreuther, 2004: 205). In principle, an enlarged European Union should be a more powerful and strategic actor, but this can only ultimately be guaranteed if there also exists the institutional capacity to define and implement the desired foreign and security policies. Without this capacity, the EU potentially remains a toothless international actor, unable to project its influence with the necessary coherence and sustainability, states Dannreuther (2004: 206). Security Threat: The European periphery is viewed by EU member states as the primary source of many of the non-traditional security threats, such as terrorism, migration and transnational organized crime, which in turn compels European engagement with the countries of these regions. The EU’s internal security agenda, arguably the most dynamic area of European integration, particularly since the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, is therefore a highly significant dimension of Europe’s strategic engagement with its neighbourhood (Dannreuther, 2004: 3). The geostrategic consequences of the end of the Cold War have required the EU to prioritize and sharpen the focus of its foreign and security policy towards the countries and regions in its immediate neighbourhood. Concentrating on this dynamic area of EU foreign and security policy should contribute to the ongoing debate about the EU as an international actor and Europe’s prospects for translating its economic might into political and strategic influence. In addition, the EU’s strategic engagement with its immediate neighbourhood is closely related to the evolving self-definition of Europe’s borders, identity and purpose, states Dannreuther (2004: 3). According to Zielonka (2001: 507), this can lead to a further debate about whether Europe is developing into a classical state which rigidly demarcates between internal and external, citizen and alien, or into an alternative post-modern entity in which these divisions are collapsed or sublimated. These debates have become even more intense in the aftermath of the al-Qaida terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and the subsequent international crisis over Iraq, which culminated in military action spearheaded by the United States and the United Kingdom in March 2003. This period has not been the most auspicious for the EU’s foreign and security policy. The Iraq crisis has again demonstrated the internal divisions between the EU member states, the continuing primacy of national foreign policies, and the conflicting national interests and threat assessments. These undermine the potential for a coherent European foreign and security policy. Most observers are pessimistic, judging the latest crisis as confirming the EU’s incapability in implementing foreign policy, its internal structural deficiencies, and its paralysis of action (Gordon, 1997/ 98: 27). Europe’s Neighbourhood Policy in Relation to Security: The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) is primarily an attempt to create good neighbours: namely the kind who conforms not only to EU values generally, but also to EU standards and laws in specific economic and social areas. The process of growing closer to the EU by approximating its values and standards is expected to help increase prosperity and security in the neighbourhood. A secondary aspect of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) is to prevent the emergence of new dividing lines through a variety of means, including more cross-border cooperation (Balzacq and Carrera, 2006: 211). Due to threats such as terrorist attacks that have been dominating international security for the past years, the focus on European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) and mutual defence is required, but a broader approach has to be sought: including a vision for a world order and a common approach towards global opportunities and challenges (p.245). According to Balzacq and Carrera (2006: 208), the importance of the neighbourhood for European Union policy making has been reiterated at the highest levels. The December 2003 European Security Strategy declared that building security in the neighbourhood was one of the three strategic objectives for the European Union. The draft constitutional treaty contains a new provision: Article 1-57 on the “Union and its Neighbours”. According to this the Union shall develop special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness. Biscop (2005: 10) reiterates that this should lead to in-depth economic integration, close political and cultural relations, and a joint responsibility for conflict prevention. The EU is to offer very concrete benefits in fields such as market access and investments, which should be linked to progress made towards political and economic reforms in the neighbouring States. As long-term policies, this comprehensive and cooperative approach to security has emerged as the predominant characteristic of EU external action. Though it is less visible than traditional diplomacy or “high politics”, it represents a huge and often very successful effort on the part of the EU. In the long-term policy areas, the EU is an actor which seeks to influence the international environment, states Biscop (2005: 10). Biscop (2005: 10) observes that a comprehensive approach to security is particularly characteristic of EU policy with respect to its neighbouring states which it attempts to integrate in an encompassing network of relations: for instance, the Stability Pact for the Balkans, the Euro-Mediterranean partnership, and the successful transition of central and eastern Europe, the most significant European achievement. According to Arts and Dickson (2001: 65), in the post-cold war period, a number of conflicts have broken out on the EU’s periphery: in the former Soviet Union, South Eastern Europe and Algeria. The EU has not dealt with these crises very well, since its civilian policy instruments are inappropriate for handling conflicts. Because of geographical proximity, the EU and member States cannot afford to ignore the situation, and because other countries like the U.S. expects the EU to become involved. The member States share common interests in the neighbouring regions, because the political and economic stability of these areas is important for the Union and because direct threats to the security of the Union could arise there. Conflict prevention in the region has become a key EU objective. The countries eligible to join the ENP are the EU’s neighbours to the east (Russia and the western New Independent States) and the neighbours on the southern and eastern Mediterranean shores (the participants in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership) and Libya, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia have also recently joined the process. Generally there is a favourable reaction of the vast majority of neighbouring countries, with the notable exception of Russia (Dodini and Fantini, 2006: 508). Strategic Objectives for Achieving Security: Kirchner (2006: 947) conducted a research study on whether or not the EU is an effective security actor. To assess the strengths and weaknesses of the EU, three security functions (conflict prevention, peace-enforcement/peace-keeping and peace-building) and three core components of governance (co-ordination, management and regulation) are applied. Security governance is seen as a helpful framework for studying the interactions between a diverse number of actors and for conceptualizing EU security policy-making in a meaningful way. This view-point is reiterated by Biscop (2005: 17): Prevention: Since the new security threats are dynamic and spread quickly if they are neglected, conflict prevention and threat prevention have to be started early. The situations may be multi-faceted where the threats are not purely military, nor can be tackled by purely military means. Therefore, prevention will require the application of a mixture of methods. This is supported by Kaldor, Mary et al (conflict prevention is a key discourse within the European Commission, which defines prevention in terms of addressing both the long and short term causes of conflict through action on poverty, development, social injustice, aid, trade, arms control and governance, although it is also associated with strategies of ‘preventive engagement’ set out in the policy for European Security Strategy. As Commission policy, it combines long- and short-term measures. Long term include development policies and cooperation with target states to reduce poverty, and an emphasis on crosscutting issues such as trafficking in drugs, small arms and people; short term initiatives include sending observers to elections, giving emergency economic assistance, applying sanctions and undertaking civilian missions. This idea of conflict prevention is closely related to the notion of sustainable peace, which figures in the discourse of the UN and of international civil society actors. Sustainable peace was seen as the ultimate goal of conflict prevention, management and resolution, Building Security: Building security in the neighbourhood is another important strategic objective. Even in an era of globalization, neighbourhood is still important. Neighbours who are engaged in violent conflict, weak states where organized crime flourishes, dysfunctional societies or exploding population growth on the borders, pose problems for Europe. Therefore it is essential that a ring of well-governed countries must be established, with whom close and cooperative relations can be enjoyed. This is to be achieved through partnership and action in the political, economic and cultural spheres, as well as in the security field. The ‘ring of friends’ or neighbourhood is seen to include: 1) The Balkans, where Europe’s substantial achievements must be consolidated. 2) Neighbours in the East, to whom benefits of economic and political Cooperation should be extended. 3) The Southern Caucasus. 4) The Mediterranean or the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (Biscop, 2005: 17). Establishment of an International Order: This should be based on effective multi-lateralism, that is a stronger international society, well-functioning international institutions, and a rule-based international order. The centre of that system is the United Nations, hence equipping it to fulfil its responsibilities and to act effectively is a European priority. The institutional framework comprises of global organizations like the world trade organization, and the international financial institutions on the one hand, and regional organizations such as the Council of Europe, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), The Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), and the African Union on the other hand, states Biscop (2005: 17). The trans-Atlantic relationship is a core element of which NATO is an important component. These are significant not only in the European Union’s bilateral interest, but also for the international community as a whole. Biscop (2005: 17) observes that through this network of regimes and institutions, global governance must be pursued. This implies that: spreading good governance, supporting social and political reform, dealing with corruption and abuse of power, establishing the rule of law and protecting human rights, as well as assistance programmes, conditionality and targeted trade measures. As it is highlighted in the Strategy: The best protection of our security is a world of well-governed democratic states. But the Strategy also emphasizes that: for international organizations, regimes and treaties to be effective, the EU must be ready to act when its rules are broken. Hence States that have placed themselves outside the bounds of international society, are reminded that there is a price to be paid, including in their relationship with the European Union. The War on Terrorism: The emergence of new global threats and the war on terrorism has to be confronted by the European Union, to safeguard the interests of its member countries.. This new situation has arisen after September 11th, 2001, when the terrorist attacks of great magnitude had left a lot of destruction and loss of human lives. Increasing repercussions on Europe of America’s new assertive policy, and the splits it has caused between the countries of the Baltic Sea region are observed. As a result of their membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the EU and as a result of collective diplomacy, the former east european countries of the region will now meet Russia as a strategic partner in matterw of security and economy (Browning, 2005: 83). As the rift over the Iraq war in major international institutions has demonstrated, discord within cooperative organisations and political and military alliances appears to be part of normalisation, states Browning (2005: 199). New flexible frameworks have to be designed, allowing for more autonomy at the sub-regional level. In this connection, Baltic Sea cooperation has a good record of re-asserting itself and of working together at all levels of governance. In the European Neighbourhood Policy, encouragement for re-inforced regional cooperation has been advised, and it is constantly emphasized by the European Union within the Northern Dimension, the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, and the stabilization and association process for Balkan countries. This principle is generally justified as an instrument for achieving stability, growth and security (Emerson, 2006: 60). CONCLUSION: The process of European integration has reached the limits of European solidarity: both within the member states and between them. Increasingly, Europeans are demonstrating reluctance to accept common rules, to recognise common values, to protect common interests, or to promote common objectives. Instead, Europeans appear to be expressing many different and yet interrelated forms of disaffection. Voter abstention is high, security cooperation is weak, economic confidence is low, and support for either European enlargement or institutional reform is vanishing. To respond to this crisis, European politicians need to manage expectations better, to accept responsibility for public policy problems, to explain the limits of what Europe can do, and they need to search for new formulas to meet different national challenges with common European institutions, states Jones (2004: 436). The European Union’s Neighbouhood Policy which defines the measures to be taken for maintaining security within the European Union member countries, is largely liberal in its approach. The policy advocates an all-encompassing approach to ensuring security and stability in the European Union and its neighbouring region, rather than by military means. The integrated approach of ensuring economic, political and social stability and peace, is meant to ascertain the prevalence of security in the region. By cooperative efforts for a common goal, the European Union Members can regain unity and and a sense of pride in helping their region to progress. In this way, stability and security of the European Union as an institution will be strengthened. BIBLIOGRAPHY Arts, Karin & Dickson, Anna K. (2001). Eu Development Cooperation: From Model to Symbol. England: Manchester University Press. Balzacq, Thierry and Carrera, Sergio. (2006). Security Versus Freedom? A Challenge for Europe’s Future. England: Ashgate Publishing. Biscop, Sven. (2005). The European Security Strategy: A Global Agenda for Positive Power. England: Ashgate Publishing. Browning, Christopher S. (2005). Remaking Europe in the Margins: Northern Europe After the Enlargements. England: Ashgate Publishing. Dannreuther, Roland (Ed.). (2004). European Union Foreign and Security Policy: Towards a Neighbourhood Strategy. New York: Routledge. Dodini, Michaela & Fantini, Marco. (2006). “The EU Neighbourhood Policy: Implications for Economic Growth and Stability”. The Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol.44, No.3: pp.507-532. Emerson. (2007). Readings in European Security. Belgium: Centre for European Policy Studies Publications. Emerson, Michael. (2006). Democratization in the European Neighbourhood. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies Publications. Gordon, P.H. (1997/ 98). “Europe’s Uncommon Foreign Policy”. International Security. 1997/ 98, Vol.11, No.3: pp.27-74. Jones, Eric. (2004). “The Politics of Europe 2004: Solidarity and Integration”. Industrial Relations Journal. Vol.36, No.6: pp.436-455. Kaldor, Mary et al. (2006). “Human Security: A New Strategic Narrative for Europe”. International Affairs, Vol.83, No.2, 2007: 273-288. Kirchner, Emil J. (2006). “The Challenge of European Union Security Governance”. Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol.44, No.5: pp.947-968. Nuttall, Simon J. (2000). European Foreign Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zielonka, J. (2001). “How New Enlarged Borders Will Reshape the European Union”. Journal of Common Market Studies, 2001, Vol.39: pp.507-536. Read More