Understanding EU crisis diplomacy in the European neighbourhood: strategic narratives and perceptions of the EU in Ukraine,Israel and Palestine

ABSTRACT

This Special Issue seeks to better understand the role of communication and perception in EU crisis diplomacy. In a recent Special Issue in this journal, Catarina Kinnvall, Ian Manners and Jennifer Mitzen argue that, “?…?the greatest security challenge facing people across Europe is not physical, despite the threats of Putin and ISIS, but is a sense of fear and anxiety over their daily lives” [2018. Introduction to 2018 Special Issue of European Security: “Ontological (in)security in the European Union”. European security, 27 (3), 249–265]. We take an interdisciplinary approach to widen the scope of studies on European security and offer new avenues for further research into how citizens in the EU’s neighbourhood understand the security challenges they face and the role the EU plays in addressing these. Through this, we aim to bring theoretical and methodological innovation to understanding the role of the EU as an external actor.     

Politicising European security: from technocratic to contentious politics?

Security provision in and by the EU has become an issue of increasing public interest and controversy. There are diverse and growing demands and critiques from different political camps towards the EU while EU institutions, in turn, utilise their security function as a resource for authority construction and self-legitimation. More recently, European security has also become intertwined with contemporary “crises” that turned it into an arena for the negotiation of fundamental conflicts, often revolving around questions of identity and sovereignty. This paper argues that these developments represent a significant change of European security and its politics that existing approaches linking the field to depoliticisation cannot adequately capture. To fill this gap, this paper suggests applying a politicisation perspective that, so far, has focused on the European integration project as such or the “Eurozone crisis” to the purportedly special security field.     

Your rule of law is not mine: rethinking empirical approaches to EU rule of law promotion

The promotion of the “Rule of Law” is a leading ambition of the EU’s external action (Article 21 TEU). The dominant approach in most policy documents is to define the rule of law in terms of legal and institutional checklists. However, several authors have criticized this “anatomical” approach and have argued for a “sociological” approach. In this paper, I will discuss two empirical models of the rule of law. Most current studies follow the model of the “Rule of Law in Action.” This approach is based on Roscoe Pound’s distinction between the “law in the books” and the “law in action.” I will argue that this conventional approach has several shortcomings. I will therefore introduce an alternative model, based on Eugen Ehrlich’s concept of the “living law.” The principal concern of the “Living Rule of Law” model is not the level of social support but rather the social definition of the rule of law. To assess the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches, I will apply both models in a case study about rule of law reform in a refugee camp on the Thailand–Burma border. It will be concluded that empirical research is essential to evaluate the EU’s external action. Moreover, empirical studies based on the model of the Living Rule of Law support a legal pluralist approach, which focuses on the user perspective of citizens and which recognizes the contested notion of the rule of law across cultural borders.     

Interpreting EU–Israel relations: a contextual analysis of the EU’s Special Privileged Partnership proposal

This article analyses the background, content and implications of the EU proposal for ‘Special Privileged Partnership’ status to be granted to Israel and the future state of Palestine in the event of a successful conclusion to the peace process. It employs a sociological institutionalist perspective to assess the diplomatic manoeuvring in the broader context of EU–Israel relations. The analysis offers an identification and categorization of the constitutive components of the EU–Israel relationship into formal and social elements. It argues that differences in threat perception, Israel’s highly securitized ethos and different interpretations of the security versus legality equation are social, constitutive elements of the relationship that cannot be efficiently changed by a mere upgrade of the formal institutional setting, even if the economic incentives to do so were attractive. In other words, the sources of tension between the EU and Israel observed in recent decades are not likely to be overcome by a discursive or institutional upgrade around the concept of partnership.     

Constructing the EU’s high-tech borders: FRONTEX and dual-use drones for border management

FRONTEX has highlighted Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) as affordable and efficient capabilities for securing the EU’s vast frontiers in order to further upgrade them into smart technological borders. In this regard, this article examines the EU’s strategy and rationalisations to develop dual-use technologies such as aerial surveillance drones for border management. By drawing on critical security and technology studies and by focusing on their functional technological efficiency, the article argues that drones are being normalised in a technological regime of exclusion at the border-zone. It further contends that high-end technologies such as drones introduce a military bias as security enablers in border surveillance and as a panacea for the consequences of failed policies to manage irregular migration. A closer examination of several EU-endorsed drone projects reveals a pragmatic and industry-driven approach to border security, underlining the evolving homogenisation between internal and external security and the imminent “dronisation” of European borders.     

Securitization and Desecuritization: Female Soldiers and the Reconstruction of Women in Post-Conflict Sierra Leone

This article focuses on the construction of “soldier” and “victim” by post-conflict programs in Sierra Leone. Focusing on the absence of individual testimonies and interviews that inform representations of women and girls post-conflict, this article demonstrates that the ideal of the female war victim has limited the ways in which female combatants are addressed by disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) programs in Sierra Leone. It is argued that titles given to female soldiers such as “females associated with the war,” “dependents,” or “camp followers” reveal the reluctance of reintegration agencies to identify females who participated in war as soldiers. In addition, I argue that men and masculinity are securitized post-conflict while women—even when they act in highly securitized roles such as soldiers—are desecuritized and, in effect, de-emphasized in post-conflict policy making. The impact of this categorization has been that the reintegration process for men has been securitized, or emphasized as an essential element of the transition from war to peace. In contrast, the reintegration process for females has been deemed a social concern and has been moralized as a return to normal.     

"预防—震慑—应急"一体化:中国海外安保供给模式新探

基于以人民安全为宗旨的总体国家安全观和“以人为本、外交为民”的领事保护理念,受冲突影响和高风险区域的海外机构、企业和公民的安全是中国海外安保供给体系的首要关切。后疫情时代的安全环境、安全威胁和安保内容的新变化凸显了海外安保的供需落差,如何通过完善海外安保供给体系来应对后疫情时代的挑战,成为总体国家安全治理不得不重视的紧迫性议题。根据风险/焦虑-威胁/恐惧-危机/恐慌的升级过程,可将海外安保区分为预防、震慑、应急三种类型,政府、军队、国际安保公司、社会组织和海外企业能够发挥各自不同的作用。在明晰中国海外安保“阶段-类型”及对应的多元供给主体职能的基础上,中国海外安保供给体系的完善需要在总体国家安全观理念指导下,遵循“预防-震慑-应急”一体化的供给模式,建构多元供给主体联动体系,从而弥补现有供给体系的不足,全面推进“海外中国平安体系”建设。     

Damned If You Do,Damned If You Don't: Performative Power and the Strategy of Conventional and Nuclear Defusing

This article seeks to initiate a new round of strategic intellectual innovation in an era when threats posed by non-state terrorist organizations and their state supporters do not resemble Cold War threats. Based on an interpretative sociological reading of the concepts of power, security, and rationality, it argues that a “damned if you do, damned if you don't” dilemma is to the post-Cold War era what the danger of surprise attack or unintended nuclear war was to the Cold War: the defining structural threat of international politics. The dilemma leaves states confronting asymmetrical warfare with the choice of reacting with force to a terrorist act or practicing appeasement. Neither approach, however, can achieve the goal of putting an end to terrorism. Deterrence sustains the dilemma by providing a rationale for why force should be used and why self-restraint is irrational. This article proposes a third option, defusing, which may be accomplished by denial (preventing provocateurs from dragging states into the use of force) and restructuration (transforming the structure and rules of the situation). Defusing relies on “performative power”—the capacity to project a dramatic and credible performance on the world stage and to decouple social actors, their audiences, and their most deeply held strategic beliefs. The force of the argument is illustrated by examples from the global “war on terror,” the 2006 Lebanon War, the 2008–09 operation “Cast Lead” in Gaza, and the Iranian nuclear crisis.     

Are non-traditional security challenges leading regional organizations towards greater convergence?

How are regional organizations responding to the emergence of non-traditional security (NTS) challenges? Are they engaging in more cooperative efforts to meet new threats? Or, on the contrary, do they react in different manners according to their distinctive values, principles and internal structures? This article attempts to investigate how the threats posed by NTS are compelling different regional organizations to reconsider their security thinking and to find new innovative ways of cooperation. This is done by comparing two diverse regional organizations, the EU and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), whose models of security cooperation have significantly varied reflecting the preference for different security approaches. The EU's security system has been more formalized and institutionalized; conversely, the "ASEAN way" has traditionally been rooted in the principles of informality and consensus. It is argued, however, that the emergence of NTS threats is acting as a catalyst behind a normative and operational shift of the modus operandi of both organizations. In so doing, this empirical analysis will try to shed light on the effects of exogenous factors on the emergence of patterns of convergence within the security sphere of distinctive regional processes.     

Shaping the European External Action Service and its post-Lisbon crisis management structures: an assessment of the EU High Representatives’ political leadership

ABSTRACT

This article assesses the role, influence and core aspects of the EU High Representatives’ (HR/VPs) “political leadership” in the context of their efforts to advance the institutionalisation of the EEAS and its crisis management structures in the post-Lisbon era. By combining analytical lenses from the literature on “European political leadership”, foreign policy analysis (FPA) and political psychology with insights from a wide range of semi-structured interviews and primary sources, the article analyses how the leadership approaches of Catherine Ashton and Federica Mogherini were influenced by core aspects, such as institutional setting, situational factors and “personal qualities”. By examining how both HR/VPs and their chosen advisors sought to shape the EU’s EEAS and crisis management institutions, scholars can gain important insights about how “personal qualities” and prior foreign policy experience can influence the HR/VPs strategic choices and their impact within and across the EEAS. Finally, the article considers the differing effects between “maverick” and “orthodox” leadership and approaches and concludes that whilst outside perspectives can bring fresh ideas and institutional innovations, they will fail to be of lasting significance and permanence if not accompanied by sufficient support from the dominant foreign and security policy conventions.     

The EU's Externalisation of Internal Security Objectives: Perspectives after Lisbon and Stockholm

The EU as an area of “freedom, security and justice”, faces a number of internal security concerns, such as organised crime, terrorism and illegal immigration which require external measures to combat them effectively. Limited progress has been made in the four dimensions of externalisation of EU internal security (the integration of internal security objectives into EU external relations strategy, cooperation with third countries, capacity building in third countries and common action within international organisations) and the EU must continue to expand its capabilities to use external measures to help solve internal security challenges. The Treaty of Lisbon and the 2010–14 Stockholm Programme are both likely to foster further externalisation of EU internal security objectives, but whether this becomes reality will depend to a large degree on the Commission's Action Plan.     

The transatlantic dialogue on Iran: the European subaltern and hegemonic constraints in the implementation of the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran

This article analyses the US–EU transatlantic dialogue on the Iranian nuclear dossier with a particular view to the implications for EU foreign policy on Iran. Doing so, it uses neo-Gramscian scholarship to put the EU’s “over-compliance” with Iran sanctions into perspective. Constrained by the imperatives of hegemonic coercion in the form of US financial Iran sanctions against third country entities and with the hegemonic consent of a Western US-led “historic bloc”, Europe was relegated to a subaltern below its mediatory potential. It will be shown how this finding complicates the EU’s ambition to renew relations with Iran. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with experts and delegation members from the P5+1, this article thus analyses “the normative element” in the transatlantic security dialogue on Iran at a time where the latter is undergoing a sea change in the wake of the implementation of the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” of July 2015.     

Securitising Migration: The European Union in the Context of the Post-2011 Arab Upheavals

The migration-security nexus, already at the heart of EU policymaking before the 2011 Arab uprisings, became acute after the forced displacements from Syria and the deterrence measures introduced. The internalisation by broader publics of “security knowledge” regarding migration contributed to the securitisation move. However, the construction of migration into a security-laden notion goes beyond both the adoption of deterrence measures and the straightforward association of migration with state as well as societal (in)security. Through the lens of its cooperative tools with its southern neighbours, the EU has built complex interdependencies between migration, post-2011 regional stabilisation and security. In order to read the EU’s securitised migration politics properly, the migration-security nexus must be embedded in its social, geopolitical and temporal fields. Perceptions of geopolitical threats, concurrent strains and divergences over European integration and immigration constitute an enabling terrain for the politics of securitisation.     

European security as practice: EU–NATO communities of practice in the making?

ABSTRACT

European security is at a critical juncture and many have called for a more coherent and efficient response, involving both the EU and NATO. However, the primary tool for EU–NATO cooperation, “Berlin Plus”, has been stuck in a political quagmire since the mid-2000s, making a lot of scholars to conclude that this cooperation is obsolete and outdated. This article is challenging this view by analysing a range of informal but regular interaction patterns that have emerged. Using practice theory, it sheds new light on and explores how EU and NATO staff at all levels engage in informal practices on various sites in headquarters in Brussels and in field operations. A study of EU–NATO cooperation as practice focuses on the everyday, patterned production of security as well as what makes action possible, such as (tacit) practical knowledge and shared “background” knowledge (education, training, and experience). The article also discusses the extent to which shared repertoires of practice may evolve into loose communities of practice that cut across organisational and professional boundaries.     

New Security Dynamics in the Asia-Pacific: Extending Regionalism from Southeast to Northeast Asia

This article explains the emerging security dynamics in the Asia-Pacific in the context of the project to establish an “Asian Community”. Although the model of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been constrained by a post-colonial attachment to sovereignty, new processes of domestic democratisation, taking in new members and dealing with non-traditional security threats have led to an acceptance of the need to deepen its social and political pillars. The real test for this project, however, will be whether it can be extended to Northeast Asia, where relations between states are still characterised by traditional power-balancing and rising nationalism.     

From revolution to reform and back: EU-Security sector reform in Ukraine

ABSTRACT

Security Sector Reform (SSR) is an important element of the EU’s external intervention toolkit. In an increasingly uncertain global security environment, the EU has currently stepped up its SSR endeavours. However, success of these efforts largely depends on the EU’s capabilities in navigating complex context-specific challenges. In particular the EU needs to be able to simultaneously address the functional and normative-societal imperatives that underpin SSR. This article considers the case of the EU’s ongoing SSR mission to Ukraine – the European Union Advisory Mission (EUAM). It asks, what are the unique context-specific challenges faced by EUAM in Ukraine? How do these challenges influence the EU’s ability to satisfy both the normative-societal imperative of SSR through the EUAM? This article mainly relies on secondary data, and applies a “Whole of Society” approach to conflict prevention and peacebuilding (WOS). Amidst a situation of ongoing multiple armed conflicts and EU-Russian relations of mutual dependence, a key finding is that the mandate of the mission has become more narrow and exclusive by sacrificing vertical coherence and the normative-societal imperative. We recommend EUAM adopt a more “revolutionary” approach to SSR, by adhering to key SSR normative principles so that the mission can overcome the challenges of the unique reform environment of Ukriane. This will also make it able to contribute more meaningfully to the wider reform process in an effective and sustainable manner.     

Turkish–Syrian relations in the wake of the Syrian conflict: back to securitization?

This paper analyses the bilateral relations between Turkey and Syria since the breakout of the popular uprising in 2011, with particular reference to a securitization–desecuritization framework. The author inquires whether Turkish policymakers have securitized the Syrian civil war and framed it in security-laden discourse in the time period under review. Turkey extended strong support to the demonstrations and invested efforts towards a regime change. Assad’s response was unfriendly. Both the Assad regime’s policy vis-à-vis Turkey and the repercussions of the civil war in Syria posed serious threats to Turkish national security. However, based on the analysis of official statements by Turkish authorities during the crisis, the author argues that Turkey avoided framing the Syrian refugee crisis in security terms, whereas border violations, such as the downing of a military aircraft by Syrian regime forces, were defined as threats to national security. The paper further discusses the reasons for Turkey’s selective approach to issues concerning bilateral relations with Syria.     

Governing migration from a distance: interactions between climate,migration, and security in the South Mediterranean

Links between security and migration are well established and are associated with the meaning, status, and practice of borders in the international political system. This article assesses how and with what effects the effects of environmental and climate change have entered this relationship between migration and security. It does so by assessing the EU’s external governance of migration in “South Mediterranean Partner Countries” (SMPCs): Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, and Tunisia. It is argued that a focus on promoting “adaptation” and building “resilience” has developed that is consistent with the logic of governing migration from a distance. However, the article challenges ideas that environmental/climate change act as simple migration “triggers” and instead explores implications of movement towards and not away from risk, as well as the potential for populations to be trapped in areas that expose them to risk. It is shown that both have important implications for the relationship between migration, environmental/climate change, and security in SMPCs.     

Defense planning in the fog of peace: the transatlantic currency conversion conundrum

ABSTRACT

Resource allocation to and within defense budgets is grand strategy. NATO and the EU coordinate defense planning and encourage fair burden-sharing among their members. We analyze the effect of agreed planning processes, namely the “NATO Defense Planning Process (NDPP)” on the conversion of political will to resources and then to capabilities development across the transatlantic security community. In a “fog of peace” featuring diverse threats, and in which allies may disagree on strategic rivals and sources of risk, national and regional political economies shape strategy, not the other way around.     

The EU,Russia and the Manichean Trap

Conceptualizing the EU as a postmodern cooperative power that “transcends realism” provides ideological scaffolding for an exclusive conception of “Europe” and veils a zero-sum geopolitical project as “European integration”. Neoclassical realism considers assigning morally opposite political identities to the EU and Russia to be “rational” to the extent it strengthens internal cohesion and mobilizes resources to enhance security in accordance with the balance of power logic. Yet, the artificial binary construction can also produce a Manichean Trap when compromises required to enhance security are depicted as a betrayal of indispensable virtues and “Europe”. The ability to harmonize competing security interests diminishes as the conceptual space for comparing the EU and Russia is de-constructed. Competition is framed in uncompromising terms as “European integration” versus Russian “spheres of influence” and democracy versus authoritarianism.