Aid darling and the European Union’s aid allocation policy: the case of Vietnam

This paper analyses the motivation determining the European Union’s (EU) aid allocation to Vietnam. Existing literature and EU official documents are used to build upon four models with respect to new aid allocation: donor interest, recipient interest, recipient capacity and potential donor influence. The paper concludes that the EU’s aid policy in Vietnam has a long-term objective in conformity with Vietnam’s development strategy—poverty alleviation. Moreover, the EU’s political and economic interests, a successful economic reform and development strategy, a high level of ownership (good governance) and potential donor influence are identified as contributions to make Vietnam an ‘aid darling’.     

Unintended Consequences of EU Democracy Support in the European Neighbourhood

ABSTRACT

The European Union’s (EU) impact on the political governance of the European neighbourhood is varied and sometimes opposite to the declared objectives of its democracy support policies. The democracy promotion literature has to a large extent neglected the unintended consequences of EU democracy support in Eastern Europe and the Middle East and North Africa. The EU has left multiple imprints on the political trajectories of the countries in the neighbourhood and yet the dominant explanation, highlighting the EU’s security and economic interests in the two regions,cannot fully account for the unintended consequences of its policies. The literature on the ‘pathologies’ of international organisations offers an explanation, emphasizing the failures of the EU bureaucracy to anticipate, prevent or reverse the undesired effects of its democracy support in the neighbourhood.     

The EU and the Global Order: Contingent Liberalism

Abstract

Politicians, diplomats and analysts commonly assume that commitment to multilateralism and liberal norms is part of the EU’s very DNA. Increasingly, however, the EU’s commitment to the liberal global order is more selective. We demonstrate the shift to a more contingent liberalism by examining the EU’s recent record in relation to four different challenges: international trade; US leadership; Russian actions in the eastern neighbourhood; and security in the Middle East. We speculate on what this may portend for the EU’s self-identity, European interests and the integrity of the prevailing global order.     

The Unintended Consequences of a European Neighbourhood Policy without Russia

ABSTRACT

After Russia’s retreat from the European Neighbourhood Policy, the EU’s policy towards its eastern neighbours was split up. The internal unintended consequence of the EU’s choice to leave its policy unaltered was a tension between the objective of privileged relations with ENP countries and a promise to recognise the interests of Russia as an equal partner. Externally, the unintended outcome was that this fostered two opposing strategic environments: a cooperative one for the EaP and a competitive one with Russia. In terms of the management of unintended consequences, the EU has actively sought to reinforce its normative hegemony towards EaP countries, while at the same time mitigating certain negative unintended effects.     

Interregional relations and legitimacy in global governance: the EU in ASEM

This article explores the ramifications of the European Union’s (EU) internal legitimacy debate for its external relations. It applies the Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) as a case study to examine the EU’s attempts to promote legitimacy in global governance, more specifically in interregional institutions. The article’s theoretical framework draws from the EU’s legitimacy debate. It identifies three key sources of legitimacy, namely, (i) input legitimacy or democratic control and accountability, (ii) output legitimacy or performance and achievement of core purposes, and (iii) the degree of common identity as externalised through collective representation and the articulation of shared norms and values. The empirical analysis thereafter leads to three observations. First, the EU’s presence has contributed to an increased democratic involvement by ASEM’s different stakeholders including parliaments and civil society. Second, purely from an institutional legitimacy perspective ASEM achieves its purpose as a forum to ‘constructively engage’ with Asian countries and address issues relating to global governance. Third, ASEM reveals the EU’s dual identity as an intergovernmental grouping and an organisation with a gradually increasing capacity of collective representation. However, the advancement of the EU’s normative objectives through ASEM has been problematic, leading to a more interest-based and pragmatic policy path. The article concludes that the EU’s legitimacy debate has had a bearing on relations with Asia and, in particular, with ASEM. Importantly, and given the EU’s setbacks, some elements of the ‘EU’s way’ have proven successful in promoting democratic notions of legitimacy beyond the state.     

The EU and the Gulf monarchies: normative power Europe in search of a strategy for engagement

The Persian Gulf region is of strategic importance to the European Union (EU). Yet, different political realities of authoritarian government in the Gulf challenge crucial parts of EU foreign policy that are based on normative power Europe concepts. Cooperation with the ruling dynasties appears beneficial for EU decision-makers if one looks at the comprehensive agenda of common interests in the Gulf region. In 2004, the EU aimed to build a strategic partnership with the Mediterranean and the Middle East; in this the EU emphasized its commitment to advancing its partnership with the Gulf countries. Yet, from the perspective of 2012 the results are bleak. Despite some signs of improvement in deepening the political, economic and security interactions with the region, there is still no concerted EU policy in the Gulf beyond the thriving bilateral activities of some EU member states. The events of the Arab Spring have increased the challenges even further. The EU, on the one hand, is trying to support forces of liberal and democratic reform in some neighbouring countries. On the other hand, it seeks close partnerships with authoritarian family dynasties in those Gulf countries in which a democratic opening is not around the corner. This article suggests an alternative explanation for this dichotomy. While there is an inherent tension between the EU's reformist agenda and its own interests, whether security or trade interests, this article argues that much of the EU's relationship with the Gulf countries can be explained through a misperception of the specific settings of government in the region. Despite a substantial agenda of interests on both sides in areas such as trade, energy, regional security, terrorism and irregular migration, the EU's foreign policy outputs remain rather limited.     

A case of failed interregionalism? Analyzing the EU-ASEAN free trade agreement negotiations

In 2007, the European Union (EU) and the Association of the Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) started interregional negotiations on a free trade agreement, which failed 2 years later. Relying on document analysis and elite interviews with officials from the EU and ASEAN’s members, this article addresses why and the extent to which the interregional negotiations failed. By rooting the theoretical model in a power-based approach, the analysis demonstrates that the EU has attempted to secure its economic and regulatory power in Southeast Asia. In striving for such power, interregionalism was initially the intuitive way because the EU perceived ASEAN as a cohesive bloc. However, the EU’s ambitious vision for comprehensive agreements clashed with the actual heterogeneity of ASEAN member states. The failure of the interregional approach is, thus, a result of the EU’s delicate balance between political and economic interests in Southeast Asia, which it pursues with trade-specific issues.     

Issue linkage across international organizations: Does European countries’ temporary membership in the UN Security Council increase their receipts from the EU budget?

What explains the outcome of interstate negotiations in international organizations (IOs)? While existing research highlights member states’ power, preference intensity, and the IO’s institutional design, this paper introduces an additional source of bargaining power in IOs: Through issue linkage members of an IO leverage privileged positions in other IOs to obtain more favorable bargaining outcomes. Specifically, European Union members are more successful in bargaining over the EU budget while they hold a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Inside the UNSC EU members can promote security interests of other European countries, and they can use their influence to secure side-payments from the EU budget. The study tests this argument by investigating new EU budget data, and it shows that EU members obtain 1.7 billion Euro in additional net receipts during a two-year UNSC term, on average. Thus, bargaining processes in the EU and the UN are intricately linked.     

‘Energising’ EU–Algerian Relations

With Algeria still self-excluded from the ENP, unconvinced by the UfM and indeed now seriously questioning the added value of the Association Agreement, EU–Algerian relations could not be at a lower point. Interaction within the EMP has conspicuously failed to lead to a meaningful convergence of the dyad's interests, even if it has encouraged a process of familiarisation of sorts between actors on both sides. Although energy has traditionally been the area where EU–Algerian relations are strongest, reflecting their market-rooted interdependence, it remains frustratingly under-institutionalised at the bilateral level. The conclusion of a ‘strategic energy partnership’ could help overcome the extant sterility of EU–Algerian relations, capturing the specificity of their shared interests and focusing minds on tailored ‘enhanced bilateralism’.     

Orchestrating peace in South Sudan: exploring the effectiveness of the European Union’s mediation support

ABSTRACT

Previous research has primarily focused on the EU’s high-profile involvement as direct mediator in peace negotiations. Conversely, less attention has been devoted to the EU’s support to third parties’ mediation efforts, which is a significant component of its mediation activities. Addressing this research gap, this article develops a conceptual framework for the systematic analysis of EU mediation support, identifying key mediation support techniques and the conditions for their success. In terms of mediation support techniques, the EU may rely on “endorsement”, “coordination”, “assistance”, and “lending leverage” to empower and steer third party mediators in line with its mediation objectives and values. We illustrate the utility of the conceptual framework for the EU’s support to IGAD in mediating in South Sudan’s civil war. We find that the EU has contributed significantly to IGAD’s empowerment in terms of endorsement, coordination, assistance, and lending leverage. Simultaneously, our analysis also points to important challenges in the EU-IGAD relationship, which relate to challenges concerning strategic engagement with IGAD’s internal politics that are marked by diverging interests and ties of its member states to the conflict parties.     

中东变局与世界主要大国中东战略的调整——兼论中国的中东外交

中东地区历来是大国战略博弈的重点区域。自阿拉伯国家陷入群体性动荡以来,美国、欧洲、俄罗斯等大国或地区力量围绕中东变局纷纷进行政策与战略调整。美国中东战略调整的根本目标是既要避免类似伊拉克战争的深度卷入,又要保持对中东事务的主导权。欧盟尤其是法、英两国对中东变局的积极干预使欧洲对中东事务的影响明显增强,欧盟正力图确立统一的中东战略,但其内部分歧不容忽视。俄罗斯中东战略的核心特征是原则性与灵活性相结合的实用主义外交,并极力维护其地缘战略利益和能源利益。中国应进一步增强对中东战略地位的认识,冷静客观地认识中东变局对中国国际环境变化的影响,并在坚持原则的同时适度扩大对中东事务的参与。     

EU perceptions in Northeast Asia: a cross-national comparative study of press coverage and citizens’ opinion

This study provides a unique and innovative comparative investigation of the press coverage and citizens’ opinion towards the European Union (EU) and its bilateral relations with the three most important Northeast Asian countries, People’s Republic of China, Japan and South Korea. On the basis of media content analysis of mainstream national newspapers and opinion surveys of the general public and elite stakeholders, the analysis explores the extent to which media agenda and framing, the shared interests between the EU and the respective country, and social and personal connections influence citizens’ opinions of the EU and its bilateral relations in these three countries.     

Climate change and EU–China partnership: realist disguise or institutionalist blessing?

Both the EU and China are important participants in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. The EU’s reliance on legally binding rules and institutions demonstrates its strong belief on institutionalism. While interstate cooperation is certainly necessary, implementation of any international agreement and most of the work needs to be done within a state. Henceforth, an uneasy balance between national interests and international responsibility has to be maintained. In the case of EU–China partnership, the carbon aviation tax issue serves as a good example to examine the realist–institutionalist struggle. Although it is still too early to tell if the EU and China would overcome their major disagreements in the field of climate change, there is reason to believe that an international agreement may be reached by 2015.     

The changing character of EUFOR Althea: power politics or learning?

States have different strategic cultures when it comes to legitimating the use of military force and its relation with other foreign policy instruments. However, increasingly, military operations are conducted in multilateral forums; EU military operations are one of the most notable examples of this development. While some claim that these operations reflect power relations between nations with different strategic cultures, others argue that these common missions involve states in a process of collective learning and convergence of interests. Drawing upon an advocacy coalition approach, this paper confronts the competing hypotheses in the case of European Union Force (EUFOR) Althea in Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH), as the EU’s longest running military operation (since 2004). On the basis of policy documents and semi-structured interviews with policymakers and politicians, this paper concludes that the evolution of EUFOR Althea has been primarily the result of the power politics of different coalitions, but there have also been a few instances of learning.     

The structuration of Russia’s geo-economy under economic sanctions

In this article, we examine Russia’s geo-economy under the economic sanctions imposed by the EU, the USA and many other states since spring 2014, including restrictions on economic cooperation in areas such as trade, certain types of energy technology, access to credit, trade in arms, travel bans and asset freezing. We first examine Russia’s economic and geopolitical interests and the cognitive frames Russian policymakers use to weigh these diverse interests against each other. Second, we examine how Russian policymakers can further these interests given the effect of the sanctions on Russia’s geo-economy. We analyse constraints and opportunities along the resource geographic, financial and institutional dimensions of geo-economy. Regarding resources, the sanctions seriously hamper new greenfield projects in Russia’s emerging energy provinces. They impede the industry’s middle- to long-term prospects while some Russians perceive new opportunities for its domestically induced modernisation. Along the financial dimension, low oil prices since mid-2014 shape existing fossil fuels trade more than the sanctions, which have no impact on Russia’s arms exports. The combined effect of low oil prices and sanctions on Russia’s state budget, the financial sector and the rouble is severe. On the institutional dimension, Russia’s international standing suffers, but its domestic institutions are relatively resilient. Overall, we see Russia as part of an international structure where it can constitute itself as an autonomous geo-economic actor under favourable conditions including high oil prices and no sanctions.     

美俄印欧的欧亚地缘战略对“一带一路”建设的影响

“一带一路”建设是中国以新兴发展中大国的姿态建设性参与全球秩序重塑的过程。在此过程中,“一带一路”与既定地缘政治格局中某些国家的利益和战略之间存在一定程度的冲突和博弈。为此,本研究试图从“一带一路”与美俄印欧版“一带一路”之间的互动关系中,考察美俄印欧基于各自地缘政治经济利益而制定的地缘战略,以及客观上所形成的地缘挑战,提出中国的应对举措。本文认为,源自于特朗普弱化美国国际领导责任的地缘战略,“C5+1机制”对“一带一路”并不具有反制的地缘战略效果;中俄互信固然达到了前所未有的高度,然则受地缘政治变化带来的地缘战略不定性的影响,不可忽视欧亚经济联盟与“一带一路”之间存在地缘利益失衡的潜在风险;印度“印太构想”等互联互通战略和“大国梦想”背后的地缘战略考量,势必削弱“战略对接”在人们预想中的相关积极功能;欧版“一带一路”反映出欧盟试图通过所谓的“可持续”亚欧联通战略提升在亚欧大陆话语权的地缘战略考虑,但其内部的认知分歧,使其无法摆脱中国对其“分而治之”的疑虑。     

Normative and Civilisational Regionalisms: The EU,Russia and their Common Neighbourhoods

The contours of regionalism in a wider Europe are shaped by two dominant actors, the European Union (EU) and Russia, which often have divergent visions of the regional landscapes in a vast area constituting their common neighbourhood. The EU can be characterised as the promoter of normative regionalism, while Russia generates different forms of civilisational regionalism. Russia’s emphasis on the civilisational underpinnings of its regional integration model paves the way for two different strategies: one based on liberal imitation and replication of EU experiences in order to strengthen Russia’s position in the global neoliberal economy, and another grounded in illiberal contestation of the normative premises of the EU with the purpose of devising an ideologised alternative to the liberal West.     

The European Union’s partnership policy towards Brazil: more than meets the eye

This article focuses on the evolving nature of the foreign policy of the European Union (EU) towards Brazil, which gained momentum and became more dynamic and denser after the establishment of a formal strategic partnership (SP) in 2007. It provides a historical overview of the institutional relations between Brussels and Brasília, before proceeding with an analysis of the main drivers behind this novel development. The study goes on to offer a critical examination of the implementation of the EU–Brazil SP by casting light on both its major achievements and the challenges it has faced. It concludes that the establishment of a formal strategic partnership with Brazil has contributed to the strengthening of the EU’s globally oriented partnership policy and ultimately to the incremental empowerment of the EU necessary to the assertion of its values, objectives and interests on the international stage.     

The International Politics of the Chinese Arms Embargo Issue

The Chinese arms embargo issue has gone beyond Sino-European bilateral relations to become a matter of significance – and concern – for East Asian and US policymakers. Thus, an eventual solution depends not only on the interplay between EU and Chinese policymakers’ interests and considerations, but is now interconnected with China's domestic developments and regional posture, the security concerns of China's neighbours (especially Japan and Taiwan), the evolution of US-China relations and transatlantic relations.