‘We care about you,but …’: the politics of EU trade policy and development

The European Union (EU) is one of the most important markets for developing countries, and trade policy has long been one of its most important instruments for promoting development. There is, however, a paradox at the heart of the relationship between the EU's trade policy and development. On the one hand the EU's trade as development policy has undergone a paradigm shift, the objective shifting from supporting the former colonies of the EU's member states to addressing poverty and with a greater emphasis on reciprocal liberalization. On the other hand, the EU's conventional trade policy initiatives—particularly its market access objectives in the Doha Round and in commercially motivated bilateral trade agreements—have adverse consequences for developing countries, as does its tendency to adopt stringent product regulations. We argue that this paradox is explained by differences in how much traction the emphasis on the development implications of trade has had in the EU's various trade policy subsystems.     

Normative power and organized hypocrisy: European Union member states' arms export to Libya

The 2011 Libyan civil war prompted a reassessment of the normative foundation of the EU's conventional arms export control regime as armaments manufactured in Europe were used by Gaddafi's forces during the war. The EU's foreign policy identity is based, partly, upon a common approach to arms export involving respect for common criteria for export licences. Yet, prior to the civil war, considerable amounts of military equipment had been exported by member states to Libya, notwithstanding grounds for restraint on the basis of several of the criteria. This article traces member states' arms export to Libya during 2005–2010 to explore whether member states favoured restraint or export promotion. It concludes that although aware of the risks of exporting, in a competitive market for military goods, member states sought commercial advantage over restraint, and comprehensively violated export control principles. This casts doubts on assertions of the EU acting as a “normative power”.     

The European Union in the G20: what role for small states?

The G20 has emerged as the premier forum for international economic policy coordination. For small EU states, the EU's participation in the G20 represents a particular challenge as they may be faced with decisions in which they had no say. This article looks at the possibilities for small state involvement in the G20 process and analyses the extent to which they can influence the EU's participation in the G20. The article suggests two sets of variables to explain the possibilities for influence of small states in the EU's external relations. Looking into four financial and economic policy dossiers, the article explores the conditions of success of small states' strategies. The article does not contradict that the big member states dominate the EU presence in the G20, but it does argue that small states may successfully use the EU as a foreign policy platform to pursue national objectives. Their influence varies strongly and is bound to a number of conditions.     

Foreign policy and development in the post-Lisbon European Union

The European Union (EU) has a long tradition of involvement in development policy and can claim to be the world's most influential donor when the activities of its member states are aggregated. Recently, however, this position has been challenged by the rise of new donors and models of development assistance, by the changing needs and positions of recipients and by institutional change within the EU itself. This article explores these issues by focusing first on the nature of EU foreign policy, and then on the ways in which it has interacted with the changing trajectory of development policies to create new issues and problems. It concludes that the EU's position remains central and significant to global development policy, but that this position faces important challenges to which the response is as yet uncertain.     

International development and the European Union's external policies: changing contexts,problematic nexuses,contested partnerships

This special section explores and explains how the European Union's (EU's) overall approach to international development has evolved since the beginning of the twenty-first century. At the international level, the rise of a group of emerging economies has not only provided developing countries with greater choices, but has also further enhanced their agency, thus questioning the EU's leadership and even relevance in international development. At the European level, the various (paradigmatic) shifts in each of the three key external policies—trade, security and foreign policy—and the EU's aspiration to project a coherent external action have collided with the EU's commitment to international development. Numerous tensions characterize the various nexuses in EU external relations, which ultimately challenge the EU's international legitimacy and (self-proclaimed) identity as a champion of the interests of the developing world. Nevertheless, the EU has made more progress than is generally acknowledged in making its external policies more coherent with its development policy. Moreover, the EU's relationship with developing countries has gradually become less asymmetrical, though not because of the EU's emphasis on partnership and ownership but more because of the increased agency of developing countries.     

The Stockholm solution? Papering over the cracks within the area of freedom,security and justice

Abstract

In 2010, the EU agreed its third five year programme for internal security, with the Stockholm Programme building on pre-existing arrangements from Tampere and The Hague. This article seeks, firstly, to highlight the nature of the problem that has confronted the EU in the area of internal security, by exploring a range of thematic concerns regarding both the institutional and conceptual construction of the EU's internal security regime, from the lack of an effective statistical analysis into the nature of the problem confronting the member states to the continued fragmentation of the European level as a practical venue for policy-making. Having considered the consequences of these continuing structural flaws, in terms of both the EU's wider credibility and legitimacy as an actor in this key security field, the second half of the article proceeds to critically appraise the solutions contained both within the 2010 Stockholm Programme and the Treaty of Lisbon. Having considered both, it will be argued that, at best, the ‘Stockholm solution' simply papers over pre-existing cracks, leaving the EU with a continued credibility gap in this important and developing area of co-operation.     

The security–development nexus and securitization in the EU's policies towards developing countries

This article assesses how and to what extent the European Union (EU) uses a security perspective to define and shape its relationship with the developing world. In order to evaluate the EU's development policy and its relations with developing countries we link the concept of ‘security–development nexus’ with the concept of ‘securitization’. The article examines whether securitization can be observed with regard to four dimensions: discourse, policy instruments, policy actions and institutional framework. The analysis demonstrates a securitization of the EU's development policy and its relations with developing countries, particularly in Africa. However, paradoxically, the securitization's extent and nature suggest that the EU can also use it as a way to avoid a more direct involvement in conflict areas.     

International,national or local? Explaining the substance of democracy promotion: the case of Eastern European democracy promotion

The EU is one of the most prominent democracy promoters in the world today. It has played an especially important role in the democratization of its Eastern European member states. Given the acknowledged success and legitimacy of EU democracy promotion in these countries, it could be expected that when they themselves began promoting democracy, they would borrow from the EU's democracy promotion model. Yet this paper finds that the EU's model has not played a defining role for the substantive priorities of the Eastern European democracy promoters. They have instead borrowed from their own democratization models practices that they understand to fit the needs of recipients. This article not only adds to the literature on the Europeanization of member state policies but also contributes both empirically and theoretically to the literature on the foreign policy of democracy promotion. The article theorizes the factors shaping the substance of democracy promotion—how important international ‘best practices’ are and how they interact and compete with donor-level domestic models and recipient democratization needs. Also, this study sheds light on the activities of little-studied regional democracy promoters—the Eastern European members of the EU.     

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.     

Once a member,always a member? Assessing the importance of time in the relationship between the European Union and the Development Assistance Committee

This article examines the European Union's (EU's) full membership of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). More specifically, we address (1) why the EU became a full member of the DAC in 1961, long before the EU was granted legal competences for development policy, and (2) why this membership status has remained unaltered over the past half-century, despite persistent dissatisfaction among both EU and non-EU members of the DAC. By applying historical institutionalism, we find that the initial decision on the EU's membership status in the DAC created a path dependence that was impossible to reverse afterwards, despite changing internal and external circumstances.     

The European Budget and the Principles of Solidarity and Added Value

By presenting a proposal for the EU's fifth Financial Perspective, now named Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), in June 2011, the European Commission started negotiations on the European Union's budget policy and financial programming that are expected to end in December 2012. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the MFF negotiations will be extremely difficult because a settlement can only be achieved by consensus. That means that all 27 member states and the European Parliament will have to agree. Two principles might be taken as guidelines to facilitate a compromise: the principle of European solidarity and the principle of European added value. The task will be to define a concept that combines both principles so that it can become the main argument and narrative for explaining the complex budget negotiations, enabling the European Union to avoid a stalemate.     

EU Foreign Policy in the Italian Parliament: The Debates on China and Iran

Governments have always been more reluctant to accept parliamentary oversight in foreign policy than in any other domestic policy field. This examination of the recent performance of the Italian Parliament in Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) scrutiny and control in the two case studies of the EU's arms embargo against China and negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program shows that institutional arrangements concerning parliamentary control in this field have significant shortcomings. Although limited, the reforms under discussion in the new intergovernmental conference could contribute to improving the performance of parliaments and to creating a common awareness of the problem of democratic deficit in CFSP among the parliamentarians of EU member states.     

Growing without a Strategy? The Case of European Security and Defence Policy

Contrary to the expectations of many experts and politicians, one of the most politically sensitive sectors of the European integration process, the common foreign and security policy, has seen remarkable growth in recent years. The pressure of crises and conflicts beyond the EU's borders and the need to deal with them in a unitary way has driven the governments of member states and the community institutions to take development of CFSP/ESDP more seriously. The process has been pragmatic, establishing the mechanisms and policies required to respond to the challenges. It is this bottom-up, disorderly growth that the Constitutional Treaty had attempted to rationalise in a coherent framework, completing the work of the preceding treaties. With the stalled ratification of the CT, this growth has continued. But it cannot go on indefinitely. In order to bring order and coherence into CFSP/ESDP bodies and procedures, the substance of the Constitutional Treaty must be saved and approved rapidly.     

The Eu's Response to 9/11: A Case Study of Institutional Roles and Policy Processes with Special Reference to Issues of Accountability and Human Rights

ABSTRACT

The challenges of 9/11 required a wide ranging response across all three of the broad divisions of EU policymaking competence: the economic and monetary union, common foreign and security policy and internal security. These policy divisions make up the ‘three pillars’ of the EU's political architecture. This article reviews general issues of accountability and human rights protection in the EU's policymaking and implementation process, the evolution of the EU's response to terrorism, and the general response to 9/11. It then considers, in detail, the implications of the various response measures adopted under each ‘pillar’. The article demonstrates the emphasis that the Member States have placed on security measures and the wider concerns that their content and speed of adoption left little scope for other views to be heard. The article lays stress upon the fact that the effectiveness of the response measures are crucially dependent on the variable implementation capacity of the Member States. The article concludes by noting how the 2004 EU Constitution [Article I-42] requires Member States to ‘…?act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State is a victim of a terrorist attack….’     

Tacit procedural politics: institutional change and member states' strategies in police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters

This article analyses the dynamics of procedural politics in the EU's Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters across subsequent Treaty regimes (Amsterdam and Lisbon). In the course of legislative policy-making in this area, member states and the European Commission engage in strategic interactions with respect to procedural rules, whereby specifically member states attempt to contain integrationist legislation coming from the Commission through legislative preemption strategies. Drawing on Joseph Jupille's procedural politics approach, the article hypothesizes that member states' strategies are conditioned by several scope conditions, notably jurisdictional ambiguity, influence difference between different decision-making procedures, and prointegrationist case law from the European Court of Justice. I test these hypotheses by analysing the legislative process on a number of selected cases.     

Border management in the Mediterranean: internal,external and ethical challenges

Framed in the Justice and Home Affairs external dimension (JHAE) literature that argues that the European Union's (EU) internal security has become an objective of European foreign policy, this article offers an analysis of the institutionalization of border management in the Mediterranean. Investigating the role of Frontex, the European border management agency, this article reveals that border management in the Mediterranean is a fragmented policy that presents internal and external challenges. First, at an internal level, border management remains a sensitive issue where the principles of burden sharing and solidarity between EU member states are difficult to operationalize. Second, at an external level, effective border management is dependent on cooperation with EU's neighbours, as the Spanish-Moroccan case demonstrates. Lastly, along with these internal and external challenges, border management raises some crucial issues about the opportunity of externalizing surveillance technologies to authoritarian regimes.     

The European Union's human security discourse: where are we now?

The language of human security has been prominent in the European Union's (EU) official discourse for a number of years. However, whilst it has been promoted as a new approach for the EU in the development of its security and defence policy, the aim of this article is to assess the extent to which it actually features in the EU's contemporary strategic discourse and practice. It seeks to uncover where and how the concept is spoken within the EU's institutional milieu, how it is understood by the relevant policy-makers in the EU and the implication of this across key areas of human security practice. It is argued in the article that human security has not been embedded as the driving strategic concept for Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) in an era of crisis and change in Europe and beyond and that the prospects for this materialising in the near future are rather thin.     

Still focused on the Atlantic: accounting for the limited Europeanization of Portuguese security policy

This article examines the limited Europeanization of contemporary Portuguese security policy and highlights how the persistence of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the emergence of the Lusophone world have shaped Portuguese participation in the European Union's (EU's) Common Foreign and Security Policy in recent years, particularly in Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions in Africa and in the European Defence Agency's co-operation activities. Europeanization's conceptual weaknesses, combined with the mutually reinforcing nature of transatlantic, EU and Lusophone security co-operation, have reinforced the ambiguous nature of what a “Europeanized” vision for European security might look like, especially given long-standing loyalties to NATO. This affords states considerable margin for manoeuvrability in defining their security priorities, so long as they are seen as being broadly consistent. This article reassesses the appropriateness of the Europeanization concept and shows how Portugal has approached this strategic balancing act, supporting the development of the EU's CSDP whilst remaining loyal to NATO and seeking to develop security relations in the Lusophone world, achieving legitimacy by stressing complementarity and multilateralization in security co-operation.     

‘Building democracy’ through foreign aid: The limitations of United States political conditionalities, 1992–96

This article examines the record of the United States government in promoting democratic reform through the manipulation of development aid flows between 1992 and 1996. The first section reviews the origins of the policy of political conditionality and the subsequent changes in the US Agency for International Development. The next section evaluates the policy's execution by considering trends in the volume and distribution of US official development assistance, statistical linkages between that aid and recipient democratization, and the relationship with other potential foreign policy goals. The study finds that, contrary to the government's pledges, democratic and democratizing states have not received a greater share of aid. Instead, the distribution has been closely linked with security concerns ‐ a pattern consistent with the cold war record ‐ and US economic self‐interests have also been evident. Finally, three obstacles to the policy of ‘building democracy’ are considered: domestic ambivalence over the US's grand strategy in the post‐cold war era; coexistent foreign policy objectives that conflict with democratization; and the practical difficulties of eliciting reform overseas through the blunt instrument of development assistance.     

US Middle East policy after 9/11: Implications for transatlantic relations

The EU's agenda in promoting multilateralism faces a few challenges in the eastward direction. The Caspian Sea basin, which has been acquiring increasing importance for the EU in the context of energy, above all gas, supplies from the Caucasus and Central Asia, represents a complex mix of states with different histories, identities, regimes, centres of gravity and regional ambitions. Unlike the Black Sea basin, where the EU has developed the Black Sea Synergy policy, none of the Caspian littoral states is an EU member and this has led to a lack of EU interest in and commitment to the promotion of multilateralism in the area. Thus, in spite of significant energy security interests, the EU lacks the will, the capacity or the consistency to address regional security issues or promote reform. Indeed, economic interests are inevitably likely to clash with the reform promotion objective.