The European Approach to Peacebuilding

Civilian Tools for Peace in Colombia and Beyond

Kenneth A. Loparo, Dorly Castañeda

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781137357304
• eBook ISBN: 9781137357311
• Topic: Ciencias sociales
• Subtopic: Políticas europeas

Examining peacebuilding through the intersection of security, development and democracy, Castaneda explores how the European Union has employed civilian tools for supporting peacebuilding in conflict-affected countries by working at the same time with CSOs and government institutions.

Part I

The European Union as an International Peace Actor

1

European Development Aid Supporting Peace

A. Introduction

The European Union (EU) is an international actor capable of defining foreign policy objectives and employing means for reaching them. Development policy has been an essential part of the EU’s international activity, especially in interactions with conflict-affected countries. However, the development policy and the approach to conflict prevention have not been totally defined and seem to be regularly under construction. They are affected by both domestic and external factors, including the EU’s own experiences in conflict-ridden zones.

B. The EU: An international actor defining its foreign policy

The EU plays an unusual role on the international stage. As it is neither a state nor a common international organization, but, rather, a “political entity” (“ensemble politique”),¹ it seems legitimate to question whether the EU is an actor in international relations at all. Indeed, from the realist perspective, states are central to the international system, and the EU is an actor challenging the very concepts of sovereignty and security. Basically, the EU is a system of sovereign states joined by a treaty and, until 2009, did not have a legal personality allowing it to conclude international agreements. ²

In order to answer the question of whether the EU has been an actor on the international stage, the realist understanding of the international stage must give way to more pluralist perspectives. Some authors argue that the EU is an international actor since it has developed a wide variety of policy instruments to pursue European common interests through collective action in the international system.³ The EU has shown an overwhelming capacity to finance its own policy decisions, by allocating resources through its own decision-making process and carrying out policies with its own tools. ⁴

Effectively, the EU represents the member states on economic, environmental, and human rights issues. However, in matters such as military defense the EU is not visible and member states defend their sovereign foreign policies. Thus, the EU appears with many faces, a “multifaceted actor”⁵ that can in fact be several actors simultaneously. In fact, the EU is constantly undergoing a process of construction of its external action. Hence, the EU is an actor sui generis that can act in different ways depending on the issue, the region, the context, and the perception of other international actors.

The EU’s international actions indicate that there is a common ground among member states. Indeed, as described in the Treaty on European Union, the European states share values and agree on general common goals such as multilateralism, the promotion of human rights and freedom, democracy and the rule of law, economic and social progress, and sustainable development. The goals of international actions are agreed on this basis, which has gradually brought about a common way of acting in the world.

Nevertheless, member states do not necessarily agree on the means for achieving the international goals that treaties have gradually announced. The discussion is about the kind of power the EU wants to develop. Those claiming that Europe is a normative power focus on the EU’s objectives for its external relations in promoting norms on various issues such as the environment, human rights, and justice: demonstrating the capacity for institutionalizing relations among states.⁶ The civilian power tradition emphasizes the fact that the EU is itself a peace zone where common values are shared and means for international action are civilian (it is the second largest trade actor, largest donor, and largest source of investment for the developing world).⁷ Thus, the fact of not having military power can be a comparative advantage vis-à-vis the US and regional powers.⁸ Other countries do not mistrust the European presence because it cannot turn out to be aggressive. On the other hand, the traditional power perspective insists on the weakness of the EU because of its lack of military integration and its consequent dependence on the US. The EU is not a military power. It does not have the means to fight in the anarchical international system.⁹ However, having civilian means does not mean that Europe is not capable of influencing partners through coercion. The EU disposes of means such as the access to its market, its enlargement, and Official Development Aid (ODA), which can be instruments of coercion from the point of view of other countries since they include sanctions and rigorous conditionalities. ¹⁰

As shown by the debate about the kind of power it exercises, it is, in fact, not clear whether the EU has only civilian goals, only civilian instruments, or both. In fact, this literature is focused on the potential of an EU foreign policy: on what could and should be the role of the EU as an international actor.¹¹ What is certain is that the EU is present on the international stage and will continue to be so, despite the fact that it lacks military integration and that member states do not abandon to it their sovereignty in security and defense matters.¹² It is evident that the EU has enlarged its toolbox of international action and pursues diverse objectives. However, tensions continue among member states, EU bodies, and international actors regarding the way in which to use its instruments and the definition of its policy goals. For Edwards, this is a sort of “schizophrenia” that risks continuing in the near future,¹³ while, for Bickerton, the nature of EU foreign policy resides in the turf wars among EU bodies and state members.¹⁴ All the same, the European presence and its actions around the world demonstrate that the EU has many powers, rather than being one particular kind of power. ¹⁵From Bretherton and Vogler’s perspective, the EU is continually developing the goals and means whereby it builds its profile as an international actor. ¹⁶

In brief, the EU is an international actor under construction, with a large toolbox for pursuing common objectives in the international system. Can the EU’s external actions be understood as a European foreign policy? This is more than a semantic discussion. The concept of foreign policy is related to the understanding of the international system, the role of states, and the European integration process.

1. The EU’s foreign policy

Whether or not the EU has a foreign policy is a tricky question that has generated vigorous debate among scholars in international relations. The main argument of the realist school places states at the heart of the EU’s integration process and considers foreign policy as a matter of sovereignty and power. The EU does not have a foreign policy because it is not a state; it does not have a hard power, and before the Lisbon Treaty it did not even have a clear head in foreign affairs. Since December 2009, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs & Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission, Catherine Ashton, has not been able to consolidate an EU foreign policy, which still depends on the will of the member states.

Without changing the realist postulate, the intergovernmental approach considers that member states are highly economically interdependent and that this condition calls for the establishment of common rules and institutions in order to better resolve specific common problems. Thus, common foreign policies exist in some areas in which the interests of all member states coincide, sometimes as a result of negotiations and bargaining.¹⁷ This means that the EU’s foreign policy is extremely limited, as decisions depend on the will of the member states. Moravcsik¹⁸ introduces the perspective of decision-makers as social actors and points out the importance of liberal societies exerting pressure on policy-makers. Social actors are influenced by ideas of international negotiations and try to push for the adoption of positions on the international scene. In this way, European societies influence their governments to take up a common European position, but foreign policy decisions rely on the member states and their capacity to bargain.

Opening the EU stage to other actors and not only member states, the neo-functionalist approach considers elites and European common bodies. Lesquesne summarizes the contribution of neo-functionalist scholarship to the understanding of European integration: elites and European bodies have autonomy from member states and, as their interests converge, they gradually expand their activities to other domains and increase European integration (incrementalism).¹⁹ According to Lesquesne, institutionalism complements this approach. Institutionalists consider European policies and politics as part of an historic trend and a form of social capital present in European bodies. In this perspective, foreign policy can become “common” when member states are induced to consider that working together against common threats through civilian instruments is far more efficient than opposing these threats by themselves. ²⁰

Some studies focus on EU policy-making. Empirical and micro-analyses try to understand the interaction between European bodies, groups in society, and governments on specific issues. This approach, through governance and public policy, is justified because EU decisions do not have clear heads. For analyzing external action, this approach allows the introduction of transnational actors, lobbying groups, elites, and “epistemic communities” that surround the European bodies at the moment of taking a decision.

In any case, the EU’s presence on the international stage poses a challenge to the classic approaches to foreign policy. Some authors propose definitions of foreign policy. For example, Petiteville proposes the concept of “international policy” (“politique internationale”), understood as the set of actions, speeches, and procedures attributable to the EU and meant to produce an effect on the international field.²¹ Telo uses the concept of “structural foreign policy” in order to challenge the classical Westphalian model of interstate relations. Structural foreign policy includes the various dimensions of external relations, not only the common foreign and security policy (CFSP).²² For policy-making analysis, Soetendorp focuses on the beliefs of decision-makers that are influenced by internal and external factors. Foreign policy comprises the policy-making process and the policy outcomes within both the various states and the EU. It refers to the goals, strategies, instruments, and everyday actions decided by policy-makers in diplomacy, security, and foreign economic policy.²³ From an institutionalist perspective, Hill considers European external actions as a “foreign policy system” in which a European common policy and national foreign policies converge and combine in their impact on international events. ²⁴

For studying specific actions of the European Union abroad, the definitions of Petiteville, Hill, and Telo seem appropriate. Thus, I understand the European foreign policy as all the actions taken by the EU on the international stage pursuing domestic values, interests, and policies of the EU. It does not include member states’ foreign policies, and it comprises issues from economics (trade and aid), politics (diplomacy), security, and defense. The next section shows that European foreign policy has specific means for realizing its goals.

a) Goals and means of the EU’s foreign policy

In the construction of the EU as an international actor, a general objective seems to emerge. The EU has aimed to transform the environment in which it and its peers operate. Keukeleire and Telo explain that the EU can shape some aspects of the structures affecting other states’ choices, thus affecting the conditions in which actors will operate in the future.²⁵ For Telo, the general purpose behind this is to create an environment more favorable to peace and the values of civilian powers. Laidi argues that this preference of the EU for changing structures through the use of norms is not for the defense of civilian values but, rather, for the pursuit of common interests, selfish and cosmopolitan alike, and the avoidance of the use of force in international relations. ²⁶

Alongside the discussion about the civilian character of the EU’s power and its main objective, the EU can be studied as an actor with an agency capacity that interacts with other actors in various global settings, according to Bretherton and Voglers’ social constructivist approach. Actors can change contexts and are also constrained by them to different degrees depending on their resources (economic, political, military, and those involving access to knowledge and willingness to act). Actions cause structures to evolve depending on the extent to which actors are strategically well placed.²⁷ Thus, the context of action (opportunity), the way the EU is seen to exert influence beyond its borders (presence), and the ability to formulate policies and use instruments to respond to opportunities and/or capitalize on presence (capability) determine the construction of the EU as an international actor. The EU counts on instruments such as diplomacy/negotiation, economic tools, and military means. The question remains: to what extent can the EU identify and prioritize its goals?

Starting from this perspective, Karen Smith’s empirical study argues that European foreign policy pursues five particular objectives that aim at the transformation of settings (situations). These are: the defense of regional integration, the promotion of human rights, the promotion of democracy, conflict prevention, and the fight against international crime.²⁸ It is crucial to add environmental protection as well. The EU counts on economic and political instruments, though the main instrument is economics, meaning trade and aid.²⁹ ODA is an economic instrument (from former pillar 1), intended for external relations with the South,³⁰ and has influenced, and evolved with, the definition of the EU as an international actor.

C. ODA and the EU’s profile as an international actor

The EU is the biggest donor in the world, accounting for more than half of official development assistance, and the largest humanitarian donor, if one includes the funds allocated by all member states in addition to those spent by the EU institutions. The EU’s grant program alone consisted of USD 12.7 billion in 2010.³¹ Compared with other multilateral institutions, the volume of Community ODA alone is larger than that of the World Bank’s International Development Association and several times that of the United Nations Development Programme.³² This assistance is provided to more than 160 countries, territories, and organizations worldwide. The EU is also a main trading partner of developing countries, from which 40% of EU imports come³³ (see Appendix).

This information is proudly displayed by EU external relations sites and publications, which present an argument supporting the claim that the EU is a global actor that is very important for the South. According to Hazel Smith,³⁴ the EU treats four issues involving the South: political dialogue, trade, cooperation for development, and security. In this perspective, ODA can be considered an important tool for European external relations.

This section analyzes the use of ODA, the creation of the Common Development Policy, and its relation to the EU’s foreign policy for the South. The EU has built a development cooperation policy that has gradually propelled the EU towards the forefront of donors in the world. The use of ODA has played an important role in the image of the EU on the international scene.

1. The European development policy

Common European development cooperation is a relatively new endeavor. Cooperation with states in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific (ACP countries) dates back to the beginning of European integration in 1958. Development assistance has been part of trade agreements with other parts of the world since the late 1970s. Yet it was not until 1993 that the legal provisions for development cooperation in the European legal framework were established with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty on European Union. Article 130u of the Treaty states that Community policy in the sphere of development cooperation “shall be complementary to the policies pursued by the Member States,” which means that there is a common policy that is parallel to national cooperation policies and that does not replace them. The Commission is ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables, Figures, and Map
• Foreword by Jenny Pearce
• Acknowledgments
• List of Acronyms
• Introduction
• Part I: The European Union as an International Peace Actor
• Part II: The Reception Side: Antagonist Expectations of EU Actions for Peace
• Part III: European Peacebuilding as a Process
• Conclusions: The European Approach to Peacebuilding
• Appendix: Peace Laboratories
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index