'Moral Power' of the European Union in the South Caucasus

Syuzanna Vasilyan

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9781137601964
• eBook ISBN: 9781137601988
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: European Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book devises a new conceptual framework of 'moral power' and applies it to the policy of the European Union (EU) towards the South Caucasian states of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. It covers the period starting from the 1990s to the present and analyses policy domains (democracy promotion, conflict resolution, security, energy, trade) juxtaposing the policy of EU/member states with those of the United States (US), Russia, Turkey, Iran, as well as inter-governmental and regional organizations. 'Morality' is unpacked as composed of seven parameters: consequentialism; coherence; consistency; normative steadiness; balance between values and interests; inclusiveness; and external legitimacy. 'Power' is branched into 'potential', 'actual' and 'actualized' types. 'Moral power' is consequently developed as an objective and neutral framework to capture the foreign policy of an international actor in any geographic area and policy sphere. The book will be useful for students and scholars of International Relations and EU Studies, policy-makers and practitioners.

© The Author(s) 2020

Syuzanna Vasilyan'Moral Power' of the European Union in the South Caucasushttps://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-60198-8_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction

Syuzanna Vasilyan¹

(1)

Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

Syuzanna Vasilyan

End Abstract

This book posits moral power as a conceptual edifice built upon on intricate theoretical, policy-focused and empirical research, with the “flesh” of moral parameters framing the “skeleton” of power. Drawing on terms, notions and concepts from political philosophy, political science, international relations, foreign policy and European Studies, the book couples these with policy analysis and field research. ¹ The identification of certain conceptual lacunae to be found within these domains and attempts to remedy them have motivated the development of a holistic explanatory framework.

Moral power is broken down into seven parameters of morality and three types of power, which are subject to operationalization. Morality-wise, the parameters can be minimized to encompass any reasonable individual moral politician or (foreign) policy-maker. They reach beyond the essential “brands” of civilianness, normativity and ethics to include standards of consequentialism , coherence , consistency , balance between values and interests , normative steadiness , inclusiveness and external legitimacy . Power-wise, the political “bar” is set at three levels, potential, actual and actualized capacity (see Chapter 2). The substance of the book centers on a case study focusing on EU policy towards the South Caucasus.

By opening up the “black boxes” of both the EU and the South Caucasus as the subject and object of the monograph, ² the monograph takes stock of policy developments in a comprehensive fashion. The argument of this book is twofold. In the first place, contrary to the convictions of realists and neorealists , it posits that it is feasible for a political entity to exist and behave as a “moral power” in foreign affairs and policy and/or international politics and relations. Although normative in its own right, this viewpoint has been supported and justified by political philosophers including Emmanuel Kant, whose thinking has greatly influenced this book. Since his time, this belief has been cherished by scholars of international relations and specifically idealists and liberalists, ³ not least through the impetus given by the creation of the League of Nations. More recently, it has been avowedly championed as viable by constructivists since, provided there is social agreement (including political and scholarly agreement), anything can be constructed. The second postulate, for which the European Union (EU) is the subject of the case study, while South Caucasian states are its object, is that the EU is the political entity best placed to perform as a “moral power” since the triad of “polity, policy and politics” upon which it rests potentially confers all the credentials required for this role (Vasilyan 2004). This triad is intrinsic to the Union’s political constitution as it encapsulates a plethora of values, most importantly peace. The latter is crucial for the EU, which through its predecessor—the European Communities (EC)—has helped the European continent to rise from the ashes of war, guaranteeing peace by transforming dictatorships into democracies. In this way, the EU’s polity, that is, its institutionally organized structure, has been constructed on the premise of greater egalitarianism among states, irrespective of their size of power (great, middle or small), than has been permitted by other intergovernmental organizations. Most importantly, the Union has been built up through a voluntary pooling of sovereignty. Its politics, despite the diversity of actors and interests (defined as competition for power to determine “who gets what”) is conducted through compromise and consensus whereby each agent (state, substate, non-state) benefits by receiving a “piece of the cake”, notwithstanding its size. ⁴ The EU seen as a policy (not to be confused with a specific EU policy or policies but broadly conceived as a “project in the making”) is driven through diplomacy rather than the use of force characteristic of traditional actors on the world stage.

Examination of the EU’s policy—defined as “a course of action taken by an entity in order to attain specific goals” (Vasilyan and Petrossian 2013, p. 38)—is enticing since it is a novel type of an actor, different from traditional actors, and conducts its external/foreign policy in an unconventional way. There has been a tendency to assert the EU’s idiosyncrasy. ⁵ The EU has been branded in contradictory fashion as both a “cooperative empire” (Whitman 2005, p. 33), and as exercising “passive aggression” (Leonard 2005, p. 51). Cooper (2000, p. 22) has labeled the EU as a “post-modern” polity, which has fused domestic and foreign affairs, relies on mutual interference and surveillance by member states, has abandoned the use of force and prioritized alternative forms of behavior, the abolition of borders and a reframing of security based on “transparency”, “openness”, “interdependence” and “vulnerability” (ibid., p. 22). Conversely, the USA is resistant to postmodernism and prefers “modern” means of assertion (ibid., pp. 27). As for the regional powers in the vicinity of the South Caucasus, Russia incorporates “pre-modern”, “modern” and “post-modern” attributes, being a largely “modern” entity (ibid., pp. 27–28), while Buzan and Diez (1999, p. 51) viewed Turkey as a “modernizing” state far from the postmodern condition.

As if following the most similar systems design/method of comparison (Mill 1843), the EU has been predominantly contrasted with the USA. Hyde-Price (2006, p. 217) stated that “there is a distinctive ‘European’ approach to international politics that favours diplomacy, persuasion, negotiation and compromise”, in contrast to the “American approach, which is more prone to using military coercion” (p. 218). Lucarelli (2006, p. 55) claimed that “multilateralism has become a core principle of political interaction both within the EU and in EU external relations… while it seemed to be more a tool in the case of US foreign policy”. Leonard (2005, p. 38) believed that the USA exercises “power as spectacle”, which is “always imposed on unwilling subjects from outside, rather than changing the wiring of society from inside” through “power as surveillance” as practiced by the EU. The latter form of power is “voluntary and mutual” (ibid., p. 46). More specifically, “what makes the EU unique is that it can bring together its aid, trade and development assistance to prevent hotspots from collapsing into war” (ibid., p. 68). It “can deploy ‘transformative power’ to shape the parts of societies that America cannot reach with the magnet of its neighborhood policy, and the link between market access and political reform” (ibid., p. 110). In addition, “the US pursues short-term goals that are explicitly in its own interest”, while “the European response” has been to “hold out the possibility of integration… to neighbouring countries and so attempt to bring them closer to the political norms and institutional practices of the EU” through a long-term vision (ibid., p. 52).

The case of the South Caucasus presents a puzzle in different ways. Firstly, with calibrated geography, the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) has clustered countries in the South and East under the same political umbrella, but their domestic and foreign policy paths have increasingly diverged (see Chapter 3). Meanwhile, not only regionally but also bilaterally, these states differ as regards their foreign policy preferences and alliances, regime types and modes of governance, economic performance and resource capacity, social composition, etc. In other words, the South Caucasus proper is not uniform: the very term “South Caucasus” is artificial as it is not a “region”; instead, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia have adopted divergent regional priorities (see Chapter 4). Squeezed between the great power Russia and the middle powers Turkey and Iran, with the USA being a major actor developing its own policy vis-à-vis Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, these countries have opted for different security arrangements since the 1990s (see Chapter 5). Moreover, the area has three unresolved conflicts nested within it, in Abkhazia , South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh (see Chapter 6). In terms of political stature, Georgia is a transitional government or hybrid regime , Armenia is semi-consolidated authoritarian regime and Azerbaijan is a consolidated authoritarian regime (Freedom House n.d., see Chapter 7). What concerns their economies, Azerbaijan is resource-rich; Georgia has access to the Black Sea and is a beneficiary of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) with the EU...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Introduction
• 2. The Conceptual Framework of “Moral Power”
• 3. “Moral Power” of the EU through the European Neighborhood Policy
• 4. “Moral Power” of the EU through its Regionalization Policy in the South Caucasus
• 5. “Moral Power” of the EU through its Security Policy in the South Caucasus
• 6. “Moral Power” of the EU through its Conflict Resolution Policy in the South Caucasus
• 7. “Moral Power” of the EU through its Democracy Promotion Policy in the South Caucasus
• 8. Conclusion
• Back Matter