«A thesis submitted to the Department of Political Science and International Studies of the University of Birmingham for the degree of Doctor of ...»
These policy aims and the ways for achieving them are further reiterated in the articulations of Commission officials. For example, the Commissioner responsible for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs Joe Borg argues that: “… the ultimate goal for all partner countries … should be integration to the fullest possible degree. This includes participation in the Single Market …”,19 which the then Commissioner responsible for Enlargement Günter Verheugen defined as an extension of the “four freedoms” of movement – of goods, services, capital and labour as a long-term perspective of the ENP. 20 The envisaged end result from the successful implementation of the ENP will be a “… move from „shallow‟ integration to deeper economic and regulatory integration”, which means approximating legislation, building regulatory frameworks, and strengthening administrative capacities. 21 This will come as a result of overcoming the predominance of trade and cross border exchanges in the relationship and including in it tools for overcoming non-tariff barriers through the establishment of common technical norms and standards, intellectual property rights, competition rules and consumer protection.
23 Benita Ferrero-Waldner, European Neighbourhood Policy, SPEECH/06/149, 07.03.2006, p. 3 24 European Commission, European Neighbourhood Policy: a Year of Progress, IP/05/1467, 24.11.2005, p. 1 237 Commission President Romano Prodi presents it, the ENP offers a chance for the neighbourhood countries to: “… share everything with the Union but institutions”. 25 This suggests that instead of being left outside, the EU‟s neighbours still have a tangible perspective of being substantially included into the policies of the Union, although not having the membership prospect in the short and medium-term for the Eastern neighbours and even in the long-term for the Southern partners.26 The expectation is that the successful implementation of the policies envisaged in the Strategy Paper and outlined in the Action Plans will eventually result in the extension of an area of peace and stability to the neighbours of the EU. This will result in creating a zone that shares the EU‟s fundamental values and objectives27 (what the Wider Europe Communication terms “a ring of friends”).
All of these will mean that the threats outlined in the European Security Strategy have been successfully overcome.
In line with these aims, steps towards the achievement of greater integration between EU members and non-members at the external borders of the Union have already been undertaken. An example of this approach, according to the Commission, is the adoption of the New Neighbouhood Instrument for cross-border cooperation. It offers an opportunity to develop a single approach for cooperation across the external EU border.
Therefore, the Instrument overcomes 28 the separation between internal and external funding sources for regions and allows running single operations on both sides of the external EU borders.29 Such an approach had been impossible until recently due to the fact that EU 25 Romano Prodi, A Wider Europe – a Proximity Policy as the Key to Stability, SPEECH/02/619, 06.12.2002, p. 6 26 For the membership prospects of the neighbouring countries of the EU for example Ferrero-Waldner says that the ENP offers a privileged form of partnership now irrespective of the future nature of the two parties‟ relationship. See Benita Ferrero-Waldner, European Neighbourhood Policy, SPEECH/06/149, 07.03.2006, p.
3 27 European Commission, European Neighbourhood Policy - Strategy Paper, COM (2004) 373 final, 12.05.
2004, p. 5. Pace examines the normative dimension of the ENP in the Mediterranean in Michelle Pace, „Norm Shifting from EMP to ENP: the EU as a Norm Entrepreneur in the South?‟, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 20: 4 (2007), pp. 659-675.
28 The Proposal was adopted by the Council and passed by a Resolution of the European Parliament in the end of 2003. See http://ec.europa.eu/prelex/detail_dossier_real.cfm?CL=en&DosId=183992#356314, accessed on 12.05.2009 29 European Commission, Paving the Way for a New Neighbourhood Instrument, COM (2003) 393 final, 1.07.2003. This Proposal is further developed in Commission‟s Proposal for Regulation Laying Down the General Provisions Establishing the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, COM (2004) 628 238 regions had different funding sources from non-EU regions. This hampered the development of coordinated projects between regions from both sides of the external Union border, as a result of the divergent requirements for accepting a border project and the financial resources available.
Another Commission document aimed at addressing some of the grievances of the Neighbourhood countries is the “Proposal laying down the rules for the local border traffic at the external borders of the Union”. 30 It was adopted in tune with the understanding, evident in Commission documents establishing the ENP, that the borders of the enlarged Union will cut across areas that traditionally have had very close relations. Hence, in order to not cause such disruption and therefore to help achieve the goals of the ENP this proposal aims to facilitate the crossing of the external EU borders by locals of the bordering area of the neighbouring country. The proposal requires that local non-EU residents, defined as people inhabiting for at least the last six months an area that does not extend more than 30 kilometers, can cross multiple times the external borders of the EU and stay in the border area in the neighbouring member state up to seven consecutive days. The European Parliament and the Council have also adopted this proposal. 31 Given the delays that some other proposals face, this indicates a convergence of the positions of the main decision-making bodies of the EU on the course of action in the ENP.
Thus, it can be concluded that overall, the Commission discourse on the ENP presents the policy as an endeavour that will contribute to the deeper inclusion of the Neighbourhood countries into the EU policies. The measures envisaged in the ENP, as well as Commission documents already adopted reiterate this image of the policy. As a result, it is anticipated that the ENP will contribute towards reducing the difference between the EU (inside) and its neighbourhood (outside) in territorial, functional and identity terms. The neighbouring countries are going to be an integral part of the internal market (one day) and final, 29.09.2004. This second Proposal was also adopted with a Regulation by the Council and the European Parliament in October 2006. See Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, Laying down General Provisions Establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, (EC) No 1638/2006, 24.10.2006, available at the Official Journal of the European Union, L 310/ 1 of 09.11.2006.
30 European Commission, Proposal Laying Down Rules on Local Traffic at the External Land Borders of the Member States and Amending the Schengen Convention and the Common Consular Instructions, COM (2005) 56 final, 23.02.2005 31 http://ec.europa.eu/prelex/detail_dossier_real.cfm?CL=en&DosId=192571, accessed on 12.05.2009 239 hence, enjoy some (if not all) of the four freedoms of movement. Furthermore, the area covered by the ENP is referred to as a “common”, joint space in which all the inhabitants share the positives and the negatives. Therefore, the EU is expecting its neighbours to undertake fundamental and often painful reforms in the name of eradicating the existing dangers in this common space. This will decisively contribute to the enhancement of the well being of the whole region, thus creating a zone of mutual stability and prosperity.
Furthermore, this common area can only be created if all its inhabitants share a common set of values, which are guiding the conduct of their internal and external affairs. All in all, even if it is a long-term aim, the representation of the policy that this discourse makes is that the ENP will eventually contribute substantially towards the decreased salience of the dividing lines in Europe by creating an area of inclusion. Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner offers a good summary of how this presentation of the Commission discourse on the ENP configures borders: “Borders … must work flexibly, as a facilitator of economic, social and cultural exchanges. They should … promote a network of interconnected interests, allowing exchanges and contacts to flourish. Borders are … about breaking down barriers between peoples and cultures.”32 Despite this trend towards the construction of a common space at the outer Eastern and Southern edges of the EU through the Commission discourse, the same documents can be read in another way as well. This second reading will reveal a rather different configuration of the EU borders because it shows that beneath the inclusionary rhetoric there is an exclusionary dynamic going on. This contributes to the construction and reconstruction of borders between the EU and its neighbourhood. I demonstrate this argument in the next sections of the chapter.
32 Benita Ferrero-Waldner, The European Neighbourhood Policy: Helping Ourselves through Helping our Neighbours, in a speech by Ferrero-Waldner held at the Conference of Foreign Affairs Committee Chairmen of EU member and candidate states available at http://ec/europa.eu/comm/external_relations/news/ferrero/2005/sp05_31-10-05.htm, accessed on 21.08.2006 240
6.4. The Construction of Identity and Territorial EU Borders through the Commission ENP Discourse The articulations in the Commission ENP discourse construct both identity and territorial borders of the EU. The construction of the territorial borders is established through the current decisions of which countries in the EU neighbourhood have EUcandidate status. The identity border is constructed as a result of articulations that indirectly create an understanding of the neighbouring countries as “the Other”. 33 I elaborate on each of these points in this section.
6.4.1. Commission ENP discourse as constructing the “Neighbourhood” as the “Other” The articulations in the Commission ENP discourse, contrary to the image presented above, can also be read as contributing to the establishment of a mindset in which there is a rigid distinction between the EU and the Neighbourhood. From this perspective, therefore, rather than leading to the establishment of a common space, the Commission ENP discourse configures new borders. This border configuration is a result of the logic of the founding documents of the policy. As I explained above, the premise of the actions undertaken under the ENP is that enhanced insecurity for the EU emanates from its Neighbourhood.34 However, this very thinking facilitates the emergence of a significant dividing line, which in the context of this study is classified as an identity border of the EU.
As I argued in the previous chapters, the articulation of danger leads to the construction of visible external borders because danger enforces closure – both spatial and on the community that is threatened. 35 As I pointed out above, as a policy the ENP originated in the European Security Strategy and its ultimate aim is to help the EU address the threats it currently faces. Therefore, Commission discourse on the ENP can be read as 33 An article that explores the same problem, with a focus particularly on the Mediterranean, from a different angle is Michelle Pace, „Norm Shifting from EMP to ENP: the EU as a Norm Entrepreneur in the South?‟, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 20: 4 (2007), pp. 659-675 34 For the same statement see also Roberto Aliboni, „The Geopolitical Implications of the European Neighbourhood Policy‟, European Foreign Affairs Review, 10: 1 (2005) pp. 1-16, p. 1 35 David Campbell, Writing Security – United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity (2 ed.) (Manchester: Manchester University Press 1998), p. 73 241 contributing to the emergence of identity borders by advancing particular perceptions of who is “us” and who is “them”, or “the Other”. For example, when discussing European borders, Commissioner Rehn has maintained that: “The map of Europe is defined in the first place in the minds of Europeans. Geography sets the frame, but fundamentally it is values that make the borders.”36 Thus, in order to have a complete analysis of how Commission ENP discourse configures borders, it is necessary to interpret who is articulated as “us” and who emerges as “the Other” from this discourse and if it constructs a distinction between the EU and its neighbourhood countries.
In order to assess this, I use Diez‟s summary of the different strategies for constructing us/ them distinction in various articulations: representation of the other as an existential threat (occurs when various types of issues are represented as a security threat);
representation of the other as inferior; representation of the other as violating universal principles (occurs when the standards of the self are perceived to have universal validity and therefore, the other should be convinced to accept them); representation of the other as different.37 The first three contribute to the construction of salient borders because they sharpen the perception of the parties as distinct from each other.