Change or Continuity
| Published date | 01 June 2011 |
| Author | Elena A. Korosteleva |
| DOI | 10.1177/0047117811404446 |
| Date | 01 June 2011 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
International Relations
25(2) 243–262
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0047117811404446
ire.sagepub.com
Corresponding author:
Elena A. Korosteleva, Aberystwyth University, Penglais Hill, Aberystwyth SY23 2HD.
Email: ekk@aber.ac.uk
Change or Continuity:
Is the Eastern Partnership
an Adequate Tool for the
European Neighbourhood?
Elena A. Korosteleva
Abstract
This article examines the discourse of the EU’s relations with eastern Europe under the recently
launched Eastern Partnership (EaP) initiative. First, it evaluates the EaP’s conceptual framework
to suggest that there seems to be more continuity than change in the EU’s modus operandi
with its neighbours. More crucially, the notion of ‘partnership’, central to the new philosophy of
cooperation with the outsiders, continues to be ill defined, causing a number of problems for the
effective and legitimate realisation of the European Neighbourhood Policy/Eastern Partnership in
the region. Second, drawing on the empirical investigations of the official discourses in Belarus,
Ukraine and Moldova, the article reveals an increasing gap between EU rhetoric and east European
expectations. In the absence of adequate partnership response to the needs and interests of ‘the
other’, the policy is unlikely to find anticipated legitimation in the neighbourhood.
Keywords
Belarus, European Union, governance, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine
The Eastern Partnership is a project in the making. In order to succeed this ambitious
endeavour we must deliver lasting and visible results for the citizens of our partner countries
and the EU1
Introduction: EU neighbourhood intentions
On 7 May 2009, the Eastern Partnership (EaP) was launched to strengthen the European
Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) in the eastern European region.2 The new initiative fol-
lowed the European Commission’s recommendations for a ‘Strong ENP’3 and sought to
244 International Relations 25(2)
revamp the policy’s appeal in the area. It offered further differentiation, ownership and
focus which were emblematically lacking in the eastern partners’ commitment to reform
and implementation of the ENP. The EaP’s added value was unambiguously seen in the
pursuit of a ‘more ambitious partnership between the European Union and the partner
countries’4 to ensure the policy’s effectiveness and legitimacy in the neighbourhood.
Logistically, as posited by its founding documents,5 the EaP foresees a number of
positive changes to ensure the eastern neighbourhood’s deeper integration into the EU.
In particular, the policy offers a novel two-track approach by adding multilateral coop-
eration, with a regional focus on conventional bilateral relations with the EU. In order to
develop a legal basis for cooperation, the EaP grants countries that are already in the ENP
new concessions, while offering countries which currently lack structured relations with
the EU (i.e. Belarus) a fast track into the framework. The policy also ambitiously outlines
four thematic platforms of political, economic, energy security and civic reforms to be
embedded through new Association Agreements, and a range of specific projects, which
aim to bring the partners into ‘ever closer’ Union. It also envisions five potential flagship
initiatives to be developed on a needs-serving basis, and through intensive engagement
with the region’s civil society. In summary, the EaP appears timely and seemingly more
versatile than the ENP, and it aims to amplify the latter’s effectiveness in the region.
In substantive terms, however, the EaP remains strikingly similar to the original ENP.
There appears to be marked continuity under the EaP in both the format of engagement
and the prioritisation of EU ownership of rhetoric and actions. More crucially and more
surprisingly, though, for a policy explicitly intended to be a ‘more ambitious partner-
ship’, there persists the same conceptual ambiguity regarding the notion of ‘partnership’
that is central to the framing of the EU’s relations with its neighbours.6
Confusion arises not only in the lack of detail (after all, it is still a ‘project in the mak-
ing’), but also the lack of attention to the existing conceptual deficiencies of the original
ENP.7 If these deficiencies are transferred to the EaP without being addressed, they
would make the policy a priori ineffective and illegitimate in the region. In particular,
two crucial elements are embedded in the ENP, which form the basis for a new philoso-
phy of partnership: those of joint ownership and common values. Currently they remain
as obscure and even less pronounced than they were in the original policy. The philoso-
phy of partnership, conceptually premised on the process of ‘othering’ – construction of
‘self’ through ‘the other’ – is included to make the EU’s approach to its neighbours more
effective and sustainable. As the notion of partnership remains ill defined in the EU’s
rhetoric and actions, this may have profound implications, not only for the effectiveness
of the EaP and the legitimacy of the ENP as a whole, but, more critically, for the prospect
of the EU becoming a ‘force for good’8 in international relations.
Thus this article addresses some conceptual and methodological discrepancies within
the ENP/EaP by way of an empirical examination of the EU’s rhetoric and eastern
responses to it captured through interviews with policymakers and government officials
across the border.9 The article proceeds in two parts. The first evaluates the ENP/EaP’s
conceptual foundations to reveal tensions within the policy, owing to the lack of an
explicitly defined notion of partnership in the EU’s modus operandi with its neighbours.
Notably, the article highlights some discrepancies related to (i) the increasing subversion
and appropriation of the idea of ‘partnership’ into the EU-centred normative agenda;
To continue reading
Request your trial