Challenges of the European Neighbourhood Policy

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Basic Provisions of the Concept
Inadequacy of the Measures Taken
The ENP Reform Options
Difficulties in Maintaining Stability
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

Today, the activities of the European Union (EU) in the international arena attract particular attention due to the many controversial events of recent years, for instance, the UK’s desire to terminate membership in the association or numerous sanctions policies. Against interstate interaction, problems arise due to the lack of agreement on conducting common economic, political, social and other practices, which affect the relations of the EU members and affect the credibility of the entire integration system.

The need to ensure security at the borders of the union and strengthen neighbouring relations with countries outside the association led to the fact that in 2004, a special programme was introduced, which was called the European Neighbourhood Policy, or the ENP. Despite reasonable goals, this course of interaction with neighbouring states is associated with a number of problems that continue to arise today and require resolving and implementing relevant reforms. The issues of trade agreements, the migration crisis, border security and some other crucial challenges are the problems of introducing the ENP as part of the EU’s official policy.

Basic Provisions of the Concept

The main purpose of the considered policy adopted in 2004 was to strengthen stability, provide security and increase the economic welfare of all the states neighbouring the EU. As Wesselink and Boschma (2017, p. 4) remark, the ENP implied creating “a ring of countries around the EU with which the EU has close, peaceful and co-operative relations”. The Supreme Council offered partners a more profitable scope of interaction than traditional distant cooperation.

At the same time, according to Wesselink and Boschma (2017), the programme was not aimed at expanding the EU. In general, initially, the ENP assumed the maintenance of positive relations with neighbouring states without any bonuses and rights in resolving the issues of the association. Such an outcome could be positive for the union since its government would not take any obligations to support other states and, at the same time, was able to spread the interests of the EU beyond its borders. However, despite potentially positive objectives, this programme turned out to be significantly less unequivocal and successful than it had been planned initially.

By signing the ENP, EU members set themselves the goal of mutual benefits. Värimäe (2015) argues that, on the one hand, the Council of the European Association provided neighbouring countries in the east (six states) and the south (ten states) with the possibility of productive partnerships, and on the other hand, it intended to stimulate these countries to carry out reforms that would satisfy the interests of the union.

Thus, the establishment of neighbourly relations was accompanied by not only social but also economic and political aspects. Nevertheless, as practice shows, such a policy of finding favourable conditions for interaction was complicated by the attendant problems that needed to be taken into account in order to develop good relations. The decision to promote the ENP was not simple initially due to a number of challenges that existed in the regions under consideration. The desire of the EU Council to implement the values of the union in neighbouring countries was difficult to realise due to various factors, including both political and social aspects. Therefore, problems with the implementation of the programme have become part of a long course towards establishing interaction with non-EU states.

Inadequacy of the Measures Taken

During the existence of the ENP, a number of significant changes in the programme policy were carried out, which indicates an insufficiently successful plan for the implementation of this project. One of the main reasons for the amendments in the development course is related to the numerous and dangerous armed conflicts that posed a threat not only locally but also internationally. Seeberg and Shteiwi (2017) cite the case of confrontation between Israel and Palestine and note that this problem was addressed individually by the ENP terms and became an obstacle to ensuring security, which was planned as a special condition of the programme.

Also, difficult trade issues, in particular, the sanctions policy and the containment of partnerships with regions with a tense political situation created additional challenges. All of these factors have led the EU to recognise that the outcome of the ENP implementation could not be considered positive, despite the good initial objectives. Even minor changes in the legislation and the reforms of certain conditions of this agreement did not help improve the situation; therefore, the programme was subjected to cautious criticism at different levels.

The key reason for the disagreement over the idea of the ENP is an authoritarian approach to interaction and the desire of the European Council to achieve leadership in all agreements. One of the causes of criticising the programme is the EU’s attempt to apply unified steps of interacting with all neighbouring countries, while not taking into account their individual priorities, goals and interests. Such a policy of the sole establishment of interaction has led to the reluctance of individual countries to support the provisions of the programme. According to Cianciara (2017), southern Mediterranean states strongly opposed such a practice of authoritarianism, and cases of uprising occurred. Therefore, the inadequacy of the ENP provisions was expressed in the inability to promote the ideas of the EU in all the target regions.

Another reason for criticism is the lack of obvious and unambiguous ideas about what exactly the EU planned to implement as a result of partnerships with neighbouring states, in particular, the controversy of unreasoned values. As Cianciara (2017) notes, the ideas of forced democracy were not accepted unconditionally, which caused debates and controversies among non-EU countries. Finally, the verticalisation of power as the only possible mechanism of interaction was one of the most significant factors that contradicted the basic ideas of successful cooperation and determined an unquestioned approach to the conditions of relations. These nuances are the key decisions that have caused the problems of the implementation of the ENP and the recognition of the programme among all interested states.

The ENP Reform Options

Reforming the ENP was a mandatory practice caused by problems in disseminating this policy. Among the obvious reasons for the need for proper interventions, one can note separatist sentiments in some neighbouring EU countries. Del Medico (2017) cites a case study in which Georgia acts as one of the ENP states, which has come under the influence of secessionist conflicts. The author introduces the term cosmopolitanism and argues that due to the weakening role of governments in ensuring the safety of citizens, new trends appear, in particular, anarchist and separatist movements (Del Medico, 2017).

Cosmopolitanism, in turn, has become one of the reasons for reforming the ENP. Although it was assumed that neighbouring countries supported international legal conventions, they were not ready to share the ideas of the EU entirely (Martinaitis, 2018). The recognition of the individual development plan and the identity of each member of the partnership programme was the decision that needed to be realised due to massive discontent. A partner background was more favourable for many states than patronage functions and control. These solutions were mandatory to cope with the difficulties encountered during the implementation.

The decisions of neighbouring countries were to be considered as basic when planning cooperation and readiness for trade agreements. In case of reluctance, alternative conditions could be offered, for instance, trade facilitation programmes in the energy sector, joint crime control algorithms and overcoming internal conflicts. At the same time, even such projects might not have significant benefits. Bátora and Rieker (2018) analyse the case of Ukraine after the events of 2014 and note that even under the conditions of support, little assistance could be provided because, in the EU region, the existing trade relations did not imply crucial changes in the distribution of financial flows.

Finally, the EU’s flexibility in responding to any crisis situations in neighbouring countries needed to be developed as an essential condition for maintaining partnerships. Failure to accept the sovereign principles of individual states led to the fact that many countries did not want to cooperate with the union and develop joint paths in economic, social and other directions. Thus, the ENP was not able to maintain stability as one of the main goals of successful cooperation, which was the result of intercountry interaction problems.

Difficulties in Maintaining Stability

The aforementioned tasks to ensure the stability of the realisation of the ENP programme are complicated by certain factors. In special empirical analysis, Koenig (2017) notes that the migration crisis in some countries of the Mediterranean region, in particular, Libya and Syria, hampers the process of introducing normal conditions for interaction and the implementation of democratic values. It is impossible to solve this problem without analysing and assessing the key causes of illegal resettlement.

According to Jansson (2018, p. 321), since the ENP may be viewed “as an instrument for control and strategy framework”, the objectives of this policy should include not only the conditions of partnerships but also proposals for the successful resolution of the existing challenges. The issues of border protection and customs cooperation are not sufficiently developed, which also affects partnerships negatively and does not contribute to stability. Consequently, resource mobilisation may be a valuable practice for addressing the causes of illegal migration and improving political and economic situations in regions with difficult social environments.

Failure to agree on the issues of external cooperation creates challenges for the promotion of democratic values in accordance with the ENP programme. Browning (2018) considers the features of the EU’s activities with regard to its eastern neighbours and notes that the geopolitical ambitions of European countries are perceived negatively in the states of the former socialist camp due to the established standards of business and individual civility. The author compares the current situation with the term Cold War and argues that “the ENP is therefore impregnated with a geopolitical vision premised on hierarchies of otherness and threat” (Browning, 2018, p. 108).

This outcome cannot have a positive effect on stability in relationships and, thus, is one of the evidence of the need to review the strategy of establishing partnerships based on authoritarian submission rather than recognition.

As a result, practices aimed at strengthening interaction with neighbouring countries have had a different effect compared with what was planned initially. As Browning (2018) notes, the EU’s geostrategic ambitions expressed in the ENP may be associated with destabilising partnerships and complicating communication among individual regions. In order to overcome these obstacles, mitigating pressure to instil democratic values can be a successful solution, as well as effective assistance in solving local challenges, including migration issues and economic problems.

Creating mutually beneficial trade unions that could stimulate the development of the economies of individual states may also help solve the difficulties of interaction. In the absence of steps to meet these objectives, there is a likelihood of an even greater complication of relationships, and a new Cold War may escalate into more dangerous conflicts on social, trade and other grounds.

Conclusion

The ENP policy that is part of the EU’s official strategy of establishing interaction with neighbouring countries has been accompanied by some crucial problems during its implementation, including migration, trade, border security and other social, political and economic challenges. The desire of the European Council to convey democratic values through pressure has created contradictions that could only be addressed by mitigating the association’s foreign policy.

In both eastern and southern directions, the maintenance of mutually beneficial partnerships may be viewed as the key solution to eliminating local conflicts, while the inflexibility of the EU policies, conversely, can be fraught with the complication of the situation and aggravation of contradictions.

Reference List

Bátora, J. and Rieker, P. (2018) ‘EU-supported reforms in the EU neighbourhood as organized anarchies: the case of post-Maidan Ukraine’, Journal of European Integration, 40(4), pp. 461-478.

Browning, C. S. (2018) ‘Geostrategies, geopolitics and ontological security in the Eastern neighbourhood: the European Union and the ‘new Cold War’’, Political Geography, 62, pp. 106-115.

Cianciara, A. K. (2017) ‘Stability, security, democracy: explaining shifts in the narrative of the European Neighbourhood Policy’, Journal of European Integration, 39(1), pp. 49-62.

Del Medico, N. (2017) Proactive cosmopolitanism, proactive governmentality? Secessionist conflicts and EU democracy promotion. Edited by S. Gstöhl and S. Schunz. New York, NY: Routledge.

Jansson, P. (2018) ‘Rhetoric and legitimacy in the European Neighbourhood Policy’, Global Affairs, 4(2-3), pp. 317-328.

Koenig, N. (2017) ‘Libya and Syria: inserting the European Neighbourhood Policy in the European Union’s crisis response cycle’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 22(1), pp. 19-38.

Martinaitis, Ž. (2018) ‘European promises: policy options of Eastern partnership policy’, Baltic Journal of European Studies, 8(2), pp. 164-181.

Seeberg, P. and Shteiwi, M. (2017) ‘Introduction: new challenges for the European Union in the Arab Mediterranean and the revision of the European Neighbourhood Policy’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 22(1), pp. 1-17.

Värimäe, E. (2015) Ineffectiveness of the European Neighborhood Policy: a case study of Libya and Morocco. Bachelor’s thesis. Tallinn University of Technology.

Wesselink, E. and Boschma, R. (2017) ‘European neighbourhood policy: history, structure, and implemented policy measures’, Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 108(1), pp. 4-20.

Click Here To Order Now!