Evolution of European Union
Neighbourhood Policy towards Ukraine,
Moldova and Belarus
(2003-2014)
Dmytro Tyshchenko
Orientador
а
: Professora Doutora Raquel Cristina de Caria Patrício
Coorientadora: Doctor of Sciences Tetiana Sydoruk
Tese especialmente elaborada para obtenção do grau de Doutor em Relações Internacionais
Lisboa
Moldova and Belarus (2003-2014)
Dmytro Tyshchenko
Orientadora: Professora Doutora Raquel Cristina de Caria Patrício
Coorientadora: Doctor of Sciences Tetiana Sydoruk
Tese especialmente elaborada para obtenção do grau de Doutor em Relações Internacionais
Júri:
-Presidente: Doutor António Costa de Albuquerque de Sousa Lara, Professor Catedrático e Presidente do Conselho Científico deste Instituto;
Vogais:
-Doutor José Adelino Eufrásio de Campos Maltez, Professor Catedrático do Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Políticas da Universidade de Lisboa;
-Doutor Heitor Alberto Coelho Barras Romana, Professor Catedrático do Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Políticas da Universidade de Lisboa;
-Doutora Maria Raquel de Sousa Freire, Professora Associada c/Agregação da Faculdade de Economia da Universidade de Coimbra;
-Doutora Raquel Cristina de Caria Patrício, Professora Auxiliar do Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Políticas da Universidade de Lisboa, na qualidade de orientadora; -Doutora Andreia Mendes Soares e Castro, Professora Auxiliar do Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Políticas da Universidade de Lisboa;
-Doutora Liliana Domingues Reis Ferreira, Professora Convidada do Departamento de Sociologia da Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas da Universidade da Beira Interior.
iv
“L'objet final est d'éliminer les barrières entre les pe
uples
d'Europe, il est de réunir ces peuples en une même communauté.”
DEDICATION
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Undertaking this PhD has been a truly life-changing experience for me. It would not have been possible to do without the support and guidance that I received from many people.
Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude my advisor Professor Ph.D.Raquel Cristina de Caria Patrício, you have been a tremendous mentor for me. I would like to thank you for encouraging my research and for allowing me to grow as a research scientist.
I would also like to express my special appreciation and thanks to my co-advisor Dr. Phil. Tetiana Sydoruk. Your guidance helped me in all the time of research and writing of this thesis. Without your guidance and constant feedback, this PhD would not have been achievable. I could not have imagined having better advisor and co-advisor for my Ph.D. study.
I would also like to say a heartfelt thank you to my mother, Oksana, and my brother Oleksandr for always believing in me and encouraging me to follow my dreams.
CONTENTS
DEDICATION……….…..….v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……….…...vi
INTRODUCTORY NOTE……….…...ix
ABSTRACT………..…..x
RESUMO………...xi
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS……….xii
LIST OF TABLES/MAPS/FIGURES……….……….xiv
CLARIFICATIONS………...xvi
INTRODUCTION………...1
Research Field.………...3
Problem Formulation….………...4
Research Questions……….…4
Objectives of the Study………...5
Hypotheses of the Study………..7
Methodological Approach………...9
Theoretical Framework……….10
Thesis Design………...18
CHAPTER I. GENESIS AND NATURE OF EUROPEAN NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICY………..…20
I.1. Regional Approach of the European Union towards its Neighbours……….20
I.2. Origin and Conceptual Formation of the European Neighbourhood Policy………..36
I.2.1. The European Neighbourhood Policy Funding………55
I.3. Reformation of the European Neighbourhood Policy in 2006-2007: Principles and Directions……….…..62
I.4. Limitations of the European Neighbourhood Policy………...72
I.5. Final synthesis to Chapter I………..………..84
CHAPTER II. CONVERSION OF EASTERN DIMENSION OF EU FOREIGN POLICY………..………....87
II.1. A new Impulse to the ENP: Eastern Partnership………...87
II.1.1. Bilateral Framework within the Eastern Partnership……….112
viii
II.2. Positions of EU Members and Partner States concerning Eastern Partnership: in Varietate
Concordia?...…....120
II.3. Harmonisation of the Eastern Partnership Initiative with other EU Policies in Eastern Europe………..143
II:4. “A Common Neighbourhood”: between two centres of power………...149
II.4.1. EU-Russia contemporary relations………....149
II.4.2. Role of the European Union in resolving conflicts in the “Shared Neighbourhood”………...154
II.4.3. Eurasian Economic Union as false alternative to the European Union or neo-imperial project of Russia………...182
II.4.4. EU and Russian Soft Power………...191
II.4.5. EU and Russian Hard Power in Eastern Europe………....…205 II.4.6. Hybrid Warfare of Russia……….….210
II.5. EU Normative Power in Eastern Europe and its Shortcomings………217
II.6. Eastern Partnership, qvo vadis?...223
II.7. Final Synthesis to Chapter II...228
СHAPTER III. EU-UKRAINE RELATIONS IN 2003-2016………...231
III.1. Revolution of Dignity………...240
III.2. Return to pro-European Path………..244
III.3. Final Synthesis to Chapter III……….254
CHAPTER IV. RELATIONS WITH MOLDOVA AND BELARUS: EASTERN PARTNERSHIP “POSTER CHILD” AND “PARIAH”………....256
IV.1. Moldova and the European Neighbourhood Policy (2003-2016)……….….256 IV.2. Belarus – European Union. Main problems of the Partnership……….….267
IV.3 Final Synthesis to Chapter IV………...281
CONCLUSION………...283
Conclusion about Hypotheses………...283
Conclusion about Problem of Investigation……….………...286
Сontribution to Science………..……….289 REFERENCES………290
INTRODUCTORY NOTE
x
ABSTRACT
This dissertation joins a vibrant conversation in the political sciences about the development of the European Neighbourhood Policy and its Eastern dimension. The Policy stands on regional approach of the European Union. The evolution of the Eastern Partnership henceforth is profoundly dependent upon foreign policies of the Member States and the EU institutions.
The thesis also intends to study the bilateral relations between the EU and Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine. Eastern Europe has а significant importance in the European sub-continent. In this
sense, I studied tools of influence of the European Union and Russia in the “Shared
Neighbourhood”, the soft and hard power instruments together with the Moscow-led integration
projects and the hybrid war of Russia. Moreover, participating in the crisis settlement resolution in Ukraine and Moldova, the EU has been increasing its potential as a global political actor.
The development of the proposal model of research is based upon the analysis of the empirical data together with theoretical approaches, which are divided into two groups – nuclear approaches (neo-liberalism, neo-realism and Normative Power Europe) and a range of complementary theories.
Therefore, the study was divided into four chapters, trying to describe a connection and interdependence of these areas.
RESUMO
A investigação junta-se à discussão vibrante nas ciências políticas sobre o desenvolvimento da Política Europeia de Vizinhança e da sua dimensão oriental. A política está baseada na abordagem regional da União Europeia. Portanto, a evolução da Parceria Oriental está profundamente dependente de políticas externas dos Estados-Membros e das instituições da UE.
A tese também pretende estudar as relações bilaterais entre a UE e a Bielorrússia, a Moldávia e a Ucrânia. A Europa Oriental tem a importância significativa no subcontinente europeu. Nesse sentido, eu estudei ferramentas de influência da União Europeia e da Rússia no “Vizinhança Comum”, os instrumentos do poder brando e duro, também os projetos de integração de
Moscovo e a guerra híbrida da Rússia. Além disso, participando na resolução das crises na Ucrânia e na Moldávia, a UE tem vindo a aumentar o seu potencial como ator político global.
O desenvolvimento da tese baseia-se na análise dos dados empíricos, juntamente com abordagens teóricas, que são divididos em dois grupos – abordagens nucleares (neoliberalismo, neorrealismo e Normative Power Europe) e uma série de teorias complementares.
Portanto, a investigação foi dividido em quatro capítulos, tentando descrever uma conexão e interdependência dessas áreas.
xii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AA – Association Agreement
AfEI (alternative abbreviation AIE) – Alliance for European Integration
CPRM – Communist Party Republic of Moldova
CFSP – Common Foreign and Security Policy
CIS – Commonwealth of Independent States
DCFTA – Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area
EaP – Eastern Partnership
EC – European Commission
EEAS – European External Action Service
EEU – Eurasian Economic Union
ENI – European Neighbourhood Instrument
ENP – European Neighbourhood Policy
ENPI – European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
ESS – European Security Strategy
EU – European Union
EUBAM – EU Border Assistance Mission to Moldova and Ukraine
EUSR – European Union Special Representative
FTA – Free Trade Area
HDI – Human Development Index
HR – High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
IR – International Relations
MSSR – Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic
ND – Northern Dimension
NGO – Non-Governmental Organisation
NIS – New Independent States
OSCE – Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
PCA – Partnership and Cooperation Agreement
PHARE – Poland and Hungary: Assistance for Restructuring their Economies
PMR – Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic
UfM – Union for the Mediterranean
UK – United Kingdom
UN – United Nations
UNDP – UN Development Programme
USSR – Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soviet Union)
xiv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: EU financial mechanisms towards neighbouring countries……….55
Table 2: European Neighbourhood Instrument funding on 2014-2020, billion euro…………59
Table 3: ENPI budget for Ukraine bilateral programmes, million euro……….60
Table 4: ENPI budget for Moldova bilateral programmes, million euros……….60
Table 5: Visa Policy of the EU Member States towards Ukraine (2012)………..77
Table 6: A comparison of Eastern Partnership Economies………...87
Table 7: Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum………92 Table 8: 2010-2014 Indexes on Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus……….…101
Table 9: Eastern Partnership Summits………109
Table 10: Eastern Partnership Association Agreements, including DCFTAs………..……..112 Table 11: EU Member States on Eastern Partnership………123
Table 12: Comparison of the Eastern Partnership with other EU regional projects…………145
Table 13: Periods of Moldova-Transnistria/Russia war………...…………...155
Table 14: EU restrictive measures against Russia and the Crimea (individuals, companies and officials) in 2014-2016………168
Table 15: Chronology of key Eurasian Economic Union developments………184
Table 16: SWOT analysis of possible impact of the Eurasian Economic Union of economies of Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus...………186 Table 17: PEST analysis of possible joining Ukraine and Moldova into the Eurasian Economic Union………...187
Table 18: Comparison of the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union………...190
Table 19: Nye’s Three Types of Power………..191
Table 20: Soft and Hard Power……….……..192
Table 21: Presence of Russian and EU soft power institutions in Eastern European states….194 Table 22: The Soft power instruments of the European Union and Russia in the “Shared Neighbourhood”………...196
Table 23: Comparison of Soft Power Indices………..202
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1: European Neighbourhood Policy Space………45 Map 2: Eastern Partnership………...90 Map 3: Independent Moldova since 1991………...154 Map 4: The Crimean Peninsula………...163 Map 5: Separatists-Ukraine border according the Minsk negotiations………177 Map 6: Eurasian Economic Union………..189
Map 7: Debunking Russia’s Myth of NATO Military Expansion………..209 Map 8: Russian military units in eastern Ukraine (August 2016)………213
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Research questions………..6 Figure 2: Strategy for the analysis……….17 Figure 3: European Investment Bank lending in the Eastern Partnership, million euro……..59 Figure 4: Multilateral Framework of the Eastern Partnership……….117 Figure 5 Impact of sanctions on the Russian economy………167 Figure 6: Most violent non-state actors in the world……...………214 Figure 7: Components of Hybrid warfare…..……….215 Figure 8: Objectives of EU Policies towards Eastern Europe……….219
xvi
CLARIFICATIONS
In this thesis, there are some uses of words that need to be clarified. These are briefly presented in this chapter.
First of all, it is necessary to define what is meant by Eastern neighbours. This term became popular after publication of the Communication of the European Commission “Wider Europe
— Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours” in March 2003 and included Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and Russia1.
Eastern Partners (partners) term is used to indicate the six neighbouring countries participating in the Eastern Partnership, - Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Another term, Eastern dimension, refers to a direction of the EU foreign policy towards the neighbouring countries in the east – Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova. It appeared as an analogy
to the EU “Northern dimension”, a policy referred to the northern countries of Europe.
Nowadays, Eastern dimension is used in EU documents on the Eastern Partnership as “Eastern dimension of the European Neighbourhood Policy” (European Commission, 2008a).
Moldova. Besides Moldova referring to the Republic of Moldova, the use of the term also depends on the context. Most of the times it refers to the whole country, but when the conflict with Transnistria is covered, Moldova refers to the area west of the river Dniester. The same situation with term Ukraine during the negotiations with Russia and Russia-led terrorist organisations in the east of Ukraine.
1Russia was a part of the Eastern neighbours group in the EC Communication. However, Russia refused to take
INTRODUCTION
The European Union is the most important European organisation that becomes supranational, appears as one of the most influential global actors. After the collapse of the socialist system, the role and involvement of the European Union in the global and regional processes has been steadily increasing. In 2004 and 2007, there were the most ambitious enlargements. This expansion has once again demonstrated the attractiveness of the European Union as political and socio-economic model for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. In addition, the EU accession of CEE countries was understood by the elites as a “return to Europe” from other system, the core of which was not so long ago Russia (Heinisch, 2013: 1). The last EU enlargement in 2007 brought the European Union geographically closer to Russia, claiming to have a special role in the new world order. There are states between them that belonged to Soviet Union while were located in Europe. The European model arises interest in post-Soviet states that have complex economic, political and social conditions, as well as their growing co-operation with the EU. The common history is a factor, which brings together and repels at the same time the European CIS countries (Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine) from Russia, and close economic ties with it in terms of raw nature of the Russian economy is not conducive to successful socio-economic transformation of Russia’s neighbours. After 2004 and 2007 enlargements, the eastern dimension of the EU policy acquire a qualitatively different meaning. At the beginning of the 21st century, the eastern policy is focused on the rest
European countries that cannot or even do not want to join the European Union. The
topicality of this study is based on several statements:
Firstly, it is a steadily increasing international and regional importance of the European Union. In 2004 and 2007, there was a large-scale enlargement of the European Union, which demonstrated the attractiveness of the socio-economic and political model, embodied by the European Union, for the post-socialist states. However, the extension does not only give the EU the new impulses to the development, but also poses a number of challenges for it. The European Neighborhood Policy, formally initiated in 2004, has played an important role in
transformation of the European Union. First of all, it is an “external dimension” of the
fact that they are the geographical part of Europe gives them the right to claim the right to join the EU.
Secondly, there is of particular importance of the region, Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine, to Russia and vice versa. These four states still have close economic, social and cultural ties and whereby changes in one of them influence on the situation in others. In these conditions, through the study of the evolution of EU policy towards Russian neighbours it is important to understand the nature of the expanding European model, as well as the motives and perspectives of the desire of Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine to strengthen cooperation with the EU until joining it.
The object of study is the interaction of the European Union with the neighbours on the eastern border – with Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine, and the subject is the features of the implementation of the EU relations with its eastern neighbours within the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership between 2003 and 2014.
Research Field
“The success of [the European countries’] effort to consolidate themselves into the European Union will determine their future influence. United, Europe will continue as a Great Power; divided into national states, it will slide into secondary status.”
HenryKissinger, 19941 After the Treaty of Lisbon came into force, the European Union finally obtained a “face” in
negotiations on the international arena. Catherine Ashton as High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy was the official who could represent the entire EU.
The development of this sphere of integration had been long and followed disagreements in Europe about foreign policy matters. At the beginning of the Iraqi war in 2003, the EU countries were divided into two camps: some members supported the US military intervention, others were against. The Russian aggression in Georgia of August 2008 highlighted existence of the same problem. The European countries were ambiguous in their reaction and position on the Russian military actions and annexation. A new level of integration within foreign policy was reached during the recent occupation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 and war with Ukraine up to now. All the EU Members were unanimous concerning the international law violation and supported EU sanctions against Russia. However, this unanimous voice of the EU is getting harder and harder to keep.
Former United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has in the past pointed out this paradox quite clearly asking: “Who do I call if I want to talk toEurope?” (Dumitrescu, 2017: 43)This is an example of the weakness of the EU, when it comes to outwardly be united and speak with one voice.
Nonetheless, the EU has always been a difficult actor to analyse. The question of the EU role on the international arena has been even more difficult to understand. The EU is often described as a case of Sui Generis2 because the relations between the Member States and the
institutions do not fit into the concepts and framework of traditional ideas of International Relations theory. For instance, the neo-realistic approach cannot explain why states would
1Kissinger, H. (1994). Diplomacy. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
2In political philosophy, the unparalleled development of the European Union as compared to other international
give up sovereignty to EU inter- and supranational institutions or why the EU does not at present have military capacity.
The international world order of the twenty first century is unprecedented in many ways. For hundreds of years, Europe was synonymous with conflicts and clashing national interests in the three eras: the Peace of Westphalia, the Congress of Vienna and the Cold War. Today’s
world order in which the common acknowledgement of the concept raisond’état3 makes the former conflicting national interests obscure. Although, the conflict of interests between states is limited to local or regional interest spheres (verbi gratia Eastern Europe).
Problem Formulation
The final problem formulation of the treatise is:
Has the European Neighbourhood Policy towards Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova evolved within a more than ten years time scale (2003-2014)?
In furtherance of better understanding of this problem, some research questions have been formulated.
Research Questions
The research questions of this dissertation are:
- How has the European Neighbourhood Policy developed until now? How is the current situation?
- What kind of bilateral co-operation exist between the EU and Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine? What interests do they have in each other?
- Has the ENP been creating conflicts of interest with Russian foreign policy in Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova? What kind of power do the EU and Russia use in Eastern Europe?
- How active is the European Union involved in the conflict resolution processes in Eastern Europe?
3 Raison d’état is the concept of national interest. A nation’s goals and ambitions and how it pursues these are
- Do Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova accept completely the ENP, or there are some argued spheres?
- Has the EU Normative Power been contributing to the development of the three Eastern European states within multi- and bilateral relations with the European Union?
Objectives of the Study
The study is focused on the evolution of the EU eastern policy towards three CIS republics in 2003-2014. Further, it aims to achieve these general objectives:
- To analyse the formation of the eastern dimension of the European Neighbourhood Policy in 2003-2014;
- To determine the bilateral relations between the European Union and Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine within the European Neighbourhood Policy.
The specific objectives are:
- To consider the debates and the key initiatives towards EU-eastern neighbours relations within the neighborhood policy on the supranational (European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the EU) and national (governments of the EU member states) levels since their emergence and till 2014;
- To analyse the changes in domestic and foreign policies of the EU eastern neighbours in relation to the emergence of the European Neighborhood Policy;
- To study the dynamics of their interaction with the EU in 2003-2014;
- To determine the impact of the international and regional context on EU-eastern neighbours relations, on neighborhood policy formation and the evolution of its Eastern dimension;
-Problem Formulation
Has the European Neighbourhood Policy towards Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova evolved during more than
ten years (2003-2014)?
How has the European Neighbourhood Policy developed until now? How is the current situation?
What kind of bilateral co-operation exist between the EU and Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine? What interests do they have in each other?
How active is the European Union involved in the conflict resolution processes in Eastern Europe?
Has the ENP been creating conflicts of interest with Russian foreign policy in Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova? What kind of power do the EU and Russia use in Eastern Europe?
Does Russia propose any alternative path of integration for the ENP countries?
Empiric
EU Belarus Russia
Ukraine Moldova
IR Theories
ANALYSIS
The Chronological Framework of the study is limited by the period from 2003 until 2014. This period is fully applied to the analysis of EU neighbourhood policy towards Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine. However, in the case of discussions on the future of EU relations with its neighbors after the enlargement 2004, the period was extended to 2002, as this is the start of the substantive discussion of the concept of the neighbourhood within the European Union. The future neighbours did not participate in this discussion until 2003. Taking into
consideration Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in 2014 with following annexation of
Crimea and commence of hybrid war, the period was also extended to 2017.
Hypotheses of the Study
H.1. “The European Neighbourhood Policy is addressed to states which do not have the
perspectives to become members of the EU at this moment or at all”. Thus, this initiative
is intended to denote a pause in the process of enlargement of the European Union. In this
case, on the prospects for full membership to the Member States of the “Neighbourhood Policy”, The European Union takes a certain inconsistency. In this study, the hypothesis that
originated as a strategy aimed at mitigating the effects of large-scale “expansion” of the EU, which aims to “buy time” for urgent internal reforms before the next wave of new members, the “neighbourhood policy” has been regarded as an alternative to full EU membership,
securing thus, for the newly independent states the status of “neighbours”.
1.1. Ukraine and Moldova accepted the ENP and Eastern Partnership as a stage of European integration path to join the EU in a long-term perspective.
1.2. Belarus accepted the ENP and Eastern Partnership to obtain a financial support from the EU, the economic development and create a counterbalance to Russian political influence on Minsk. Moreover, Russia officially rejected the initiatives and insisted Belarus to do the same.
1.3. Within the EU, there are groups of Member States which are “in favour” and
“against” towards the evolution of the ENP. The first group “in favour” is leaded by
The opposing group “against” is led by France and is supported by Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Slovenia and Malta.
H.2. “One of the most important tasks of “neighbourhood policy” is the creation of “a
prosperous and stable neighborhood” on the borders of the European Union, which would be characterised by “peaceful relations among nations based on cooperation”
(European Commission; 2006a; 5). In this regard, it is likely expected to increase the EU role in conflict resolution on the territories of new emergent states. In the present paper, there is a hypothetical assumption that the growing influence of the EU on security issues in the Eastern Europe will lead to the fact that the settlement of regional conflicts will occur in several models, either with Russia or without it.
H.3. Eastern Europe is not a homogenous region, but rather different by internal diversification and polarisation of the foreign policy. Among the participating countries, there are several models of relations with the EU. In one of them, the EU is seen as a strong regional actor that ensures security and stability. In another model, it focuses primarily on the economic partnership, the attractiveness of the European market for national products.
H.4. The European Neighbourhood Policy is the foundation of a common EU foreign
policy formation. Strengthen the political influence of the EU and harmonisation of
member countries in the area of foreign policy will contribute to the results of internal change – the emergence of a permanent president of the European Council and High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy.
H.5. The thesis raises the question of what might be the consequence of “neighborhood policy”, if it is not a temporary stage before joining the EU, the countries to which it is
Methodological Approach
This project will answer the problem formulation mainly by applying theoretical analysis, empirical analysis and analysis of other secondary sources. Thus the focus of this project is a qualitative analysis. The problem formulation will be answered through the applications of theory to an analysis of reports, law, speeches and articles and the theoretical framework will be elaborated deductively, moving from theory to analysis and hypothesis testing. This thesis will be using three different theory frames in order to analyse and answer the problem formulation and to maintain a critical perspective to the research field of this project. The frames used are: Neo-liberalism, Neo-realism and Normative Power Theory. Neo-liberalism and Neo-realism will be used for the purpose of reflecting on whether normative impact could be explained by either theory.
Both empirical and theoretical articles such as the case studies on Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine serve as basis of the analysis.
When looking at the empirical material, the EU relations with Eastern European States within the ENP can be identified through primary and secondary sources. The primary source are the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty of Lisbon, article excerpts, transcripts of speeches by commissioners, speeches of official representatives of Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova.
Secondary sources are theoretical literature on the EU and the theoretical approaches. The theory of Ian Manners of Normative Power Europe will serve as the main theoretical framework of the project.
At various stages of the work and dealing with individual objectives of the study applied a broad range of specific methods of collecting data, its processing and analysis.
I used an interdisciplinary approach to the study of political actors of international relations, which combines theoretical elements of political theory, history, and sociology. In the study of the political aspects of EU relations with the neighbouring countries in the context of
“neighborhood policy” a systematic approach was used. It allows us to consider the
development of “neighborhood policy” in relation to other areas of European integration and
A comparative analysis was used in the research, which will analyse the development of the
“Neighbourhood Policy” in the broader context of other foreign policy initiatives of the
European Union, such as Enlargement Policy or Common Foreign and Security Policy.
The scientific methods were to evaluate the relationships between the different actors of the regional geopolitical system, including descriptive and inductive methods. The comparative historical analysis was applied in the study of the features of the influence of the social environment, political factors, as well as the traditions and experience of foreign policy formation with respect to the new independent states.
A documents analysing method was selected due to the need to consider the legal and regulatory ENP framework to obtain reliable information on the origins of this initiative.
In addition, the study also used the method of statistical analysis, which helps to systematise data collection to determine the features of EU cooperation with Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova.
Theoretical Framework
The following chapter aims to describe the theoretical foundation of the dissertation. Basing upon a theoretical pluralism and a pragmatist philosophy of science, the thesis includes a range of different theoretical perspectives that interact with each other. First, the European Normative Power theory is described. Then, two of the main traditions within international relations theory, Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism, and Normative Power Europe (as a nuclear theory).
Normative Power Theory
between to ideal-types of civilian and military power” (Smith, 2005: 16), and can be defined as a “specific kind of international actor”.
Much recent debate over the EU’s international identity turned around notions of normative, value-driven external policy. This happened when Manners’ influential article on the subject brought the notion of the EU as a normative power into the centre of the debate. Since then in most of the works on the EU’s international role, the latter is perceived as a normative actor.
The concept Normative Power Europe used by Manners refers to not only the fact that the EU can achieve goals without military power, but also that the goals of the EU are normatively anchored in a Kantian philosophy. The EU has both norms it wishes to promote and a normative way of achieving it. According to Manners, the EU is special because it not only wants to promote norms, but also promotes the norms via a normative process and “the European Union represents neither a civilian power of an intergovernmental nature utilising economic tools and international diplomacy, nor a military power of supranational nature using force and international intervention, but a normative power of an ideational nature characterized by common principles and a willingness to disregard notions of “state” or
”international” (Manners, 2001: 7).
Manners’ main argument is that the international role of the EU as a promoter of norms does not fit in the classical English School division of states in either military or civilian powers. He claims that the developments of the 1990s in international relations lead to rethinking the notions of military and civilian powers, thus transforming the EU into a new type of power, normative power. The EU as a normative power does not rely on military power to set the standards of international politics, and it is not even civilian economic means that are the core of EU
power, instead, “power becomes an effect of norm leadership and persuasion” (Manners,
2002: 236).
By the idea of normative power the author suggests that the EU is not only constructed on a normative basis, but that the concept predisposes the EU to act in a normative way in international relations. The notion of the EU normative power is constructed on the argument,
that “the most important factor shaping the international role of the EU is not what it does
According to Manners, an international norm is defined as shorthand way to express of what passes as “normal” in international relations, and therefore, normative power is to be understood as the ability to shape or change what passes for normal (Manners, 2001: 10).
The EU is based on a broad normative basis, which has been developed over the last fifty years through a range of declarations, treaties, policies and the conditions. Manners identifies five core norms, which have become institutionalised since the beginning of the integration process: peace (found in key declarations, such as the European Coal and Steel Treaty of 1951, TEC of 1957), liberty, democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights (Article 11 of TEU, Article 177 of TEC, and the membership criteria adopted at the Copenhagen European Council in 1993). In addition to these five core norms, Manners also distinguishes four minor norms: social solidarity, equality, sustainable development and good governance
(Manners, 2001: 10).
In recent years, the geopolitical space of Eastern Europe is becoming increasingly complex priority in the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union. The stabilisation of the region is very important for the EU to ensure its own security. Politically Eastern Europe is also a subject to the diplomatic efforts of two other world powers – the US and Russia. A lack of coherent arrangement of the space, stable institutional framework and security mechanisms makes it extremely sensitive to changes in external conditions and the internal dynamics. At this stage, all the geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe highly depends on the strategy and a content of relationships that the EU offers to the states of the region, especially Ukraine. It is in Eastern Europe currently the main test for the ability of the EU to influence the external environment through the use of its own normative power and transpose the principles of its internal organisation in other countries.
In the initial discussions, the sources of the normative power of the EU along with the principles of its internal organisation were considered and the availability of the required resources to influence their external environment on the normative level. The fact of the formation of the integration of states on an equal basis with extremely high levels of socio-economic development and ability to prevent armed conflicts among its members makes the EU an extremely attractive platform for other countries.
In addition, an important source of EU normative power features of is its own position in the
international arena as a “normative power” that can be traced as the rhetoric of senior officials
and response to the external environment. Through its integrative nature and the organisational structure the EU has significant advantages over traditional state powers: first, it aims to influence the implementation of norms and values, therefore it is not exclusive and does not prevent the establishment of cooperation with other centers of power, and, secondly, the result of its effect is the occurrence of receptors on an equal basis with the EU and their conversion into a subject of the influence (Haukkala, 2008: 1608). Its activity in the international level is focused mainly on the development of comprehensive cooperation mechanisms that do not pose a threat to other states. Therefore, the EU cannot be characterised by a relationship of direct confrontation, which significantly improves its communication qualities to the partners. These benefits may result in restrictions, as other power centres can use the mechanisms of influence and pressure, which cannot be used by the EU and the integration of new members can unbalance its internal structure.
O. Shapovalova (2009) mentions that one cannot deny the appeal of the European way of management and it should be noted that attractive potential of the EU itself does not generate international influence. This requires, first of all, instruments that would allow to convert this potential in the ability to determine the behavior of other actors, and secondly, the political will and coherent strategy of using these instruments, and thirdly, recognition of their legitimacy by other states (p. 129). The main arm of this regulatory force in the EU is to build asymmetric relation formats with individual countries, where projection of norms and values of the EU without direct coercion would be within the relations, but on the basis of mechanisms for the promotion, based on the legitimacy of the EU as a data standards holder. The mechanisms are based on the principle of conditionality, which is the main instrument for the normative power design of the EU and it means the dependency of level of the relations between the European Union and other state on degree of approximation to EU norms and values. In each case, the principle of conditionality is manifested in many ways, but its
components are bound by a formal declaration of clear criteria of a partner’s progress towards
implementing the “European standards”, consolidation of formal obligations of a partner to
Neo-Realism
The school of neo-realism is a modern transformation of the school of political realism, a modernisation of the realism in current international realities
The first and most decisive reformer of the political realism was American researcher
Kenneth Waltz. His book “Theory of International Politics”, published in 1979, began a new
stage in the development of realistic paradigm4.
Waltz, as well as his predecessors, states on anarchic nature of international relations as an original platform for political realism. It distinguishes them from intra-social built on the principles of hierarchy and subordination, formalised by the law, the most important of which is a state monopoly on legitimate violence within its territory. According to Tsigankov (2002: 89) anarchism of international relations, lack of supreme power, as well as legal and moral standards capable to effectively regulate interaction between the main actors, preventing destructive conflicts, remained essentially unchanged since ancient times. Therefore, there is no hope to reform this field, to build a world order that is based on legal norms, collective security and the crucial role of supranational organisations.
Waltz considers that no one, except for the state (personified by a political leadership), is
interested in the country’s security reinforcement, as well as power as ability to influence
other states.
Hence, neo-realism supports the position of classical realism on state as a key element of international relations. The fundamentally new view, however, comparing to classical realism is that the state is treated together with structures that it creates, including unions and intergovernmental organisations. Actually, this was a reason to call neorealism as structural realism.
A significant step in the development of the theory of neo-realism was the idea of a decisive importance of the global system of international relations, the international organisation. The neo-realists support the idea that any change in the anarchist international system is associated with the distribution of power that affects the existing balance of power. It means that the
structure of the international system becomes a decisive factor for states’ behaviour, and is
4Other political scientists also contributed to further development neo-realism:
defined as a set of external constraints and restrictions. The foreign policy depends on a logic of international system and distribution of power (force) among the states. For instance, bipolar and multipolar systems require fundamentally different behaviors of states on the international arena.
Waltz formulated three principles of the structure of international relations (structural triad):
1. The state is guided in international relations by the motive of survival. States may have many different objectives, but survival is the basis to achieve them;
2. The second principle determines the participants in international relations, which can be only states. Non-governmental members (international organisations, multinational corporations &c) only gain a decisive role when they can and overtake superpower in the field power capabilities;
3. The third principle is that the states are not homogeneous, but have different capabilities and potential. They try to increase their importance that leads to changes in the structure of international relations (Lebedeva, 2003: 32).
Neo-Liberalism
Neo-liberal approach does not simply come from the idealism of Immanuel Kant and Hugo Grotius, or classical idealism concepts in 20s-30s of the 20th century. Neo-liberalism, as
opposed to neo-realism, is not an only approach, but rather a combination of theoretical concepts, which are based on similar principles. There can be distinguished two main interpretations of neo-liberalism: Pluralist approach and the World Polity Theory.
One of the most important studies of the neo-liberalists was Nye and Keohane’s “Transnational Relations and World Politics” (1971). Based on the bifurcation theory of
international Relations, suggested by Rosenau, the authors argue that close interaction between societies of different countries, which is not subject to state control, plays an active role in the modern world. For instance, between the West these interactions involve trade, personal contacts, exchange of information.
Neo-liberal studies state’s power as well. Nye and Keohane in the book “Power and
Interdependence: World Politics in Transition” (1977) formulated a “complex
interdependence theory” giving to term “power” a completely new definition. The theory
for transformation of power in accordance with emergence of new forms of international relations.
Keohane and Nye define power as “the ability to influence the behaviour of others to get the
outcomes one wants” (Nye, 2004: 2). For a better understanding of this ability in the
interdependence of states, two additional concepts were introduced: “sensitivity” and
“vulnerability”, which determine neo-liberal understanding of the concept of “power”.
“Sensitivity” means how quickly changes in one country lead to significant changes in
another, how significant these consequences are. As for the “vulnerability”, it depends on
relative availability and pricing of alternatives of different actors (Baldwin, 1980: 484).
The concept of “power” was further developed within the concept of “soft power” and “smart
power” of Joseph Nye. According to him, all the actors of international relations have
hierarchy of values, which can be influences on by means of persuasion.
The concept of “smart power” appeared as a logical extension of the idea of “soft power”.
According to Joseph Nye, the ”smart power” is primarily ability to combine “hard” and “soft”
powers in a single effective strategy (Nye, 2008: 43). As to sources of implementation of
“smart” power, such sources of “hard” and “soft” powers as coercion, payments and attracting are also sources of “smart” power. However, in some cases, the “hard” and “soft” powers sources are used independently from each other, in the case of “smart” power, a combination
ENP/Eastern
Partnership
Bilateral
Relations
(EU-Ukraine,
EU-Belarus,
Soft/Hard
Powers of EU
and Russia
EU’s conflict resolution role
Russia’s
integration
projects.
Hybrid war
Normative Power Europe Neo-Realism
Thesis Design
In the following text, there is an explanation on how the chapters of the dissertation fit together with the problem formulation. The thesis is divided into four chapters, introduction and conclusion:
Introduction. Where will be given a relevance of the research topic, its scientific innovation, the chronological, theoretical framework and methodological basis, characterisation of the source base and literature, formulated goals and objectives.
Chapter I –“Genesis and Nature of European Neighbourhood Policy”.
Regional approach that explains form and function of the ENP of the European Union will be studied. The origin and development of the Policy will be researched. Analysis of limitations of the ENP is also important in terms of demonstrating us first results of the Policy implementation.
Chapter II –“Conversion of Eastern Dimension of EU Foreign Policy”.
There will be examined the occurrence of neighbourhood policy, including initiatives by individual states, their discussion in the Council of the EU and the circumstances of the formation of the concept and content of the Neighbourhood Policy by the European Commission. I will analyse analyse a period of practical implementation of neighbourhood policy to occurrence of the Eastern Partnership. A great attention will be given to study of instruments of soft and hard power of the EU and Russia in Eastern Europe. Analysis of Hybrid warfare of Russia against Ukraine has also place in the chapter.
The next two chapters are designed to reveal the specifics of the interaction of the European Union with individual Eastern neighbours – Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine in the context of the neighbourhood policy.
Chapter III – “EU-Ukraine Relations in 2003-2016” will reveal the co-operation between
Ukraine and the EU in the context of Neighbourhood Policy. I shall show that the conceptual design of the ENP coincided with a period of cooling of relations between Ukraine and the European Union. Period of the Ukrainian crisis and war with Russia has a big impact on Ukraine-EU relations.
the EU isolation policy towards Belarus and then I determine the following, more successful attempt of Belarusian authority to restore relations with the European Union, related to Polish-Swedish Eastern Partnership initiative in May 2008.
CHAPTER I – GENESIS AND NATURE OF EUROPEAN NEIGHBOURHOOD
POLICY
I.1. Regional Approach of the European Union towards its Neighbours.
The place of the European Union in international relations in view of its political influence, significance in world economy and ideological potential vastly define its regional dimension.
Thence, the neighbouring countries are one of EU’s several objects of interest, together with
relations with the major world powers and the participation in the global agenda. Herewith, the neighbouring space is becoming the main source of challenges, significant to develop an international identity of United Europe. The EU Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy Štefan Füle noticed that “if the EU wants to become a credible global player, it must start within its neighbourhood” (Official website of the
European Union, 2011). In spite of having repeatedly emphasised upon “the end of geography” (Bauman, 2008:14) in the modern era of globalisation, the geographical propinquity continues playing a significant role, especially in case of security menaces, challenges to political stability or even main directions of international trade.
Attention should be focused on the importance of the neighbouring space for the European Union and their bilateral relations are in need of being examined from two points of view – in positive and negative contexts. The positive context is related to economic interdependence,
common interests, possibilities to develop international identity and EU’s growing influence.
In this context, the economic relations between the EU and its neighbours, more possibilities for commerce should be taken into consideration. The neighbourhood is a territory for projection of the European influence; it is a test for united Europe’s ability to play a noticeable role in the international arena. This dimension of relations denotes possibilities to open and strengthen the dialogue with the neighbouring countries. The second aspect, the negative one, contains challenges and menaces that derive from neighbouring regions and can directly or indirectly influence the European Union and its security in particular. In this case, the main factor that attracts attention is a potential of instability, the imperative of interests are vitally important interests of the EU and its Member States, the symbolic reaction is an estrangement, barriers construction. The metaphor “Fortress Europe” expresses this aspect
The two aspects above described acutely put a fundamentally important problem about international role that the European Union plays in relations with its outer circle. However, before its examination, it is necessary to see where to find the sources of current EU’s Neighbourhood Policy and what the main features of the region are, eastwards from the EU.
The interests of the united Europe in developing tight relations with the neighbouring countries are nothing new, as it was one of the main foreign priorities in the past. After the end of Cold War, the European Union aimed at assisting regional co-operation in Europe, which fits in literature in a broader context of the second wave of regionalism in the world. E. Mansfield and H. Milner note that in the post-World War II era, “from the late 1950s through the 1970s”, the regionalism “was marked by the establishment of the EEC, EFTA, the CMEA, and a plethora of regional trade blocks formed by developing countries” (Mansfield &
Milner, 1999: 600). The second wave of regionalism emerged in completely other context that the first one. It appeared as a result of the end of Cold War and coming changes in international relations and security (Mansfield & Milner, 1999: 600-601). P. Katzenstein
indicates this new regionalism as an attempt to “regain some measures of political control
over processes of economic globalization that have curtailed national policy instruments”
(Katzenstein, 1996: 127). Governments have to develop relations with neighbouring countries
to withstand successfully new global problems, taking into consideration “a neighbour’s
action or inaction on a cross-border problem directly affect their own policies” (Attinà, 2003: 183). Hence, the collaboration with neighbouring countries has a great importance for a national security to provide a political stability and security and economic growth.
According to Emerson (2013), there is complex set of external concentric circles of the EU’s external and neighborhood policy:
The first circle incorporates external members of the European Economic Area –
Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein (and Switzerland as a special case). These countries adapted a huge part of quis communautaire of EU market law in order to their businesses being treated as its full members of the four freedoms of movements (goods, services, capital and people). The states are also members of the Schengen Area that makes them more integrated into the EU regional policies.
Third circle includes accession candidates that are Turkey, Montenegro, Albania, FYR of Macedonia and Serbia. These countries have a very explicit integration process
based on the “Copenhagen criteria” for accession (political, economic and institutional
criteria). The bilateral negotiations with each candidate state include over 35
“chapters” that cover every sector of the EU common norms needed to be
implemented.
Other Balkan countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo) may be viewed as the fourth circle having a status of potential candidate countries. The negotiation processes are similar to the latter ones.
The fifth circle is the countries of the European Neighbourhood Policy (pp. 3-4). The European Commission defines a regional co-operation as a “general concept that refers to all efforts on the part of (usually) neighbouring countries to address issues of common interest” (European Commission, 1995). The regional concept has become, without a doubt,
the most important factor of EU’s international identity in the post-bipolar era. In June 1992,
the Lisbon European Council called on a Foreign Policy co-operation based upon
“geographical proximity”. The three components, included in the so-called “EU Near Abroad”, at the time were: 1) The Central and Eastern European Countries (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania); 2) The Balkans (Croatia, Bosnia, Former Yugoslavian Republic Of Macedonia (FYROM), Serbia, Montenegro and Albania) at the exception of Slovenia, which is included in the first group; 3) The Mediterranean (Cyprus, Malta, Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Palestine Authority, Lebanon and Syria) (Rossi, 2004: 8-9).
When looking at post-Soviet partners, one can say that “not all actors are interested in promoting the order-inducing properties of regionalism” (Fawcett, 2005: 21), and such a disinterest or unwillingness conditions success or failure of regionalism. Fawcett argues that
in a world “where established states are regionally organised” (2005: 31), a lesson for states
“that may yet have only poorly developed institutions, or those who have traditionally relied on the politics of power, is that they cannot afford to ignore the potential of regionalism”
In the last decade, the European Union has realised several strategies towards these regions with different level of co-operation, which caused different consequences. These results also depended upon different geopolitical contexts within these regions. The approaches that the EU applied towards these groups of states can be combined into two: 1) the assistance for stabilisation based upon strengthening the regional co-operation and partnership (regionalism), 2) the real integration aimed at joining the EU. The latter was typical for the relations with the Mediterranean and Baltic countries. Since the late 90s, the strategy of integration with further EU accession has spread to the Western Balkans.
The position of the European Union towards the post-Soviet states in Eastern Europe was determined by other factors in that period. As R. Rossi notices, Brussels had never considered
this space as a “region” (Rossi, 2004: 9) and, therefore, there had been no single political
approach towards this space for a long time. There were signed several Partnership and Co-operation Agreements between the European Communities and their Member States and the Member States of the Community of Independent States (CIS) in mid-90s in return. Several years earlier, the EU had initiated technical and financial assistance for these states within the TACIS programme. The EU accession of Finland in 1995, resulting Russia closely approximated to the EU borders, caused (not immediate) changes in the European Eastern Policy. In 1998, Brussels actuated a programme Northern Dimension, which had been proposed by Finland a year before, to strengthen relations with the countries of Baltic and Barents Seas and it contained Russian Northwest Territories (Cichocki, 2003: 14). The Northern Dimension provided a regional framework where the EU participated for the solutions of transnational and cross-border issues, but the participation of Eastern European CIS Member States was only circumscribed by Russian participation. The European Union adopted first Common Strategy in June 1999 towards Russia (Delegation of the European Union to Russia, 1999), the similar document was adopted towards Ukraine in December of the same year (The European Council, 1999). These documents outlined general interpretation
of the partnership’s evolution between the EU and Russia and Ukraine, having defined main
objectives and spheres of bilateral co-operation. A very general character of the stategies’ texts testifies EU’s restrained approach in relations with the states though.
provides democracy and free trade. Thus it is hard to say whether the EU could foresee a possibility of making such choice in Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus. With all the rigors of the
EU’s attitude to these states, it indicates that from the very beginning the Partnership and
Co-operation Agreements were largely formulated in such way so as to prevent excessive (substantial) funding and its political participation in Eastern Europe.
This situation was acceptable until Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus were disengaged from the EU by the states candidates to join the union, until the problems of democracy in Belarus, territorial integrity of Moldova or political stability of Ukraine were the internal problems of these countries or at least the problems of Eastern European region. The EU accession of the twelve new States (including Bulgaria and Romania in 2007) and the enlargement of a common frontier with the Western CIS States to thousands of kilometers have radically changed the situation and it required a profound revision the EU’s policy towards this region.
In such conditions, the attemptions of Brussels to formulate principles of the EU’s Eastern
policy in a new way are seemed logical. The European Commission recognised that the completion of EU enlargement process could cause tensions in EU Member States and Non-Member States relations and could cause obstacles for the co-operation on the new EU borders that had not existed before (Patten 2006: 81). Hence, the EU had to review its policy towards new-born states – a “New European Periphery” (Rossi, 2004: 10). The altered geopolitical reality caused new challenges to the EU but also offered chances to play more significant role in the new-formed political space.
neighbouring space of the enlarged Europe more precisely, one should specify a problem of significant heterogeneity of the space, presence of an aspirant for the role of regional power (Russia) within it; and also presence of several subregions, different by many parameters and levels of relations with the EU.
First of all, it is Western Balkans, European subregion that had suffered the conflicts in post-bipolar era the most. At the same time, one can agree with P. Borkowski that the Western
Balkans is a space of Europe’s defeat, reproach that calls to minds about the EU’s incapability
to prevent bloody events on the territory of former Yugoslavia in 1990s of the XX century (Borkowski, 2009: 39). Some countries of the region (Albania, FYP Macedonia) are the less economically developed countries in Europe so far. The essential characteristic of the region can also be presence of Muslim, autochthonous population, but not immigrants as it is in other parts of the continent. On the one hand, the European Union applies a significant number of instruments of Common Foreign and Security Policy; on the other hand, it implements the Enlargement policy with prospects of joining these states in the Union.
Secondly, the Mediterranean, containing counties from Morocco to Turkey. This space is very heterogeneous. However, from the European point of view, the region is united by single policy, whose main instrument is Barcelona process – Union for the Mediterranean. In this region, Turkey seems different (candidate for accession to the EU), but the prospect of its membership is so problematic that allows affirming the existence of insoluble “Turkish problem”.
Eastern Europe, the third region, is a part of the former communist bloc and has not become a part of United Europe hitherto and the date when it will be is obscure. The region contains Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. The EU counts also the states of Southern Caucasus to the Eastern Neighbourhood: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. The latter states have only
recently become an object of the EU’s interests that currently builds its own policy on the
most distant “neighbours”. Russia is also a country that belongs to the Eastern Europe.
40). Accordingly, the EU’s Eastern Dimension is represented by three groups of states: Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus), Southern Caucasus and Russia.
As it can be seen, the neighbouring space of the EU is not homogeneous from political, cultural or religious points of view. It affirms that some states differ from Europe also by metaphoric backwardness in institutional, social and civilisational aspects. Every state of subregions raises challenges to the EU that can be transformed into threats. In this conditions, an affective far-sighted policy towards outer countries is the biggest challenge for Europe, is a test to become an important player in the world.
It cannot be fully described as significance of the vicinity for the EU, excluding essential
factors of the influence on the formation of EU’s relations with its neighbours in the post
-Cold War period. Firstly, there was a significant diminishing of the military factor in international relations after the grandiose changes caused by the end of the Cold War, and it may be regarded in context of a broader phenomenon – a redefinition of a concept of security. It has not a direct connection with the 1989-1991 changes, but the decline of confrontation made this issue visible. It refers to the expansion and deepening of the idea of security (Sydoruk, 2012: 18). The security issue, together with military one, begins to be associated with challenges stemmed from economic, technological, ecological, public and cultural nature. These problems were considered as the main source of the European preoccupation after the Cold War (Açikmeşe, 2005: 6). They were defined in the European Security Strategy, a so-called “Solana’s Strategy Document”. The European Council obliged EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana to develop the EU common security strategy in June 2003 in Thessaloniki. The prepared European Security Strategy was approved by the European Council in December 12, 2003 (The EU Institute for Security Studies, 2003). In this document, the threats to the EU in the sphere of security after
the Cold War are “more diverse, less visible and less predictable” (The EU Institute for
Security Studies, 2003: 3) and are divided into following categories: terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts, state failure (as a result of bad governance, corruption, abuse of power, weak institutions and lack of accountability), organised crime in such forms as cross-border trafficking of drugs, women, illegal migrants, etc (The EU Institute for Security Studies, 2003: 3-4).
