The functions of ‘strategic partnership’ in European Union foreign policy discourse^*

^*This paper was prepared by the author in his personal capacity. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not reflect the view of Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. For their useful comments on previous drafts of this article, I would like to thank Mathias Albert, Andreas Vasilache, Thomas Müller, Martin Koch, Bernd Bucher, Katja Freistein, Friederike Kuntz, Kerstin Eppert, Ralf Rapior, Alena Vieira, Laura C. Ferreira-Pereira and the anonymous reviewers of Cambridge Review of International Affairs.

Abstract

‘Strategic partnership’ is a frequently used term in the vocabulary of international politics. However, there is a lack of theoretical problematization of the nature and meaning of this concept in the academic literature. Analysts frequently take it to be either a descriptive term or a meaningless instrument of political rhetoric. This leads to analyses that insist on evaluating the appropriateness of the use of this term and distinguishing between ‘real strategic partnerships’ and the rest. This article proposes an alternative pluralist theoretical framework to assess the functions of ‘strategic partnership’ in European Union foreign policy discourse. It argues that ‘strategic partnership’ is a meaningful concept that must be analysed on the levels of systemic foreign policy conceptualization and bilateral interaction of units. The paper turns to a language-based approach to discuss three functions of ‘strategic partnership’: (i) as a label and mechanism of differentiation and hierarchization, (ii) as a normative instrument to advance a ‘structural foreign policy’ and (iii) as a constitutive speech and positioning act.

Notes

^* This paper was prepared by the author in his personal capacity. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not reflect the view of Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. For their useful comments on previous drafts of this article, I would like to thank Mathias Albert, Andreas Vasilache, Thomas Müller, Martin Koch, Bernd Bucher, Katja Freistein, Friederike Kuntz, Kerstin Eppert, Ralf Rapior, Alena Vieira, Laura C. Ferreira-Pereira and the anonymous reviewers of Cambridge Review of International Affairs.

¹ ‘European Union foreign policy’ is understood therein as: ‘the political actions that are regarded by external actors as “EU” actions and that can be considered the output of the Union’s multilevel system of governance in foreign policy’ (Lucarelli 2006, 9). The use of this concept does not ignore the discussion found in the literature on the EU’s ‘actorness’ (Hix 1999; Rosamond 2000; Walker 2003; Zielonka 2006; Manners 2006), its consequences for the debate on ‘European’ vs. ‘EU’ foreign policy (Hurd 1994; Jørgensen 2004; Lucarelli, 2006) or the criticisms about the capacity of the EU to ‘sustain an effective or credible foreign policy’ (Tonra 2011, 1202). Rather, it recognizes the challenges associated with the consolidation of a single EU foreign policy discourse but acknowledges that in the last few decades the European Commission, the former EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy and now the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy—supported by the European External Action Service—as well as the European Council have been struggling to frame an independent foreign policy discourse, which is taken by the external audience as a ‘EU’ foreign policy and is sustained by a particular set of foreign policy concepts and instrument—like the EU strategic partnerships.

² These corpora are significant databases composed of texts from journals, books, newspapers and magazines and only those occurrences of ‘strategic partnership’ were taken into consideration that were found in association with international politics. That means that only entries relating to the use of ‘strategic partnership’ by international political actors were taken into account: articles discussing the diplomatic relations between states, texts from journals analysing foreign policy issues and magazine and newspapers articles that report on foreign policy matters.

³ Therein reference is made to ‘pragmatism’ as a subfield of linguistics.

⁴ Experts in Wittgenstein’s work often distinguish between the ‘early Wittgenstein’ of the Tractatus logico-philosophicus published in the early 1920s and the ‘late Wittgenstein’ of Philosophical investigations published three decades later.

⁵ For a critical assessment of the use of ‘normative power’ to address the EU, see Diez (2005). The discussion around the use of this concept is summarized by Helene Sjursen (2006a; 2006b).

⁶ According to the European External Action Service (EEAS) website, this partnership was established during the EU–Africa summit held in

December 2007.<http://www.eeas.europa.eu/countries/index_en.htm>, accessed 18 September 2009.

⁷ Norms are here presented according to Checkel’s (1999, 83) understanding as ‘expectations about appropriate behaviour held by a collectivity of actors’. They are thus connected to the idea of ‘appropriateness’ or ‘oughtness’ (Florini 1996; Finnemore and Sikkink 1998).

⁸ Checkel (1999, 83) defines ‘diffusion’ as ‘the transmission mechanism linking international norms to domestic change’.

⁹ For a valuable discussion of the challenges in EU–China relations see Mattlin (2010) and Holslag (2011).

¹⁰ Belokurova (2011, 117) argues that in the case of EU–Russia relations ‘[t]he strategic partnership concept was developed due to both the mutual understanding of the necessity to cooperate and the permanent political conflicts and crises, which resulted from the mismatch of interests and values’.

¹¹ ‘Mogherini: Russia is no longer the EU’s strategic partner’, <http://www.euractiv.com/sections/global-europe/mogherini-russia-no-longer-eus-strategic-partner-308152>, accessed 5 November 2014.

¹² The article focuses on the ‘external’ constitutive function of ‘strategic partnership’ in EU foreign policy discourse. A relevant ‘internal’ constitutive function that emerges from the use of this foreign policy concept by representatives of the different EU institutions is the attempt to consolidate a more coherent EU foreign policy that might more effectively handle the strong divergences among member-states on how to manage the relationship with some particular actors like Russia. Mogherini was a representative of the Italian government and only recently became the head of EU external relations. Her approach to the crises with Russia challenges the discourse put forward by officials of the previous ‘Barroso Commission’. It is to be seen whether she will manage to bring more cohesion and coherence to EU foreign policy discourse.

¹³ For example, the gas disputes with the Ukraine and disruption episodes in 2006 and 2009, the Kosovo declaration of independence in 2008 and the ‘Five-Day War’ later that year that led to the Russian recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

¹⁴ For relevant information about the institutional framework developed by EU and Russia within their ‘strategic partnership’, see the data compiled at the website of the European Strategic Partnership Observatory: <http://strategicpartnerships.eu/>, accessed 10 November 2014.

¹⁵ See Blanco (2015).

¹⁶ The only decision taken by the Extraordinary European Council of 6 October 2008 was to postpone negotiations of the new partnership agreement.

¹⁷ See Hamilton (2014), who discusses the vocabulary of relationships of the US with a focus on the differentiation between ‘strategic partnership’ and ‘strategic dialogue’.