Democracy and Security in the EU’s Eastern Neighborhood? Assessing the ENP in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine

ABSTRACT

This article explores the European Union’s (EU) democratic and security objectives in the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) toward three post-Soviet states: Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. By discussing the ENP’s objectives, this study concludes the following: first, despite long-term ENP democracy promotion, there have been very limited democratic developments in the partner states between 2005 and 2014; second, security challenges remain in partner states in the breakaway regions in Transnistria in Moldova, Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, and Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk in Ukraine. Therefore, EU’s Kantian view of security through democracy has failed, and its ambition to create a ring of Eastern friends has not led to improved relations in the Eastern neighborhood. On the contrary, the EU’s push eastward has instead intensified insecurity in its partner states due to limited democratization.

KEYWORDS:

• EU
• ENP
• Security
• Democracy
• Ukraine
• Georgia
• Moldova

Notes

1. The Nobel Prize Organization, “The Nobel Peace Prize 2012: European Union (EU),” Nobelprize.org, Nobel Media AB 2014, http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2012/ (accessed July 22, 2015).

2. Giselle Bosse, “Challenges for EU Governance through Neighbourhood Policy and Eastern Partnership: The Values/Security Nexus in EU-Belarus Relations,” Contemporary Politics 15, no. 2 (2009): 215–227. Graham Avery, “EU Expansion and Wider Europe,” in The European Union: How Does It Work? edited by Elisabeth Bomberg, John Peterson, and Alexander Stubb (London, UK: Oxford University Press, 2008), 179–200. Alina Mungiu-Pippidi, “EU Enlargement and Democracy Progress,” in Democratization in the European Neighborhood, edited by Michael Emerson (Brussels, Belgium: Centre for European Studies, 2005).

3. European Parliament, Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union: Human Rights and Democracy Clauses in the EU’s International Agreements. Brussel 29/09/2005, DGExPo/B/PolDep/Study/2005/06 29/09/2005.

4. European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council on the Commission proposals for action plans under the European Neighbourhood Policy. 795, Brussel, 9 December 2004; European Commission, Communication from the Commission: Strategy Paper 373. Brussels, 12 May 2004; Romano Prodi, “A Wider Europe—A Proximity Policy as the Key to Stability,” Keynote speech at the 6th ECSA-World Conference Peace, Security and Stability—International Dialogue and the Role of the EU, in Brussels 5–6 December 2002.

5. European Commission: Eurobarometer 69—The European Union Today and Tomorrow. Brussels, 2008, DG Communication; European Commission: Eurobarometer 72—Public Opinion in the European Union. First Results. Brussels, 2009, DG Communication; European Commission: Eurobarometer 257—Views on European Union Enlargement—Analytical Report. Brussels 2009, DG Communication.

6. Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace: A Philosophic Essay (Montreal, Canada: LibriVox, 1796), https://librivox.org/perpetual-peace-by-immanuel-kant/.

7. European Union, “European Neighbourhood Policy: What Is the ENP?” European External Action Service,” http://eeas.europa.eu/enp/about-us/index_en.htm (accessed August 15, 2015).

8. For extensive reading, see Bruce Russett and John R. Oneal, Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations (New York, NY: W. W. Norton, 2001); Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993); James Lee Ray, “Does Democracy Cause Peace?” Annual Review of Political Science 1 (1998): 27–46; James Lee Ray, Democracy and International Conflict (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1995); and John R. Oneal and Bruce Russett, “The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations,” World Politics 52, no. 1 (1999): 1–37 (1999).

9. For presentation of critical views on the democratic peace theory, see James Lee Ray, Democracy and International Conflict (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1995); Spencer R. Weart, Never at War (New Haven, NH: Yale University Press, 1998); Melvin Small and David J. Singer, “The War Proneness of Democratic Regimes, 1816–965,” Jerusalem Journal of International Relations 1 (1976): 50–69; Nils P. Gleditsch, “Democracy and Peace.” Journal of Peace Research 29, no. 4 (1992): 369–376; Rudolph J. Rummel, Power Kills: Democracy as a Method of Nonviolence (Piscataway, NJ: Transaction, 1997). Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder, “Democratic Transitions, Institutional Strength, and War,” International Organization 56, no. 2 (2002): 297–337.

10. The Nobel Prize organization, The Nobel Peace Prize 2012.

11. Gunnar, Sjöstedt, The External Role of the European Community (Westmead, UK: Saxon House, Swedish Institute of International Affairs, 1977).

12. Hedley Bull, “Civilian Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?” Journal of Common Market Studies 21, no. 2 (1982): 149–164; and Robert Kagan, Robert, Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order (London: Atlantic Books, 2003).

13. François Duchêne, “Europe’s Role in World Peace,” in Europe Tomorrow: Sixteen European Look, edited by Richard Mayne (Ahead. London: Fontana, 1972).

14. Bart Van Vooren, EU External Relations Law and the European Neighbourhood Policy: A Paradigm for Coherence (London: Taylor and Francis, 2012).

15. Ian Manners, “Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?” Journal of Common Market Studies. 40, no. 2 (2002): 235–258.

16. Ibid., 239.

17. Ibid., 242.

18. Michael Pace, “The Construction of EU Normative Power,” Journal of Common Market Studies 45, no. 5 (2007): 1041–1045.

19. Philippe C. Schmitter, “The Influence of International Context upon the Choice of National Institutions and policies in Neo-Democracies,” in The International Dimensions of Democratization—Europe and the Americas, edited by Laurence Whitehead (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2001), 20–30.

20. Marco Giorello, “The Clauses of Democratic Conditionality in the European Union´s External Relations.” in Europe, Diplomacy and Development—New Issues in EU Relations with Developing Countries, edited by Carol Cosgrove-Sacks (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001), 79.

21. European Commission: Communication from the Commission to the Council on the Commission proposals for action plans under the European Neighbourhood Policy, 795, Brussels, 9 December 2004; European Commission; Communication from the Commission—Strategy Paper, 373, Brussels, 12 May 2004.

22. Andreas Marchetti, “Consolidation in Times of Crisis: The European Neighbourhood Policy as Chance for Neighbours?” European Political Economy Review, 7 (2007): 9–23.

23. Roland Dannreuther, “Developing the Alternative to Enlargement: The European Neighborhood Policy,” European Foreign Affairs Review 11 (2006): 187–195.

24. European Union, European Neighbourhood Policy: What Is the ENP?

25. Commission of the European Communities, Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument. Brussels, 29.9.2004, COM (2004: 628 final; Romani Prodi, President of the European Commission, a Union of Minorities, Seminar on Europe—Against Anti-Semitism, for a Union of Diversity. Brussels, 19 February 2004.

26. See discussion in Elisabeth Johansson-Nogues, “The (Non-) Normative Power EU and the European Neighbourhood Policy: An Exceptional Policy for an Exceptional Actor?” European Political Economy Review 7 (2007): 181–194.

27. Commission of the European Communities; Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Euopean Parliament. Wider Europe—Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours. Strategy Paper, COM (2003) 104 final, Brussels, 3 March 2003.

28. Avery, EU Expansion and Wider Europe, 184.

29. European Union, “European Neighbourhood Policy: ENP Action Plans,” European External Action Service, http://eeas.europa.eu/enp/documents/action-plans/index_en.htm (accessed August 15, 2015).

30. European Union, “European Neighbourhood Policy: Progress Reports,” European External Action Service, http://eeas.europa.eu/enp/documents/progress-reports/index_en.htm (accessed August 15, 2015).

31. EU Neighbourhood Info Centre, “Projects in Action—Southern Neighborhood, EU Regional Cooperation through the Eyes of Journalists,” http://www.enpi-info.eu/files/publications/Projects%20in%20action%20-%20Southern%20neighbourhood-%20ENGLISH.pdf (accessed August 15, 2015).

32. European Union External Action: EU Forges Closer Ties with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. Brussels 27/06/2014, http://eeas.europa.eu/top_stories/2014/270614_association_agreement_en.htm (accessed May 24, 2015).

33. European Union: EU/Georgia Action Plan, European External Action Service. “Brussel 2006,” http://eeas.europa.eu/enp/documents/action-plans/index_en.htm (accessed August 15, 2015).

34. Freedom House, “Nations in transit data,” https://www.freedomhouse.org/report-types/nations-transit#.VV3Shfmqrxp (accessed August 8, 2015).

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid.

37. Leonardo Morlino, “Hybrid Regimes or Regimes in Transition” (Madrid, Spain. FRIDE Working Paper 70, 2008).

38. Charles H. Fairbanks Jr. and Alexi Gugushvili, “A New Chance for Georgian Democracy,” Journal of Democracy 24, no. 1 (2013): 116–127. Charles H. Fairbanks Jr., “Georgian Democracy: Seizing or Losing the Chance?” Journal of Democracy 25, no. 1 (2014): 154–165.

39. Freedom House, “Moldova,” by Stanislav Secrieru, in Nations in Transit 2014. https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/2014/moldova (accessed April 12, 2015). Ghia Nodia, “Revenge of Geopolitics,” Journal of Democracy 25, no. 4 (2014): 139–150.

40. Lilia Shevtsova, “The Maidan and Beyond: The Russian Factor,” Journal of Democracy 25, no. 3 (2014): 74–82.

41. Freedom House, Nations in Transit Data.

42. Other index such as Polity IV (2014), Individual Country Regime Trends, 1946–2013. http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4x.htm, or The Economist Intelligence Unit, Democracy Index 2013, Democracy in Limbo: A Report from the Economist Intelligence Unit (London/New York/Hong Kong/Geneva: EIU, 2013).

43. Stephen Blank, “Russia and the Black Sea’s Frozen Conflicts in Strategic Perspective,” Mediterranean Quarterly Volume 19, no. 3 (2008): 23–54.

44. See Pål Koistø and Andrei Malgin,”The Transnistrian Republic: A Case of Politicized Regionalism,” Nationalities Papers: Nationalism and Ethnicity 26, no. 1 (1998): 102–128.

45. Alejandro W. Sanchez, “The “Frozen” Southeast: How the Moldova-Transnistria Question Has Become a European Geo-Security Issue,” Journal of Slavic Military Studies 22 (2009): 153–176; Amy Vedum and Gabriela E. Vhria, “From Neighbourhood to Membership: Moldova’s Persuasion Strategy towards the EU,” South East European and Black Studies 8, no. 4 (2008): 431–444. NATO, “NATO-Resolution. 11. b,” Nato-pa.int. iBi Center, 18 November 2008. http://www.nato-pa.int/Default.asp?SHORTCUT = 1652 (accessed May 12, 2015); and Andrey Devyatkov, “Russian Policy toward Transnistria,” Problems of Post-Communism 59, no. 3 (2012): 53–56.

46. Sanchez, The “Frozen” Southeast.

47. The Constitution of Transnistria, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pridnestrovian Moldovian republic, http://mfa-pmr.org/en/constitution (accessed May 30, 2015). Helge Blakkisrud and Pål Koistø, “From Secessionist Conflict toward a Functioning State: Processes of State- and Nation-building in Transnistria,” Post-Soviet Affairs 27, no. 2 (2011): 178–210.

48. Vestnik Kavkaza, “Transnistria Wants to Merge with Russia,” Vestnic Webnews, 23 November 2014. http://vestnikkavkaza.net/news/politics/52743.html (accessed May 30, 2015),

49. See EurActive.com, “Russia Defies Moldova’s EU Pact by Boosting Transnistria Trade,” 3 July 2014. http://www.euractiv.com/sections/europes-east/russia-defies-moldovas-eu-pact-boosting-transnistria-trade-303263 (accessed May 30, 2015). Business Insider UK, “Russia Just Held a Military Exercise in a ‘Breakaway Republic’ in Eastern Europe,” 10 April 2015. http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-held-military-exercise-in-transnistria-2015–4?r = US (accessed May 30, 2015).

50. Stanlislav Secrieru, “The Transnistrian Conflict—New Opportunities and Old Obstacles for Trust Building (2009–2010),” Journal of Southeast European & Black Sea Studies 11, no. 3 (2011): 241–263. Stefan Wolff, “A Resolvable Frozen Conflict? Designing a Settlement for Transnistria,” Nationalities Papers 39, no. 6 (2011): 863–870.

51. European Union, EU/Moldova Action Plan.

52. European Commission and High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security policy, Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Neighbourhood at the Crossroads: Implementation of the European Neighbourhood Policy in 2013. Brussels, 27 March 2014, SWD (2014) 93 final.

53. Martin Renner, “Moldova at the Crossroads—Political Struggle in 2009 and EU-Perspectives,” Suedosteuropa-Mitteilungen 50, no. 2 (2010): 28–43. Theodor Tudoroiu, “Structural Factors vs. Regime Change: Moldova’s Difficult Quest for Democracy,” Democratization 18, no. 1 (2011): 236–264.

54. Sabine Fischer, “The European Union and Security in the Black Sea Region after the Georgia Crisis,” Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 9, no. 3 (2009): 333–349.

55. Stephen F. Jones, “Reflections on the Rose Revolution,” European Security 21, no. 1 (2012): 5–15. Brian Godsky, “Co-optation or Empowerment? The Fate of Pro-Democracy NGOs after the Rose Revolution,” Europe-Asia Studies 64, no. 9 (2012): 1684–1708. See also Fairbanks and Gugushvili, A New Chance for Georgian Democracy; and Fairbanks, Georgian Democracy.

56. EU/Georgia Action Plan 2005, ibid.; European Union, Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part. 30.8.2014, Official Journal of the European Union; see also Vladimer Papava and Michael Tokmazishvili, “Becoming European: Georgia’s Strategy for Joining the EU,” Problems of Post-Communism Jan./Feb. (2006): 26–32. Christian Hagemann, “External Governance on the Terms of the Partner? The EU, Russia and the Republic of Moldova in the European Neighbourhood Policy,” Journal of European Integration 35, no. 7 (2013): 767–783.

57. Hanna Smith, “Democratization and War: The Chechen Wars’ Contribution to Failing Democratization in Russia,” Demokratizatsiya 22, no. 4 (2014): 627–645.

58. Oscar B. Pardo Sierra, “Shaping the Neighbourhood? The EU’s Impact on Georgia,” Europe-Asia Studies 63, no. 8 (2011): 1377–1398.

59. European Parliament: European Parliament resolution of 17 November 2011 containing the European Parliament’s recommendations to the Council, the Commission and the EEAS on the negotiations of the EU-Georgia Association Agreement. 2011/2133(INI). 17 November 2011.

60. Hans Mouritzen and Anders Wivel, Explaining Foreign Policy: International Diplomacy and the Russo-Georgian War (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2012).

61. Foreign Policy Research Institute, E-note: “Russia’s Quiet Annexation of South Ossetia,” http://www.fpri.org/articles/2015/02/russias-quiet-annexation-south-ossetia (accessed May 31, 2015).

62. See Freedom House, “Nations in Transit 2014—Ukraine,” by Oleksandr Sushko. https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/2014/ukraine#.VMOrg_7F9UM (accessed May 15, 2015); Tario Kuzio, “Russianization of Ukrainian National Security Policy under Viktor Yanukovych,” Journal of Slavic Military Studies 25, no. 4 (2012): 558–581; Tario Kuzio, “Yushenko versus Tymoschenko: Why Ukraine’s National Democrats Are Divided,” Demokratizatsiya 21, no. 2 (2013): 215–240; Kuzio, Competing National Identities; Casier, The EU’s Two-track; Wolczuk, Implementation without Coordination; and Constant, Kahenec, and Zimmermann, The Russian-Ukrainian Political Divide.

63. Shevtsova, The Maidan and Beyond; Irina Khmelko and Yevgen Pereguda, “An Anatomy of Mass Protests: The Orange Revolution and Euromaydan Compared,” Communist & Post-Communist Studies 47, no. 2 (2014): 227–236.

64. Guillaume Van der Loo and Peter Van Elsuwege, “Competing Paths of Regional Economic Integration in the Post-Soviet Space: Legal and Political Dilemmas for Ukraine,” Review of Central and East European Law 37, no. 4 (2012): 421–447; see also Gwendolyn Sasse, “Linkages and the Promotion of Democracy: The EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood,” Democratisation 20, no. 4 (2013): 553–591. See also Vladimir Baranovsky and Sergey Utkin, “Europe as Seen from Russia,” Perspectives: Central European Review of International Affairs 20, no. 2 (2012): 63–81; Arkady Moshes, “Russia’s European Policy under Medvedev: How Sustainable Is a New Compromise?” International Affairs 88, no. 1 (2012): 17–30.

65. Olga Onuch, “Who Were the Protesters?” Journal of Democracy 25, no. 3 (2014): 44–51; Khmelko and Pereguda, An Anatomy of Mass Protests.

66. This argument has been stressed before; see, for example, Hiski Haukkala, “The European Union as a Regional Normative Hegemon: The Case of European Neighbourhood Policy,” Europe-Asia Studies 60, no. 9 (2008): 601–622; and Sierra, Shaping the Neighbourhood?

67. See Freedom House, “Nations in Transit 2015, NIT 2015—Ratings and Democracy Score Rankings,” https://www.freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/nations-transit-2015#.VdQ9Tfmqrxo (accessed August 8, 2015).