Regionalism in Africa and the Middle East: Implications for EU Studies

Abstract

This article analyses and contrasts the growth and development of regionalism in Africa and the Middle East and considers what lessons can be drawn from these regions for studies of the European Union. Rather than asking why regionalism has failed in certain parts of the world, while succeeding in Europe, it takes a more nuanced view of the processes associated with regionalism, regionalization and regional integration. It identifies the particular conditions which have led to the rise of regional organizations in Africa and the Middle East and then singles out four factors of importance in understanding the relative success or failure of different schemes, namely external influence; hegemony and leadership; regime type and identity. This discussion then forms the backdrop to a comparative consideration of the European Union. In highlighting those factors which account for the different trajectories of regional institutions, the article aims to widen the scope of EU and comparative regionalism studies.

Key Words:

• Regionalism
• Africa
• the Middle East
• Europe
• Third World
• hegemony

Acknowledgement

The author (s) are grateful to the European Commission for its financial support of the research used for this article under Jean Monnet project 153918‐LLP‐1‐2009‐BE‐AJM‐IC, Comparing the European Union with other regional organisations.

Notes

1. Third World literature critiques the applicability of international relations theory to developing countries arguing that certain core IR concepts — anarchy, rational choice, the state or sovereignty — ‘do not fit’ Third World reality. Linked to dependency theory, it challenges the great power capture of international relations theory with its inbuilt Eurocentric or Western cultural bias (Neuman 1998; Ayoob 2002; Tickner 2003; Brown 2006).

2. Others disagree, arguing that most African regional organisations are still struggling to go beyond declaration of intent to fully implement their protocols and programmes.

3. Arabs aspired, in broad terms, to maintaining unity among the Arab territories of the former Ottoman Empire; the colonial powers introduced a more fragmented state system.

4. This appears to be true of other global sub‐regions: in Latin America, Brazil has been an important motor of institutional consolidation in Mercosur.

5. Despite claims to the contrary by NRA scholars, states are still the predominant actors within regional organisations providing the legal environment within which non‐state actors can pursue their regional ambitions.

6. The link between democracy and peace was for instance outlined in the preamble of the 2001 ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance. ECOWAS Member States are ‘concerned also about increasing incidence of conflicts caused by religious intolerance, political marginalisation and non‐transparent elections'.’

7. By contrast, the 27 members of the European Union are considered free by the same survey.

8. Also known as ‘sovereignty‐boosing’ (Söderbaum 2004), political leaders engage in intense regional political games to raise their profile and status and confirm the appearance and power of sovereignty.