ABSTRACT
Why have the EU and India been unable to explore the common potential of their partnership in peacekeeping training? Drawing upon the literature of practice theories and the concept of community of practices, as well as semi-structured interviews with policy-makers and peacekeeping trainers from India and the EU, policy documents and participant observation, the article explores the complementarity of structures of the EU’s and India’s training communities and discusses the implicit knowledge which is guiding the practices of actors. Thereby, the article moves away from offering structural explanations, such as diverging strategic interests, which have dominated the literature on the EU’s external relations with Asia. Comparing the practice communities, the article finds substantial divergence in the material and ideational structure of training institutes. Moreover, the article illustrates that the disposition of actors in the Indian training community is characterised by the unspoken understanding that India’s training philosophy is more compatible with other countries from the Global South. While both structures, as well as dispositions of actors are unfavourable vis-à-vis an EU–India partnership in peacekeeping training, the article concludes that by addressing familiarity gaps among training communities, divergences in structures and dispositions can be overcome.
Acknowledgments
I thank Elisabeth Johansson-Nogués, Rachna Shanbog, Tanvi Deshpande, Diego Badell Sánchez, colleagues at a workshop on India and EU relations at the University of Würzburg, as well as the anonymous European Security reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier drafts.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributor
Lara Klossek is a PhD candidate at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) and researcher at the Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals (IBEI): Her PhD is conducted within the framework of the Marie Slodowska-Curie European Training Network ‘Global India’. Her thesis examines India and the European Union’s approaches to global governance in security, with a special focus on peacekeeping. This corresponds with her research interests in India and the EU’s foreign policy, security, peacekeeping and IR theory.
Notes
1 Some cooperation between the EU and its Asian partners has already materialized, such as for instance China and the Republic of Korea's contribution to the EU’s mission anti-piracy operation Atalanta in the Gulf of Aden or a joint training between Dutch and Chinese troops in MINUSMA Mali.
2 The other key partners identified in the document are the EU’s strategic partners Japan, the Republic of Korea and China.
3 See for instance Adler’s (Citation2008) study of the NATO security community, Bicchi’s (Citation2016) analysis of the EU’s diplomatic community in Brussels or Græger’s (Citation2016, Citation2017) study of informal practise communities in the EU-NATO cooperation.
4 Interview with former member of the Indian army, Delhi, December 28, 2018.
5 Interview with former member of the Indian army, Delhi, December 7, 2018.
6 Interview with former member of the Indian army, December 27, 2019.
7 see website of the ESDC: https://esdc.europa.eu/who-we-are/
9 Interview with member of ESDC, Brussels, April 30, 2019.
10 Interview with former member of the Indian army, Delhi, December 27, 2018.
11 Interview with member of EEAS, Brussels, March 26, 2019.
12 Interview with member of EEAS, Brussels, 26 March, 2019.
13 Interview with member of EEAS, Brussels, 26 March, 2019; Interview with former member of the Indian army, Delhi, December 7, 2018.
14 Interview with former member of the Indian army, Delhi, January 23, 2019.
15 The only partnership with a country from the Global North is a cooperation with the United States for training African peacekeeper. The cooperation materialized because the United States approached India.
16 Interview with former member of the Indian army, Delhi, December 7, 2018.
17 Interview with former member of the Indian army, Delhi, December 7, 2018.
18 Interview with former member of the Indian army, Delhi, December 27, 2018.
19 Interview with former member of the Indian army, Delhi, December 7, 2018.
20 Interview with former member of the Indian army, Delhi, December 27, 2018
21 Interview (skype) with former member of the Indian army, April 2, 2019.
22 Interview with former member of the Indian army, Delhi, December 7, 2018¸ Interview with former member of the Indian army, Delhi, December 24, 2018.
23 Interview with former member of the Indian army, Delhi, January 23, 2019
24 Interview (written-form) with former member of the Indian army, September 10, 2019.
25 Interview with former member of the Indian army, Delhi, January 3, 2019, Interview with Member of EEAS, Brussels, April 3rd, 2019, Interview with member of the Indian army, 17 December, 2018.
26 Interview with member of the Indian army, December 17, 2018.
27 This has for instance been reiterated by India and the EU in recent statements at the UN. See, i.e. EU Statement by Clara Ganslandt, Head of Division for Partnerships and Agreements, CSDP EEEAS, UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial, March 29, 2019. Retrieved from https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/un-new-york/60402/node/60402_fi [Accessed 14 December 2019] and statement by Ms Paulomi Tripathi, Indian First Secretary, UN Peacebuilding Commission, October 21, 2019. Retrieved from https://www.pminewyork.gov.in/pdf/uploadpdf/statements__231809450.pdf [Accessed 12 December 2019].
28 Interview with former member of the Indian army, Delhi, December 7, 2018.
29 Interview with former member of the Indian army, Delhi, December 7, 2018.
30 Interview (skype) with former member of the Indian army, October 24, 2019.
31 Interview with former member of the Indian army, Delhi, January 23, 2019; Interview (skype) with former member of the Indian army, October 24, 2019.