A research on the relationship between the perceived distinctiveness of the

Student: H. van der Bij (s1653059) | Supervisor: Dr. R. L. Holzhacker

Research Master Modern History and International Relations| University of Groningen

Rethinking EU’s changing neighbourhood policies towards the Mediterranean region

A research on the relationship between the perceived distinctiveness of the

Mediterranean region and EU’s neighbourhood policies between 2008 and

2012

1 Reality leaves a lot to the imagination.

John Lennon

Table of Contents

Preface ... 1

Abstract ... 2

Introduction ... 3

1. Theoretical framework ... 8

1.1. The dominance of the Normative Power Europe model ... 8

1.2. An alternative, social constructivist perspective on the NPE model ... 10

The changing image of the distinctiveness of the other... 11

Different theoretical insights on the distinctiveness of the other ... 14

Combining theoretical insights to define the distinctiveness of the other ... 17

2. Method ... 20

2.1. The working hypotheses ... 20

2.2. Operationalization of the working hypotheses ... 20

2.3. The discourse analysis of EU’s neighbourhood policy documents ... 24

3. Discourse analysis of EU’s neighbourhood policy documents ... 28

3.1. Overview of the changing ENP documents ... 28

3.2. Research results of ENP documents on the first hypothesis ... 29

3.3. Research results of ENP documents on the second hypothesis ... 37

4. Analysis ... 47

4.1. Overview of EU’s changing image of the Mediterranean region ... 47

4.2. Explanation of research results on the first hypothesis ... 48

4.3. Explanation of research results on the second hypothesis ... 53

4.4. Limitations regarding the interpretation of the research results………...…..57

Conclusion ... 61

Bibliography ... 65

Appendix A: Log of variables and values ... 73

Appendix B: Indicators of the perceived distinctiveness ... 74

1

Preface

This thesis is carried out to complete the Research Master ‘Modern History and International Relations’ at the University of Groningen. The thesis offers an alternative perspective on the Normative Power Europe discourse, by analysing the relationship between the perceived distinctiveness of the Mediterranean region and EU’s neighbourhood policies between 2008 and 2012. The past few years I increasingly studied democracy promotion policies and EU’s Neighbourhood policies. By participating and supervising projects of the European Institute for Democratic Participation in Chisinau and Ankara, I spoke with different students from Eastern Europe. These conversations aroused my interest in the European Neighbourhood Policy in this area. During the research master I followed a course of Ronald Holzhacker on the role of democracy in reconstruction, while the Arab revolts started simultaneously. Consequently, as a research assistant at Clingendael, I looked deeper into the European Neighbourhood Policies towards the Southern neighbours of the EU. During the summer school 'Democracy and Transitional Justice' in Sousse, I had the opportunity to exchange views with Tunisians and conduct interviews on EU’s response to the transition process in the Mediterranean region following the Arab revolts. This inspired me to write my master thesis about EU’s Neighbourhood Policies in the Mediterranean region.

Some people have played a special role in finishing this master thesis. First of all I would like to express my gratitude to the people I met and interviewed in Tunisia. The insightful discussions with Labri Sadiki, a senior Lecturer Middle East Politics at the University of Exeter, or Mogli Gligli, a graffiti artist who made the image on the front page, both contributed in a great way to this thesis. Secondly I am grateful for the support of the faculty of Arts and the teachers who have guided us through the Research Master. In particular I would like to thank my supervisor, Ron Holzhacker, for his advice, patience, feedback and motivating words.

Furthermore I would like to thank the PvdA Eurodelegation for giving me the time to complete

the master thesis. I am very grateful to work and learn in such an inspiring environment with

very dear colleagues. Moreover I am very thankful for the loving support of my friends and

family. Fleur, Anna, Mary and Ailin thank you for your encouraging words and insightful

comments. Finally I would like to give a special thanks to Michiel and my parents. I am very

grateful for your never ending support and love.

2

Abstract

The nature of EU’s foreign policies are explained predominantly by Manners’ Normative Power Europe (NPE) model. This model states that EU’s foreign policies are based on five core norms, including peace, liberty, democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights. Yet it is questionable if these norms are always equally valued towards every country and region at any time. From a social constructivist perspective, the NPE model insufficiently takes into account the foreign policy makers’ construction of reality. This thesis gives an alternative perspective on the NPE model by analysing to what extent EU’s changing image of the distinctiveness of the Mediterranean region has influenced EU’s changing neighbourhood policies between 2008 and 2012. Based on the work of Hermann, Voss, Schooler and Ciarrochi this thesis offers a discourse analysis of EU’s neighbourhood policy documents between 2008 and 2012. The research results suggest that the changing neighbourhood policies of the EU in the Mediterranean region are predisposed to EU’s changing perception of the region’s potential to further the democratization process and provide long term stability, security and prosperity.

Key words: EU neighbourhood policies ▪ Mediterranean region ▪ Arab revolts ▪ Normative

Power Europe ▪ Social constructivism

3

Introduction

In the wake of 2011 the tremendous social uprisings in the Mediterranean region took the European Union (EU) by surprise.

While the EU already pledged to support the democratization process in the Mediterranean since 1995, it kept close ties with the authoritarian regimes in the region. It was not until the Arab revolts started, when the former Commission’s President Barroso and former High Representative Ashton openly declared that

‘the EU should not be a passive spectator, but must wholeheartedly support the wish of the people in the Mediterranean region to enjoy the same freedoms as in Europe’.

As a result the EU initiated some promising new policy documents concerning its neighbourhood policy in the Mediterranean region, in addition to the existing neighbourhood policy. This demonstrated EU’s willingness to adapt its position and policies to the changing circumstances in the Mediterranean region.

However the question rises why the EU didn’t rethink its position and its foreign policies towards the Mediterranean region until the start of the Arab revolts.

In the field of International Relations, EU’s distinct position and foreign policies towards other countries and regions is predominantly explained by the Normative Power Europe (NPE) model of Ian Manners.

This model suggests that EU’s political identity is constructed by certain norms and values, which predisposes the EU to act in a normative way in world politics. Consequently, the NPE model states that EU’s foreign policies are based on five core norms; including peace, liberty, democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights.

Yet looking at EU’s neighbourhood policies towards the Mediterranean region, it is questionable if these norms are always equally valued towards every country and region at any time. From a social constructivist perspective, one might argue that the NPE model insufficiently takes into account the foreign policy maker’s construction of reality. The image

1 Hedwich van der Bij, Jan Rood, Atef Hamdy and Roel Meijer. ‘The Arab Revolts: A European Awakening?’

Clingendael Institute (January 2012) 2. European Commission, ‘EU response to the Arab Spring’

<http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/neighbourhood/ arab_spring/index_en.htm> (30-3-2013; accessed 8-11- 2013).

2 Joint Communication of the European Commission and the High Representative of Foreign Affairs, ‘Partnership for Democracy and Shared Prosperity’, 8 March 2011 <http://www.eeas.europa.eu/euro med/docs/com2011_200_en.pdf> (accessed 18 May 2012) 2.

3 Van der Bij, Rood, Hamdy and Meijer. ‘The Arab Revolts: A European Awakening?’ Clingendael Institute (January 2012) 2. Abdulhakim Khatib, ‘EU-Arab relations. An EU skeptical culture led Islamists to power in the Arab world?’ 14. R. Hollis, ‘Europe in the Middle East’ in: Louise Fawcett ed., The international relations of the Middle East (Oxford 2009) 336.

4 Gerrits, André, ‘Normative Power Europe in a Changing World: A Discussion’ Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael <http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2009/20091200 _cesp_paper_gerrits.pdf> (2009: accessed 11 June 2012) 2.

5 Ian Manners, ‘Normative power Europe: a contradiction in terms?’ Journal of common market studies 40 (2002) 2, 235-258 there 242.

4 they have of other countries or regions might influence the cost-benefit decisions they take. It may even influence the selection, interpretation and memory of information related to the actor in question.

In order to study to what extent the perspective of policy maker’s on other countries or regions influences foreign policy decisions, this thesis focuses on the relationship between EU’s changing image of the Mediterranean region and EU’s foreign policy adjustments towards this region after the start of the Arab revolts.

Research question

So far there has been little critique on Manners’ NPE model from a social constructivist perspective on othering. Othering refers to the way people construct an image of other actors.

In order to fill this gap in literature and shed more light on the impact of othering on foreign policies, this thesis questions to what extent EU’s image of the distinctiveness of the Mediterranean region has influenced EU’s neighbourhood policies in the region between 2008 and 2012. The perceived distinctiveness of the Mediterranean region is analysed by looking at the differences between the political identity of the EU and the Mediterranean region as a whole.

Moreover the research question focuses on the period between 2008 and 2012, while keeping into account the extensive history of EU’s neighbourhood policies in the Mediterranean region. This timeframe is chosen since it gives the opportunity to study two years before and the two years after the EU reformulated its neighbourhood policies in response to the Arab revolts. Although it is a relatively short timeframe, it enables to study othering as a process instead of looking at it at one particular point in time.

Scientific and social significance

Since the turn of this century, an increasing amount of critical studies reviewed Manners’ NPE model. Most of these studies focused predominantly on the lack of coherence and effectiveness of EU’s foreign policies, by emphasizing the gap between its normative power commitments and actual achievements. So far, these inconsistencies are predominantly explained by looking at empirical claims and the optimization of choices by rational cost-benefit calculations.

Nevertheless from a social constructivist approach this type of reasoning, and the empirical foundation on which it is based, should also take into account the foreign policy maker’s

6 Joseph W. Alba and Lynn Hasher, ‘Is Memory Schematic?’ Psychological Bulletin 93 (1983) 2, 203-231 there 206-207.

7 The theoretical framework defines the impact of the other’s distinctiveness on foreign policies into detail.

8 Brieg Tomos Powel, ‘A clash of norms: normative power and EU democracy promotion in Tunisia’

Democratization 16 (2009) 1, 193-214 there 196-197.

5 construction of reality.

Therefore this thesis will explore to what extent the way foreign policy makers perceive the distinctiveness of another region, has an impact on their foreign policy choices. The results that follow from the research of this thesis could give an alternative social constructivist view on the limitations of Manners NPE model.

Consequently this thesis is of scientific significance since it tries to further the debate on the nature of EU’s foreign policies, by giving for the first time a thorough social constructivist critique on the dominant NPE model. Most social constructivist studies on othering have led to theoretical explanations and contemplative world views, which underexpose the changing nature of the othering process.

Yet this thesis will structurally analyse European Neighbourhood Policy documents in order to examine to what extent EU’s image of the distinctiveness of the Mediterranean region has influenced EU’s neighbourhood policies over a period of 5 years. In addition, the insights of this research are also of social significance by bringing more awareness to politicians and foreign policy makers about the impact of othering on foreign policy decisions. Othering is often a part of policy outcomes, but not in itself intentional.

A study that uncovers the impact of othering and raises the consciousness of policy makers about their subjectivity is valuable; especially to understand EU’s changing neighbourhood policies in the Mediterranean region.

Research Design and Methodology

This thesis offers a social constructivist critique on Manners’ NPE model, by underlining the causal relationship between the perceived distinctiveness of the other and foreign policies. For this end, the impact of EU’s image of the distinctiveness of the Mediterranean region on the European neighbourhood policies between 2008 and 2012 is used as a case study. This particular case study is chosen because former research has shown that the Arab revolts initiated a change of EU’s image of the Mediterranean region, as well as a change of the neighbourhood policy documents towards the region. By identifying the relationship between these two simultaneous changes, this thesis demonstrates that the European neighbourhood policies are

9 Richard K. Herrmann. James F. Voss, Tonya Y. E. Schooler and Joseph Ciarrochi, ‘Images in International Relations: An Experimental Test of Cognitive Schemata’ International Studies Quarterly 41 (1997) 3, 403–433.

there 404. Lisbeth Aggestam, ‘Role Conceptions and the Politics of Identity in Foreign Policy’ ARENA Working Paper <http://www.sv.uio.no/arena/english/research/publications/arena-publications/workingpapers/ working- papers1999/wp99_8.htm> (15 February 1999; accessed 5 August 2013).

10 Sonia Lucarelli, ‘Mirrors of us. European political identity and the Others’ image of the EU’ in: Sonia Lucarelli, Furio Cerutti, Vivien A. Schmidt, Debating Political Identity and Legitimacy in the European Union (Abingdon 2011) 148-150. Michael Horowitz, ‘Research Report on the Use of Identity Concepts in International Relations’

(July 2002; accessed 7 August 2013). Sybille Reinke de Buitrago, Portaying the Other in International Relations:

Cases of Othering, Their Dynamics and the Potential for Transformation (Newcastle 2012) 13.

11 Reinke de Buitrago, Portaying the Other in International Relations, 19.

6 not primarily based on EU’s norms and values, as Manners suggests. Instead it shows that the importance of the norms and values underlying the European neighbourhood policies are actually subject to EU’s image of another region at a certain period of time.

In order to analyse the impact of othering on foreign policies into detail, the case study needs to be clearly defined and delineated. First of all, the case study is limited to the relationship between the EU and the Mediterranean region. Hereby the research will focus on EU’s image of the Mediterranean region. This does not mean that the Mediterranean region is a passive actor. If the underlying norms and values of EU’s neighbourhood policies are structurally ignored, EU’s position as a normative actor becomes less credible - not only for the Mediterranean region, but also for the rest of the world. So EU’s willingness to live up to the norms and values underlying its neighbourhood policy is not limited to the social pressure and relationship with the Mediterranean region. Instead it also depends on the credibility of its own normative power image towards the rest of the world. In order to study EU’s image of the Mediterranean region into more depth, this thesis will merely analyse the othering process from one direction while not leaving the broader context out of sight.

Secondly it is important to delineate what is meant with ‘the EU’ and ‘the Mediterranean region’ and how these two regions are studied in this thesis. The use of these terms might suggest two homogenous regions, while the EU as well as the MENA region both consists of a wide range of different countries and people with different perspectives and opinions. This thesis will grasp the meaning of ‘the EU’ and ‘the Mediterranean region’ by examining EU’s joint initiatives and coordinated European neighbourhood policy documents towards the Mediterranean region.

Despite the differences within both regions, this thesis focuses on these policy documents since they reflect the consensus among all EU member states on the ‘correct’

position towards the Mediterranean region as a whole. Moreover it should be mentioned that this thesis is focused on EU’s image of the distinctiveness of the Mediterranean region as a whole, and not the real developments and differences within the Mediterranean region before and after the Arab revolts.

Finally the thesis limits its research to a particular definition of the impact of the perceived distinctiveness of the other on foreign policies. Former research demonstrates that a definition should take into account two things: the changing nature of othering and the different theoretical perspectives on othering.

Therefore this thesis will build on the work of Herrmann, Voss, Schooler and Ciarrochi, who used different theoretical insights to offer a systematic

12 The selection of the ENP documents is explained in the method section.

13 These two major academic debates on othering are discussed in the theoretical framework.

7 model to study the impact of the perceived distinctiveness of the other on foreign policies.

According to Hermann et al. the perceived risk or gain the other poses to one’s own security interests [at a particular period of time] motivates policy choices, while the perceptions of the relative capability and cultural sophistication of the other [at a particular period of time]

determines the set of policy options available. Hence they combine realist and post-colonialist insights to understand the relationship between the perceived distinctiveness of the other and foreign policies.

In order to reckon with the changing nature of othering, this thesis adds the notion of time to the work of Hermann et al. on the impact of othering on foreign policies.

As a result this thesis unfolds as follows. First of all the theoretical framework examines the academic debate about the nature of EU’s foreign policies. After demonstrating the dominance of Manners’ NPE model, the alternative perspectives on this model are discussed.

Based on former research, the method section gives a definition of othering which leads to two hypotheses and corresponding variables. These variables will be structurally analysed during the discourse analysis of six ENP documents between 2008 and 2012. Subsequently the research results will be put in a broader context during the analysis section. Based on the hypothesis, this section makes a connection between the changing ENP documents after the start of the Arab revolts and the shift from the Arab Exceptionalism discourse towards the Arab Awakening discourse. Also the limitations regarding the interpretation of the research results are discussed in the analysis section. Finally the conclusion gives an answer to the research question by discussing to what extent EU’s changing image of the distinctiveness of the Mediterranean region influenced EU’s neighbourhood policy documents between 2008 and 2012.

14 Herrmann, Voss, Schooler and Ciarrochi, ‘Images in International Relations’, 410.

8

1. Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework examines the academic debate about the nature of EU’s foreign policies. The first part of this section will discuss the Normative Power Europe (NPE) model, which has been leading the debate about the origins of EU’s foreign policies. The second part of this section introduces an alternative perspective on the origins of EU’s foreign policies, by giving a social constructivist critique on the NPE model. This social constructivist critique stipulates the relationship between the perceived distinctiveness of the other and foreign policy decisions.

1.1. The dominance of the Normative Power Europe model

In general EU’s foreign policy choices and acts on the world scene are explained by its peculiar identity. Since the 21th century there has been an ongoing debate about EU’s distinctive role and identity as an international actor.

In the field of International Relations most scholars concur that Europe’s role on the world stage is essentially different from other major world powers, in terms of its ambitions, sources, instruments, policies and results.

Since François Duchêne launched the idea of a ‘civilian power Europe’ in the early 1970s, several scholars have tried to characterize EU’s distinct political identity on the world scene by using different concepts such as post-modern power, ethical power, structuring power, transformative power, soft power, norm-maker, normative power or a normative area.

While using different concepts, most of these scholars agree that the EU is a different international actor due to its initial ‘telos’ (peace through integration), its historical developments and its current institutional and normative framework which makes the EU better suited to spread universal values.

Among all these notions that describe EU’s distinct political identity on the world scene, Ian Manners’ model of Normative Power Europe (NPE) has conceivably drawn the most

15 Ole Elgstrom and Michael Smith, The European Union’s roles in international politics. Concepts and analysis (Abingdon 2006) 1.

16 André Gerrits (ed.), ‘Normative Power Europe in a Changing World: A Discussion’ Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael (2009) <http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2009/20091200 _cesp_paper_gerrits.pdf> (accessed 11 June 2012) 2. I. Manners, ‘Normative power Europe: a contradiction in terms?’ Journal of common market studies 40 (2002) 2, 235-258 there 240.

17 François Duchêne, ‘Europe's role in world peace’ in: R. Mayne (Ed.), Europe tomorrow. Sixteen Europeans look ahead (London 1972), 32-47. L. Aggestam (ed.), ‘Ethical Power Europe?’ International Affairs 84 (2008) 1, 1-12. A. Björkdahl, ‘Norm-maker and norm-taker: exploring the normative influence of the EU in

Macedonia’ European Foreign Affairs Review 10 (2005) 2, 257-78. Stephan Keukeleire, ‘The Europan Union as a diplomatic actor: internal, traditional and structural diplomacy’ Diplomacy and statecraft 14 (2003) 3, 31-56.

Joseph Nye, Soft Power: The means to Success in World Politics (New York 2005).

18 Sonia Lucarelli, ‘European Political Identity, Foreign Policy And The Others’ Image: An Under-Explored Relationship’ <http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/garnet/workingpapers/6209_alt.pdf> (26-01-2009; accessed 24-07-2014) 6.

9 attention.

This NPE model originates from 2002, when Manners wrote an article in the Journal of Common Market Studies about the ability of NPE to define what passes for ‘normal’

in world politics.

His argument is based on François Duchêne’s theory of civilian power, which declares that Europe’s most important particularity was its commitment to favour economic and political means instead of military ones. According to Manners, the particular historical evolution, hybrid polity and constitutional configuration of the EU, has led to a normatively different basis for its foreign policies and relations with the rest of the world.

Based upon a vast body of Union law and policies, he identified five core norms - including peace, liberty, democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights - and a few minor norms which together compose the NPE.

The appeal of the NPE model gained momentum when it started to resonate in several primary sources and policy statements of the EU. For instance Javier Solana, EU High Representative of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), stated in 2005 that;

“The EU is not an island, it is part of a global community. For large parts of the world, the word Europe in itself has become associated with a philosophy of humanity, solidarity and integration. Therefore the EU has to play a bigger role to work for the global common good”.

By referring to EU’s sense of duty to make an effort for the ‘global common good’, Solana demonstrates its conviction of EU’s distinctive role on the world scene. So not only IR scholars but also high officials of the EU supported the NPE model, which outlines EU’s specific normative stance in world politics.

It was only a matter of time before the dominance of the Normative Power discourse could also be found in primary sources of the EU, such as the Treaty of Lisbon.

In the Treaty of Lisbon - which is signed in 2007 and came into force in 2009 - the EU officially links the promotion of values and principles with its foreign policies and action on the international scene. Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) proclaims that;

‘the Union’s action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles which have inspired its own creation, development and enlargement, and which it seeks to advance in the wider world: democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.’

19 Gerrits, ‘Normative Power Europe in a Changing World: A Discussion’, 2.

20 Manners, ‘Normative power Europe: a contradiction in terms?’, 236 and 240.

21 Ibid., 241 and 252.

22 Ibid., 242.

23 Sonia Lucarelli, ‘Interpreted values: a normative reading of EU role articulation and performance’ in O.

Elgström and M. Smith (eds), The European Union’s Roles in International Politics. Concepts and analysis (London 2006).

24 Treaty on European Union (TEU), Title V, Chapter I, Article 21, para. 1.

10 Since these principles gradually came into being, Manners argues that the previous article marks the most recent stage in a process that is constitutive of EU’s normative power in world politics.

Consequently the NPE model has been leading the debate about the origins of EU’s foreign policies among International Relation scholars, but it also dominates in EU documents and policy statements.

1.2. An alternative, social constructivist perspective on the NPE model

Despite the rising popularity of the NPE model among IR scholars and EU officials, it has been increasingly criticized at the beginning of this century. A growing amount of empirical research started to scrutinize the credibility of the NPE model by focusing on the coherence and effectiveness of EU’s foreign policies.

Especially EU’s neighbourhood policies in the Mediterranean region attracted much critique regarding the limits of EU’s action as a norm exporter.

This critique proved to be valuable in demonstrating the shortcomings of EU’s normative power commitments by analysing its cost-benefit decisions. However, the way the EU perceives other countries or regions may influence the cost-benefit decisions it takes.

Highlighting the importance of EU’s construction of reality corresponds with a social constructivist school of thought.

Social constructivism emphasizes that reality and knowledge should not be seen as a given, but as a product of human interaction which is subject to change.

Hence, from a social constructivist perspective, the critique against the NPE model should take into account the foreign policy maker’s construction of reality. So far, social constructivist scholars have given some general remarks about the NPE model. For instance Richard Herrmann, James Voss, Tonya Schooler and Joseph Ciarrochi point out that the norms underlying EU’s normative power identity do not directly lead to its foreign policy decisions. They state that these norms

25 Ian Manners, ‘The normative ethics of the European Union’ International Affairs 84 (2008) 1, 45-61 there 68.

26 Lucarelli, ‘European Political Identity, Foreign Policy And The Others’ Image: An Under-Explored Relationship’, 6.

27 Sonia Lucarelli and Lorenzo Fioramonti, External Perceptions of the European Union as a Global Actor (Abingdon 2010) 3. Sibylle Scheipers and Daniela Sicurelli, ‘Normative Power Europe: a credible utopia?’

Journal of Common Market Studies 45 (2007) 2, 435-457 there 437.

28 Stefania Panebianco, ‘The constraints on EU action as a norm exporter in the Mediterranean’ in: Ole Elgstrom and Michael Smith, The European Union’s Roles in International Politics. Concepts and analysis (Abingdon 2006) 139-141. Powel, ‘A clash of norms: normative power and EU democracy promotion in Tunisia’, 196-197.

Michelle Pace, ‘Paradoxes and contradictions in EU democracy promotion in the Mediterranean: the limits of EU normative power’ Democratization 16 (2009) 1, 38-58 there 42-43. Youngs,‘Normative Dynamics and Strategic Interests in the EU’s External Identity’, 419-421 and 431. Smith, ‘The EU, Human Rights and Relations with Third Countries’, 193-198.

29 Barrie Axford, Gary K. Browning, Richard Huggins and Ben Rosamond, Politics: an introduction (Abingdon 2002) 100. Robert Jackson and Georg Sorensen, Introduction to International Relations. Theories and approaches (New York 2007) 30 and 100.

11 need to be put in a wider context: the foreign policy maker’s image of the other and the norms this image defines as relevant.

In addition Neumann, Aggestam and Diez argue that the discourse on EU’s normative power encloses the risk of focusing too much attention on the self.

They state that EU’s normative power identity is a relational concept, which implies the existence of an ‘other’ against which the notion of the self is articulated.

Consequently several scholars already questioned the dominant NPE discourse from a social constructivist perspective, by stipulating the connection between EU’s image of others and the course of EU’s foreign policies. This debate has led to two major discussions. First of all, different scholars query if EU’s foreign policies are always - at all times and places - based on prescribed norms and values underlying the NPE model. This debate focusses on the changing nature of othering. Most scholars concur that the way we perceive other actors is not fixed but changes over time. However, it is disputable when and why these images of the other change. Secondly different theoretical insights have led to different definitions of othering.

Hence the way we define ourselves apart from other actors, is genuinely influenced by our theoretical point of view. This has led to a debate about the correct definition of othering and its impact on foreign policy decisions. These two discussions will be elaborated in the following two paragraphs. Finally the theoretical framework will discuss the model of Hermann et al.

which combines different theoretical insights to define the distinctiveness of the other.

The changing image of the distinctiveness of the other

Most scholars concur that the image we have of others is not fixed but subject to continuous interaction and exchange of views and narratives.

As a result othering is generally seen as an ongoing process. This means that EU’s image of the distinctiveness of the Mediterranean region will not always be the same, but might actually change over time. Nonetheless, how and why changes occur during the process of othering is widely debated. Several scholars have tried to find an answer to this question by analysing the driver of change within the process of othering.

This search has been dominated by the complex relationship between the individual – also referred to as agent – and wider social processes and institutions – often referred to as structures.

30 Herrmann, Voss, Schooler and Ciarrochi, ‘Images in International Relations’, 423.

31 Aggestam, ‘Role Conceptions and the Politics of Identity in Foreign Policy’. Iver B. Neumann, ‘Self and Other in International Relations’ European Journal of International Relations 2 (1996) 2, 139-174 there 144. Thomas Diez, ‘Constructing the Self and Changing Others: Reconsidering “Normative Power Europe” ’ Journal of International Studies 33 (2005) 3, 613-636 there 614.

32 Reinke de Buitrago, Portaying the Other in International Relations, 14-15. Carr, ‘The separation thesis’ of Self and Other: Metatheorizing a Dialectival Alternative’, 120 and 126. Legro, ‘The Transformation of Policy Ideas’, 421-424. Nabers, ‘Filling the Void of Meaning: Indentity Construction in U.S. Foreign Policy After September 11’, 193. Wehner, ‘From Rivalry to Mutual Trust: The Othering Process between Bolivia and Chile’, 9-10.

12 The agency-structure divide has led to fundamental different approaches to the changing nature of othering.

First of all the agent-centred approach argues that structures are explained by, or reducible to, the motives and actions of individuals.

Hence from this perspective the image we have of others is just a product of the views of dominant agents or an aggregation of many individual views. Subsequently, a change of the image we have of others is caused by changes of relative power, interests, or beliefs of individuals or groups within society.

The level of success of this change depends on the persuasiveness of an agent.

By focusing on the capability of individuals to act independently and make their own free choices, the agency approach can be helpful in analysing the independent conduct of an agent – e.g. studies of methodological individualism or behaviourism.

However the agency approach seems incapable of explaining general tendencies of the preferences and beliefs of different individuals together.

At the other extreme, structure-centred approaches believe that the identities and behaviour of individuals are formed and take place within social relations which are governed by rules.

From this point of view, the image we have of others is constituted by pre-existing ideas. These ideas are seen as a type of structure, while agents are considered to be surrendered to structural thought. Subsequently, in contrast to the agency approach, structuralists argue that individuals predominantly learn through socialization and imitation instead of their own individual experiences.

The level of analysis of the structural approach can be useful in order to explain why certain actors behave in traditional ways despite the changes of environment – e.g. the attempt of functionalism to expose the fundamentals to maintain, modernize and stabilize social and political systems.

Nonetheless, the downside of the structural approach is the inclination to emphasize the continuity of a structure, not why it changes.

Consequently scholars have tried to find a way out of the dichotomous agency-structure debate, by arguing that the structure and the agent are both important regarding the ideas we hold about the other. This has led to the structuration approach, which grants neither structure nor agency autonomy. Instead it describes the relation between the agent and the structure as

33 Axford, Browning, Huggins and Rosamond, Politics: an introduction, 18.

34 Legro, ‘The Transformation of Policy Ideas’, 421

35 Ibid.

36 Axford, Browning, Huggins and Rosamond, Politics: an introduction, 21-22.

37 Legro, ‘The Transformation of Policy Ideas’, 422.

38 Axford, Browning, Huggins and Rosamond, Politics: an introduction, 18.

39 Michael Tomasello, Ann Cale Kruger and Hilary Horn Ratner, ’Cultural Learning’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (1993), 495-552 there 496-497. Legro, ‘The Transformation of Policy Ideas’, 422.

40 Axford, Browning, Huggins and Rosamond, Politics: an introduction, 22.

13 mutually constituted.

Nevertheless the question remains whether reproduction (status quo) or a new production (change) of the image of the other will occur.

In search for a solution Wendt argues that ontologically the agent and structure are inseparable, but analytically it is possible to treat them separately.

This has led to a general explanation of an agent as the initiator of change and a structure as the originator of continuity.

However, a structural condition might facilitate change and agents might be conservative and opposed to change. Several scholars have tried to solve this problem by introducing the idea of exogenous shocks or crisis as the motor of changing ideas about the other.

Although crisis is often related to change, the question remains why similar shocks or events can have different effects. Therefore Jeffrey Legro, Sybille Reinke de Buitrago and Leslie Wehner argue that the changing nature of the othering process is not determined by a crisis in itself but by a crisis of meaning.

A crisis of meaning arises if new circumstances and events sufficiently disturb the ideas, views and stories held on the relationship between the self and the other. If an othering discourse can no longer explain certain events, there is space for new ideas and constructions of the self-other relationship. However the success of these new ideas and constructions regarding the other confide in their magnitude and endurance. This principally depends upon the size and content of the crisis of meaning, which stirs the transformation of the othering process.

In addition a new othering discourse needs to be credible, which can be achieved by including some aspects of the discourse that is being displaced. By referring to memories of the previous image of the other, the new perspective will be easier to take hold in the minds of people and thus become more effective.

Consequently while studying EU’s image of the distinctiveness of the Mediterranean region, it should be taken into account that the image is not constituted by pre-existing, fixed ideas (structure approach), but is subject to change. The changing nature of the othering process cannot merely be explained by changes of relative power, interests, or beliefs of individuals or

41 Axford, Browning, Huggins and Rosamond, Politics: an introduction,20-21.

42 Legro, ‘The Transformation of Policy Ideas’, 423

43 Alexander Wendt, ‘The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory’ International Organization 41 (1987) 3, 335-370 there 364-365.

44 Michael Taylor, ‘Structure, Culture, and Action in the Explanation of Social Change’ Politics and Society 17 (1989) 2, 115-162 there 118 and 121-122.

45 Legro, ‘The Transformation of Policy Ideas’, 423

46 Reinke de Buitrago, Portaying the Other in International Relations, 15. Legro, ‘The Transformation of Policy Ideas’, 423-424. Leslie Wehner, ‘From Rivalry to Mutual Trust: The Othering Process between Bolivia and Chile’

GIGA Research Programme: Power, Norms and Governance in International Relations <http://www.giga- hamburg.de/de/system/files/publications/wp135_wehner.pdf> (may 2010; accessed 13-7-2015) 9.

47 Nabers, ‘Filling the Void of Meaning: Indentity Construction in U.S. Foreign Policy After September 11’, 193.

Wehner, ‘From Rivalry to Mutual Trust’, 10.

48 Reinke de Buitrago, Portaying the Other in International Relations, 14.

14 groups within the EU or the Mediterranean society (agency approach). As a result this thesis will study the changing nature of the othering process in line with Legro, Reinke de Buitrago and Wehner, who argue that the image of the other does not change due to a crisis in itself, but due to a crisis of meaning. In this case, the Arab revolts ‘an sich’ should not be seen as a stimulus for a change within the othering process, but as a trigger for a crisis of meaning. Hereby the

‘other’ is perceived as the Mediterranean region as a whole, while not leaving the different actors within the region out of sight.

Different theoretical insights on the distinctiveness of the other

In order to study the causal relationship between EU’s changing image of the Mediterranean region and EU’s neighbourhood policies into more depth, this thesis focuses on one particular form of othering: the distinctiveness of the other. The distinctiveness of another country or region has been defined in many different ways. For the most part the distinctiveness between the self and the other has been explained by focusing on the process of boundary formation.

In the same vein as Foucault argued that there is no fundamental link between the prince and its principality, symbolic and geopolitical boundaries must be considered as historically and discursively shaped rather than naturally given.

This involves inevitably the construction of a ‘we’ and likewise a demarcation of the ‘other’.

In addition Anssi Paasi points out that discourse demarcates boundaries through social practices, in which the act of naming (a territory) is especially a powerful technique.

Hence if the EU refers to its Southern neighbouring countries as the ‘Mediterranean region’, it demarcates a boundary between countries being part of the EU and those who are part of a distinct Mediterranean region.

However, defining the distinctiveness between the self and the other is not only determined by the process of boundary formation. Depending on the point of view of IR scholars, a number of definitions can be identified. The classic work of Kenneth E. Boulding made the first big step in analysing the relationship between the distinctiveness of the other and foreign policy decisions in International Relations (IR).

In 1959 he published an article in which he claims that the image we hold of others is mainly determined by two factors: the

49 Lucarelli, ‘Mirrors of us’, 148.

50 Michel Foucault, ‘Governmentality’ in: G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller (eds.), The Foucault

effect: studies in governmentality (Chicago 1991), 89-95. Bo Strath, ‘A European Identity: To the Historical Limits of a Concept’ European Journal of Social Theory 5 (2002) 4, 387-401 there 396.

51 Strath, ‘A European Identity: To the Historical Limits of a Concept’, 397.

52 Anssi Paasi, ‘The resurgence of the ‘Region’ and ‘Regional identity’: theoretical perspectives and empirical observations on regional dynamics in Europe’ Review of international studies 35 (2009) 26, 121-147 there 135.

53 Emanuele Castano, Simona Sacchi and Peter Hays Gries, ‘The Perception of the Other in International Relations:

Evidence for the Polarizing Effect of Entitativity’ Political Psychology 24 (2003) 3, 449-468 there 459.

15 perceived friendliness or hostility of the other and the perceived strength or weakness of the other.

By describing the distinctiveness of the self and the other in terms of relative threat and power, Boulding’s definition of othering exemplifies a typical realist perspective on the image of the other.

This is indicated as a typical realist perspective, since realists presume that foreign policy decisions are constrained by the self-interested human behaviour and the absence of international government, which requires the primacy in all political life of power and security.

As a result the conjunction of self-interested human behaviour, anarchy and balance of power are the key to understand the nature of international relations from a realist perspective.

Within this framework of realist thought, others are mainly perceived as a potential threat, which depends on the relative power of the other. This perception of the other pushes the self in a defensive stance which limits the scale of foreign policy options.

For instance if the other is predominantly perceived as a possible economic or political threat, this might lead to an increasing amount of restrictive trade policies, trade barriers and security measures.

Realism is one of the oldest and most frequently adopted theories in IR.

Yet, perceiving the other as a potential threat and analysing its relative power has been especially popular during the Cold War period – the heydays of ‘friend or foe-thinking’ in IR. Most scholars, however, still decompose Boulding’s realist notion of othering into different forms and types of images.

Although realism provides some useful insights, it simply cannot explain the vast majority of what happens in international relations. Hence using it as our only or primary tool to analyse the causal relationship between EU’s image of the distinctiveness of the Mediterranean region and EU’s neighbourhood policies, would significantly limit our analytical assignment and impoverish our vision of the relationship between the self and the other.

54 Kenneth E. Boulding, ‘National Images and International Systems’ The Journal of Conflict Resolution 3 (1959) 2, 120-131 there 124–125

55 Andrei P. Tsygankov, ‘Self and Other in International Relations Theory: Learning from Russian Civilizational Debates’ International Studies Review 10 (2008) 4, 762–775 there 764-765.

56 Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge 1981) 305.

57 Jack Donnelly, ‘Realism’ in: Scott Burchill, Andrew Linklater, Richard Devetak, Jack Donnelly, Terry Nardin, Matthew Paterson, Christian Reus-Smit and Jacqui True, Theories of International Relations (London 2009) 31- 32.

58 Tsygankov, ‘Self and Other in International Relations Theory’, 765.

59 Donnelly, ‘Realism’ in: Burchill, Linklater, Devetak, Donnelly, Nardin, Paterson, Reus-Smit and True, Theories of International Relations, 31.

60 Herrmann, Voss, Schooler and Ciarrochi, ‘Images in International Relations’, 407-408.

61 Donnelly, ‘Realism’ in: Burchill et. al., Theories of International Relations, 55. Herrmann, Voss, Schooler and Ciarrochi, ‘Images in International Relations’, 407.

16 Subsequently early postcolonial writings also exhibited the need to specify and define the distinctiveness between the self and the other. The postcolonial relationship between the EU and the Arab world in particular, is extensively described by the historian Edward Said. In his paramount work ‘Orientalism’ he describes how an imagined geography constructs an image of an oriental other in a degrading and distancing manner. He argues that the representation of the other as Oriental is exotic, but at the same time alien and looked down upon.

Hence Said describes the distinctiveness between the self and the other as a hierarchical link between the superior self and the inferior other. Moreover he demonstrates how the image of the Orient as the other has also contributed to the self-construction of the European identity.

Said’s work on the Orient provides some useful insights on the impact of EU’s imperialist legacy and corresponding hierarchical relationship between the self and the other.

Nevertheless Sune Qvotrup Jensen points out that postcolonial thinking merely treats the other as a dependent, inactive subject.

By emphasizing the superiority of the self and the inferiority of the other, there is little room for defining the self and its moral values as something open to negotiation. For this reason, in postcolonial theory the subaltern other is simply voiceless.

In practice, however, it is possible that the self recognizes the other as an equal discussion partner, which might lead to negotiations about mutually acceptable norms and practices. Hence the distinctiveness between the self and the other should not only be defined in terms of inferiority or superiority, but also by looking at the recognition of the other as different yet morally equal.

Consequently in order to shed some light on the causal relationship between the distinctiveness of the other and foreign policies, it is important to understand that definitions are coloured by certain approaches and underlying theories.

While realist scholars define the distinctiveness between the self and the other in terms of threats and relative power, postcolonial thinkers are more inclined to look at the distinctiveness of the other in terms of inferiority and superiority. But also other scholars with, for instance, a feminist background might look at the distinctiveness of the other in terms of gender bias, while liberal scholars may be more interested in the economic interests or trade relations (dependency) between the self and the other. Hence giving a particular definition of the distinctiveness of the other reflects an

62 Edward Said, Orientalism (New York 1995: first published in 1978) 71-72.

63 Ibid., 3.

64 Sune Qvotrup Jensen, ‘Othering, identity formation and agency’ Qualitative Studies 2 (2011) 2, 63-78 there 64- 66.

65 Jensen, ‘Othering, identity formation and agency’, 66.

66 Reinke de Buitrago, Portaying the Other in International Relations, 15. Tsygankov, ‘Self and Other in International Relations Theory’, 764-765. Jensen, ‘Othering, identity formation and agency’, 66.

67 Donnelly, ‘Realism’ in: Burchill et. al., Theories of International Relations, 54.

17 ideological or normative position on the part of the user that should be acknowledged. Therefore the perceived distinctiveness of the other should be defined by using different theoretical insights. By explicitly stating which theoretical insights are included, the limits of the scope of research are clearly demonstrated.

Combining theoretical insights to define the distinctiveness of the other

Several scholars already scrutinized the interdependence of realist and postcolonial insights to explain the perceived distinctiveness of the other.

For instance, Reinke de Buitrago explicitly states that the differentiation between the self and the other can be explained in realist and postcolonial terms, by looking at the relative enmity, inferiority or superiority of the other actor.

Likewise Herrmann, Voss, Schooler and Ciarrochi provide a model that combines realist and post-colonialist insights to understand the relationship between the perceived distinctiveness of the other and foreign policies.

This model points out that the perceived risk or gain the other poses to one’s own security interests motivates policy choices, while the perceptions of the relative capability and cultural sophistication of the other determines the set of policy options available.

First of all the model of Hermann et al. relates to a realist notion of othering, by looking at the relative risk or opportunity for gain the other poses to one’s own security interests.

Building on the work of a Boulding, Herrmann et al. state that the perceived risk or gain the other poses to the self has a major impact on foreign policy decisions.

At one extreme the other is perceived as a threat, if it threatens the achievement of valued security objectives of the self. At the other extreme the other presents an opportunity for gain, if it can advance and expand one’s own security interests. In case of a positive-sum outcome - meaning both parties gain from their partnership - it is called an opportunity for mutual gain. While an opportunity to exploit refers to a zero-sum outcome - meaning that one side gains while the other side loses.

Herrmann et al. argue that the perceived risk or gain the other poses to the self, does not only follow from the estimates of the other’s intentions - e.g. willing to safeguard the status quo - but also by a judgment relating to the security interests of the observer.

So the perceived risk or gain the other actor poses to one’s own security interests determines if the other actor is valued as threat, a partner for mutual gain or an opportunity to exploit.

68 Reinke de Buitrago, Portaying the Other in International Relations, 15-17. Herrmann, Voss, Schooler and Ciarrochi, ‘Images in International Relations’, 405-411.

69 Reinke de Buitrago, Portaying the Other in International Relations, 15.

70 Herrmann, Voss, Schooler and Ciarrochi, ‘Images in International Relations’, 410.

71 The realist perspective of Boulding on othering is discussed in the former paragraph.

72 Herrmann, Voss, Schooler and Ciarrochi, ‘Images in International Relations’, 409.

18 Secondly the model of Hermann et al. reveal a post-colonial view on othering, by defining the relative capability and cultural sophistication of the other in terms of inferiority, similarity and superiority. Herrmann et al. suggest that judgements about the cultural sophistication of the other affect estimates of the relative capability of the other.

Furthermore they point out that the capability and cultural sophistication of the other are relational concepts.

Hence the definition depends on how ‘the self’ perceives its own of capacity and cultural sophistication. At one extreme the other is perceived as inferior, if it is portrayed as needing tutelage and guidance by the superior self. And at another extreme, the other actor is referred to as superior, if it can serve as a superior example from which the inferior self could learn.

The other is perceived as similar, if the self and the other are perceived as equals.

Consequently Herrmann et al. offer a systematic model to study the relationship between the perceived distinctiveness of the other and foreign policies. They point out that for the sake of theoretical parsimony, the relative risk, gain, capability and cultural sophistication of the other are at the core of the images that constrain the available policy options of decision makers.

In addition for the sake of presentational clarity, the possible values of these variables are limited to three each; inferiority, similar, superior, opportunity to exploit, mutual gain, threat.

These images of the other’s distinctiveness should not be treated as if they literally exist in the minds of decision makers. Yet they do give some handles to study the impact of othering on foreign policies.

Hence the model of Hermann et al. offers a structural method to study and recognize the impact of othering on foreign policies. First of all defining the distinctiveness of the other in realist and post-colonialist terms offers a delimited method to understand the perceived distinctiveness between the self and the other. The resulting images offer a way to categorize the perceived distinctiveness between the self and the other. These categories make it possible to analyse and compare the relationship between othering and foreign policies in different situations - f.e. studying the difference in time or place. Secondly it should be taken into account that not all possible images of the other frequently occur. Herrmann et al. point out that it is not likely that the other is portrayed as simply being similar, while the self is genuinely placed above the other. This is also supported by De Buitrago, who underlines the oppositional

73 Herrmann, Voss, Schooler and Ciarrochi, ‘Images in International Relations’, 408.

74 Ibid., 411.

75 Ibid., 410.

76 Ibid.

19 component of differentiation by stating that most images of the other involve views and actions to place the own group above the other.

77 Reinke de Buitrago, Portaying the Other in International Relations, 17.

20

2. Method

This thesis offers an alternative perspective on Manners’ NPE model, by demonstrating the relationship between EU’s image of the distinctiveness of the Mediterranean region and EU’s neighbourhood policies between 2008 and 2012. This particular case study is examined by using two working hypotheses, which are based on the theoretical framework of this thesis.

2.1. The working hypotheses

The theoretical framework demonstrates that a definition of the impact of the perceived distinctiveness of the other on foreign policies should take into account two things; the changing nature of othering and the different theoretical perspectives on othering. Therefore this thesis will build on the work of Hermann et al, who combined realist and postcolonial insights to build a systematic model to study the impact of the perceived distinctiveness of the other on foreign policies. By adding the notion of time to the work of Herrmann et al., this thesis suggests that the perceived risk or gain the other poses to one’s own security interests at a particular period of time motivates policy choices. In addition the image of the relative capability and cultural sophistication of the other at a particular period of time determines the set of policy options available.

So based on the work of Hermann et al., this thesis will use the following two hypotheses to study the relationship between EU’s changing neighbourhood policies and EU’s changing image of the distinctiveness of the Mediterranean region;

 Hypothesis 1: The EU’s image of the relative capability and cultural sophistication of the Mediterranean region between 2008 and 2012, determines the set of policy options available within the framework of EU’s neighbourhood policies.

 Hypothesis 2: The EU’s image of the risk or gain that the Mediterranean region poses to its own security interests between 2008 and 2012, motivates EU’s policy choices within the framework of EU’s neighbourhood policies.

These two hypotheses are used as a conceptual framework for the qualitative research of this thesis. If the case study demonstrates that both hypotheses hold, this would strengthen an alternative social constructivist perspective on the NPE model.

2.2. Operationalization of the working hypotheses

In order to verify the two working hypotheses, the conceptual variables - such as the relative

risk, gain, cultural sophistication and capability of the other - are operationalized in accordance

with the model of Hermann et al. This model states that for the sake of theoretical parsimony

21 each variable can be categorized in 3 values. As a consequence, the perceived risk or gain that the Mediterranean region poses towards EU’s security interests is categorized in the following three values: threat, mutual gain or opportunity to exploit. In addition, the relative capability and cultural sophistication of the Mediterranean region is categorized by using the following three values: inferiority, similarity and superiority. To study which values are related to EU’s image of the distinctiveness of the Mediterranean region between 2008 and 2012, the two variables and six corresponding values need to be clearly defined.

The first working hypothesis is verified by looking at the relative capability and cultural sophistication of the Mediterranean region. Since Hermann et al. treat capability and cultural sophistication as relative concepts, these variables are defined in relation to the EU’s own political identity. As shown in the theoretical framework, the capability and cultural sophistication of EU’s political identity is genuinely explained by its distinct normative power.

According to the predominant NPE model, EU’s distinct political identity is based on five core norms; including peace, liberty, democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights.

This is also supported by EU’s primary sources, including article 21 of the TEU, which officially links the promotion of these values to EU’s foreign policies and action on the international scene.

Hence the political identity of the EU is genuinely perceived as having the capacity and cultural sophistication to safeguard peace, liberty, democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights.

Based on this definition of relative capability and cultural sophistication, the three values – perceived inferiority, similarity and superiority – can be recognized in the case study.

First of all the EU perceives the political identity of the Mediterranean region as inferior, if it is portrayed as lacking the capacity and cultural sophistication to life up to the same normative standards as EU’s political identity. This is for instance the case if the Mediterranean region is illustrated in need to ‘modernize’ while taking EU’s normative standards as a superior example.

Furthermore the Mediterranean region could be demonstrated in need of EU’s guidance to achieve the same normative standards. Finally exclusionary practices – i.e. conditionality - based on EU’s normative standards, show that the Mediterranean region needs to be stimulated by the EU in order to achieve the same normative standards.

Subsequently the political identity of the Mediterranean region is perceived by the EU as similar, when the same normative standards as the EU are used. Hence the other is perceived as having an equal capability and cultural sophistication as the EU to safeguard peace, liberty, democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights. As a consequence, the partnership between

78 Manners, ‘Normative power Europe’, 242.