Civilian or Military Power?

European Foreign Policy in Perspective

Helene Sjursen

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781317998006
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This text critically examines the belief that the EU not only has an impact on the international system but also a 'normative', 'civilian' and 'civilizing' power. The contributors question whether this assertion fits with the empirical record or is merely based on anecdotal evidence and whether there is a theoretical basis for the expectation of a 'normative' or 'civilizing' power. Moving the research agenda forward, the book establishes criteria and assessment standards for examining the EU's international role and its putative normative dimension. Such an endeavour is particularly important against the backdrop of recent developments in European security and defence. The acquisition of military means, or the EU's ambition to acquire such means, might weaken at least the argument that the EU is a 'civilian' power and could provoke a shift towards a policy more akin to traditional 'great powers.'

This book was previously published as a special issue of the Journal of European Public Policy.

What kind of power?

Helene Sjursen¹

INTRODUCTION

In the past decade the view of the European Union (EU) as a relevant and important international actor has gained increasing acceptance. The EU is the world’s largest trading power as well as a major donor of humanitarian assistance and development aid. This, together with the fact that it is gradually building capabilities in security and defence, does indeed make it difficult to neglect the EU’s international role. Consequently, whereas much attention was traditionally paid to the question of whether or not there is such a thing as a European foreign policy (Bull 1982; Hoffmann 2000), analysis now tends to ask what characterizes this European foreign policy. In this context, a number of authors have stressed the ‘particularity’ of the EU. In developing their argument, they often build on François Duchêne’s (1972) conception of the EU as a ‘civilian’ power. According to Duchêne, the particularity of the EU’s international role is linked to the ‘nature’ of the polity itself. In his view, the EU’s strength and novelty as an international actor is based on its ability to extend its own model of ensuring stability and security through economic and political rather than military means. A number of authors have picked up on this idea and developed it further. What they have in common is an interest in a putative normative dimension to the EU’s foreign and security policy (Rosencrance 1998; Whitman 1998; Stavridis 2001; Smith 2000; Manners 2002; Delcourt 2003; Aggestam 2004; Diez 2004; Light-foot and Burchell 2005). The argument in this literature tends to be that the EU is distinguished from other actors because it is not only a civilian power (in the sense that it does not have military instruments at its disposal) but (also) a normative, civilizing or ethical power within the international system.

On the one hand, the conception of the EU as a normative/civilizing power has provided a fruitful avenue for research, which has moved the agenda a step forward. It has not only taken the debate beyond the often rather sterile discussion on whether or not the EU ‘actually’ has a foreign policy, but it has also gone further than the more policy-oriented studies, which assess the strengths and weaknesses of institutional arrangements and their consequences for policy effectiveness. It raises different and important questions about the foreign policy of the EU and the role this actor – which is less than a state and more than an international organization – can and does play in international relations. Many of the observations about the EU’s putative ‘normative’ power also connect to broader debates in international relations and foreign policy. They have particular relevance for the discussion of the evolution of the international system towards a post-Westphalian order where state sovereignty is constrained through legal developments beyond the nation state.

On the other hand, such descriptions of the EU also raise a number of new questions. The conception of the EU as a ‘normative’, ‘ethical’ and particularly a ‘civilizing’, power is contested – not least because this conception is very similar to that used by EU officials when describing the EU’s international role. This leaves researchers vulnerable to the charge of being unable to distinguish between their own sympathy for the European project and their academic role as critical analysts. In order to assess if such conceptualizations of the EU are simply co-optations of the agenda of those in power, it is important to investigate whether these claims fit with the empirical record or are merely based on anecdotal evidence. More fundamentally, however, analyses should contribute to a better grasp of the nature of the EU’s external policies as well as the ‘nature of the beast’ itself (Risse-Kappen 1996). In order to contribute to such an endeavour, we have sought to address the following three questions:

1 What would be the criteria for identifying a ‘normative/civilian/civilizing’ power?

2 How can we theoretically account for the putative existence of the EU as such a power?

3 Does the argument that the EU is a ‘normative/civilian/civilizing’ power hold up to systematic empirical investigation?

It is even more pertinent to ask such questions against the backdrop of recent developments in European security and defence. These are not only relevant with regard to the development of EU military capabilities. It is also important to ask if the EU is, or has been, a ‘normative’ power in other fields. Examples include international trade, issues of global economic justice, the environment and the EU stance when defending the interests of its agricultural producers. However, the prospect of military power dramatizes the question. It also raises the issue of the extent to which the putative particularity of EU foreign policy is linked to the instruments at its disposal or is due to other factors as well. For example, the establishment of military capabilities is often seen as signalling the EU developing towards a state-like entity and, as a result, possibly losing some of the particularities that are assumed to make it a ‘normative’ power.

Consequently, this is a particularly important point to re-examine the argument. Developments in the direction of autonomous EU military capabilities have been considerable in recent years. On 31 March 2003, the EU launched its first military mission, Operation Concordia. In June 2003 this was followed by the United Nations’ (UN) request for assistance from the EU in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The ensuing Operation Artemis further confirmed the impression of the EU’s capacity to deliver in the military field. At the Thessalonica European Council in June 2003, the EU declared the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) operational for the full spectrum of Petersberg tasks. The EU has developed its own security strategy and is expanding its concept of battle forces to further enhance its military capabilities.

Furthermore, the argument has gained particular actuality in the context of transatlantic disagreements. A key issue here concerns the supposed differences of approach by the United States (US) and the EU/European states to (normative) questions such as the legitimate conditions for the use of military force and, more generally, how to deal with current security challenges such as international terrorism. The EU is often described as a ‘normative’ or ‘ethical’ power in contrast to the US. Yet many would argue that US foreign policy is at least as normatively driven and infused by moral argumentation as the EU. How can this be?

Several of the contributors here use these developments in security and defence as a springboard for their analyses. The acquisition of military means, or the EU’s ambition to acquire such means, might weaken at least the argument that the EU is a ‘civilian’ power. It could provoke a shift, making EU policy more akin to that of traditional ‘great powers’. It raises questions about whether the EU can be considered a ‘normative’ or ‘civilizing’ power.

DEFINING AND ACCOUNTING FOR ‘NORMATIVE/CIVILIAN’ POWER EUROPE

Much remains to be done in terms of finding a satisfactory theoretical basis from which to examine the argument that the EU is a ‘normative/civilian/civilizing’ power.

The need for theory

The concept itself requires some disentangling. Often, it seems to rest simply on the rather vague notion that the EU is ‘doing good’ in the international system. This notion is built on three core claims. Firstly, as already noted, it contains a claim about the EU being a different and even novel kind of power in the international system. Often, there is an implicit comparative element pointing to the role of states and in particular great powers in international affairs as distinct from that of the EU. Secondly, this difference or novelty is considered to consist in the EU’s pursuit of the spread of norms and values and/or an emphasis on nonmilitary instruments in foreign policy. This can be seen, it is argued, through the fact that the EU has traditionally disposed of only non-military instruments in international affairs, and is considered to have a preference for ‘carrots’ rather than ‘sticks’ in dealing with third countries. It tends to promote multilateral solutions, to aim for conflict prevention and negotiation rather than enforcement; it encourages regional co-operation and stresses the importance of principles of democracy and human rights. Thirdly, the two previous claims about EU foreign policy are seen as being linked to the type of organization or polity that the EU is, but it is not quite clear what aspect of the polity is regarded as most important in this respect. Sometimes the ‘normative’ dimension in the EU’s external policy seems linked to the conception of the EU as a ‘post-Westphalian’ entity in which there is no single authority, where territorial sovereignty is no longer crucial, and where borders are ‘fuzzy’. At other times, the emphasis is more specifically on the organizational character of the EU (i.e. the particular mix of supranational and international elements) and the decision-making process. Elsewhere, the particular values and principles that constitute the EU are highlighted. In order to investigate the empirical relevance of the conceptualization of the EU as a ‘normative’, ‘civilizing’, ‘civilian’ power, we need a clearer definition. We need to be sure both of what it is and what it is not.

However, the problem is not only that there is a certain vagueness concerning the specific characteristics of the EU’s putative ‘normative’ or ‘civilizing’ power. At a more fundamental level, one might question the meaningfulness of the concept as such. If power is, as it is usually defined, the ability to make others do what they would not otherwise do, the concept of normative power appears a contradiction in terms. ‘Power’ alludes to ‘coercion’; ‘normative’ alludes to ‘legitimacy’. How do we know that the EU’s use of – normative – power is legitimate, as is implied in this concept? And how can we account for a normative dimension to the EU’s international role? The argument is under-theorized and another concept may be more appropriate. In short, what is needed in order to assess the nature of the EU’s foreign and security policy is meticulous empirical research, based on well-developed criteria and indicators within a broadened theoretical frame of reference. In order to address these concerns, much may be gained from normative theory and from sociological insights into modern politics.

The need for critical standards

Foreign policy-makers face normative dilemmas every day. Thus, it is a paradox that most of the theorizing about foreign policy is focused on tools that from the very outset of the analysis exclude the possibility that normative considerations have influenced decisions and processes. It is not at all clear that the need for parsimony or simplicity is a satisfactory reason for doing so. When it comes to claims about the EU as a ‘normative’, ‘civilian’ or ‘civilizing’ power, it would seem that the very nature of the argument calls for theories that take the normative dimension in international affairs and foreign policy seriously. This is so even if one doubts from the outset the reality as well as the validity of norms. If we do not have a conceptual apparatus that allows us to at least theoretically account for their possible relevance, such doubts will simply turn into self-fulfilling prophecies.

This should not be interpreted as a call, or a desire, for normative theory of the type prescribing, or seeking to define, what ‘ought to be done’. Rather, what is needed is a theory that can deal with the criticism that the ‘normative’ power argument is simply apologetic and uncritical. To some, the ‘solution’ is to return to the realist perspective and to (re-)introduce the concept of ‘power’ in order to produce a more ‘realistic’ analysis of political processes (Hyde-Price 2006). However, this would only work if power in any shape or form, even that exercised within the legal bounds of a liberal democratic Rechtstaat, is seen as based purely on will without further justification. A better solution would be to establish explicit normative standards. It is only if we are clear regarding the basis on which criticisms are made, that normative claims may be critically assessed and vindicated – or rejected. This also makes it possible to discuss whether or not the standards themselves are the correct ones, hence linking in with normative political theory.

A broadened theoretical frame of reference

However, we also need to be able to account for the influence of norms on (the EU’s) political processes. In other words, we need to find a plausible theoretical explanation for the EU’s putative ‘normative’, ‘ethical’ or ‘civilian’ characteristics – to capture the important undergrowth of norms in the international system and its potential relevance for and influence on political processes. Basic sociological insights have taught us that common norms, values and social conventions are at the basis of a stable social order. It is such common understandings, established through intersubjective processes of communication, that keep society together. Norms and preferences are not exogenous to the social order, but developed in a social and cultural context. And norms are not mere ‘oughts’. They are rooted in practice – through socialization and internalization processes – and as such they have behavioural consequences even in the absence of external sanctions (cf. Durkheim 1973; Weber 1978). These insights have also filtered through to and been recognized in the international relations literature (Finnemore 1996; Katzenstein 1996; Adler 1997; Wendt 1999) and the literature on European integration (Christiansen et al. 1999; Risse 2004).

Applying this to the study of the EU’s foreign and security policy, it could signify that understanding how the EU can be a ‘normative’ or ‘civilian’ power requires us to study how it inserts itself into an existing normative order. Alternatively, a ‘normative’ power EU could be one that pursues policies that are considered appropriate given its particular role or identity (for example, as representative of the member states or of a particular idea of ‘Europe’) (March and Olsen 1989, 1998). Analyses with such starting points are indeed likely to provide new and important insights into developments in the EU’s foreign policy and international role. They would contribute to a better understanding both of how the EU might be constituted by norms, and why it pursues norms in its external policies.

However, it is one thing to interpret a tradition and act in accordance with it. It is quite a different matter to be able to criticize this same tradition and work towards changing or transforming it. The literature on the EU as a ‘normative’ or ‘civilian’ power is ambiguous regarding which of these roles the EU is considered to play. Sometimes it seems to suggest that the EU not only interprets and/or writes itself into a given normative context or order, but also that it challenges this order and the norms that constitute it. In fact, in so far as the EU’s ‘normative’ dimension is linked to the idea of the EU as a ‘particular’, ‘novel’ or ‘different’ actor, this would suggest that it breaks with the established normative order. If we are to account for a ‘normative’ power that actually contributes to shape norms and rules at the international level, a theory that both takes the putative normative dimension to political processes seriously and considers norms to have a rational basis is useful (Eriksen and Weigård 2003). We would need to be able to identify the mechanism that could explain this ‘norm-shaping’. This can be done by conceiving of the EU as an actor capable of ‘criticiz[ing] the norms that [it is] socialized under, and [of] choos[ing] different modes of action from what [it is] expected to and used to’ (Eriksen 1999: 226). This takes us further in terms of understanding not only the influence of norms, but also why the EU might respect certain norms – or consider certain norms as valid – as well as why it would put less emphasis on others. By providing an account of the validity of norms, clearer theoretical underpinnings for the ‘normative’ power argument are established.

This discourse theoretical path is pursued by several of the contributors here (Eriksen 2006; Mitzen 2006; Sjursen 2006). From this perspective, political orders are not only practical arrangements, held together through ‘mutual agreement about their advantageousness or through the use of coercive power’ (Eriksen and Weigård 1997: 224–5). Social orders are normatively integrated and norms are held to be autonomous sources of motivation owing their validity to their impartial justification – meaning that they can be defended in an open, fre...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• 1 What kind of power?
• 2 Normative power Europe reconsidered: beyond the crossroads
• 3 The democratic control of military power Europe
• 4 ‘Normative’ power Europe: a realist critique
• 5 The EU as a ‘normative’ power: how can this be?
• 6 The EU – a cosmopolitan polity?
• 7 Anchoring Europe’s civilizing identity: habits, capabilities and ontological security
• 8 ‘Our size fits all’ normative power Europe and the Mediterranean
• 9 Normative by nature? The role of coherence in justifying the EU’s external human rights policy
• 10 Comment: Crossroads or cul-de-sac? Reassessing European foreign policy
• Index