Towards a new European Neighbourhood PolicyImplications for Norway

Pernille Rieker

pr@nupi.no

2004 2015

From a “ring of friends” to a ring of fire?

Norway and the ENP

• Norway share and is directly affected by the instability in the Union’s neighbourhood

• But so far, Norway is not part of this EU policy

• What can Norway do?1. Increase our understanding of the functioning of this policy2. Search for a new role for Norway in a revised ENP

Forthcoming book

• Title : • External governance as Security community-building. Limits and

Potential of the European Neighbourhood Policy (Rieker,ed. Palgrave 2016)

• Aim : • To find out to what extent the European Neighbourhood Policy

functions as a security community building instrument

• Comparative approach:• Comparative case study of the EU’s relations to 6 partner countries

• 3 partner countries in the East: Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine • 3 in the south: Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia

• Comparative study of the Union’s approach to the East and the South

The argument/assumptions

• The EU - a regional security actor • Mechanism: security community building beyond the

EU borders• Logic: security through integration and

interdependence

• But success is dependent on• A certain level of integration/association • A certain level of domestic support (attractiveness) for

this integration/association process

Level of integration

• Dependent on • The scope of the agreements (according to the acquis)• The level of adaptation or alignment (to ENP norms/rules)

• In turn dependent on the capacity of domestic institutions to integrate

• The level of participation in EU policies

• Assumption: the higher an ENP partner country scores on these three dimensions, the more integrated it will be into the EU security community.

Level of attractiveness

• Dependent on

• Benefits in terms of financial assistance, market access, visa policy etc.

• Relative attractiveness compared to other regional actors

• Assumption: The more attractive the EU is in the partner country, the more effective it will be as a security community builder

Comparing East and South

• Concerning the level of integration:• Scope: Comprehensive AAs in both regions• Adaptation: Different requirements: alignment vs adaptation

• Common challenge: lack of capacity in the domestic institutions• Participation: Many meeting points and contribution to/participation in

EU’s policies

• Concerning the level of attraction: • In 2014, the EU was perceived slightly more positively in the south

(Morocco: 79%) than in the east (ex: Georgia: 66%)• The role of the EU is challenged buy Russia in the east, and

instability and radicalism (ISIS) in the South• Financial assistance is over all higher in the South, but

membership aspirations is still a factor in the East

What does this tell us about the ENP as an instrument for security community building?

• The current security situations in the European neighbourhood clearly illustrate the limits of ENP

• Main challenge: implementation• Both regions struggle with the capacities of the domestic

institutions to adapt or align with ENP norms and regulations

• Still, the EU’s approach towards the southern partners distinguishes itself by:• Providing a clearer message concerning the potential and limits

of the relationship with the EU• Requiring achievable goals • A slightly higher level of domestic support for EU

integration/association

The ongoing revision of the ENP

• The ENP as a distinct type of foreign policy rather than “enlargement-light”

• From a technocratic approach to a (geo)political approach?• Alignment to EU norms rather than adaptation to the

acquis• More emphasis on regional stability• More differentiation between regions and countries

A role for Norway?

• Acquire competence on the functioning of this policy

• Give priority to this region• EU and Norway – a shared neighbourhood• Stability in this region - the main foreign policy concern for the EU

• Define a role for Norway in the on-going development of a revised ENP• The EU is open for suggestions and third party involvement

• Play to the strengths of the Norwegian foreign policy

• Processes of dialogue and conflict resolution

• Competence on Russia

• Financial strength