What do you think?
Rate this book
The European Union and its Eastern Neighbours
This book explores the EU’s relations with its eastern neighbours. Based on extensive original research – including surveys, focus-groups, a study of school essays and in-depth interviews with key people in Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Russia and in Brussels – it assesses why the EU’s initiatives have received limited legitimacy in the neighbourhood.
The European Neighbourhood Policy of 2004, and the subsequent Eastern Partnership of 2009 heralded a new form of relations with the EU’s neighbours – partnership based on joint ownership and shared values – which would complement if not entirely replace the EU’s traditional governance framework used for enlargement. These initiatives have, however, received a mixed response from the EU’s eastern neighbours. The book shows how the key elements of partnership have been forged mainly by the EU, rather than jointly, and examines the idea and application of external governance, and how this has been over-prescriptive and confusing.
The European Neighbourhood Policy of 2004, and the subsequent Eastern Partnership of 2009 heralded a new form of relations with the EU’s neighbours – partnership based on joint ownership and shared values – which would complement if not entirely replace the EU’s traditional governance framework used for enlargement. These initiatives have, however, received a mixed response from the EU’s eastern neighbours. The book shows how the key elements of partnership have been forged mainly by the EU, rather than jointly, and examines the idea and application of external governance, and how this has been over-prescriptive and confusing.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2012
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
November 24, 2014
The primary focus of this paperback is to explore the EU’s relations with its
eastern neighbours within the partnership/governance nexus. Based on extensive
sociological surveys, focus groups, a study of school essays and in-depth
interviews, the research evaluates why the EU’s initiatives have received limited legitimacy in the neighbourhood, most specifically in Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova. By offering a brief overview starting from the 2002 Wider Europe
Initiative to the 2009 Eastern Partnership, the author successfully describes that EaP doesn’t overcome the weaknesses of the ENP since the gap between the
institutions and policies of the EU27 and the EaP6 remains large. It further
perpetuates that the ambiguous notion of ‘shared values’ has now been replaced
with ‘mutual commitments’ which doesn’t change the essence.
Further, the volume asks some critically important questions why the financially and logistically strengthened policy remains unproductive, and why partner countries show no commitment or even resistance to it. In an attempt to answer this and other similar questions Korosteleva emphasizes the importance of the local needs. In order to be effective, partnership presumes both a learning process about partners’ needs and preferences. Accordingly, research unveils that the EU doesn’t have sufficient knowledge about the local circumstances. As one respondent among EU officials makes it clear, the EU may have the right intentions, but not always effective means to deliver them. Besides, Korosteleva quite rightly mentions that EaP is unclear and slow, and that EU delegations are too small to make the policy more visible on the ground. However, this neglects the local needs that make the EU approach so slow. While frontrunner countries like Ukraine and Moldova are demanding concrete deeds and actions from the EU, rather than wishy-washy rhetoric and promises, countries like Belarus prefer fewer interventions and raise the question as to why they should be dictated to and asked to change. This highlights the fact that local needs are different and must be considered properly.
Another important thesis revealed in the book is that the partnership/governance nexus being contradictory in theory, becomes even more problematic in practice. In this regard, the manuscript fairly highlights that when applied to the neighbourhood, the relationship in its current format is almost impossible to balance. Research also shows that there is a substantial misbalance between the rhetoric and action on both sides. In line with this, it is also worth mentioning that Brussels policy-makers appear confused and contradictory in defining the fundamentals of EU partnership with the neighbours which is labeled as voluntary, partner-conscious and non-binding. This implies that it is the rhetorical tensions and deficiencies, and non-binding principles of cooperation that makes the so-called ‘partnership’ fragile and ineffectual.
Next, Korosteleva in her book vividly shows that motivating the neighbours
towards painful and costly reforms without a clear sense of destination is not
compatible with unjustifiably demanding partners’ speedy conversion with the
EU-centric agenda and norms. Another valid question raised in the book that
deserves special attention is what is the point of insisting on a high level
conformity with the EU acquis if these countries are not to become full members in the foreseeable future. However, as the volume shows, the EU does make an effort to recognize problems and seeks to amend them in its relations with outsiders, which is a welcome addition. The book further continues with country specific analysis to explore the dynamics behind the governance/partnership nexus in EU relations.
The Belarusian case demonstrates that sanctions and the lack of dialogue are not appropriate and operative anymore. Instead, more communication, more
engagement and more interaction is needed. Two major arguments deserve to be
mentioned. According to the author, the EU approach is half-hearted and
bureaucratic, involving too many regulations and paperwork. Its demands are
too broad, and should be prioritized. As a result the EU should not demand
anything and should instead act in such a convincing manner that change is in
their interests. According to this viewpoint, such an approach will ultimately
make the cooperation more attractive.
The research on Ukraine illustrates that EU-Ukraine relations could be described as declaratory, binding in rhetoric, but shallow in action. Furthermore, Russia’s engagement makes the geopolitical dispute critical in EU-Ukraine relations. The volume shows how Russia is successful in taking Ukraine back into its sphere of influence by providing solid examples; that unlike the EU, Russia has no visa requirements for Ukrainian citizens; against soft criticism and uncommitted official rhetoric of the EU, Russia mostly acts with concrete engagements (Ukraine-Russia gas crisis is a good testimony to Russian’s concrete deeds, consequently leaving at least three EU countries without gas in the middle of winter 2009); unlike the EU, Russia openly interferes in Ukraine’s domestic politics to leverage election outcomes and foreign policy choices; while the Ukrainian population at large is not aware of the benefits of European integration, Russia with its pragmatic politics appears to be better positioned to offer short-term gains at discounted rates (Russia was quick to provide a 2 billion USD loan to Ukraine at a discounted rate, in contrast to years-long conditional negotiations with the IMF and the EU). Another rational argument provided by the author as a concluding remark is the fact that in the situation of economic crisis and political instability, the country would rather seek immediate gains and short-term benefits from its liaison with Russia, than consider the course of painful and socially alienating reforms that would offer association with rather than membership of the EU.
Unlike Belarus and Ukraine, the Moldovan case demonstrates a slightly different picture. Korosteleva describes the EU policy towards Moldova as inexpressive, too complex, and opaque. This is a major generalized reflection of the Moldovan diverse representatives thinking of EU politics. Focusing on the Russian interventionist role, Korosteleva further argues that whereas the EU pursues an under-resourced technocratic neighbourhood policy, Russia pursues a well-resourced geopolitical policy in Moldova. Research on Moldova reveals that no matter how enthusiastic the population and the elites may feel about Europe, when it comes to choosing between the two larger neighbours, Moldova’s ‘moral’ alignment with the EU gives way to a more pragmatic ‘allegiance’ to Russia. Thus, supporting the idea of the ancient Greek historian Thucidides, ”Great Powers will do as they might and small powers will do as they must.”
Overall, Korosteleva’s ‘The European Union and its Eastern Neighbours:
Towards a more ambitious partnership?’ is a stunning example of a book which
contains rich content with multifaceted analysis. However, the volume doesn’t
cover the eastern dimension entirely, disregarding the South Caucasus countries of strategic importance such as Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia. The inclusion of this material would have added additional value, notably with regard to the cases of Azerbaijan and Georgia. In sum, apart from some trivial irregularities (p. 22, 94) and misspellings (pp. 71, 102) this well-written book will be of value to the wider audience of readers interested in EU’s external relations, in particular the eastern neighbourhood.
eastern neighbours within the partnership/governance nexus. Based on extensive
sociological surveys, focus groups, a study of school essays and in-depth
interviews, the research evaluates why the EU’s initiatives have received limited legitimacy in the neighbourhood, most specifically in Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova. By offering a brief overview starting from the 2002 Wider Europe
Initiative to the 2009 Eastern Partnership, the author successfully describes that EaP doesn’t overcome the weaknesses of the ENP since the gap between the
institutions and policies of the EU27 and the EaP6 remains large. It further
perpetuates that the ambiguous notion of ‘shared values’ has now been replaced
with ‘mutual commitments’ which doesn’t change the essence.
Further, the volume asks some critically important questions why the financially and logistically strengthened policy remains unproductive, and why partner countries show no commitment or even resistance to it. In an attempt to answer this and other similar questions Korosteleva emphasizes the importance of the local needs. In order to be effective, partnership presumes both a learning process about partners’ needs and preferences. Accordingly, research unveils that the EU doesn’t have sufficient knowledge about the local circumstances. As one respondent among EU officials makes it clear, the EU may have the right intentions, but not always effective means to deliver them. Besides, Korosteleva quite rightly mentions that EaP is unclear and slow, and that EU delegations are too small to make the policy more visible on the ground. However, this neglects the local needs that make the EU approach so slow. While frontrunner countries like Ukraine and Moldova are demanding concrete deeds and actions from the EU, rather than wishy-washy rhetoric and promises, countries like Belarus prefer fewer interventions and raise the question as to why they should be dictated to and asked to change. This highlights the fact that local needs are different and must be considered properly.
Another important thesis revealed in the book is that the partnership/governance nexus being contradictory in theory, becomes even more problematic in practice. In this regard, the manuscript fairly highlights that when applied to the neighbourhood, the relationship in its current format is almost impossible to balance. Research also shows that there is a substantial misbalance between the rhetoric and action on both sides. In line with this, it is also worth mentioning that Brussels policy-makers appear confused and contradictory in defining the fundamentals of EU partnership with the neighbours which is labeled as voluntary, partner-conscious and non-binding. This implies that it is the rhetorical tensions and deficiencies, and non-binding principles of cooperation that makes the so-called ‘partnership’ fragile and ineffectual.
Next, Korosteleva in her book vividly shows that motivating the neighbours
towards painful and costly reforms without a clear sense of destination is not
compatible with unjustifiably demanding partners’ speedy conversion with the
EU-centric agenda and norms. Another valid question raised in the book that
deserves special attention is what is the point of insisting on a high level
conformity with the EU acquis if these countries are not to become full members in the foreseeable future. However, as the volume shows, the EU does make an effort to recognize problems and seeks to amend them in its relations with outsiders, which is a welcome addition. The book further continues with country specific analysis to explore the dynamics behind the governance/partnership nexus in EU relations.
The Belarusian case demonstrates that sanctions and the lack of dialogue are not appropriate and operative anymore. Instead, more communication, more
engagement and more interaction is needed. Two major arguments deserve to be
mentioned. According to the author, the EU approach is half-hearted and
bureaucratic, involving too many regulations and paperwork. Its demands are
too broad, and should be prioritized. As a result the EU should not demand
anything and should instead act in such a convincing manner that change is in
their interests. According to this viewpoint, such an approach will ultimately
make the cooperation more attractive.
The research on Ukraine illustrates that EU-Ukraine relations could be described as declaratory, binding in rhetoric, but shallow in action. Furthermore, Russia’s engagement makes the geopolitical dispute critical in EU-Ukraine relations. The volume shows how Russia is successful in taking Ukraine back into its sphere of influence by providing solid examples; that unlike the EU, Russia has no visa requirements for Ukrainian citizens; against soft criticism and uncommitted official rhetoric of the EU, Russia mostly acts with concrete engagements (Ukraine-Russia gas crisis is a good testimony to Russian’s concrete deeds, consequently leaving at least three EU countries without gas in the middle of winter 2009); unlike the EU, Russia openly interferes in Ukraine’s domestic politics to leverage election outcomes and foreign policy choices; while the Ukrainian population at large is not aware of the benefits of European integration, Russia with its pragmatic politics appears to be better positioned to offer short-term gains at discounted rates (Russia was quick to provide a 2 billion USD loan to Ukraine at a discounted rate, in contrast to years-long conditional negotiations with the IMF and the EU). Another rational argument provided by the author as a concluding remark is the fact that in the situation of economic crisis and political instability, the country would rather seek immediate gains and short-term benefits from its liaison with Russia, than consider the course of painful and socially alienating reforms that would offer association with rather than membership of the EU.
Unlike Belarus and Ukraine, the Moldovan case demonstrates a slightly different picture. Korosteleva describes the EU policy towards Moldova as inexpressive, too complex, and opaque. This is a major generalized reflection of the Moldovan diverse representatives thinking of EU politics. Focusing on the Russian interventionist role, Korosteleva further argues that whereas the EU pursues an under-resourced technocratic neighbourhood policy, Russia pursues a well-resourced geopolitical policy in Moldova. Research on Moldova reveals that no matter how enthusiastic the population and the elites may feel about Europe, when it comes to choosing between the two larger neighbours, Moldova’s ‘moral’ alignment with the EU gives way to a more pragmatic ‘allegiance’ to Russia. Thus, supporting the idea of the ancient Greek historian Thucidides, ”Great Powers will do as they might and small powers will do as they must.”
Overall, Korosteleva’s ‘The European Union and its Eastern Neighbours:
Towards a more ambitious partnership?’ is a stunning example of a book which
contains rich content with multifaceted analysis. However, the volume doesn’t
cover the eastern dimension entirely, disregarding the South Caucasus countries of strategic importance such as Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia. The inclusion of this material would have added additional value, notably with regard to the cases of Azerbaijan and Georgia. In sum, apart from some trivial irregularities (p. 22, 94) and misspellings (pp. 71, 102) this well-written book will be of value to the wider audience of readers interested in EU’s external relations, in particular the eastern neighbourhood.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review