EUropean space making in the ‘Wild East’ : An inquiry into the enactment of geostrategies in the Moldova-Ukraine borderland through EUBAM
Keywords
Loading...
Authors
Issue Date
2011-06
Language
en
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Within current (geographical) academic debate, there coexists a wide range of visions on the
question how the contemporary geopolitical development of the European Union (EU) at and
beyond its external borders should be conceptualized. Most of these theoretical perspectives are
inspired by and based on the activities the EU is enacting in and the relationships it is developing
with countries in its ‘near abroad’, first and foremost in the light of the European Neighbourhood
Policy (ENP). This particular policy framework has been developed with the objective to ‘avoid
drawing new dividing lines in Europe’, and to bring ‘prosperity, security and stability’ to both the
EU as well as to its ‘ring of friends’.
This thesis aims at making a further contribution to the discussion. By looking at a specific
case, which is part of the ENP framework (in the form of EUBAM, see below), it is hoped that the
contemporary ‘stock of knowledge’ on the geopolitical development of the EU at and beyond its
external borders will get even richer and more diverse than it already is. After giving an overview of
the current state of affairs when it comes to theorizing the role the EU has to play in ‘the wider
European space’, summarizing some of the most prominent views (which can all more or less be
placed under the heading of ‘critical geopolitics’), a more concrete and specific theoretical
perspective is selected and further elaborated on. This theoretical perspective consists of the
framework as developed by Christopher S. Browning and Pertti Joenniemi, who are, in turn, to a
large degree inspired by the work of William Walters.
Browning and Joenniemi note that, when it comes to conceptualizing the geopolitical
development of the EU, scholars often turn to (one of) three models, in the form of the
‘Westphalian’, the imperial and the neomedieval conceptualization of the EU. Despite the fact that
these models represent and summarize quite a wide range of perspectives, it is argued that they lack
a certain dynamism, and that their application can easily result in their reification and the
simplification of obviously a very multi-facetted and complex process. For this reason, these
scholars have attempted to overcome the limitations of the models by combining and integrating
them with the work of William Walters. Walters has identified a number of ‘border geostrategies’,
which can be considered as discourses on how the EU perceives the space at and beyond its own
outside borders; they are to be viewed as certain ‘spatial imaginations’, normative visions on how the
‘wider European territory’ should be organized, controlled and thought of. More specifically, Walters
makes a distinction between four border geostrategies, in the form of the ‘limes’, the ‘colonial
frontier’, the ‘march’ and the ‘networked (non)border’.
Up to this point, the combined framework has only been applied to draw some very general
conclusions on the geopolitical development of the EU, without any specific cases being analyzed
into detail using this particular perspective. It is, however, certainly possible to identify a number of
highly interesting and special cases of the EU enacting certain border practices, with particular
underlying and guiding discourses oriented towards, indeed, organizing and changing the space of its
‘near abroad’. One of these interesting cases is formed by EUBAM, an EU border mission in
Moldova and Ukraine, which started in 2005 at the joint request of the presidents of Moldova and
Ukraine. In essence, the goal of the mission is to, in cooperation with a wide range of ‘implementing
partners’, improve the border controls between these two countries. One of the aspects making this
specific EUBAM mission quite a special case, is the fact that both Moldova and Ukraine are both
non-EU countries. For this reason, for instance Luiza Bialasiewicz argues the EU now has a say over
what she labels ‘a remote control border’, with the EU being able to organize the Moldova-Ukraine
border space from a distance. Another aspect worth mentioning is formed by the ‘Transnistrian
situation’, which also gives the EUBAM mission a unique dimension. These and other relevant
aspects will be worked out and commented on in this thesis.
Through a discursive analysis of both textual data (the 2011 edition of the so-called ‘Action Plan’
and the ‘Press Pack 2011’ are selected) and some visual materials (maps, logos, pictures), both found
on the website of the mission, it is attempted to gain an insight into the geostrategies that form the
heart the EUBAM mission, i.e. the specific ways in which the EU, through EUBAM, presents the
Moldova-Ukraine borderland and how it attempts to organize and change this particular space. On
this basis, in turn, it is possible to draw further conclusions on the value of the three geopolitical
models. In addition, attention is paid to the actual results of the mission, the ‘on the ground’ impact
up to this point. With this, the specific goal of this thesis can be formulated as follows:
The goal of the research is to gain further insight into and make a contribution to the debate
on the (new) geopolitical ways in which the EU is attempting to manage and influence the
space in its direct ‘neighbourhood’ and the related changing nature of the EU’s external
borders
By
Performing an analysis of both the presentation and the impact of the geostrategies that are
being used with the enactment of EUBAM, as a geopolitical policy instrument of the EU,
applied in the border region between Ukraine and Moldova.
On the basis of a ‘deconstructive’ analysis, it is argued that there is actually quite a lot more to the
EUBAM mission than ‘just’ improving the border controls between the involved countries. Actually,
although some clearly play a more prominent role than others, it is possible to identify at least
glimpses of each of the geostrategies when analyzing both the textual data as well as the visual
materials. With this, it can be stated that EUBAM is a multi-geostrategy construction. Also, it is
highlighted that the actual, on the ground activities of EUBAM not always fully coincide with the
discursive tone with which the mission is presented to the outside world. Furthermore, it is
concluded that the models remain important when it comes to fully capture and conceptualize the
evolving nature of EU geopolitics (mainly when it comes to describing the organisation of the
mission), although also this case shows the problems arising when dogmatically clinging to one
specific, individual model.
Concerning the actual impact the mission has had up to now, it is argued that social benefits can
clearly be identified, the main example of which is probably the progress that has made when it
comes to cutting crime in the Transnistrian region, especially (the detection of) smuggling. There
remain, however, some serious challenges for the future, which, in order to be able to tackle them,
require the full effort and commitment of all actors involved.
Finally, it is recommended that further research needs to be conducted, not only when it comes to
EUBAM and its progress over time, but also on other activities the EU is enacting in its ‘near
abroad’. By doing so, it is possible to gain a better understanding of the direct and indirect impact of
such projects, as well as a better insight into the most appropriate ways to theorize the EU’s
geopolitical development. Only by subjecting a wide range of cases to critical scrutiny, a more wellinformed
scientific insight into such a complex, multidimensional and dynamic process can be
developed.
Description
Citation
Supervisor
Faculty
Faculteit der Managementwetenschappen