BALKANIZATION AND ORIENTALIZATION? RELATIONAL THEORETHIC APROACH TO UNDERSTANDING GEODIPLOMACY OF EUROPEAN UNION’S ACCESSION PARTNERSHIPS DIPLOMACY
Abstract
This study explores the dynamics of the European Union’s overarching diplomacy of its accession partnership diplomacy within the context of the Western Balkans and the Eastern Partnership. It examines the evolving boundaries and issues spanning inseparable from new exclusions and limits-making by the Union's geodiplomacy. The focus is on its saddened shift from conducting neighbourhood partnership diplomacy to accession partnership diplomacy with Ukraine, Moldova, and potentially Georgia, and the conduct of accession partnership diplomacy with the Western Balkans over the past two and a half decades This transition has been influenced by the formation of semi-sovereign small states in the Balkans and the strategic encirclement of the region by the EU since 1997. The study also highlights recent developments since mid-2022, particularly the change in the EU’s approach towards Ukraine, Moldova, and potentially Georgia, marking a significant shift from previously denying these states the possibility of accession. This shift reflects Europe’s strategic redirection in response to evolving geopolitical rivalries, particularly with China’s “Global Modernization Order”. The research reveals an increasing complexity in EU accession partnership diplomacy, impacted by regional and global power dynamics. The focus is on contrasts between the EU’s strategies in the Eastern Partnership and the Western Balkans, emphasizing the evolving geodiplomatic context since Russia’s aggression against Ukraine on February 24, 2024. This aggression has dismantled the post-Cold War European order, necessitating a re-evaluation of the EU’s approach to its neighbouring countries. The study addresses the surprising disparities in the Union’s diplomatic engagements between the Eastern European Partnership and the Western Balkans. Despite seeming continuity, recent events challenge existing theoretical frameworks and empirical findings, requiring more profound analysis. The unexpected evolution from neighbourhood partnership diplomacy to accession partnership diplomacy with Ukraine, Moldova, and potentially Georgia calls for rethinking Europe’s geostrategic stance and implications for the EU’s enlargement policy. Findings indicate that the EU’s accession partnership diplomacy has shifted significantly due to evolving geodiplomatic realities of rivalry. The aggression of Russia against Ukraine has disrupted the previous order, leading the Union to reconsider its approach towards Eastern European neighbours. This research underscores the influence of global rivalries, particularly with China, on the EU’s diplomatic strategies. The evolving geopolitical tensions have necessitated a more nuanced approach to accession partnership diplomacy, incorporating broader global strategic considerations. Challenges related to the EU’s approach to semi-sovereign states and the balancing act required to manage internal and external relations are identified. The study suggests that the EU’s geodiplomatic strategies need to adapt to the changing global order, addressing pressures from both Western and non-Western powers. It advocates for a more flexible and adaptive approach in EU accession partnership diplomacy, highlighting the need for continued engagement with Eastern European countries and the Western Balkans while navigating the broader geopolitical landscape. In conclusion, the study argues that the EU’s accession partnership diplomacy must evolve in response to a dramatic disruption of human entanglements with nature demanding mutuality as the only relation securing the continuation of human existence on this planet. A geodiplomatic realignment is necessary to address these new realities, ensuring that the EU remains a pivotal player by reinvigorating the European integration process and shaping the future of global diplomacy.
References
Académie Française. 1798. „DIPLOMATIE“. Dictionnaire, 5e édition. Последњи приступ 11. септембар 2024. https://www.dictionnaire-academie.fr/article/A5D1284.
Adler-Nissen, Rebecca. 2015. “Just greasing the wheels? Mediating difference or the evasion of power and responsibility in diplomacy.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 10 (1): 22-28. DOI: 10.1163/1871191X-12341303.
Deudney, Daniel, and G. John Ikenberry. 1999. “The nature and sources of liberal international order.” Review of international studies 25 (2): 179-196.
Dewey, John, and Arthur Bentley. 1949. Knowing and the Known. Boston: Beacon Press.
Dépelteau, François. 2008. “Relational Thinking: A Critique of Co-Deterministic Theories of Structure and Agency.” Sociological Theory 26 (1): 51-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2008.00318.x.
Der Derian, James. 1987. On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement. Oxford, OX, UK; New York, NY, USA: B. Blackwell.
Emirbayer, Mustafa. 1997. “Manifesto for a Relational Sociology.” American Journal of Sociology 103 (2): 281-317.
Hamilton, Keith, and Richard Langhorne. [1995] 2011. The Practice of Diplomacy: Its evolution, theory and administration (Second edition). London and New York: Routledge.
Jackson, Patrick, and Daniel Nexon. 1999. “Relations before States: Substance, Process and the Study of World Politics.” European Journal of International Relations 5 (3): 291-332.
Juncker, Jean-Claude. 2016. “Speech by President Jean-Claude Juncker at the Annual General Meeting of the Hellenic Federation of Enterprises (SEV)”. Athens, 26 June 2016. Последњи приступ 12. септембар 2024. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_16_2293.
Juncker, Jean-Claude. 2018. “Speech by President Jean-Claude Juncker at the Opening Plenary Session of the Ideas Lab 2018 ‘Europe – Back on Track’ of the Centre for European Policy Studies”. European Commission. Brussels, 22 February 2018. Последњи приступ 12. септембар 2024. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_18_1121.
Keil, Sören, and Stahl, Bernhard. 2023. “8 EU enlargement in times of crisis: Strategic enlargement, the conditionality principle and the future of the “Ever-Closer Union”.” In The EU under Strain?: Current Crises Shaping European Union Politics, eds. Mechthild Roos and Daniel Schade, 155-172. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110790337-009.
Kundnani, Hans. 2022. “What is the liberal international order?” German Marshall Fund of the United States. Policy Essay No. 17. Последњи приступ 10. септембар 2024. https://blogs.clemson.edu/emerituscollege/files/2018/01/What-is-the-Liberal-International-Order.pdf.
Mahbubani, Kishore. 1992. “The West and the rest.” The National Interest 28: 3-12.
McClurg, Scott, and Joseph Young. 2011. “Editors’ Introduction: Relational Political Science.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44 (1): 39-43.
McClurg , Scott, and David Lazer. 2013. “Political Networks.” Social Networks 36 (1): 1-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.socnet.2013.09.001.
Milman, Oren, et al. 2021. “Community-level evidence for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine protection of unvaccinated individuals.” Nature medicine 27 (8): 1367-1369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01407-5.
Mische, Ann. 2011. “Relational Sociology, Culture, and Agency.” In The Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis, eds. John Scott and Peter J. Carrington, 80-97. London: Sage Publications.
Morin, Edgar, and Anne Brigitte Kern. 1999. Homeland Earth: A Manifesto for the New Millenium. New York, NY: Hampton Press.
Moynihan, Daniel Patrick. 1993. “Defining Deviancy Down.” The American Scholar 62 (1), 17-30.
Neumann, Iver B. 2005. “‘To Be a Diplomat’.” International Studies Perspectives 6 (1): 72-93.
Perliger, Arie, and Ami Pedahzur. 2011. “Social Network Analysis in the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44 (1): 45-50. doi: 10.1017/S1049096510001848.
Selg, Peeter. 2016. “Two Faces of the ‘Relational Turn.’” PS: Political Science & Politics 49 (1): 27–31. doi: 10.1017/S1049096515001195.
Scott, John and Peter J. Carrington. 2011. eds. The Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis. London: Sage Publications.
Siegel, David. 2011. “Social Networks in Comparative Perspective.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44 (1): 51–54. doi: 10.1017/S104909651000185X.
Sokhey, Anand, and Paul Djupe. 2011. “Interpersonal Networks and Democratic Politics.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44 (1): 55–59. doi: 10.1017/S1049096510001861.
von der Leyen, Ursula. 2019. “Political Guidelines for the next European Commission 2024−2029.” Strasbourg, 18 July 2019. https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683-f63ffb2cf648_en?filename=Political%20Guidelines%202024-2029_EN.pdf.
Weisbrode, Kenneth. 2023. “The Closing of the Diplomatic Mind.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Diplomatic Reform and Innovation, eds. Paul Webster Hare, Juan Luis Manfredi-Sánchez and Kenneth Weisbrode, 23-40. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Zakaria, Fareed. 2009. Post-American World and the Rise of the Rest. London: Penguin Books.