A recent article in Le Monde Diplomatique (March 2007) about the future of Kosovo describes the pending role of the European Union (EU) in the province as that of a 'neo-colonial administration'. Journalistic accounts are of course often flavoured with hyperbolic language, and putting the prefix neo before a historically charged concept as 'colonialism' might have more political than analytic value. Yet, journalists are not the only commentators sensing change in the European air. Also Jan Zielonka, Professor of European Politics and Ralf Dahrendorf Fellow at St Anthony's College at Oxford University, sees the EU gradually transforming into an empire.
It takes him a mere 293 pages (including 100 pages of endnotes and index) to argue this clearly controversial case, a task at which he is rather successful, although the volume is not without its tensions.
Zielonka participates in two distinct debates about the EU, which he relates to one another: one on the nature of the Eastern enlargement and another on the nature of European governance. With regard to the former, he states that the 2004 wave of enlargement was essentially different from past rounds of accession because of the communist past of eight out of 10 new member states, which greatly increases the diversity of the European Union. This pertains equally to Romania and Bulgaria that joined the EU in January 2007. A second distinctive feature of this new round is the geopolitics behind it. Power concerns, although not explicitly articulated in public discourse, played an important role. After the Cold War a power vacuum appeared in Eastern Europe, which the EU was glad to fill up. The accession was negotiated and executed in an imperial fashion. At first glance, the applicant states participated in the process voluntarily, but '[t]he EU proposals and solutions were to be taken over by virtue of their place of origin and not necessarily by virtue of their substance. The applicant states' compliance was voluntary only in theory' (p. 57). The power gap between established and aspiring members was too big for the accession to be negotiated on an even par. It is the latter feature that makes Zielonka conclude that the EU is turning into an empire; hence the title of his volume. Recognizing that this assessment won't sink in easily, he is insistent that it doesn't concern a neo-Westphalian empire (cf. the former British, and the present American, dixit Zielonka) but rather a neo-medieval one. Specific for such an entity (in its ideal-typical constellation) are its 'polycentric system of government, multiple and overlapping jurisdiction, striking cultural and economic heterogeneity, fuzzy borders, and divided sovereignty' (p. v).
Obviously, the empirical reality of contemporary Europe does not fully correspond to this neo-medieval notion. However, since Zielonka introduces his concept as a Weberian ideal-type, he does not need to be distracted too much. Ideal-types typically are no objective or complete reflections of the always historically particular world out there, yet they are useful devices for perceiving the basic contours and central features of an emerging reality. The EU being an essentially moving target, Zielonka's choice of method appears particularly appropriate.
Having defined his typology, he proceeds to assess just how fit such a neo-medieval EU is to tackle the challenges ahead: economic competitiveness, democratic capacity, and foreign policy. On all three scores, he finds the neo-medieval approach more apposite than the old Westphalian one. Statist, and thus centralist, solutions can't but fail for a Union that is ever more diverse (in part due to its enlargement) and that is furthermore facing globalization.
The imperial EU that putatively emerges turns out to be self-erasing. There is indeed a central tension in Zielonka's analysis of 'the nature of the enlarged European Union'. An expanding empire and a neo-medieval system of governance both have fuzzy borders, but that is where the similarity stops. An empire has a core and a periphery. Neo-medievalism is characterized by its polycentric nature. The EU as empire imposes standards of governance through its policy of conditionality. The subsequent neo-medieval EU is described as culturally and economically heterogeneous. In Zielonka's rendition the European empire is extremely benign: it is transitory in nature; after successful completion of the accession procedure, all candidates get to sit at the decision-making table. The EU as empire turns out not to be the nature of the enlarged, but that of the enlarging European Union. To the extent that EU will continue to enlarge, possibly with Turkey, Ukraine, and even Russia, a prospect that Zielonka deems probable, his designation of the EU as an empire remains correct. Once it stops enlarging, it will however not be an empire anymore.
This tension in the book is illustrated by his discussion of the nature of foreign and security conflicts in the emerging neo-medieval international structure. They will not be conflicts over borders, writes Zielonka, but conflicts over access to and exclusion from the core. But was not the absence of a single central core, one of the defining features of the neo-medieval system?
Perhaps Zielonka is slightly too optimistic. Both the benevolent and the transient nature of EU imperialism ought to be nuanced. He spots the discursive power at play in the Eastern enlargement, which he embeds in a long history of Western antipathy towards the Eastern Other, but downplays its significance. Yet, there were real complaints in Eastern and Central Europe about their subjectivity being denied. There was a widespread sentiment of being looked down upon by the established members. At the time of Romania's and Bulgaria's accession in January 2007, there have furthermore been reports on the informal introduction of a second-class membership into the EU. Sporadic reports like these do clearly not add up to a sound analysis, but they do indicate that the EU might be more of an empire than Zielonka is willing to admit in spite of his book's provocative title. He does not sketch it himself, but a promising empirical and theoretical, some will even say normative, research agenda presents itself in this unresolved imperial/neo-medieval paradox.
Summing up, I would highly recommend students and scholars to read this original contribution to the study of the European Union. Novel times demand novel interpretations and Zielonka offers just that. From dissatisfaction with mainstream analyses of the evolving nature of an institution that he clearly holds dear, he chooses not to content himself with giving mere critique, but to offer a new conceptual lens with which to view the EU. Curiosity, if nothing else, should make observers want to look through this lens at least once. You might be surprised by what you will see.
