Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

‘Moral power’ as objectification of the ‘civilian’/‘normative’ ‘EUlogy’: the European Union as a conflict-dealer in the South Caucasus

  • Article
  • Published:
Journal of International Relations and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article develops a new conceptual framework of ‘moral power’ by arguing that the ‘civilian’/‘normative’ power Europe paradigms are insufficient for understanding the essence of the conflict resolution policy of the European Union (EU) in the South Caucasus. Analysing the conflicts of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh, the study reveals that until the August 2008 war, the EU was an incoherent actor in terms of the interplay among its institutions and member-states. The EU's policy has been devoid of a long-term peace-focused strategy, making it inconsequential; as a result, the EU has merely dealt with, rather than managed, the conflicts. Its rhetoric has been inconsistent with practice. Often the EU has subordinated its values to material and power-related interests. Moreover, the EU has hardly been normatively stable in its approach to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Bypassing inclusiveness until the launch of the Geneva talks pertaining to the Abkhazian and South Ossetian conflicts, the EU has not enjoyed much legitimacy by the de facto states. Whereas the EU has largely failed to resolve the South Caucasian conflicts, it has achieved partial success by putting a halt to the 2008 hostilities between Russia and Georgia. Overall, having faltered as a ‘civilian’/‘normative’ power it still has to fare as a ‘moral power’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The term ‘de facto state’ or ‘entity’ is preferred over the frequently used ‘separatist’ or ‘breakaway’ ‘region’, ‘statelet’ or ‘satellite state’, given the rather independent administrative and political capacities developed by Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh as observed by King (2001: 525).

  2. According to the 1989 Soviet census, Abkhazia comprised around 46 per cent Georgians, 18 per cent Abkhazians, 15 per cent Armenians, 15 per cent Russians and others. The demographics in South Ossetia were as follows: approximately 66 per cent Ossetians, 29 per cent Georgians, 2 per cent Russians, 1 per cent Armenians, 0.4 per cent Jews, etc. Nagorno-Karabakh's population consisted of 76 per cent Armenian, 23 per cent Azeri, as well as Russian, Kurd, Greek and Assyrian inhabitants. The estimates of the 2003 census held in Abkhazia show that there were approximately 44 per cent Abkhazians, 21 per cent Armenians, 20 per cent Georgians, 11 per cent Russians, as well as Greeks, Jews, Ukrainians, etc.; those of 2011 indicate around 51 per cent Abkhazians, 18 per cent Georgians, 17 per cent Armenians, 9 per cent Russians and less than 1 per cent Greeks, etc. While there has not been any census conducted in South Ossetia, according to the 2005 census the Nagorno-Karabakh population consisted of about 98 per cent Armenians and less than 1 per cent Russians, Ukrainians, Azeris (http://www.ethno-kavkaz.narod.ru/, accessed 9 April, 2012).

  3. The ‘civilian’/‘normative’ and ‘ethical’ ‘power’ concepts presume proclivity towards the EU by focusing on civilian means that surpass the quantity and quality of its military ones, highlight such norms as abolition of death penalty (Manners 2002), promotion of regional cooperation and a social welfare system (Telo 2006), and affirm its own outlook, respectively. This approach, by definition, rules out a possible comparative potential. In contrast, ‘smart power America’, concocted by Armitage and Nye (2008: 56), entails possession of both ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ means, thereby, by default, making the EU inferior to the US.

  4. The terms ‘normative’ and ‘moral’ have been confounded and used interchangeably both in the EU policy discourse (European Commission 1995) and in the academic literature (Coppieters 2000).

  5. ‘Regionalisation’ — as an external endeavour to promote regional cooperation — is differentiated from ‘regionalism’ as an internally driven process (Vasilyan 2009).

  6. Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia, which has represented the de facto state in international fora, have craved the ‘self-determination’ of the Karabakh Armenians, whereas Azerbaijan has called for respect for its ‘territorial integrity’. Article 1 of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter recognises ‘self-determination of peoples’, while the subsequent Article 2 underscores ‘the territorial integrity or political independence of any state’ (United Nations 1985). Along the same lines, Chapter IV of the Helsinki Final Act stresses the ‘territorial integrity of states’, while its Chapter VIII buttresses ‘self-determination of peoples’ (Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe 1975).

  7. Georgia's Rose Revolution, led by Mikhail Saakashvili, challenged the political malpractices of President Eduard Shevardnadze's regime and pledged good governance and an unequivocal Western orientation.

  8. The Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan oil pipeline was opened in May 2005 and the Baku–Tbilisi–Erzrum gas pipeline in May 2006.

  9. This is an allusion to UN Security Council Resolutions 822, 853, 874 and 884, passed by the Security Council in 1993, urging withdrawal of Armenian forces from the ‘occupied’ territories.

  10. For the sake of comparison, the US and NATO have expressed support for Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, while Russia has favoured neutrality.

  11. Interview, DG RELEX official, 9 December, 2008, Brussels.

  12. See http://www.delgeo.ec.europa.eu/en/programmes/rehabilitation.html (accessed 15 November, 2008).

  13. The CIS was crafted by Russia to retain the bond with the newly independent states.

  14. An ad hoc delegation is composed on the basis of a proposal by a political group, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Committee on Development or Committee on International Trade. It is authorised by the Conference of Presidents and comprises seven Members of European Parliament.

  15. The three bilateral working groups were charged with issues such as energy, the return of refugees and IDPs, and the reopening of the railway between Tbilisi and Sochi.

  16. Russia has allegedly interfered in Abkhazian and South Ossetian life by investing in their economies, establishing trade and transport links, offering social services such as pensions, and meddling in electoral politics.

  17. Interview, European Parliament official, 30 July, 2009, Brussels.

  18. By forming the New Group of Friends of Georgia in February 2005, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and the Baltic states have imitated the UN Group of Friends.

  19. In 2005, the EU's gas import rate stood at 36 per cent but by 2030 over 60 per cent of the estimated 80 per cent import rate is expected to originate from Russia (http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/geopolitics-eu-energy-supply/article-142665, accessed 25 December, 2006).

  20. The six points are as follows: ‘(1) Not to resort to use of force; (2) To end hostilities definitively; (3) To provide free access for humanitarian aid; (4) Georgian military forces will have to withdraw to their usual bases, (5) Russian military forces will have to withdraw to the lines held prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Pending an international mechanism, Russian peace-keeping forces will implement additional security measures; (6) Opening of international talks on the security and stability arrangements in Abkhazia and South Ossetia’.

  21. These variations in ‘tone’ are as follows: the EU's Central and Eastern European member-states have been more critical of Russian activities in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Georgia proper than their Western peers; at the institutional level, the Parliament has been more disapproving of Russia than the Council, with the Commission falling in between.

  22. European companies hold a large part of the shares of the Baku–Ceyhan pipeline consortium. BP has 30.1 per cent, French TotalFinaElf and ENI Italy each have 5 per cent. The European share-holders of the Baku–Erzrum pipeline consortium are BP (25.5 per cent), TotalFinaElf (10 per cent) and Italian Agip, acting in partnership with Russian Lukoil (10 per cent). BP possesses 34.1 per cent of shares in the Azeri–Chirag–Guneshli oil field and 25.5 per cent in the Shah Deniz gas field (of which TotalFinaElf and LUKAgip also have 10 per cent each).

  23. The OSCE mission to Georgia expired in December 2008 as Russia blocked its extension.

  24. Whereas the US did not offer any direct support to Tbilisi, NATO (obviously with American endorsement) allowed the emergency return of the Georgian troops serving in Iraq to Georgia. It also sent military vessels to the Black Sea under the pretext of delivering humanitarian aid.

  25. Interview, European Parliament official, 30 July, 2009, Brussels.

  26. To counterbalance France, admonished by Azerbaijan as a biased mediator because of its Armenian diaspora, in 1997 the US joined as a third co-chair. Ironically, the latter has also been criticised by Baku on the same grounds.

  27. Interview, European Parliament official, 27 May, 2009, Brussels.

  28. The US has adopted the same policy vis-à-vis the initiative.

  29. The mandates were updated by the Council Joint Actions of 8 December, 2003; 28 June, 2004; 2 February, 2005; 20 February, 2006; 18 February, 2008; and 13 October, 2008.

  30. Interview, DG RELEX official, 9 December, 2008, Brussels.

  31. The objections by the EU and/or US have been neglected; Georgia, Turkey and Azerbaijan proceeded with the construction.

  32. The Nabucco project was initiated in June 2004 by Austria, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and the EU potential candidate Turkey.

  33. The former envisages simultaneous agreement on all the contentious issues; the latter implies consideration of the status issue after the withdrawal of the armed forces, return of the IDPs and the lifting of the Azerbaijani and Turkish blockades against Armenia.

References

  • Aggestam, Lisbeth (2008) ‘Introduction: Ethical Power Europe?’ International Affairs 84 (1): 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage, Richard L. and Joseph S. Nye (2008) ‘Afterword: Election ’08, Smart Power ’09’, in Carola McGiffert and Craig Cohen, eds, Global Forecast: The Top Security Challenges of 2008, 55–58, Washington DC: Centre for Strategic and International Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bicchi, Federica (2006) ‘ “Our Size Fits All”: Normative Power Europe and the Mediterranean’, Journal of European Public Policy 13 (2): 286–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, John (1993) ‘Conflict Resolution as a Political System’, Fairfax: Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, Working Paper 1.

  • Cheteryan, Vicken (2003) Malye voiny i bol'shaya igra, Yerevan: Caucasus Media Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, Thomas (2001) ‘Intra-Institutional Politics and Inter-Institutional Relations in the EU: Towards Coherent Governance?’ Journal of European Public Policy 8 (5): 747–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppieters, Bruno (2000) ‘Western Security Policies and the Georgian Abkhazian Conflict’, in Bruno Coppieters, David Darchiashvili and Natella Akaba, eds, Federal Practice: Exploring Alternatives for Georgia and Abkhazia, 21–58, Brussels: VUB University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (2003) A Secure Europe is a Better World: European Security Strategy, Brussels: Council of the European Union.

  • Council of the European Union (2009) ‘Joint Declaration of the Prague Eastern Partnership Summit’, 8435/09 (Presse 78), Prague, Czech Presidency of the European Union.

  • Dempsey, Judy (2008) ‘Russia Offers Warm Welcome to German Foreign Minister’, The New York Times (14 May), http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/world/europe/14iht-germany.4.12892951.html?_r=0, (accessed 10 April, 2013).

  • De Waal, Thomas (2003) Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War, New York and London: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diez, Thomas and Michelle Pace (2007) ‘Normative Power Europe and Conflict Transformation’, paper presented at the European Union Studies Association Tenth Biennial International Conference, 17–19 May, Montreal, Canada.

  • Doyle, Michael W. and Nicholas Sambanis (2000) ‘International Peacebuilding: A Theoretical and Quantitative Analysis’, The American Political Science Review 94 (4): 779–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duchene, Francois (1973) ‘The European Community and the Uncertainties of Interdependence’, in Max Kohnstamm and Wolfgang Hager, eds, A Nation Writ Large? Foreign-Policy Problems before the European Community, Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (1995) ‘Communication from the Commission: Towards a European Union Strategy for Relations with the Transcaucasian Republics’, COM(95) 205 final, Brussels: European Commission.

  • European Commission (1999a) The European Union and the Republic of Armenia, Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, Brussels: European Commission.

  • European Commission (1999b) The European Union and the Republic of Azerbaijan, Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, Brussels: European Commission.

  • European Commission (1999c) The European Union and the Republic of Georgia, Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, Brussels: European Commission.

  • European Commission (1999d) Bulletin EU 6-1999, Brussels: European Commission.

  • European Commission (2004) ‘Communication from the Commission: European Neighbourhood Policy: Strategy Paper’, COM(2004) 373 final, Brussels: European Commission.

  • European Commission (2006a) EU/Armenia Action Plan, Brussels: European Commission.

  • European Commission (2006b) EU/Azerbaijan Action Plan, Brussels: European Commission.

  • European Commission (2006c) EU/Georgia Action Plan, Brussels: European Commission.

  • European Commission (2007) ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Black Sea Synergy — A New Regional Cooperation Initiative’, COM(2007) 160 final, Brussels: European Commission.

  • European Commission (2011) European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument Georgia National Indicative Programme 2011–2013, Brussels: European Commission.

  • European Parliament (2002) ‘Report on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the European Union's Relations with the South Caucasus, under the Partnership and Cooperation Agreements’, COM(1999) 272 – C5-0116/1999–1999/2119(COS), Brussels: European Parliament.

  • European Parliament (2006) ‘Briefing Note on the ‘Frozen Conflicts’ in the South Caucasus, the General Situation in the Region and Its EU-relations’, DGExPo/B/PolDep/Note/2006_026 [PE N 366.180], 23 February, 2006, Brussels: European Parliament.

  • Fearon, James D. and David D. Laitin (2003) ‘Ethnicity, Insurgency and Civil War’, American Political Science Review 97 (1): 75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helly, Damien and Giorgi Gogia (2005) ‘Georgian Security and the Role of the West’, in Bruno Coppieters and Robert Legvold, eds, Statehood and Security: Georgia after the Rose Revolution, 271–305, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyde-Price, Adrian (2006) ‘Normative Power Europe: A Realist Critique’, Journal of European Public Policy 13 (2): 217–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Crisis Group (2006) ‘Conflict Resolution in the South Caucasus: The EU's Role’, Tbilisi/Brussels: International Crisis Group, Europe Report 173.

  • International Crisis Group (2008) ‘Georgia and Russia: Clashing over Abkhazia’, Tbilisi/Brussels: International Crisis Group, Europe Report 193.

  • Jupille, James and Joseph Caporaso (1998) ‘States, Agency and Rules: The European Union in Global Environmental Politics’, in Carol Rhodes, ed, The European Union in the World Community, 213–29, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, Charles (2001) ‘The Benefits of Ethnic War: Understanding Eurasia's Unrecognised States’, World Politics 53 (4): 524–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacFarlane, Neil S. (1997) ‘Democratization, Nationalism and Regional Security in the Southern Caucasus’, Government and Opposition 32 (3): 399–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manners, Ian (2002) ‘Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?’ Journal of Common Market Studies 40 (2): 235–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manners, Ian (2006) ‘Normative Power Europe Reconsidered: Beyond the Crossroads’, Journal of European Public Policy 13 (2): 182–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaidis, Kalypso and Robert Howse (2002) ‘‘This is my EUtopia …’: Narrative as Power’, Journal of Common Market Studies 40 (4): 767–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (1975) Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe Final Act, Helsinki: Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

  • Patten, Chris and Anna Lindh (2001) ‘Resolving a Frozen Conflict: Neither Russia nor the West Should Try to Impose a Settlement on the Southern Caucasus’, Financial Times (20 February).

  • Petrosyan, David (2006) ‘Nepriznannye gosudarstva Kavkaza: tendentsii razvitiya [Unrecognised States of the Caucasus: Trends of Development]’, in Alexander Iskandaryan, ed. Kavkaz: Ezhegodnik Kavkazskogo Instituta [Caucasus: Yearbook of the Caucasus Media Institute], 190–291, Yerevan: Caucasus Media Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popescu, Nicu (2007) ‘Europe's Unrecognised Neighbours: The EU in Abkhazia and South Ossetia’, Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels, Working Document 260.

  • Regan, Patrick M. (1996) ‘Conditions of Third Party Intervention in Intra-State Conflicts’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution 40 (2): 336–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, Patrick M. (2000) ‘Substituting Policies during US Interventions in Internal Conflicts: A Little of This, a Little of That’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution 44 (1): 90–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, Patrick M. and Daniel Norton (2005) ‘Greed, Grievance, and Mobilization in Civil Wars’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution 49 (3): 319–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, Patrick M. and Allan C. Stam (2000) ‘In the Nick of Time: Conflict Management, Mediation Timing, and the Duration of Interstate Disputes’, International Studies Quarterly 44 (2): 239–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roe, Paul (1999) ‘The Intrastate Security Dilemma: Ethnic Conflict as a “Tragedy” ’, Journal of Peace Research 36 (2): 183–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sambanis, Nicholas (2000) ‘Partition as a Solution to Ethnic War: An Empirical Critique of the Theoretical Literature’, World Politics 52 (4): 437–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sambanis, Nicholas (2001) ‘Do Ethnic and Nonethnic Civil Wars Have the Same Causes? A Theoretical and Empirical Inquiry’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution 45 (3): 259–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjursen, Helen (2006a) ‘What Kind of Power?’ Journal of European Public Policy 13 (2): 169–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjursen, Helen (2006b) ‘The EU as a “Normative” Power: How Can This be?’ Journal of European Public Policy 13 (2): 235–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Telo, Mario (2006) Europe: A Civilian Power? European Union, Global Governance, World Order, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonra, Ben (2011) ‘Democratic Foundations of EU Foreign Policy: Narratives and the Myth of EU Exceptionalism’, Journal of European Public Policy 18 (8): 1190–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (1985) Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice, New York: United Nations Publications.

  • Vasilyan, Syuzanna (2007) ‘The EU as a “Civilian” and “Normative” Power: Connotational Meanings from Outside’, paper presented at the European Union Studies Association Tenth Biennial International Conference, 17–19 May, Montreal, Canada.

  • Vasilyan, Syuzanna (2009) ‘The EU's Ambitious Regionalisation of the South Caucasus’, in Philippe De Lombaerde and Michael Schulz, eds, The Makability of Regions: The EU and World Regionalism, 205–21, Farnham, England: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasilyan, Syuzanna (2010a) ‘A Cacophony: The EU's Security Policy towards the South Caucasus’, in Karen Henderson and Carol Weaver, eds, EU Policy in the Black Sea Region, 87–107, Farnham, England: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasilyan, Syuzanna (2010b) ‘The “European” “Neighbourhood” “Policy”: A Holistic Account’, in David Bailey and Uwe Wunderlich, eds, Handbook on the European Union and Global Governance, 177–87, London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasilyan, Syuzanna (2011a) ‘Dizygotic Twins: The EU and US Promoting Democracy in the South Caucasus’, in Scott N. Romaniuk, ed., Competing Powers: Security in the Wider Black Sea Region, 120–63, Saarbrucken, Germany: LAP Lambert.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasilyan, Syuzanna (2011b) ‘The External Legitimacy of the European Union (EU) in the South Caucasus’, European Foreign Affairs Review 16 (3): 341–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter, Barbara F. (1999) ‘Designing Transitions from Civil War: Demobilization, Democratization, and Commitments to Peace’, International Security 24 (1): 127–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter, Barbara F. (2003) ‘Explaining the Intractability of Territorial Conflict’, International Studies Review 5 (4): 137–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I extend gratitude to the three anonymous reviewers, the editors of JIRD and Friedrich Kratochwil for their valuable comments on the latest drafts of the article. The conversations with Elena Calandri and Leonardo Asta have been inspiring. The earliest version benefited from comments by Hendrik Vos and Jan Orbie.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Political Science and International Affairs, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, American University of Armenia, Baghramyan Ave. 40, Yerevan, 0019, Armenia

    Syuzanna Vasilyan

Authors
  1. Syuzanna Vasilyan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vasilyan, S. ‘Moral power’ as objectification of the ‘civilian’/‘normative’ ‘EUlogy’: the European Union as a conflict-dealer in the South Caucasus. J Int Relat Dev 17, 397–424 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2013.10

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2013.10

Keywords

Search

Navigation