Waning Influence? The EU as a Normative Power in Africa John Kotsopoulos (GovInn, University of Pretoria) ECPR Montreal – Panel August 2015

 What type of actor is the EU in Sub-Saharan Africa?  Account for evolution of the EU in Africa  trade and aid to political  Changing EU capacities (post Lisbon )  Changing place of Africa and the Global South  How does the EU influence its African partners  and how do they influence the EU (account for African agency)  Do interests trump values?  Rhetoric vs reality (influence of Member State interests? Trade?) 2 Introduction – Challenges and Opportunities in EU-Africa scholarship

 Two questions:  there is an inverse relationship between commitment to the promotion of normative values and the level of trade interests of the EU in a particular country or region  there is a direct relation between receiving country capacity and the reach of the EU’s normative power  Paradox? EU less likely to force normative agenda on stronger partners (e.g. SA) yet those countries have stronger institutional capacity to embrace normative agenda 3 Hypothesis

 engage the IR literature on power to better theoretically situate NPE, emphasising the “relational” dimension of power using Barnett and Duvall’s taxonomy of power and their distinction of “power to” and “power over”;  use primary research to explore how NPE is perceived in Southern Africa, both by the exponents of EU foreign policy (e.g. EEAS) and the recipient countries themselves.  ascertain the degree to which the EU actually adheres to normative policies and whether contradictions in the pursuit of EU interests, including the very imposition of European normative standards, has led to a diminution in European influence in Southern Africa. 4 Goals and originality

 Power  A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do (Dahl)  Categories of power  Rationalist/reflectivist  Ideational (attractiveness of ideas)  Relational (behaviour and perception change) 5 Power

 Concepts of power  Kinds of social relations through which power works  Power over: direct orders or threats  Power to: ability to constitute what actors are as social beings  “the specificity of social relations through which effects on actors’ capacities are produced”, which considers if power in social relations is direct (e.g the use of a gun) or indirect (e.g. influence over the structure of international institutions). (Barnett & Duvall, 2005a)Barnett & Duvall, 2005a 6 Power cont...

 Challenge of Normative power  Definition  “shape conceptions of ‘normal’ in international relations.”  Power and influence  the ability to influence the behaviour of others to get the outcomes one wants” (Nye, 2004)  Criticism  Creates hierarchies (EU at top) – EU hypocrisy w own norm compliance  Why NPE relevant?  EU explicitly styles itself as a normative power  Element of Lisbon 7 Normative Power

 What is normative power?  Passive interpretation  Descriptive – the EU “is” a normative power  Active interpretation  Normative power represents guideline for behaviour  EU diffuses norms in various ways: contagion, informational diffusion, procedural diffusion, transference, overt diffusion and cultural filters. 8 Normative Power

 Studies  Empowering Africa (Scheipers and Sicurelli 2008)  Aid and the normative principle (Bountagkidis et al 2015)  Critical works  (Realism over Idealism – Farrell 2005)  Moral Economy of Africa-EU ties – Langan 2011) 9 Normative Power in Africa

 Southern Africa Case Study  (richest->poorest: S Africa, Zambia, Malawi)  European Union  Key is to assess both the EU, its behaviour, “reflexivity”  African countries  Assess material, knowledge, identity capacities (Scheipers and Sicurelli 2008)  Ability to absorb or repell NPE 10 Case Studies

 Diplomatic channels  International Fora  e.g. EU assistance to countries at WTO  Aid and Framework agreements  National Indicative Programmes ( )  Zambia and Malawi – 3 focus sectors  TDCA + Strategic Partnership - South Africa  Cotonou (Zambia and Malawi) 11 Channels of Influence

 Capacity  Political will  Change in priorities  SA turn to Emerging markets (ideational as much as material)  EU diplomatic limitations or inconsistencies 12 Challenges to Influence

 Correlation between eco interests and behaviour?  EU behaviour does not correspond with rationalist expectations of behaviour in an asymmetrical relationship. The EU does not necessarily flex its (economic) muscle. Instead it behaves with a “logic of appropriateness” arguably guided by a sense of its normative self-image.  African agency linked to capacity – capacity has repercussion for embracement of normative agenda (EU can only be held to account for so much)  Role of individuals important – relationships at highest level can influence larger relationship  Learning? Institutional inertia but individual Delegations able to adjust to situations, promote normative agenda but within reasonable limits (have “difficult discussions”)  Normative power in the eye of the beholder? 13 Conclusion