1. From Walls to Fences: Understanding Europe’s New East –West Divide Joan DeBardeleben Institute of European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies Carleton University, Ottawa

2. Something there is that doesn’t love a wall... He [my neighbour] says again, ‘Good fences make good neighbors.’ Excerpted from Robert Frost, Mending Wall

3. Explanations of fluctuations in EU-Russian relations 1. Values and norms 2. Conflicting interests 3. Governance structures

4. 1. Values and Norms  The nature of the purported values clash  Mass and elite values (do they differ?)  The power context (Is it about values or about power?  Is Russia a European country?  Values vs. their application  EU as normative actor? Russian resistance to EU’s export of its value positions  Values and market economics (differences over interpretation of market principles and role of the state in the economy, e.g., in context of Gasprom dispute relating to EU’s 3 rd energy package)

5. 2. Interests Mostly shared  Trade (WTO accession)  Investment  Energy interdependence  Non-proliferation  Common security threats (anti-terrorism)  Long term goal of visa-free travel More conflictual  Specific trade issues  Market access (e.g. energy, 3 rd energy package)  Siberian overflight charges  Middle East (Iran, Syria)  Priorities (environment)  Geopolitical competition in neighbourhood  Realization of visa-free travel

6. 3. Governance: the questions  How do differences in governance structures between the EU and Russia affect their relationship with one another?  What kind of governance mechanisms have been developed to govern the relationship?  Do they involve externalization of EU governance (Gänzle) or a mix of EU and Russian governance mechanisms?

7. EU  Multilevel governance  Difficulties in reaching shared position  Role for civil society actors  Diffuse foreign policy identity  Highly institutionalized, greater transparency  Pooled sovereignty Russia  Formally federal but actually hierarchical  Unifed state actor  Limited role for civil society actors  Foreign policy as a focal point of identity formation  Limted institutional constraints, very limited transparency  Emphasis on state sovereignty

8. 1) Problems of recognition and understanding deficient levels of knowledge and understanding poor intuitive fit 2) Problems of decision-making lack of agreed decision-making procedures different decision-making styles 3) Problems of legitimation lack of shared legitimizing discourse reinforcing misunderstandings asymmetry in public presentation and discourse

9. Multi-level aspect: types of interaction  EU Russian state  Member state Russian state (focus Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Germany)  Schengen, MS Russian state (focus border transit)  Member state Oblast’, city  City, local Oblast’, city, local  Border region/city Border region/city  EU/MS/border area* Border region/city/area* *e.g., EstLatRus, Euroregion

10. Methods of study (period 2000-2012)  Analysis of documents  In-depth interviews (EU, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Germany, Poland) Government and local officials Experts NGOs  Content analysis of media for three issues: visas and CBC, energy, neighbours (Russia, Germany, Poland) Visa and CBC Energy relations Relations with neigbours (Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova)

11. Types of issues for CBC  Impact of EU expansion on CBC  Impact of Schengen expansion on CBC  Importance of EU as an actor (and funding source) for CBC  Difficulties/opportunties posed by multilevel linkages  Goals/obstacles to CBC  Role of national or inter-state political factors in CBC  Impact of CBC on overall EU-Russian relationship CBC= cross-border cooperation

12. Do governance differences play a role at the cross-border or local level? 1) Problems of recognition and understanding deficient levels of knowledge and understanding poor intuitive fit 2) Problems of decision-making lack of agreed decision-making procedures different decision-making styles 3) Problems of legitimation lack of shared legitimizing discourse reinforcing misunderstandings asymmetry in public presentation and discourse

13.  Instrumental conditionality and muted normative conditionality  Technicalization and depoliticization  Bridging concepts and joint declarations  Functional two-level games  Multiple bi- and multilateralisms  Cross-border and lower level cooperation

14.  Much drawn from EU experience, but adapted to Russian preferences  EU adaptiveness (precedent-following + problem-solving approach)  Moving forward through ‘fits and starts’ (like European integration itself Minimal normative Europeanization; some procedural and regulatory Europeanization But Brussels not allowed to ‘call the shots’; sovereignty positions maintained