Ethics, Moral Responsibility and Politics of Democracy Promotion: Political Choices for International Actors

Transcription

1 Ethics, Moral Responsibility and Politics of Democracy Promotion: Political Choices for International Actors Hosted by the School of Law, University of Sheffield Lead Projects / Groups 22 January 2010 ESRC Project: Paradoxes and Contradictions in EU Democracy Promotion Efforts in the Middle East (Michelle Pace) Centre for Law in its International Context (CLIC), School of Law, University of Sheffield Rationale The promotion of democracy remains a contemporary, yet controversial issue for international actors. The desire on the part of some actors to link their foreign policy discourse and practice to a perceived need to 'democratise' third states or regions is accompanied in some, but not all, cases by specific targeting of funding and projects with the aim of promotion of a certain model of democracy. The tying of democracy promotion efforts to humanitarian/development aid, and other forms of overseas assistance as well as economic cooperation is perceivable at the level of nation-states, including the US and in other entities, for instance the EU. What motivates states or other international actors to seek to promote democracy in other parts of the world? Do they feel a moral responsibility according to their own domestic practice of democracy? Is this manifested at a national, regional or international level, or all three? To what extent do other considerations, whether economic, political or legal, play a part? Does democracy promotion serve domestic needs or purposes for the 'exporting' actors, or are real benefits felt in the states or regions which are perceived to be lacking in democratic development? What are the ethics involved in democracy promotion/support/building and what tensions can be felt, in both 'exporting' and 'importing' states and organisations at the different levels? The purpose of the workshop is to discuss both the theory and practice of democracy promotion, its underpinnings, motivation, and pitfalls. Programme 1

2 9.45 Arrival and Coffee to Welcome: Paul James Cardwell, Lecturer, School of Law, University of Sheffield to Panel 1. Chair: Federica Bicchi, Department of International Relations, LSE to Break Christopher Hobson, Department of International Relations, Aberystwyth University Justifying U.S. Democracy Promotion Katja Samuel, School of Law, University of Sheffield Islamic Democracy : What Does it Mean, and What are its Implications for International Peace and Security? Michelle Pace, POLSIS, University of Birmingham Liminality in EU-Hamas Relations to 1.00 Panel 2. Chair: Gordon Crawford, School of Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds 1.00 to 2.00 Lunch Olivia U. Rutazibwa, Ghent University/ European University Institute Less is More? A study of the desirability of the EU s ethical foreign policy practices and aspirations. The case of contemporary EU-Africa relations. Matthew Saul, School of Law, Durham University Democracy and International Law in the Reconstruction of Sierra Leone 2.00 to 3.20 Panel 3. Chair: Richard Collins, School of Law, University of Sheffield Narine Ghazaryan, School of Law, University of Nottingham Promotion of democracy by the EU to its Eastern neighbourhood: Rhetoric and reality Paul James Cardwell, School of Law, University of Sheffield Mapping Democracy Promotion in the EU s External Relations 3.20 Closing Remarks: Michelle Pace, Senior Research Fellow, POLSIS, University of Birmingham 2

3 3.30 End of workshop Abstracts Christopher Hobson, Department of International Relations, Aberystwyth University Justifying U.S. Democracy Promotion The United States has long been the most prominent and influential democracy promoter in international politics. The way it has attempted to support democratisation across the globe has had a significant impact on the shape of the larger democracy promotion project, which now incorporates a considerable number of actors: states, IOs, NGOs and even TNCs. As such, it is highly problematic that on a foundational level the United States articulates a superficial and simplistic rationale for promoting democracy abroad. Justifications are usually provided in reference to ideals, interests or more often than not an awkward combination of the two. Democracy is identified either as something universal, or as best providing for another universal, human rights. Simultaneously, democracies are good international citizens, and the more that exist, the more favourable the structure of the international system will be to U.S. interests. While a rationale of ideals and interests may be rhetorically sufficient, it is normatively problematic. As such, the purpose of this paper is to engage in depth with the justifications provided by the United States for promoting democracy, and to consider some of the normative and purposive issues that arise. It is argued that many of the problems now facing the United States when seeking to foster democracy abroad can be tied to an incoherent normative framework that justifies and helps motivate these practices. Arguments made in this paper are related to a larger ERC funded research project being undertaken in the Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University, entitled Political Economies of Democratisation, which considers the different models of democracy that are being promoted by the United States and the European Union. More information of the project can be found here: Katja Samuel, School of Law, University of Sheffield Islamic Democracy : What Does it Mean, and What are its Implications for International Peace and Security? Since the High Level Panel Report 2004 and World Summit Outcome Document 2005, there has been increased recognition of and momentum towards the adoption of a broader and more comprehensive concept of collective security. This has included recognition that the protection and promotion of all human rights, the rule of law and democracy is both interlinked as well as mutually reinforcing. However, the concept of democracy is a problematic one, including conceptually as while democracies share 3

4 common features, there is no single model of democracy. 1 Consequently, it is a very challenging concept in terms of how it should be interpreted and translated into practice through the practice of international actors such as the UN or EU. This has been evident in recent, only partially successful, attempts to export Western concepts of democracy into non-western countries, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the investment of significant personnel, political, economic, humanitarian and other expert resources. It is believed that one significant reason for such recent difficulties has been insufficient appreciation of the differences of understanding of the concept of democracy between Islamic and Western nations, such that the attempted export of certain aspects of Western democracy may be undesirable or even incompatible with Islam, including with its divine and immutable requirements such as the overarching concept of Islamic justice. Consequently, this paper will compare the general meaning of the concept of democracy within the context of the UN with that of Shari ah, as illustrated through the current practice of the Organisation of Islamic Conference and its Member States. In particular it will be suggested that despite the utilization of apparently common terminology by both Islamic and non-islamic entities, that important differences in meaning and expectations exist. The implications of such differences will be considered, in particular in the context of international peace and security. This will include recognition of the urgent need for such conceptual differences to be more fully acknowledged and reflected within current and future policies, including by Western entities which seek to further democratic and related values and principles within the Islamic world including the Middle East. Michelle Pace, POLSIS, University of Birmingham Liminality in EU-Hamas Relations This paper captures, on the one hand, the liminal state in which the European Union found itself in, since the coming to power of the Hamas movement, following Parliamentary elections in Palestine during January On the other hand, it also portrays Hamas s conscious state of being on the threshold or in a liminal state, of or between at least two different existential planes, that of a national social movement and a political party. This Lacanian mirror image of the liminal state of both the EU as an external actor in Palestinian affairs and of Hamas as a popular movement in Palestinian society is characterized by ambiguity and indeterminacy. This cognitive mapping shows how both the EU s as well as Hamas s sense of identity, to an extent, has been dissolving, bringing about a sense of disorientation on both sides. The paper is inspired by and draws upon critical writings on subjectivity to highlight how liminality from a non-euro centric perspective, can refer to periods of transition, where on the EU s side, what has been so far considered as normal and which has limited the possibility of reflexive thought, self-understanding and behaviour can be relaxed in a situation of encounter with Hamas officials from the political wing to lead to new perspectives. The paper also draws upon extensive fieldwork conducted by the author in Palestine during September 2007 and November 2009 and in Brussels during March and April The hope is that the EU and Hamas do not remain locked in a permanent state of liminality as conceived from a purely Eurocentric perspective. This will require EU and Hamas officials to engage in an exploratory dialogue and on a more equal playing field. Olivia U. Rutazibwa, Ghent University/ European University Institute 1 Paragraph 135 World Summit Outcome Document

5 Less is More? A study of the desirability of the EU s ethical foreign policy practices and aspirations. The case of contemporary EU-Africa relations. Against the background of decades of limitedly successful Western international democratisation efforts and in light of the recent heightened attention to (statebuilding in) Africa, this study investigates the feasibility of less international involvement instead of more. To make such assessment convincingly, the involvement needs to be identified as counterproductive to the achievement of peaceful well-functioning societies, and the counter-productivity is to be located in the involvement as such and not just linked to its defective implementation. To this effect this paper proposes the conceptual framework of the EU as an Ethical Intervener as an instrument to deconstruct the EU s wellintended Africa policies, cf. democracy promotion, into the mechanisms that are potentially detrimental to the achievement of these ethical goals. The mechanisms consist of the fact that a) the receiving partner is seen as fundamentally different from the Self (i.c. the EU) (Inequality Mechanism) and b) the content and the occurrence of the ethically perceived policies are in the first place centered around the sending Self (agenda setting, isomorphic and assimilatory solutions), and not so much inspired by the realities of the receiving Other (Intervener Centric Mechanism). At the same time, the principle of equality embedded in the concept of democracy, and the contemporary development buzz-words of partnership and ownership seem to contradict the identified mechanisms. To investigate to what extent this is the case, or in which direction it evolves, the conceptual framework is applied to some of the defining policy documents in EU-Africa relations of the last decade (the 2000 Cotonou Agreement, the 2005 EU Strategy for Africa and the 2007 Joint Africa EU Strategy). In conclusion, the paper reflects on the feasibility of less international involvement by differentiating between the avoidable and unavoidable problematics in today s democratisation efforts. Matthew Saul, School of Law, Durham University Democracy and International Law in the Reconstruction of Sierra Leone A common feature of the practice of large-scale international involvement in postconflict reconstruction that started with Cambodia in 1991 and is ongoing in places like Haiti and Afghanistan is the pursuit of democracy. In relation to such practice, the volume of international legal scholarship over the last twenty years on the subject of an emerging right to democracy means that it is not unreasonable to expect a role for an international legal concept of democracy. While a number of scholars have identified the drive for democratic governance in states recovering from conflict as support for the existence of an international legal concept of democracy, little attention has been given to the actual role of such a concept in the practice of post-conflict state reconstruction. To develop a better understanding of the relationship between the pursuit of democracy in post-conflict reconstruction and international law, this paper examines how the debate about democracy in international law relates to key aspects of the internationally assisted reconstruction process which played out in Sierra Leone between 1998 and The justification for the international involvement, the various peace agreements, and the nature and conduct of the government that administered the reconstruction, are considered. A central argument is that while democracy was integral to the justification for international engagement, no effort was made by the lead actors to articulate a legal concept of democracy because a loose political concept better served their interests. But the paper also illustrates how an international legal concept of democracy might come to serve a useful role in future practice, as a means of ensuring that governments which are dependent on international actors strive to realise minimum standards of democratic governance. 5

6 Narine Ghazaryan, School of Law, University of Nottingham Promotion of democracy by the EU to its Eastern neighbourhood: Rhetoric and reality The European Union (EU) is viewed to be one of the most democratic polities, despite its much debated democratic deficit. Indeed, democracy is one of the features that underpin the EU normative image transposed in its external relations. An example of such transposition is the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). Initiated in 2003, the policy aims at developing closer relations with the EU s Eastern and Southern neighbours without a promise of membership. The objectives of the policy are those of enhancing security and stability of the EU by means of Europeanising the neighbours. The Europeanisation of neighbours is grounded in cooperation on issues combined from all three pillars of the EU s constitutional governance. The proposed paper aims at identifying the role of democracy promotion within the ENP as enshrined in policy papers. After identifying the rhetoric the reality of democracy promotion to Eastern neighbours will be discussed by reference to the democratic values promoted. The cross-examination of the main cooperation documents with countries in question will reveal the democratic criteria the EU transposes in the neighbourhood. The methodology of the ENP, in general, and its operative elements, in particular, will be considered. This will complete the picture of democracy promotion to the Eastern neighbourhood. The initiation of the Eastern Partnership and entering into force of the Lisbon Treaty will be discussed as to future prospects. The paper will be finalised with a summary of findings. Paul James Cardwell, School of Law, University of Sheffield Mapping Democracy Promotion in the EU s External Relations As a non-traditional actor on the international stage, the European Union (EU) presents itself as a successful example of peaceful, democratic cooperation between its member states. Its foreign policy, existing alongside rather than replacing that of the member states, is not driven by military strength but backed-up with formidable economic clout in a globalised world. The EU s own treaty arrangements state that action on the international scene shall be guided by a set of principles which are central to its own existence and the first of these is democracy (Article 21(1) TEU). How, then, is the promotion of democracy carried out in the EU s relations with the wider world? Defining democracy promotion is as complex a task as identifying the myriad of policy areas in which elements of exporting the EU s system of governance can be perceived. The purpose of this paper to identify and explore the instances in which democracy promotion can be expressly or implied seen within EU law and policymaking. Part one discusses the challenges of identifying democracy promotion in its different forms. Part two looks at instances where the promotion of democracy is an express aim of particular externally-focussed policy, including the enlargement and neighbourhood policies, funding ear-marked for purposes and missions (such as election monitoring) whose main or sole function is democracy promotion. Part three widens the scope of analysis to consider aspects of EU external policies which do not expressly have democracy promotion as their aim, but nevertheless seek to export elements of the European/EU model of democracy. Parliamentary cooperation is one such example. The paper concludes that where the promotion of democracy is an 6

7 express aim of EU external policy, it is likely to be seen as only partially successful. The key to promoting democracy beyond its borders, if indeed the EU is committed to doing so, may lie in less express and more informal means. 7