Diversity in Europe and International Relations

1
Diversity in Europe and International Relations

• Three issues
• Diversity
• Europe
• International Relations as theory of social
  science

2
What is meant by diversity?

• 1. Enrichment of our life Possibility to
  enjoy and consume the exoticism Spectre of
  Cultures
• 2. Problem to be managed Conflicting
  values Incompatible ways of life Threat to
  social cohesion

3
How does diversity relate to Europe?

• A paradox
• - Europe as a place or source of diversity
• - Europe as solution to the problem of
  diversity
• Unmanaged diversity in Europe Violence
• Solution Europe must become more European
• (i.e. European integration)
• Europe must nurture virtuously European values
• - democracy, human rights, rule of law,
  individual freedom etc.

4
International Relation theory and European
Integration

• European integration as a puzzle for IR theories
• Original premise since the end of 1940s
  something called European integration is really
  taking place
• Descriptivity vs. normativity of theories?
• Descriptive how Europe is integrating?
• Normative how Europe should be integrated?
• THIS DISTINCTION IS PROBLEMATIC!

5
The problem with Descriptive/Normative distinction

• The teleology of the theories of European
  integration
• European integration is envisaged
• European integration has always been in the
  process of becoming
• THUS one cannot only describe European
  integration a theory always implies a
  preference of what Europe should or could become
• Two main (conventional) theories of European
  integration are simultaneously normative and
  descriptive(i.e. neofunctionalism
  intergovernmentalism)

6
Neofunctionalism

• THE theory of European integration almost like
  a synonym to integration theory
• A basic premise Europe is integrating
• Original aim was to understand, to theorise and
  to conceptualise (i.e. describe) the process of
  integration
• Theoretical basis in (classic) functionalist
  premisescommunities are organic systems
  composed of various units which differ from each
  other with their function in the system

7
Neofunctionalism

• Emphatically normative theory Provided a
  theory for integrating Europe informing how
  should Europe be integrated
• BUT normative dimension was based on scientific
  truth
• Profiled itself as an objective theory on social
  interaction and behaviour at the level of the
  state system indeed theory of integration in
  the midst of diversity
• Normative mission how to transform a
  regional-international society (e.g. Europe) to
  function like a domestic political system?

8
Neofunctionalism

• Production of welfare, security and other
  material needs is the main function of any human
  community
• Within the existing Europe of nation-states the
  functions cannot be adequately managed
• Europe to become a polity in which functions are
  managed in ways satisfactory to European
  population
• Change of attitudes of various interests groups
  (industry, labour union) towards Europeaness
• Loyalty transference from national to European
  level

9
Neofunctionalism

• Strategy of neofunctionalism
• Creation of supranational institutions European
  Coal and Steel Community (1952) Euratom
  (1958) Commission of the EEC (1958)
• The underlying assumption of the strategy
• Mechanism of spill-over or spill-over effect
  Integration in one functional (economic) sector
  creates pressures/incentives for integration in
  another The automacity of integration through
  spill-overs Ultimately there will be
  political integration!

10
Neofunctionalism

• The emphasis on technocracy political field
  and/or politics is a set of managerial tasks,
  not activity driven by competing ideologies (e.g.
  socialism vs. capitalism)
• THUS neofunctionalism contributed to the idea
  that the guiding logics of West European politics
  is industrialism and technocracy
• Politics is about nurturing and managing
  expertise knowledge which takes care of
  management of socio-economic problems, i.e.
  management of society

11
Neofunctionalism

• Historical context the immediate aftermath of
  violent nationalisms
• Underscored that European integration is a peace
  project
• Making Europe clean from dirty nationalist
  politics
• Gave to peace project a scientific layout all
  that matter in politics is management of vital
  functions of society based on expertise

12
Neofunctionalism

• A lesson for us
• Let us see neofunctionalism not only as a theory
  explaining European integration it has been
  influential to the overall development of
  European integration THUS it has provided a
  political strategy The aim to contain dirty
  politics by means of technocracy and expertise is
  itself a political vision

13
Critique of Neofunctionalism

• epistemology behaviouralism scientific
  method of proposing hypotheses and testing them
  against objectively conceived reality
  non-reflective research orientation the role of
  theory in practice not seriously problematised
• False empirical findings/propositions European
  integration does not proceed with spill-overs as
  suggested by neofunctionalists nation-states
  and national interests and symbolic value of
  state sovereignty matters too much arise of the
  INTERGOVERNMENTALIST CRITIQUE

14
Intergovernmentalist critique

• Intergovernmentalism is indeed a critique
• Guiding logics of politics not only about
  industrialism and technocracy
• Politics of and between nations-states is
  important
• Spill-over mechanism insufficient explanation
  may explain integration at the level
  low-politics but not at the level high
  politics where there are too much symbolism for
  states to lose
• Intergovern. critique close to political
  realism states are the primary actors which
  ultimately shape international politics at all
  levels

15
Intergovernmentalist view of Integration

• European integration does take place BUT it is
  to be explained as an inter-state project not
  only inter-governmental other actors within a
  state matter as well
• Europe (EU/EC) has become an institutional
  environment within which states (co-)operate
• The EU is a consequence of the interplay of
  state interests mediated by institutions of the
  EU (Rosamond)
• The EU is more like a forum than a supranational
  polity

16
Beyond the debate between the main theories

• Neof process of integration and its production
  technocracy and expertise as mechanisms of
  governing
• Intergov process of integration and critique of
  neof. concerned about the location of
  authority, who is in charge states?
  supranational authorities?
• Views on politics
• neof about managing socio-economic problems, set
  Europe free from dirty nationalistic politics
• Intergov politics takes place within and between
  member states and this is crucial for
  understanding integration

17
Integration theories as (part of) politics

• As discourses on European governance
• As two different kinds of mentalities of
  governance how to govern such a supranational
  polity as the EU? how states are to conduct
  politics of European integration
• As differing rationalizations for what actors do
  in integrating Europe
• As knowledge into which one can anchor ones
  political preferences
• From heuristic devicesto political strategies
  for making of Europe

18
Integration theories as (part of) politics

• Not to abandon conventional theories of
  integration theories have contributed to
  constituting Europe into a an object of action,
  object of governance theories as objects of
  analysis of politics of European integration
  theories as mentalities of governance
• Neofunctionalism is more interesting here
  provides rationalization for governance of
  supranational polity of Europe.

19
Europe as conditions of possibility

• Analysis of European integration has largely been
  about institutional processes or deep functional
  structures
• The problem it is taken for granted that Europe
  really exists
• How Europe is, has been and will be put into
  practice?
• Europe can be theorized from the perspective of
  the conditions of its possibility
• Let us denaturalise Europe!
• Analysis on the conditions under which it is
  taken for granted that Europe is and needs to be

20
Denaturalising Europe

• Michel Foucaults analytics of governmentality
• Study of the art of government
• study of the organised practices through which
  we are governed and through which we govern
  ourselves (Mitchell Dean 1999)
• Studying the mentalities of government
  (discourses)
• Processes of rationalizations
• Techniques of government (social and economic
  policies)
• How should we govern? What should we govern? Why
  do we need to govern?
• Study of the problematizations

21
European integration and governmentality

• Why do we need to govern in the name of Europe?
• What is there to be governed in the name of
  Europe?
• How this need for governance at the European
  level is constructed?
• European integration about governance of social
  and economic processes (compare neofunctionalism)
• We can/should ask of any EU policy How Europe
  is being imagined here? What is Europe as an
  object of government?

22
European integration and governmentality

• Example
• How is it that social exclusion is now imagined
  as a common European problem?
• Hardcore (neo)functionalist would argue in
  integrating Europe we must fight social exclusion
  as a problem that affects Europe as a whole.
• BUT It is not only that social exclusion is
  found as common European problem policies of
  fighting social exclusion finds Europe Europe
  lives on the attempts of managing various
  social and economic problems Europe is there
  for as an apparatus connected to the enhancement
  of aspects of social and economic life

23
European integration and governmentality

• How and for what purposes is Europe put into
  practice?
• Treaty of Rome (a founding Treaty for EEC in
  1958)
• an objective of the closer unification of
  Europe is to strengthen peace and liberty
• European integration for realising freedom and
  security?
• Rather Europe has become into being through
  particular problematisations of the relationship
  between freedom and security
• Studying these problematiosations tells us a lot
  about the mentalities of government of Europe

24
European integration for Freedom and Security

• European integration as security project
  security is to be realised through promoting
  freedom
• European integration as a freedom project
  Freedom is to be realised through promoting
  security (topic of the second lecture)

25
European integration as security project

• Europe is a source and solution to its own
  insecurity
• Aftermath of post-WWII European integration
  project of fulfilling the dream of Europe of
  peace
• Never again
• German problem
• First initiatives far too ambitious with their
  supranational or federalist emphases
• Integration begun in more modest way as
  described and guided by neofunctionalism

26
European integration as security project

• European security through economic integration
  and interdependence
• The main tool liberalisation of trade between
  member states (originally France, Germany and
  Benelux)
• The objective of Common Market
• Spill-over effect as its main mechanism

27
European integration as security project

• Early years of integration were remarkably
  successful
• Alan Milwaud because of this success European
  nation-states survived
• Integration conceived as significant tool for
  production and distribution of welfare
• Integration gave political legitimacy for
  European nation-states interstate stability in
  Western Europe
• containment of threat of communism from inside
  and outside

28
European integration as security project

• THUS economistic pursuit of European
  integration was over-coded by geopolitical
  strategy - to secure peace by economic means
  military concerns - to prevent future German
  militarization
• Economization of European security! security
  not by military means security by such mean as
  Common Market

29
European integration as security project

• Common Market as technology of government
• the activities of the European Community
  shall includean internal market characterised by
  the abolition, as between Member States, of
  obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons,
  services and capital. (Rome Treaty 1958)
• A security project embedded in liberal
  rationality/mentality of government
• The Community shall have as its task, by
  establishing a common marketto promote
  throughout the Community a harmonious development
  of economic activities, a continuous and balanced
  expansion, an increase in stability, an
  accelerated raising of the standard of living and
  closer relations between the States belonging to
  it. (Rome Treaty 1958.)

30
Common Market

• European integration was to proceed by creating a
  space in which the movement of goods, capital and
  people (labour) is unrestricted, ie. free.
• Freedom not as an abstract idea, but as an
  instrument of governing
• Freedom not an end in itself, it serves a purpose

31
Freedom as Security Project for Europe

• A Sequence
• Freedom in the form of free movement of people
  and things is to be protected and promoted
  Common Market as a technique
• This serves a purpose of stimulating economic
  activity and acceleration of standard of living
• Serves a purpose of realising security among the
  entire European population and between member
  states

32
Freedom as security project for Europe

• Hence Europe becomes a governable entity through
  particular problematisation of freedom/security
• Europe for security through promoting freedoms
• How freedom is promoted in the Common Market?
  by protection rights for non-citizen European
  workers non-discriminations clauses that
  non-citizens have adequate possibility for work
  and claim social security
• NOTE at issue is an economistic conception of
  freedom Freedom for the sake of effectivity and
  prosperity

33
Freedom as security project for Europe

• Free subject (citizen) were defined in relation
  to category of economic activity, as contributors
  to economic processes
• We could realise ourselves as free subjects in
  European context as workers, entrepreneurs,
  professional experts
• Freedoms were promoted in order to set up and
  strengthen market economic system
• European government follows a liberal rationality
  of government we are governed as formally free
  subjects

34
Freedom as security project for Europe

• Freedom and security often takes as zero-sum game
• Here it has been a positive sum-game
• No security without freedom
• Geopolitical conception of security at the heart
  of the European (economic) integration to
  prevent militarism, national chauvinism and
  economic protectionism raising their ugly heads
• THUS security is about securing the spaces
  within which individuals can conduct their daily
  social and economic life as formally free
  consumers, workers etc.

35
Diversity in Europe International Relations

• Summary
• Conventional theories of European integration
  Neofunctionalism Intergovernmentalism
• Europe is taken for granted
• What are the conditions of possibility for Europe
  to exist
• Recent history of the art of government of in the
  name of Europe
• Liberalism as mentality of government
• Liberalism and constitution of Europe through
  particular problematization of freedom/security
  relationship
• Economization of security!

36
Summary

• What were the conditions of possibility of
  Europe to be known as a space of political
  activity?
• What has allowed Europe to be thought as a
  space of governance?
• European integration as a security project
• Liberalist rationality of this security project
  Security by making Europe an interdependent
  free economic space Creation of Common Market
  to promote specific freedoms freedom of movement
  of goods, capital, services and people
• Europe becomes known as a governable object by
  a peculiar problematisation of freedom/security

37
Freedom as security project for Europe

• Projects of Europe results in Common Market or
  European Economic Community (EEC)
• Changing shape of the European security project
• From liberalism of Common Market (1950s) to
  neo-liberalism of Single Market (1990s)
• Single Market was a step towards more deeper
  integration (Founding of the EU in 1992)
• Common Market Freedom (liberalisation of
  European economy) harnessed for security in
  geopolitical sense
• Single Market Freedom harnessed for security in
  geo-economical sense (neo-liberalism) Survival
  of Europe is dependent on its global economic
  competitiveness in the midst of globalization

38
Lisbon Process 2000 Competitive Europe

• The Union has today set itself a new strategic
  goal for the next decade to become the most
  competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy
  in the world capable of sustain economic growth
  with more and better jobs and greater social
  cohesion
• Embedded in neoliberal mentality/rationality
• Problematisation of old welfare model which is
  argued to be too heavy in financial terms
• Promoting freedom through making labour market
  more flexible by diminishing state regulations
• Entrepreneurial mentality of government
• Harnessing other actors than centralised welfare
  state to generate solutions to social problems

39
Lisbon Process 2000 Competitive Europe

• Neoliberal rationality of government attempts to
  enhance performance, celebrate excellence,
  promote enterprise, foster competition and
  empowering individuals
• This happens from schoolrooms to firms to public
  offices
• Ideal neoliberal citizen is the one of
  responsible, rational and self-controlling
  individual, responsible for its own destiny and
  able and obliged to turn her life-projects into
  successful achievements
• From redistributive society to society of free
  consumers
• The victims are welfarist social policy and
  regulated job markets which are argued as
  producing inflexibility, being non-dynamic,
  anti-entrepreneurial ideology etc.

40
Neoliberal freedom/security making of Europe

• - Summary of neoliberal rationality of European
  integration
• - Geo-economical security in forefront
• Geo-economical security strategy whole of the
  population activated for the production of
  wealth promoting freedoms in the forms of
  marketisation ever more sectors of society and
  encouraging competition
• Society as economic machine emphasis on the
  economically measured performance, effectivity,
  wealth and competitiveness
• Individualisation of security

41
Economization of security

• The diminished role of territory and its defence?
• European integration aimed towards security by
  securing economic processes
• De-linking security from territorial power the
  control of territory not the main or ultimate
  source of security for European (EC/EU)
  populations
• However Towards 1990s European integration also
  about re-linking security and control of the
  territory

42
Insecure European Community/Union

• The Emergence of several Common European (EU)
  fights Fight against illegal immigration
  Fight against human-trafficking Fight against
  drug trafficking Fight against organised
  crime Fight against terrorism
• The EU becomes a place of internal (in)security
• Security of the EU is represented as being
  conditional on the control of the territory

43
Insecure European Community/Union

• How did this happen at the first place? How did
  European Union became known as a place of
  insecurity as an insecure community?
• Spill-over from freedom to security
  completion of borderless single market created an
  internal security deficit more freedom less
  security
• Central assumptions 1. European Community/Union
  without internal borders effects both desirable
  and undesirable movements2. Transnational
  flows of goods, capital, services and people
  potentially challenge the orders of the societies
• THUS the emphasis on the control of movements

44
Insecure European Community/Union

• Borderless internal market must be compensated
  Enhancing the external borders of the EC/EU
  Inventing new mechanism of internal control
  Developing internal security co-operation
• Changing problematisation freedom/security
  freedom is a potential source of insecurity
• This problematisation gave way to a new
  conception of EC/EU insecure/vulnerable
  community with respect to outside world
• Images of security threats/risks create the
  particular conditions of possibility of EU/EC
  as a space of governance

45
Insecure European Community/Union

• There have been practical institutional
  consequences of the making of Europe into
  insecure community
• Co-operation and harmonization of policies in the
  domain of internal security Schengen Agreement
  I (1985), Schengen II (1990) Justice and Home
  Affairs Pillar in 1992 Maastricht Treaty By
  the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 the EU as an area
  of freedom, security and justice

46
Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

• AFSJ captures image and dynamics of the insecure
  community
• Specific problematisation of freedom/security
  relationship
• Widens the concept of Freedom From an instrument
  to a goal of government
• the Treaty of Amsterdam opens the way to giving
  'freedom a meaning beyond free movement of
  people across internal borders. It is also
  freedom to live in a law-abiding environment in
  the knowledge that public authorities are using
  everything in their individual and collective
  powerto combat and contain those who seek to
  deny or abuse that freedom... The full benefits
  of any area of freedom will never be enjoyed
  unless they are exercised in an area where people
  can feel safe and secure.
• - (European Commission 1998, towards an area of
  freedom, security and justice.)

47
Security as the freedom project for Europe

• Freedom of movement made into security concernOR
  securitization of free movement
• A sequence
• a meaning beyond free movement of people across
  internal borders
• - Problematisation of freedom -
• to combat and contain those who seek to deny or
  abuse that freedom- Unmanaged Freedom becomes a
  security risk -
• an area where people can feel safe and secure
• - Control of the territory by internal security
  means -

48
Security as the freedom project for Europe

• Inversion between freedom and security freedom
  is an end security as an instrument
• Who are the freedom-abusers through which
  EU-Europe is represented as an insecure
  community?
• And how does EU-Europe protect itself?

49
Security as the freedom project for Europe

• The Union shall set itself the objectiveto
  maintain and develop the Union as an area of
  freedom, security and justice, in which the free
  movements of persons is assured in conjunction
  with appropriate measures with respect to
  external border controls, asylum, immigration and
  the prevention and combating of crime.
  (Consolidated Treaty of the European Union 2002
  1993 1997.)
• ? security thinking has penetrated into the
  policy domain of immigration and asylum
• Who are (represented as) freedom-abusers?
  Criminals But also (some) immigrants and
  asylum-seekers

50
Security as the freedom project for Europe

• Why increased freedom should lead to conception
  of security deficit?
• Security is a discourse, one way to organise and
  order social reality
• Critical towards particular linking between
  immigration and security
• Securitization of free movement and
  securitization of migration is a choice of
  particular a discourse
• Problem nurturing insecurity against foreigners
• Discourse can be denaturalised

51
Security as the freedom project for Europe

• What are the social consequences of securitizing
  freedom of movement in the EU context?
• The EU is made into an object of government as a
  sort of risk society
• Insecurity of EU is articulated against certain
  others, different to us, different to norm
• The abusive/dangerous use of freedom is attached
  to such figures as
• drug traffickers and terrorists
• bogus asylum-seekers and illegal
  immigrants
• and often a combinations of them all

52
Security as the freedom project for Europe

• Highlighting the importance of the control of the
  other
• THUS Security of the EU is made conditional on
  the control of entry into and presence in the
  territory
• ? Defence of territory is crucial
• How, then, to defend the territory?
• Defence of territory takes a form of policing
  transnnational flows within and beyond (!) the
  borderless space of the EU
• Because of the area without internal boundaries,
  there must compensatory control measures at the
  very external borders as well as inside the
  boundaries

53
Practices of territory control

• Databases as control technologies such as
  Schengen Information System (SIS) for known
  criminals, terrorists, football hooligans,
  activists and so on
• Much of the control targeted against immigration
  risk Dublin Convention of 1990 on
  asylum-seekers Eurodac (2000) Safe Third
  Country -principle Buffer zones around the
  EU Migrant camps Internal control ( racial
  profiling?) Harmonisation of visa lists and
  visa procedures Liaison officers and carrier
  sanctions

54
Security as the freedom project for Europe

• Securitization of free movement
• has lead to
• Securitization of immigration and asylum
• Migration into the EU is considered as a factor
  beneath the insecurity of the European societies
• Sequence of things1. Conception of internal
  insecurity of EU societies2. Control of
  territory (entry into and presence within)3.
  Control of migratory movements
• Blaming a specific group of individuals before
  theyve done anything as a result of
  categorising, risk profiling etc.

55
Securitization of immigration and asylum

• The EU is not super-size police state
• Policing within the EU is transnationally
  networked
• Not a Fortress Europe but a Selective European
  Union
• There is also a demand for more immigrant labour
  skilled and unskilled
• The EU states select and filter the population
  flows
• Objective of the defence of territory is to keep
  certain kinds of people outside the EU territory
• Certain kinds of people judged as threats/risks
  and certain people as benefits
• Practices of profiling
• Schengen Visa, for example, is an instrument for
  conducting the profiling

56
Securitization of immigration and asylum

• The crucial question How is it that immigration
  is possible to be governed on the threat/benefit
  basis?
• How securitization of immigration and asylum is
  possible?
• Three broad discourses three ways how
  immigration and asylum is made problematic as a
  security issue1. Linking immigration to
  spectacular internal security threats (e.g.
  terrorism and organised crime)2. Immigration as
  threat to cultural/social cohesion3. Immigration
  as a threat to the welfare system
• (Jef Huysmans 2000)

57
1. Immigration as internal security concern
discourse

• Immigration and asylum seen as factors behind the
  rise of organised crime and/or terrorism
• Immigrants deliver dangers to harmonious inside
  from chaotic outside
• illegal immigration increases clandestine and
  semi-criminal business
• It is this discourse that makes it possible for
  internal security experts to put immigration
  into same policy agenda with terrorism and
  transnational organised crime

58
2. Threat to cultural/social cohesion discourse

• Neoconservatism and clash of civilization
• Society is a ready-made entity, glued together
  by shared values and traditions
• Differences create tensions that may materialise
  with growing insecurity Cultural significance
  of border control
• Conception that certain individuals do not
  integrate urban riots (Paris) political
  violence (London)
• Dangerous classes whose members disrupt the
  otherwise harmonious (!?) social order

59
3. Welfare, security and immigration discourse

• Immigrants and asylum portrayed as threats to the
  welfare system and employment situation
• Western welfare systems pulls immigrants into
  Europe
• The fear of invasion and flood of migration
• The threat is the one which represents
  immigrants, refugees and asylum-seekers as
  threats to the survival of the overall
  socio-economic system of (Western) Europe
• Too many immigrants threatens the legitimacy of
  the welfare system in the eyes of ordinary
  citizens

60
Security as a freedom project for Europe

• These three discourses (among others) are
  supportive to securitization of immigration and
  asylum
• Immigrants began figuring as sources of social
  problems
• Security logic makes it possible to deal with
  immigration with tough means and without delay
• It reproduces an image of the EU as political
  community which survival as free community is
  at stake in the control/defence of territory
  against undesirable others
• The possibility of immigration control rests on
  the discourses of risks/threats
• Security discourse is question of choice many
  of the social problems would not inevitable
  require the introduction the theme of immigration
  control

61
Summary

• Two Europes under examination
• Analysis on the ways Europe is made into
  existence
• Problematisions of freedom/security
• Promoting freedom for security (Common Market and
  Single Market) or economization of security
• Promoting security for freedom (Area of freedom,
  security and justice) securitization of free
  economy
• But how do these two Europes interrelate?