As a result of close, historical, commercial and cultural links, Lebanon has always been subject to intensive relations with different Members States of the European Union. Situated at the Mediterranean crossroads, part of the Israeli-Arab conflict, the Land of the Cedars, concerns many European policies, including the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). What are the interests of the European Union with regards to this country? And vice-versa, what are the interests of Lebanon to be in the ENP?

The ENP concerns sixteen countries, from Eastern Europe to the Middle East, and from the Caucasus to the Maghreb. Within the ENP, the EU offers to these neighbours a privileged relationship, by building upon a mutual commitment to common values (democracy and human rights, rule of law, good governance, market economy principles and sustainable development). The policy goes beyond existing relationships in order to offer a political association and a deeper economic integration, and eventually to increase mobility and more people-to-people contacts. Ambitions in the relationship depends on the extent to which these values are shared. The ENP is further enriched with regional and multilateral co-operation initiatives like the Union for the Mediterranean in the Lebanon’s case (the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, formerly known as the Barcelona Process, re-launched at the Paris Summit headed by French President N. Sarkozy in July 2008).

With the set-up, in 2005, of the ENP, the Old Continent strengthens its co-operation and collaboration to this particular and relatively sensitive area. Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy, declared for the launch of this policy that it : « Gives us the opportunity to take our relationship with Lebanon up a gear » (European Union, 2005). This policy contains many and large particular areas of interest: the development of political institutions based on the values – democracy, the rule of law, human rights – enshrined in the Agreement; regional stability and co-operation in justice and home affairs; and economic and social reforms creating new opportunities for development and modernisation, for a further liberalisation of trade and for a gradual participation in the internal market of the EU. The Action Plan will set out priorities for action in two broad areas: (1) Joint commitments to specific actions which reinforce adherence to share values in areas including democracy and the rule of law, administration of justice and human rights and to certain objectives in the area of foreign and security policy; (2) Joint commitments to actions which will bring the EU and Lebanon closer in several priority fields such as economic and social development policies (including sustainable development), trade and internal market (including sectors such as energy, transport, environment, maritime affairs and fisheries, information society, research and innovation, justice and home affairs and people-to-people contacts).

All these policies imply the spending of a certain amount of money, only through one main instrument, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument for a cost of €12 billion for the Financial Framework 2007-2013, designed to target sustainable development and for partner countries to make connection with EU policies and standards. These instruments replace various geographical programmes including TACIS (for Eastern neighbours and Russia) and MEDA (for Southern Mediterranean neighbours), as well as thematic programmes.

ENP: a ring of friend

The ENP’s ultimate goal is the creation of close, peaceful and cooperative relations with the neighbouring countries – a ‘ring of friends’ (Dodini & Fantini, 2006). Based on the previous enlargement, interdependency and reforms engendered by EU-third country cooperation generate stability and prosperity. Long-term objectives would be to allow the ENP associated countries to integrate a free-trade area of goods, services and production factors. This area would include costs reduction through limited tax barriers, which requires a convergence of internal market rules, institutional practices and, for the countries concerned, to accept the transfer of parts of the European acquis communautaire. As presented here, the ENP focuses mainly on economy. Dodini & Fantini show three expected impacts: (1) A structural reform, which would result into an implementation of the law and the jurisdictional domain, permitting an easier economic growth. Adopting the acquis is often seen as a brake, for what it is, the integration leads to an implementation of the economic environment, the European Economic Area (EEA) is the best example; (2) better macro-economic policy anchorage via monetary and fiscal policies; (3) A liberalised market will cause a cost reduction, thus growth.

Security, the main goal

With regards to economic matters is there anything that the European Union is hiding from us? As with every international agreement, the parties often have some implied goals. The Member States have one: security.  The Middle East is an obvious example. With the Israeli-Arab conflict, Lebanon is at the crossroad of every conflict: for various reasons, a border with Israel resulted in many armed conflicts and sometimes without direct military engagement between the Israeli and the Lebanese national armies. Furthermore, Lebanon faces troubled relations with Syria and Iran with the input of Hezbollah.

Implementing a ring of friend around Europe is thus the main goal. Through Lebanon, the European Union objective is to create a stabilized, secure and well-governed country. Elaborated at the same period as European Security Strategy (2003), the ENP can be considered as the operational tool of this policy. The first document define which neighbours are posing problems to Europe as “neighbours who are engaged in violent conflict, weak states where organized crime flourishes, dysfunctional societies or exploding population growth on its borders all pose problems for Europe”.

Then the politico-military dimension constitutes a major part of the ENP’s approach: “Military instruments have a role to play in the permanent policy of conflict prevention and stabilization, notably in the field of security sector reform and disarmament, demobilization and reintegration as well as in the field of traditional confidence and security-building measures” (Biscop, 2008). Clearly, in the Mediterranean area, there are countries involved in armed conflict or in disputes carrying the risk of conflict. Forceful intervention might be necessary, and the EU can easily deploy observers and, of course, peacekeeping missions, in order to constitute preventive diplomacy, crisis management and the use of force (Biscop, 2008). An exclusively military intervention will not obtain results, it as to be commingling with political, social and economic roots of conflict. Eventually, these uses of coercive or interventional method in order to influence policies in these countries as in the case of Lebanon is a kind of a European imperialism (Hettne, 2004) and new edition of colonialism (Holm, 2005)?

ENP: A missed opportunity for the EU

Many critics came out about the setting-up of the ENP (Emerson, 2004). The first was on the mitigation of negative enlargement impacts on new border regions. The second was rhetorical, low cost diplomacy to try and placate the excluded. And finally, the third one was concerning the States’ transformation of the rest of Europe in line with common European values and with the benefits progressive integration (Europeanization). Thus, why does Lebanon accept an agreement like this?

By now, the EU role in the area appears to be of very little significance and does not match its ambitions of being an international power. As main donator to the Palestinian Authority and as the only non-Arabic organization with strong relations with Lebanon; Europe could become a strategic contact. But without any international status, without any strong proposal, the EU could never compete with great powers of the new world order. The Spinelli and Delors’ dream of a strong and powerful Europe will never be accomplished without a deeper integration,It is certainly in the EUs own interest to implement a consistent strategy to promote the security of the European citizens, of its neighbours and to enhance greater stability in the region as well as in the world . Economic integration is one of its components but reciprocity of interests and strategic cooperation in the political and cultural area should never be forgotten. With the economic factor as main argument, the European Union is dealing with an old recipe to create a new integration between the European centre and its outskirt.

Bibliography:

• BISCOP, Sven. The ENP, Security and Democracy in the Context of the European Security Strategy. Global Europe Papers, University of Nottingham, March 2008.
• DODINI, Michaela, et Marco Fantini. «The EU Neighbourhood Policy: Implications for Economic Growth and Stability» Journal of Common Markets Studies, September 2006: 507-532.
• EMERSON, Michael. «Deepening the Wider Europe.» EurActiv. 2004. http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-110018-16&type=Analysis.
• EUROPEAN COUNCIL, A Secure Europe In A Better World – The European Security Strategy, Brusssels, December 12 2003.
• EUROPEAN UNION, European Neighbourhood Policy: Lebanon, Press Release, Brussels, March 2nd 2005.
• HETTNE, B., Interregionalism and World Order. Paper presented to Section 33, States, regions and regional world orders, SGIR, Fifth Pan-European International Relations Conference, Netherlands Congress Centre, the Hague, September 9-11, 2004.
• HOLM, U., EU’s Neighbourhood Policy: a Question of Space and Security. DIIS Working Paper. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies, 2005.

This article was published in Eyes On Europe, Issue 13, November 2010, Brussels.

A pdf version of this article is available here.

Crédit photo: Ammar Abd Rabbo, erjkprunczyk, & United Nations on Flickr.com