Citation

Blind Spots in the European Debate about Security and Development: Towards a Developmentalization of European Union Foreign and Security Policy?

Abstract | Word Stems | Keywords | Association | Citation | Similar Titles



Abstract:

Instead of focusing on the »particular direction of causality« (CfP), this paper will deal with the alleged blind spot of the debate about security and development: the developmentalization of European foreign and security policy.The EU is without doubt paving the way for more civil-military coordination and is more and more integrating security issues in its development policy. There is a range of new initiatives initiated by the European Union to foster not only the coordination but the pooling of security and development (e.g. funding for the African Peace Facility via the European Development Funds, Working Programme on Policy Coherence, the Security »Fiche« of the Country Strategy Papers, conflict prevention and fragile states as priority area in the European Consensus on Development). In addition, the European Union has appealed to its member states to adjust their strategies accordingly and to provide additional support for this task.This raised well-known fears and concerns about a securitization of development. But the debate about the sensitive boundaries between security and development often neglects several major factors that actually imply a strengthening of development concerns in European Union Foreign and Security Policy: a developmentalization of security. Firstly, the formation of civil-military instruments at the European level (ESDP) is widely acknowledged as an ‘add-on’ instrument to the tool-box of European foreign and security policy, an indispensable short-term instrument to assist long-term and structural conflict prevention (EU Programme for the Prevention of Violent Conflicts, European Security Strategy). Secondly, after decades of resistance ESDP was only made possible with the support by the EU commission, the neutral member states and the civilian oriented member states; as a result the discursive connection to the foreign and security concept of the EU as international actor heavily relies on development issues. Finally, only a handful of pioneers among the EU members foster proactively the idea of joining up security and development – and even among the key supporters this agenda differs substantially –, while others do not dispose of a conflict-sensitive development policy or even strongly reject the idea of pooling security and development. Up to now we know little about the impulses of agenda-setters and why different strategies towards precarious states result in the specific way the European Union is constructing its relationship of security and development. What’s the way ahead for EU development policy within the concert of its external actions? In the paper the joint-up government-approaches to foster policy coherence among development and security of the EU institutions (Commission/Council) and efforts of the four ‘pioneers’ among the member states (Great Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden and Germany) will be reflected in order to identify their political, institutional and operational precursors and fitting pieces on the European level and discourse. As a result it will be possible to state and identify more precisely the blurring of boundaries and interaction between and within “the” development and security communities due to certain lines of argumentation (e.g. illustrated by the fact that approaches to state-building borrow heavily from development actors’ experiences with capacity-building programs). The intent of the paper is not only to demonstrate that there are no clear-cut dividing lines between the two communities but to single out coalitions of actors with certain common interests and mind maps how to deal with fragile states that cut across the horizontal, vertical and functional levels of the European governance system.
Convention
Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

Association:
Name: ISA's 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES
URL:
http://www.isanet.org


Citation:
URL: http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p254340_index.html
Direct Link:
HTML Code:

MLA Citation:

Tannous, Isabelle. "Blind Spots in the European Debate about Security and Development: Towards a Developmentalization of European Union Foreign and Security Policy?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES, Hilton San Francisco, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA, Mar 26, 2008 <Not Available>. 2016-06-08 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p254340_index.html>

APA Citation:

Tannous, I. , 2008-03-26 "Blind Spots in the European Debate about Security and Development: Towards a Developmentalization of European Union Foreign and Security Policy?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES, Hilton San Francisco, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA <Not Available>. 2016-06-08 from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p254340_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Instead of focusing on the »particular direction of causality« (CfP), this paper will deal with the alleged blind spot of the debate about security and development: the developmentalization of European foreign and security policy.The EU is without doubt paving the way for more civil-military coordination and is more and more integrating security issues in its development policy. There is a range of new initiatives initiated by the European Union to foster not only the coordination but the pooling of security and development (e.g. funding for the African Peace Facility via the European Development Funds, Working Programme on Policy Coherence, the Security »Fiche« of the Country Strategy Papers, conflict prevention and fragile states as priority area in the European Consensus on Development). In addition, the European Union has appealed to its member states to adjust their strategies accordingly and to provide additional support for this task.This raised well-known fears and concerns about a securitization of development. But the debate about the sensitive boundaries between security and development often neglects several major factors that actually imply a strengthening of development concerns in European Union Foreign and Security Policy: a developmentalization of security. Firstly, the formation of civil-military instruments at the European level (ESDP) is widely acknowledged as an ‘add-on’ instrument to the tool-box of European foreign and security policy, an indispensable short-term instrument to assist long-term and structural conflict prevention (EU Programme for the Prevention of Violent Conflicts, European Security Strategy). Secondly, after decades of resistance ESDP was only made possible with the support by the EU commission, the neutral member states and the civilian oriented member states; as a result the discursive connection to the foreign and security concept of the EU as international actor heavily relies on development issues. Finally, only a handful of pioneers among the EU members foster proactively the idea of joining up security and development – and even among the key supporters this agenda differs substantially –, while others do not dispose of a conflict-sensitive development policy or even strongly reject the idea of pooling security and development. Up to now we know little about the impulses of agenda-setters and why different strategies towards precarious states result in the specific way the European Union is constructing its relationship of security and development. What’s the way ahead for EU development policy within the concert of its external actions? In the paper the joint-up government-approaches to foster policy coherence among development and security of the EU institutions (Commission/Council) and efforts of the four ‘pioneers’ among the member states (Great Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden and Germany) will be reflected in order to identify their political, institutional and operational precursors and fitting pieces on the European level and discourse. As a result it will be possible to state and identify more precisely the blurring of boundaries and interaction between and within “the” development and security communities due to certain lines of argumentation (e.g. illustrated by the fact that approaches to state-building borrow heavily from development actors’ experiences with capacity-building programs). The intent of the paper is not only to demonstrate that there are no clear-cut dividing lines between the two communities but to single out coalitions of actors with certain common interests and mind maps how to deal with fragile states that cut across the horizontal, vertical and functional levels of the European governance system.


Similar Titles:
The New Polarization in American Politics: Interest Groups, Mass Media and Contestation of the Abortion Issue

Interest Groups, Polarization, and Abortion Debate Structure: Social Network Analysis of “Frames"


 
All Academic, Inc. is your premier source for research and conference management. Visit our website, www.allacademic.com, to see how we can help you today.