The European Union's 'Comprehensive Approach' in Chad: securitisation and/or compartmentalisation?

The European Union (EU) aims for a comprehensive approach to security in developing countries. As a result, attempts have been made to enhance the nexus between the EU's security policy and other policy areas, particularly development, humanitarian assistance, and democratic governance. This article analyses the EU's comprehensive approach in the case of Chad, focusing on two questions. First, has the EU's comprehensive approach been able to supersede the compartmentalisation of the EU's political system? Second, has it led to the securitisation of non-security policy areas? These questions are answered by investigating the nexus between the EU's security, democracy, development and humanitarian aid policies in Chad from 2006 onwards. This analysis confirms the compartmentalisation scenario, especially regarding development and humanitarian aid where the relation with security policies was at times openly conflicting. While the EU's democracy promotion policies are found to be securitised, this is not the case for development and humanitarian aid

Moving beyond a donor-recipient relationship? Assessing partnership in the Joint Africa-EU Strategy

The Joint Africa-EU Strategy (JAES), which was adopted in 2007, aimed to break with the traditional donor-recipient relationship between the EU and Africa and to develop a true partnership. The concept of partnership has been central in EU-Africa relations ever since the Lomé Agreement (1975), but many have argued that it has been eroded by conditionalities and the end of special trade preferences. Ideally, a partnership is characterized by shared values, equality and trust, but are these principles reflected in the JAES? This study investigates this question by focusing on the thematic partnerships on peace and security and democratic governance and human rights. The paper argues that, despite the power asymmetries between the EU and Africa, the JAES has been characterized by equality in decision-making and by African ownership in capacity-building. However, while the JAES may objectively be based on shared values, the EU and the AU have often differed on how to apply those values in concrete situations, more particularly on the question which type of intervention is acceptable (conditionality, military intervention, etc.). Moreover, the analysis identifies a general feeling of mistrust amongst both parties in the partnership

Assessing Partnership in the Joint Africa-EU Strategy

The Joint Africa-EU Strategy (JAES), which was adopted in 2007, aimed to break with the traditional donor-recipient relationship between the EU and Africa and to develop a true partnership. The concept of partnership has been central in EU-Africa relations ever since the Lomé Agreement (1975), but many have argued that it has been eroded by conditionalities and the end of special trade preferences. Ideally, a partnership is characterized by shared values, equality and trust, but are these principles reflected in the JAES? This study investigates this question by focusing on the thematic partnerships on peace and security and democratic governance and human rights. The paper argues that, despite the power asymmetries between the EU and Africa, the JAES has been characterized by equality in decision-making and by African ownership in capacity-building. However, while the JAES may objectively be based on shared values, the EU and the AU have often differed on how to apply those values in concrete situations, more particularly on the question which type of intervention is acceptable (conditionality, military intervention, etc.). Moreover, the analysis identifies a general feeling of mistrust amongst both parties in the partnership

Norms, self-interest and effectiveness: explaining double standards in EU reactions to violations of democratic principles in Sub-Saharan Africa

Democracy promotion is often criticized for its double standards: in some countries, negative measures (public criticism, sanctions) are used, while in other countries there is a preference for positive measures (incentives, dialogue and capacity building). While such double standards have also been observed in European Union (EU) policies (Brummer, 2009; Warkotsch, 2008), few studies have thoroughly investigated the reasons for these double standards, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa

Moving beyond a donor-recipient relationship? Assessing the principle of partnership in the joint Africa-EU strategy

The Joint Africa-EU Strategy (JAES, 2007), aimed to break with the traditional donor-recipient relationship between the EU and Africa and to develop a true partnership. This paper investigates whether the JAES has succeeded in this aim. Particularly, it focuses on the principle of equality, defined as a situation where the more powerful partner does not impose its will on the less powerful partner. Empirically, it investigates the thematic partnerships on peace and security and democratic governance and human rights. Based on a review of primary and secondary literature and 32 expert interviews, the paper argues that the EU has overall treated its African counterparts as equal partners in these thematic partnerships, namely by respecting ownership and jointly deciding on what to discuss in the partnership. Nonetheless, divergences based on differences in interests and values have in some cases led to the perception from African partners that the EU did not treat them as equals

Promoting democracy or the external context? Comparting the substance of EU and US democracy assistance in Ethiopia

This article analyses the substance of the European Union’s and United States’ democracy assistance in Ethiopia in 2005–2010. Does this case reveal a transatlantic split, whereby the EU focuses on the external context and the US on the partial regimes of embedded, liberal democracy? Emphasizing the importance of institutions in analysing how interests and ideas affect democracy assistance, the article investigates how the substance may differ between the European Development Fund (EDF), European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The analysis finds a transatlantic split whereby the EU focused more on the external context and the US more on the partial regimes. This transatlantic split can be explained by the combination of ideas and institutions. More specifically, it reflects a difference between the EDF and USAID in their focus on ownership, alignment and harmonization in democracy assistance. The combination of interests and institutions played a less significant role in explaining the substance of democracy assistance, as USAID emphasized the partial regimes, despite political control from the State Department

EU aid conditionality in ACP countries: explaining inconsistency in EU sanctions practice

The EU is often criticised for using negative conditionality only in poor, strategically less important countries in the ACP region. However, whether and why there is inconsistency within the group of ACP countries has not been properly investigated. Therefore, this article investigates the reasons for the EU’s non-application of Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement in five countries that can be considered typical cases where negative conditionality is generally imposed, namely countries that experienced flawed elections over the last ten years: Ethiopia, Rwanda, Nigeria, Kenya and Chad. On the one hand, the study confirms previous findings that security interests tend to trump the EU’s efforts to promote democratisation. On the other hand, the article adds that democratisation might not only conflict with the EU’s interests, but also with its objective to promote development and poverty reduction