A Partnership with Dictatorship: Explaining the Paradigm Shift in European Union Policy towards Belarus*

Abstract

The European Union's policies towards autocratic regimes have come under renewed scrutiny following the popular uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) in the spring of 2011, and the pressure on the EU to revise its approach towards the region has been growing. Over decades, the EU had pursued a policy of pragmatic engagement with autocratic regimes for stability in the region, to the detriment of democracy promotion. This article examines the EU's policy towards Belarus, often labelled the 'last dictatorship' in Europe, and demonstrates that the EU has not just pursued pragmatic politics in the MENA -it has also gradually moved from democracy promotion towards interest-based functional co-operation in its relations with the most 'reluctant democratizer' in eastern Europe. It is argued here that the case of Belarus and other states with autocratic leanings in eastern Europe are examples of an increasingly institutionalized pragmatic approach of the EU towards autocratic regimes, which is likely to dominate its policies in years to come -notwithstanding the recent events in the MENA.* The author would like to thank the editors of JCMS and the anonymous reviewers for their very valuable and constructive comments.

Normative Empire Europe: The European Union, its Borderlands, and the ‘Arab Spring’

“…Youngs, ). This is also obvious in eastern Europe, where the EU continues to co‐operate with countries with clear autocratic leanings (Bosse, ). The EU's focus on security and the prevention of unwanted migration from the south, at the expense of human rights (e.g.…”

The good, the bad, and the ambitious: democracy and autocracy promoters competing in Belarus

“…To protest against the autocratic developments in Belarus, all of the EU members and associated countries froze intergovernmental contacts with Minsk. Although the EU lacked a common strategy toward Belarus, it employed negative conditionality, seeking to change the authoritarian course (Bosse, 2012a). 17 As an answer to the policy of isolation, Minsk initiated a diplomatic conflict, by obliging European diplomats to leave immediately their residences, using the arguments of a necessary reconstruction of the buildings.…”

EU Rules Beyond its Borders: The Policy‐specific Effects of Transgovernmental Networks and EU Agencies in the European Neighbourhood

“…However, the impact of such EU engagement on the actual practices of neighbouring states remains under‐researched. Although the phenomenon of EU transgovernmental networks has received some attention (see, for example, Bosse, ; Freyburg, , ; Katsaris, ; Shyrokykh, ), the role of EU agencies in this co‐operation has not been considered, which is surprising given that EU agencies play an increasingly important role in the external governance of the EU (Hofmann et al ., ).…”