6
of the Mediterranean region, especially the Middle-East conflict, ranked high on the transatlantic
agenda, more so after the 9-11 attacks.
However, even as the transatlantic community follows closely the developments in Europe’s southern
neighborhood, the eastern and the southeastern neighborhood remain much more unattended. From a
European perspective, this is not justified, as many of the problems in the regions challenge the
security of the European Union. A new overarching policy program for coping with the region, the
European Neighborhood Policy (ENP), was created in 2003
19
, encompassing as specific sub-regions,
the Mediterranean Region, the South Caucasus and Eastern Europe.
20
According to the key documents published from 2003 to 2005 the goal of the ENP is:
“The ENP is designed to give new impetus to cooperation with the EU’s neighbours
following enlargement. Relations with partner countries will be enriched drawing as
appropriate on the experience gained in supporting the process of political and economic
transition, as well as economic development and modernisation in the new Member States
and candidate countries.
The ENP should reinforce the EU’s contribution to promoting the settlement of regional
conflicts.”
21
The EU strategy addressing the instability in its neighborhood focuses explicitly on the problems of
modernization. It tries to foster political and economic transition by setting incentives, but tries to
avoid the policy it pursued on the Balkans, where the main incentive was the promise of future EU
membership.
22
The ENP is, according to one of its basic principles, the attempt to build a strategy
without this membership incentive.
The US Approach
The security risks, which are virulent in the post-Soviet space, are also addressed by the US National
Security Strategy (NSS). In the NSS, the United States states its commitment to “work with others to
defuse regional conflicts”
23.
In chapter four, it explains which principles should lead its efforts:
"The United States should invest time and resources into building international
relationships and institutions that can help manage local crises when they emerge.
The United States should be realistic about its ability to help those who are unwilling or
unready to help themselves. Where and when people are ready to do their part, we will be
willing to move decisively."
24
A first glance, the literature and the document cited above suggest that even though the overall
approach of the European Union and the United States are similar, the emphasis would be slightly
different. It seems that the EU risk perception is dominated by a structure-centered approach. It is also
a proactive one, as it tries to improve structures before a conflict breaks out. One could expect that the
EU also perceives the risks in the post-Soviet space originating from problematic structures. Therefore,
19
Communication from the Commission, Wider Europe – Neighbourhood: A new Framework for relations with our
Eastern and Southern Neighbours, COM(2003) 104 final, Brussels, March 2003.
20
EU Council Conclusions: New Neighbours Initiative - doc. 14078/02, Brussels, November 2002.
21
Communication from the Commission: European Neighbourhood Policy. Strategy Paper, COM(2004) 373 final,
Brussels, May 2004.
22
Communication from the Commission, Conflict Prevention, COM ( 2001) 211 final, Brussels, April 2001.
23
The White House, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, Washington, DC, 2002, p. 1.
24
The White House, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, Washington, DC, 2002, p. 9.
Convention