Suchergebnisse

The paper deals with official development assistance (ODA) policies of the USA, the EU and China in the comparative context of latest developments. The development approaches of the three actors under investigation demonstrate common features as well as idiosyncrasies in terms of management, resources, and ideological justification. All actors strive towards complex model of influence through ODA including tying together economic projects with sociocultural heft and security. The underlying trends characteristic of the USA, and in significant degree of the EU approaches combine traditional aim of reshaping sociopolitical institutions of target countries with growing securitization concerns. In the case of the U.S., one can speak of 'militarization' of ODA which means blurring the lines between military aid (and goalsetting) and traditional development assistance. China is on the way of reforming its international development cooperation industry, seeking to transform it into a more complex toolset of influence, better coordinated, and more closely knit to foreign policy and security objectives. In contrast to the Western paradigm, Beijing avoids imposing its model of development and threat perception upon the aid-recipient countries. The analysis concludes that "soft power" concept is being sidelined in the world of great power rivalry by more complex and hybrid formats of foreign influence which combine sociocultural, political, geoeconomic, and military instruments, with development assistance playing a role of one of the primary foreign policy resources. New dimensions of rivalry associated with industrial and technological race in energy, climate, and supply chains are coming to the fore in ODA policies. The role of sociocultural influence toolkit is growing given information and communication technologies progress, proliferation of non-state actors in international relations, and increasing activity of China in the area, which challenges the dominant positions the Western actors have enjoyed for over 30 years.

he paper deals with the recent transformation of EU public diplomacy. Changes in EU public diplomacy organizational structure are considered as well as programming documents, funding, statements of EU leadership, and expert evaluations. The problem of EU self-representation and positioning has exacerbated after the crisis of 2008. It is concluded that EU public diplomacy is in the midst of significant changes: emphasis on unique, multilateral, and peaceful nature of EU is being sidelined by the issue of external threat and securitization of EU communications. This is being carried out in expectation of consolidation of support for the integration project as well as expanding the authority of EU institutions. It is argued that financing plans for 2021‒2027 period, planning documents of European Commission, and general directorates for the next 5 years map out expansion of external threat messages within EU framework programmes. Implementation of such plans will highly likely lead to increased confrontation between the EU and Russia.

The paper deals with the problem of investigating strategies and experience of the European Union which it employs to strengthen its political influence in the Eastern Partnership countries by means of working with business sector. The author analyses statistical data, official EU position and programme documents, funding data. Institutional and constructivist approaches are employed to study the processes and results of EU policies. The study covers the period between 2009 and 2020, and investigates aims, instruments, funding, KPI of the EU in dealing with business communities of Eastern Partnership countries. The author gives an overview of a range of opinions in expert discussions concerning the humanitarian influence of the EU. The conclusion is drawn that the scale and forms of EU interventions and funding for particular country are conditioned by the level of political relationship with its government. The bulk of funding (more than 60%) is directed not to loans or subsidies to SMEs, but to humanitarian (i.e. "soft power") projects focusing of particular groups – entrepreneurs, active youth, regions, officials, etc. EU humanitarian penetration into focus countries of EP creates an infrastructure, social organizations and groups, which could be utilized to political ends.

The article deals with recent developments in the EU foreign policy towards neighbouring countries. The EU humanitarian influence mechanisms within the framework of European Neighbourhood Policy, Eastern Partnership program, along with the case of Belarus are explored. The article outlines that the European Union creates instruments of external influence through fostering humanitarian infrastructure in the periphery countries. As a result, the official government of a targeted country is not only unable to participate in the shaping of "European norms and rules", but also ceases to be the single Brussel"s counterpart. NGOs supported by the EU involve in to the dialogue between Brussels and the official government on behalf of the civil society. The latter contributes to the asymmetrical "teacher-apprentice" relationship between the EU and the bordering countries. Particular humanitarian instruments and cases exercised by the EU are explored. The interconnections between economic, political, and humanitarian tools in EU foreign policy are outlined. It is concluded that the "soft power" concept fails to explain comprehensively the EU foreign policy in the humanitarian sphere. Brussels seeks to exert systemic influence upon the humanitarian sphere of the periphery countries to bolster its political and economic position.