Paper short abstract:

This paper compares the EU's foreign policy in three Southern African countries. How does the EU exercise and reconcile its material and its value-centric agendas? Does this differ notably between countries and what does this say about the EU's ability to adapt to changing regional exigencies?

Paper long abstract:

The 2016 EU Global Strategy declared "principled pragmatism" a new guiding principle for EU foreign and security policy. The Strategy set a less bashful tone for the EU, asserting that the organisation's "interests and values go hand in hand. We have an interest in promoting our values in the world. At the same time, our fundamental values are embedded in our interests." Does this language thus mark a conscious move away from moral or normative power aspirations to the pursuit of utilitarian interests, or is principled pragmatism merely reflective of how the EU was already conducting its foreign policy?

In Africa, much has been said about the EU's contradictory tendencies, particularly on thematic issues such as trade. Less, however, has been said about the comparative consistency of EU foreign policy in different partner countries in Africa. Do EU role conceptions matter? Or is foreign policy contingent on the receptive capacity of the partner country? Using extensive interviews with EU diplomats in each case study country, this paper will explore the EU's foreign policy in South Africa (higher income), Zambia (middle income) and Malawi (low income). The purpose is to investigate the decision making process in different contexts as the EU exercises (and attempts to reconcile) its material and its value-centric agendas. The choice of three profoundly different economies in Southern Africa allows for the testing of asymmetrical power relations. Indeed, this paper will show that paradoxically, the EU's normative power is strongest where its coercive power is strongest too.