10 Promoting Democracy as a Security Goal. The ‘inward-outward’ Paradox of the EU’s Foreign Policy Omar Serrano 10.1 Introduction 1 This chapter looks at the influence of domestic polit- ical processes and public opinion in the framing of EU foreign policy. In doing so, policies which have been aimed at achieving regional security by means of promoting internal reforms are evaluated. The chap- ter emphasizes a mismatch between security concerns amongst policy-makers 2 and public opinion. 3 An in- creased concern on foreign policy-related issues (from domestic constituencies) it seems follows a similar pattern to the erosion of the ‘permissive consensus’ (Lindberg/Scheingold 1971) in the past decade. 4 There is strong opposition in many member states (MS) towards the effects of policies which comprise the extension of the ‘four freedoms’ (of capital, la- bour, goods, and services). The latter are the main in- centives offered by both enlargement and New Neigh- bourhood strategies. This is relevant inasmuch as it suffices for public opinion to constrain a few MS for European foreign policy (EFP) as a whole to be af- fected. Since most areas in EFP are intergovernmen- tal, a single member can in principle block or alter a common position. 5 Thus, the influence of domestic pressures should not be overlooked. The paradox of the internal-external dimension suggests that a certain mismatch exists amongst the security perceptions (and security goals) of policy- makers and voters. European voters have stressed so- cial (job insecurity) or societal (fear of immigration) dimensions of security, whilst policy-makers have em- phasized external or political ones. Regional democra- tization strategies are particularly affected by this hap- pening. That the Eastern enlargement (whilst extremely successful in promoting democratic consolidation of the new member states) has heightened public con- cerns on EFP, has to do with the aforementioned par- adox. In particular, given the strong opposition to- wards extending membership to some of the countries included in the 2004 enlargement (10.3). Al- though current voters’ concerns have (so far) mainly affected some of the EU’s democratization policies, 6 it is not the only foreign policy area where domestic 1 The author would like to thank Jonas Hagmann, Thorsten Wetzling, and four anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on previous versions of this chapter. He is also grateful to policy-makers from various MS permanent representations in Brussels, and at the Com- mission, who kindly provided their time and hindsight and whose interviews greatly enhanced this research. 2 By policy-makers, ideal types are considered. The aim is to capture the EU policy-making process as a whole, and not any individual cases. There was much diver- gence amongst the different representatives of member states (MS) in the run-up to the 2004 enlargement (O’Brennan 2006). 3 When measuring public opinion the study relies on Eurobarometer surveys. Aggregate EU-15 data are used for the 2004 enlargement, and in more recent cases the data are aggregated for the EU-25 or EU-27 . In some par- ticularly relevant cases, public opinion of individual MS is also examined. 4 Several authors (e.g. Norris 1997) have argued that this consensus began to disappear by 1989 and became clear with the opposition to the Maastricht referendum. Whilst this is the case for overall support to European integration (both from an affective and a utilitarian per- spective) this does not seem to have directly translated into the realm of foreign policy. After all, this was one of the fastest growing areas of integration throughout the decade of the 1990’s. The Eastern enlargement appears to have changed this ‘benign neglect’ as further enlargement policies given immigration or economic lib- eralization fears have met strong opposition. 5 In practice this works through coalition-building, as peer pressure can be strong and it is unlikely for a single MS to defend a position alone. 6 Chiefly the enlargements towards Turkey and the West Balkans, but possibly also to the New Neighbourhood policy if it were to be fully implemented (i.e. the exten- sion of the four freedoms). H.G. Brauch et al. (eds.), Coping with Global Environmental Change, Disasters and Security, Hexagon Series on Human 219 and Environmental Security and Peace 5, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-17776-7_10, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011