CEU eTD Collection

Dissertation submitted i submitted Dissertation R OMANIA Doctoral School of Political Science, Public Policy and International Relations International and Policy Public Science, Political of School Doctoral ’ S T E HE URO n partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Doctor of the degree for the requirements of fulfilment n partial P T RAXIS OF OF RAXIS RANSITIONAL RANSITIONAL - A Supervisor: Dr Michael MerlingenSupervisor:Dr Michael TLANTIC TLANTIC Central Central By Csernatoni Raluca Budapest R S OMANIA Submitted to Submitted European University European ECURITY A S 2014 ND ECURITY ,

Hungary

’ S

S P

ECURITY ROFILE ROFILE H

ABITUS

P F OST

IELD - C

OLD

W AR :

CEU eTD Collection 19September Csernatoni Raluca other any in themade ofbibliographical reference. form for accepted materials isacknowledgement appropriate whereexcept person, anyother no bypublished and/or contains thesis this other any in degrees, that declare hereby I th , 2014

institutions. The thesis contains no materials previously written previously materials no contains thesis The institutions.

D ECLARATION i

CEU eTD Collection by mirrored after Romania’s during and security common contri national enhanced for frameworks complementary international two the seen has Romania transition. strategy security national their in change and adaptation of levels the case Romanian the with contrast and compare to as so forward put are Poland and Hungary of cases The the analyse to as of securityth profile so out teased be to need articulations and practices Romania, as such state member chall to contribute that question policies defence and security common implement to and governance Union’s European the and state, Atlanticist and research This enging its integration its ,

ne te nlec o NT ad h CD drn ter post their during CSDP the and NATO of influence the under

security sector transformation sector security h country the ,

inspires outlines n t frhr utvt te Euro the cultivate further to and security sector reform sector security

e country.e process i.e.

defence. the research is research the the willingness of an under an of willingness the s novmn i te Us omn euiy n Defence and Security Common EU’s the in involvement ’s Romania, to support the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Treaty Atlantic North the support to Romania,

omn euiy n Dfne Policy Defence and Security Common in the Alliance. the in

NATO A h nwy emerged newly the

has played played has the motivation of Romania to participate in, to in, participate to Romania of motivation the BSTRACT uig and during , ii post

influences

These - Cold War Cold

- the the tatc atesi i lgt f its of light in partnership Atlantic -

researched, formerly communist, formerly researched, security

fundamental role of mentorship of role fundamental

rcdn and preceding f AO n te CSDP the and NATO of .

bution In the case of a newer EU newer a of case the In national strategic culture culture strategic national

reforms

to the the have ehnss of mechanisms also . Euro

h driving The

- continuing also also Cold War War Cold - specific Atlantic been been as

CEU eTD Collection moves conceptual also beyond Bourdieu’s understanding of the culture, strategic and Europeanization on debates broader the with Bourdieu cross to advances research present security question, practitioner under are action strategic of rationalizations and structures formal tha proposition the under operates thesis The professionalization change in of and the effects hysteresis partnership Atlantic levelstheir of practitioners security Romanian reconstructs thesis the so, doing In ofsecurityfield defence and domestic of processes the the on focusing by and change policy security Romania’s of insights NATO valuable and gives research of production tutorship joint security the under of projection understandings international modern more to representations professionals’ security of transformation the to is goal research The civilianto in and participate capabilities civilian develop to framework CSDP the using Romania (CSDP), Policy involve

in such in . ment The The map out map

practitioners’ in shaping thecountry’s -

research military operations. transformation .

s

rely a to practicalguide actions. substrate on their

’ the evolution and the inherent ten inherent the and evolution the habituses Romania security profile profile security Romania - u the cut reveals

normative post iii resistance ,

- s eeld n interviews in revealed as

Cold War Cold War t in a transitional security context, when context, securitytransitional a in t habituses practice ht hr hv been have there that

attitudes as regards the processes the regards as attitudes national attitude national -

oriented oriented and Romanian security field.

rm h otae Cold outdated the from professionalization from the perspective of perspective the from coasi o Pierre of scholarship habitus

sions triggered by triggered sions towards construction or in or construction

. tensions and

CSDP

the the Euro it traces traces it

. in the in

u it but

- War War The The and - CEU eTD Collection practices encountered as actors security by embodied the in adjustments post The reforms. stages transitional during practices security fluctuating describe p research The - c muit Romania ommunist ,

h fud hrce of character fluid the and by security practitioners practitioners security by transitional security habitus security transitional international roposes the the roposes security s security ’s professionalization prerequisites professionalization original

habitus h Rmna security Romanian the

concept of concept oil sria” tool “survival” social policy policy during changing security changing during

eoe nrie habitual ingrained become captures best iv

transition

the

transitional

– under the idiosyncratic character character idiosyncratic the

; it s; habitus dpain o change to adaptation .

security multiple security policy security multiple reflect context,

n te constantly the and s

habitus h struggles the fluid security fluid disposition

to best to and of s , CEU eTD Collection academic formative years will and I with them alwaysfondness. remember ha Studies European and Relations Centr the by received support financial time and assistance administrative the for grateful also their am I with contributed that interviewees to like the also would to knowledge I gratitude thesis, PhD my the in express anonymous remain will they though Even related defence andNATO EU securitypolicy and developments knowledge academic I where Brussels, the to grateful very also am I regarding Studies European project my PhD Brussels chance s (IEP) at Politics receiver European Grant Mobility for Erasmus Institute the at be Fellow Research I studies PhD my During chapter. myobservations for theoretical I where Department the at Theory”,Kowalski Alexandra Social “Contemporary of course the to thanks special owe I Commonand Theory Policy. Security Defence action in volume, edited to for and like would I for Kurowska feedback. Xymena constructive Dr thank and insightful their for Roe Paul Dr and Kurowska Xymena Dr Panel, PhD my in readers two Relationsthe to grateful extremely International of of Department members the the from activities assistance academic other and my advice and project valuable PhD received my concerning always have I research, PhD my During my of completion thedissertationof project. the in thesis, my elements of writing the during dedicated effort and fundamental energy the for him thank to were like would I dissertation. patience and criticism, and project dissertation the during offered support personal and intellectual great the for Merlingen, Michael Dr supervisor, my to gratitude deepest my express to like would I pending time in a in time pending during

giving me the opportunity to publish a chapter based on my dissertation in her in on my based a dissertation chapter opportunity publish giving the to me was witness to to witness was to to , al al I was able was I

and offeredand comments insightful duringinterviewing the process. and European University. My studies with the the with studies MyUniversity. European and receive my Masters and PhD Studies. His outstanding su outstanding His Studies. PhD and Masters my Xymena Kurowska and Fabian Breuer (eds.) (eds.) Breuer Fabian and Kurowska Xymena have been given the opportunity to apply to opportunity the given been have

policy

feedback

and to consult with several Professors from ULB and the Institute of Institute the and ULB from Professors several with consult to with full with eye

in particular in think

- opening opening

Internationa ne intellectual and constructive criticism criticism constructive and

tank and in a different academic institution academic different a in and tank A itd rm w get eerh xeine: s a as experiences: research great two from fitted providing valuable guidance valuable providing CKNOWLEDGEMENTS h Free the

discussions ve for the for

of Sociology and Social Anthropology Social and Sociology of

akd h gets ad et at f my of part best and greatest the marked v freedom freedom l Security Information Service Information Security l

.

n Erpa Studies European and assistance nvriy f rses (ULB). Brussels of University

and as a a as

received important important received , Palgrave, Macmill

research o research given Department of International of Department o my for

my

during my dissertation dissertation my during pervision, constructive pervision, during the last stages last the during n eln n a an as and Berlin in . xliig h EU’s the Explaining

research skills and skills research PhD fficer

t CEU at

offered , research

– an, 2011. working on on working conceptual

,

especially Europe I had I By both both By

I am I . (

CEU by Dr by

. and the

I in ) n ,

CEU eTD Collection not today. would of I memory her the Without to Csernatoni. wholeheartedly Carmen dedicated is dissertation PhD This Csernatoni, Ioan father, believing love. and his for me in for to like would I years. these all during me in faith continued his support thankwould I like to my partner

during the toughest times in my life, for life, my in times toughest the during

for life Mihai and best for Barbat, friend, for vi

ae b have his patience his ecome

, uncondition

h pro that person the show gratitude to gratitude show

his wonderfulhis my al

love, mother,

am I

and my

CEU eTD Collection in Europe CHAPTER 3 The Romanian Security Field Security Field CHAPTER A 2 Conceptual Frameworkfor ReconstructingPractical the Logic theof Transitional Literatures CHAPTER 1 Literature Review Introduction List Abbreviationsof List Tablesof List Figuresof Abstract Research Methods and Methodological Insights for theStudy Securityof Practices 3.8 Conclusion 3.8 3.7 RomanianThe Security and Defence Policy between NATO and the CSDP 3.6 RomanianThe Security Field, RelevantInstitutional Structures and StrategicArticulations Historical 3.5 Considerations andNATO the Romania’s 3.4 Strategic 3.3 postThe 3.2 HistoricalThe and Institutional Background NATOof and the CSDP Introduction 3.1 Conclusion 2.3 2.2 Transitional Security Habitus Introduction 2.1 Conclusion 1.5 1.4 The P 1.3 EuropeanizationThe Literature in Focus Strategic 1.2 Culture in Focus Introduction 1.1 2.2.5 Habitus and the 2.2.4 Habitus and symbolic power 2.2.3 Habitus and capital 2.2.2 Habitus and hysteresis 2.2.1 Habitus and field

......

......

...... osition of the Research in the IR Practice “Turn”

......

......

...... - Cold War Context and the Transformation the of European Security Landscape

......

......

......

Position intheWarsaw Pactduring Cold the War logic practiceof ......

...... – ......

Security Practicebetween Strategic Culture and Europeanization ......

...... –

Going Beyond the Rigidity of the Concept ...... T ......

...... ABLE OF ...... –

Historical Transformations and the SecurityConfiguration

...... -

...... dominated Romanian Security Habitu ...... vii ...... C ......

...... ONTENTS ......

......

......

......

......

...... s

......

......

......

130 119 113 106 100 . . .

92 82 79 79 77 74 72 69 65 59 56 52 52 50 47 37 28 23 23 14 . ix ix 1 ii x

CEU eTD Collection References Conclusion Perspective CHAPTER 6 The Post Policy CHAPTER S 5 Security Habitus CHAPTER 4 The Romanian Security Field 4.7 Conclusion 4.7 Ethos 4.6 The Professionalization theof Romanian Security Personnel Geopolitics 4.5 and Regional Leadership inthe SeaBlack Area Eff 4.4 4.3 The Politics versus SecurityNexus in the Romanian Security Field Romania’s 4.2 Security Apprenticeship Introduction 4.1 6.4 Conclusion 6.4 6.3 Poland’s Security Policy Reform after the end theof Cold W Hungary’s 6.2 Security Transition post Introduction 6.1 C 5.5 5.4 Principal Discursive Themes for Branding Romania’s Foreign and Security Policy Structural 5.3 and Contextual Factors and the Establishment aof Presidential Symbolic Power 5.2 RomanianThe President’Symbolic Power and itsIdiosyncratic Characteristics Introduction 5.1

...... onclusion

...... orts to Re

......

...... ymbolic Power and the Presidential Appropriation of the Romanian Foreign and Security ......

...... -

...... construct the Content Securityof post - Cold War Security Transformation of Hungaryand Poland ......

...... - – Cold War –

The HysteresisThe Effects of the Romanian Transitional

the Influences NATO of and theEU ...... viii

......

...... - Cold War ......

...... ar ...... -

...... The Content theof New Security

......

......

...... –

A Comparative

......

......

.. . . .

187 180 174 169 169 167 161 157 149 145 135 132 132 234 225 222 214 202 196 196 195

CEU eTD Collection T T T T L F F L IGURE IGURE ABLE ABLE ABLE ABLE ABLE IST OF IST OF 6.2.1. 6.1.1. 3.7.2. 3.7.1. 6.3.1. 2.2.1. T F IGURES ABLES

T T H R

P B HE HE HE UNGARY OMANIA OLAND OURDIEU S CSDP

ECURITY ’ ’ S ’ S S

’ P P EXIGENCIES ON S AGENCY AND STRUCTU AND AGENCY S P ARTICIPATION IN ARTICIPATION IN ARTICIPATION IN S ECTOR ECTOR

T RANSFORMATION OF RANSFORMATION R OMANIA I I P NTERNATIONAL NTERNATIONAL NTERNATIONAL NTERNATIONAL ix EACE EACE

RE INTERACTION RE ’ S SECURITY AND DEFEN SECURITYS AND O PERATIONS AS OF AS PERATIONS

M O H PERATIONS PERATIONS ISSIONS UNGARY UNGARY

AND AND M (1999 AY CE P 2012 OLAND

–

2013

)

CEU eTD Collection WEU USSR SSR OSCE NATO LTV ISAF EUMS EUBAM ESS EU ENP EDC EDA CSDP CSAT CNSAS CFSP L IST OF – –

– – – – – – European Union –

Long Vision Term – – – – – – European Security – European Neighbourhood Policy European Agency Defence Security Reform Sector European Defence Community International International Security Force Assistance The The European Union Western

–

The Common Foreign and Common SecurityThe Foreign and Policy Romania’s – The Common Defence Common The Security and Policy The North Atlantic The Treaty Organization Union ofSoviet Socialist Republics A Organization Security for European Union Military Staff

Council theFormer of Studies the Archivesfor of EU EU to Mission Border Assistance Moldova and Ukraine B B REVIATIONS Security Council Defence and

Strategy

and Cooperation in in and Cooperation Europe

x

Securitate

CEU eTD Collection with perspective relational a consider to broadened be must agency of idea the Bourdieu, to According actors. the up” “make that relations and structure social of set situ not is Agency(individuals). life bifocal subjective the and a (structure) life objective the on look” “duplex a Bourdieu, needed, is analysis to according world social the of workings the understand To of supposecreation a the for utility theoretical his and standpoint Bourdieu’s understand better to as so apparatus. theoretical constitu its in reality expectations high problem the However, interests. and values dispositions, habitual specific dialectic habits certain why sociologically A path the objectivebetween knowledgesubjective knowledge production. and smoothing and gaze, academic reflexive needed much the with design exist literature T Studies. Security wave Sociologist French ing conceptual difficulties of the structure and agency debate, infusing research infusing debate, agency and structure the of difficulties conceptual ing inspired by his work have become consistent “go consistent become have work his by inspired relation a been has - idd researc minded

ewe srcua cniin ad h aec o atr wt their with actors of agency the and conditions structural between become embedded become

he “practice turn” in International Relations and Security Studies Security and Relations International in turn” “practice he eie in resides Pierre Bourdieu’s social theory and and theory social Bourdieu’s Pierre tive intersubjectivity and his sometimes cumbersome and heavy and cumbersome sometimes his and intersubjectivity tive eadd s h lts tertcl tr” cpbe f ovn the solving of capable “turn”, theoretical latest the as heralded dly middle ground solutiondlyground in Security Stu middle As well, s well, As

orius overly Bourdieu’s h design design h everal analytical aspects aspects analytical everal I ated simply in bounded actors but within the wider the within but actors bounded in simply ated NTRODUCTION

and why and 1 la á

Bourdieu is expected to better better to expected is Bourdieu certain certain - ope atmt o eul social rebuild to attempt complex

- to” approaches i approaches to” practices need to be further clarified further be to need the

oe eet research recent more dies. change

n the field of field the n , due to the to due , with clarify such such

CEU eTD Collection his test afore to the attempt with an inquiry in sociological Bourdieu, Pierre by proposed apparatus conceptual post transition and reforms of waves the fiel security Romanian broader the and practitioners security Romanian in and empirical an sheds that one thesis: this sector, security Euro newer the of dynamic reform the signify and to trace that being aim principal the culture, strategic and Europeanization on debates cross project The the in adopted and agenda sociological Bourdieu’s from derived insights methodological field, security Romanian War Cold it. within actors’ position the and field security country’s the of nature the analysing when consider sub security status t by abide they whether possess, actors these capital symbolic and authority of the of configuration the and habitus their between compatibility the mitigate practitioners security which in ways the address m thesis this lines, these Along theintersubjectivestructure ends in mesh. works practice unde this actors, other and structures overall research design. overall research - quo

r at o hne t ad h lvl f cross of level the and it, change to want or - fields fields wee t s oty ifcl t feh u wee gny trs and starts agency where out flesh to difficult mostly is it where , i.e

The thesis makes use of fieldwork experience in the emerging post emerging the in experience fieldwork of use makes thesis The - cuts the theoretical framework of Pierre Bourdieu with the broader the with Bourdieu Pierre of framework theoretical the cuts Romania . n plc arenas policy and

.

he gnrl ie o agmnain r floe in followed are argumentation of lines general Three akes use of Bourdieu’s theoretical insights so as to as so insights theoretical Bourdieu’s of use akes the research agenda resorting to resorting agenda research the - etoe suy ae b ptig owr an forward putting by case, study mentioned Al f h aoe r rlvn vrals to variables relevant are above the of All . rstanding being the closest to to closest the being rstanding security - 2 odWr oe ht rns o h fr the fore the to brings that one War; Cold

- depth light in the ways in which the which in ways the in light depth field they are activating in, the level the in, activating are they field - oiiy ewe national between mobility - Atlanti mme state’s member c

theoretical and theoretical o everyday how mitigated d he -

CEU eTD Collection positionand ac between relations social the practice a forward puts decision by made b black the up opens it that is field value The NATO Romania of culture strategic national they how and nexuses security internal/external and empiri Special Romanian securitythe context. w in ways and production security of understandings defence outdated, traditional the from habituses professionals’ security Romanian of transformation The context. post the in (NATO) Organization Treaty Atlantic North The of stat member EU new the of case the in influences international two between complementarities and tensions the discusses that one finally, and contexts; transitional within manifested origi a udrtnig f o scrt hbt, rcie, n dsoiin are dispositions and practices, habits, security how of understanding nal research goal research - ization

hich there exist there hich - de o a Bourdieusean a of added - taking over the security overtaking the national agenda.

processes cal focus is given to the blurred the to given is focus cal es’ security and defence reform, defence and security es’ - making and liberal approaches in International Relations theory, it theory, Relations International in approaches liberal and making

is to is - ae Cold based - oriented sociology that looks primarily at practices reflected in reflected practices primarily at looks sociology that oriented . map out map

cross

-

tors, engaged in a constant game of power struggle power of game constant a in engaged tors, fertilization or conflicts between security sub security between conflicts or fertilization - a rpeettos o oe professionalized more to representations War the evolution and the inherent tensions inherent the and evolution the ox of the state state the of ox - nprd micro inspired ne te nlec of influence the under 3 international international

analytical lines between military/civilian between lines analytical i.e. –

-

and in contrast to the attempts the to contrast in and the EU the nlss f ntoa security national a of analysis

impacted and transformed transformed and impacted projection, and especiall and projection, ’s influence ’s

Brussels - od a security War Cold

- and the role the and zto and ization during - fields in fields y the the y the the CEU eTD Collection through practices reinforced intersubjectively and mediated, produced, micro oriented macro from focus analytical the shifts it so, doing In policy. defence and security of field the theRomaniasecurity of reformdynamicsby context highlighting the post story evolutionary the tells it that is research this of contribution empirical central The explicit or implicit normative agenda. important research is the of point majority the argumentative because This threats. security of problems definitional and context security European Western the in concentrated the of utilization could It notowasor interestlittle the paid thenewer states’ in member Euro “old” and Western the field. security in change and adaptation of practices the for factors explanatory NATO or Europeanization either cast not does thesis present the Therefore, Romania. of sector security the of transformation the in EU influences institutional competitive also but complementary, The

theoretical puzzle theoretical - tutrs r identity/interest or structures . e rud ht h mjrt o Ciia Scrt S Security Critical of majority the that argued be

u t tefc ta te coal atnin a be has attention scholarly the that fact the to Due - nlss wih sue that assumes which analysis,

member states’ processes of security transformation and change, and transformation security of processes states’ member above

proposed by this thesis consists in integrating the overlapping, integratingthe in consists thesis this by proposed - etoe cneta rvlis ae en empirically been have rivalries conceptual mentioned

-

ae aayi t a oe in more a to analysis based n h E’ gvrac i mtvtd y an by motivated is governance EU’s the on 4

neet, eif ad dniis a identities and beliefs interests, - ization processes as the sole the as processes ization

f oh AO n the and NATO both of

tudies regarding the the regarding tudies any targeted mainly n any ie to given mainly en - - vrdy social everyday Atlantic Atlantic Alliance. et, practice depth, - Cold

Romanian - War

the

re in -

CEU eTD Collection communist its between relations strategic and doctrinal be may tensioned there where potentially case study interesting an presents Romania that is matter the and field defence and security military the inter been conflicts, have intersections, there whether secondly, and War Cold the of end the since changed sectors. security their of transformation states’ member EU new the on literature academic the of scarcity the important An legitimate the the principles of di and legitimacy their power, establish to as so “battlefield” professional their in compete actors’ varying afore The field. the within engagement precisely more or actions, strategic their and dispositions actors representations, symbolic internalized its with habitus The internalization thethe symbolicof representations,field’s structures relations power of cartography its and field social the while power, and domination of relations display they which in field social “structuring” the by “structured” turn their in are actors Social manner. intersubjective constant interacting elements relational two the field, or milieu social their and The nt f analysis of unit

position i.e. resources or or resources

“every field is the site of a more or less overt struggle over the definition of definition the over struggleovert less or more a ofsite the is “everyfield

eerhbe cluster researchable s

in social hierarchies and and hierarchies social

hs eoe te eainl ieso bten oil agents social between dimension relational the becomes thus capitals (economic, cultural, social, and symbolic) that that symbolic) and social, cultural, (economic, capitals H ow and to what to and ow - ntttoa tnin, n cross and tensions, institutional

visionthe ( of field”

take - mentioned power relations are are relations power mentioned s

centre stage in the thesis, stemming from from stemming thesis, the in stage centre 5 micro

extent have Romania’s security sub security Romania’s have extent

c ivilian or political political or ivilian - structure Bourdieu 1985:Bourdieu the i.e s actors thr actors . The a The . conversely . the habitus. - etlztos between fertilizations field. The fact of the of fact The field. ctors will eventually will ctors

their further their 734). ough determining ough , will constitute constitute will , determined by determined

ly in an in ly

define - active fields fields

CEU eTD Collection as to refers Bourdieu what know of forms Specific fields. security national within upon acted are they dif in professionals security by acquired expertise Bourdieusian A ofthe newer case Euro dynam different out spells afore the between gamut security the 9/11, of attacks terrorist the of aftermath an as well as Union, Soviet the be has Europe Western in field, security traditional the of redefinition the If reform. and production security of terms in practices of scenarios different spell geopolitically applying By membership Roma of field security the has an of lack a of The (CSDP). Policy Defence and it modernization of lack or involvement the to contributed consequent the sector,and defence and security theRomanian of professionalization influences institutional external The North of Atlantic The Treaty Organization. E its legacies, ideological , -

abductive influenced, and and influenced, withparticipation theCSDP its in

overarching national strategic vision, strategic overarching national - inspired

- reasoning Atlantic statesAtlantic member Romania such as

eerh design research in NATO in uropean - mentioned internal/external, civilian/military internal/external, mentioned en c o patcs dsoiin ad representations and dispositions practices, of ics habitus

a direct consequence of the extreme Other’s collapse Other’s extreme the of consequence direct a main research question research main

limes

- i be afce ad transformed and affected been nia U o th to led operations or the or operations led

- trigger particular and context and particular trigger nion at tts te uc t b fruae could formulated be to hunch the status, cast cs o Rmna n is post its and Romania of case e

membership statu membership

6

ed wih t te nepa bten the between interplay the to weight lends i.e.

, internal/policing and external/defence, and internal/policing

and b ferent historical contexts and how and contexts historical ferent to what extent and in which ways which in and extent what to yNATO its allied forces

goes

EU’s s, and the major influence major the and s,

as follows: as

Common Security and Security Common . - specific hierarchies specific

nexuses nexuses in the context the in - y the by c ommunist, - - status how or or how

n the in could

EU EU ? –

CEU eTD Collection the influence to as so power leveraging weak or little with Romania, as such state Euro new a for high been have frameworks institutional CSDP EU’s t and NATO within adaptation for pressures the that expected be to is it that are of internalization of degree the or field, social actors actions Habitual challenge actorsfrom other within their field. comp the and influences, institutional international change, social to responses into put to focus as extremely tool so an helpful int structures), security society civil the realm, political the from professionals, security European inf outside impenetrable sometimes open and networked more The service. civil the from actors other by twin other to capitals their “transport” pro and mobilize to actors of capacity The theand highpolitics oftheirnature daily practice. positions military and political their in translated descriptors, authoritative embody wit populated are fields political and security the making, field. security the of spectrum broader the up make that groups and actors security between relations t in which resources, and skills legitimate between eract and reform their strategic doctrine. For instance, the notion of habitus can be can habitus of notion the instance, For doctrine. strategic their reform and eract fessional fields could account for the penetration of the military professional field field professional military the of penetration the for account could fields fessional ’

reflexivity in their actions, whether they respond well or not to changes in their their in changes to not wellor respond they whether actions, their reflexivityin luences

n practices and

(stemming ec, seily n h ram o scrt ad oeg policy foreign and security of realms the in especially Hence,

the more likely it is that those actors will be willing to socially socially to willing be will actors those that is it likely more the euiy n dfne il o mltr prof military of field defence and security from either an international transgovernmental field of field transgovernmental international an either from

, derived

7 rm h atr’ aiu, con fr the for account habitus, actors’ the from

their professional their the the

actors r gnrt srn competitive strong generate urn ’ h high ranking officials that officials ranking high h

capacity to adapt and their adapt to capacity

field. The The field. - Atlantic member member Atlantic becomes sinl to essionals hypotheses or internal internal or etitive

the he CEU eTD Collection security agenda. state the of role the scrutinizing simply than deeper run practice and discourse within framed is culture NATO and Europeanization analyses a agenda view, of research point Bourdieusean this From reform. and professionalization for prospects NATO by up opened securitystructures, national of field the within spaces free secu transnational flourishing Where closed legitimate practices, professional networks and policy exclusionarytactics. opportunities these reproduce by and establishing monopolise whichthey ways in the strategic oppor of windowspolicy of manipulation actors’ the on focused only not is research the Therefore, formulations. representation tra can research Euro new a of context national the in field security distinct transnational, a of emergence the questioning by Moreover, emulation milieus Euro new a of influence the strategicthe securityRomania’s make vision processes of transformation fuzzy;more informing in NATO of influence programmatic the and setting political communist post the within tradition military national strong a of lack the part; their from agenda is .

weak, s a wl a te uf oooy vr euiy rcie ad threat and practices security over monopoly turf the as well as ,

ih str with e ak h eie optto fr yblc oe and power symbolic for competition elite the back ce o g ntne o isiuinl i institutional of instances ng - zto poess n h Rmna ntoa strategic national Romanian the on processes ization -

tatc ebr tt wti NT ad h CSDP the and NATO within state member Atlantic rity action takes place, it reflects the potential of potential the reflects it place, takes action rity - tatc ebr tt sc a Rmna the Romania, as such state member Atlantic tunities or the use of their capital, but also on also but capital, their of use the or tunities 8

h wy n hc te mat of impact the which in way the by practitioners by and its monopoly over the the over monopoly its and oopim n policy and somorphism . The analytical stakes analytical The the the CSDP or or CSDP

- CEU eTD Collection we and strengths their regards as literatures culture strategic and literatures above the of tensions and affinities conceptual the at looks chapter review literature sociological the and “turn” practice recent the and work of body culture strategic the literature, Europeanization In and practices, discursive in reforms ininstitutional Rom the changes cross learning, social adaptation, isomorphism, for structural incentives international exogenous of The evidence design. research the of methodo generalization potential the sources secondary through assesses it Romania, of case the to contrasted as transformation security of analysiscomparative the through lastly, and setting; Romanian the of power symbolic Euro the under post dispositions and practices professionals’ security Romanian of on centres it projection War Cold the elements descriptive and historical with field security Romanian the of analysis empirical the foregrounds it contexts; security transitional in habitus of theoretical and framework inspired Bourdieusean a advances it literature; academic relevant the of appraisal a with critical off starts it out: laid concisely is thesis the of structure the follows, what In hpe 1 Chapter oy eto cvr te an eerh ehd ue t flesh to used methods research main the covers section logy -

oriented professionalized structures; by resorting to extensive interviewing, interviewing, extensive to resorting by structures; professionalizedoriented with Bourdieu’ conceptual apparatus conceptual Bourdieu’ with a

te eeat ieaue eiw s rsne ad drse: the addressed: and presented is review literature relevant the , so as to contextualize to as so

micro - tatc double Atlantic - analysis of the Romanian security field security Romanian the of analysis - nprd eerh n nentoa Rela International in research inspired

anian security sector. Presidency - odd nlec; t dniis h monopolizing the identifies it influence; folded prop the transition from traditional defence traditional from transition the oses 9

an original understanding of theconcept original understanding of an in terms of terms in

and it and

assesses the assesses Hungary and Poland and and Poland Hungaryand

the

; it looks it ; national security national

f oai during Romania of aknesses in terms in aknesses in ter. The theory. tions Europeanization

at the evolution the at - od a and War Cold - based to based - - - national u the out a genda genda the ir -

CEU eTD Collection Bourdieu’s being transition, and change constant ref are they as security strategic Romanian changing the in influences and unde particular The culture symboli Bourdieu’s and design research The culture. strategic national of understanding the to applied be theoretical The apparatus rich conceptual Bourdieu’s and sociological theory. of use made have that researchers Relations International of handful the referencing while chapter, the in forward put is practice as culture strategic of in more A objectives. research’s present the to perspective closest the as literature Europeanization within approaches institutionalist discursive con national c in entrenched become and emerge practices security how of understanding 2010: action social for accounting of concept of of concept the

out of sync with changing doxic patterns doxic changing with sync of out s 1. teto i as gvn o h fc that fact the to given also is Attention 11). cptl ad yblc power symbolic and capital, c

are beingthrough constructed security and dispositions. practices actors’ euiy eom post reforms security complex et. h catr as pca atnin o h srns eiae to dedicated strands the to attention special pays chapter The texts. rstanding of the Romanian security habitus during the transition duringthe securityRomanianhabitus the rstanding of Chapter

rniinl euiy habitus security transitional ocpul rd i.e. grid, conceptual

n hay ocpul paau wt a rtcl y, y also by eye, critical a with apparatus conceptual heavy and lected in security practices. W practices. security in lected 2

proposes

practices , - there is much more latitude for for latitude more much is there od a. h cnet nopse contrasting encompasses concept The War. Cold

a Bourdieuseana , aiu, il, ytrss dx, homology, doxa, hysteresis, field, habitus,

hd e lgt n o ntoa strategic national how on light new shed 10

n repr and

s u frad o s o con fr a for account to as so forward put is . Lastly, the present thesis approachesthesis present the Lastly, .

doxa -

esentational knowledge (Pouliot (Pouliot knowledge esentational inspired theory of praxis that can praxis that of theoryinspired or or hen the established ways of doing of waysestablished the oh literatures both the security the - depth conceptualiza depth

hysteresis

at the same time same the at

field is field fe a thin a offer effects effects

period under ertain and tion

CEU eTD Collection in objective Romanian The of professionals. practice security the in reflected and stages reforms various by influenced as doctrines, and institutions, policy, in decisions of lack or changes, continuities, micro The the with line steps integration in and reforms policy important of junction the at practices security during security of field the NATO’s and Atlanticistposition strong stated Romania’s to due reform, in influence Union’s European the for case hard a provides War. World Second post EU the and NATO both of evolution the and War Cold the during position strategic Romania’s of backgrounders concise introduces also chapter The dur post the in culture strategic its and sector security country’s the shaping in EU the and in an as serves Romania of case research the of purpose the For EU. the and NATO both of influence the under securitythe strategy, post sector historical The his of challenges and limitations potential the chapter theoretical the in account into taking ingsecurity its sectorreform - odWr era War Cold h coc fr oai a a study a as Romania for choice The sociological the the - - Ro nlss owre in forwarded analysis Cold War and looks at the transformation steps in the Romanian national Romanian the in steps transformation the at looks and War Cold ainamdfre’mdriain Teaayia ou i ie to given is focus analytical The modernization. forces’ armed manian Chapter

taken international both structures in perspective.

n te oeie hpaad oiy n isiuinl response institutional and policy haphazard sometimes the and important 3

traces the reform of the Romanian security and and security Romanian the of reform the traces

. policy reforms and relevant institutional developmentsinstitutional relevant policyreforms and

- depth study for the intertwined influence of NATO of influence intertwined the for study depth

h empiric the

11 hs hpe i t is chapter this -

ae s cone fr y h fc ta it that fact the by for accounted is case al

Chapter Chapter .

reconstruct o 4

hd lgt n the on light sheds vast

o

t f the of ut influence influence defence , the , CEU eTD Collection charismatic the of power symbolic monopolizing and influence totalizing the identified Romanian the and (CFSP) Policy the in participation Romania’s of case the for practice empirical The objectives. the (resources) capitals the and actors such by employed strategies unsuccessful and hysteresis 16 1992: Wacquant and (alignment) thesecurity hierarchy field of theirwithin the given locus and dispositions homology 1990 the (Bourdieu, alignment/discrepancy) as terms Bourdieu their and habitus actors’ security of alignment the field security transitional Romanian the of analysis diachronic The theand CSDP. NATO with dealing when follow theto models and reforms of terms in options Romania’s to lead to amenable and o construction legitimate most capitals and skills transferable practi of field their within struggle field; security Romanian is answers interviewees’ the security practitioners point of view regarding the structure and hierarchy and structure the regarding view of point practitioners security the ue n h pwr ae vr h smoi faig f oain security Romanian of framing symbolic the over game power the in use y hierarchical hierarchical President

Rmnas euiy priorities security Romania’s f Chapter

-

18) Traian Traian

the specificity of Romania’s of specificity the oiin (olo 2010: (Pouliot positions 5

. In doing so, the chapter chapter the so, doing In .

omn euiy n Dfne oiy CD) uig the during (CSDP) Policy Defence and Security Common how they consider the consider they how aims to signify the gap between public rhetoric and actual and rhetoric public between gap the signify to aims Băsescu

e n h post the in ce ’s two

12 (B 62 : administrations

ude 17: 2 Bude 19: 135) 1990: Bourdieu 72; 1977: ourdieu ;

s el as well as relations of power and the objects of objects the and power of relations bten h atr’ ingrained actors’ the between ) 46 - focuses od a context; War Cold transitional security habitus security transitional - 7, aey y nlsn what analysing by namely 47), Common Foreign and Security and Foreign Common

hi oiin n ht are what on opinion their on the on (2005 -

2014) varying takes

hc ae the are which .

into account into The chapter The (Bourdieu (Bourdieu

successful successful

: of the of

(non what & -

CEU eTD Collection Europe. status, by for accounted EU the and NATO both of influence and War, Cold the after Poland and Hungary configuration security to reference makes chapter The differences. or Pol and Hungary both of experience post Romania’s of case The post main the pinpointing dynam reform the of sense made Poland, and t Europe Eastern and Central in reforms sector security as so compass guiding a as used comparative the In security and charisma factors idiosyncratic policy. defence and President he hysteresis effect - Cold warCold transit ee t h frfot f h Euro the of forefront the at were

tic leadership tic

in

agenda for almost a agenda a almost decade for shaping shaping the fact that fact the Chapter in Romania’s in ion better illustrates better n hscatr te analytical the chapter, this In

the institutional role of the the of role institutional the

structural structural n eta ad Easter and Central in resorts to discursive practices discursive to resorts .

6 ,

both countries both

- of concept Bourdieu’s incongruities od a scrt rfrs s otatd o the to contrasted is reforms security War Cold

security to

and so as to account for cross for account to as so and how the two newer EU member states, Hungary states, how member two EU newer the

hrceie h seiiiy f post of specificity the characterize . The choice for Poland and Hungary is is Hungary and Poland for choice The . . -

13 tatc integration Atlantic behaviour

,

n and as compared to Romania to compared as their main their Europe, ic Presidency s within their security sectors, sectors, security their within s complications h priua post particular the roiy s ie t identifying to given is priority

and

to control the country’s the control to hysteresis .

Like in the Romanian case, Romanian the in Like

the how a particular typology of of typology particular a how security

and country n eta ad Easter and Central in

nedrd y the by engendered Romania’s security Romania’s (Bourdieu reforms - case similarities similarities case profile of of profile - od regional Cold ’s

late - under the under Cold War War Cold

1990) 1990)

- foreign foreign comer both

the the by is n

CEU eTD Collection But that. at 681992: it leave aca or scientific the case this in production, and cultural of universe sociologist” “bourgeois the in position his objectivize to forget not must gender. We his or “race”, his location, and the background mean generally of we objectivation context,” historical a in inscribed is sociologist “the wesay When manner. apparentlyradical, if superficial, strikingly a inbut to someth is sociologist is the of view of it point objectivizing the objectivize profession whose people that to Now, object. the to relation their but object the is is not about talks discourse their apparently what that sociologists by works pr world some social the objectivize read I when me distresses What object. the onto relation this of projection the in results which object the to relation uncontrolled social the in error of sources chief the of one view, my In practice. sociological epistemology 1 epistemolog biases, autobiography, his/her with researcher the by researchproblemshandled how are also of but specific study, theobjects of made ( agenda research grounded overall the for matter does reflexivity doubt, any Without their upon positioningand reflection subject activity. professional fields, re negotiated constantly the the into translated be can logic, Bourdieusean a in 2010), (Bottero reflexivity” of “problem The inquiry. social for method reflexive a constant the with was concern primary Bourdieu’s 36). 1992: (Wacquant method reflexive a of development the with being career his throughout obsession” “signature his 57), 2003: (Maton knowledge has work Bourdieu’s analysis.epistemological of level deeper a being understanding, his reflexivity,in 68), sociolo of “sociology the in engaged critically and constantly researcher a of that is scientist social true a of vision Bourdieu’s Pierre Security of Study the for Insights Practices Methodological and Methods Research

“(…) Indeed, I believe that that believe I Indeed, “(…) - 69).

. Far from being a specialty among others, it is the necessary prerequisite of any rigorous rigorous any of prerequisite necessary is the it others, among a specialty being from Far .

any cultural producer demands more than pinpointing to pinpointing than more demands producer cultural any

i.e. lain

the case of “situated intersubjectivity” (Bottero 2010), and their and “situated intersubjectivity” of (Bottero 2010), case the ove so rarely able to objectivize themselves, and fail so often to realize realize to often so fail and themselves, objectivize to able rarely so ove the sociology of sociology is a fundamental dimension of sociological sociological of dimension fundamental a is sociology of sociology the

h eitmlgcl rud fr ciia sca scientific social critical a for grounds epistemological the

Eagleton

testing of the advantages and disadvantages of such of disadvantages and advantages the of testing ain bten gns ihn hi respective their within agents between lations - Pierce 2011 Pierce 14

intersubjective dimension of practice of dimension intersubjective gy” ), concerning not only the choices the only not concerning ),

demic field (…)” (Bourdieu & Wacquant & Wacquant (Bourdieu (…)” field demic 1

(Bourdieu & Wacquant 1992: Wacquant & (Bourdieu

ing that is done quite frequently, frequently, quite done is that ing enrichment of an ethically an of enrichment –

and bemoaning bemoaning and ical commitments and commitments ical

sciences resides in an an in resides sciences –

his class class his - , CEU eTD Collection “self a as understood is Criticality 29). 2013: Mutlu & Salter in i contribution Guillaume’s Xavier endeavors, methodological such Among knowledge. tacit and practices of research the systematizing in impact significant a made have Bourdie by ( security to applied and concepts inspired methodologies reflexive concerning Studies Security research the framing and frames mental of role the finally and them; upon reflection pr the and embeddedness recording of techniques chosen distance, of dis levels subsequent and process; embeddedness research the in approach an such of risks possible rele extremely become also issues Other objective of theme encompassing more the towards hint all inquiry, critical and introspection pr and the professionals in security of struggle field broader the power in or and scholars security of positioning field academic of Issues work. one’s with reflexive be critic to for ability the understand blueprint to elements guidance developing potential for and designs a research as method reflexive his and Bourdieu to turned have academics Studies Security and Relations International Accordingly, design. reflexivity a for 53) 2010: (Pouliot conditions” truth and standards “ the formulate that assumptions basic above the from lead takes follows of field the and production security academia of field the both within positioning subject s particularly interesting with the introduction of the concept of “criticality” (Guillaume (Guillaume “criticality” of concept the of introduction the with interesting particularly s actitioners, the risks of autobiographical and ideological biases, the quest for quest the biases, ideological and autobiographical of risks the actitioners, versus

(Kurowska & Tallis 2013) Tallis & (Kurowska

subjective knowledge production. Mr rcn cnrbtos o eerh ehd i Critical in methods research to contributions recent More .

Kurowska & Tallis 2013; 2013; Tallis & Kurowska . The methodological framework outlined in what in outlined framework methodological The . - meddes uig il wr atvte; the activities; work field during embeddedness vant: ethnography as autobiography and the autobiographyand as ethnography vant: 15

Salter & Mutlu 2013: 238), 2013: Mutlu & Salter - conscious posture and posture conscious cse o academic of ocesses temporal distance in distance temporal - idd research minded scientific usean al al CEU eTD Collection of techniques mixed 53) 2010: (Pouliot historical” and interpretative, “inductive, of combination a fact in are thesis the in proposed methods research the Equally, fields. u methods research Critical however research, Security Studies buttothey insightful may outthe be, flesh or IR constructivist in purchase their and method sociological reflexive Bourdieu’s of being said,That theaim of with to relation biases work. theacademic be reflexivity Bourdieusean v the Hence, process. interviewing the during discussed topics the on views personal impose to not given was attention Special study. of object the upon impact transformative its and production knowledge concerning used was reflexivity During specific. theoretical context and ideological and intrinsically are knowledge biases academic that implied This field. the security research, Romanian the of object the and values and misconceptions beliefs, personal to given was attention special process: writing the throughout all as well as stage work field the during applied was reflexivity research, present the of case the In 2004). (Bourdieu discipline academic her or his and field) herself or himself researcher the both to directed and double always be must understanding, Bourdieusean a in gaze, critical The when biases latent potential theresearchcreating design. to blind remaining namely 217), 1994: (Bourdieu “scholasti as terms Bourdieu what avoid to researchers helps that attention” las rtcly engage critically always sed as tools of inquiry in a practice a in inquiry of tools as sed - driven agenda is that it inspired the research perspective to to perspective research the inspired it that is agenda driven this sectionthis isnot discuss theepistemologicalto subtleties d

and

to

xmn sbet oiinn ad theoretical and positioning subject examine 16

h itiae eain between relation intricate the

(the position in the academic the in position (the - oriented analysis of security of analysis oriented the writing process, process, writing the alue added of a a of added alue c illusion” c - folded CEU eTD Collection meaningful the emphasising by and analysis longitudinal historical of combination practic actors’ concerning “how” and “why” of questions the answersit that so thesis the in conducted is workinvestigative oriented Qualitative agenda. research informed critically a fundament to role key the play deep by accompanied be should endeavour methodological any that view Bourdieusean the to true holds thesis the so, doing In andEastern securityCentral European NATO’s after configuration expansion. double post fields security their 6 Presidency the and an power institutional symbolic of overwhelming role the on focusing by field security Romanian the professionals. security Romanian the of analysis semi from data and EU. NATO the of institutional influence the under 3 Chapter transformationfield’s post security Romanian the of case the as such contexts, transitional specific in practices resear qualitative the of use research, making by sociology reflexive Bourdieu’s of spirit conducting the in follows thesis present when reflexivity for necessity the account into Taking intende inquiry

is dedicated to the comparative experience of Hungary and Poland in the reform of reform the in Poland and Hungary of experience comparative the to dedicated is

offers a offers

as a corporate body determining Romania’s security orientation. orientation. security Romania’s determining body corporate a as d to study the practices and subjective knowledge of security actors. actors. security of knowledge subjective and practices the study to d - directed qualitative interviewing and is devoted to the in the to devoted is and interviewing qualitative directed oain euiy il s a t rcvr h patcl oi of logic practical the recover to as so field security Romanian ch methods so as to acquire an in an acquire to as so methods ch

historical analysis of the Romanian security field’s transformation transformation field’s security Romanian the of analysis historical - Cold War and and Cold War - Cold War. Cold War.

caimtc nlec o the of influence charismatic d Chapter 5 Chapter

speaks to certain trends in the evolution of the of evolution the in trends certain to speaks 17

further reflects the reform experience of experience reform the reflects further y psei rfeie taeis which strategies, reflexive epistemic ly es and behaviours: by resorting to a a to resorting by behaviours: and es - depth understanding of security of understanding depth Chapter Chapter 4

extensively on draws President - depth micro depth

n the and Chapter - -

CEU eTD Collection understandings traditional literature. culture strategic the beyond go that interpretations alternative field security Romania’s of study historical ( chapter historical NATO. and CSDP EU’s the by engendered processes reform security in an as research, the in stage tran Romania’s national identifyingand security fields for different in developments for relevant cross evidence and the longitudinal of a analysis to sectional resorts research the as, well As EU. the and NATO N field; security Romanian the the of case the in at: War Cold the of end look the from starting changes to analysis longitudinal historical of use makes research the Firstly, Central in over Europe. time andEastern changed security of meanings the how and Poland and Hungary Romania, for War study representative contras and comparing by finally and field; security Romanian open conducting by Poland; and Hungary, Romania, of transformation fields’ security the illustrate to d policy relevant and looking by Europe; Eastern and post change and transformation security of narratives historical T’ ad h E’ CD hsoia origins; historical CSDP EU’s the and ATO’s the country’s security evolution sitional experience in the field of security post security of field the in experience sitional - ne qaiaie neves n fed ok n h cs o the of case the in work field and interviews qualitative ended Chap - ae fr h tasomto of transformation the for cases ter 3 ter

) draws extensively on empirical data from a longitudinal a from data empirical on extensively draws )

-

depth study case case study depth variations acrossthem. to thepresentto day

18

post

and used - od a i odr o discuss to order in War Cold ocuments and discourses so as so discourses and ocuments the Romania’s

during thecommunist regime for tracing and signifying the signifying and tracing for

euiy etr post sectors security - Cold War takes centre takes War Cold ting the experience of experience the ting - Cold War in Central in War Cold

deec t both to adherence

ec, the Hence, in -

Cold the ;

CEU eTD Collection 431). understandings (King 2000: shared from derived are practices which in ways the and practices, their constraining performativ and agency their exert security actors which in contexts intersubjective the discussions, informal often through reconstruct, to was aim The actors. security such of capital cultural and symbolic the in analysis data interview the by clear made is it as milieu social their regarding knowledge subjective the develop to in civil servants and security practitioners of context a thequalitativeof out interviewing they wereas securityidentified practices analysis of proposes thesis the mentioned, already As material/rational concerns. their instantiate to as so retired) (activeand policy Romanianmakers and decision inthe national security field personnel military stakeholders, security with conducted were interviews Qualitative an leaders charismatic of role the practices, discursive in changes learning, social isomorphism, structural national adaptation, for incentives international exogenous of evidence level, general th through culture strategic country’s the of evolution the of image comprehensive more a provide to and field security the in understanding traditional the from ruptures possible and trajectories of case the in defence Romania. and security of frameworks institutional and the discursive in transformations significant to led which processes, material and ideational M roe, h mto o process of method the oreover, uh hi a Such trcl esetv i mat o eosrc path reconstruct to meant is perspective storical d institutional reforms institutional d observedare e analysis of security actor’s practices and behaviour. At aAt behaviour. and practices actor’s security of analysis e

Chapter 4 Chapter

- rcn i ue t ivsiae h temporal, the investigate to used is tracing 19 , this step being fundamental in identifying in fundamental being step this , t, s el s h cntttd structures constituted the as well as ity,

Bucharest and Brussels. This was meantwas This and Brussels. Bucharest s icnie ad identity/culturalist and incentives ist .

- pcfc micro specific - dependent - CEU eTD Collection process. interviewing the during broached topics security the of nature the and environment professional guarded distinctively and opaque the of because themes) national discuss to as so researchers meeting in suspicion or interest (low ( chapter historical the from data analysis discourse and historical interpre the and personal sensibilities with ethnographic triangulated was interviews the from data The qualitative semi interviews and ma research the observation, prerequisit clearance taking by However, professionals. security Romanian of knowledge practical the and meanings Participant post security field Romanian within the changes and reforms the regards explanatory narrativestheir as sum in assumptions,tacit meanings, view, symbolic of practitioners’points security of Consequently, discussions. qualitative,semi the during approached topics defence and security off and secrecy of prerequisites ref and Romanian processes of security context the and dispositions as practices, uncovered security been Romanian has regards data empirical 2013), October 2013, (April Brussels in R from policy local professionals, security politicians, with meeting By omania, both in Bucharest (May 2011, June 2012) and during prolonged stays prolonged during and 2012) June 2011, (May Bucharest in both omania, in observation would have best aided the aim to reconstruct the subjective the reconstruct to aim the aided best have would observation o con te ih oiis f h scrt fed ad h security the and fields security the of politics high the account to - structured interviewing was u was interviewingstructured - Cold War. Cold War. Chapter 3 Chapter s f rlne ebdens ncsay o participant for necessary embeddedness prolonged of es rs Mn o te neves ee ae ne the under made were interviews the of Many orms.

). It is worth mentioning the interviewing obstacles met obstacles interviewing the mentioning worth is It ).

- directed questionnaires. de - the

s o te second the of use - eod mil de o h sniie aue of nature sensitive the to due mainly record, 20

sed so as to get a better understanding better toa get as so sed

- et lentv, namely alternative, best - makers, and experts and makers, aie and tative security CEU eTD Collection real the to narratives substantive such relate to was goal The Poland. and Hungary, cases key the for discourses and frames, policy records, official to given being attention special consulted, were resources secondary and primary Finally, defence.security and socia their ascribe they meanings the and position, institutional their themselves, actors the from starting actors, security the of repertoires cultural the reconstruct and ascertain their of grasp organiza better a gain to as so the defence, and of relations departments external of of ministries variety a from interviewed were Brussels and Bucharest Du Romanian of the and theNATO security field of understanding reforms specific subjective the and regarding practitioners knowledge security Romanian contextual the mind in keeping intervi The basis. everyday their an describe on interactions to and routine practitioners’ security asking regards by as and themes discussions security informal poignant through themselves, interviewees the of lead open through revealed was knowledge Tacit transitional Romanian security field. the of understanding grounded a provide and so thesis the of chapters empirical the in interpreted were process, interviewing the during revealed as 59), 2010: (Pouliot be to believe they what or beliefs and routines practitioners’ security into Insights ring the field work activity, several Romanian civil servants and military officers in officers military and servants civil Romanian several activity, work field the ring inl esetv. oevr te nutv mto ws sd o s to as so used was method inductive the Moreover, perspective. tional l reality (Pouliot 2008: 61) 2008: (Pouliot reality l

- EU EU double

and - folded influence in in the reform influence folded process. 21 related to Romania’s transition in terms of terms in transition Romania’s to related

- ended questions that often followed the followed often that questions ended w wr cnutd by conducted were ews

of Romania, of

d real

to CEU eTD Collection inductive, interpretativeof historical techniques i and of other, the and bias; use the alternate scholastic to and information triangulate to research the informing consistently avoid to as so imperative is researcher study’s et research Bourdieusian the of spirit the in follows that one caveats: consistent two under unfolds research the all, in All 63). 2008: (Pouliot context” intersubjective an of part as objectified “become that meanings subjective aim the research, the in role central a plaid had tool, important methodological a as interpretation, research, of spirit constructivist a In cross patterns, comparable discover t to but experiences, transitional such of analysis law NAT geographical shared countries’ proximity historical legacy and post these by for accounted is Poland and Hungary, Romania, of experience reform security comparative the on focusing for choice The respectively. and War recent inthe achievements construct made the years to policy security field ed, euaiis n hfig euiy otxs ad h lvl o dsicin and distinction of levels the and contexts, security shifting in regularities rends, - like generalizations of Central and Eastern European security reforms from the from reforms security European Eastern and Central of generalizations like O and EU members. The intention in the present research the present in intention The members. EU and O - case correspondence. case

rgee b te nrae priiain n AO n te SP mi CSDP the and NATO in participation increased the by triggered

- Cold War, as well as their common expe well common as their Cold as War, 22

nquiry. en ta t rcet the recreate to that being i, h rfeiiy f this of reflexivity the hic,

is not to come up with up come to is not

post rience as - lieu Cold s

CEU eTD Collection Bourdieusian framework the to due mainly enquiry, social of dimensions methodological and epistemological agentic, and structural ideational, and material both account into takes which design research comprehensive a develops it Fourth, shape and influence thein security the field cases ofnew states. member EU Europe built already an com not does which grid, analytical comprehensive more a develops it Third, of apparatus Bourdieu. Pierre cultu t in fills it Second, literatures of original in developed “fusion” a novel conceptual framework. multi is research a such of value added The Bourdieu. Internati praxis sociological, the and literature, Europeanization the work, of body academicculture strategic the literatures: three of “horizon” the at niche conceptual a carves thesis present The 1.1 Introduction e ieaue i te il o Scrt S Security of field the in literatures re CHAPTER anization/EU nl eain theory Relations onal S .

TRATEGIC

1 - e hoeia bid pt o te uoenzto ad strategic and Europeanization the of spots blind theoretical he n is towards bias in - -

ization literature. H literature. ization L oriented sociological turn turn sociological oriented ITERATURE C ULTUREAND

and R

s nlecd y h Fec scooit Pierre sociologist French the by influenced as EVIEW E ence UROPEANIZATION the 23

uis y aig s o te conceptual the of use making by tudies

– , it allows it ,

S E ECURITY U - eti position centric of

ehnig e cnet in concepts key rethinking for other mitigating factors to factors mitigating other for - folded. First, it proposes an proposes it First, folded. P RACTICE

L ITERATURES - nprd analytical inspired

BETWEEN uh s the as such

prise

of CEU eTD Collection the under and manifestations practical policy defence and security everyday of roots grass the at practices social through produced are identities and interests e through transformed are representation “reality” for taken be to come representations which in ways the towards directed is concern research The reachallenged constantly a of image fixed negotiated and contested a as construed is it research present the in culture, strategic as understood body homogenous a as perceives a and practices security everyday its in culture strategic analyses It research. the in culture strategic the explore that ma underpinnings to structural the field and security strategies their Romanian and the actors of of concentration case the to resorts it interests. Instead, rational actors’ or cultures national at looking strictly by outputs strat culture monolithic explaining or measuring with concerned less is analysis The in theits evolution post an in bysecurity proposing sectors, research the reorients it Lastly, withaction theory of on its and practices.focus its in inquiry empirically of and lens sociological a constructivist and dimension and epistemological critical highly a both proposes it Fifth, cut fr h cniuul tasomtv caatr f hs rcs. ht one What process. this of character transformative continuously the for ccounts de security policy transformations possible in the first place. A new concept of of concept new A place. first the in possible transformations policy security de lity

as ,

transformed by security processes bytransformed securityand practices. processes

influenced by Bourdieu’s byinfluenced - Cold War era. Cold War e se per

b tkn it acut o sc poess of processes such how account into taking by , towards the case of new EU member states and their and states member EU new of case the towards - depth theRomanian analysis and security field of

24

ey a patcs I ti perspective, this In practices. day very

theory of culture as practice as culture of theory

- idd investigation minded

is proposedis egic

CEU eTD Collection of (Bourdieu that actors, by used strategically are that resources the misreco resources Such possess. actors that resources represent symbolic, or cultural, economic, social, it be 1984), (Bourdieu, capital the of concept the least, the not but last And behaving.and daily through thinking of acquire, patterns attained and dispositions Theyof set a interactions, and actors. experiences by conditionings external and structures, Bourdi national c the the as far influence As agenda. security to power and positions social for competition a in interest common construct and as socialize well as meanings, and recognitions interrelate, actors state which within milieus (Bourdieu field the Bourdieusean of wave f benefited has Relations International of field the years few last the In the the clusters, and field, habitus, the notion capital. of Bourdieu an culture, strategic on centring debates theoretical the literature, Europeanization the in art the of state the literature: of strands three from inspiration draws thesis this in developed apparatus conceptual the end, this organizatio international two of influence socializing u understands eu gnition by other actors and establish their relative position in the field. Among field. the in position relative their establish and actors other by gnition

– 1984) plays a key role in the analysis of Romania’s security field, due to due field, security Romania’s of analysis the in role key a plays 1984)

oe rcsl te nerltosi bten i tre oe conceptual core three his between interrelationship the precisely more

1993) makes reference to networked and institutionalized social social institutionalized and networked to reference makes 1993)

- inspired and sociologically and inspired y it by

h poes f nenlzd rcie, betv social objective practices, internalized of process the

oncept of the habitus (Bourdieu habitus the of oncept the ways in which in ways the 25

s

h smain f ita o actual or virtual of summation the signify - oriented research. The research. oriented ns such as NATO and the EU. To EU. the and NATO as such ns d the political sociology of Pierre of sociology political the d

suc o rcgiin and recognition of source a they pursue their material material their pursue they

h smoi capital symbolic the

1977) is concerned, is 1977)

o a rich a rom concept of concept CEU eTD Collection and ofinstitutional the discursive literature. dimensions Europeanization t thereof lack or potential their of terms in appropriateness and consequences of logics the evaluates chapter the of part first the While pillar. first the to connected issue is which defence, and security of pillar second intergovernmental the as known formerly the institutionalist to connected issues on primarily falls thesis this in focus empirical the well, As goals. discursive to dedicated strands appro the to attention special pays chapter the contribution, literature Europeanization the of Out practice. as culture in more a proposes and lenses Bourdieusean of appraisal the with continues chapter The thin a offer they that fact the for emergeunderstanding of how practices and inentrenched become except contexts. certain logics, above the flawed of intrinsically assumptions nothing is there that is argument The Studies. European within culture strategic of treatment the to given also is Attention consequences,literatures. above the by reflected as of 11) 2010: (Pouliot knowledge representational logics acco the to as on so logics emphasis discourse the culture lays and appropriateness it strategic so, the doing and In literature scholarship. Europeanization existing the concerning a with off starts chapter The an authoritativeoflegitimacyas power. personification and functioning recognition, and prestige honour, of elements on based is it that fact the ce, en cniee a te lss prpcie o h peet research present the to perspective closest the as considered being aches,

less covered by the Europeanization literature that literature Europeanization the by covered less o illuminate

euiy cin te ide eto cnetae o the on concentrates section middle the action, security

eea apasl f h srnts n weaknesses and strengths the of appraisal general 26

the

- taei clue literatu culture strategic et udrtnig f strategic of understanding depth

n fr oil cin and action social for unt traditionally

bu te theoretical the about

focused on focused e through re - of

- CEU eTD Collection Adler 2010; 2008; Mérand 2007; Williams 2006b; 2006a, 2000, (Bigo Pouliot Vincent Adler Rebecca Kauppi, Frédéric Niilo and Guzzini, Stefano Bigo Mérand, Didier Williams, Michael as such authors of works latest The security fields. r their of 22) 2010: (Pouiliot reasoning practical their and actions agents’ security of underpinnings practical the account into pre take that gives perspectives scientific that Studies Security and IR in trend sociological within thesis present the situates chapter this sociology, Bourdieu’s on Constructed literatures. Europeanization of culture strategic the to contributing authors of workacademic the negate or disregard to not is intention The Romania. of product security of logic practical everyday the of on emphasis laying action security and making security on perspective different a proposing by IR in “turn” practice broader the in project the position to is chapter this in aim The they that fields navigate and (Adler actors security of practices everyday the out tease to useful particularly is sociology Bourdieu’s studies. security have that researchers of handful a from benefited has literature Relations International (Adler Bourdieu’s by rich the and theory sociological supported apparatus conceptual the forwards chapter the Lastly, “ - borrowed isn 03 1 i a oe wy I osre ta mr rcnl te il of field the recently more that observes It way. novel a in 1) 2013: Nissen - Nissen 2013; Kauppi, 2013) demonstrate that a strong sociological niche sociological strong a that demonstrate 2013) Kauppi, 2013; Nissen

”

from the conce the from compete in.

opportunity it provides to rethink international politics international rethink to provides it opportunity ptual apparatus of Bourdieu and enriched the field of field the enriched and Bourdieu of apparatus ptual - isn 03 1 ad h srcua ad symbolic and structural the and 1) 2013: Nissen

27

- isn ad oe recently more and Nissen, - mnne o social to eminence ion for the case the for ion

h broader the espective espective ,

n by and Pouliot CEU eTD Collection 2002; the of Lantis 2006; (Meyer evolution generations several its the through culture strategic on chart scholarship extensively to intend not does section this However, analysis. practitioners’ security security on influence its and culture strategic of concept the 1996), interpretative, more or traditions culturalist epistemological positivist either in Grounded behaviours. state and contexts security different to applicability its of implications deeply “remains 286 2007: culture Nossal & strategic(Bloomfield contested” of concept the Gray, Colin and Johnston Iain A as such authors by generated discussions initial the after decade a Almost 1.2 security studyoriented transitional of fields. Internation in Bourdieusean a proposing by turn literature “practice” the to contribute to is thesis this of aim above the of line the in following By Studies. Security and Relations International to application its and grid conceptual Bourdieu’s the of terms in Pouliot Vincent and Mérand Frédéric of work recent more the to given is attention Special theory. IR within apparatus conceptual Bourdieu’s of (Adler project book editorial latest Adl Rebecca of contribution critical valuable the mentioning worth is It the carvedis being in ofRelations International fields literatures.and Security Studies Strategic Culture in Focus

aznti 19) bt o ipit h mi dbts n t dsus the discuss to and debates main the pinpoint to but 1998), Katzenstein eaius n ntoa scrt plce rqie frhr icsin and discussion further requires policies security national and behaviours

- retd prahs Bomil & osl 20: 286 2007: Nossal, & (Bloomfield approaches oriented

- Nissen 2013: 1) focused on systematizing the use the systematizing on focused 1) 2013: Nissen - inspired conceptual grid and a sociologically a and grid conceptual inspired 28

- 307), mainly due to the epistemological the to due mainly 307), - mentioned authors’ academic work, the work, academic authors’ mentioned - 8; Katzenstein 287; l Relations al er ir take on take ir - Nissen’s listair - CEU eTD Collection independent the as culture organisational on focus a with analysis institutional the to culture strategic of concept the narrows generation third The determin decision purposeful of reflection tidy and neat a as decision of hands the in tool a merely as culture 1995 ( instrumentality of account unclear an develops generation second The Studies. realist/state and outdated from drawn culture, of theexistingof lit semi is that culture 35 1981: Gray 1977; (Snyder Gray and con the under except behave but help cannot “Germans out, pointed Gray Colin As behaviours. self a reinforces mechanically argumentation referential that determinism cultural monolithic a forward pu culture strategic of concept the generation, first the In significance. particular of are culture strategic of generations three the in shortcomings several respect, this In research agenda. European and culture Bourdieusean A behaviour. strategic and practices actors’ security regards as concept the of value explanatory ): it ):

ed by strategic discourse(Johnston 199: cultural 18). attempts to reassert the role of power and hegemony while casting strategic casting while hegemony and power of role the reassert to attempts straints of Germanic strategic culture…” (Gray 1999: 52). Both Snyder Both 52). 1999: (Gray culture…” strategic Germanic of straints erature on strategic culture:theerature ondeterministandreductionist strategic definition

- permanent and which revealed which and permanent zto shlrhp i odr o eeo a practice a develop to order in scholarships ization –

- nprd rtqe los o cmlmnig strategic complementing for allows critique inspired ifrn ntoa clue poue ifrn strategic different produce cultures national different

- 37) advanced a conceptualization of strategic conceptualizationof a advanced 37) 29

- makers. Strategic culture emerges culture Strategic makers. -

makers and strategic action is not is action strategic and makers one of the more obvious fallacies obvious more the of one - centric perspective in Security Security in perspective centric

meso Johnston - - oriented level of of level ts - CEU eTD Collection constructivist of contribution (Kat the scholars from impetus literature theoretical culture strategic substantial the received in interpretations cultural of use the Conversely, generation). i culture organizational and generation) first (the understanding homogenizing broader its in culture between one the assumes literature culture strategic The field? wh preferences between cross for account it can how Or choices? strategic specific in substantiated policy of terms in options their 5). 2010: (Pouliot identities collective and norms on rely that interpretations cultural holistic 5 2005: Heikka & (Neumann definitions cu strategic on literature existing the of shortcomings obvious more the of one to points overview cursory This (Legro leaders Kierpolitical 1995). 1994; self of hands the in tool discursive a is it or the organisation, and at institutions manner same the in operates it identity, language, as history, such categories national general comprising by essentialist: and foundational neorealist to not contrasted often is may that action strategic address to inability itinherent an retains it but interpretations, and level organisational/institutional an generation first the Here variable. have If organizati If be en

esen Koae Kanr 98 Lpd Kaowl 96 Rose 1996; Kratocwil & Lapid 1998; Krasner & Keohane zenstein,

nlecd y cult by influenced onal culture determines the interests of actors and circumvents and actors of interests the determines culture onal is arwr nesadn o scrt bhvor te third (the behaviour security of understanding narrower its n en practitioners occupy different positions within the security the within positions different occupy practitioners en lture, namely lture,

- aig hw s heacy ewe sc interests such between hierarchy a is how making,

of strategic culture is conveniently brought down to down brought conveniently is culture strategic of rl aibe. taei clue s ihr en as seen either is culture Strategic variables. ural

the reliance on either thin, realist/state thin, either on reliance the

30 - 3 i taiinl euiy tde o on or Studies Security traditional in 23)

- a, eelgcl relation teleological way, meso - interested - variation - ee of level - centric CEU eTD Collection from of variety a in itself rooted are that differentiate to keen particularly (Buzan stances poststructuralist is approach an Such relations. respond we that there out objective something not is security that asserted who Wendt was it Nevertheless, the as state the into translated be can tensions Wendtian the that fact the by for accounted be can perspective a Such issues. security of analysis centric state to input theoretical constructivist the accommodating of avenues possible tackle agendas research their “thin as termed be can what is however, position, Their Katzenstein. Peter and Barnett, Michael Adler, Emanuel Wendt, Alexander Studies Security considered is What appropriateness. of logic the beyond making security of world the of sense make practitioners security l However, inter behaviour. an in shaping meanings shared identity organizational or state concerning issues on predominantly focused approaches Such behaviour. security in structur of creation mutual the more forward regards put as intersubjectivity through Krasner culture: strategic of interpretations and sophisticated Katzenstein Keohane, as such Authors 1995). structure framework. s atnin a gvn o h rl o patcs n te as n which in ways the and practices of role the to given was attention ess

s fiitd o uhr fo Itrainl R International from authors to affiliated is o u i itrujciey eie truh agent through defined intersubjectively is but to

es and identities and with the logic of appropriateness appropriateness of logic the with and identities and es

- nlecs rm rtcl hoy pssrcuaim and poststructuralism theory, critical from influences omto ad h rl o nrs Hp 19) with 1998), (Hopf norms of role the and formation et al et . 1998: 212), and from Critical Security Studies Studies Security Critical from and 212), 1998: . o e h laig hed f osrciim in constructivism of thread leading the be to 31 subjective manner the actors’ strategic strategic actors’ the manner subjective

the

agent and agent standpoint on structure and agency and structure on standpoint ” constructivism, due to the fact that fact the to due constructivism, ” the international system as system international ltos literature, elations - structure CEU eTD Collection in culture and further ideas (Desc security is of studying importance literature the of assessing culture by role author, strategic the The and enlightening. of Studies examination critical Security Desch’s in Michael constructivism least, the not but Last be to element important explained. most the as security military hard and actors, principal thread common the identity, and norms, factors, culturalist to given attention extensive the despite Nevertheless, (Katzenstein 1996: 4). o identity constructed cultural “the volume on: the focuses Katzenstein, to According security. and power to meanings different cultu of power the on as well as interests security national of meaning and constructions the on put emphasis the to respect in major is contribution authors’ The 1). 1996: (Katzenstein interna Politics World in Identity and Norms Security: National book edited Katzenstein’s J. Peter is interpretation a constructivist proposes that volume important An Studies. Security constructivist of umbrella under mentioned be should that works key of number a are there Essentially, approach. “mainstream” more thus a influ most the constructivism, inl eain rmaig n h ‘rvyr’ f oilgcl studies” sociological of ‘graveyard’ the in rummaging relations tional

ral factors (Katzenstein 1996: 2) determining security actors to attach attach to actors security determining 2) 1996: (Katzenstein factors ral sae, oenet,adohrpltclatr n h other” the on actors political other and governments, states, f

h 1998), rightfully observes that existing contributions in the in contributions existing that observes rightfully 1998), h - ntttoa cnet f oiy n h oe ad ad the and hand, one the on policy of context institutional intersecting ential works of constructivist Security S Security constructivist of works ential

32 the book is the emphasis on states as t as states on emphasis the is book the

witn y shlr of “scholars by written , h Clue of Culture The tudies adopting tudies the he

CEU eTD Collection norm or rationalist either emphasizing primarily while identity, contex the in culture strategic on literature The than rather howabout to they came act and “what they think think actors what on emphasis more deri action social of theories most Consequently, middle relational, the negate designs research such chains, teleological within ends or causes either as objects such to seen variable), self power hard or identity EU’s the either of effect isan dependable behaviour, security (or product end The practices. reification similar from Europeaniza the in culture strategic of analysis The supplementsor supplants realist explanations” 1998: (Desch 143). program, research obs author the However, traditional realist the explanations state for behaviour and national culture.strategic with dissatisfaction common their by linked obviously is authors these of contribution theabove for representative being Finnemore Martha and Johnston, Iain Alastair Rose, Stephen Berger, Thomas 142 1998, (Desch, global theorizin cultural of strands Desch,four to According literature. mainstream the ofgaps the in fill rather but agenda, research independent an further necessarily not do field constructivist solely as material objects (Posen 2006: 184 2006: (Posen objects material as dmnt Scrt Suis ognzto, oiia, taei, and strategic, political, organization, Studies: Security dominate g

h ky usin s hte te e srtgc culturalism strategic new the whether is question key the re ta “utrl hois ek o challen to seek theories “cultural that erves - - 4) atos uh s efe Lgo Eiaeh Kier, Elizabeth Legro, Jeffrey as such authors 142), mentioned positions. As Desch poignantly observes, the observes, poignantly Desch As positions. mentioned

- way dimensions of both practice and discourse. and practice both of waydimensions about 33

(Pouliot, 2010, 11) 2010, (Pouliot, ved from the above perspectives lay perspectives above the from ved o te Us nentoa security international EU’s the of t ). By applying an ontological priorityontological an applying By ). in ieaue rdto suffers tradition literature tion from

(interests or values) or (interests ” - (Pouliot (Pouliot 2010: 11). retd ois to logics oriented

e h realist the ge - interests, i.e.

CEU eTD Collection security 2 i.e. literature, the in gaps two by for accounted was shift theoretical a such Furthermore, EU’s inward the from Studies European of field the within move conceptual a marks discussion C the of case 2003 in the Strategy Security European EU’s In the and development Manners. as such authors by represented position, Hyde as such authors with orientation, realist more a positions, theoretical contrasting two of remit the under culture strategic on debates studies European the of case the In revealedknowledge as through practices. inarticulate unconscious and of strata hidden themore soto reach as cases empirical sociologically Bourdieu’s 14). non the for account a or consequences of logic a either on based action” social of theories contemporary “most Pouliot, Vincent of words the In 11 2010: (Pouliot representations unconscious and inarticulate to due and practice daily within how on light shedding in short falls security, European identify

See the under the The present research adds to the growing body of work in IR that makes use of use makes that IR in work of body growing the to adds research present The foreign policyforeign the European Security Strategy, 2003, 2003, Strategy, Security European the - - strategy/ okn, institutional looking, ht o wo cn osiul atr om, da, n itrss about interests and ideas, norms, alter consciously can who) (or what - 22). 22). -

theorized international agency of the EU and the narrow scope of the of scope narrow the and EU the of agency international theorized

engagement engagement - representational bedrock on which practices rest” (Pouliot 2010: (Pouliot rest” practices which on bedrock representational - designed conceptual g conceptual designed

- - Price or Posen, and a hard core normative/constructivist core hard a and Posen, or Price ulig eae o te EU’s the on debates building

and its proactive involvement. international http://www.eeas.europa.eu/csdp/about 34

oi o aporaees ae nbe to unable “are appropriateness of logic i ad t sseai apiain to application systematic its and rid the change occurs or persists or occurs change the sui generis sui 2 , the new academic new the , ,

h fcs falls focus the dniy o the to identity - csdp/european

SDP - CEU eTD Collection 165). 2006: (Posen language” balancing in actions their couch to expected necessarily “states and 184), 2006: (Posen intensively”very balancing not are they that concede must we power, US balancing … are Europeans the “Though balance. hard of type a as pigeonholed be can CSDP effacing in making the in capabilities military its capabilities called theso to response to due that, argue and further bit a go Authors such interpretation. essentialist culturally logica or inspired materialist suffer 2008 (Manners approach cosmopolitan and normative (Hyde neorealism of tradition Hyde while example, For culture. strategic EU’s the concerning epistemologies diverging their and frameworks afore the Both culture.strategic s member EU new which in ways the build institutional and construction community Brussels the to predominantly almost dedicated was focus empirical ethical its and in power focus centre took legitimations of exercise international EU’s the by provoked dilemmas the Hence, agenda. policy foreign its and role international EU’s the accommodate civilian/nor

rm h aray etoe tertcl fallac theoretical mentioned already the from aie oe cnet to domestically too concept, power mative - etoe tertcl tad hv dan n pcfc ontological specific on drawn have strands theoretical mentioned

- Pri e rmsd i tertcl nl i te try IR sturdy the in angle theoretical his premised ce

- rc 20: 29 2008: Price

the discussion about strategic culture. As well, the the well, As culture. strategic about discussion the - expectation ae wr bcmn scaie i te EU’s the in socialized becoming were tates 35

- up, with less attention being given to given being attention less with up, s gap (Christopher self (Christopher a s gap Hill), even - 4, anr aot te softer the adopts Manners 44), ies of reification, either of a a of either reification, of ies : -

retd n ual to unable and oriented 40 - 0. Both 60). and statesmen are not are and statesmen s oe states: Posen As - end of security of end

perspectives Posen - CEU eTD Collection through then, actors state key or entrepreneurs policies” and identities new create to able be will people with resonate that discourses forge to ability and agility social his/her of virtue by “who Mérand of use As make constructivists persists. observes, poignantly or occurs change the how and conditions, what under and identifying l be to seems identity security and role international EU’s the on and culture strategic of literature the Moreover, Europeanist, or civilianmilitarized so and on. or pr clear fully a matter that for or whole, unified and coherent a forge not do ideas and norms such Union European the of case the in Nevertheless, a optionsof community’s securityof for pursuit defencegoals” (Meyer20). and 2006: and actors influential most the among shared are that behaviour of patterns and socially ideas norms, the “comprising be as can roughly culture strategic conceptualized Meyer’s Mannes, of lines argumentative the Following and Union European the 405 2006: (Manners power normative a or civilian a military, a of traits the assume will that identity, strategic EU’s conceptualization the of discourse complex constructivist a on own focused his forward put Manners end, other the At edominant characteristic among member states, be them newer or older, Atlanticist older, ornewer them be states, member among characteristic edominant - 421). The CSDP therefore pivoted on communicative and symbolic processes in processes symbolic and communicative on pivoted therefore CSDP The 421). - u tik U euiy otie dvrec ad iesfcto big tl a still being diversification and divergence doctrine, security EU thick cut what (or who) exactly can alter norms and ideas about European security, European about ideas and norms alter can exactly who) (or what social groups within political community, which help to shape a ranked setranked a shape to help which community, political within groups social

h itreae dmnin f ef n O and Self of dimension interrelated the

cig ou ad oeec i trs f clearly of terms in coherence and focus acking 36

the concept of norm entrepreneur norm of concept the oil erig oilzto and socialization learning social - - drawn political identity with a a with identity political drawn rnmte, identity transmitted, (Mérand 2008: 4) 2008: (Mérand

whether the EU the whether hr relatio ther - derived . Such . ns. its

CEU eTD Collection the conceptualized to attempt that authors by advocated level institutional European scholarship, the in stage centre taking clusters conceptual important three least at with highlyheterogeneous, as labelled literaturebe mayEuropeanization The 1.3 Johnston, 1995; Gray, 1999). thin the in resides Johnston and understa Klein Gray, as such authors of work the and 5 2005: Heikka & (Neumann literature culture strategic the of shortcomings the of one Therefore, culture. of ignor understandings “thick” more and efforts, variables behavioural theoretical anthropological and sociological of input conceptual rich the from draw to reluctance overall an be to seems There literature. mainstream the in gaps explain help that variables intervening merely not and agendas research constitu become can variables cultural whether on focused has discussion The structures into account based taking material practices.and without analysis, of dimension normative the in mostly rely to seems entrepreneur these of dimension normative the transform and fields security across move to able being actors such change, and dynamism of level a encompass should entrepreneur norm of concept the criticism, this to added s the and focus the lack proposed concepts the that grounds the on approaches such criticized Mérand Nevertheless, realm security.the of in communities” “epistemic as termed Howorth what to way give will internalization The Europeanization in Literature Focus nding of the notion of culture from a sociological point of view (Klein, 1994 (Klein, view of point sociological a from culture of notion the of nding

harpness of more attuned conceptual grids. To be To grids. conceptual attuned more of harpness 37

ils As, h cnet f norm of concept the Also, fields.

i.e. tive of tive -

23) ing an ; CEU eTD Collection categories.epiphenomenal if explanation exclusive consequencean provesas unsatisfactory logic of Conversely,dynamic. the econom an and capabilities interest and strategic material specific on explaining based actions for insufficient seems appropriateness of logic the subject actors social let one to speaks perspective This 2008). (Mérand action transnational of spaces new interesti an offers interest material both addresses that framework comprehensive a develop to was goal The 2005; Major Diez2005;Hill 2005). Smith 2005; & Sedelmeier & 20 Schmidt of & Radaelli 2002; logics (Schimmelfenning Radaelli & Featherstone the appropriateness over logic or praxis the instrumentality of priority ontological the accommodate l Europeanization development, and theof case the In designs. research inclusive out set to made being efforts increased refinement conceptual of process continuous a as described Th levels. two the between relation constitutive mutually the emphasizes that one finally and processes; integration EU the of because arena political national the in changes c eto o te uoen no’ isiuin; dmsi lvl ht drse the addresses that level domestic a institutions; Union’s European the of reation - sae f h at n h Erpaiain cdmc ieaue ol b best be could literature academic Europeanization the in art the of state e on f h Erpaiain ieaue wih al t acut o a uttd of multitude a for account to fails which literature, Europeanization the of down - based and normative cultural factors. From this point of view, Mérand’s work view, Mérand’s of point this From factors. cultural normative and based ,

in the process the in ng approach that examines the practice of security professionals in professionals security of practice the examines that approach ng trtr, h tertcl n aayia calne s to is challenge analytical and theoretical the iterature,

o nescig n a tms ofitn rtoae. Specifically, rationales. conflicting times at and intersecting to

, the , c ainl pa a udmna rl i te security the in role fundamental a play rationale ic

discursive/ideational elements are downplayed to downplayed are elements discursive/ideational - 38 pcfc eaiu o we hr military hard when or behaviour specific

4 Gab 20; inr & Wiener 2002; Grabbe 04; CEU eTD Collection discursive the the testableto hypothesesfore institutions aboutboth of the role and discourses. by developed framework Europe of theoretical case the in interpretation institutionalist the of value added the Accordingly, level. domestic the at as well as international an at lenses conceptual mid a As professional analysisspecific level in of field ap wide a covering and accommodation of degree high a displaying politics, of pool theoretical general a of comp institutionalcertain a in art the thestate of illustrate to 2004) Schmidt & (Radaelli Enr of term in transformation sector security Europeanization processes. states’ member new analysing of goal underlying the achieving to closest the as approach institutionalist discursive Feath in (Radaelli politics” public and structures, political identities, discourse, domestic of logic the in incorporated then and processes policy EU the in consolidated and defined first are of definition guiding the that Europeanization and 2002) (Grabbe Grabbe Heather of work the being example such one institutionalism, new and analysis discourse of scholarship the on mor The proach may locate discursive practices in an institutional framework at a a at framework institutional an in practices discursive locate may proach ce by iched lex discursive lenses. lenses. discursivelex e sophisticated attempts to conceptualize Europeanization generically draw draw generically Europeanization conceptualize to attempts sophisticated e - level approach ( approach level the input of of input the erstone & Radaelli 2002: 30). 30). 2002: Radaelli & erstone

- Claudio Radaelli proposes “...shared beliefs and norms, which norms, and beliefs “...shared proposes Radaelli Claudio variety of topics from domestic to international politics. politics. international to domestic from topics of variety Pollack 2005: 139) 2005: Pollack , the perspective has an added theoretically added an has perspective the , The institutional theoretical family has its roots and is part is and roots its has family theoretical institutional The uhr sc a Vve Shit n Cado Radaelli Claudio and Schmidt Vivien as such authors

39

s , discursive institutionalism translates its translates institutionalism discursive ,

such securitysuch as foreign policy. or The present research considers the considers research present The anization literature is that it brings it that is literature anization

and national

field through more field - guiding value guiding meso

The - CEU eTD Collection security of emergence The practices. of analysis the regards as shortcoming certain 1998; ( literature Europeanization the in 1975) (Austin logics illocutionary/performative the on rely that frameworks analytical discourse well, As secur of how explaining in discourse the in change the practice, short in reconstructed exactly are ideas and interests falls approach institutionalist discursive the institutional formation, discursive the states, member new expla the of dynamic security the in role fundamental a play rationale economic and capabilities military hard when or interest and material on based actions, strategic specific of case in well, As in. involved directly are actors social of multitude a which in processes practical potential other to point to enough specific not is approach the However, cer of theinterestsreconstructs (...) (Riekerof actors” 2006: 516). institutionalization the (...) but choices, and certain make construction identity of processes to actors cause onlynot may “ideas and place, take 160) 2002: (Mörth reconstruction that assumes framework CSDP the between nature 160) 2002: (Mörth constitutive the mutuallyoccurs, howEuropeanization explore to order in hand,other the On one. thenational to security EU contrasted an discourse of nature mutuallythe constitutive the signify and milieu institutional trace both to guide theoretical a provide can it hand, one the On aoy ntuet se t b isfiin. vn oe i te ae f identity of case the in more, Even insufficient. be to seem instruments natory

cmd & Schmidt ity appearing case this actors in

aali 04 Shit Rdel 2004 Radaelli & Schmidt 2004; Radaelli f icus omto,a a as formation, discourse of

again 40

as merelyas epiphenomenal. the EU and new member states within states member new and EU the n intersubjective dynamic reinforcing dynamic intersubjective n Buzan, Wæver, & de Wilde Wilde de & Wæver, Buzan,

Shit 2008 Schmidt ; an da gradually ideas tain - specific behaviour specific

contain ) the CEU eTD Collection epistemological an from 22) 2010: (Pouliot bias” representational the “epitomize to ten a have they strands, constructivist social postmodern more the matter, that for or, communication or some discourse of logic the by predominantly well, inspired researches As 7). 2006: (Wacquant stimuli present and influences past between such of explo it interests and institutional actors, and ideational the are what to attends it Similarly, securitycompete privileged withinfor positions the field. or discourses shift they why and power cultural symbolic the of carriers relevant the a who evolves, it why “semipermanent”, is culture strategic the why to explanation S to contrast In over stages conflictual the and definitional monopolies speech make that acts the in possible dispositions practical the to “sold” points be framework to meant is product linguistic the which u the legitimising field social/institutional the actors, and fields between hierarchy the actors, of style linguistic the examining By (Bourdieu in 1991) institutionalised certain professionalcontexts. language in of especially aspects (re)production, practical and social the ignore which discourse of fallacies the analysing in useful particularly thus is Bourdieu politicisation. of version extreme of transformation the either straight as not is practices uis te oilgcl prah a te oeta t ofr mr focused more a offer to potential the has approach sociological the tudies, strategic culture literature and the the and literature culture strategic e ter oil ersnain ad their and representations social their res - an issue into a security problem or securitisation as an as securitisation or problem security a into issue an

forward as discursive approaches may envisage with with envisage may approaches discursive as forward ae f h dmnn/eiiae agae becoming language dominant/legitimate the of case

41

trne ad h smoi mre in market symbolic the and tterance, discursive –

the audience, Bourdieu’s Bourdieu’s audience, the first place. first place.

habitus gna n European in agenda

s mediation as

dency re CEU eTD Collection states security member EU sectors. new of reform the in NATO as such organizations international other of influence the EU an on heavily rely interpretations such However, politics. high of matters on EU the from coming incentives adaptational to they because resistant been not helpful, have older, or newer them extremelybe states, member that demonstrated been have policy foreign of Europeanization noto given interest or little with CSDP, the of framework the within Europeanization of processes states’ member “old” and Western to mainly given been has attention scholarly The Major (2005). of work the include contributions Such field. possible security to the within given processes Europeanization been has attention scholarly recently only and realm, Foreign (CFSP) Common the on focus studies the of most more, is intergovernmental sensitive the and its dimension to due pillar, second the in Europeanization to given being pi first considered was what to connected previously were that areas issue around centre approach Europeanization an having studies literature, Europeanization the within focus empirical the of terms In dimension practical of discourse. over and inquiry social within practices of role the concerning silent remain They view. of point Vanhoonacker (2008), (2008), Vanhoonacker - mhszn te oe f icus i te ermn o patc o th or practice of detriment the in discourse of role the emphasizing

the cases of new member states member new of cases the problematique

Gross (2007), Eriksson (2006), Wagner (2005 Wagner (2006), Eriksson (2007), Gross

42 -

centric bias without mitigating enough for enough mitigating without bias centric

of the security and defence policy. What What policy. defence and security the of . Nevertheless, contri Nevertheless, . llar problematique

and Security Policy Policy Security and the majority of majority the , less attention less , butions on the on butions ),

and e CEU eTD Collection &2008) Copsey (Pomorska policy. its Eastern 3 Europeanization the to contribution literature main Her 2006). (Eriksson analysis policy of area the from input theoretical drawing by policy defence of field the in processes researchnameTo a Eriksson’s few explore examples, less even generally to thecases so ofstates. new and member EU sca been has literature Europeanization the is asked be to question whyto clarification a offers defence policysecurity and the of very nature the The whether Germany. and Belgium, UK, the France, as such No the on concentrating studies the of most inexistent, largely also is states member new on CSDP the of impact the Furthermore, foreign poli EU’s the of shaping and making the to contributing as or practices policy foreign EU to adaptation domestic of focused process a either as has it presenting accession, attention their beyond academic and before policy foreign states’ most member new the of Europeanization far, So 2002). Kaminska 2011;2013;MarekSedelmeier, & (Baun CFSP the of policybroader field the to given being interest research the absent, completely not if smaller, even is CSDP the in ne on literature Europeanization the level, specific a at significant the of most Moreover, enlargement. Eastern literature, EU’s the of context the in made being of contributions body small comparatively still and recent stat member new on literature Europeanization The

T he authors research Poland’s power and influence in the European Union by analysing the case of of case the analysing by Union European the in influence and power Poland’s research authors he cy in specific issue cy issue areas specific in a been has analytic

al

material consequential to in to consequential material h dfnto o Erpaiain s embedd as Europeanization of definition the

3

(Pomorska & Copsey & (Pomorska 2008).

ten ieso ad te “le” ebr states, member “older” other and dimension rthern

43

cl apid o h CD fed more field CSDP the to applied rcely - es, at a general level, is quite a quite is level, general a at es, depth case studies that analyse that studies case depth d w member states’ involvement states’ member w the SwedishEuropeanization

n the on edness, CEU eTD Collection ( CSDP the towards preferences policy German of analysis defence focuse and securityof this in field research Gross’s EvaAdditionally, approach, due to theEU’s (Rieker 2006). discursive pressures transfo been has offensive approach military French the that suggesting discourse, security its and example resort Rieker work, later a In 2004). (Rieker clauses neutrality their countrie both in occurred argue author The doctrine. security Union’s European the and “neutrality” of doctrine strategic countries’ two the between discrepancy a been has Europea the on Finland, and Sweden Northern of cases the and dimension the on focused 2004 in research whose study, Rieker’s forward, Going national convergenceof divergence. or she CSDP, the elemen linguistic/conceptual and changes of field the in conceptualize processes Europeanization the by created ill By 2007). (Britz problematique defence and security dimension’s Northern the on input academic Britz’s Malena of processes the on domestic concentrating not yet countries, giving these Archer, of by insights forward valuable put been has States Baltic and Nordic the of policies security the on study good Another governance. of modes mixed by characterized rnfrain r rjcin f neet a te U ee (rhr 2008). (Archer level EU the at interests of projection or transformation d

is researchanother example Europeanizationof theCSDP in literature

uoenzto a a rcs o tasain n hc organizational which in translation of process a as Europeanization iain f euiy n dfne bcue h observe she because defence, and security of nization ustrating how European crisis management capacities are being being are capacities management crisis European how ustrating s and resulted in the modification of their constitutions and constitutions their of modification the in resulted and s md oad a oe nlsv Erpa security European inclusive more a towards rmed

44 ts become mixed to bring about elements about bring to mixed become ts

has enriched has Gross 2007). In her case, her In 2007). Gross

d the body of literature of body the

ht hne have changes that ed

to the French the to d

ht there that d

on theon CEU eTD Collection and security Germany’s of Europeanization the on research the in argues Wagner Fo CSDP. the of study the and Europeanization of paths theoretical the cross to possibilities acknowledge they concerned, are authors other as far As exist. still security to Europeanization of application the in problems incurring result, a As naturethe unique of(...) securityi policy” 2005: 182) (Major to due be “may topic the on studies of scarcity the that demonstrates rightfully who Major, to processes, 137) 2005: (Wong Europeanization” to immune case special even that estimation Wong’s from matter, the on opinions however, topic, the on literature academic existing The focus that cou be afore the all, in All politics. high of areas in EU the and actors state nation between relation dialectical the problematizing by further, agenda rega recognize Gross concerned, is policy concept the of application Featherstone the as & far As (Radaelli 2002). processes” policy and policies of adaptation the as or ada institutional as diffusion, cultural transnational as phenomenon, “historical a as term, the of use fuzzy and broad the in reflected concept, Europeanization the ext is contribution Gross’ point pertinently she because valuable Eva CSDP. the by influence be and influence bottom and down top a both as seen is policies management crisis national of Europeanization the rds the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) have pushed the research the pushed have (CFSP) Policy Security and Foreign Common the rds nted as several of of several as nted es

specifically on the CSDP.specifically the on - up process, highlighting the ways in which Germany was able to able was Germany which in ways the highlighting process, up the most most the

relevant

d ed

ht h wrs f ao ad oosa as Pomorska and Major of works the that

45 to the methodological problems inherent to inherent problems methodological the to

voices in the Europeanization literature Europeanization the in voices to

h il o scrt ad defence and security of field the - mentioned researchers mentioned

the security realm “is not a a not “is realm security the

n itself. also

highlights diverging diverging highlights

instance, r ptation, remely could - CEU eTD Collection stat member in sole change the and adaptation as of processes Europeanization the for relegate factor explanatory to not careful be should one Therefore, factors may be neglected. member in in states’ transformation the for factor explanatory encompassing and singular a as 177) 2005: (Major Europeanization” of idea “vague the considering of risk the run may CSDP the of field policy particular the regarding explanations any Moreover, defence securityfield. and the in states member on 2005) (Major influence procedural strong lacks and toolkit, pre been th to due states, these by of policy the and incentives CSDP commitments the to state member discursive the between 2005) (Wagner discrepancy a of aware o cases pre or not irreversible are processes “convergence that conclusion Wong’s view, of point this From able tonot being develop a path an on and 502) 2007: (Gross selectively” “used been has framework CSDP the author, to according since, representation, Gross Nevertheless, development. of progression incremental certain a assumes and 456) 2005: (Wagner own” its of dynamic “a demonstrates CSDP the that policy defence tk on take ’ scrt tasomto ad uoenzto. hrfr, n sol be should one Therefore, Europeanization. and transformation security f stitutional and discursive dimensions, while other exogenous or endogenous or exogenous other while dimensions, discursiveandstitutional - Lisbon Treaty considered as the first pillar’s binding legislative and juridical and legislative binding pillar’s first the as considered Treaty Lisbon

- eemnd (og 05 18 ofr a od xlnto i the in explanation good a offers 148) 2005: (Wong determined” the

SPs nrmnaim em t sget different a suggest to seems incrementalism CSDP’s

e fact that the CSDP framework does not have what has what have not does framework CSDP the that fact e

- dependencyown. its of 46 ad

- hockery - translated practical steps made steps practical translated

basis by member states, thus states, member by basis

es’ CEU eTD Collection such bydone authors as work theoretical inspiring the along itself positions thesis the particular, In studies. appli successfully already Several police. the the of analysis military or the such as modern state, of the the institutions inequality, and domination, positional for space the constellat up opens 1991) (Bourdieu power Vis 69 instituti in an for allow and dilemma agency versus structure the to fruitfully more attend that conceptualisations Intern turn sociological The practices. security studying in lead sociological a following of path scholarly as counting Studies, Security of realm the in approach Bourdieusian a on drawing contributors several are There 1.4 such sectors.of reform theon integration EU the of impact the and Cold War the after transformations sector defence and security the analyse to attempt any percolates states member EU new transformatio the in Organization Treaty Atlantic North the of role The processes. Europeanization the of impact the and field policy defence and security the between relationship strenuous the consideration into take and policies, defence and security - - 86). 86). The of the Position Research IR in the “Turn” Practice à - toa Rltos n Erpa S European and Relations ational vis the practice turn in IR and security studies, Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic of theory Bourdieu’s studies, security and IR in turn practice the vis onal structures and the role actors play within them (Lawson & Shilliam 2010: 2010: Shilliam & (Lawson them within play actors role the and structures onal

os f cos n ter oe srcue. t tde afnte between affinities studies It structures. power their and actors of ions d Bourdieusian a ed - et aayi o bt mtra ad dainl iesos of dimensions ideational and material both of analysis depth

Frédéric Mérand and Vincent Pouliot

- etoe path mentioned - nprd prah n h ram f security of realm the in approach inspired 47

- uis ieaue big t te fore the to brings literatures tudies breakers and demonstrating the viability the demonstrating and breakers - raes n h ltrtr have literature the in breakers .

n of n

in CEU eTD Collection relations. Russia NATO in interest empirical an with communities security diplomatic transnational actors, security of sense practical diplomatic the studying by by provided communities” insightsecurity of practice of “theory a construct to attempts conceptual Pouliot Bourdieu, the on Drawing agency. and structure between prior, ontologically is practicality of logic the that argues Pouliot thinking, their determines what on not and think actors what on emphasis lay so a for suffer which discourse, of that and consequenc of logics three existing already the to Contrasted politics” world in practicality of logic the of implications “theoretical the exploring by communities, security on agenda expan research of direction latest the Pouliot’s in Vincent are IR, literature in the to turn contributions “practice” the of spirit the in also Following international institutionalismin and constructivism relations theory. develop and relations international Bourdieu, by put forward framework Policy Defence and post known (also PolicyDefence(ESDP) and Security Union’s Europeanthe creation of the through transformation military national project, integration the account into Taking

rdrc Mérand Frédéric –

SP ( CSDP) u generis sui

éad 2008 Mérand, Mérand advance

nature nature

ed addresse

48 motn cneta bigs between bridges conceptual important -

called “representational bias” in that they that in bias” “representational called f h E ad t priua wy o its of ways particular its and EU the of - Puit 08 257 2008: (Pouliot Lisbon Tr Lisbon ). d

aig ed rm h conceptual the from lead Taking n discusse and d

a political sociology agenda in sociologypoliticalagenda a eaty as the Common Security the Common eatyas

due to its middle positioning middle its to due ig h constructivist the ding

s appropriateness, es, i.e. - d 8; Pouliot 288;

h E’ supra EU’s the h frain of formation the

2010). - - CEU eTD Collection Manifesto.”, 4 194). 2000:(Bigo discourse” of “all forms as important as expertise are and discipline work, 2005). Guild & (Bigo mobility of imperatives normative imposing and foreigners, profiling laws, special measure, derogatory and immigration, controlling fraught is unease managing 1 Bigo, 2005: to According (Bigo State” the beyond unease of “governamentality the and 2012) 200 Williams in Bigo 2007; Singer 2007; Fierke 2006; (Walker management” in national overwhelming an and attributes militaristic trans of establishment The embedded withineveryday practices. social prac such how on and monitoring of technologies the relief sharp to brings particular in Surveillance services. intelligence international or police the as such agencies, relevant by minorities of policing and surveillance of activities to applied are they surveillance, and 2006) (Lyon are security and exceptionalism framework this of concepts terror” organizing and The 11). crime 2004: organised (Wæver immigration, connecting constantly by ... customs “de for compete that agencies various being analysis of object the practices, real of analysis empirical detailed, to commitment their declared community The Foucault. Michel and Bourdieu Pierre by thinking original of locus the well as been have studies security of School Paris The

See the C.A.S.E. Collective. 2006. “Critical Approached to Security in Europe. A Networked Networked A Europe. in Security to Approached “Critical 2006. Collective. C.A.S.E. the See

Security Security - euiy pr security Dialogue

ofessionals

37 (4): 1 (4): 37

- ertra ntok o polic of networks territorial

- ertraie tasks territorialised - 48. wo create who ,

4

and the academic journal academic the and 49

surveillance and theoretical development inspired development theoretical and

ih rcie o exceptionalism, of practices with f rdtoa plc, iiay and military police, traditional of n un te il o unease of field “the turn in

oe s trbtd o trans to attributed is role ing ie bcm routines become tices with ever increasing increasing ever with Cultures & Conflicts & Cultures

theories

h practical The

about the about 7 ; West West ; - 4). -

CEU eTD Collection sociali the on dependent as acculturated. portrayed are become socialization actors of Processes security new which in systems cultural stable and homogenous relatively of existence the assumed typically literature culture strategic soc securityof models most sections, previous the in argued As 1.5 construction, its engendering changes the transformationpermanence or and culture strategic national of also thesis this calls, such to response of form a In over without practices security of “construction” the understand to categories conceptual of forms symbolic and cultural privileged that security’ of field ‘cultural the called be might what within “ where reconfigurati a to categorisations power hard from analysis post the understand to that argues He 2). 2007: (Williams normative or ideational anything and everything covering concept fuzzy hands the in instrument ideological an merely either as latter concerned and NATO of role the on focus empirical the With cultural language strategiessecurity of the in the inter in re to Bourdieu to resorts instance, for Williams, Michael Conclusion - emphasizing either the culturalor the materialist dimensions either oftheemphasizing power dynamics. military and material power, while remaining significant, were repositioned repositioned were significant, remaining while power, material and military

n particular in

power”

ih h fcl rdcins o clue n R hc se the sees which IR in culture of reductionism facile the with

Wlim 20: ) Te auth The 2). 2007: (Williams ,

especially contexts. transitional in - od a ea n ms sit h fcs of focus the shift must one era War Cold 50

forwards a thicker understanding thicker a forwards

the national (Williams 2007).field r codnl cls o new for calls accordingly or - conceptualise the praxis of of praxis the conceptualise

on of on Us nagmn, e is he enlargement, EU’s

of rational actors or a or actors rational of ialization found in the in found ialization

the “field” of security of “field” the

ain tactics zation

CEU eTD Collection secondary even inexistent or status. a to practices of role the relegating time same the at while tactics, communicational norm rationalization, instrumental as such preferences t discourse and appropriateness, consequences, of logics The practices. and norms, the ideas, interests, of character and constitutive mutual dimension practical the circumvent approaches such intellectualization, over by or interests over and emphasising and ideas of separateness analytical the emphasising By byintersubjectively and discourse practice. social constituted co the through secondary rendered is variables ideational cultural, social, the non of role the case, this introduce In potential. foundational or constitutive as a that without indicators intervening/explanatory less or more approaches considered are complementary They analysis. behaviour policy security of fully a offer not does it that is positivist post the of most of problem the Equally, hands the actorsin byplayed such thesocialization process. account into take models few but actors, security new of part the on adaptation and learning the and environments security different by employed nceptualization of ideas/norms as objects in causality chains and not and chains causality in objects as ideas/norms of nceptualization - determining ideasoverdetermining -

fledged theoretical alternative to positivist frameworks positivist to alternative theoretical fledged

51

interests byinterests or proposing post end to emphasize certain theoretical certain emphasize to end -

inspired strategic culture literature culture strategic inspired - - ae udrtnig, or understandings, based aeil aibe as variables material

- positivist - n role on - CEU eTD Collection sub between and within practices and culture in variations for account to failed culture strategic of concepts traditional chapter, previous the in shown As production. security of field ( prior ontologically is that practicality of logic a following strategies social as practices security proposes Romanian thesis The field. emerging security the of case the in practitioners security of sense” “common practice a for thesisadvocates this Bourdieu, Pierre sociologist ofFrench lead the following In analysis.scientific in rather or consciousness in theirperceptible effortlessly not is knowledge practical in 27), 1977: (Bourdieu discourse” not and practice agent’s an in state practical a in exists “which knowledge, tacit by understood Bourdieu what as or itself know not does that knowledge as Yet, practices. security on falls attention research ( practice everyday and reforms. stages security transitional during practitioners security Romanian guiding variables practic dispositions, security at looking by field security Romanian the of evolution the follows thesis The EU. the and NATO of influence post transformation and transition field’s security for frameworktheoretical the out lays chapter The 2.1 Introduction CHAPTER - oriented analysis of human activity in th in activity human of analysis oriented P - RACTICAL security fields, treated sec treated fields, security

2 y okn a wa D Creu em a te common the as terms Certeau De what at looking By

A e eta 2002 Certeau De

C ONCEPTUAL L OGIC OFOGIC

THE

F o scrt pouto ad reprod and production security of ) RAMEWORK

T urity actors as passive recipients of cultural of recipients passive as actors urity RANSITIONAL 52

Pouliot 2010: 13) to human action in the in action human to 13) 2010: Pouliot e field of security production and the and production security of field e - Cold War, under the double the under War, Cold an FOR

in - es, and non and es, S depth study of the Romanian the studyof depth R ECURITY ECONSTRUCTI F - representational IELD NG

cin the uction, - es of sense THE - folded folded

their CEU eTD Collection the macro cultural or interests, state governmentalpreferences, on offocusing place In cultures. po and institutional key the as research, the in important become 5) 2008: (Mérand officers” military and diplomats statesmen, sovereignty: state Frédéric of what “carriers the and calls actions Mérand their and professionals security of intentionality The + himself: (capital)] fieldBourdieu [(habitus) = practice beprecise, more To over positio social competitive and hierarchical the security the and perceptions; andpractices generate (Bou respective their by determined ( game the of feel inspire sociologically in and research this in stage centre take elements Several practices. security of side hidden sometimes and commonsensical the unravel Romanian to view a with field the security in practice of logic the operationalizing empirically in hand helpful field the and habitus, the capital, the of triad theoretical Bourdieusean The culturalproviding change. theory of a of short fell and underpinnings, structural their from practices cultural divorced inputs,

thesis proposes to explore the ways in which Romanian security acto security Romanian which in ways the explore to proposes thesis rdieu 1984: 14); the the 14); 1984: rdieu - transformations as the building blocks of changes in national strategic culture, culture, strategic national in changes of blocks building the as transformations iia atr ta cmee vr h smoi monopoly symbolic the over compete that actors litical ns ns and power. oriu Wcun 19: 120 1992: Wacquant & Bourdieu

d formula of security practices: security of formula d the afore

habitus - mentioned theoretical formula was best synthesised bysynthesised best formulamentionedwas theoretical

capital

r h aet st f nrie dsoiin that dispositions ingrained of set agents the or

/professional mtra o non or (material 53

i.e. field

(Bourdieu (Bourdieu 1984: pc wee cos compete actors where space - 21

the security agents’ practical agents’ security the

o their or ) - (Bourdieu 1985: 1985: (Bourdieu material power resources resources power material of

ainl strategic national agency

101). rs mitigated rs 723 a i is it as ,

- ed a lend 44 ) or) a CEU eTD Collection of type time a and sense practical their knowledge background of use making by deliberations, benefit cost by unencumbered activities social perform to actors permits behaviour evident fro come but decisions, cognizant and deliberate from stem not do that underpinnings practical always are there field, social other any in as politics, security national in do, people that everything that assumption underlying the by guided is chapter This a in action of ways intentional manneror rational, sensenormativedue to a of suitability. upon deciding necessarily not by norms certain follow tacit and namely processes, following norm th doings of ways acquire Actors practices. through and in learning or knowledge and an socialization proposing by to understanding layer an additional such beyond goes chapter this However, of outconsequences logic them of l or obeying either by field their in principles fundamental the that with comply professionals and behave security by internalized become norms certain which in ways understandin constructivist use actors such which in ways the and field security transitional the in embedded professionals security precisel More security changes in new NATO introduced by theEU making and as influence c their practice in patcl iatclt, n cmosnia kolde Sc a ye f self of type a Such knowledge. commonsensical and inarticulate, practical, m - ingrained skills. , h tei los t h dsoiin ad rcie o Romanian of practices and dispositions the at looks thesis the y, ommunist legacy and traditional defence traditional and legacy ommunist

d ht os o ko isl, aey ais dsoiin, and dispositions, habits, namely itself, know not does that

hi smoi pwr o etutr it. restructure to power symbolic their g of the afore the of g

ogic ofappropriateness. - 54 mentioned issue would concentrate on the on concentrate would issue mentioned

- based habituses with the with habituses based

h conventional The

s .

ings - - CEU eTD Collection their and experience, from accrued and derived knowledge background the namely practit security Romanian the an between is discrepancy there ingrained that shows thesis the sociology, Bourdieu’s Pierre on building Thus, habitual behavioursingrained and dispositions. pract determined non by determined thus norm and instrumentality rational professionals’ security The field. social informs operandi modus int reversing in analysis resides theoretical inspired Bourdieusean a of gain empirical the Consequently, identity. what and practices their that case the also is it actions, their determining identity their is that identity, group their define practitioners security how understanding in beneficial whil hand, double is interpretations constructivist to compared approach an beneficial more be to prove could proposes gi we of feeling a of construction the in markers ideational and identity on emphasis lay that accounts constructivist to contrast In e plc fed te patc tr” ht Budesa tertcl analysis theoretical Bourdieusean a that turn” “practice the field, policy ven rcin ad rcie cnormaig ad doctrines, and meanings contour practices and eractions hy o n daily a on do they

priori a iett mres mta ietfctos o Self or identifications, mutual markers, identity e

h scrt poesoas isrmnaiy r omtvt i a given a in normativity or instrumentality professionals’ security the and not on the on not and ices in a given field or or field given a in ices h ies n patc causality practice and ideas the - - ainl n non and rational ai i trs f euiy ae get mat pn their upon impact great a have security of terms in basis

opus operatum opus 5 - 5 omtv eeet, aey h socially the namely elements, normative

they are are they (Pouliot 2010) (Pouliot -

ness and a shared a and ness

(Pouliot 2010 (Pouliot eey rsl o historically of result a merely , so as to focus on how daily daily how on focus to as so , . The value The . i.e. : 16 : - te dvsos are divisions Other

ioners’ dispositions, dispositions, ioners’ - h fcs s n the on is focus the folded. On the one the On folded. ). - belief system in a in system belief Security practice practice Security - added of such of added - following is following - CEU eTD Collection encompass can they that is power and capital, hysteresis, field, habitus, of lines conceptual Bourdieusean the along framework theoretical the of added value The 2.2 continually a negotiated character that open is more that strategicculture of conception theoretical a proposes chapter the beliefs, and interests, values, of body permanent lite culture strategic the While core. military the of culture operational the into integrated becoming by next, the to actors security of generation one from on passed and attitudes and skills practices, through valu shared of system a as defined traditionally was culture strategic of notion the production, security of process the In processes. security socialization actors’ power symbolic how and ca symbolic homology, doxa, culture hysteresis, field, habitus, i.e. grid, strategic conceptual national of understanding the to applied chapter The apparentmore post culturestrategic Romanian the in hysteresis upheavaland symbolic of field security transitional Romanian the in dynamics power hysteresis contested continually a and game the of rules transitional by demarcated field, security Romanian the within positions Transitional Security Habitus

and xons on expounds . doxa

a poie e wy o itrrtn srtgc utr ad the and culture strategic interpreting of ways new provide can , the thesis proposes a theoretical apparatus that apparatus theoretical a proposes thesis the ,

o a Bourdieusean a how

– tts quo status

Going Going the Beyond llows social change. for flexibility and reinforced are which understandings, and es aue iw clue s uiay n semi and unitary a as culture views rature

56

Daig n orius co Bourdieu’s on Drawing . - ended and diffused ended - nprd hoy f rxs a be can praxis of theory inspired R , which , igidity igidity ofConcept the

render the sources the render ,

as a result of itsof result a as highlights Bourdieu’s

- cps of ncepts C pital, pital, old - War

and the

-

CEU eTD Collection of concept The reforms. security and periods transitional during habituses actors’ security Romanian of character negotiated and conc oxymoronic an is terms, a of that namely framework, is habitus security Romanian the of understanding new A engender that dispositions consistent ways acting. of se stable a develop to as so patterns, cultural existing the with fit to habitus their adjust field security the enter that actors security new the conditions, normal Under uncritical bearing. knowledge, physical as well cultural as values, shared definitions, of unquestioned assumptions, elements several integrates it consideration: into taken be to need elements several habitus, the of understanding clearer a For The professiona a of ranks the entering by later and experience, and history personal through first especially system amenable for ofdispositions describing the acquire, individuals that a can and contexts, political transitional in salient contingency, and variability of elements habitus cut o dvain fo te sa scaiain ah. h hbts is habitus The paths. socialization usual the from deviations for ccount away from history: since dispositions are durable, durable, are dispositions lag, (of hysteresisdiscrepancy” 1990: effects 135). gap, (Bourdieu since dragged somewhat history: is from history, by away generated which, invention of principle “a as or 72) 1977: (Bourdieu conductor” a of action orchestrating the of product al being and them, attain to necessary operations the of mastery express an or ends, at aiming conscious a presupposing without goals their to adapted objectively be rules, to obedience structures can which representations structured and obj practices of dispositions, structuring and the of transposable generation principles as is, that structures, structuring durable, as function to predisposed of “systems ciey rgltd ad rglr wtot n nwy en te rdc of product the being anyway in without ‘regular’ and ‘regulated’ ectively l

is a is a field. field.

p ta atmt t cpue h cntnl changing constantly the capture to attempts that ept rniinl euiy habitus security transitional l this, collectively orchestrated without being the the being without orchestrated collectively this, l 57

rniinl euiy habitus security transitional

proposed wih i mr explicit more in which, , hy pr al ot of sorts all spark they

in

the theoretical the

best t of t

CEU eTD Collection through charisma discourse.policy and field particular a over domination of use effective an as power, symbolic of interpretation symbolic and power symbolic of concepts the using the by third, in and field; conditions security objective transitional changing the and habituses security between effect it relating by second, transitional; as context the of concept the to it connecting by one ways: specific three in habitus the of understanding Bourdieusean of concept the Also, (Pouliot actions 2010). rule or choice rational by covered particularly not are which craft, production many the with rests here identified gap The Checkle 2005). Olsen(March 1998; & Risse 2000, logics of types different on focusing processes, socialization about studies various conseq of logics the from stem not does which debate, substrate, practical a under on rely actors aresecurity action strategic of rationalizations and schemes formal when This post s the reflecting and tool “survival” social a as actors security by embodied disposition, habitual ingrained an becomes itself for and itself in change Roman in reality clashing the expresses - theoretical chapter starts from the premise that in a transitional security context, security transitional a in that premise the from starts chapter theoretical c ommunist Romania.ommunist uences or appropriateness. That is not to say that there is no value added in added value no is there that say to not is That appropriateness. or uences

capital

o ose the bolster to rniinl habitus transitional

field

(King 2000: 425), understood in the Romanian security Romanian the in understood 425), 2000: (King

gny f cos and actors of agency ia’s transitional security field: adaptation to adaptation field: security transitional ia’s 58

rpsd ee xad o te original the on expands here proposed

to the concept of concept the to

rcie ad kls f h security the of skills and practices

o propose to hared security context of context security hared hysteresis

performative a

and its lag its and - based CEU eTD Collection European the of transnationalization the explain to as so field the of use Mérand’s capit above the the of of concepts one Bourdieusean on analysis their in unilaterally rely who authors to contrast In practical and utility. value their in vary capitals different which in ways the and reforms power in intern and shifts external undergoes to due field positions the stable, relatively and entrenched tobecome tends habitus the though even Thus, environment. social and professional the undoub an have rules and values such though rules, and values certain by structured is turn in is field The (symbolic capital), respect is the field by populated heterogeneous power positions. capi (cultural experience to capital low and knowledge of terms in capital very of degrees high with actors withsuperior hierarchically newcomers From 1977). (Bourdieu actors of positions develope game the for feel the Beyond actors. of agency the towards balance analytical the tilting so develop a to schemat cultural namely internalized thehabitus, the of form the structural conditionings in internalized favour to structure seems Bourdieu the that in suppose structures to tendency a indeed is there While 2.2.1 Habitus Habitus fieldand

- a a osqec o te aiu, h fed eiets h subject the delineates field the habitus, the of consequence a as d called “feel for the game”), the concept of theof theconceptgame”), the for called “feel a or external social structures to which actors seem to adapt to and to adapt to seem actors which to structures social external or a tedly arbitrary and contingent nature, according to changes in changes to according nature, contingent and arbitrary tedly

a) lyly n pplrt (oil aia) rptto and reputation capital), (social popularity and loyalty tal), versus

l te il, r h hbts sc a Frédéric as such habitus, the or field, the al, l hne, uh s rniinl eid and periods transitional as such changes, al gny eae wt hs understanding his (with debate agency 59

field

becomes crucial incrucial becomes of

CEU eTD Collection taken is individual the by inhabited world cognitive and social the if only sense make behaviour of forms These 147). 2006: non (Mérand and purposive of multiplicity this with begin note and CSDP the in field security work of body Mérand Frédéric in articulations security of monopoly the over groups and actors competing these between interplay the pinpointing by and fields power/security respective their in power symbolic the centre stage take creates it field defence and security the and CSDP the on focus The monopoly. and legitimacy over compete actors where relations power of structure d are actors some 16 1992: the Wacquant of concept The concept. specific one on focus unilaterally easil afore the that fact the Notwithstanding in given a practice professional field. are field tr theoretical Bourdieusean the Nevertheless, Studies. Security of realm the in field the of concept the specifically and approach path Frédéric field. the and habitus the between logical dialectic argues the chapter maintaining for present the defence field, - dvre fo ter rai tertcl oeec, Mérand coherence, theoretical triadic their from divorced y raes n h I ltrtr wo ae tepe t apy Bourdieusian a apply to attempted have who literature IR the in breakers in

Mérand’s research: by research: Mérand’s together the EU the EU defence

ntuetl o te nltcl prtoaiain f h lgc of logic the of operationalization analytical the for instrumental - mnn wie tes r dmntd te il bcmn the becoming field the dominated, are others while ominant 18) is understood as a “battlefield” with unequal positions, where positions, unequal with “battlefield” a as understood is 18)

integr identi has Mérand counts himself among several theoretical several among himself counts Mérand ation.

fying the “carriers of culture” and the actors with with actors the and culture” of “carriers the fying d explain

- mentioned Bourdieusian concepts cannot be cannot concepts Bourdieusian mentioned ht a hoy f rfrne omto must formation preference of theory “a that 60

ed iad of the capital, the habitus, and the and habitus, the capital, the of iad

h eegne f transnational a of emergence the

into account. Social action is not is action Social account. into - upsv frs f behaviour” of forms purposive field

preferred Bude & (Bourdieu

to CEU eTD Collection 121). 120 1992: Wacquant & (Bourdieu interiority” of externalization the and exteriority mostly but individualistic, or determined stru and the has sense value practical actors’ the Thus, reforms. and transitions of context the securit120 1992: Wacquant & (Bourdieu Romanian game” the of “sense of their or professionals sense practical the purposes, heuristic for captures, best field the and habitus the between dynamic conceptual the view, of point this From conceptual Bourdieu’s of the and triad thecapital, the habitus. field, substa more a forward puts that apparatus conceptual a about analysis an Such habituses. and in more a promises capitals practitioners’ security the with field inter complex the account into takes also it so, doing In process. reform security Romania’s of context the in concept the of application predominant a from conceptually beyond moves also it field, security Romanian the w Nevertheless, itself. field security the of nature t place, takes action the where starts inquiry the formation preference understand to Hence, constraints, interests, idealist by driven be also of situation,interpretations aa beliefs in legitimate or well as may it But interest. material by driven be well as may it and 147) 2006: (Mérand action strategic mere -

added advantage to tease out mutually constitutive relations between agency between relations constitutive mutually out tease to advantage added o grasp the “nature of the game” the of “nature the grasp o cture, due to the fact that the logic of action is not merely structurally structurally merely not is action of logic the that fact the to due cture, - depth understanding of the nature of the security field and brings and field security the of nature the of understanding depth

dialectical

61 and the position of actors within it, within actors of position the and

hile the present research delineates research present the hile , i.e derquite and, simply habits. . between “the internalization of internalization “the between . connectedness of the security the of connectedness tv apiain of application ntive

- 121) in 121) i.e.

the y - CEU eTD Collection rep “Things change, symbolic and domination of of relations reason, whatever for notion when, fluid more become the externalises This field. social given a of the balance within changes trigger that shocks exogenous as crises sees further Mérand 1990:(Bourdieu actions and worldview one’s impregnate and experiences childhood to back far as go even may that dispositions transportable and durable of system social structuring habitus. the of concept original the misread may 9) 2008: Mérand 359; 348, 2010: (Mérand habitus the modern more or traditional either have with professionals military that assumption connection in habits to reference The capital? social of reading another crises exogenous and skills social variables: further Consequently, i.e concepts, Bourdieusian three the mentioned, already as Hence, place. first the in so possibly do to choose they why towards clear very not is it yet state governance”, “transnational ephemeral nation the from allegiance their shifts may professionals and repertoires, cultural and discourse, norms, representations, social through actors, to but beliefs, or interests material actors’ security i to merely not are stakes the that proposes research The static. entirely never fact, this to due and relational, deeply is it that fact the habitus, the of characteristic fundamental the highlights here presented framework theoretical the Consequently, . capital, . andcannothabitus easily field, be triadictheir divorcedfrom coherence. eettos r udrie b a etra sok (éad 00 32. In 352). 2010: (Mérand shock” external an by undermined are resentations why

The latter, as defined by Bourdieu, denotes a a denotes Bourdieu, by defined as latter, The actors choose to take specific social actions. Indeed, diplomats and secu and diplomats Indeed, actions. social specific take to choose actors éads td ue piaiy h cnet f il ad ds two adds and field of concept the primarily uses study Mérand’s 52 - 53).

62

(Mérand 2008) (Mérand nw how know historically

hy r fae by framed are they . Are social skills skills social Are .

tutrd and structured dentify rity

CEU eTD Collection the or “game” may“battlefield” shifting well. be as the of rules the how on eye an cast cautiously and constantly will actors then fragmented, is and changes constant undergoing is habitus the if Hence, practice”. “good current the define that sets skills marketable new out spell contexts international New habitus. established their on automatons like rely merely not do they as field, the in position their shift to calculations strategic to resort They it. within processes socialization the and field the in dynamics power a Such formerly they field the of result the populated. is which habitus the them with carry they field, the enter actors new when But sense. practical their by guided being 11), 1990, “agent mentions, Bourdieu As field. the of sense making for frames cultural the provides field” t field the levels: two at operates habitus and field the between relation The fields the 1984:(Bourdieu 131 within and between networks intertwined and complex on expounding 89), 2005: (Weininger renegoti itself the through field the of structure the in mobility and conversion of terms in of conceives he which change, exogenize not does Bourdieu contrast, he habitus that is the “product of the embodiment of the immanent necessity of a a of necessity immanent the of embodiment the of “product the is that habitus he

(Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, 127) and the habitus habitus the and 127) 1992, Wacquant, & (Bourdieu ctors d o

o mc mr otn hn f hy ee eaig admy (Bourdieu, randomly” behaving were they if than often more much do,

have thus the potential to to potential the thus have - to o pstos n dnms wti te xsig ils and fields existing the within dynamism and positions of ation 132).

become extremely reflective and aware of the of aware and reflective extremely become 63

constitutes

r transitional or

the field as it as field the conditions

security

CEU eTD Collection Sociology Cultural 5 field security transitional a of realities material the introducing by field, the to habitus 16 1992: Wacquant and (Bourdieu relations take domination concept the Consequently, preferenceBourdieu’s structuralism. for practical and performativity actors’ t of to answer the core lays that interaction very the at is It field. respective a professional within actions social intersubjective of context the in improvisations of level between a always indeterminacy is There existentialism). Sartre’s by posited (as act individual be will agents of behaviour th is clear understandings shared from derived are practices that ensuring and practices their constraining structures constituted such agency, 2.2.1 Figure

See Kirchberg, Volker. 2007. “Cultural Consumption Analysis: Beyond Structure and Agency.”, Agency.”, and Structure Beyond Analysis: Consumption “Cultural 2007. Volker. Kirchberg, See t h cnet os o dtrie precisely determine not does context the at

clearly illustrates the intersubjective contexts in which actors exert their their exert actors which in contexts intersubjective the illustrates clearly Figure 2.2.1 Figure , 1 (1): 119. , 1 (1):

place

–

the in other words, the field field the words, other in

Bourdieu’s structure agency interaction and of the of –

the agents themselves cannot perform an immaculate, an perform cannot themselves agents the

gns rltos wih ie wy o creative to way gives which relations, agents’

field he agency/structure divide and the refutation of refutation the and divide agency/structure he

is defined as a “battlefield” where “battlefield” a as defined is

64

- 8. ocrig h rlto o the of relation the Concerning 18).

(King 2000: 431). 2000: (King defines

n unilaterally and

h srcue f power of structure the

But what is also also is what But 5

relations of relations

ht the what CEU eTD Collection on light above sheds that framework theoretical a proposes chapter the the position, theoretical clarify to order In reforms. constant and realities changing a in translated is this field security Romanian the (in rules and values anachronistic with operating habi professionals security in time lag a of consist would effect hysteresis the of concept the by introduced is habitus of concept the concerning flexibility theoretical of layer Another 2.2.2 the when entering field,carry with a disruptive them habitus. water’ in ‘fish a like is it of, product socia a encounters habitus “when granted, for habitus their long While field. the of understandings past by controlled 78), impr “regulated by means Bourdieu what is This stages. transitional during realities shifting on dependent highly and contingent is habitus the mentioned, already As life. social of account convincing more and richer a provides of concept the change, and competition power struggle, intersubjective of level a for allowing by and field the to habitus the connecting By change become social second almost nature. their transform to forced are security actors processes, haphazard reform more and legislative changes constant by dominated and transition in field security a In durability. and rigidity initial Romania the as such i.e. Habitus Habitus hysteresisand

the habitus is made up as actors act and it is informed but not completely not but informed is it and act actors as up made is habitus the Realpolitik

aiu srtgcly o ht dpain o rniinl tgs and stages transitional to adaptation that so strategically habitus hysteresis effect hysteresis oe post one n c , ommunist

- od a, h nto o hbts eis o oe it lose to begins habitus of notion the War, Cold ” (Bourdieu (Bourdieu ” - the field, security transitional a of case the In . oiae taiinl aiu)i a otx of context a in habitus) traditional dominated 65

&

Wacquant 1992: 127), new actors, new 127), 1992: Wacquant - t term members tend to take to tend members term vsto” Bude 1977: (Bourdieu ovisation” habitus security ransitional

wr f hc i i it which of work l - mentioned tuses, still tuses, the s

CEU eTD Collection saying” without comes it 164 1977: (Bourdieu because saying without goes which “that discourse”, “ Doxa power national over the security agenda for bid a in actors security new such by contested be also can experience doxic the supposedly a profe a within to rules and values of submission set unchangeable unconscious almost an as manifested is that 170) 159 1977: (Bourdieu experience doxic of form a develop actors security new Thus, 1990:(Bourdieu 68). pre the attuned, is it which to field the and habitus a between practice in established is that of orderthe patterns or so the symbolic levelby of they the capital to possess legitimi as so determined is agents security certain of domination and success the understanding, Bourdieusean a In Policy. Defence and Security Common the with Union European larger transitional Romanian the to open as more becomes field security introduced being are security doing of ways New challenged by others. sa the at while actors, some by ways traditional its in reinforced being is field security transitional Romanian the which through relations and conditions the h ntrl n sca wrd per a self as appears world social and natural the , namely what is taken for granted, is understood as the experience by which which by experience the as understood is granted, for taken is what namely , international - ebl taking verbal

structures, such as the North Atlan North the as such structures, -

167). Nevertheless, in transitional security contexts that lack a lack that contexts security transitional in Nevertheless, 167). - for - rne o te ol ta flo that world the of granted - called called

doxa internal reforms internal

and strategy 66

–

“the relationship ofimmediate adherence - vdn” “h uies o possible of universe “the evident”, ssional field. On the other hand, other the On field. ssional .

and tic Treaty Organization and the and Organization Treaty tic

s rm rcia sense” practical from ws the disruptive the ze the ruleszeof the the game, me time being time me

influences of influences - CEU eTD Collection hysteresis h and alignment of state a to contrary Consequently, occurs. field specific a in domination for struggle power the and manifested is actors of agency the tune, of out is aligning mentioned (su habitus the in dispositions their and structures) (objective field the in positions actors’ the between 332 2003: (Bourdieu “homology” terms as Bourdieu what oflevel a when settled g a Moreover, Quixotebehave Don in outof manner or tune the common or with doxa the ill socially is field) Hence 62). 1990: (Bourdieu obtain” longer no that conditions to objectivelyadjusted are they ill objectively are practices and phase H of state generalized a in predominant hysteresis. is situation This reality. social nascent the to adapt to bid a in stage, the enter habituses of types new transform, structures self or granted for taken is nothing situations, such In questionable. is production security rasa strat strong ysteresis - ev

oiia stig, h ceto o a tog rfsinl oa n h fed of field the in doxa professional strong a of creation the settings, political we te rcia sne f cos te necag bten aiu and habitus between interchange (the actors of sense practical the when , dn, vrtig eann t b ngtae o fuh uo. s objective As upon. fought or negotiated be to remaining everything ident, .

post the of case the in particularly culture, egic s eie b Bude a “ae i wih ipstos ucin u of out function dispositions which in “cases as Bourdieu by defined is vn rcie eoe dxc r sadr o sca odr becomes order social of standard a or doxic becomes practice iven bjective structures) takes place. On the other hand, when the afore the when hand, other the On place. takes structures) bjective omology, this state of disconnection is termed by Bourdieu as as Bourdieu by termed is disconnection of state this omology, - adapted to a specific specific a to adapted

- dpe t te rsn cniin because conditions present the to adapted 67 doxa,

qioi aet” Puit 00 48) 2010: (Pouliot agents” “quixotic - communist, almost almost communist, - sense. tabula - 333)

- CEU eTD Collection do question a not is it action, to paramount conceptualisation Bourdieu’s is action into understanding resources in root the Consequently, agenda. strategic the establish their successfully aggregate to actors of capacity a i reproduce to field security the in habitus professional certain a for chances the societies transitional In it. changing or habitus old the defending either in involved proactively become but changes transitional to adapt merely not do actors all, in All are leeway givenactors innovationmore much and change. for security created, be to waits still and exists values and rules of body homogenous sides both account into taking by is It tools. strategic as values and rules such utilizing solely nor culture, strategic overarching an as such goal The hersautomatism of or c his thought the from practice uplift to have would security of practitioner reflective bat and question become to have problem creative would actors security Romaninan that imply would challenges con the On rules. cultural or markers entaildeeply not blind following engrained do the field of in adaptations successful that fact the towards points also study case Romanian The

status together (Kitchen their 2009: or 100) performativity. trary, a transitional context with shifting realities, constant reforms, and new and reforms, constant realities, shifting with context transitional a trary, -

quo is not only about blindly adapting blindly about only not is

ragmn, ihu big hlegd ae ey ml. ee the Here, small. very are challenged, being without arrangement, - tle against their own habitus in order to adapt to a new context. A context. new a to adapt to order in habitus own their against tle solvers with an independent agency, they will have to deliberately to have will they agency, independent an with solvers also also about learning the art of doing security, doing of art the learning about

of who actors actors who of ommunist of agency resides in the difference between identity a betweenidentity difference the in residesagency of

of the coin. Especially in a context where no such no where context a in Especially coin. the of - inherited habitus.inherited are 68

to a homogenous body of rules or values or rules of body homogenous a to

together in a security field, but what they what but field, security a in together

i.e.

security practice, security tself into tself less nd CEU eTD Collection possibilitythe of “offeringevery these agenda, at moment competitive stances certain further to suited best capital of form and value the over struggle agents security context, transitional a In agenda. strategic the impact and perform to capacity the into converted be can that capitals or resources valuable certain possess that actors this ofofprivilegepointFrom positions view, are thesecurity by domin in held field economic, symbolic. social, or cultural, them be 14), 1984” (Bourdieu powers” and resources usable actually 16 1992: Wacquant a struggle, & competitive (Bourdieu positions advantageous more for other each confront actors which in context competitive a is that field” “playing that 166) actor 2008: (Jackson positions” between relations objective of configuration t mentioned, already As 2006:(Wacquant 7). unde functioning micro and milieus social differentiated the identifying purpose of above:it wasfor the powercoined mentioned the dynamics conce The security. of thedefinition authorisedto formulate are that institutions or groups actors, by constructed field security a of devoid securitisation of process a be cannot there o field specific the In 2.2.3 ocp i te ie dsrbto o pwr eain. h tr sgiis a signifies term The relations. power of distribution wider the in occupy s Habitus Habitus capitaland pt of pt

the field (Bourdieu 1993) (Bourdieu field the te ei o priua rls pten, n frs f authority of forms and patterns, rules, particular of remit the r

f security production, according to a Bourdieusean perspective, Bourdieusean a to according production, security f tr mk ue f ht oriu em cptl “h st of set “the capital, terms Bourdieu what of use make ctors he concept of field can also be defined as “a network or a or network “a as defined be also can field of concept he

-

tutrs n oit, ah n eey one every and each society, in structures presented in the previous section can clarify can section previous the in presented 69

- 8. n this In 18). ant

a CEU eTD Collection material/non hierarchies different within perform professional security in which space security the by constituted being and constituting itself dynamics the power professionals, security between competition power for legroom the becomes theo a for potential the lacks understanding IR afore The 1991). position of space a also field the Moreover, output. coherent upon, agreed 1991) struggle (Bourdieu of that is principle underlying the because contingency, and possibilities a becomes field to security The (re)production. order security of in field the significant within relations is power and it processes broader the and understand professionals security of role the understand material both of combination This (Bourdieu capital other forms of 1991;Bourdieu and 114). 1992: Wacquant symbolic power or maintained are field to given due a changed in game the of rules the when symbolic is 241) Capital position for discussion the opens it distribution and unequal the capitals for allows it engendered: is habitus the of rigidity the in breach another capital, the of concept the With 241). 1986: (Bourdieu miracle” a

r n Budesa udrtnig acmltd aor (oriu 1986: (Bourdieu labour” “accumulated understanding Bourdieusean a in or - mentioned arguments help also refute the claims that a more constructivist more a that claims the refute also help arguments mentioned - material resources.material

ofcertain actors becomes a form ofuniversal currency over presiding

– ruet o legitimacy of arguments

this clearly denies the unified visions of strategic culture as an an as culture strategic of visions unified the denies clearly this - aig (peh cs dsore, oiis.) (Bourdieu policies...) discourses, acts, (speech takings

and symbolic resources helps to comprehensively to helps resources symbolic and 70 expertise ,

pc o pwr ofit n hne of hence and conflict power of space y f oe. h scrt space security The power. of ry becomes a space of positions but positions of space a becomes - aig n pwr competition. power and taking

n atoiy ad hn the when and authority, and

n wt different with and

of CEU eTD Collection performative symbolic practices. Romanian the of wh of particularities the out teasing of purpose the for devices heuristic as used are leadership charismatic of notion Weberian the with together power Symbolic decisions. defence and security national regards as power setting ab the illustrate to leadership charismatic of typology the and capital symbolic power, symbolic of discussion conceptual a forward puts thesis the field, security Romanian the in outputs capital symbolic of analysis the In powerpublic inthe sphere. symbol their of use the through field the restructure to capital and dominance their high certain to field security Romanian the withinactors from shifted being is analysis of level The in hegemony Rom for struggle which representations, collective various the shape to is power symbolic Bourdieu, following ac security and political Romanian of strategies performative agential bureaucracy. state the of politicization the and language through o practice hegemonic efficient an as power, capital symbolic of notion the between connexion conceptual a proposing By a nia’s transitional transitional nia’s security field. - akn pltcl cos ht prt aoe t n wo ek o impose to seek who and it above operate that actors political ranking

the thesis makes use of a performative understanding of symbolic of understanding performative a of use makes thesis the Presidency - ae aayi o te ifrnil yblc oe ad power and power symbolic differential the of analysis based

os n h fed f euiy oiy n em of terms in policy security of field the in does

the the 71 performative power performative

f influence over a particular policy field field policy particular a over influence f os s sd n h tei, where, thesis, the in used is tors ove struggle over the agenda the over struggle ove (Adler & Pouliot 2011) Pouliot & (Adler at the symbolic power symbolic the at yblc power symbolic srcua and structural A

and ic -

CEU eTD Collection people make can power symbolic the of holders The field. a of members for/against authority legitimacyspeak of position to ina and placing actors hierarchies, privileged prestige culture, capital, symbolic of use the Bourdieu, to According material of use strategic make or resources. training expertise, capital, cultural power, to access has actor an material/non that means field security a of reality intersubjective the censor dominate, reproduce, to power The alike. actors and structures constituting capac the conceptof element powercentral The becomes a analysingandfor security practices symbolic further power. professionals security give that contexts transitional in capitals analysis an Such between affinities possible military. the as such fore state, modern the of the institutions the and inequality, domination, to brings habitus agents’ the and field the of terms in praxis theory Bourdieu’s capitals. different analysis with actors positional between unequal relations the for through possibility the with imaginary theoretical IR the his to underst linked particularly is 1999) (Bourdieu power symbolic of theory Bourdieu’s 2.2.4 Habitus Habitus power symbolic and

anding of the above the of anding t o sc patcs o erdc itrujcierltoa meanings intersubjective/relational reproduce to practices such of ity

- materia

of a symbolically mediated interface between the social structures of structures social the between interface mediated symbolically a of , can account for one of the most crucial sources of power in social social in power of sources crucial most the of one for account can ,

has the potential to establish a hierarchy between relevant security security relevant between hierarchy a establish to potential the has rsucs ht los i o hr o mly ihr discursive either employ to her or him allows that resources l - mentioned view on symbolic capital, contributing within contributing capital, symbolic on view mentioned

72

i.e.

oor sau, expertise, status, honour, CEU eTD Collection only explicit the of with inother actors’ acceptance engagement thepower relations. non or material of possession ina evident clearly is it as power, symbolic of definition Bourdieu’s Moreover, 2006). (Guzzini non power of the characteristics on light further sheds practices, Bourdieu’ practices. manifest create that relations power of theorization the is lacking particularly is What symbolic of top that violence coming on of of physical violence monopolization the power, of el dimension added important an an is as element introduced symbolic the view, of point this From 22). 1989: of instrument the also is it but violence over monopoly legitimate holds indeed that body 1 institutional (Bourdieu sate the theorizes Bourdieu Weber, to compared As different a had Bourdieu but understanding of powerthe than one. Weberian power, symbolic of conceptualization extensive understan Bourdieu how on influence clear a had has Weber violence, physical over monopoly the of repository ultimate the as state the of notion the Concerning power. symbolic regards as thinking Bourdieu’s on effect theoretical undeniable an had Weber Max representations.given of regime believe and see s h sae Bude’ dfnto o te tt i a ofho o his of offshoot an is state the of definition Bourdieu’s state. the ds

certain visions of the world rather than others (Bourdieu 1991) in a in 1991) (Bourdieu others than rather world the of visions certain

symbolic cnetaiain f oe, ih h fcs n aiu and habitus on focus the with power, of conceptualization s

violence over a given territory and population (Bourdieu population and territory given a over violence

- aeil eore, uh aias eoig power becoming capitals such resources, material

the author does not reduce power to merely to power reduce not does author the 73

- netoa, mesnl empowering impersonal intentional,

per se per .

9: ) s the as 3) 994: ement,

CEU eTD Collection think actors what emphasising in bias” “representational arguing, the from of suffer which that and appropriateness, consequences, of logics the to contrast In (NATO). Organisation f two practice NATO of Politics (Poul NATO in interest empirical an with communities security diplomatic actors, security of sense practical diplomatic the studying by communities security on agenda research constructivist the expands followe IR in turn “practice” the of spirit same the In 2.2.5 conditionings typicalprofessional to specific and their fields competitive struggles. capitals of types different of form the take can thirdly and violence, symbolic embodies it secondly legitimation, of form a is Power aspects. analytically intertwined overlapping and three reveals symbolic power sp Bourdieu’s view, “misrecognized” of are point this manifestation From 2006). of (Guzzini modes and origins its and characteristic the of part as internalized above the field is it thus and hierarchy in advance to means a as privileged particularly is it others; over precedence have may professional specific a of case a in Also, iot 2008b). Especially 2008b). iot ormer bitter rivals, the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Treaty Atlantic North the and Federation Russian the rivals, bitter ormer Habitus Habitus theand ofpractice logic - based analysis of post of analysis based - etoe trs i tuy bec truly it terms, mentioned - Russia Diplomacy Russia

, habitus

in the book project book the in

- dependent. Specifically, when power is formulated in formulated is power when Specifically, dependent. - Cold War security and diplomatic relations between relations diplomatic and security War Cold , namely it acquires a naturalized, non naturalized, a acquires it namely , (Pouliot 2010), the autho the 2010), (Pouliot

74

field such as the security one, one capital one one, security the as such field ms fr o dmnto we i is it when domination of form a omes

International Security in Practice: The Practice: in Security International

ht are that i.e.

h frain f transnational of formation the b Mrn, icn Pouliot Vincent Mérand, by d

ecificity in the analysis of of analysis the in ecificity valued according to social social to according valued r

proposes a fascinating a proposes - Russia relations Russia - intentional power power

and

CEU eTD Collection power symbolic the with practitioners diplomacy and security relevant the identifying Bourdieusean a Pouliot, to According ca above the to resorts the thesis end, this To practice. in produced is security how understanding to approach “superhuman” of Bourdieu’ssecurity theory agents, practice particularly of alternativeuseful provides a hands the in tool strategizing a merely as culture strategic cast strategic policy determine that cultures national coherent and unified of concepts monolithic utilizing of Instead and withinhabitus everyday security practic making security of and knowledgefield security the linking in agency of centrality the time same the at emphasizes cultural and conditionings structural the the Bo a proposes understanding and research in practice Pouliot’s of line the in of follows thesis This field. security importance specific a of characteristics the regards as especially and enga extremely the to due research, present the for valuable particularly is Pouliot of work the Conversely, social to logicsaction. produce the other as so with interacts 92), 1990: (Bourdieu logic” logical defies “which practice, of logic the precedence, takes logics the of which not is point The it. describes Pouliot ontologically first the sees Pouliot thinking, their determines what on not pital pital thecoreof as elementsa praxis

speaking ging micro ging . However, social action may not be as straight forward as as forward straight as be not may action social However, . - ecie cnet o te aiu, h fed ad the and field, the habitus, the of concepts described - urdieusean making and action, or had or action, and making

- analysis of security actors’ practices and habituses and practices actors’ security of analysis - e. - inspired strategicinspired culture. nprd nltcl rmwr i cpbe of capable is framework analytical inspired - nprd rmwr ht ae it account into takes that framework inspired 75

logic of practicality of logic - core realist approaches that approaches realist core

as coming as

but how but

CEU eTD Collection are culture strategic of well post transitional In projection. international temp based defence and conscription traditional the from making security of habits their post change the in actors security the case, Romanian the In dispositionsthe habitual security of practitioners. origi social have all beliefs, and representations strategies, 2010:16) (Pouliot practitioner” the for consequences actual with and time real in world, the on and in enacted practice “is it a negotiate to as so moments transformative new influences, past disagreements, handle they how and context at looking by work foll academic research present the view, of point this From toppositionsover the the on powerhierarchy ladder of politics. struggle their and fields security and diplomatic across practitioners such of mobility Bourdieusean the Thus, geopolitical the in shifts to lead that conditions the and hierarchy power existing the influence to view a with field, security international the within positions art security of monopoly the over NATO of case the in groups and actors competing such between interplay The conflicts. inte the influence to

in a constant constant a in - usa relations Russia ae t NT sadrs f lxblt, rfsinlzto and professionalization flexibility, of standards NATO to lates state of of state ntoa scrt aed ad oto te det f violent of advent the control and agenda security rnational , undoubtedly

s ecie i hs book his in described as - in transformation and reform, and the ideational parameters ideational the and reform, and transformation prd rmwr i al t ecmas h dynamic the encompass to able is framework spired new new

o scrt atr itrc i a ainl security national a in interact actors security how iculations. Practitioners struggle over their symbolic symbolic their over struggle Practitioners iculations. national strategic culture strategic national under debate. Strategic culture thus can thus culture Strategic debate. under

ht s f atclr interest particular of is that 76 - Cold

- War societies, the security field is field security the societies, War

,

s aietd n h competition the in manifested is w i te tp o Pouliot’s of steps the in ows - od a cnet a to had context War Cold ns and can be identified inidentified be can and ns . Accord .

Peeecs and Preferences . ing to the author, the to ing status

also - quo

be as - . CEU eTD Collection of concept The field. security the in professionals behavioural the on elem focuses it least, the not but last and explanations, rationalist and cultural both variables, agentic and structural both encompassing grid analytical an provides it that are approach theoretical Bourdieusian a of strengths main The 2.3 determining) (not actorsis it behaviouras in manifested practices. being constituting dispositions, human of instrument (neither an as serves habitus The reflexivity). behaviour normative actors’ ideational, on nor of rationality instrumental on examination solely substantiated the in potential analytical interesting an offers habitus of concept the end, this For practices. social through by subverted constantly is that agents. situation strategic innovatively cultural a as habitus the to referring by is idea this exemplify to way best the transformation, of process continuous a as value The cannotdominated tofail givedominator...” the (Bourdieu 160). to 2000: the that consent the through only up set is which coercion “the is violence institutionaliz Symbolic relations power and domination, violence of source symbolic a is it but communication, symbolic for arena the provide may different) no is culture strategic matter that for (and culture notes, Bourdieu As patterns revealed of disco in understood Conclusion ents as revealed in practice that guide the actions of relevant security security relevant of actions the guide that practice in revealed as ents - added of such an approach is that it stresses the idea of s of idea the stresses it that is approach an such of added the

everyday securityof to amounts and practices practitioners security urse and urse action withinpractices.

neet, da, om, n iette ar identities and norms, ideas, Interests, 77

rniinl euiy habitus security transitional d n pcfc hierarchies. specific in ed

trategic culture trategic

produced e - driven

was

CEU eTD Collection security production. of field Romanian the in and institutions security in reform and change of elements decision and political focus study the consequence, a As from. stems culture strategic where from dimension practice the emphasizes thesis the frameworks, theoretical Bourdieu’s from “borrowing” By contexts. transitional in life t social as of idiosyncrasy so capital symbolic the and effect, hysteresis the field, the of concepts the of importance the emphasized chapter the end, that To recognized thus and habitus socialby transformation. making possible Bourdieusean the circumventing habit in the of immutability forward step a as proposed

- making bodies from a praxis a from bodies making s truh aig s o te neatv dmnin f the of dimension interactive the of use making through us,

78

- oriented dimension and it traces it and dimension oriented o permit the mutability and and mutability the permit o

s n h national the on es CEU eTD Collection whichare and principles fundamental its as articulates field professional specific a that discourses professional established techniq personal a entails the and culture, institutional the procedures, learn securityactors and metamorphosis often socialization Successful practice. security established professionals security that is wisdom conventional The so adjust dispositions astheir to new fluctuating realities. and of terms in lagging behind security Romanian practitioners, of the part behaviour from ill of instances for account moves transitional embedded These reforms. defence and security and periods transitional actors’ security Romanian the of nature shifting and contrasting the the of concept the terms, post the of conditions Cold inherited actors’ security The field. security Romanian the of state generalized a of theme overarching the historical to contributes section present the agenda, research Bourdieusean a by inspired and chapter of concept the using By 3.1 Introduction T e o scrt pouto. uh cos eoe oilzd ih n already an with socialized become actors Such production. security of ues RANSFORMATION CHAPTER

considered to considered intrinsically to be and mandatory. true

3 - hy il sal aot h cnevtv faeok f the of framework conservative the adopt usually will they Cold War transition and security reforms. In more explicit explicit more In reforms. security and transition War Cold

T doxa doxa transitional security habitus security transitional S HE transitional

ANDTHE - R War dispositions and practices to the new realities and realities new the to practices and dispositions War

Bude 17: 159 1977: (Bourdieu OMANIAN s e pronl enter personnel new as hysteresis - dpain uciia mimesi uncritical adaptation, S

security ECURITY 79 S

ECURITY

s aietd n the in manifested is habitus habitus C ONFIGURATIONIN -

7) a e o cr vle and values core of set a 170), F is used in used is I ELD rpsd n h theoretical the in proposed

h rns f est of ranks the –

H

the chapter to reflect to chapter the

ISTORICAL , n haphazard and s,

habituses habituses ill E - dpain of adaptation UROPE hysteresis ablished during

in CEU eTD Collection takes pressures adaptation CSDP the or NATO either by informed configurations traditional practitioners’ between compatibility The professionalization. taken the within state of understandings changes are fundamental interviews The of habituses. indicative actors’ security and making security of practice and analysis interviews to resorts chapter The field. defence and security Romanian the within personnel civilian as well as ranks, personnel security pensioned and seasoned, Th innovation, to amenable reform. contestation, and and transition in are cultures security when understand processes alternative an provides field security the Romania’s than homogenous less much and theoretically varied more much is culture strategic the sets chapter the context, War post the in period transitional its over Romania in reform military and security of experience the analysing By patters. socialization described above the follow neatly as such influences international or reforms national to due either transformed, being are security doing of ways or professional established the when Nevertheless, is argument is - rvn n cnetoa wso wud allow. would wisdom conventional and driven

o con fr osbe e tasomtv ted i te Romanian the in trends transformative new possible for account to is also illustrated by the open the by illustrated also is

- ae defe based

AO n te SP i i mc mr dfiut to difficult more much is it CSDP, the and NATO

o otxulz te itrcl esetv i the in perspective historical the contextualize to ulig lcs o te ruet ht Romania’s that argument the for blocks building c t isacs f nentoa poeto and projection international of instances to nce 80

-

ended, qualitative interviews qualitative ended, from lower, middle, and upper military upper and middle, lower, from doxa habituses

is in flux and habits, practices, habits, and flux in is - o gatd traditional granted, for

and the new security security new the and h cs suy of study case The n o socialization of ing

of young, of - Cold CEU eTD Collection policy. by securityRomania’s of the formulation conflictin frozen theTransnistrian and Moldova played position privileged the and borderline, Eastern Romania’s of proximity influence important the contextualized It Eastern and Europe. Central of case the in change and adaptation security of processes vast the for understanding background the sets it and Union Soviet the of collapse securit European radical the and of transformation reform security of lines general the out laying proceeds chapter The policy defence and security EU’s the and NATO of t to given is attention Special the led that processes reform security tensioned Coldtransformation from the are note Of reforms. p to 1990s, early the participation, Pact Warsaw its from field defence and security Romanian approach, longitudinal a using of procedure instances and standards by NATO to adapting represented when isomorphism and were emulation reforms such case, Romanian the In civilian defence traditional from havin when especially the illustrating of purpose the for used is data interview Consequently, field. security Romanian the within change re the in stage centre

- military operations. military operations. eet day, resent g to mitigate for the transformation of their way of doing things doing of way their of transformation the for mitigate to g search and sheds further light on the dynamics of inertia and inertia of dynamics the on light further sheds and search - s el s h nal to eae o cntn ad radical and constant of decades two nearly the as well as based templates to practices of international projection and projection international of practices to templates based - War structuresto NATO War

he evolutionary pattern and the institutional background institutional the and pattern evolutionary he

hysteresis effects hysteresis the chapter follows the broad evolutionary span of the of span evolutionary broad the follows chapter the cnet uig h Cl Wr n atr the after and War Cold the during context y 81

in security professionals’ professionals’ security in - dominated security mechanisms.

evolution f h foe cnlcs t the at conflicts frozen the of

during the Cold War. War. Cold the during habituses, hard By .

CEU eTD Collection defence and security European the of conceptualization the in shift The defence securitydimen and a creates thereby and identity point power branching global EU’s the for change institutional critical last the junct Nevertheless, defence. and security of field the in developments institutional European and transatlantic specific forth brought have settings historical third and States; United the superpower, single a by dominated system unipolar a of rise the and Wall Berlin the of fall the second, system; international the in structure power of post the feed of type a first, CSDP: EU’s the triggered of creation future the reinforcing with have responsible mechanisms junctures critical such three particular, In distinct a and hand, one Euro the on integrated dimension an defence of and formation security the transatlantic on debates of recurrence the pinpoint to useful particularly are CSDP the and NATO both of progress institutional the in moments Community. European the and Alliance transatlantic the of evolution or moments formative historical of chain a within integrated be could CSDP EU’s the and NATO both of creation The 3.2 Theand Historical Background Institutional pean securitypean hand identitytheother on ofthewith creation the EU’sCSDP. first formative moment formative first substantial most the marks CSDP, the of creation the with culminating ure, - Wor , the violent Balkan conflicts in the 1990s. Within this broad timeline, these timeline, broad this Within 1990s. the in conflicts Balkan violent the , ld War II ld War

oet Hue Kri 20: , 4) rm hc te European the which from 942) 7, 2006: Kernic & (Hause moment status , the end of the World War World the of end the , sion ontomoved new a path. - quo

and the characteristics of a bipolarity a characteristicsand the of rtcl junctures critical 82

of the CSDP NATOand Hl & alr 96 92 i the in 942) 1996: Taylor & (Hall

II

, influenced a paradigmatic paradigmatic a influenced , - driven balance balance driven

configuration uh critical Such

- back

, CEU eTD Collection 8 https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945 7 6 Europe. whPact, Organization Treaty Warsaw the alliance, security regional own its c to prompted was SovietUnion the 1955, Germanyin of Republic Marshall George State of Secretary European Marshall Recoverythe proposed the Plan,by or United Program the States la a by enhanced further was effort concerted This reached who leaders states’ member in decisionconsensus the of consisting and a general by headed secretary NATO in authority highest the Council, Atlantic North the including continent the on integration political peaceful the boost and Europe, in militarism nationalist of restoration the prevent Soviet deter to was role NATO’s effort. transatlantic broader a of reali in was Alliance the of establishment the Union, Soviet the by posed threat potential the and allies II War former World the between rivalry rising the by triggered post Western of handful a defen and securitycollective of front a secure to was meant states and European Canada, States, Treaty United the Atlantic by North 1948 the in Organization of formation The Organization. Treaty Atlantic North with dramatically changing architecture security Europe’s

Ibidem NATO, of history A short North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 1949, US Department of State, Office of the Historian, Historian, the of Office State, of Department US 1949, (NATO), Organization Treaty Atlantic North - a cnet Wie h picpl esn eid h ceto o NT was NATO of creation the behind reason principal the While context. war

ich included included ich Soviet and c states

- http://www.nato.in making through unanimity.making

- 1952/nato t/history/nato 7 6 Wt te nlso i NT o te Federal the of NATO in inclusion the With . NT ws raie i a iiin branc civilian a in organized was NATO . ommunist satellitesCentral andEasternommunist from 83

- history.html

rge - scale economic aid package, aid economic scale

h etbihet f the of establishment the - ounterbalance withounterbalance led expansionism, led 8

or the Warsaw Warsaw the or ce in the in ce ty part part ty h CEU eTD Collection to responses institutional of nature specific the forth brings 140) 2005: (Pollack context in institutions of analysis The attack. armed an of event the in assistance mut “unconditional an by marked signed It defence Kingdom. United the and Netherlands, The Luxembourg, Organization, France, European Belgium, Treaty the Brussels when the 1948 within in officialised taken was was cooperation direction this in step first A started todimension takeprecede defence European strictly a of creation the about talks War, Cold the during Union and race arms strengthening through settlement conflict and solutions coexistence peaceful for searching were Europeans 7). 2006: (Kerninc resentments and conflicts of devoid order social a of construction WWII post The collective terms in deterrentsecurityand anto efficient as guarantees theSovietfunctioned Union. Europe Western and States United the between 1999) (Yost post reco the in economically grow to Europe Western allowing umbrella security a as servewould it and purposes deterrence for attack) nuclear a with retaliate would NATO aggression, Soviet of case th the implemented (in retaliation” NATO “massive of end, doctrine strategic this To attack. under was Europe Western or US the that eventuality the in retaliation massive of arrangements defence collective the East the deepened further 99) 2013: Coelmont nu & (Biscop US’ the and NATO’s under Germany Western of inclusion The nstruction period. During the Cold War, NATO was also the institutional linchpin institutional the also was NATO War, Cold the During period. nstruction the status iiay optto bten h Uie Sae n te Soviet the and State United the between competition military ual defence commitment” and commitment” defence ual - peace and security on the continent. However, due to the new the to due However, continent. the on security and peace quo

yblzd cosod fr uoen a rgrs the regards as Europeans for crossroads a symbolized

nce in European elite circles. in elite nce European 84

put forward put - West rivalry and reinforced reinforced and rivalry West

provisions for mutual for provisions la umbrella clear

- war e CEU eTD Collection partl is it neutral: they so, doing actorsover privilege some others. is Institutionalization never therefore in but 13), 2001: Fligstein & (Sandholtz arenas define institutions that assumption the dimension. defence and security supranational European a over debate the in elements pervasive become worldviews C the concerning disagreements and rivalries current to forward traced be could take, should EU the what of worldviews national between divide doctrinal a illustrating divergi The NATO’s 1954 in whencollapsed theFrench Parliament to ratifyfailed treaty. the undercut potentially have could it as plan the favour not did US the and based, was EDC then which upon future Europe’s the of Se & Gänzle in (Anderson vision federal same the share not did Kingdom Community Defence European the called organization, defence European a establish to efforts into developed idea This army. European proposed Pleven) René Premier French the by forward (put 7) 2007: Sens & Gänzle in (Anderson European Plan Pleven the a 1950 In establish dimension. defence to 1950s the in efforts renewed reflected instances Other cooperation defence security and European a for grounds the laying and rivalry, Union Soviet and US emerging the to responding WWII, the of aftermath the in up set organizations defence European first Fro developments. exogenous

ng opinions between member states, especially between France and UK, and France between especially states, member between opinions ng regarding the role of the EU and the institutional path it should take would take should it path institutional the and EU the of role the regarding y a process by which powerful actors seek to shape the rules of the of rules the shape to seek actors powerful which by process a y SDP’s transformation. The differences between French and English and French between differences The transformation. SDP’s This sustained rivalry between France and France between rivalry sustained This m this perspective, the Brussels Treaty was in fact the fact in was Treaty Brussels the perspective, this m

framework known as the“Western knownframework as Union”. 85

(EDC) asn d’être raison

the creation of a unified a of creation the . However, the United the However, . organizational

the

Te EDC The . ns 2007: 7) 2007: ns UK reflects UK

form CEU eTD Collection issues onCommunity’s the defence European agenda. and security put to attempt timid first the representing and field defence and security fo basis treaty mid the in made was cooperation defence and security regards as step important most the period, Cold War the During states. member EU by subject taboo a considered was moment in framework cooperation the at meetings informal of number a from emerging (CFSP), Policy Security and Foreign Common the became 11) 2006: (Kerninc progenitor the as considered be could EPC The of countries. Community ministers foreign the of meeting was regular but process informal (EPC) of consisting Cooperation established, Political European the 1970 in Plan, Fouchet failu the After states. member Community’s European the by discontent with met was it but policies, defence and foreign European closer for provided Plan proposed The cooperation. European the of process the (Anderson in changes fundamental Plan Fouchet the project, interesting an presented again once France 1960s, the of beginning the In results. modest with met dimension security and defence European broader a develop to effort Another and the constraints EU’s secu for scope the setting in role major a playing Germany, besides club elite Three” “Big Union’s European the of members France, and UK the favour, their in game frin oiy oprto, omlzn pltcl oprto i the in cooperation political formalizing cooperation, policy foreign r - 1980s. The Single European Act (Kerninc 2006: 12) established a established 12) 2006: (Kerninc Act European Single The 1980s.

ih politics high rity development. defence institutional and

President

a lvl I ws h frt institutionalized first the was It level. ial 86 n frin policy foreign and

07 8, hc envisaged which 8), 2007:

a il ta utl tha until that field a ,

f ht later what of e f the of re t CEU eTD Collection re for impetus new a offered developments These fra cooperation overall the and arena, international the in operations and missions peacekeeping and management crisis in engagement the Russia, with frameworks consultative an speaking strictly outside roles new NATO for about brought War Cold the of end The states. member its for defence collective of instrument principal remainingthe time same the states such and Europe. Eastern and expand and War Cold the expansionism initial NATO’s though Even security and alliances well organizations such as as national armedNATO, as forces. military European of processes transformation radical galvanized issues defence an security about Debates concern. societal and political of issue major a becoming post the agenda, defence and security European the on impact important an had system international the in transformations u These actors. European West to partners became Countries, past, European the of opponents historical many and Organization dissolved Treaty Warsaw the when Wall, Berlin the of fall the by engendered The

ntueto cletv scrt: ih h PrnrhpfrPae n te special the and Peace for Partnership the with security: collective of instrument eod omtv moment formative second

and aggression in Europe, the institution survived beyond the end of end the beyond survived institution the Europe, in aggression and eok etnig eod AOs rdtoa rah Ys 1999). (Yost reach traditional NATO’s beyond extending meworks substantially to their liberal contributed t lyd fnaetl oe n h scrt sco rfr of reform sector security the in role fundamental a played It ed its reach to include former c former include to reach its ed

raison raison

was constituted constituted was ’te a t dtr h ptnil Soviet potential the deter to was d’être - Cold War European security configuration configuration security European War Cold 87

- evaluating the existing European European existing the evaluating y h rdcl transformations radical the by - democratic transition,whiledemocratic at ommunist states in Central in states ommunist i.e.

eta ad Eastern and Central nexpected d

CEU eTD Collection “low of spheres called so be could where reachedpolitics”, with cohesion much more success. the in integration towards orientation the with taken, C European the path civilian particular the for also account could a hindrances These structure. integrating institutional same of the within views and of multiplicity Community European a creating of process cumbersome security US the on dependence European embedded an of reflexive only not was War Cold The era. bipolarity the to specific hi and contingencies the configurations, dimensi defence and security a create to attempts modest the that is observation important Another matters. such on the broader states’ difficultiesaccommodatingreflect in “vetomultiple points” member the fo in hindrances faced The little showed states member in enthusiasm bolstering dimension defence theUnion. European a for as background, the in remained agenda defence th by overshadowed again, Once integration. defence European further to lead might that policy defence common a of establishment eventual the to references vague specifically made (CFSP), Policy Security and Foreign Common the pillar, t second at creation the through Treaty, The (1992). Maastricht of Treaty the with momentum new gained agenda defence and security European the security, Atlantic North and/or European a for structures alternative of creation the in Thus, civilian,economics rethinking and 13) 2006: (Kerninc architecture security iprtvs n icnie fr frhr cnmc nerto, h scrt and security the integration, economic further a for incentives and imperatives e - oriente d soft d policy.foreign rmation of a European security and defence dimensiondefence securityEuropeanand a of rmation

n ee iety eedn o the on dependent directly were on 88 trcl reuaiis Lcr 2006: (Lecors irregularities storical

mrla bt t lo elce the reflected also it but umbrella,

s well as ommunity had traditionally had ommunity

h E’ traditional EU’s the

asl historical causal e ie f the of time he

514) CEU eTD Collection Franco the in during place 1998, took change December revolutionary The framework. policy EU’s the within 497) t policy, possible defence making security and a of development the in milestone actual the constitutes moment formative third This In 185). 138, 2004, role NATO’s was (Reichardover theEU 2013: 256). handed to Agreem Peace Dayton the implement help to soldiers 000 60 of force The multinational NATO’s abroad”. mobilized conflicts “near Yugoslav the in conflicts in involved when 54) 2005b: (Biscop sharing th from independent clear message a of prompted also terms It operations. in peacekeeping EU in deployed the be to and capabilities US the between discrepancy great the highlighted and situation the stabilized involvement States’ United the again, Once incentives, double “soft” that case the always not is it that highlighting for also and backyard own its stabilize EU, the the constituting conflicts, Balkan The identity. civilian EU’s the reconfigure to and defence and security to approaches traditional their rethink to countries European the forced Balkans the and Gulf the in crises international major Cold of end new bringing security forth Outbreaks types of War ofva challenges. the terrorism, warfare, asymmetric destruction, mass of weapons of proliferation the to conflicts and instabilities regional from ranging concerns, security new emerging arr an by question into put was 1990s the after EU the of dimension civilian The

ee ntuetl Ngn 2006: (Nugent instrumental were Uie Sae ta te U ut e novd n oe burden more in involved be must EU the that States United e i.e.

aid and results aid cantrade, yield successful

ent in December 1995 (Ingrao & Emmert 2009: Emmert & (Ingrao 1995 December in ent - rts S Ml Smi, ersnig the representing Summit, Malo St British 89

497) 497) he policy “breakthrough” (Nugent 2006: policy2006: (Nugenthe “breakthrough” in indicating the EU’s inability to to inability EU’s the indicating

third formative third .

moment for for moment ay of of ay rious rious

- CEU eTD Collection agencies/eu 11 instruments 10 00005_en.htm http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/foreign_and_security_policy/cfsp_and_e 9 todecide Britain strategicmake choicesthe an and France rescue, EU’s the to come always not will it that US the from message clearthe capabilities, defence of lack overall EU’s the vicinity,its secure to incapacity ne EU the in threats security asymmetrical insecurity the by defence Prompted and future. security EU’s the concerning opposition historic their transgressed inte two where juncture Staff Military Union European Security and Political the EU, the Committee of structures permanent as and bodies political of military formation the marked Nice in Council European The operations. military conduct to EU the allow will which structure military and political a create to decided 1999, in Council European Helsinki the at states, member European The PolicyDefence (CSDP) and Security Common the of creation the with culminating pace, unexpected and considerable a at above developed have policies defence the and security the breakthrough, in reflected as EU, almost always been have withi orientations Atlanticist and Europeanist between divide Britain, a tracing opposed, and France players, EU important most the of positions two The matters. defence and security on positions British and French histo the between conceptions security of alignment unprecedented

The EU’s Political and Security Committee, Committee, Security and Political EU’s The

h E’ Erpa U European EU’s The The EU’s European Union Military Committee, Committee, Military Union European EU’s The - - agencies/eumc/ military 9

PC, h Erpa Uin iiay Committee Military Union European the (PSC), - staff/

nion Military Staff, Staff, Military nion

.

ntoa atr poe tgte ter neet and interests their together pooled actors rnational 11

(EUMS). The St Malo moment was a critical point of point critical a was moment Malo St The (EUMS). - -

etoe fraie oet. ic this Since moments. formative mentioned driven international international driven http://www.eeas.europa.eu/csdp/structures 90

gbuho, h raiain f EU’s of realization the ighbourhood, d create theCSDP. create d http://www.eeas.europa.eu/csdp/structures status 10

-

sdp_implementation/r quo EM) ad the and (EUMC), rically diverging diverging rically te evolving the , - instruments n the n - - CEU eTD Collection 252) 2000: Pierson in (quoted follow to she tends one is the behind climber other the to one from clamber to or around turn to possible easy is Although branches. smaller obstruct and branches different many are there arrangements trunk, institutional certain of entrenchments the rever but points, choice other be will There high. very are reversal of costs the path, the down started has region or country a once that 12 new the of some example, For simultan 6). 2005a: Biscop often in (Khol operations and and missions multiple in participation the and capacities deployment medium and small enlargement, of waves European Eastern and Central the after Especially military national of loss a autonomy (Bisc and sovereignty national their on impact clear a had 5 2005: Biscop in (Khol i benefits sticky “institutional as 123 1996: (Pierson termed is what developing future, the in overturn to difficult very be to prove might structure CSDP the of creation the Consequently, considerabledespite political change. periods extended for equilibrium in remain may institutions existing whereby 140), f potential the caused have generated, has it institutions of creating by EU, the within states member that argued be could it Actually, defence. and security of field the in started they choices policy perpetuat to actors for incentives further providing policy this dependence path institutional for possibility the opened that establishedwas dimension newa CSDP, the of institutionalization the withMoreover,

Paul Pierson’s and Margaret Levi’s definition “Path “Path definition Levi’s Margaret and Pierson’s Paul sal of the initial choice. Perhaps the better metaphor is a tree, rather than a path. From the same the From path. a than rather tree, a is metaphor better the Perhaps choice. initial the of sal - ie mme sae wr fcn iprat hlegs once to connected challenges important facing were states member sized n pursuing “deeper military integration on a bilateral and multilateral basis” multilateral and bilateral a on integration military “deeper pursuing n op in Biscop 2005a: in op 35).

- 163, 142 163, - 6), even though such cooperation and specialisation moves specialisation and cooperation such though even 6),

– -

143). As well, many EU member states saw the added the saw states member EU many well, As 143). and essential if th if essential and

91

dependence has to mean, it is to mean anything, anything, to mean is it mean, to has dependence e chosen branch dies dies branch chosen e the CSDP and the entire array entire the and CSDP or lock or 12 , the decision to create to decision the ,

te ntttoa and institutional the e –

the branch on which a a which on branch the - ins (Pollack 2005: (Pollack ins - ness” ness” eous CEU eTD Collection http:/ 1999, Apr, 24 D.C., Councilin Washington Atlantic the North of meeting the in participating Government and State of Heads the by Approved Concept Strategic Alliance’s The http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_23847.htm Co Atlantic North the of the Meeting 13 elite defence international an of part being by and by offered incentives active the to due either consequence, a As 10). 2008: (Mérand conducted” be to likely most are operations and exercises an interaction of space a doctrine, War Cold the of end the after reform defence and military states, Soviet former the For in political exercisesmilitary operations. and and reproduced and produced be to members the of frames representational shared the displayed and doctrine security Alliance’s the enshrined that document guiding a as served has It states. member European Eastern and Central new the int efficient the thus assuring resources, military and political which Concept Strategic the is document NATO central The importance. critical of been post the Policyshaping Defence and in Security Common EU’s the and Organization Treaty Atlantic North the of role The Landscape Security 3.3 EUaeor NATO out and balance defence a territorial of maintain requirements to “the opted between Poland and Hungary as such states member EU

The Alliance’s New Strategic Concept agree by the Heads of State and Government participating in in participating Government and State of Heads the by agree Concept Strategic New Alliance’s The /www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_27433.htm The offers the doctrinal framework for NATO’s objectives, internal coordination and coordination internal objectives, NATO’s for framework doctrinal the offers

post - od a Cnet n te T the and Context War Cold gis” (

Khol in Biscop in Khol 2005a: 8).

uncil, 09 Nov. 1991 1991 09 Nov. uncil, NATO became a fundamental guiding compass for the for compass guiding fundamental a became NATO

cneto, n a rmwr wti which within framework a and contention, d - Cold War security Cold env War 92

–

08 Nov. 1991, 1991, Nov. 08

asomto o te European the of ransformation and

group of nations, or due to peer to due or nations, of group

- sgiyn “ suc of source “a signifying , of eraction parameters for for parameters eraction the the ironment in Europe hasEurope in ironment - ar a isos under missions ea NATO membership NATO

joint 13 , CEU eTD Collection the strategy, security “common” European a to response in compasses building have defence and security on Lisbon’ proposals of the Treaty The 2009. 2007, December 1 on June force into in entered which Lisbon, Council of European the of request Treaty The Treaty, Reform new a up drew 2007 (IGC) Conference Intergovernmental the at end, that For to and defence and security to predominantly the reconfigure identi EU civilian approach traditional their rethink to countries Union European the forced Balkans the and Gulf the in wars and crises international emerging of array prompted forces. armed risks defence and security new en such of prominence The Eastern and Europe. Central in especially transformed, radically and unmistakably been has landscape security European The era. bipolarity the of those unlike challenges n about brought War Cold the of end the mentioned, already As 2013). Marek & (Baun sector military their of restructuring complete a triggered and states post international of warfare Th 15). 2008: (Mérand modern forces armed professionalized and projection of language the substantively, or discursively post the reasons, isomorphic and pressure opsig n datc eom rcse o te eta ad atr European Eastern and Central the of processes reform drastic and compassing - Cold War context facilitated the military reform in a number of new EU member EU new of number a in reform military the facilitated context War Cold

As well, t well, As asymmetric he post he

- Cold War Western Western War Cold

euiy sus Otras f aiu major various of Outbreaks issues. security 93

represented - ty actor global and omns cutis dpe, e it be adopted, countries communist status

h plc ad institutional and policy the - quo

was challenged by an an by challenged was ew types of security of types ew - ness. ness. e transformative e

s CEU eTD Collection http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/permanent_structured_cooperation_en.htm 15 www.iss and Solana, Javier Policy, Security and Foreign adopt Common the for Representative High EU’s former 14 for opportunity the with Cooperation” hand, Structured other “Permanent the On loses. important suffered have or stagnan remained have budgets defence national rates, inflation annual than faster 29 2005a: Biscop in (Biscop inflation” “defence of problems with faced were states member EU new Conversely, 29). 2005a Biscop in (Biscop threats security new to response in forces military flexible and capable more creating of imperative the under Strategy Security European the in outlined also were elements These 2012). Merlingen 2013; Attinà & Irrera 2014; framewo defence and security superior economically and technologically integrated, more a build to collaborated increasingly have CSDP, the of aegis the under powers, military major Union’s European the decade, last the Over European security. comprehensive more a forward put Lisbon objectives of strategic analysis, Treaty the 15), viii, environment 2005b: (Biscop, responses policy EU relevant and security identification, on chapters major three b out set guidelines central the by Inspired the for only not milestone, a EU butCSDP/ESDP, actionas external a for whole” 2005b: (Biscop viii). therefore and EU the of ever document strategic fr reference important Strategy Security European

Treaty of Lisbon, Permanent Structure Permanent Lisbon, of Treaty The European Security Strategy was for the first time drawn up in 2003 under the authority of the the of authority the under 2003 in up drawn time first the for was Strategy Security European The

ed by the Brussels European Council of 12 and 13 December 2003, 2003, December 13 and 12 of Council European Brussels the byed - eu.org/solana/solanae.pdf

amework for the EU (Biscop & Andersson 2007) and the “first the and 2007) Andersson & (Biscop EU the for amework

14

- 30)

20) Te taey ol b cniee a an as considered be could Strategy The (2003). d Cooperation, d Cooperation, –

ih h yal dfne aaiiis ot rising costs capabilities defence yearly the with 15

mrig u o te ray f ibn an Lisbon, of Treaty the of out emerging 94

y the European Security Strategy and its and Strategy Security European the y

a o tikn about thinking of way

rk (Pohl (Pohl rk

t : CEU eTD Collection http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/mutual_defence_en.htm 16 Euro the outside time first the for involved was NATO and most EU the and partnership relation transatlantic the in rift important An resources. visions different bu NATO, with closely collaborates indeed EU The policy. security Alliance’s transatlantic the affect that issues most difficult the and interesting of one remains EU the and NATO between cooperation of degree The ori cultures. political historical structures, organizational different with scope, and goals of terms in entities institutional different are they but common, in members the in stages national differentiating and management crisis lines international distinct draw between to difficult increasingly it made security to threats of diversity (CSDP) Policy Defence and Security Common EU’s the and Lisbon g defence territorial mutual explicit While in formation of an reflected, also it but the strengthened time same the at and states member intervening the of weight political the and legitimacy the increased framework the made: be could cooperation structured and permanent in forward move can states member of group a which by established been has framework institutional

See The Treaty of Lisbon, The Mutual Defence Mutual Defence The Lisbon, of Treaty The See s

was triggered by the 2003 Iraq crisis, when the EU Iraq crisis, when the was 2003 by triggered the security and defence integration. Two further observations regardingobservations further Two integration. defence and security

- group select a club within or club.the EU vis

- ne alia inter à profile of the EU as a security and defence international actor; international defence and security a as EU the of profile - vis

security continuum security odcig afr ad h poig n saig of sharing and pooling the and warfare conducting

a multi a , - speed Europe, and a tendency towards the the towards tendency a and Europe, speed uarantees were excluded from the Treaty of of Treaty the from excluded were uarantees Clause, Clause, 95

. 22 have currently EU the and NATO te w ognztos have organizations two the t

-

US relatio US

eec, n between and defence,

is fntos and functions, gins, - tatc oe and zone Atlantic ns suffered the suffered ns 16 te great the , - NATO CEU eTD Collection http://www.nato.int/shape/news/2003/shape_eu/se030822a.htm throu together tied 2003”, March 12 ...dated are Agreement’ ‘Framework the called so parts All Summit. Washington NATO the of conclusions on based EU, and 18 17 the mitigate to and partnership the rethink to necessity implied the with EU, the and anUS the between priorities strategic in differences and the by reflected further are NATO defence collective for forum & Dyson a than 119; 99, 2013: Coelmont more & (Biscop NATO a such alliance military intergovernmental is CSDP EU’s The cultures. security his the and differences the with these of vision strategic the in differences are there However, reinforcing. mutually are efforts development capability their that ensure Beyond 39). p key other thefield, in cooperation 2010: Juncos & (Gross partnership and complementarity of spirit a and interests strategic common shared have organizations two The Berli the beyond, and Europe in conflicts armed and crises resolve and prevent to together working been have Union European the and NATO efforts. mission NATO and EU both of basis NATO and forces EU the between relationship the describe to used often is that phrase A (Biscop Coelmont an autonomous & EU’s actor as strategic 2013: 103). 101, the on debate the deepened and capacity autonomous an develop to needed EU the 106 2005b: (Biscop Cold War settl thus

See NATO’s relations with the European Union, Union, European thewith relations NATO’s See “Berlin Plus agreement is a short title for a comprehensive package of agreement between NATO NATO between agreement of package comprehensive a for title short a is agreement Plus “Berlin is “separable, but not separate” not but “separable, is

ing osaiie: 03 4) Te taei dfeecs ewe te U and EU the between differences strategic The 49). 2013, Konstadinides:

the “out the

- of Pu agreements Plus n - area debate” as regards NATO’s reach and reach NATO’s regards as debate” area

- 107

toric - 108). The Iraq crisis further reinforced reinforced further crisis Iraq The 108). riorities for collaboration collaboration for riorities - political heritage of the new EU member states’ member EU new the of heritage political 17 : the same forces and capabilities form the form capabilities and forces same the : 96 18 http://www.nato.int/issues/nato

en sc a eape f cooperation. of example an such being

two two ntttos wih overlap which institutions, have been established been have -

its eu/index.html still new role post role new

cooperate in cooperate the fact that the fact

gh gh to -

CEU eTD Collection in 111) 2005b: (Biscop cooperation strategic and equipment of terms in reinforced in high the of importance the operations), military and civilian CSDP the of most for case the been not has (which anyEU to fundamental as perceived been resourceshas NATO Using o creation ( obstacles fundamental the of one remains indecisiveness this NATO, or CSDP the either between vacillate to continue states ( partners transatlantic Turkey a such countries NATO states’divisions internal the to member EU the from ranging remain, still vision in differences level, strategic the at Nevertheless, common. in countries member 22 have now and Union European the 2007 and NATO 2013, in in Croatia Romania and Bulgaria of accession EU the with and organizations ( Group Capability EU P the and Council Atlantic North the between General, Secretary the and Representative High the between the meeting regular and the example NATO for between CSDP, up set been have agreements coordination of series A be part of specific the E to aspect important an NATO, oneis counterpart NATO’s US; the is counterpart “EU’s the that and fact the is underlined EU the contrasting and comparing of dif strategic

f an effectivef cohesive and security EU policy. defence and ferences between the traditional allies (Biscop 2005b: 109, 111). 111). 109, 2005b: (Biscop allies traditional the between ferences U: ( CSDP” Biscop & Coelmont 2013: 103 2013: Coelmont & Biscop icp Cemn 21: 106 2013: Coelmont & Biscop teroperability between the EU and NATO being always being NATO and EU the between teroperability

Biscop & Coelmont 2013:Biscop 99). ,

o essig nenl iie betwe divides internal persisting to 97 sometimes

icp Cemn 21: 0) n the in 107) 2013: Coelmont & Biscop ). . s og s h E member EU the as long As ).

dissatisfied positions of of positions dissatisfied With the enlargement of both of enlargement the With

SC,

and - led operations led

the NATO the In terms In n the en strictly - CEU eTD Collection (2004 20 19 between coordination the required and ministries defence of agenda the to limited longer no were actions and missions NATO and CSDP the that is history countries’ post the in vision complex triggered of part the from structures response NATO and CSDP EU’s the both in integration The 2007: designedcapabilities integrativefor civilian Andersson & Biscop in (Biscop securit to approach holistic or comprehensive its given challenges, management crisis international to respond to placed uniquely been has EU The provider. security perceived be to wants military a at and strategically autonomous become to was CSDP the of development further the with EU the of aim The States. United the on hence and NATO upon dependent highly capacity defence and security EU’s the in capabilities and assets its recall to right the and 119) 2005b: (Biscop refusal” first of “right formal a reserved also has NATO the in Althea Balkans hoc ad discretionary access assets. NATO of control and return, release, the regards b has EU the by capabilities and assets operations.international

The Berlin Plus Agreement, Agreement, Plus Berlin The Operations launched in the framework of Berlin Plus: Operation Concordia (2003), EUFOR Althea Althea EUFOR (2003), Concordia Operation Plus: Berlin of framework the in launched Operations - current), current),

ai n ptit ato ol tie ih prto Cnoda n EUFOR and Concordia Operation with twice only action into put and basis o EU for http://eeas.europa.eu/csdp/about assured access assured - led crisis management operations, NATO agreeing only to to only agreeing NATO operations, management crisis led -

od a context War Cold 20 .

n h future the in

The Berlin The http://eeas.europa.eu/csdp/about post

(Lagadec (Lagadec 2012:118 -

c ommunist member states and their national strateg national their and states member ommunist - Plus agreements Plus

s ceil goa atr n a international an and actor global credible a as .

n motn dsicin ih ot f such of most with distinction important An - csdp/berlin/index_en.htm 98

EU -

military planning een reaffirmed, remain rather vague as as vague rather remain reaffirmed, een

17), - led ongoing operations. This has madehas This operations. ongoing led - omtv lgtmc, n niche and legitimacy, normative 131). As well,131). As it 19 - csdp/berlin/index_en.htm operational level, especially if it if especially level, operational , under which the use NATO use of whichunder , the They offer They .

is conceived on an on conceived is

no guaranteed

ic y - CEU eTD Collection 145 2011: (Mankoff fears War Cold old and Russia to proximity close the by for accounted be can orientation Atlanticist c E new Eastern and Central of case the In process. integration EU the to adaptation their with Alliance the within status their mitigated of subject dis continued a are EU the and NATO between tensions operational The & Elliot in Terriff 120; 2004:9). Cheeseman 2004: Cheeseman & (Elliott process” planning defence and security their def developed increasingly states and member security as of planning, denationalization defence the to contributed commonality This Europe. Eastern and Central in culture defence security common a of development the to led post field security the in changes the understanding in NATO of importance The 2012). Merlingen 2012; Penksa & Ginsberg 2007; Britz 2007; (Gross structures governance operation re and that efficiency solutions complex CSDP triggered expectations the that noted be also should it Consequently, with other Marekand & states (Baun member 2013). fi and justice, affairs, foreign of ministries the as such fields, policy other with cooperation multi complex, presupposed They 19). 2007: af foreign muit geopolit ommunist, uso, seily ocrig h wy i wih e E mme states member EU new which in ways the concerning especially cussion, ence fields in relation to EU standards of security making and NATO’s “common NATO’s and making security of standards EU to relation in fields ence - Cold War of the EU new member states becomes also paramou also becomes states member new EU the of War Cold ac, o t mnin ute coeain ih h E isiuinl structures institutional EU the with cooperation further mention to not nance, fairs, development, and defence ministries (Biscop in Biscop & Andersson & Biscop in (Biscop ministries defence and development, fairs, ically

- influenced influenced

- 150). NATO’s influence was primary and ground and primary was influence NATO’s 150). periphery 99

- ee, inter level,

tts ter rfrne o a strong a for preference their status, urd t h sm tm complex time same the at quired U member states and their post their and states member U

- iitra, intra ministerial, nt, because it because nt, - ministerial - - CEU eTD Collection Pac Warsaw the within position 2012) (Miller maverick a adopt to proved Romania lead, Ceausescu’s under Internationally, hegemony. Soviet against opposition of case curious a as labelled bynicknamed (1967 Ceausescu Nicolae dictator its of rule the under especially War, Cold (1947 Romania of Republic Socialist The of identity security The 3.4 theand Pact Warsaw era War Cold the to typical security doing of ways and habits old where accounts, 2011) didn’t we “If that mentioned even general retired A board”. drawing the to back so nothing, worth was communism during making security of terms in granted for took we “What that procedures” and operations command NATO in educated becoming slowly speak, to so amnesiacs, like were we m and colleagues older “My during stated officer 2012) June (Bucharest, policy one solution”, the were guarantees to needed still we War, Cold the after threat or enemy external an have didn’t Romania though “Even an example. such Romania’s EU, the in afterwards only and Alliance of case the in breaking Romania’sWarsaw Position Strategic the in duringthe Pact Cold War Te ytrss fet bcm epcal eiet n h cs o such of case the in evident especially became effects hysteresis The . quickly his admirers as the “The Genius from admirers Geniushis been the“The the Carpathians”, often as from has

thinks about the country’s defence and NATO’s collective defence collective NATO’s and defence country’s the about thinks learn NATO standards, our jobs were in were jobs our standards, NATO learn tactics .

t (1955) (1955) t e E mme sae, hc wr acpe frt n the in first accepted were which states, member EU new

In the words of an of words the In yself had to start learning anew the language of security, of language the anew learning start to had yself

(Bucharest, May 2011) May (Bucharest, were devalued inwere devalued

–

oai ws Wra Pc mme state member Pact Warsaw a was Romania 100

other the

NATO pre interviewed senior military officer: officer: military senior interviewed integration efforts in efforts integration . Another interviewee expressed interviewee Another .

danger” - accession perioaccession - 99 drn the during 1989)

(Bucharest, May (Bucharest, the the NATO being NATO interview d. d. -

1989),

CEU eTD Collection 21 cu personality Ceausescu’s hand, other the on and Russia; post its determined significantly Pact Warsaw security Romanian Romania’s shaped understanding current the for relevance bear still and identity defence and have security War Cold the during developments significant Several FormerSecuritate the CNSAS Secur the for informant reached country the in censo of levels high instituted e to campaign 74 2012: (Boia years 25 for regime terror a of establishment the with responsible was It affairs. political and security internal & (Catalan Stă Bloc) Eastern the in forces repressive internal largest the of one and The and it Sovietbecame Bloc subject of a massive personality cult. mo the of one however was rule Ceausescu’s Pact, Warsaw hard Stalinist the avoid to set reformist a be to considered and popular genuinely was dictator the initially lead Korean North by used those with par on almost population, Romanian the suppress to tactics extreme employing leader ruthless a was Ceausescu Internally, 2004). Ionescu & (Deletant 1989 and 1955 between

The Council for Studies of the Archives of the Former Securitate CNSAS, CNSAS, Securitate the Former of Archives the of Studies Councilfor The nescu Securitate

04 yedd notse pwr ih t ams uiutu peec in presence ubiquitous almost its with power uncontested yielded 2004)

aiae n sgs f isdne r nelcul independence, intellectual or dissidence of signs any radicate (the popular term for the secret police agency of the Communist Party theCommunist agencyof police secret the term for popular (the

habitus - itate (according to the Council for Studies of the Archives of Archives the of Studies for Council the to (according itate line and to reinforce the Romanian national interest within the within interest national Romanian the reinforce to and line

h aamn pit hn n i tre oain ws an was Romanians three in one when point alarming the

o te n hn, oai’ otir atcpto i the in participation outlier Romania’s hand, one the on : rship and strict social control. The level of suppression of level The control. social strict and rship 21

).

101

- 5, e a asv ad systematized and massive a led 75), - Cold War security policy towards towards policy security War Cold ers (Friedman 2013). While While 2013). (Friedman ers t soitd ih the with associated lt http://www.cnsas.ro/

t reoe n the in gruesome st

and of

CEU eTD Collection acts infringement rights human vast Ceausescu’s overlook to willing been had West anti apparent Ceausescu’s to Due the army.Romanian of charge in figure leading national the with security national of responsibility as well as concerns, sovereignty national or nowa leader political the illuminated in an nostalgia for of imaginary Romanian residues lingering remain still there that fact the for fought had who independence” Romania’s (Varga security. 2011: 389) national and isnotsurprisingIt man greatest “the the as out him made and personality, his a in history Romania’s glorified leaders, medieval Wallach the of that Party the followed historians and figures genius national the of use the which in 2011), Stepan & (Linz regime autocratic wha in rule his transformed Ceausescu of sense dissent withinthe Pact. Warsaw histo megalomania, world the c 280), 2005: (Gheciu for schemas reality” particular of understanding cultivation “the a as understood be to is habitus the If imaginary. country’s the in importance of sense inflated an engendered and narrative desirable c of wave ommunist state propaganda as regards national security was marked by leadership by marked was security national regards as propaganda state ommunist ommunist

mre te pcfct o Rmna cmuim L communism. Romanian of specificity the marked ”

ia ad ainl rans, n ls bt o te es, false a least, the not but last and greatness, national and rical - dominated nationalist resurgence under his rule constructed a a constructed rule his under resurgence nationalist dominated

- oit tne n dcae idpnec, the independence, declared and stance Soviet t political science terms as a S a as terms science political t 102 -

line and associated Ceausescu’s image to image Ceausescu’s associated and line paternalistic paternalistic

ednis o soit the associate to tendencies ane b Romania’s by painted President personality cult cult personality aig cultural eading ssociation with ssociation

ultan n hre of charge in ism as days type

“ a CEU eTD Collection http://www.historia.ro/exclusiv_web/general/articol/o 22 security national its to threats perceived by determined highly thus was Pact Warsaw b own Romania’s concerning fears historical the concerning non sovereignty, national position of inviolability stark Romania’s underlined incident international This Czecho of invasion Soviet 1968 the against opposition and criticism outspoken Ceausescu’s of incident the being revealing especially assertiveness, international perceived a and greatness historical Cold the During characterize Romania’s securityduringtheColddefence position and War. pro more against alliances Pact Warsaw the Marxist to loyalties ( internally orthodoxy displayed between vacillation This 2011). (Pacepa Horizons) (Red Rosii” “Orizonturi book his and Pacepa, Mihai Ion general, Romanian Presidency Rona during radically changed Romania towards stance US friendly The 1969. in French from President of invitation the of invitationthe at UnitedStates the statein visit 1973 his with culminated the withWest re good particularly His Securitate. the by instituted terror of regime the and

President The

Romanian dictator’s, Nicolae Ceausescu, state visit to the United States, States, United the to visit state Ceausescu, Nicolae dictator’s, Romanian

im Carter Jimmy , partly due to the damasking reports of the political refugee and former and refugee political the of reports damasking the to due partly ,

Richard Nixon, followed by high other President President a, euec etbihd see aaees f national of awareness skewed a established Ceausescu War,

Papadimitriou & Phinnemore 2008: Phinnemore & Papadimitriou

Charles de Gaulle in 1968 to to 1968 in Gaulle de Charles 22 . ovrey svrl etr laes iie Romania, visited leaders Western several Conversely, ).

ead od n te ii i 17 a th at 1979 in visit the and Ford Gerald

lvka ( slovakia - 103 nefrne Nnit 01 6, n deeper and 6), 2001: (Nünlist interference - aaiiro & hneoe 2008: Phinnemore & Papadimitriou vizita

- relns Rmnas isn i the in dissent Romania’s orderlines. Western tendencies seemed to to seemed tendencies Western - su - a profile state visits 1975profile visit(the at - cum the - un US 18) and the strategy to play play to strategy the and 18) - sef President - stat - roman

ivtto of invitation e Richard Nixon Richard - nu ld Reagan’s ld - va

- - mai Lenini lations - avea best 18). st

CEU eTD Collection and role” regards as minor “a only playing insignificant, harsher as it labelling Pact, Warsaw the in and role Romania’s enthusiastic less much been have analysts Romanian liberalization,power equalled more openness, and pro resistance his that understanding false a instilled it Moscow: regards as arena international the in position maverick Ceausescu’s of paradox the was Herein ( state” pariah a to ‘darling’ War “Cold a from transformati the marked it measures, repressive extreme regime’s the over 1980s late the in concern international increased to added and Romania, for bet double this However, troop Pact deployment Defence Romanian the t Ministry at remained staff Soviet and Moscow, Joint in Pact Headquarters Warsaw the at contingent large “a maintained Romania While 2012). (Miller USSR the with borders northern the at contingents military limited mobilized also he but invasion the in part take to troops send to refused only not events Ceausescu particular by dictated as War ( convenience habitus Cold the and participation Pact Warsaw Romania’s and strategy defence national “independent relationswithcultivated China, the andThird the West, Wo an of creation the prompted and

were characterized by a high degree of of degree high a by characterized were h never being being never rough Papadimitriou & Phinnemore 2008: 2008: Phinnemore & Papadimitriou out the Cold War” (Miller 2012), Ceausescu refused any Warsaw Warsaw any refused Ceausescu 2012), (Miller War” Cold the out - handed game of intra of game handed a s

on major security issue for the Soviet Union (Miroiu, Nicolescu (Miroiu, Union Soviet the for issue security major Romania’s

territory. 104 ,

uh s h Cehsoai invasion. Czechoslovakia the as such

- bloc dissent proved to be a dangerous a be to proved dissent bloc Papadimitriou & Phinnemore 2008: 2008: Phinnemore & Papadimitriou

- 8 wt ete side either with 18) War bipolarity dominated security dominated bipolarity War Realpolitik - West tendencies. West rld” (Nünlist 2001: 6

n te arae of marriage the and on of Romania of on o te Cold the of s

o Soviet to - 7). 7). 19).

-

CEU eTD Collection positions. of streak generalized corrupt almost an processes, policy lagging reforms, political and Romania twoplague the decades after of fall Communism, from haphazard economic the and War role, the by international given assurances key Romania’s about discourses patriotic elevated long elites: political and post the During with eversecurityand international changing European an landscape. certainties War Cold of loss the reconcile to necessity the in manifested being effect security a cri inducedidentity period transition the 1989, After 1990s. the in transformation security patrioticallyinfluenced the and Cold War the during assertiveness national Romanian Nicolescu (Miroiu, subsystem” Ungurean & Quintus relations international its in relations hierarchic military of units, relationsh rank its first of or expenses, active (…) capabilities military “of forces, armed limited of terms especiallyin insignificant, as understood couldbe position Romania’s Organi Treaty Warsaw the within influence defence and security Romania’s of scope real the concerning portrayal realistic and unbiased more a is This 124). 2004: Ungureanu & Quintus o, o h mitnne f l c old of maintenance the to ion, habitus

sis and the inevitability of political and strategic reinvention, the hysteresis the reinvention, strategic and political of inevitability the and sis - 1

989 uncertain times, one thing was increasingly obvious to military to obvious increasingly was thing one times, uncertain 989 y h ielzd iue f euec ipce te country’s the impacted Ceausescu of figure idealized the by u

2004: 124 2004:

gone were the days of fervent c fervent of days the were gone ain Fo a taei political strategic a From zation. p wt is lis n psil eeis ad f the of and enemies, possible and allies its with ips

a Pc mmesi. od a lgce wr to were legacies War Cold membership. Pact saw - 126).

105 ommunist ommunist

nomenklatura ommunist propaganda, the propaganda, ommunist - military perspective, perspective, military

n e political key in

- CEU eTD Collection and NATO’s use of Peace Partnershipmake trainingfor opportunities. exercises combined NATO in actively contribute to had Romania Moreover, a armed forces, Romanian of size the adjust bureaucracy, military obsolete an streamline NATO reform out military carry The to objectives. and interoperability army and its standards restructure to had Romania 1990s, the After and stability Central Easter in preserve to as so environment security NATO’s within cooperate to countries Union Soviet former support to was strategy main NATO’s defence. and security of field the Western towards position lines main three along evolving process integration NATO the 1990s, the in communism The the country’sensure stability long security and the run. in time, the at believed elites NATO join NATO The existed. Romanian then the to 1993 in longer invitation an extended Council no Union, Soviet the archenemy, its since rationale its concerning crisis identity an undergoing NATO with reform, security Romania’s transfor own NATO’s War, Cold the After 2007. in EU the in accession gained further then and NATO of member a became Romania 2004, In Habitus 3.5 itrcl osdrtos n te NATO the and Considerations Historical AO membe NATO (Berdila

d nert NT assmn poeue t maue o efficiency. of measures to procedures assessment NATO integrate nd .

oai ws ie te nrcdne opportunity unprecedented the given was Romania

2005) si rpeetd h frt el et o Rmna fe te al of fall the after Romania for test real first the represented rship NT’ on rwh fe te od a, oai’ historical Romania’s War, Cold the after growth own NATO’s : democratic integration, and Romania’s military reform military Romania’s and integration, democratic to become part of the only security infrastructure able to able infrastructure security only the of part become to n Europe.

106

- oiae Rmna Security Romanian dominated

mation impacted decisively impacted mation President , process

s ay Romania many as

Ion Iliescu to Iliescu Ion edd to needed s

in CEU eTD Collection second even buy to money have didn’t “We expert, military senior interviewed an of words the In 2004. until delayed significantly was modernization equipment result, acq military major and restructuring personnel both by reform the continue to impractical was it margins, budgetary the account into Taking new the domain of military activity”2011: 105). (Stoica “a requiring priority, top a thec of design managerial became forces armed of professionalization the changes, qualitative of terms In military. Romanian the in changes qualitative and security the in investments of increase an allow recovery economic Romania’s did 2000s, of thebeginning and 1990s the of end the at Only Europe. Eastern and Central in financial the to attributed be co can deficit economic an such for cause main The process. transformation the of costs the all cover to enough not were forces armed Romanian the of reform the sustain to selected resources the 1990s, the Throughout restructuring, and force interoperability, personnel reductions, moderniz on The centred that steps gradual field. comprised military Romanian securitythe of transition general Romanian the of operation and organisation philosophy, the fundamental and significant of number a through went military reforms. NATO post and pre the encompassing post the in place took reform of waves major Two mplications generated by Romania’s democratic transition as one of the toughest the of one as transition democratic Romania’s by generated mplications - c muit er o gnrl rniin n rfr, n te eod one second the and reform, and transition general of years ommunist

defence forces. The reform process consisted of both quantitative and and quantitative both of consisted process reform The forces. defence ultural system, in order to increase the this effectiveness increasethe of to in system, order ultural

107 Romania: the first o first the Romania:

n h mid the In iiin rgas n, s a as and, programs uisition - ne roughly comprising roughly ne 90, h Romanian the 1990s,

hne a regards as changes ation. ation.

the - CEU eTD Collection 23 taken a as Communism, The personnel. themilitaryof physical educational and requirements the in beingchanges introduced stages, transformation radical some underwent training and recruitment particular, In the establishment of a NATO and professionalization military Romania’s of creation the in detrimental was teacher withsecurity norms NATO’s role and values. personnel as security a Western do Romania’s in involved widely more getting by 2005), (Ghenciu alliance military intergovernmental an than more as 2011) May (Bucharest, securinot onlyof terms in role our been always had “NATO noted, practitioner security another As the mission derived priorities, plan modernization set The the security Romanian field. earlywarningfor and system surveillance integrated the organized and forces, territorial and active components, “Program was structure force wartime called reform plan a 2000, In personnel. of terms in 230,000 to 850,000 from reduced Forces Armed Romanian the 2001, to 1989 From possible cut We out. way easy the took we so armament hand

See The Romanian Army, Army, Romanian The See

and sacrificed the irrelevantstaff and sacrificed the oc 2003” Force - structure

doxa from NATO’s interoperability needs, but did not noticeably define define noticeably not did but needs, interoperability NATO’s from

- capabilities relationship the newly for forces. created

From this point of view, NATO acted in the Romanian context Romanian the in acted NATO view, of point this From http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/ro 23 f oain euiy n dfne vr it years fifty over defence and security Romanian of - ty reforms but also ty reforms

for

lmntd h rsre ocs cetd ai reaction rapid created forces, reserve the eliminated - - rne “rt” bu wa te iiay hud o n a in do should military the what about “truth” granted dominated se

etc far ad y oilzn te Romanian the socializing by and affairs mestic 108 . ”

curity (Bucharest, May (Bucharest, 2011)

by encouraging our democratic change.” our encouraging doxa.

h personne the

- army.htm l

where - model, and model,

- making making t was it of

CEU eTD Collection interviews the from reconstructed as voices was practice defence question and security of model ideal and inspirational The and Cold War stat the about complain to loyalty of breach a longer no considered they and 2013) policy become and heard voices agenda their have to chances their increase will that (knowl capital cultural more gain to as so them to beneficial was Euro to exposed been having that felt They old interest were structures security Romanian within reformists The of defender thestatethe noble Romanian and borderlines. its as hand other the on and capitalism, of imperialism the against identity ideological socio the within indoctrinated was soldier Romanian typical the said, appropriately more of brand own his and cult the of image public heroic high retired one Our death. question in of because justification require re totalitarian status - oiia iaiay s o t on as, imaginary political were aware of the constantly changing nature of Romania’s strategic strategic Romania’s of nature changing constantly the of aware were - setters in the Romanian security field. Some interviewees Some field. security Romanian the in setters

h NT standard. NATO the ht h c the what - quo

primary mission was to defend c defend to was mission primary ie cm udr cuiy Te c The scrutiny. under came gime, old waysdoing security. of

and taking privileged positions within the security and defence field. defence and security the within positions privileged taking and - akn ofcr ttd n n interview an in stated officer ranking ommunist

soldier was cultivated along with Ceausescu’s personality Ceausescu’s with along cultivated was soldier aenlsi, yatc c dynastic paternalistic,

hs a ref was This nomenklatura he - et ielgcl rrqiie. “ prerequisites. ideological depth

n hn, h dfne o te c the of defender the hand, one 109

- Atlantic security Atlantic

etd by lected

ommunist ideology and then the state”, the then and ideology ommunist Bcaet Jn 2012) June (Bucharest,

ad eas i ws uihbe by punishable was it because said ommunist ommunist muim Bi 21: 4. Or 74). 2012: (Boia ommunism

the the

Bcaet My 2011) May (Bucharest, rdtoait n reformist and traditionalist - doxic making styles of working of styles making

edge and expertise) and edge

ed in changing the changing in ed nweg dd not did knowledge (Brussels, October (Brussels, sc security such , e ol not could We ommunist e

- culture, without based, . The The .

CEU eTD Collection basic the represents Strategy Military century”, the next The defence. of activity and the to guide a as security serves which document, national on Government the of Book White Defence the in and Strategy Security National the in included objectives the achieving for ef within the Forces Armed the Romanian of role and place the It stipulates state. the Romanian of policy defence the actions, and means military by out, carrying for options and objectives fundamental 24 subordinated and highest the ranked Euro structures military within integration the of modernization and reform gradualthe concepts, four the among However, structures. and partnerships, operational more cr structures, military of modernization active an unquestionably, enshrined, has document The professionalization. security of ideal military of NA a towards pointed document standards NATO to capabilities, up and rise professionalization to objective national peremptory the Especially 2013) Euro the in access needed we because thinking of way our and things doings of ways our both change to had We chastised. were wer “We underlined, official senior one As particular. in field security the and general in society role transformingRomanian the in important 2005) (Ghenciu an played norms liberal Western and reforms democratic engendering of terms in NATO and EU the bo from conditionality importantly, More them. internalizing in difficulty showed also but game, the of rules new the followed who elites military among present still was resistance Nonetheless, interest. best their in was standards NATO to adapt to as recognising professionals

The Military Strategy of Romania (2000) “is “is (2000) Romania of Strategy Military The e like students in a class a in students like e

-

eesv srtg, ae o fu srtgc ocps rsrcuig and restructuring concepts: strategic four on based strategy, defensive eeln ws h frt oain taei dcmn ta encompassed that document strategic Romanian first the was revealing http://english.mapn.ro/milstrategy/foreword.php4/21/2005

that making alterations in their Cold their in alterations making that

- room, sometimes we were praised and sometimes we sometimes and praised were we sometimes room,

TO - dominated i.e. the basic document of the Armed Forces, describing the the describing Forces, Armed the of document basic the dbe eec cpblte, nacd and enhanced capabilities, defence edible 110

h Mltr Srtg o Romania of Strategy Military The

the Romanian Armed Forces in the first years of of years first the in Forces Armed Romanian the habitus - Atlantic community Atlantic

(Ciocoiu 2004) as the desired the as 2004) (Ciocoiu h ohr he strategic three other the - War

- . based ”

(Brussels, April (Brussels, habitus - 24 Atlantic . The The . forts

so th CEU eTD Collection October 2013)Brussels, interviews the during mentioned were elements Several period. integration post and pre NATO the (1 conscription mandatory of elimination the during reforms Army Romanian the in 2011; officers May (Bucharest, superior former Interviewed field. military and civilian the between competition power of implications deeper hid has restructuring in elites f political and security Romanian among consensus apparent an Despite was traditionally an army considered what in interference and oversight civilian regarding especially side, military &P (Keridis resistance of elements encountered naturally hierarchies.They have of restructuring well stark and personnel, as a departments as ofreductions drastic undergo to the military brass reformsdetermined Such priorities. vu o te AO nerto, h poess f eom aatto, and adaptation, reform, of processes the integration, NATO the of avour personnel, especially in the case of senior officers officers senior of case the in especially personnel, lo the by challenged was standards operational and technical NATO to adaptability of level The so to foremost protect borders…”; Romania’s action of theatres foreign to borders thre security of nature the changing of because soldiers, operative of numbers low with compared officers level lower and higher of number top the between created was imbalance An

Bcaet May (Bucharest, : uhrs, ue 2012) June Bucharest,

ng and burdensome learning process among the military the among process learning burdensome and ng

-

dominated decision dominated 01 Bcaet Jn 21; rses Arl 2013; April Brussels, 2012; June Bucharest, 2011; 111 t ta hv be sitd rm national from shifted been have that ats

–

W ee o ogrnee is and first needed longer no were “We ttd h dfiute o te military the of difficulties the stated

- making field. making field. – ry 04 95 2004: erry

“All of a sudden, we had we sudden, a of “All st

of January 2007) and 2007) January of

- 5 o the on 95) CEU eTD Collection expertise the how and of contexts educational/training different in professionals importance security by acquired the towards points interpretation Bourdieusean A h sno saf ht int pa frin agae ad a so t catch to slow was and languages foreign speak didn’t that staff senior the authority their surrender to reluctant were and hierarchy military the within positions high maintained still former the that fact the to due ripe, were personnel trained NATO newly the and elites military old the between tensions emerging The career…”;continuing their t staff the with do make to had we personnel military the in cuts drastic the and through ranks pensioning left early or officers incentives monetary compensatory of number significant a because processes, necessar not was officers of selection The or quickly, methods else…”; NATO learn and language security NATO the talk to defenders the defenders of nation we came scrutiny…”.under suddenly contracts and patrimony its handled military the way doubtful the unravelled press the and oversight civilian the because defender, nation’s the Romania in credibility and trust of terms in position highest the of holder the be to considered originally as army, The up…”; hat was left. We lost good career officers that chose the money over over money the chose that officers career good lost We left. was hat

–

“It was a a was “It

hard time of change for everyone, but especially for for especially but everyone, for change of time hard

112

n society, lost its privileged position as position privileged its lost society, n l md truh meritocratic through made ily –

Atr h reforms the “After

–

“From “From - CEU eTD Collection an as vehicle security institutional economic for stability. and more EU the and provider security hard principal the as countries, NATO Atlanticist perceiving outspoken most the of one been has it because interesting post the in doctrine security reconfigured found and influences institutional NATO and EU the both accommodated has policy security and foreign Romania’s Ar Strategic 3.6 transformation.and change constant of periods during especially agenda, security broader Romanian socialization EU or NATO processes, through acquired either expertise, of forms specific the of and transformation, indicator transition, an fields’ security is fields security specialized across capitals their translated Cold their (re)convert to managed actors such How determ that capitals security competing and overlapping the out mapping in helpful extremely is interests, institutional vested the of concept Bourdieusean the why precisely is This up themake that groups and actors specific between relations competitive strong generates also capitals professi security by upon acted and practice in reflected is knowledge assimilated newly the h Rmna Scrt Fed Rlvn Isiuinl tutrs and Structures Institutional Relevant Field, Security Romanian The

, determines potential hierarchies between legitimate skills and expertise and expertise and skills legitimate between hierarchies potential determines , onals. The use of particular forms of know of forms particular of use The onals. is

ticulations broader spectrumbroader ofthe security field

niaie f atclr oe rltos n tnece t cnrl the control to tendencies and relations power particular of indicative

structural and institutional proper responses for a for responses proper institutional and structural ine hierarchies in the Romanian security field.security Romanian the in hierarchies ine 113 - Cold War context War Cold

generalised generalised .

- how, or what Bourdieu terms as terms Bourdieu what or how,

- field a tp o eprie and expertise of type War . The case of Romania of case The . hysteresis , seen as a battlefield of battlefield a as seen , Te au of value The .

is CEU eTD Collection http://english.mapn.ro/organization/ 25 a play conflict frozen Transnistria the and Moldova, Region, Sea Black the in security EU ownour construct to need we state, member EU new a is Romania “Since Department, the from officer policy senior a of words the In is that innovationplanning milieu generative of reform. and in changes latest the with line in activities Ministry’s the coordinate to is mission chief Department’s The political in participating actively th and objectives; military and governmental of promotion the for funds and necessary military the with of reforms security cohesion the assuring tasks: interdependent two accomplishing of objective primary the Department, Romania the of responsibilities the to According Romania withof political international and military structures. cooperation coordinated the guarantees it least, the not but last and policy, planning the and integr NATO the of application both the for responsible is in it Union, European membership Romania’s to pertaining obligations and duties all of accomplishment the oversees and coordinates that Defence of Ministry Planning and Defence Romanian the Defence of by Ministry elaborated not is strategy military national the policy, defence struct institutional of terms In

h Dprmn o Plc o Dfne n Pann, h Ro The Planning, and Defence of Policy of Department The ’s defence policy is to ensure the military defence of the country, by by country, the of defence military the ensure to is policy defence ’s

per se per 25 the international security context, being the key strategic strategic key the being context, security international the Te eatet repr department The . , being actually formulated by the Department of Policy of of Policy of Department the by formulated actually being ,

dvlpet f nentoa mltr coeain by cooperation, military international of development e

rs epnil wt te oain euiy and security Romanian the with responsible ures - iiay ntaie fr peace for initiatives military 114

sns cnrl tutr o the of structure central a esents

security agenda as well, and the well,and as agenda security

manian Ministry of Defence, Defence, of Ministry manian -

anann operations. maintaining td eec and defence ated CEU eTD Collection cooperation/enpi 26 Euro the of link a and cooperation regional of catalyst a as state Romanian the cast to determined the at remaining in interest no has they that time have elites security and political Romania the general, In efficient an assure to intelligence relevant the management of boundary the Eastern provide to as so personnel affairs security and external with coordinated be to needed issues affairs internal th stated interviewees other Notably, Partnership Eastern the as such strategies EU programmatic several to reference neighbourhood Eastern the co the underlined professionals borderline.” Eastern EU’s the representing Poland, with together state, frontier a as EU the in role important Romania’s dominated importantly, More making periphery, Eastern the to and toreference theEU’ssoftpower status. Romania to brings EU the that security Several NATO of that to guarantee security within Romania integrate further to necessity role” fundamental

The EU’s Eastern Partnership, Partnership, Eastern EU’s The of of habitus their their security - east/index_en.htm - Atlantic involvement in the broader context of the Black Sea region. Sea Black the of context broader the in involvement Atlantic nwr wr piaiy oue o te eortc n economic and democratic the on focused primarily were answers this viewpoint was counterintuitive to the usual mantra of a NATO a of mantra usual the to counterintuitive was viewpoint this

alwn fr pre eitos rm h Alniit retto of orientation Atlanticist the from deviations sparse for allowing ,

Bcaet Jn 2012) June (Bucharest, oiy Oe nevee sae ta “oai pas very a plays “Romania that stated interviewee One policy.

(Brussels, October 2013) 2013) October (Brussels, ( Bucharest, June 2012; Brussels, April 2013) 2013) April Brussels, 2012; June Bucharest,

nstructive and capacity and nstructive http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/neighbourhood/regional

(Brussels, April 2013; Brussels, October 2013) October Brussels, 2013; April (Brussels,

(Bucharest, May (Bucharest, t h eprie f pcait daig with dealing specialists of expertise the at

115

Ohr nevees mhszd the emphasized interviewees Other . limes

the

f h et n ta te were they that and West the of SP stru CSDP - building influence of the EU in EU the of influence building 2011) Several interviewed civilian civilian interviewed Several .

trs s n added an as ctures - and - gi stressed again by making by 26 - - . .

CEU eTD Collection 07.05.2009, States, United the of Council DC, Atlantic 27 post as t in conflicts that contingents presence. “stabilizing” Russian a of and thejustification black economies, human armaments, traffic of beings, the as suc securitythreats asymmetric of terms in or region, the processin democratic and sovereignty statehood, the affecting security, structural of case the in it be impact, insecurity overarching an and potential escalation rapid a had have conflicts Frozen Eastern EU’s the at insecurity of Borderline. sources dangerous most the Eastern they of as EU’s one crisis, Crimean remain the the in by obvious conflicts acutely made protracted been has or Neighbourhood frozen existing the of influence Pe Crimean the of invasion the with and 2008 in war Georgian the with case the was it as conflicts, frozen the gun potential th in mentalities War re or persistence the for reasons main the of one Nevertheless, and American by support” European backed ownership “regional of caveat the with transformation t both Cristian for Affairs, Sea Black Region Foreign Greater the of of Minister importance geostrategic former the emphasized reasoning, Diaconescu, of vein same the In

Ministry of External Affairs, Declaration of former Romanian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Washington Washington Affairs, Foreign of Minister Romanian former of Declaration Affairs, External of Ministry - oit rzn ofit oe) s n motn pr o te rae security broader the of part important an is zones) conflict frozen Soviet

he area (Transnistria, Nagorno (Transnistria, area he - powder barrels at its Eastern borderline and the impending eruption of eruption impending the and borderline Eastern its at barrels powder are are 27

. he US and the EU, stressing the necessity for positive positive for necessity the stressing EU, the and US he

upsdy broker supposedly Rmna scrt fed a te onr’ poiiy o the to proximity country’s the was field security Romanian e

ninsula by the Russian Army in 2014. 2014. in Army Russian the by ninsula

h Rsin oooy n “peacekeeping” on monopoly Russian The ing 116

-

Karabakh, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia South and Abkhazia, Karabakh, h caeie n h cs o te frozen the of case the in ceasefire the http://www.mae.ro/index.php?lang=en - emergence of Cold of emergence h corrosive The

h CEU eTD Collection travel 29 and control direct the country. of orientation the around the Western turn to leverage great Russia power offers and under region the puts 1990s, Mold on effects limiting had has conflict frozen Transnistrian The Russia. the of influence since limited more though Transnistria, in formerly to due contingents military Russian considerable has it and language official sole the Romanian making to opposed and West the in multi Dniester is region The River Ukraine. the between territory of strip a on situated to task is It 1992. in Transnistria of the after War 1990s the in independence its declared which Pridnestrovie), daunting the in with capital faced its was with state fragile new the (Trans when Transnistria over control maintain 1992, to back dating and The Union Republic. has Moldova Moldavian legacy Pridnestrovian insecurity a the is of conflict frozen name Transnistrian the under sovereignty and autonomy to right 28 slow and orientation policy foreign Western taken has Moldova region, the in country poorest the far By Romania. fragile its in instability potential of and source a been have statehood, stability and democracy towards contested trajectory developmental vulnerabilities, structural Moldova’s to and bringinfluence it tocloser theEU. Romanian to nationality Romanian granting in proactive and generous very been has Romania visa in million 3.5 around has country The borders. Romanian to proximity close in situated conflict protracted the with agenda, security Romanian the on concerns strategic high been always have securi Moldova’s Neighbourhood. problematique

Transnis odvn’ visa Moldovans’ - - re rvl u t ter aig led otie a oain passport Romanian a obtained already having their to due travel free visa - tria is a separatist or breakaway territory situated in the Eastern part of Moldova claiming its its claiming Moldova of part Eastern the in situated territory breakaway or separatist a is tria free - paig odvn, n h bd to bid the in Moldovans, speaking - eu

- 301341 iapl n i i gvre a te rdetoin odva Rpbi (M or (PMR Republic Moldavian Pridnestrovian the as governed is it and Tiraspol - ht h E ad AO r crety aig n h Eastern the in facing currently are NATO and EU the that re rvl n h EU, the in travel free

y ocrs n te lsns o te rnnsra rzn conflict frozen Transnistria the of closeness the and concerns ty

- hosting the Soviet 14 Soviet the hosting ethnic, with the majority of the population being non being population the of majority the with ethnic, the neighbourhood and an undeniable strategic priority for for priority strategic undeniable an and neighbourhood the

aiat, u o wih rpre 4000 led enjoy already 400,000 reported a which of out habitants,

- Dniestr or Transdniestria). Transnistria is a breakaway state state breakaway a is Transnistria Transdniestria). or Dniestr htt p://www.euractiv.com/sections/europes

117 th

- Guards Army. The presence of the Russian Army Army Russian the of presence The Army. Guards paced reforms after 1990, especially with especially 1990, after reforms paced

eue odv i is pee of sphere its in Moldova secure

inherited after the end of the Soviet Soviet the of end the after inherited and the Eastern border with with border Eastern the and - Romanian speakers speakers Romanian - ova’s sovereignty sovereignty ova’s - east/moldovans tentative a up

29 28 - .

CEU eTD Collection http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries 31 http://eeas.europa.eu/enp 30 Euro and EU towards way its on Moldova of Republic the assisted and encouraged post the In sentiments Russophile and separatist growing foster to strategy Kremlin’s the of side another is Peninsula Sea Black the in conflicts frozen the of instrumentalization blatant The space. Soviet seen is Moldova in involvement Romanian or Western any or EU’s The 2014). (Ivan gas of delivery the free and Russian support upon is heavily budget authority dependent political and Russians by owned mostly companies Transistrian many to presented situation paradoxical The 2014. August agreement (DCFTA) Area Trade Free Comprehensive and summi Vilnius the at (AA) Agreement Association its initialized Moldova influence, of sphere Russia’s of out move to and rapprochement EU its consolidate to bid a In influence. A the crisis. aftermath in of Crimean Russia and EU the between relations tensioned the in frontline important an become written and Ignored the and EU the of help the

s in the case of Ukraine, Moldova has been no exception to Russia’s overbearing Russia’s to exception no been has Moldova Ukraine, of case the in s The EU and Moldova Trade, Trade, EUMoldova and The Plans, Action Policy (ENP) Neighbourhood European EUthe and The t of the Eastern Partnership in November 2013 (Ivan 2014), including a Deep a including 2014), (Ivan 2013 November in Partnership Eastern the of t

- is that they would increasingly benefit from the DCFTA, but the regions’ the but DCFTA, the from benefit increasingly would they that is od a cnet te oain oiia laesi hs always has leadership political Romanian the context, War Cold

y ocw s bec uo is pee f nlec i te post the in influence of sphere its upon breach a as Moscow by

- off by the West at the end of the Cold War, Moldova has now has Moldova War, Cold the of end the at West the by off /documents/action

in the region. in

uoen egbuho Plc (N) cin Plan Action (ENP) Policy Neighbourhood European

- and -

plans/index_en.htm

- regions/countries/moldova/ 118

31

ind t h ed of end the at signed 30 - - . CEU eTD Collection utial eooi coeain Rmna a be atvl priiaig in participating actively been has Romania cooperation, a economic partnerships sustainable bilateral and multilateralism strategic encouraging By management. so towards remarkable witnessed post new a has Romania process, in transformations, terms ofadapting NATOorganizational structures to and integration NATO entire the during fact, In States. United the by initiated those were Bucharest by refused never in tutelages onl NATO the missions, type coalition several and in and missions various EU the both under participated has Romania Although defence securityagenda. and President the with dealing chapter empirical the in tackled extensively be will part This attention. privileged received have States United the with partnership strategic Euro committed deca two last the in Policy Defence and Security Romanian The 3.7 the Transnistria frozen conflict politically, and military re Russia where conflict, frozen Transnistria h Moldova borders. Eastern its secure to measure strategic a as integration Atlantic s faced as The Defence Romanian and Security between NATOPolicy the CSDP and

Traian Traian - tign calne fo te usa peaoy oeg plc i the in policy foreign predatory Russian the from challenges stringent Cold War strategic expression, from a strictly collective defence mentality defence collective strictly a from expression, strategic War Cold - ald “non called

- tatc retto, n hc te tatc opnn ad the and component Atlantic the which in orientation, Atlantic Băsescu

a senior military official noted when questioned on the topic of topic the on questioned when noted official military senior a - ril 5 msin o pae aneac ad crisis and maintenance peace of missions 5” Article s yblc oe ad prpito o te country’s the of appropriation and power symbolic ’s

(Bucharest,May 2011) 119

- ooie te raaa e breakaway the colonizes .

y initiatives that were were that initiatives y des demonstrated a demonstrated des

wl as well s Romanian in finding nclave

CEU eTD Collection http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/european_security_defence_identity_en.htm 32 to reason closer even prove USnecessity strate the of an voices another was and European identity defence towards and security trust European a of sustaining lack the demonstrated moment, particular type coalition enter a interventof European the bolster to Identity Defence meant and Security initiative an as perceived been has CSDP The the membership and interest, popular low information, of lack the both to due launch, its of moment the at Romania in interest no if little elicited has CSDP the public, Romanian the by enthusiasm and support substantial 45 2009: Gowan & (Korski regio the neighbouring to assistance countries, and mentoring offering and organizations regional

European Security and and Security European n - i.e.

a military force provider and a a and provider force military a (Daniel (Daniel 2003: 71) Romania endeavoured to become a a become to endeavoured Romania

Defence Identity Defence

- 46) 32 .

. ion in Iraq, and the internal crisisNATOionand theinternal that Iraq, within in at within NATO. What is more, Romania’s decision to decision Romania’s more, is What NATO. within lhuh h Erpa itgain a mt with met was integration European the Although ,

120 striver

gic partnership. increased popularity of the NATO NATO the of popularity increased

country in terms of security creation security of terms in country security and stability provider in in provider stability and security

CEU eTD Collection http://www.mapn.ro/smg/misiuni.php# 33 most the of one defence, territorial important of guarantor term long and short a as elite political and security Romanian among CSDP the of credibility low the by explained be can operations lead NATO or US in participation prefer to tendency blatant The OFOPERATION HERTEGOVINA AFGANISTAN

The Romanian Ministry of Defence, Roman Defence, of Ministry Romanian The THEATRES KOSOVO BOSNIA OTHER TOTAL

- Romanian objectives when security is concerned. Even though the CSDP the though Even concerned. is security when objectives Romanian

SHIELD OCEAN Table 3.7.1Table www.nato.int/kfor -

www.nato.int ISAF: 948 KFOR: 71

NATO ENDEAVOUR 1019 — Operation Operation

ACTIVE

-

Romania’s Participation in Romania’s in Missions Participation International

EUMM EUSEC / and Monitoring and MISSIONS UNDER THE AEGIS OF: UNDER MISSIONS AEGIS THE / EUTM/ MALI / www.euforbih Observation EUFOR: 3 / 2 / / 2 / 1 3 3 Missions 46 — — ian international missions, missions, international ian

121 37

UE

OHQ

1 1

ATALANTA Operation / 1 / 1 / 1 FHQ — — — 2

Updated: 23 Updated:

Observers

Monitors Military ONU and and 39 39 — — —

COALITION rd Officers Liaison Liaison

TYPE of May,2014 — — — 3 3

33

TOTAL 1110 948 71 37 54

CEU eTD Collection 2012. 19, January missions 34 the since obligations security the on take to able been has Romania stated, Romania of Defence National of Ministry Romanian the with expert policy interviewed an As contributor to civilianimportant theEU missions. boasted the Defence, and Security Common the of framework the through to contribution overall particular Romania’s assessing in By problems. action, neighbourhood solving external in involvement Union’s European the of consolidation the However, the of mission the SecurityCommon Union. Policythe Defence toand of European contributor important an remain always will Romania that CSDP the of importance Romania in accredited Missions Diplomatic Romanian 2012, January on peace maintaini training, missions, surveillance and reconnaissance Bagdad, in prisoners interrogating including missions, and operations of variety a in involved were people 730 approximately of forces Romanian the Iraq, in operations of height the During without entered orientation, policy defence and security its and Romania for truth of moment a be to proved invasion Iraqi 2003 the policy, security NATO complementary a as rejected been never has

rs rpr, peh by Speech report, Press

at the time a staggering involvement, in 2011 Romania becoming the most the becoming Romania 2011 in involvement, staggering a time the at ng operations and the protection of Polish and British bases. Nevertheless, bases. British and Polish of protection the and operations ng any President

i.e. qualms in in qualms the so

R President mna elrd ne gi is tatc rfrne and preference Atlantic its again once declared omania

to to

bevd ht hs oiy ant succ cannot policy this that observed the Romanian security landscape. He stressed He landscape. security Romanian the

President

Traian Traian - called coalition thewilling.of Băsescu

122 Traian Traian

34

at the annual meeting of chiefs of diplomatic diplomatic of chiefs of meeting annual the at a significant speech reasserting the the reasserting speech significant a Băsescu

eiee t te ed of Heads the to delivered

e wtot a without eed President

the fact the

CEU eTD Collection http://publicintelligence.net/nato 39 http://eeas.europa.eu/csdp/about 38 37 36 35 1 unit, engineer 1 unit, police military 1 unit, troops mountain 1 unit, paratrooper force land action: of logistical theatres and foreign financial in forces such of of costs deployable necessities and training the the by imposed capabilities by conditioned thus was offer The Operations. made those as same the were forces these that deciding Defence National of Council Supreme Romanian the (PSOs), Operations Support Peace NATO in background some with personnel included its enhance to view a with involvem offer new increased significantly a made Romania 2001) (November Brussels in Conference Improvement Capabilities the during year, following The vessels. four and personnel military 1000 about (WEU) approximating Union European Western the for provided forces the with line in Force, Reaction Rapid European the for forces 2000) (November Brussels in Conference get the from even Nevertheless, competent contribute personnel Maymissions” for (Bucharest, 2011). surely can we But place. first the capabilities in NATO joined we why reasons defence main the of one modest with but started, contributions has process negotiating EU

NATO Peace Support Operations Doctrine, Doctrine, Operations Support Peace NATO Go Headline Helsinki Affairs, External of Ministry Romanian The Union European (WEU), The Western M Romanian The n t te civmn o te esni edie Goals Headline Helsinki the of achievement the to ent

–

“ inistry of External Affairs, Affairs, External of inistry Romania cannot compete in terms of military capabilities. This was This capabilities. military of terms in compete cannot Romania

als,

- peace

- csdp/military_headline_goals/index_en.htm

- – support

http://www.weu.int/ infantry 5 - o at go, http://www.mae.ro/index.php?lang=en http://www.mae.ro/index.php?lang=en 36

- op icuig aiie and maritime including , 123 erations vial fr NATO for available 35

h Mltr Cpblte Commitment Capabilities Military the atlos n 1 naty opn, 1 company, infantry 1 and battalions oai md is fe o additional of offer its made Romania - doctrine/

-

e Pae Support Peace led 38 Te e offer new The .

ad forces, land 37 39 ,

CEU eTD Collection 42 %27grupurile http://www.euractiv.ro/uniunea 41 Affairs, Foreign of Ministry 40 Defence of Ministry 2012) Romanian June the (Bucharest, in practitioner security senior an Yet, interviewed scene. international the on identity its asserting EU the of process the in political a at Moreover, (Ancut 2008) (CIMIC) platoon decontamination chemical” infantry, of company a included period proposal Romanian The Turkey). Italy, (Romania, ITROT and Battlegroups its of terms In budgetary and military the within defence Romania’s of limitations securitydefence program. and and security of field European the in integrated further become to willingness great a demonstrated figures Such Goal. Eur the to officers police 75 with the contribute to by preparedness coupled personnel, military 3700 about to amounted offer Romanian The – 1 tugs, rescue 2 which of out vessel, river and forces maritime unit; transport 1 unit, reconnaissance 1 unit, clearing

Data from Weapons’ Diplomacy, Diplomacy, Weapons’ Data from EU to contributes Romania 4 MIG 4 Romania’s contribution to the development of European civilian and military capabilities, Romanian Romanian capabilities, military and civilian European of development the to contribution Romania’s , two two , - 21 Lancer combat21 Lancer aircrafts and a 1 C - tactice 40 .

tactical

(EUBG), namely HELBROC BG (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Cyprus) Greece, Bulgaria, (Romania, BG HELBROC namely (EUBG), aaiiis otiuin Rmna atcptd n w o te EU the of two in participated Romania contribution, capabilities - de

- lupta%27

psychological http://www.mae.ro/en/node/2064 level, the CSDP was dealt with as an important development important an as with dealt was CSDP the level,

“battlegroups”,

- europeana/articles|displayArticle/articleID_8072/Romania and about warned

- ale http://stirile.rol.ro/print/diplomatia

- Uniunii 42 operations

, - Europene.html paon of platoon a

an 124 h CD a big a optn and competing “a being as CSDP the NBC

- 130 B carrier B 71). (Calin130 2000: mine sweeper and a frigate; air forces air frigate; a and sweeper mine

em (PSYOPS), teams

“

nuclear nuclear

civil

- - military armelor safety pa Plc Headline Police opean - 41 57253.html

, eain specialists relations

bacteriological o te 2007 the for

and

– staff

-

contribuie maritime 6

officers - 2010

and - la -

CEU eTD Collection Policy structure. Defence and Security Common the in steps integration impressive to leading field, secur the of professionalization the for resources and opportunities NATO both of tutelages the under expertise accumulated gradually actors security inexperienced s old the retiring of aim the with personnel new of recruitment the favouring By security policy personnel. and foreign capable and of reformulation the for trainings importance significant most remunerations, procedures, care and specializations, recruitment and requirements beginning the in applied consolidatio twinned a to led has process accession EU the Defence, and Affairs Foreign of Ministries Romanian the throughout Consequently, rightnowadaptations a of words the In sovereignty. national of principle the against especially and counterproductive, the considering camps political and advisors w policy, security and foreign Romania’s in priorities Euro the and European the that fact the reflected position This framework”. NATO the to structure unnecessary crt pattoes rm h c the from practitioners ecurity retired senior policy officer, “Romania do “Romania officer, policysenior retired ’s

and the EU’s CSDP frameworks. Romania’s joining the EU created new created EU joiningthe Romania’s frameworks. and theEU’sCSDP

, but but actual , er opportunities and structures. These structures. and opportunities er

of - Atlantic integration processes were fundamental national fundamental were processes integration Atlantic

h 19s icuig h rfruain f competency of reformulation the including 1990s, the

hard security guarantees” muit era ommunist 125

security the , es not not es t sm taiinls military traditionalist some ith dual oprtvl yug and young comparatively

need more integration and integration more need (Bucharest, June 2012) - n of institutional reforms institutional of n rc a rdnat and redundant as track

innovations t ad defence and ity we - re school of a of

CEU eTD Collection 24.03.2 mandate.”, of months 6 after Georgia in team Romanian Affairs, External of Ministry the for result “Positive the 44 House Publishing “Carol I” University Defence National Strategi Security and Defence for Centre I”, “Carol University Defence National Bucharest, 43 deliberation the in part active an took Romania instruments. the as well as principles, of level the at both Policy, Defence and Security Common EU an of development the for point turning a represented Treaty Lisbon the of adoption The Diaconescu, Christian Fo of Minister Romanian former the of declaration press a to According participants. 5 the ranking experts 19 with mission, Georgia missions the CSDP and aut in participating industry; for forces defence armed Romanian the research of professionalization European the to contribution Romanian the missions; military and civilian CSDP in capabilities with participation the sectors; be Romania’s on to pressures adaptation CSDP high need the mentioned: elements several CSDP, the of field the in developments of terms In

See ESDP Exigencies on Romania’s Security and Defence, International Seminar, May 24 May Seminar, International Defence, and Security Romania’s on Exigencies ESDP See Press declaration of former Romanian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Cristian Diaconescu, regarding regarding Diaconescu, Cristian Affairs, Foreign of Minister Romanian former of declaration Press gi te inter once the proves again fields many in role innovative an with mission European a of architecture institutional the in syncope without integration the Romania, “For transition context, as well as of the consistent contribution we bring to the the SecurityCommon Policy”Defence and to bring we contribution consistent the of as well as context, transition post in expertise relevant their

43 .

A clear success story was Romania’s participation in the EUMM the in participation Romania’s was story success clear A -

prblt ad h aatblt o te Romanian the of adaptability the and operability http://www.mae.ro/index.php?lang=en

- 126 conflict situations overlapping a general general a overlapping situations conflict

44 .

th .

in terms of personnel among the EU the among personnel of terms in

security and defence and security reign Affairs, reign vis

xet, of experts, - onomous à c Studies, Studies, c - vis th

2007, 2007,

009, 009, the the CEU eTD Collection 47 2013.” December of Council European to the 46 45 interviews. th during actors security Romanian the out mapping to dedicated chapter empirical following the in found be above the of analysis NATO the way particular crisis what EU in identified the impacted many structureshas defence and security Union European the in involvement be in to player remains dedicated It missions. a management being dimension, operational the to respe with and defence, and security of field the in common as identified interests states’ member the of support the with concerned dimension, political the to relation in both CDSP, the to contributor active an is Romania that said be could it Currently, CSDP theBlack in the security.Sea maritime of involvement potential the and conflict frozen Transnistria the concerning especially concrete of series a forward Policy Defence and Security Common the to dedicated Council, EuropeanDecember 2013 the preparation for In abroad. and far thein near deployed declarati from advance to willingness the had it that proved Romania state, member EU new a As security the defence of dimension the EU and its even before in accession 2007 reform

Speech: Aurescu, Bogdan Lucian. 2013. “Romanian Contribution to CSDP. From the Lisbon Treaty Treaty Lisbon the From CSDP. to Contribution “Romanian 2013. Lucian. Bogdan Aurescu, Speech: Ibidem Affairs, Foreign of Ministry Romanian The -

dominated of the EU’s security policy and structure, and policy security EU’s the of

n t actions to ons

habitu - mentioned tensions within the Romania security Romania the within tensions mentioned s

f oain euiy rciinr. mr extensive more A practitioners. security Romanian of 46 , by contributing with personnel to the EU’s missions missions EU’s the to personnel with contributing by ,

rpsl t rvs te uoen euiy Strategy Security European the revise to proposals e transition post transition e http://www.mae.ro/en/node/2041 Strategic Impact Strategic 127

Romania being actively involved in involved actively being Romania

47 (2): 5 47 (2): - Cold War as reconstructed from reconstructed as War Cold - 12.

47 Rmna put Romania , habitus habitus 45

is to to is .

of ct CEU eTD Collection Studies, House Publishing “Carol I” University Defence National Strategic Security and Defence for Centre I”, “Carol University Defence National Bucharest, 48 Romanian securitythe field. in actors institutional and individual of multitude a of part the from efforts concerted Union’s European the of consolidation the towards commitments consistent, yet modest, of indicative were advancements Such CSDP the concerning and defence and security of field the in Romania by made bellow The structures. political the in participant active an become to ready was Romania that proved defence and security of field the in made efforts The for creating EU EU creating for in participation in participation The Romanian Romanian The the initiatives initiatives the and political and

Dimensions institutional institutional See ESDP Exigencies on Romania’s Security and Defence, International Seminar, International Defence, and Security Romania’s on Exigencies ESDP See dimension the CSDP the military military Policy Policy The The The Table 3.7.2Table

-

eeoig h Mrtm Dmnin td, oue o ietfig en of means identifying on focused Study, Dimension in Maritime participated representatives the Navy and developing Staff General Romanian in the 2007, 2006, In then 29, • June, and on adopted place Military was 3, 2006. October, on held Board Steering took atEDA the ministers draft LTV Future LTV the The concerning the Brussels. seminar defining level high of A • consisted contribution 2006 for Environment Their co and (EDA). 2006) Agency April and March (February, (LTV) Vision Term Long “EU the concerning groups, working three in (J5) Directorate Planning Strategic the Gen Romanian the 2006, In • and states member from non CHODs with reunions EUMC at status, observer active 25 the on political Treaty, the in participated Adhesion Romania the of endorsement the Following • had been undertaken by the structures with responsibilities in this area: this in with responsibilities structures the by undertaken been had actions following the level, Staff General Romanian the at engagements, assumed w as regional at EU operations, in capabilities and forces military with participated Romania regional concerning Methodologies Evaluating and Assessing Scrutinising, the of elaboration the for Groups Working (EUMS) European Staff Military the Union in participated experts services’ and Staff General Romanian The • t possibilities

- The

member states (May and November 2005 and 2006). and 2005 November and (May states member

CSDP Romania’s exigencies securityon defence and al cnies oe f h ms important most the of some considers table o contribute the CSDP tasks. CSDP the o contribute

- 2030. –

defence capabilities needs” needs” capabilities defence Historical Developments Historical ell as at global level. In support of fulfilling the EU EU the fulfilling of support In level. global at as ell eral Staff (GS) participated with military experts from from experts military with participated (GS) Staff eral 128

. - euiy rmwr, en a eut of result a being framework, security

military dialogue with the EU, according to its its to according EU, the with dialogue military - military dialogue within EU military military EU within dialogue military

ordinated by the European Security Security European the by ordinated it was analysed by Defence Defence by analysed was it

-

organized by the EUMC EUMC the by organized security objectives. security

- e msin and missions led developments th

May 24 May of April 2005, 2005, April of

48

th

2007, 2007,

. CEU eTD Collection

Contribution to to Contribution participation in participation The Romanian Romanian The capabilities capabilities Catalogue missions: EU Force EU Force defence defence EU -

led

(DPDP) Common Order, concerning the filling in of the Headline Goal Goal Headline the of in the HGQ; of requirements filling the establishment concerning (HGQ Order, Questionnaires Common Romanian Department Planning (DPDP) and with Defence of Policy Memorandum of Department the the and Staff General 2006, January In • ACEH ACEH LEX EUJUST EUBAM COPPS EUPOL East/Asia: Middle Congo EUSEC DR Kinshasa EUPOL AMIS II Africa: EUBAM Althea EUFOR (BiH) EUPM (FYROM) EUPAT Europe: full Union. a became Romania 2007, 1, January On • 07; Force EU the in included was package force Romanian the 2007, January In • representativ were ROMISSEU; participants The place. took package force Romanian the concerning dialogue Clarification a 2006, October In • Catalogue; EU Force Supplement the in included was package force 200 July In • EUMS; reports the scrutinyto transmitted were capabilities they June, of and end the scru by forces and in, military filled and elaborated EU were and the 2006, June evaluating and May In of • way the the EU; for states member to available made structures defined Scrutinising the which of implementing and Methodology, elaboration the for Groups Working EUMS March in experts with participated Staff General Romanian • The 2006, HGQ The March in EUMS, the to 2010. transmitted waslevel, Staff General the at Council, Planning after brigades, 2 and battalions to two of increased level the at maintained was package force between Romanian The • participated, Services and HGQ Staff General the the fulfilling for EUMS the by organized trainings the in 2006, February and January from experts Military • • In the context of training the military observers for the EU support mission support EU the for observers military the training of military context the In • 82 of number a with per participation its continued Romania 2006, October Bosnia in ALTHEA • officers. police six with contributed policeEU the To Egypt) and Gaza between Rafah, point the border ▪ ▪ ▪ operations: civilian inEU participation The

Mission “EUPAT” (Bosnia “EUPAT” Mission 2003 (FYROM “Proxima” Operation “EU COPPS” Rafah (Palestine) and “EU BAM Rafah“ (assistance and monitoring monitoring and (assistance Rafah“ BAM “EU and (Palestine) Rafah COPPS” “EU

sonnel. -

2010 through the Romanian Mission at NATO; Mission Romanian the through

-

- Indonesia (AMM) Indonesia

- –

Darfur Sudan Sudan Darfur

Rafah Moldavia.

requirements;

– , oai cnre te aa eotd n h HGQ the in reported data the confirmed Romania 6,

- civilian police mission; police civilian

f h Wrig ru, t h MD ee, o s o epn to respond to as so level, MOD the at Group, Working the of – Iraq

– mission (EUMP) in Bosnia in (EUMP) mission the most important EU led mission in BiH; in EU mission led important most the

- – civilian mission civilian

- DR Congo

civilian mission; civilian

civilian mission, extended mandate mandate extended mission, civilian - ezgvn satd n eebr 04 bten January between 2004; December in started Herzegovina - 2010) were elaborated and endorsed, together with the the with together endorsed, and elaborated were 2010) –

civil

- Herzegovina) Herzegovina) - military mission; military 129 –

civilian police civilian

-

200 5) –

- nine police officers; police nine – Herzegovina, started in 2003, Romania Romania 2003, in started Herzegovina,

three police officers; police three mission;

- fledged member of the European European the of member fledged - es from J5/GS, DPD/MOD and and DPD/MOD J5/GS, from es – 2010 endorsed by the Defence Defence the by endorsed 2010

four police officers. police four

-

June U oc pcae the package, force EU

- April 2006 in three in three 2006 April

tinising military military tinising -

2010, and the the and 2010,

–

– AMIS

FC - - CEU eTD Collection 51 50 http://www.mae.ro/en/node/21222 49 the of case the in NATO chapter and EU The the War. of influence Cold overlapping the the of contextualized end the since and during Romania’s changed had extent field what security to and how of question the addressed chapter The 3.8 EU missions Participation Participation

of Romania of The Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Affairs, Foreign of Ministry Romanian The Ibidem Updated Romania’s Participation in EU Missions Missions EU in Participation Romania’s Conclusion

in

49

capabilities) management Unioncrisis African the in School Peacekeeping the for developing in gesture trainer support a represents participation a (Romania’s Koulikoro/Mali, 2006 in offered GS Darfur/Sudan, in II were personnel contracted 55 other missions.” CSDP in part taking and experts seconded Romanian 56 2013, July In operations. management crisis civilian EU the to equipment) and personnel ( contributors main the among currently is Romania side, civilian the “On contracted as missions CSDP personnel.” the in working experts Romanian 55 by as well as July 2013 decreased. the at concluded the of contingent Romanian the of withdrawal the With Justice and CSDP the in participation missions of coordinator national as (MFA), Affairs Foreign the of efforts the to thanks achieved was performance This ( staff contracted ( staff mission 2011 February territories. Palestinian in the COPPS, EUPOL and Rafah Aden, EUBAM of Gulf the in ATALANTA Althea, EUNAVFOR Georgia, EUMM Afghanistan, EUPOL EUFOR Kosovo, Herzegovina, and Bosnia in EUPM Africa Europe, in conducted East: missions Middle and the CSDP several in part taken has “Romania

   

expert), (1 Sudan South EUAVSEC experts), (2 Congo R.D. EUPOL EUPOL experts), (33 Georgia EUMM , and to the contributions of the the of contributions the to and ,

–

50

, which have provided qualified candidates to fill in vacancies. in to fill candidates qualified provided which have , Romania was represented by seconded staff: seconded by represented was Romania

2 experts 227

– Afghanistan (20 experts), (20 Afghanistan 258 experts

Romania was the first among the Member States as regards the the regards as States Member the among first the was Romania n o 2012 of end

http://www.mae.ro/en/node/2064 ) and second in terms of total contribution, including including contribution, total of terms in second and ) ). 130

51

, the Romanian participation in CSDP missions missions CSDP in participation Romanian the ,

–

Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Affairs, Foreign of Ministry Romanian

Ministries of Interior, National Defence Defence National Interior, of Ministries

EUJUST LEX Iraq, EULEX EULEX Iraq, LEX EUJUST EULEX Kosovo EULEX

.

Romanian Ministry of of Ministry Romanian , which was was which ,

with both both with

CEU eTD Collection professionalization reform face of and territorial re as power regional this to vicinity the by triggered responses security Romanian the and factor “Russian” the abroad; missions civilian or military in participate to choices c NATO or Atlanticist the through reform; and security professionalization doing of ways new to contrasted mentalities War Cold lingering the research: the of dimension empirical the in role central a played elements Other strategictracing Romania’s objectiv decision and political national the and field security Romanian the in undertaken reforms principal the out mapping on focused study de and security Romania’s ulture ulture flected by the Transnistrian frozen conflict; and the continued reliance on outdated, on reliance continued the and conflict; frozen Transnistrian the by flected versus - based traditional concepts of defence redolent of the Cold War era in the in era War Cold the of redolent defence of concepts traditional based

a more Europeanist or CSDP or Europeanist more a ec rfr i te post the in reform fence

es. es. efforts

131

. - oriented stance, reflected in Romania’s in reflected stance, oriented

- - making bodies responsible with responsible bodies making Cold War security setting. The The setting. security War Cold - oriented Romanian strategic Romanian oriented CEU eTD Collection non of examples as highlighted, are transition ( discrepancy of instances so, doing main whe encountered obstacles the regards as interviewees the by reconstructed been has sector defence and security Romanian the of reform the which in ways the on focuses chapter The security (Bourdieusecurity 1985: field the or habitus the and their dispositions, ingrained of 14), set professionals’ 1984: (Bourdieu capitals cultural symbolic ( dispositions practical agents’ (capital formula Bourdieusean the contextualizes chapter this purpose, that For taken field security Romanian applied are field the and the capital, the of triad theoretical Bourdieusean the chapter, theoretical the Brussels in and Bucharest in civil servants and practitioners post culture strategic 257 2008: (Pouliot practicality of chapter The 4.1 CHAPTER Introduction - for )] + field = practice (Bourdieu 1984: (Bourdieu practice = field + )] - granted nature of security naturegranted of behaviour accounts for a sociologically inspired micro inspired sociologically a for accounts OF THEOF

4

T HE R R - od a t War Cold OMANIAN OMANIAN Te n ga is goal end The . o miial oeainlz te oi o patc i the in practice of logic the operationalize empirically to n adapting to NATO and the CSDP security templates. In templates. security CSDP the and NATO to adapting n 723

Bourdieu & Wacquant 1992: 120 1992: Wacquant & Bourdieu - - 288) T S 44 hrough hrough RANSITIONAL ECURITY ).

to reconstru to hysteresis 132

to unravel the the unravel to h qaiaie interviewing qualitative the 0) i los t h Rmna security Romanian the at looks it 101): F

from from the interviewees’ answers IELD - alignment between security actors’ actors’ security between alignment S drn te oain security Romanian the during ) ct ECURITY –

Romania’s transitional national transitional Romania’s

ofgrto o te Romanian the of configuration T HE - analysis that uses the logic the uses that analysis . As already mentioned in mentioned already As . H ai kolde n the and knowledge tacit YSTERESIS H ABITUS - 21 ), their respective their ),

of E f security of

FFECTS [(habitus) [(habitus) . habitus,

CEU eTD Collection a nature of security in practice reforms doctrinal and policies arrangements, institutional security Romanian the of trajectory reform the understand better to order in view,of point this From field. security transitional a of dynamics the shape that factors and processes important refor security of by given gain empirical main The security newfor ways of making. carving in successful more structures security transnationalized NATO gifted consultancy of brand new technocrats security a forward puts field security Romanian the transitio in established already to adapt to tend w that is assumption The securityRomanian (security dispositions ingrained - ih wd ra wide a with retd riig or training oriented - oriented approach captures the sometimes syncopated and often hit often and syncopated sometimes the captures approach oriented n, there is much more leeway for hysteresis and innovation. The case of case The innovation. and hysteresis for leeway more much is there n, the transitional security field. s n cuty uh s oai, y bringing by Romania, as such country a in ms players

field n dxc atrs thus patterns, doxic and , eeomn post development

as one interviewee in Brussels put it (Brussels, October 2013), October (Brussels, it put Brussels in interviewee one as g o eprie tmig rm hi frin cdmc and academic foreign their from stemming expertise of nge .

ee hr i a tbe raiainl utr, e recruits new culture, organisational stable a is there here ae the have

policy policy

the habitus

openings the the

uoen no plc patc. uh new Such practice. policy Union European doxic tend micro - ) Cold

133 ency n te hnig tutrl elte i the in realities structural changing the and

professional professional , windows of opportunities, of windows , -

- analysis is that it offers a niche account niche a offers it that is analysis War War

becoming o hleg te led established already the challenge to rm h prpcie f h new the of perspective the from patterns, but when the field is field the when but patterns, tog a a oet level, modest a at though ,

no ou te most the focus into

and demands and - aig a making, - oriented oriented - or - miss

CEU eTD Collection an by matched field, security Romanian the of nature main arbitrary and chapter’s transitional The process. gathered the by interviewing confirmed contribution, the during gathered information three These legitimized during skills new with versus field, security Romanian the of reconfiguration the third, Region; emerging an as mentalities War Cold lingering support rhetorical country’s and apprenticeship security Romania’s of theme the first, process: interviewing habitus security conc the on based is analysis This identityprofessional and the namely professionals, the defined thread constant one integration, CSDP the from stages reform several the during The making. Cold the of aftermath security immediate the in that demonstrated chapter of historical game the in positions respective their and dispositions between mismatch endemic an is there words, ha reform security Romanian that is thesis this of argument main The ve eeoe udr h ags f gnrlzd tt o hseei o, n other in or, hysteresis of state generalized a of aegis the under developed

l sil o dig euiy s hy eae eeiiie ad conversely and delegitimized became they as security doing of skills old

hie ewe a rgai, NATO pragmatic, a between choice

overarching

regional power and the Russian factor within the Wider Black Sea Black Wider the within factor Russian the and power regional and

given to given the the gene it

olw tre udn tee a te eegd u o the of out emerged they as themes guiding three follows

to themes were used as heuristic tools so as to organize the organize to as so tools heuristic as used were themes

security practitioners’ security the European Union’s CSDP efforts; second, the issue of issue the second, efforts; CSDP Union’s European the adapt adapt to new changes. ral transitional ral transitional theRomania’sdimension of security field.

in security making security in epts of hysteresis and and hysteresis of epts 134

aa i ta it that is data,

AO membership NATO - the retd Alniit oiin n the and position Atlanticist oriented,

capacity to constantly reinvent their their reinvent constantly to capacity ,

coupled by coupled Romanian securi Romanian habitus uncovers

that of of that Romania’s aspirations Romania’s f oain security Romanian of

o h E ad th and EU the to

s ty professionals’ professionals’ ty h pervasively the

the post transitional - Cold - War and War - War War the e

CEU eTD Collection of forms better and foreign presumed gover import to tried imagined and an complex from suffered inferiority always has Romania history, its “during Maiorescu, referring bitterly and poignantly One and NATO both the EU. of production security of models two the to adhere diligently to strived has situations, context Romania level, structural a At actors. superior of practices good and things doing of ways the emulating in interested are that actors between natur theveryto immediate adherence relation of a as the apprentice by is felt competence master’s the which “in practice”, through and “in apprenticeship as relations power of acqu implies it models, certain imitate to effort conscious a than more implies it because imitation, “Practical 4.2 between chaos internalizedobjective structures. and levels, dispositional express to comes habitus security transitional the of concept The habitus. security transitional equally Romania’s Security Apprenticeship

ires the competence of the master. Vincent Pouliot, when addressing the issue the addressing when Pouliot, Vincent master. the of competence the ires o tig” Puit 00 4) rfr t te eain o atoiy established authority of relations the to refers 47), 2010: (Pouliot things” of e nment” nevee hs surprisingly has interviewee

, a , practicing, doing, and acting and doing, practicing, s the good apprentice that it has always proven to be in various historical various in be to proven always has it that apprentice good the s mimesis” (Bourdieu 1990: 73), according to Bourdieu, is different from pure from different is Bourdieu, to according 73), 1990: (Bourdieu mimesis”

(Brussels, April 2013) April (Brussels,

and thus thus and h gnrlzd tt o hys of state generalized the

generating a generating

to the 19 the to . The same interviewee continued to note that it is it that note to continued interviewee same The . – described

through apprenticeship and practice, the pupil the practice, and apprenticeship through 135 th – n apparently n

century Romanian thinker and critic, Titu Titu critic, and thinker Romanian century

the Influences of NATO and the ofNATOEU the Influences and

h above the eei bten oiinl and positional between teresis

normalized image of ordered of image normalized - etoe situ mentioned

n h post the in - Cold War War Cold ation

by CEU eTD Collection “Th out: pointed commander military cultural and capabilities Romanian material account into taking without models military Western certain of adoption uncritical the implied often This to security international contribute b to opportunity invaluable an the being this structures, and NATO within CSDP cooperation security the of field the in institutionalization EU’s the both in participates capabilit military limited of scope the within identity security defined a of search in been has field security Romanian d can we offici military another field, security transatlantic and European broader the within are” we “who of question The survived centuries these all adapted and to new changes” external emulate institutionally to was illustrstructures further tendency This truths. without illusions body, without ghosts basis, without pretentions models, empty and shells dead but all were modern of terms We in entire the possessing, institutions, as society Romanian diagnosed inscrutably age, the of critics and thinkers Romanian respected most the of one Maiorescu, Titu famous his In government; Romania that surprising not eliver

and security making article from 1868, “Against the current direction in Romanian culture”, Romanian in direction current the “Against 1868, from article question. ” al noted al tr cvlzto. h cva ws ht hs institutions these that was caveat The civilization. stern ated wordsa bypolicyated of ishow the “this expert: Romania

has During

ies f has ound

eyond Romania’seyond limited capabilities. military (Bucharest, June 2012) June (Bucharest,

e Romanians make more reforms than the entire the than reforms more make Romanians e

and outdated armed forces armed outdated and h post the

no

itself, yet again, in sea in again, yet itself, t an been 136

- od a tastoa decades transitional War Cold

exception thecase. from

(Bucharest, June 2012) June (Bucharest, , is reflected in the “what the in reflected is , affinities rch of new models of models new of rch . oai currently Romania . A Romanian A .

,

. the

CEU eTD Collection 9) 1994: (Bourdieu to its own structure.” conform that division and vision 52 capital symbolic enough with endowed reading, Bourdieusean a in practitioners, such envy, “chair” of case a as practitioners interviewed 2012) June several Bucharest, 2011; May (Bucharest, to according high was politics and processes day of insulation This security making decision or som 2012) June Bucharest, 2011; May doing” are they what know don’t they me, and you “between ear” the by i.e. work, their of end implementation the concerning interviewees several by made were references ironical sometimes the note to interesting is it view, of point this From JuneBucharest, 2012) adoptio the during reform and planning security of type 134) 2008: (Mérand “bricolage” a one, cursory hit a rather but development, of pattern structural or organized rational, the in practices security co Romanian understanding, Bourdieusean a of tradition the in And practices” more are these but Union, European

yblc aia udrto a “h mas f moiin n iclain f ual picpe of principles durable of inculcation and imposition of means “the as understood capital Symbolic “it is sometimes an utter head utter an sometimes is “it etimes contradictory judgments and policy directions emitted by political figures figures political by emitted directions policy and judgments contradictory etimes

(Bucharest, May 2011) - makers, makers, tx, s eea itriwe see t are hv nt olwd a followed not have agree, to seemed interviewees several as ntext, practical

o etra gvrac models governance external of n who seem to be be to seem who . - to

process. - a patc (olo 21: 1 2010: (Pouliot practice day

. -

it play “we want”, politicians what decipher to ache , such practitioners being at the receiving end of end receiving the at being practitioners such , divorced from the ground the from divorced feuilles volantes feuilles 52

137 in comparison to political influencers so as as so influencers political to comparison in

. These concerns These

(flying papers) than concrete than papers) (flying

2 fo decision from 22)

Bcaet My 2011; May (Bucharest, - work realities of the of realities work

could could also also -

or (Bucharest, (Bucharest,

- not being not miss and miss - be read be making

that

CEU eTD Collection collective prerequisites. defence 5 Article the under guarantor security hard principal the as it recognizing and Alliance a position official NATO under assumption shared the topic the on 2012) June views Bucharest, 2011; discrepant May (Bucharest, sometimes forward put have EU the between and choice NATO the concerning departments Ministry Foreign the in active were that servants civil and practitioners security by given answers the note, general a On agency its and state the embody to coming literally thus many, of name the in speak and act to as so leeway symbolic enough with awarded is agent certain a when namely 2001), (Bourdieu ministry” the of “mystery the as terms Bourdieu what of indicative Romanian the by played Presidency role The chapter. following the in discussed further is power symbolic and institutional overwhelming almost his of analysis the interesting; formulat the in executive the Romanian politics the to related and note side a On “br only observation This objectives. determine significantly to icolage” and idiosyncraticicolage” and ofRomaniansecurity nature practice. /performativity.

Presidency n te oiia personal political the and ’s

security nd

elrtos ht oai hs en vrl spotn the supporting overtly been has Romania that declarations

and its personalized image, mainly due to the dominance of dominance the to due mainly image, personalized its and umbrella. Such views were in line with the the with line in were views Such umbrella. mantra usual the and n influence and

o o Rmnas euiy betvs i particularly is objectives, security Romania’s of ion

oe to comes t of ity 138 h Rmna scrt plc aed and agenda policy security Romanian the

versus . Nevertheless, most views reflected reflected views most Nevertheless, . the reinforc f srn Alniit commitment Atlanticist strong a of

euiy eu, h cs o the of case the nexus, security President e

the

rvosy mentioned previously Traian Traian

Băsescu Presidency

are ’s

CEU eTD Collection stability” officer policy the poverty”, from them protect and Romanians feed not does Romania and peace deliver to incapacity has 2012) June the (Bucharest, Afghanistan of and Iraq terms in in strategy itself US delegitimized the as so more the EU state; an as member Romania of credibility the erode could policy security Atlanticist an on that out pointed ministry same the from officer policy Another a of hegemonic regional actor resurgence possible the concerning vague remain to preferred servant civil w explain specifically to pressed affirmed Defence National of Ministry Romanian the in servant civil one threat”, regional possible any against EU/CSDP) and (US/NATO 2013) April Defence Smart NATO’s with line in long to beneficial more is that relationship a “cultivating interests invested NATO it view, of point pragmatic a From t describing expression 2013) of levels sufficient reached not have states member EU the because assets, military and defence CSDP, NATO on relying essentially the and NATO between differentiation deliberate m interestingly, Quite a senior a , resources is fundamental to any EU any to fundamental is resources .

“Romania has always emphasized a double security guarantee guarantee security double a emphasized always has “Romania

military n itriwe see t wne js wy there why just wonder to seemed interviewees any he interlinked relationship interlinked between he theEU forces NATO and . “The missile shield that Washington is ready to provide for for provide to ready is Washington that shield missile “The . official

in the Easternin Neighbourhood

one ot b seiial uig h already the using specifically by out, pointed hat it is understood by “possible regional threat”, the threat”, regional “possible by understood is it hat was ” –

implied implied the same military officer observed officer military same the 139

- led operations, and Romania has more has Romania and operations, led defence in some of the answers the of some

(Bucharest, June 2012) June (Bucharest, development” .

“too much dependence much “too “The CSDP is also also is CSDP “The

Busl, April (Brussels, that access to access that -

term goals term (Brussels,

. When When . was a a was cliché .

CEU eTD Collection Col and mentalities and discourse. tendencies mistrust pervasive reflecting threats, possible against defence territorial for vehicle appropriate the was NATO that scenario the maintained ministries defence CSDP the circumscribed strictly concerning longer no were which requirements, and actions interviewees many by noted was difference significant A EU in Defenc operations and exercises. participation and the Security and Union Assembly; European parliamentary Western the the Studies; Security in for participation Institute EU the the Committee, Committee, Military Security Union and European Political the Council, Affairs General the as such current the of in involvement aspects the civilian crises; security and military of management the concerning process making 2012) CSDP in involved was Bucharest 2013). October Brussels, respondents 2013; April (Brussels, framework enco hurdles projected integration EU the Concerning dist a on dependence heavy a that dangers the out pointing issue this elaborated, further antentail power might the security a country for strategy Romania. such as of : periodical consultations on European affairs; the participation in the decision the in participation the affairs; European on consultations periodical :

h g the mention nee i te mlmnain f the of implementation the in untered eneral impression impression eneral

Bcaet Jn 2012) June (Bucharest, ed

- several eae activ related

process

recurrent ht hr wr n ata patcl r doctrinal or practical actual no were there that ities

and the CSDP framework, CSDP the and 140

instruments through which their departmenttheir throughinstrumentswhich Bcaet My 01 Bcaet June Bucharest, 2011; May (Bucharest,

. Nevertheless, most military officers officers military most Nevertheless, . ciiis f U euiy organisms security EU of activities acquis - e cii management crisis led

urudn te CSDP the surrounding several interviews several to the realm of realm the to Inter e - based d - War War

- -

CEU eTD Collection flexibility, professionalization, numbers, reduced quality, on emphasis clear more a to templates force defence based EU new other state purely from vision strategic and national their transform to needed Romania states’ member requirements, operability high the to adapting By civilbelievedsenior servant states, member EU new the of part the from responsibilities deeper implies cooperation of framework CSDP clear independence and vision strategic Romanian stronger more for advocating practitioners security some with budget, and policy, framing, strategy, on monopoly the over agencies and ministries by created th tensions institutional i NATO significantly the in NATO setting of lack The in mentoring role EU becoming thus before states, family member “secure” NATO the in accepted first was Romania Georgia!” at look Just muscles. he East’”, the from who know wise us for choice best the is NATO course “Of out, pointed officer senior one As nterviewees , I am referring here referring am I a dcmne i te itrcl hpe o te hss ad h ifune of influence the and thesis, the of chapter historical the in documented as , (in)forming a

Bcaet My 01 Bcaet Jn 2012) June Bucharest, 2011; May (Bucharest, strong Romanian strategic culture within the post the within culture strategic Romanian strong the Romanian Romanian Romanian securityRomanian affairs. partly members - more exactly more dominated habitus of security practitioners. practitioners. security of habitus dominated

(Brussels, April(Brussels, 2013) conig o NT’ v NATO’s for accounting

further security practitioners strategic vision, strategic practitioners security (Bucharest, June 2012) June (Bucharest, is

of more than a military alliance such a NATO”, a NATO”, a such alliance military a than more of exogenous influence in the national realm across the in influence exogenous

de i a o vie “eie t srth its stretch to “decides voice, low a in added to to 141 the US the

professionalized security framework, with with framework, security professionalized

. which

from NATO from . ital ital

is our best bet, in case ‘you case in bet, best our is It should It n grounding and - u pr cut

- communist political political communist cone fr the for accounted

. also Conversely, can account for account can oiis n a and iorities

be noted that noted be -

breaking breaking security Several “The “The - -

CEU eTD Collection mostenirea http://www.agerpres.ro/politica/2014/04/27/interviu 55 http://english.mapn.ro/leadership/minister/index.php 54 53 considered is whatachieve to also but operations and missions NATO to contribution acqui maritime and forces armed Romanian the that operations, fact the reiterated officer military senior A missions. ground patrols, aerial in participation through gained an Balkans the in mission NATO during gained they experience the and military Romanian the of professionalism of level the confirm to comes This to framework anhave under USA orders subunit Rom action, of theatre this in contributions Dusan Mircea (ISAF) Force Assistance Security skillset, Afghanistan in operations S by field security Romanian the delineating therequiredstandards competency. of professionalization and determined and impacted clearly framework 1999). Integration, Atlantic Force Armed Romanian Government: the of Paper White (The mobility and reaction rapid missions, civilian to adaptable skills diversified

everal interviewees mentioned the importance to participate in NATO missions and missions NATO in participate to importance the mentioned interviewees everal Press declaration of Mirce of declaration Press Mircea Dusan, Minister Defence National Romanian of Biography See (ISAF), Force Assistance Security International d interoperability red the necessary NATO standards certifications, with a view to ensure the bestthe ensure viewto a with certifications, standards necessary NATO the red mentioning - pe - care 54 - , Romania Romania , o - lasam

were the key words mentioned during the interviews, as expertiseinterviews, as the during keymentioned words the were h “nuig reo” prto, s el s h International the as well as Operation, Freedom” “Enduring the - Minister, Defence National a Dusan, celor

(Brussels, October 2013) 2013) October (Brussels, - h etra ifune f oh AO n te CSDP the and NATO both of influence external The care a been has

- vin 53 - dupa . As As .

- noi 142 http://www.isaf.nato.int/ - mn te is 5 nation 5 first the among mircea stated

-

10 ania being the first country in the ISAF ISAF the in country first the being ania - 24 - 55 dusa

- 29 . by the National Defence Minister Minister Defence National the by

- i 2010 in s integrarea

o opeet hi security their complement to

- romaniei – –

eom n Euro and Reform as - s standardization in

- nato n em of terms in

- -

CEU eTD Collection 58 War Capability Airlift Strategic the and AGS, Early Airborne NATO the as such projects 57 56 as interestthe most it referenced. was most the operations. and objectives military in staff civilian of integration harmonious the and representative; local and experts with collaboration reconstru and stabilization of understanding complex the of crisis; management civilian the in employed skills social from required personnel the low or civilian for listed expertise needed following the were mentioning missions. Worth the to personnel contributed all who Justice, of Ministry the and Affairs Interior of Ministry the Ministry, Defence National Romanian the between framework acquirement expertise of terms in 2012) second hand other the On EU’s CSDP duplic the of avoidance overall the and costs, capabilities, input doctrinal its a to as due pragmaticdimension, the prioritized efficiencymilitary of when theconceptual referring to frameworkbeingthe Alliance, of especially attractive inter the during mentioned also was Defence” “Smart of concept The Defence Smart umbrella NATO’s under developed project total the of third one approximately to participate to curr history” entire its in Romania by achieved security of level highest “the be to

Romania’s Participation in CSDP Missions, Missions, CSDP in Participation Romania’s Ibidem Ibidem ent Romanian National Defence Minister. Defence National Romanian ent -

order importance intervieweesorder by the “Romania obtained a significant experience in this field. It is an active member in several several in member active an is It field. this in experience significant a obtained “Romania .

, the participation in the CSDP missions CSDP the in participation the ,

57 .

–

SAC.”

http://www.mae.ro/node/1884 finer finer

, mentioning , 143 ning - nest oeain; h peaens of preparedness the operations; intensity points

– (Bucharest, May June(Bucharest, 2011; Bucharest, Romania has expressed its willingness its expressed has Romania

NAEW, The Alliance Ground Surveillance Surveillance Ground Alliance The NAEW,

s regard as The last element seemed to elicit to seemed element last The among others the collaborative the others among 58

teCD skillset CSDP the s to o efforts of ation was considered to be of be to considered was

to poess in processes ction viewing process process viewing

56 ih the with

by the by the : –

CEU eTD Collection Agency, Defence 59 in and missions six in experts civilian diverse”, “wecurrently seconded have and solid mi CSDP in participation Romanian’s concerning bureaucrats Romanian of rhetoric the Brussels, in interviews deployed. personnel civilian of terms in Italy, and France with along demonstrate 2009: Gowan a as characterized was Romania mentioned, already As R&D pr Agency Defence European the of opportunity the used and civil or civilian to view a with capabilities civilian developing for Bat (Balkan battlegroups two in participated Romania EU, the to accession its before tendency apprenticeship according act to able capabilities better and new and defence a budget, defence higher a brought membership NATO Romania’s O symbolic in reconverted at capital home defence common andsecurity national enhanced for complementarymodels provide that organizations EU the prelimina A

n a different different and note a n COUNCIL JOINT ACTION 2004/551/CFSP of of 2004/551/CFSP ACTION JOINT COUNCIL tle group ad Italian Romanian Turkish Battlegroup), Battlegroup), Turkish Romanian Italian ad group tle ogrammes (Phinnemore ogrammes 2006). - AO eain cud e ulfe a big profit being as qualified be could relations NATO y ocuin ol b drawn: be could conclusion ry d

http://www.eda.europa.eu/genericitem.aspx?area=Background&id=122 ht oai hs rvn t cmimn t te SP y leading, by CSDP the to commitment its proven has Romania that 45 - srig as serving , 6 i trs f otiuig o h E scrt faeok data framework: security EU the to contributing of terms in 46)

i n the good spirit of a pupil with two masters, in militaryin with terms, amasters, good pupil two spiritof the n sosad prtos etoe rm orpriiain is participation “our from mentioned operations and ssions a as been also has

riig rud o ipoig xets t b later be to expertise improving for ground training

.

144

12 July 2004 on the establishment of the European European the of establishment the on 2004 July 12 mirrored mirrored oain euiy rciinr’ view practitioners’ security Romanian

n h CSDP the in

to the tasks of the Alliance. the of tasks the to it used the CSDP framework CSDP the used striver 59

to develop its defence defence its develop to - rvn nml two namely driven, -

military operations, operations, military

involvement onr ( country

Throughout the Throughout

Korski : reform

even T

on he &

CEU eTD Collection 60 MayBucharest, 2012) June 2011; national and affairs long the foreign in interested more were defence of ministries the in servants civil interviewed hand, noted colonel senior one leaders”, political so under cuts and restructuring, process. transition general Romania’s with associated andthecivilian/political interfere personnel influence NATO’s under forces oversight civilian and of dislike their with EU the associating framework CSDP the within role Romania’s of assessment their in servants civil than sceptical home speaking, Generally 4.3 a registered CSDP the to contribution Romanian the of degree the 2012, of end the at Kosovo the of withdrawal the with Nevertheless, Kosovo” EULEX in and Georgia EUMM in deployed are 200 almost missions, civilian EU in deployed currently and civilian to contribution of terms in states members EU the among third the rank “we operations”, military two

Romania’s Participation in the CSDP Missio the CSDP in Participation Romania’s The Politics Nexus in Security versus Romanian the Security Field

Bcaet My 01 Bcaet Jn 2012) June Bucharest, 2011; May (Bucharest,

significant

.

While the general professionalization of the Romanian armed Romanian the of professionalization general the While downward spiral isos, o ot f h 28 xet scne b Romania by seconded experts 218 the of “out to missions”,

- b ased

a se a a positive a as seen was - .

called modernization attempts by our our by attempts modernization called

Busl, pi 21; rses Otbr 2013) October Brussels, 2013; April (Brussels, interviewed ns, ns, politics and propagandistic promises of reform of promises propagandistic and politics 60 145 . http://www.mae.ro/node/1884 -

term advantages of the CSDP the of advantages term nce in

oain otnet rm h EULEX the from contingent Romanian

( uhrs, ue 2012) June Bucharest,

iiay fies ee more were officers military

military affairs was quite surprisinglymilitary quite was affairs “We had enough of reforms, of enough had “We

outcome wie t h sm time same the at while ,

te euto of reduction the , . On the other other the On .

enlightened (Bucharest,

r less or .

CEU eTD Collection in stage of those besides security, doctrine security its for NATO the and both EU find to and influences the institutional both accommodate to needs Romania as such country interviewees Several June (Bucharest, 2012) security” of terms in us for do can EU the what about uncritical too sk are bureaucrats their diversifying about enthusiastic 2012) June (Bucharest, less are officers military “older to open more were arena political Romanian national the in and Brussels in both servants civil minded habitus, pragmatic oriented, and officers military senior that assumption seasoned the to weight lends analysis The interference, support,economic and financial state sharing, included mentioned Elements 2013) April (Brussels, cycle.” reconstruction skill institution varied THE providing is EU of “The capable interviewee, one to according that, fact the and EU 2013) October Brussels Several a more and fluid

security practitioners practitioners security - ulig pltcl n sca egneig lgl n hmn rights human and legal engineering, social and political building, went even further and acknowledge the EU’s role as a civilian power civilian a as role EU’s the acknowledge and further even went - base

Euro

(Bucharest, May 2011; Bucharest 2011; May (Bucharest, . bureaucrats Romanian d

, while one senior military officer observed that “these young “these that observed officer military senior one while ,

n h ln run long the in - encompassing centric dispositions. One policy maker bluntly admitted that admitted bluntly maker policy One dispositions. centric the

hl yugr mr csooie and cosmopolite more younger, while ad defence hard ae been have - sets sets Ti dmntae ta new that demonstrates This .

the Romanian 146 n h conflict the in policy and institutional proper responses proper institutional and policy

and ,

oe nlnd o ae n Atlanticist an have to inclined more military ones, ones, military

civ

Busl, pi 21; Brussels, 2013; April (Brussels, security field. il

society buildin , June 2012) 2012) June , - rvnin reso prevention, could also also could

g. remarked that a that remarked

iesos of dimensions bureaucratic ae centre take uin and lution, power ill - set” - - -

CEU eTD Collection to tendency civilian the being thepolitically military. control struggle of objects the or contention of bone the military the in evident most t regards with antagonisms security practice the Romanian as far as that, fact Interviewanswers struggle NATO their of result fro practitioners security Romanian by valued possesse i specific in NATO been has Romania of field security the which in ways the and extent the on focused question between helps tensions securitythe subfields value the view, of point this From the as input Romania’s the of new participat well as culture, strategic NATO a between dynamic competing or complementary, Romanian monopolizing in professionals bet tensions the pinpointing of terms in useful extremely be to prove could framework theoretical Bourdieusean a Hence, culture. strategic and planning this of framing very in planni of terms expressed are NATO and CSDP the between aspects relational the indeed, If

with other security with such as the other subfields d influenced

the coveted legitimacy and extensive resources that that resources extensive and legitimacy coveted the en euiy sub security ween ng and a difference of vision, then an interesting point to look at is the is at look to point interesting an then vision, of difference a and ng

(Bucharest, May 2011; Bucharest, June 2012) June Bucharest, 2011; May (Bucharest, nstitutional and policy areas. areas. policy and nstitutional

- and transformed by the double the by transformed and socialization, o NATO and the CSDP models of security making were were making security of models CSDP the and NATO o versus

- - ils te yblc oe o dfeet security different of power symbolic the fields, added of a Bourdieusean approach in the study of study the in approach Bourdieusean a of added

civilian/political echelons of security practitioners, practitioners, security of echelons civilian/political they ion in 147 have been been have

the

the

CSDP missions. CSDP te iiaydfne subfield. military/defence the m

political realmpolitical understand was t s o e xetd tha expected be to is It - folded influence of the EU and EU the of influence folded nae i a yblc power symbolic a in engaged

concerned, the hysteresis and hysteresis the concerned, - based strategic culture and culture strategic based ing of .

point

the main research main the ae been have ed

towards thetowards - NATO t inspired

highly A a s CEU eTD Collection cause. limitations structural CSD the in role major a playing towards aspirations Romania’s between gap a of cause main of area the in involvement limited more a to leading factors main the identify to asked When since the membership process.” (Bucharest,negotiating May 2011). C of area broader the in contribute to able been has “Romania stated, Defence National of Ministry Romanian a integration European in expert policy interviewed be could more a Union, the of maze institutional the and intricacies policy various withthe with familiarized EU the by the socialized in servants, civil stages younger admission of wave new the hand, other the On theRomanian in positions military hierarchy. highest the seniority, to due occupy, still hardliners military senior such that is caveat Europe Eastern in referring were 2012) June Bucharest, 2011; May (Bucharest, officers arena security international Cold almost familiar, a them doxa traditional the to stick to inclined more were officers military senior hand, one the On

and ways of doing things, and surprisingly enough, NATO still represented to represented still NATO enough, surprisingly and things, doing of ways and

the

faeok n te grass the and framework P less inclined to rely on on rely to inclined less

CSDP, the same expert offered objective and structural reasons as the as reasons structural and objective offered expert same the CSDP, in a language sometimes language a in did not did

necessarily (Bucharest, June 2012) June (Bucharest, - FSP FSP War

- like “Us like n t tk o te eadn olgtos of obligations demanding the on take to and the - impede impede l Cold old ot reality. root 148 versus

redolent of a by a of redolent

Romania’s Euro

- Them” simplification simplification Them” a ihrtd ipstos A an As dispositions. inherited War . nd regional cooperation with the with cooperation regional nd

Some of the interviewed senior senior interviewed the of Some - eti dsore ad more and discourse, centric ut surprisingly, Quite

commitment to the NATO the to commitment - gone Cold gone

to NATO’s role NATO’s to of the of - War era. Th era. War h same the

complex e

CEU eTD Collection of remnants the of instance forget” not do Hungarians the Polish, the we, but stable, and normalized is relationship the past, the is past “the that stated Russia deali official one view, of point this From Black an Region Sea Wider hawkish, a of tradition c the down a displayed process, interviewing 2012) June Bucharest, 2011; situatio confrontational c of spectres the plagued still was field security Romanian the that revealed responses Interview requirements. practitioner security Romanian need which habitus, security granted represent conversely, skills, soldiering and competences proficiency more the becomes, habitus security the competitive and fluid more the words, other what in or 1957), by (Huntington profession the marked of “expertise” the deeply as to referred been Huntington has habitus security transitional Romanian The 4.4 Effortsto Re ommunist legacies in the R the in legacies ommunist

an d

symbolic capital the security practitioner acquires. The old Cold War War Cold old The acquires. practitioner security the capital symbolic ommunism and Cold and ommunism - construct the Content post ofSecurity ns or explosive disagreements from the past the from disagreements explosive or ns Realpolitik d itsd relationto N theEastern

. Seasoned Romanian security practitioners, during the during practitioners, security Romanian Seasoned . the

s omanian security mentality, but still keeping with the with keeping still but mentality, security omanian

perspective when discussing Romania’s role in the in role Romania’s discussing when perspective o s o dp t 21 to adapt to as so old - War paranoia, albeit not at the intensity of the of intensity the at not albeit paranoia, War ofottoa reoi, h Cold the rhetoric, confrontational - to ed 149 ng with Romania’s foreign policy towards towards policy foreign Romania’s with ng -

earth, pragmatic discours pragmatic earth,

o e upse ad challenged and surpassed be to

Bcaet My 2011) May (Bucharest, eighbourhood. st

ed - Cold War century security making making security century

rgd n taken and rigid a

(Bucharest, May (Bucharest, e, playing down playing e,

- Ti i an is This . a hostile War -

for

by by - CEU eTD Collection reclaimed military the of organization and functioning, training, the that nationally by only sustained principles defence c than rather values national national a adopt to required were Romanian the Czechoslovakia, of invasion the in participate to refusal chapter, historical the in mentioned precedents: historical positive several of advantage the had institution forces armed Romanian the of restructuring The revolutionaries. and revolution 1989 the in role key a played actually militarythe though dictatorship, the and regime supporte were military the that was misperception important One won, Necessity forces. though.” military our for consequences sad sometimes and deep had has standards NATO to adaptation and reform of process the practice, in but, the that knew personne and departments of reduction drastic undergo to needed echelons military we theory, “in view of point practitioner’s security a From Forces. Armed the of control democratic genuine a of establishment the including relations, and civil the of reform the was transition Romanian the of concerns major the Cold outdated from dispositions security Romanian the of reform the and transformation the in present tensions inherent The the a discourse and language

institution responsible - War representations to representations War (Bucharest, June 2012)

in

Ceausescu’s overthrow Ceausescu’s of iming to value the role of the A the of role the value to iming

national national territorial safety. ommunist ideology; the national doctrine was based on based was doctrine national the ideology; ommunist post

modern understandings of security making. One of One making. security of understandings modern - retd iiay otie ht ete arou centred that doctrine military oriented

Romanian starting from 1968 and following Romania’s Romania’s following and 1968 from starting 150 ,

by turning their arms and aligning with the with aligning and arms their turning by

- owned resources, resulting in t in resulting resources, owned

security habitus st habitus security

rmy (Pouliot 2010: 101) as 101) 2010: (Pouliot rmy rs of the Ceausescu the of rs

me rm the from emmed and the military military the and armed forces forces armed

s already as national a military military he fact fact he nd l, CEU eTD Collection progress concrete the for enthusiasm showed they whether and challenging as seen were agenda security Romanian the on reforms new the that thought they whether this probe to order In security. doing nationalism, exalted physicality raw the transform to military Romanian the pressured p of set skill new a of introduction The doxic existing the to challenges numerous presented have organizations, international of members competent become to pressures adaptation by coupled reforms, national of t within advancing for criteria important became and capital symbolic into translated then were demands These the impacted highly field post the Nevertheless, that demonstrated outranked sentiments c partly and 1989 December in revolution Romanian co in Pact military Warsaw the of training the in hallmarks essential also were 1 1992: Dickinson & (Leebaert exercisesnamely staff bestsymbolic, at and limited was o carried manoeuvres the in contribution Romania’s Moreover, national means. Romania character; 44). Consequently, even though c though even Consequently, 44).

knowledge. military art principles principles art military

and had the right to plan the national defence of its territory with with territory its of defence national the plan to right the had - Cold War transformatio War Cold alliances. ommunist

professional the he military ranks. The ranks. military he automatism of the job into more nuanced practices of practices nuanced more into job the of automatism

ommunist principles were upheld, national values national upheld, were principles ommunist

doxa – smdr scrt patcs a constantly has practices security ostmodern

151 perspective, several officials were asked asked were officials several perspective, h Rmna amd ocs ond the joined forces armed Romanian the

and

n and reform in the Romanian security Romanian the in reform and n

the

fall of c of fall

territorial ommunism and the waves the and ommunism - based security based ut by the Warsaw Pact Pact the Warsaw by ut te sometimes the , tat ih the with ntrast

making. patriotic CEU eTD Collection a and military career. professionalization for carrots main the as advantages material or symbolic either or prestige country, occupation their serving sa a as such like reasons pragmatic more to professionalism justifications honest and more from idealistic choices, career their rationalized personnel military younger which in socio other O / Self the of understanding being received training officer military a to the in civilian shifts major some a also involved from metamorphosis the that assumed be to is It secu for but Army the of role traditional the undermine not did structures EU the and NATO within t 21 the in forces armed Romanian the of understanding deeper the implied interviewees re The necessary tointo bringmilitary as the21st Romanian so evil cen forces “Romanian muddled the in done sometimes though process, reform defence and security the that was done being hreats. hreats. st

they century beyond the traditional role of national defence against against defence national of role traditional the beyond century - opsto o te otn o scrt a se truh h ee o the of eyes the through seen as security of content the of composition rity making

h pit f otnin a te elzto ta te e rls undertaken roles new the that realization the was contention of point The complemented it complemented

-

(Bucharest, June 2012) June (Bucharest, political fields. Nevertheless, fields. political (Bucharest, May 2011; Bucharest, June 2012) June Bucharest, 2011; May (Bucharest,

in starkin contrastwith theoldthingsways doing of -

style”

. It represented It . eoie i ter id n bde, with bodies, and mind their in deposited –

n cvl evn noted servant civil one ther paradigm between the security fields fields security the between paradigm ther

.

The opportunistic streak was again present, with present, again was streak opportunistic The habitus 152

a thus a new a thus

particularly interesting point was the way way the was point interesting particularly

in terms of values and attitudes, the attitudes, and values of terms in

Bcaet a 2011) May (Bucharest, modus vivendi modus e n rltvl well relatively and fe . The general impression general The . potential potential .

and philosophy and tury.

e se per n acute an

external , was a a was , -

paid and CEU eTD Collection Romanian the in influences ideological important most the of One itself. military the and society Romanian within ideologies contradictory often different, of creation dictatorships” proto of patterns previous “the thethat past, the tumultuous historyfact demonstrated Romanian cursoryA of review such Iraqaction andas Afghanistan. by received payment have media national disposition an as considered be the zones. risk conflict in to participation sacrifice worthy a was it hence and rewards, symbolic and pecuniary was missions international of umbrella the under abroad deployed be to motivation The in countries international terms of projection. European Western other with up catch to aspirations and ambitions of aftermath an it was Nor securitydoing waysnewof of namely habitus, acquired newly a of result a necessarily not was deployment foreign tha interviews the during clear made was It capital. economic and symbolic both of terms in rewards possible and prestige of markers high as considered missions, coalition or EU NATO, in experience field of importance of eyes the In mo ty osdrd o e personal a be to considered stly s

are not yet cemented and values are in flux. in are values and cemented yet not are

Mniz 02 29, ls h c the plus 209), 2012: (Mannitz several

nertv dmnin f tastoa euiy aiu, where habitus, security transitional a of dimension integrative also also oain soldier Romanian

interviewees,

en xrml ciia cnenn te ml aon of amount small the concerning critical extremely been clearly and their normative motivation (Bucharest, June 2012).June(Bucharest, normativemotivation their and

Th

is -

eortc oit ad iiay n te roy the and military and society democratic understanding the rationality behind the country’s the behind rationality the understanding type

s 153 of hi cre goals career their

n oprsn o agr i tete of theatres in dangers to comparison in

reasoning

opportunity muit eiae al e t the to led all heritage, ommunist t sometimes the motivation for for motivation the sometimes t

for external deployment deployment external for

Nevertheless, voices in the in voices Nevertheless, o as so

w ere

o an substantial gain to

akd y the by marked could al al CEU eTD Collection and professionalism, of lack corruption, as such themes interest public common 2012) June (Bucharest, themse distance and criticize to willing were interviewees some views, their express to opportunity the given When economic such as incentives and rank rewards p to materialist related more to related but patriotism, or pride national as such factors necessarily materialist not was deployment foreign for soldiers Romanian important an as institutionalized objective. military was Romanian projection power that Strategy Security membership NATO the after only was it 1990s, early the since operations peacekeeping in participated had Romania though Even missing. self territorial of justification the that fact the to due military, Romanian p External NATO the to contradiction framework clear a in entered doctrine it that a is defence such of drawbacks the focus predominantly of one Nevertheless, of institution. terms in trusted Church Orthodox Romanian the to secondary only as Army the in people the of trust the listing polls opinion countless by demonstrated been has This ofnational guarantors keydefence and as playersinnation as forces armed Romanian the in solidarity and trust of elements the emphasizing milit r dcrn ws h “tuge f h etr pol” Mniz 02 209), 2012: (Mannitz people” entire the of “struggle the was doctrine ary s wr rjcin and projection ower

of of foreign deployment abroad.and sending military troops ed on a national mind national a on ed –

provided their anonymity their provided

ec, i Hence, vs rm eti patcs f h Rmna military Romanian the of practices certain from lves

reforms cms s o upie that surprise no as comes t 154

ee se were - set and national objectives such as self as such objectives national and set

.

n s esr betvs o the for objectives lesser as en was

preserved, commenting on commenting preserved, - building practices. building practices. n te 06 National 2006 the and h mtvto of motivation the n te CSDP the and

- defence was defence

ost a - - CEU eTD Collection securitywithin hierarchy.the and confusion their and dispositions actors’ between and field security Romanian process the in hysteresis generalized a reform of assumption the confirmed the regarding ambivalent and conflicted were practitioners priori and values core strategic new advance to necessity the and capabilities military raw of development the was interviewees, 2012) June (Bucharest, h cleaned they which in way the at “Look explained: officer military former a point, this illustrate to order In wrong avoid to navigate and the moves a caution, with also but suspicion with viewed were a field defence over and security oversight sovereign formerly civilian and accountability political of initiatives unpopular The the ac military’s of oversight political/civilian candid so not the between distinguishing sector, defence and security the of reform the regarding habitus, their on based judgements, On Romanian securitythe defence ethos. and of reform the regarding feelings mixed displayed era, NATO the to reforms, of years o stages all three in participant that Interviewees backwardness. technological h oe ad te mr mtr i ae taiinlss omltd strong formulated traditionalists age” in mature “more the hand, one the tivities and the real necessities to have up have to necessities real the and tivities s the need to learn the new constraints and risks was important so as so important was risks and constraints new the learn to need the s ouse, you ouse, Te an ocr, xrse b te aoiy f the of majority the by expressed concern, main The .

f transformation, from thepre transformation, from f

either catch up with up catch either

national 15

5

ties. Also, the general feeling was that was feeling general the Also, ties.

reached the age of pension and were and pension of age the reached security

NATO standards or you are out” are you or standards NATO - tuge o cran positions certain for struggle

to field. field. - date technological assets. technological date - c ommunist era, the the early ommunist era,

CEU eTD Collection side important Inter an was thus blurring forces”. operations special and intelligence human purposes, communications for specialists computer in bringing means “which operations, peacekeeping more in participate to Romania necessary.” the under the made of be umbrella always encompassing will forces our restructuring that understand must you But operations. such for available resources adequate make to and changes senio One sub other of expertise the from pooling implying this missions, expeditionary to defence based territory from turning in difficulties increased are there that out pointed Interviewees w purpose, security the that times several mentioned Interviewees pressing, solutions bureaucratic and institutional and contributor. security genuine a as potential yet has Romania that solutions restructuring 2011) May to According

geopolitically Army - Realpolitik fields. fields. r military officer even went on to suggest that “indeed, we need to make make to need we “indeed, that suggest to on went even officer military r

bt te SP n NT faeok ncsiae complex necessitated frameworks NATO and CSDP the both , Bcaet My 2011) May (Bucharest, interviewed consider

- nlecd position influenced objectives. ih a be piaiy ped y h Rmna Army. Romanian the by upheld primarily been has hich s

other security subfields as subservient to a higher national national higher a to subservient as subfields security other iiin esne i te iity f Defence of Ministry the in personnel civilian

iiay y rnig n non in bringing by military -

fet f h srcua tasomto efrs of efforts transformation structural the of effect

e et n o mhsz te eest for necessity the emphasize to on went He s E bre country border EU a as (Bucharest, May 2011; Bucharest, June 2012) June Bucharest, 2011; May (Bucharest, have 156

In the case of Romania’s post Romania’s of case the In

o ul dvlp o s o ec is full its reach to as so develop fully to been

osaty hlegd y more by challenged constantly

eis pyhlgs, police, psychologist, medics, - ntttoa boundary institutional - te bv complex above the , iiay esne if personnel military

- (Bucharest, c ommunist - - CEU eTD Collection both in participation double our by gain most we that things the “among that believed Union perspect the supported European the to Romania of Representation Permanent the of member A and patterns exposure certain to 2013) October (Brussels, 2013; April the Brussels more a and with personnel civilian the by preferred culture strategic Europeanist new Cold the of transgression a towards patterns transitional 2013) October (Brussels, we which of facts dire several with deal also must EU sugar that noted officer military senior a hand, other the On democratic secure, October (Brussels, 2013) a with EU the providing of “that expert, policy Romanian a to according be, would goal main The the involvement in contextbroader of theBlack Sea Region”. Wider r of role Romania’s stressed several objectives, security regional Romania’s of topic the On 4.5 thecivilianmilitary theinfluences coming from realm. to process professionalization the Forces, Armed Romanian the

Geopolitics RegionalLeadership and in AreaBlack Sea the - otd icus o cvla pwr n go nihorod oiis bt the but politics, neighbourhood good and power civilian of discourse coated ive of regional ownership at the EU’s Eastern borderline and borderline Eastern EU’s the at ownership regional of ive . . Romania’s increased participation in the CS the in participation increased Romania’s . - War realism of its security strategy security its of realism War egional cooperation catalyst cooperation egional

transnational .

This comes to show the power of socialization of power the show to comes This - retd and oriented 157

epistemic communities.epistemic

rseos neighbourhood” prosperous “ – - h E hs oeie at sometimes has EU The oriented habitus oriented

all “a link of the Euro the of link “a r vr cer about!” clear very are –

security this idea was mainly was idea this s pnn u the up opening es

DP could markcould DP

practitioners

(Brussel - Atlantic s,

CEU eTD Collection could action an participant. a as major without Russia be successful can project regional such no and first; Russia with consulting without of own their on initiatives message regional major take political to countries “lesser” for The not is it setting. follows: agenda region’s process. the cooperative in Sea monopoly Black the in position leadership a assume Russian the the that in disquieting, sense is resumi incident this of analysis Forum, The cohesiveness. regional foster the to enough are than region more the to in cooperation of frameworks delegation existing the that fact the official by motivated was ambassador, an send to reluctance non a of model 61 the not its least, because of political stability but last and membership, NATO and economic EU and the committed social its and consistent progress its to due position, geostrategic its of because further interviewee the mediator” neutral po naturally Romania stressed, and suitable “a for calls Region Sea Black the region, the in stakeholder and shareholders of plethora a with Confronted region” Sea power the moderating for state suitable most the be could “Romania that mentioned interviewee another positioning, geostrategic its of terms In important the theregion securityto challenges poses Romaniaboth theEU. and Forum Sea Black the example the giving initiatives, regional independent developed has Romania that noted professional security One m gained EU new cooperative to ties framework forge and theregion” in foster the of use make to keen “ an interviewee of words the a in indeed, is Romania that stating region, Sea Black Wider the 2013) April (Brussels, leader” regional a become to Romania for chance better a is CSDP the and NATO

The Black Sea Forum for Dialogue and Partnership was created on June 5, 2006, following the the following 2006, 5, June on created was Partnership and Dialogue for Forum Sea Black The

(Bucharest, 2012) June ed t asm a einl oe n h Bak e ae” “t a been has “it area”; Sea Black the in role regional a assume to ready - institutionalized, flexible arena for dialogue and cooperation in the region. Russia’s Russia’s region. the in cooperation and dialogue for arena flexible institutionalized,

message was as clear as one can get, no other country is mandated to to mandated is country other no get, can one as clear as was message . Most of Most

sitioning itself in this role by being a riverine country, riverine a being by role this in itself sitioning the interviewees asserted a proactive involvement in involvement proactive a asserted interviewees the .

and in and

158 terests thelocal in ownership.

mesi sau ad h EU’s the and status embership 61 , and , g ny o h peec o its of presence the to only ng

Russia’s stance illustrates its its illustrates stance Russia’s (Brussels,April 2013) it qiiru i te Black the in equilibrium

has been vocal about about vocal been has

read as as read

.

CEU eTD Collection professional security of interviewed emergence one the neighbourhood, preventing its in by regimes influence “unfriendly” Russian expand and protect to is itse Seeing war”. Georgian the with case the was it as conflicts, frozen the of eruption the borderline, gun potential to proximity country’s the of because re and persistence the for reasons the of “one that observed officer senior a Nevertheless, players. major the between terms security in influence” of spheres the of concept “obsolete the of rejection the Region Sea Black the in solidarity” and cooperation of culture political a for need a is “There interests. economic or cultural of use rhetorical the and history, of interpretations experiences previous the conflict the surpass to efforts the by affected particularly was habitus securitytransitional the case, this In neighbourhood. its Eastern th and model cooperation multilateral the over region, the involvementin NATO assertive more a and partnership strategicUS the on emphasis a preferring interviewees some with discussion, t wasstrategy Romanian the which through means the Nevertheless, Romania. for concern strategic towering a been has Region Sea Black the of security the that interviewees among belief shared a was there addition, In (Bucharest, June 2012) (Bucharest, (Brussels, October 20 October (Brussels, lf as the rightful hegemon in its own territorial backyard, Russia’s interest Russia’s backyard, territorial own its in hegemon rightful the as lf - based mind based

13) f einl stand regional of

- frame and pattern of regional interaction, caused by caused interaction, regional of pattern and frame –

- one Brussels one emergence of a new Cold War schizophrenia is schizophrenia War Cold new a of emergence 159

Realpolitik - based civil servant pointed out, and out, pointed servant civil based - fs ntoaitc n distorted and nationalistic offs, - odr arl a is Eastern its at barrels powder o be achieved remained under remained achieved be o e softer EU policy towards towards policy EU softer e

approach, with a clear a with approach, - cut CEU eTD Collection and Europeanist Transatlantic new a towards patterns transitional mark would brass, military the of most to according structures, NATO and CSDP the in participation resources energetic for competition territorial conflicts, cultural as fierce a wellas security as threats, soft differences, religious rights, minority disputes, such factors, several of mixture a to due liability, the in conflicts challenges:the geopolitical the the RomanianSince wasend of the Cold with security agenda severalfaced War, “itconsiderscontinued, as itsinterests”. merely them vehicles for e the in involvement own Russia’s of terms In cooperation. regional ensure to countries) “regional” to (limited well are frameworks regional existing the f implication further Moscow” by threat a as seen is Region Sea Black the in security collective and integration democratic with deal to needed Ru is strategy coherent a that observed officer senior Another the to objectives”. concrete according achieve to failed Russia towards policies EU’s “the and interviewee, colossus, power Russian the and of them consequences between disparity the with deal to have governments Neighbouring to back drift its to due factor, itsauthoritarianism and energy leverage potential”. instability added an “is stressed, professional mentioned sa “eas bidn scrt ad tblt o Rsi’ bres through borders Russia’s on stability and security building “because ssia,

Bcaet J (Bucharest, - oriented strategic cultuRomanian rom either the EU or NATO in the region the in NATO or EU the either rom

Bcaet Jn 2012) June (Bucharest, n 2012) une itn rgoa ognztos te ae eir officer senior same the organizations, regional xisting

Rsi’ “eun o hs ein, h security the region”, this to “return Russia’s . I cud e rud ht oai’ increased Romania’s that argued be could It . 160 Black Sea Region have become a security a become have Region Sea Black

- qipd n hi peet composition present their in equipped Russia . re.

a always has should

not warranted not

consider

interviewed h power the ed that ,

as CEU eTD Collection transformational their and involved, actors relevant the field, security transitional above mentioned dynamics adaptational the on light shed further To ethos. security national re to pressures adaptational considerable to respond to had exercises, Romania and mission military joint overseas in participate to encouraged Being Ethos Security ofNew the 4.6 organizations. and security of defe terms in future Romanian’s concerning field security most Romanian in expressed the in rift deeper was a at hinted allies”, and interviewees the of European side civilian the on and responses American our on rely to have in distrust turn to necessity “the habits”, old the reinvent to need “the of feeling profound the rhetoric, War Cold the and reforms the beyond Nevertheless, June (Bucharest, 2012) said suspicions lingering the remained but stable, are run, relations short Russian the in and that Romanian question fact in not did officers military interviewed the of Mo capabilities. material beyond granted for anything take to view of point military a from interest lower a suggesting interviewees, such by stressed issues main the were standards operability modern and newcapabilities brand of issue the Moreover, The Professionalization of Professionalization The

c ad h igand ipstos f rs ad itut n international in mistrust and trust of dispositions ingrained the and nce ht I a rie ad rie drn te od a ea what era, War Cold the during trained and raised was “I that and the levels of inertia or reform, the focus falls predominantly on Romania’s Romania’s on predominantly falls focus the reform, or inertia of levels the and as regards as

the long the

-

term risks. One senior military officer even laughingly even officer military senior One risks. term the Romanian Security Personnel Security Romanian 161

-

- you The Content The o rs” “we trust”, to construct the construct

expect?”

still st

CEU eTD Collection access now can “We professionalization. and cooperation, permanent new wide a was it and facilities training NATO and EU through I security personnel. the of process professionalization the in benchmarks fundamental as interviewees majorityof the by considered wereoperations and standards NATO and security on topics of variety a on conferences and seminars, workshops, trainings, abroad, missions many as in participate to trying actively were personnel to needed “we official, senior a of words the know and practices information and cooperation favoured military knowledge, expertise background and skills legitimate of set new A security making. of practices the and ethos security new the in defenc developments significant and to leading security of professionalization the for resources and opportunities has EU the and NATO Joining revealing. particularly are professionals, of levels Brussels the prestige), and authority (honour, capital symbolic the style, life The during the received training the and frameworks security competing to comes it when agency nterview data has shown that symbolic value was given to to given was value symbolic that shown has data nterview

class of class - zto o NATO or ization . ir professionalization. ”

(Bucharest, June 2012) (Bucharest,June

security professionals security

- how

becoming validated in the eyes of security practitioners security of eyes the in validated becoming - zto, s elce i te nwr o security of answers the in reflected as ization,

was being educated in educated being was To this end, many of the many end, of this To 162

is ad foremost and first

- either the the spread agreement that a that agreement spread practitioners competencies acquired competencies - and sharing, spirit of transparency, of spirit

professiona NATO NATO defence. T defence.

a domain that domain a e security new created new created

interviewed r the or Romanian ie our lize he EU he

. In . EU e , CEU eTD Collection bureaucracy. defence and security Romanian of was ethos a towards lead all frameworks, cooperation EU military practical words i openn of levels their describe to asked When moreadd valueto these efforts. to order in capabilities generation last for personnel trained and protocols develop noted field, officer equipment military the in needs and interests its on Depending professionalization. and competency of levels acceptable reach to needed were how Brussels the or Paris Inst Studies Security the (Spain), Torrejon in (EUSC) EU the of Centre Satellitethe as structures,CSDP important of Romaniapart becoming With symbolic the security Romanian important in capital field rep Interviewees issues. and defence on groups working and workshops conferences, international programs, cooperation bilateral Brussels, in courses orientation CSDP the Defence, was practitioners security accomp Romanian of internationalization the aside, Rhetoric transparent” senior official more a noted. study, criticism,was thatforbidden for learned debate. and security before beWe can triwe mnind ht al claoain “on tig tgte” o i other in or together”, things “doing collaboration, daily that mentioned nterviewees lished by participation in Commandants Conferences organized by NATO NATO by organized Conferences Commandants in participation by lished

different in terms of transparency from the formalism, rigidity, and secrecy and rigidity, formalism, the from transparency of terms in different

(Bucharest, May 2011) May (Bucharest, - based European Defence Agency (EDA), new skill new (EDA), Agency Defence European based - to - eatedly military cooperation (Pouliot 2010: 122) within NATO and NATO within 122) 2010: (Pouliot cooperation military

confirmed that that confirmed , Romania got involved in programmes meant to meant programmes in involved got Romania ,

163 (Bucharest,May 2011).

new s t ohr nentoa structures, international other to ess security ethos security xets ebde te most the embodied expertise .

eetees drn the during Nevertheless, itute of the EU (ISS) in (ISS) EU the of itute

. This new securitynew This . s

n senior one and know and security - CEU eTD Collection romani 62 high of use the in and cybernetics, informatics, of fields the in skillsets complex the that fact the to due especially demand high in was forces armed Romanian of professionalization the Moreover, the for ofprofessionalization defensive Romania’s force. countries member NATO in colleges NATO attend to possible as as dispatching officers to given was attention Special Centres. Training Regional NATO/PfP the to pertaining levels, joint and tactical both at NATO procedures, standards, with accordance in officers for programs training and educational achi through to Strategy Military the in stated method principal The hierarchy,to and preserve ofagenda privileged the position institutional established already the protect to professionalization, of initiatives reform field, security Romanian the of case the In 216). 1991: (Bourdieu clutches” its tightly most holds it ones the are they because it on depend mostwho those on most depends apparatus cri quite was view, of point this from Bourdieu, of basis the on not and meritocracy.competence or criteria, this clientele’s of inefficiency the deep under the established and practicesapparatus, good of absorption of pace slow a job. the of prerequisites high the or secrecy professional to attributed times the of most being encountered, were opacity and suspicion of tendencies process, interviewing

Romanian state bureaucracy, bureaucracy, state Romanian Romanian bureaucracy Romanian - news - 221529 some of the senior the of some

for that matter that for http://www.euractiv.com/euro

military personnel w personnel military 164 , generally referred t referred generally ,

t o NT msin rqie niche required missions NATO of ity

ia o sae ueurce, “the bureaucracies, state of tical - ere finance/huge

also - setters.

o as “huge” as o v sc gas was goals such eve inclined to resent the resent to inclined - bureaucracy

- tech military tech 62 , implied , - prevents many - CEU eTD Collection http://english.mapn.ro/organization/ 63 and progress, economic requirementsoperative theEuropeanUnion in security field. and political capacities, reaction optimum developing par international Romanian with dialogue enduring and steady 2012) representatives Department’s the by delivered discourse official NA and EU the both in participation Romania’s of planning and the Planning by and Defence elaborated of Policy of was Department Romania of policy defence the observed, previously As could int forces armed Romanian the that ensuring and skills control and command program, training defence and security Romanian institutions, Centre” Training Defence Simulation National the Romanian and the College at procedures NATO learn to chance a given home in exercises and trainingssimulation and trainings military NATO t given opportunities the praised officer military A forces. crucially structures NATO designed carefully with frameworks, institutional and backgrounds, training practices, in manifested were instances emulative NATO Hence, equipment.

egrate toegrate anyoperation. NATO or EU Department of Policy of Defence and Planning, The Romanian Ministry of Defence, Defence, of Ministry Romanian The Planning, and Defence of Policy of Department was that the system of linkage officers reflected Romania’s concern with a a with concern Romania’s reflected officers linkage of system the that was

,

compatible with NATO benchmarks and interoperable with NATO armed armed NATO with interoperable and benchmarks NATO with compatible mentioned

eea times several

– y h interviewees the by

ihy fetv, fiin, lxbe ad most and flexible, efficient, effective, highly 165

63 commands and forces composed of composed forces and commands Bcaet June (Bucharest, o him to participate in conferences, in participate to him o rsosbe ih h coordination the with responsible , by ,

oh mrvn operation improving both ee onrtns n the in cornerstones were

tners: TO operations. The operations. TO

Bcaet June (Bucharest, 2012)

in the view of of view the in - bases, “I was “I bases, Both .

the

CEU eTD Collection because Especially cheaper. relatively are soldiers conscript view, of point this from and, remuneration competitive with enticed be must soldiers professional Such army seriousequipped pose pr well small, professionalized a and reforms these countries poorer or smaller For countries” rich and large for easier is forces such developing demand security the to solution a indeed is army professional a that believe “I specialist, security a of words the In workin environmentthe the structures both andNATO EU end the peremptory, “key from personnel by English learning that mentioned expert senior observed official an functions”, civilian with soldiers in gendarme a English, spec in communication professor a be to needs soldier a “Now operations military of process.complex technocratic locus a longer that no admitted was defence and and NATO security and EU the between rivalries socialization above supposed the regarding reflexivity of level sophisticated a demonstrated NATO Brussels of processes after states member EU new of cultures strategic national the within changes inform they how and nexuses security internal/external by post constituted was interviews the of out came that focus empirical interesting An - eom instit reforms - zto o bt. h majority The both. or ization - toa boundary utional goal bei goal ait ad pyhlgs o tp f t W ae overloading are We it. of top on psychologist a and ialist, ng that to possess the linguistic competency required by by required competency linguistic the possessto that ng

oblems ofcosts and sustainability. s of the 21 the s of - lrig ewe mltr/iiin and military/civilian between blurring 166 st f nevees rm h Department the from interviewees of

century, but what is often forgotten is thatis forgotten often is what but century,

Bcaet Jn 2012) June (Bucharest,

(Bucharest, June (Bucharest, 2012)

(Brussels, April 2013) April (Brussels,

- positions” was positions” bt more a but , - riig a training, mentioned - zto or ization One . .

- . CEU eTD Collection emphasising ethos organizational civilian complex oversight more and or security fluid practices. new a of construction the and expertise; and t according personnel security the of professionalization boundary institutional post the were: field security Romanian the within positions structural the and tensions created and role central a played that elements The agenda. security Romania’s over struggle power symbolic the in prestigeand status of importance the recognized chapter this view, of point this From theand EU. un applied reforms and process professionalization post space and the time to according coordinates, fluctuated thus actors such by possessed power a empower and others than relevant more capitals certain make that processes historical and interactional the on light further shed can it that thefact in rests structures of understandings materialistic Romania sector security the thereof of lack or advancements possible the analyse richer to as a so inquiry for theoretical space the up opening for time high is it that argued has chapter The 4.7 beings, human terrorist of organizedand transnational crime, threats, criminality gener in Eastern traffic the the immigration, of illegal of management threats efficient the against an borderline for need a out pointed interviewees most the has Romania Conclusion

- - E lrig ie bten euiy ufed; the subfields; security between lines blurring od a tastoa cnet iig au t the to value giving context transitional War Cold sen uoen no bre un border Union European astern gents to perform better in certain contexts. The degree of degree The contexts. certain in better perform to gents . The advantage of a Boudieusean analysis over more over analysis Boudieusean a of advantage The .

167 between the security actors’ dispositions dispositions actors’ security the between

e te nlec o bt NATO both of influence the der o higher standards of training of standards higher o e is ueae some tutelage, its der

al. al.

- reforms

in CEU eTD Collection structuraland ofunder limitations scarcereforms the restrictions military capabilities. Rom the currency important most The training. and education through skills transferable of main the with honing constant the and change, adaptability, predominant, of those be to developed wasdispositions habitus security transitional and unsolidified international the are in ally competent a becoming on and culture, strategic national was focus The East the on centred were professionals security post of stages transitional the During na to international and European partners. European and international to na na scrt fed a te aaiy o raiey dp t cags and changes to adapt creatively to capacity the was field security anian put on Romania’s regional aspirations, on laying the grounds for a a for grounds the laying on aspirations, regional Romania’s on

- Cold 168 - War reforms, the main concerns of of concerns main the reforms, War

Overall, the answers revealed that a that revealed answers the Overall, - West relations and geopolitical risks. geopolitical and relations West mo

in st n

CEU eTD Collection for re candidate was He party’s 7%. by his first the See 2009.” the was losing after he round second 2004 the in In comeback PD. the of leader h 2000 In Transportation. of Ministry the again assumed he 1996 in and (PD) Party Democratic the with Parliament Romanian the to elected was year he That 1992. until held he position a Transport, of Minister appointed was 1991 in involv directly became he 1980s, the during officer marine merchant a being 64 Romanian assertive more se external a towards turn the and landscape political Romanian the of specificity the marks 2014, nowadays the until 2005 in power to rise his from fo to”. listen Romanians the of most that strength of language “the expert, security a of words the In policy. agenda security and foreign exclusive of field arrogate the in powers and control to as so field security and policy Traian with power, The power and innovations policy on effects in security defethe Romania’s hierarchies and its and policy defence and security totalizing the between relationship Romanian the Băsescu during policy security and of foreign case the Romania’s for practice and rhetoric public the signifies and traces chapter This 5.1 CHAPTER

reign policy and security discourse or, in other words, the “ the words, other in or, discourse security and policy reign “ rin Băsescu Traian Introduction Presidency s w administrations two ’s curity position. President

5

S THE becomes in the case of Romania a locus of monopolizing symbolic monopolizing of locus a Romania of case the in becomes br 4 oebr 91 hs en the been has 1951) November 4 (born

YMBOLIC

Băsescu ’s profile at ’s profileat R OMANIAN e was elected as Mayor or Bucharest and one year later he was elected elected was he later year one and Bucharest or Mayor as elected was e

’s attempts to navigate the power relations of the foreign the of relations power the navigate to attempts ’s P OWER ANDOWER THE http://www.epp.eu/party

Băsescu 64 . The main point of reference and inquiry is the the is inquiry and reference of point main The . F O The The President REIGN ANDREIGN

uses in security issues is the only language only the is issues security in uses President 169

a dsore n h fed f Romania’s of field the in discourse ial nce nce field. P RESIDENT S - a aporain f h Romanian the of appropriation ial leader ECURITY President President

- traian IAL

of Romania since 2004. After After 2004. since Romania of P - - elected to a second term term second a to elected Băsescu Băsescu OLICY A

ed in politics in 1989 and and 1989 in politics in ed managing a spectacular spectacular a managing PPROPRIATIONOF President

wave” starting starting wave”

- settin Traian in g

CEU eTD Collection power. of understanding Weberian the passed moved has follow Bourdieu that and argument thought Bourdieu’s on influence theoretical clear a had Weber Max that contention the from starts chapter The policy. security and foreign directions the over monopoly symbolic a establish to as so practices discursive of use makes leadership charismatic of typology particular a how discusses chapter the 1991), (Bourdieu capital symbolic and power symbolic of concepts the using By produced during the the of institution the by field security and policy foreign transitional the transitiona Romanian the in in domination the of towards instance pointing another by research, the of theme overarching the towards contributes the of an policy appropriation foreign discursive Romanian and institutional the of snapshot particular This practicestheand actual contributions made and in the field. framework policy foreign Union’s European the in participation Romania’s concerning over and propagandistic the between decision administration Presidency the of behaviour, policy overview security and foreign synoptic Romanian the in a factors idiosyncratic proposes endeavour analytical the chapter, this In hysteresis effect hysteresis - making processes. The main contention of the chapter is that there is a a is there that is chapter the of contention main The processes. making

and political elites, during the prolonged leadership of of leadership prolonged the during elites, political and s

and their influence on the Romanian foreign and security policy policy security and foreign Romanian the on influence their and

Băsescu provides an explanation of how the domination of the Romanian the of domination the how of explanation an provides ytrss effect hysteresis scrt aed b oe oiia proaiy further personality political one by agenda security d

administ

rations. - piitc oiy htrc f the of rhetoric policy optimistic 170 l foreign policy and security field. Therefore, security field. l foreign and policy

n te rdcin n rpouto of reproduction and production the and

Presidency - ups with the the with ups Presidency Băsescu i.e.

was gap the in ’s

CEU eTD Collection 65 strategiesand interests the of state agents. fromoriginatingas seen aregood the public and developments, defence and security r transitional order, public to Pleas struggle. power and the constitutes concomitantly in 1994:16) (Bourdieu domination symbolic of repository which the as state the legitimates discourse”, “performative a generating inter the in reflected is state” the of effect the of dimension “symbolic the Bourdieu, to According field. specific a in position their and strategies agents’ beliefs, and interests of terms in conceptualized being state the em the of state Consequently, examination Bourdieu’s symbolic of means the to violence. also action monopolizing the encompass to Weber than further goes he but territory, given a over violence of means the monopolizing sta the theorizing in Weber by inspired is Bourdieu manner. effective and permanent any in exercised be to as so legitimized be to has power of understanding as well corresponding as the element of totality the over and population.” territory definite a over violence mon the claims “successfully that institution the as 1994:3) (Bourdieu state the delineates Bourdieu Nevertheless, thestate,understanding of the as theholder of monopoly violence. over physical sees Bourdieu

The state is also defined as the “holder of the monopoly of symbolic violence.” (Bourdieu 1989:22) (Bourdieu violence.” symbolic of the monopoly of the “holder as defined stateis also The

65

Hence, Bourdieu develops Weber’s definition to highlight the the highlight to definition Weber’s develops Bourdieu Hence,

his theorization of the state as an expansion of Weber’s Weber’s of expansion an as state the of theorization his

hscl violence physical per se per

opoly of the legitimate use of physical and and physical of use legitimate the of opoly

, which is noticeably influenced by Weber, Weber, by influenced noticeably is which , 171 Ti dfnto pit t Bourdieu’s to points definition This .

ests and strategies of bureaucrats, by bureaucrats, of strategies and ests te as essentially concerned with concerned essentially as te phases its symbolic dimension, symbolic its phases eforms, foreign policy and and policy foreign eforms, i.e. symbolic symbolic

power

CEU eTD Collection (Bourdieu system).” school the through (particularly reproduction 1994:5) their over and capital of species particular in 67 66 strugglewhere in the power realityfor becomes control of struggle over a for relations 1994:4), (Bourdieu reproduction their and capital of forms other over power symbolic wh by process a is capital” “statist Gaining 1994:4). (Bourdieu them between conversion of rates the over particularly and capitals, specific different the permits over effect hysteresis the by 1994:4) (Bourdieu efficacy” symbolic 1994:4 (Bourdieu legitimacy hence and recognition acquire they as only field security and security Romanian the of practices The Romanian (CSDP) during the the and (CFSP) Policy Security and Foreign top key the European and the Union Organization, Treaty Atlantic North the to accession country’s the to given is emphasis The concerned. is policy security and foreign Romanian as far pu analytical added an offers power symbolic of understanding Bourdieu’s view, of point this From

The Administration of the the of Administration The The state is seen “as the space of play within which holders of capital (of different species) struggle struggle species) different (of capital of holders which within play of space the “as seen is state The tts capital statist

- ) Te oooiain f oe oe smoi violence symbolic over power of monopolization The 8). - related reforms and decisions, become effective in the Romanian foreign foreign Romanian the in effective become decisions, and reforms related

fo Presidency r power over the state, state, the over power r rchase in the research of the changes in the decision the in changes the of research the in rchase

in the Romanian foreign and security policy field, field, policy security and foreign Romanian the in

67

Bude 19:) “tts cptl i a for a is capital” “Statist 1994:4). (Bourdieu

President to exert symbolic violence over the diverse fields and overand diversethe fields violence over the exert symbolic to ics that encompass an adaptation to NATO, the the NATO, to adaptation an encompass that ics

President

Presidency of Romania, Romania, of i.e.

over the statist capital granting power over the different different the over power granting capital statist the over

Traian Traian 172 http://www. ich the institution of the of institution the ich 66

, namely to to namely ,

President Common Security and Defence Policy Defence and Security Common Băsescu Presidency

’s administrations. control and set the agenda inagenda the set and control eoe aohr distinctive another becomes .ro/?lang=en - making process as process making President n is “particular its and o pwr that power of m i.e.

h struggle the

Common acquires CEU eTD Collection Romanian the of power symbolic the what of particularities idiosyncratic the out tease to devices heuristic as used leadership, an capital symbolic power, symbolic conceptual of a discussion from starts it steps: argumentative following the takes chapter The byengaged discourse Romanian the p socio broader a of indication an as discourse of conceptualization Bourdieusean the from lead taking analysis discourse to approach si to given is emphasis chapter, previous the with line In field. security Romanian the within relations of types certain in others than important fa agent the to speaks also chapter This pragmatic with partners,engagement external its European including Union. the a of formulation the and Romania, as such state transitional a of case secur and external focused more a of consolidation the were struggles socio national the of popularity political and position tendencies institutional monopolizing such of effect intended The legitimatemonopolization of symbolicpower (Bourdieu1989:21). the actual wouldbut it, have seen Weber as legitimateviolence, physical amassing of (Bourdieu fields different in power roe f esn ot h dfeet position different the out teasing of urpose nfcn fr o cptl n oai’ tastoa scrt fed A sociological A field. security transitional Romania’s in capital of form gnificant tr cnrbtn t a epaain s o h cran om o cptl r more are capital of forms certain why to as explanation an to contributing ctors - oiia cnet Te nnedd osqecs f uh hegemonic such of consequences unintended The context. political

944. h priuaiy f h sae s o the not is state the of particularity The 1994:4). President - structure debate, by examining the structural the examining by debate, structure 173 Presidency

.

- - political context is considered for the for considered is context political aig, hms ad taeis of strategies and themes, takings, d the typology of charismatic charismatic of typology the d

does in the field of foreign and foreign of field the in does President symbolic capital symbolic a t cnoiae the consolidate to was

within the broader broader the within

ity policy in the the in policy ity

as the most the as CEU eTD Collection transitional Romania’s security field. curre the until 2005 from rule Romanian the how on emphasis agent broader the in performativity recognizes chapter representat legitimate over struggle power a of element an or aftermath an but setting, policy institutional an or speaking person the of effect an not is itself discourse the lenses, arti Romanian socio broader power symbolic does exactly what is asked be to question the 512), By Characteristics 5.2 gap the of between illustrations as serving integrations, CSDP the and CFSP the NATO, security and foreign the Romanian’s and of implications themes practical discursive principal the of analysis cursory a proposes chapter agenda of concentration in dynamics institutional the to given hegemonic being attention a special making, security of and policy foreign of establishment case the in discourse the to lead that factor contextual identi the with continues chapter the policy; security paraphrasing Guzzini’s“What (Guzzinidoes “power” interrogation paraphrasing do?” 508 2005: h Romanian The President os ht eoe medd n n ntttoa srcue Hr, the Here, structure. institutional an in embedded become that ions culations of foreign and security policy. Seen through social discursive discursive social through Seen policy. security and foreign of culations - oiia cnet f ersnain ad ple t te ae f the of case the to applied and representations of context political

ial rhetoric and and andial rhetoric external security practice. President - etn pwr n h hns f the of hands the in power setting nt moment, has employed diverse strategies to shape to strategies diverse employed has moment, nt

Presidency Smoi Pwr n is Idiosyncratic its and Power Symbolic ’

174

h Rmna eeuie ht le that executive Romanian the

, starting from from starting , fication of the main structural and structural main the of fication - tutr dbt, ih an with debate, structure oiy n h cnet of context the in policy Băsescu President

s lcin and election ’s do ; lastly, the the lastly, ; President

ihn the within t a to d ial - CEU eTD Collection andbureaucraticpolitical support” electoral, of nucleus strong a had always has he because policy security of matters expert security a As bureaucracy. state the of control the and practices politicization through policy, security transitional h a of chapter performative offers a The of interpretation symbolic power an effective as use of embodiment authoritative an symbolic value. of functions and prestige, honour, recognition, understoo be recognized the specific powerunder symbolic and functioning logicis to of distinction, a as Bourdieu by seen 72), 1991: (Bourdieu capital Symbolic order. power a of end purpose the serves violence symbolic respect, this In entail. they relations power the obfuscating particular thus the and natural in seem interpretations such rooted making context, deeply the of is understandings reading Bourdieusean a in power Symbolic thediscourse authority.of of 75 1991: (Bourdieu efficiency symbolic the delineating authority of markers such all charisma, leader’s the possessed, competences linguistic the authority, of holder a the without power symbolic 75 1991: (Bourdieu power of a symbolism as thing such no is there Bourdieu, to According toiy aeilzd n h isiuinl ou o atoiy te fiilzto o the of officialization the authority, of locus institutional the in materialized uthority egemonic sphere of influence by the Romanian the by influence of sphere egemonic of trickling down such interpretations to those who are on the receiving the on are who those to interpretations such down trickling of a te yblc eore aalbe o n co o te ai of basis the on actor an to available resources symbolic the as d

(Bucharest,May 2011) stated - 175 76), meaning with this the characteristics of of characteristics the this with meaning 76), , “ , Băsescu

has credibility with the public in public the with credibility has Presidency .

over the field of the of field the over - 76) CEU eTD Collection NATOmem and EU an as duties its and field security the in better risks and challenges emerging the to tackle able be to as so instruments, and objectives policy security and foreign th comprised implications and policy institutional structural Such East. Middle the and East the with engagement its with particularly and partners, transatlantic and European the with int an prompted has process integration EU the chapter, historical the in out pointed as Furthermore, at tendencies home “ official, senior interviewed polit internal of matters in notoriety and popularity electoral goal end The context. geopolitical regional the in policy security and foreign Romanian assertive an regarding power symbolic and charisma the of role central the highlights examination The belong again” to longing its quenched finally it that meant Romania for Europe to return poli security and foreign of formulator and NATO in the support, dom the within authority and by made such moves aim of The

(Bucharest, May(Bucharest, 2011) President e necessitye and rethinkRomania’s constantly assess,adjust, strategic to the ricate and polyvalent array of implications for Romania in its relation its in Romania for implications of array polyvalent and ricate ber state. ber EU . ”

(Bucharest, May 2011) ’s

aspiring to become the sole mediator of Romania’s integration Romania’s of mediator sole the become to aspiring

oeg ad euiy rmwr ad i priua, h main the particular, in and, framework security and foreign

Băsescu .

si pltcl adcps n te an f popular of gain the and landscapes political estic President ’s external tantrums serve well his authoritarian his well serve tantrums external ’s y ietos A oiy fie epand “the explained, officer policy A directions. cy 176

Băsescu

Presidency

is the consolidation of legitimacy consolidation of isthe was

c. n h wrs f an of words the In ics. the consolidation of his of consolidation the

in the strategic use of use strategic the in CEU eTD Collection President The 1989). (Weber interpretation Weberian the in charisma, performativity, bolstered of charisma the Moreover, enforcer. justice of reputation his from and charisma, of institution the understanding, Bourdieusean a In believe such that po followers his and public Romanian in the that fact the is matter does What international. or Region Sea Black Wider the in voice policy security and foreign, reaffirmed President neo consolidation power the of for use agenda the and pragmatism, reform, of language the implies that strategy a is 252) 2011: (Bigo state the of power symbolic the of appropriation The a is “he idiosync summarized, official senior political interviewed transitional chaotic another As the strategies. political unconventional over and conventional through control landscape symbolic take easily to capable 2012) June stage” the on actor seasoned a than faster eye public the in tear a shed cry a media of handler skilled a thespian, born a crisis, of moments anti an of image his in reside identified traits of case the In President - baby in front of the cameras. As one interviewee ironically put it, “ it, put ironically interviewee one As cameras. the of front in baby rasies keep the public keep entertained” rasies

is eoe a rvn ad raie oc ad ersnig h dsr for desire the representing and force creative and driving a becomes Pltcl poet hv cniee hm n sue manipula astute an him considered have opponents Political .

Băsescu a Presidency

President eun cruto fgtr ntoa svn hr o a ecn f a of beacon a or hero saving national fighter, corruption genuine wers exist.

infuse its symbolic influence and agenda and influence symbolic its infuse

, from the status of the leader of the nation, from his his from nation, the of leader the of status the from , Băsescu

purposes. ’s charismatic authority, the principal idiosyncratic principal the authority, charismatic ’s President 177

(Bucharest, June 2012)

t s reeat w irrelevant is It ’s symbolic power is derived from the from derived is power symbolic ’s - orpin iiat, high a vigilante, corruption President - candym ehr h Romanian the hether - setting powers with with powers setting . -

lyr n his and player elodrama, and elodrama, Băsescu

(Bucharest, (Bucharest, o, being tor, - tic traits traits tic le in flyer - liberal

can

CEU eTD Collection vote.”, the to validate needed 50% the fell below 68 image thaof loss referendum, impeachment the in his participate not survived din Romanians he because though “even it, put interviewee one As state in affairs. involvement competent and rationalized more a need ruling of demands the because and failures numerous of face the in maintained be cannot infallibility 275 1965: (Fagen charisma leader’s in demonstrated President unstable, is authority Charismatic research. this of context the in relevant particularly is authority charismatic of notion Weberian the and power symbolic of concept Bourdieusean the between affinity conceptual The this legitimize and performance authorityey the in leadership his reinforcing and reconfirming in performative be and continuouslyperform to needs leader charismatic the generates, the of case Băsescu the in As contexts. political troubled transitional, in especially thrive, and prevail invariably will leader charismatic the 20), 1989: (Bourdieu world the of the In hisanything because of personalitypopularity” and “ observed, bitterly interviewee an regard, this In socio Romanian transitional prevailing the in change and disruption

“Romanian “Romanian symbolic struggle over the power to produce and impose the legitimate vision legitimate the impose and produce to power the over struggle symbolic

diitain ad n h pltcl pcal ta te oain context Romanian the that spectacle political the in and administrations Băsescu President t couldt in affect thelonghim run” es of the ofthe followers.es

Traian Traian y i rcn dcie n ouaiy te aua etoy f the of entropy natural the popularity, in decline recent his by Băsescu

has survived a referendum on his impeachment, after turnout turnout after impeachment, his on referendum a survived has

- 7) curn i pr bcue i iae of image his because part in occurring 276) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world 178

Băsescu

(Bucharest, June (Bucharest, 2012)

(Bucharest, June 2012) June (Bucharest,

can get away with almost almost with away get can Băsescu - - europe political context. political

tl sfee a suffered still h cs of case the . - . 19034173

68

CEU eTD Collection grea the on rely who Those events. shaping of capable indeed idiosyncratic The i Romania’s populating almost organized apparatus state and bureaucracy politicized his language, his life, of way b terms, Gramscian in possible, made is policy defence and security of field the in practices Romanian the of grasp the case, Romanian the In context, thepolitical and being linguistic market addressed. g the of rules the actor, the of authority and legitimacy of the locus as such factors, structural seated deeper towards point utterances, symbolic (Adler games” “sovereignty 1998), Wilde & Waever a such practices discursive view, of point this From intheand credibilitytheactorengaged symbolic of discursive practices. symbolic where the power isfrom exerted the legitimacyposition of institutional the to speak to capacity symbolic the in the translated be In 11). 2011: can Pouliot performativity of attribute an such power, & symbolic of explanation Bourdieusean (Adler bargaining” in advantage one’s reinforces and “i to able being suggestiveness, as 20) 2011: Pouliot performativity, & (Adler power ascribe of side performative the to describe to and power to communicability important particularly is It President n n rai hsoia hgmnc lc Gasi Fras 00 and 2000) Forgacs & (Gramsci bloc hegemonic historical organic an in y practices of hegemony (Cox 1983) and the imposition of the the of imposition the and 1983) (Cox hegemony of practices y

factors, as single individuals (Pearson & Rochester 1998: 204) are are 204) 1998: Rochester & (Pearson individuals single as factors, ial foreign and security policy decisions fall under the category of of category the under fall decisions policy security and foreign ial nternal and external nternal politics.

ps a atclr oa pit wih further which point, focal particular a mpose 179

f rom Presidency

authority and and authority “euiiig oe” (Buzan, moves” “securitizing s - isn 08, r significant or 2008), Nissen

on symbolic discursive symbolic on mn o woman) (or man t with m i te socio the in ame

authority, due authority,

President ’s - CEU eTD Collection 69 his to attributed governmental central structures.corruption eradication withinthe he which project, enlargement Union’s European increase to attempted Băsescu Affairs Foreign of Ministry the in Affairs European on expert senior interviewed an of opinion the to According success such athe of achievement.momentous of struggle the and cycle electoral 2004 the of end the at occurring accession EU Romanian security and foreign of implementation and formulation the state, Romanian the of field the Within Power Symbolic 5.3 propensity useand displayed to byforce country. a operand the on impact special a having important, are factors Idiosyncratic system. advisory their organize they way the and advisers of choice their to designs grand from rangingways, manyin performance policy personalities foreign impact Leader’s decision individual on emphasizemakers, of idiosyncratic therole in manipulatingfactors symbolicpower. focus that policy security of explanations other or theory,

The Romanian Romanian The Structural and Contextual Factors and the Establishment of a a of Establishment the and Factors Contextual and Structural i a oe spotr n fre lae o te eortc at (PD), Party Democratic the of leader former and supporter open an ,

ffrin n scrt plc, atclry n h dge f assertiveness of degree the on particularly policy, security and foreign of

political parties in the already strained governing coalition to capitalize on capitalize to coalition governing strained already the in parties political oiy s hrd ewe te aie ad the and cabinet the between shared is policy Presidency

h , http://www. s ouaiy n cptlz o Rmnas ucs i the in success Romania’s on capitalize and popularity is

Bcaet June (Bucharest,

Presidency 180 .ro/?lang=en

2012)

te Romanian the ,

Presidency

President President

69 cin of actions , with the the with ,

modus Traian ial

CEU eTD Collection archive/ http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtm post.”, Partyin the Democratic Social the of Adrian Nastase He replaced parliament. centre a after day the clientele”, party’s the 73 of “broadening 191) the is purpose only position party’s the of strengthening whose unpleasant one some to the lead may and that approach advoc compromises; unique that and distinctive one a of dominant politicians, by powerful, style the original realm: political the of composition the in models political of types two of existence the stresses also Bourdieu agent. the against pressed be agent the other, the reproduces continually move one And competition. and contest, contention, conflict, contestation, d himself capital, positions position symbolic further affiliations, he political and (class, …); antagonisms status, various institutional by ordered is which positions, of position 72 (PLD). Party Democratic Liberal thewith 71 http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_2&par1=3 70 expe inside same the Popescu Calin time, that at Minister Prime the by led (PL) Party Liberal the as such partners their of expense the at made were Romania, in and policy Băsescu and tutelage the ( as on further and the of authority reinforcement of locus the as performativity the of power symbolic the consolidating further at aimed were mov strategic Traian Băsescu of power in stay prolonged the in policy security and foreign country’s the n we are a of prerequisites the as stance neutral some be should “There asked, rhetorically further expert The PDL

The Democratic Liberal Party (PDL) was formed in 2007 when the Democratic Party (PD) merged merged (PD) Party Democratic the when 2007 in formed was (PDL) Party Liberal Democratic The The Constitution of Romania, The Romania, The of Constitution The The totality of the security field, understood as the field of social positions positions social of field the as understood field, security the of totality The “Calin Popescu Popescu “Calin

) 71 - - Tăriceanu Tăriceanu aig i sc a a s a t mxms piiee ad aiae a il o social of field a navigates and privileges maximise to as so way a such in takings system the by positioned is agent the whereby movement: double a by constituted is takings, . s position ’s

ot surprised…”. Thus began the first institutional and political turf wars over over wars turf political and institutional first the began Thus surprised…”. ot uig h cus of course the during the es of appropriating the Romanian foreign policy and security discourse security and policy foreign Romanian the appropriating of es cementing of his former political party PDL as the major political party political major the as PDL party political former his of cementing _calin Tăriceanu Tăriceanu - ing continually pressed up against the system and the system being continually continually being system the and system the against up pressed continually ing ih caiin oenet rpsd y i ws prvd y h country’s the by approved was him by proposed government coalition right

- taking

Presid President was sworn in as Romania’s prime minister on 29 December 2004, one one 2004, December 29 on minister prime Romania’s as in sworn was t eotd h eitne f lse oe personnel over clashes of existence the reported rt 72

ent s h laig oc i Rmnas oeg ad security and foreign Romania’s in force leading the as s in view of a basic renovation from top to bottom (Bourdieu 1991: 1991: (Bourdieu bottom to top from renovation basic a of view in s Presidency

s omr oiia party political former ’s

of country, but nothing is normal in this country. Why Why country. this in normal is nothing but country, of his

w amnsrtos Itrsigy nuh the enough, Interestingly administrations. two l/en_GB/infoBios/setimes/resource_centre/bio ,

181

susvl wti te ytm f symbolic of system the within iscursively

h Dmcai Lbrl Party Liberal Democratic the Tăriceanu and ts h aoto o an of adoption the ates Presidency

the field of discursive discursive of field the

73 .

Moreover, 70 -

and its and

CEU eTD Collection expertise tohis and navigate landscape thepolitical and ga work, practical his possesses, he capacity symbolic the in resides leader a such of 23 2002: al. et (Webb profit” of probability objective and the reproduction to refers te profit of Bourdieu hope subjective “the that when claims he representation, why, reason the precisely is This expectations. and position politician’s a to accordance in vary word actors political other by adopted In expression cabinet. the leading (PDL) Party Liberal Democratic new a of result the with Party, Liberal the from fractions disenchanted the and PD party former his between merger managinga qualities and mastermind Machiavellian Băsescu straight less were tensions Such becameworld, Romania’s theheadUngureanu of ForeignIntelligence Service. of associate close a Cioroianu, repl was and resignation his submitted the of supporter keen a also but Liberals the of R ForeignSecretary, theposition of of Mihai holder then o leader the from pressure Under disputed. 2007 during nominated be could UK and USA the to ambassadors no example for coalition, the within appointments ’s second election in 2008, with the the with 2008, in election second ’s

- 2008, and the Foreign Secretary post was as well as was post Secretary Foreign the and 2008, Tăricea te ieas te rm Minister Prime the Liberals, the f - owr i te e power new the in forward 182 nu cd y h Lbrl addt, Adrian candidate, Liberal the by aced Nvrhls, n the in Nevertheless, .

President President ă - 24). The probability of profit of probability The 24). zvan Ungureanu, a membera zvan Ungureanu,

in more symbolicin more power. rvn aan i almost his again proving and his informal informal his and nds to be adjusted to adjusted be to nds ofgrto since configuration Băsescu Tăriceanu , en of means s,

protégé political

the ,

, CEU eTD Collection comandat commander, 75 vote.”, confidence in a its toppling after 2012 May in charge took alliance (USL) Union Liberal Social dominated 74 foreign in change radical supposedly and discourses muscular for going problems, innova offers that visionary a as himself positioning Romanian the view, of point this From a waysuch legitimate. they are as seen that (Bourdieu 57), 1991: violence symbolic over hegemony and demagogy political persuasive navy Romanian the in captain sea as experience doxic and expertise his leader, as position his credentials, his possesses, he that capital charismatic the policy, security and foreign 21 1989: (Bourdieu control legitimate the over monopoly and of production the that persuasion, quality for struggle a symbolic the In power. of form a itself being than rather of power, heightens is comparison, practices by authority, covert/indirect Charismatic coercion. or or overt/direct domination, through world the of relationalSymbolic power is a construed impositionas will ones of understanding and penchant spot antagonizingfor potential and foreign predictability,the unityand of those are policysecurity mature and coherent a for prerequisite the While activity. diplomatic hi discredit discursively to as so infantile” kitten, childlike, Ponta Victor Minister of instance Another

Vco Pna eaeRmnas hr rm iitr nls ta i mnh we hs et wing left his when months six than less in minister prime third Romania’s became Ponta “Victor Press release release Press - de as the imposition of systems of symbolism and meaning upon the public inpublic the upon and meaning symbolism of systems of imposition the as - nava.html http://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/politic/traian –

President http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world

President 74 rsrig o eoaoy ptes uh s “irresponsible, as such epithets derogatory to resorting ,

Băsescu

ial position ial

reminisces on his more happy and glory days as a navy navy a as days glory and happy more his on reminisces President - light 183 - taking was in relation to the current Prime current the to relation in was taking -

Băsescu President seeking seeking - europe

has been has - eram - 17776564 politica

ie ouin t mjr social major to solutions tive President us no cin h symbol the action into puts 75 - mai . These are coupled by his his by coupled are These .

- exceptionally effective in effective exceptionally fericit l rivals.

i hs xenl and external his in m

has shown a blatant a shown has - pe -

vremea

predecessor predecessor - cand - 22) of 22) - eram ic - -

CEU eTD Collection and fears frustrations. Cold lingering the and conflicts, frozen the and Russia to vicinity its periphery, class political the such of advocate interviewe an 2011) May (Bucharest, NATO”, of guaranteed security the su values pragmatic for exchanged be cannot end “Such campaigns. electoral his both during rhetoric “saviour Romanian The domination,independence collectivefrom and individual and efficacy. rights, human dignity, human respect, honesty, freedom, equality, peace, as such pensioner self nation’ the of ‘father Ceausescu’s to back look just saviour, leader the of myth the reinforced always has “Romania professional, security interviewed an by noted As theemergence,outoffacilitated societalcrises, of so a post transitional situation the chapter, historical on the in based out pointed changes was it organizational As values. ideological and social significant induced and context, str social ofconditions structural under effective more were employed strategies discursive Such making. security and policy - proclaimed role and and role proclaimed - of

- image” the - - od a cnet n te ie socio dire the and context War Cold ain tp o eetrl icus o anti of discourse electoral of type nation” President

Realpolitik Bcaet Jn 2012) June (Bucharest, hrd iw eadn Rmnas oaie euiy t Europe’s at security volatile Romania’s regarding view shared

. In respect to the last issue, the issue, last the to respect In .

President President Traian Traian

type of thinking, capitalizing on the public opinion public the on capitalizing thinking, of type

Bă sescu lec’ ptraitc ednis n benign and tendencies paternalistic Iliescu’s ess, transition, an transition,ess, 184 Ielgcl iin ebae end embrace visions Ideological .

o te ers f oain wt the with Romanians of hearts the won ch as wealth, economic security, and and security, economic wealth, as ch - called “national saviour”. - expert d d crisis in crisis d values are self are values - oiia s political President - orpin n justice and corruption Romania’s political Romania’s

ogaty noted poignantly eil conditions pecial has been a keen a been has

- sufficient and sufficient - values -

War War and

CEU eTD Collection ally. Presidency author decision the in transparency of lack the by triggered not and members, was concern coalition for cause The States. United the to relation privileged the the endangering among reputation Romania’s on a divergences, internal political of proof a be to considered was episode the and on, moment that from blocked was matter the on debate any Surprisingly, inpresence Romanian Iraq. Romanian The vehe allies. the of presence the in or Parliament, t within discussed not was possib this though Prime even Iraq, in Romanian troops Romanian the the of return the 2007, announced In Iraq. in troops maintaining Prime Romanian the between study interesting An further prove have may coalition the in participation Romanian the war Iraqi the of line drawing when neglected were debates partn democratic European or legitimacy legal external where alignment, of type certain a towards inclination particular Romania’s proved willing” Wha

i mr, h itniy f oai’ priiain n h Ia caiin o the “of coalition Iraq the in participation Romania’s of intensity the more, is t ety eetd hs oiin n te ST eie te aneac o the of maintenance the decided CSAT the and position this rejected mently n tra bokn o ay eortc eae r icsin y h Romanian the by discussion or debate democratic any of blocking itarian damaging it in tef o e n h dtiet f oai’ cmimn t te SP and CSDP the to commitment Romania’s of detriment the in be to itself , but it centred on the fear of endangering Romania’s credibility as an US an as credibility Romania’s endangering of fear the on centred it but , ers called for it. There still remains the question that at the political the at that question the remains still There it. for called ers - case is offered by the 2007 foreign and security policy turf war turf policy security and foreign 2007 the by offered is case s with Russia. relations e onr’ Scrt ad eec Cucl CA) the (CSAT), Council Defence and Security Country’s he

-

Minister at the time the at Minister 185

Tăriceanu Tăriceanu - aig rcs, o the nor process, making and the and - Minist President

President also er er

black stain black

Tăriceanu

Băsescu possibly

over ility

CEU eTD Collection defence policy in 2012, including getting the eastern partners involved in the European crisis crisis European the in involved partners eastern the getting including Security system.”, management Common 2012, the in of policy part important as defence Union most European the the 2011 result coherent, more a for of initiatives the support to haveset in We Policy. Defence missions became civilian “Romania the (2011): to Bucharest contributor in accredited corps diplomatic 76 missions CSDP the concerning made advancement discourse, the of orientation Atlanticist overbearing the despite enough, Ironically Europeanist orientation. more a of detriment the in and partnership strategic US committed a for preference held poi increasingly became agenda security Roman the over control parliamentary of important lack the of severalproblem The actors. political between setting agenda defence and security for competition espe is event political This or 2011 until soil whichever time. Iraqi from withdraws soldier American last the until member a remainto commitment the and the coalition in position Romanian the of consolidation to was move next The abroad. reserving by country, the of agenda policy defence and security the setting in powers executive his extended has particular, in institution the and forces the that noted be to has It position. decis the more even bolster to proved event The

rs release, Press o mkr n dsrdtd n waee te Prime the weakened and discredited and maker ion B ăsescu President President

http://mpviena.mae.ro/en/romania a awy aporae, t ah potnt, h Romanian the opportunity, each at appropriated, always has

Băsescu of t of

he Country’s Security and Defence Council, through this through Council, Defence and Security Country’s he ily neetn a a eape f oriuen turf Bourdieusean of example an as interesting cially

’s speech at an annual meeting on Thursday with chiefs of of chiefs with Thursday on meeting annual an at speech ’s ofr i 20, fe a ST eiin the decision, CSAT a after 2008, in confirm President 186 gnant during the the during gnant

President a te omne o te national the of commander the as , - news/1279 exclusive ’s internal credibility as a tough a as credibility internal ’s 76 Nvrhls, h constant the Nevertheless, .

President -

Minister’s power to send troops send to power - oriented security and and security oriented

Băsescu President institutional institutional ’s

long

and and ian ial -

CEU eTD Collection http://www.mapn.ro/public 77 continuous and coherent a of and foreign Romanian security articulator policy. sole the as position its consolidated set institutional impera et divide EU the the processes, integration and NATO during developments reform the appropriating rhetorically By the and production its of locus the audience/sym between interplay the without nothing is 239), 1991: (Bourdieu violence” symbolic legitimate of monopoly “the holds that agent security state delegated the speaking broadly more or terms, Bourdieusean the of holder The politicization. of version extreme an as securitization it, presenting envisage straight as not is practice security and foreign The Polic 5.4 duplicationrisk to the NATO of framework Romanian the of office the again, ident its asserting EU the of process the in development important an as with dealt been has CSDP the level, political a at Moreover, point. reference the being crisis Balkan the here EU, the to directed were which in conditions the in NATO, to product complementary a is Policy Defence and Security Common the that remained

e Ifsea Te euiy tde ad eec Ifrain eiw 2 Review, Information Defence and Studies Security The Infosfera, See Principal Discursive Themes for Branding Romania’s Foreign and Security Security and Foreign Romania’s Branding for Themes Discursive Principal y

bolicon which market isdelivered.the discourse - p n h case the in up ,

a poie fo te somew the from profited has atii/2011/infosfera6.pdf i.e. President

the transformation of an issue into a security problem or problem security a into issue an of transformation the

f oeg ad euiy policy. security and foreign of Presidency

ial fractious, yet charismatic and populist style of of style populist and charismatic yet fractious, ial NATO has always responded first to calls which calls to first responded always has NATO

t o te nentoa see yt tm and time yet, scene, international the on ity

187

77 .

stressed the risks of emphasising the emphasising of risks the stressed - forward as discursive approaches discursive as forward a famne ad transitional and fragmented hat

nd h Presidency The

year, no.2/2010, no.2/2010, year, skeptr on , in , CEU eTD Collection Strategy, strategia Security European 78 indirect the security on both impact EU’s Romania’s and thelong in interests and direct potential a having and conflicts regional potential as identified froze the and Region. Transnistria Sea include theBlack Security should European Strategy (2003) 2013) with relation Romania’s is Rus focus, policy and priorities strategic of terms in input the analysing while upon drawing worth is which fact, particular One ofthe Russian presence. because non general and forbearance EU’s the regarding critical being and borders, eastern EU’s the at risks potential the about awareness raising framework, Union European broader the within formulator the in block building a the of also construction been has theme The articulations. policy security in trope discursive a become have Moldova in developments Eastern immediate neighbour the in policy security and foreign EU’s the and Romania’s to given being attention special with framework, institutional Union European the within Under

Press release Press sia. The The sia. 78 - President

de stressed the fact that Romania advocated in the European Council that the that Council European the in advocated Romania that fact the stressed - od Te ois f h Tasitin rzn ofit n te political the and conflict frozen Transnistrian the of topics The hood. securitate President – co n

President

Băsescu -

maritima fit t h bres f h E were EU the of borders the at nflict Presi s elrto o te oi o mrtm scrt (December, security maritime of topic the on declaration ’s

Băsescu dent - ’s

a -

http://www.zf.ro/politica/ ue diitain, oai prud rae integration broader pursued Romania administrations, - s yblc aia, s freu cnedr n policy and contender forceful a as capital, symbolic ’s c

-

ommittal stance in the Eastern neighbourhood, partly neighbourhood, Eastern the in stance ommittal 11804161 stressed that the Black Sea region needs to be introduced in the the in introduced be to needs region Sea Black the that stressed

188

Băsescu - marea

mn toe situations those among - neagra Băsescu - - trebuie run. run. ’s foreign and foreign ’s

President - introdusa - ial in - CEU eTD Collection declaratie http://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/politic/ 81 80 http://www. Missions Diplomatic 79 gen of stage the the assimilating of stage the from passing the marked had 2007 year The Eastern Neighborhood the and energy security. in relations security and external of field the in especially Union, the within policies Presidency The affirmation. regional to Romania of chance sought the being EU the in region position its of terms in choice clear Romania’s of priorities basic and foreign the of one represented has region Sea Black The inMoldova’s integration theEuropeanUnion” Romanian a of dreams nationalistic popular fuel to meant are and integration EU Moldova’s of facilitator main the as him Union” Eurasian the not a sovereignty, and security country’s succeed assuringthe in not does it Moldova Republic of offerto if the political a make EU the in integration future Moldova’s of Republic the to effects disruptive th towards impassive politically remain the Also, Romania. for priority security top President the of Meeting Annual the At

Press Ibidem rs release Press - release, release,

- la Presidency

- pinpointed Romania’s strategic priorities, ranking the East of Europe as a as Europe of East the ranking priorities, strategic Romania’s pinpointed adresa

security omltd ambitio formulated President – the erating - the Romanian of Office , The romaniei.html The The .ro/?_RID=det&tb=date&id=13875&_PRID=s

policy, according to the to according policy, President

Băsescu

80 Băsescu . The The .

acquis

’s discourse at Annual Meeting of the Heads of the Romanian Romanian the of Heads the of Meeting Annual at discourse ’s s quote on the R the on quote s

us President - ed o te oain ilmtc Missions Diplomatic Romanian the of Heads ii -

raspunde

and constructing a political Union. Union. political a constructing and aim in the Black Sea: the promotion of the Black Sea Black the of promotion the Sea: Black the in

country that is European, a part of Europe and Europe of part a European, is that country - s Mol

t setn te count the asserting at 189 Presidency ’s declarations concerning Moldova position Moldova concerning declarations ’s - Tasiti cnlc ad t potential its and conflict Transnistria e vicepre oa ruin “a Gd ep s with us help God “May reunion, dovan epublic of Moldova’s EU integration, integration, EU Moldova’s of epublic President

Presidency 81

the the President declared

mierului

(15 January 2014), 2014), January (15

declared that Romania cannot Romania that declared - rus with faced being Romania ,

- el - cum y s gnrtr of generator a as ry - se - trezeste Of course, such course, Of .

- face – acquis

“We will “We 79 - o the , -

to a CEU eTD Collection http://www.mae.ro/index.php?lang=en 83 Affairs.”, Strategic for State of Secretary is he 2012 June Since Affairs. Global Between for State of Secretary was he 2012 June Directorate. and March 2 Policies Security February the and coordinating also 2010 Affairs, European August for Between State of 2009. Secretary February 4 on Affairs Foreign of Ministry 82 a is Region Sea Black the of security the that spectrum political the across belief As duplication.risks of security and stabilization of effort the in NATO and EU the both involving by region, the in cooperation towards position pragmatic a in expressed un ideological The imperatives. security soft and security hard both reflecting Aurescu, to according principles: Rom The the and regionalization the both be met. for to have still that criteria stability and security happen, to region the of internationalization emphasized has Romania Region Sea Black the in cooperation regional to importance the of another Aurescu Bogdan Affairs, Strategic of SecretaryState Romanian the of words the In securityand and strategists twothis that seemed two a playing of challenge a as spelled was approach an

“A career diplomat, Bogdan Aurescu was appointed Secretary of State for Strategic Affairs in the the in Affairs Strategic for State of Secretary appointed was Aurescu Bogdan diplomat, career “A Meeting of High Level Expert Group of the BLACKSEAFOR, Bucharest, 28.09.2009, 28.09.2009, Bucharest, BLACKSEAFOR, the of Group Expert Level High of Meeting far as the Romanian political scene has been concerned, there has been a shared a there concerned, been been has Romanian scenehas political the as far

na Sae ertr hs ipitd he iprat rtra r guiding or criteria important three pinpointed has Secretary State anian effectiveness policy. epnig f oai’ frin n scrt oinain was orientation security and foreign Romania’s of derpinning President the

President

- tiered approach best fitted the mind the best fitted approach tiered http://www.mae.ro/en/node/2028 , s prized ’s complementarity

Băsescu

protégés ’s pragmatic formulation of Romania’s foreign Romania’s of formulation pragmatic ’s 190 and , Rmna a awy atce a great a attached always has Romania ,

inclusiveness

- - hands security game, but is but game, security hands frame of Romanian security of Romanian frame 83 , but at the same time same the at but ,

- – building without the without building

hs principles, these 012 he was was he 012 82 , CEU eTD Collection n its conclude nu not will Moldova of http://www.mediafax.ro/politic/ Republic the conflict, 86 Republic. Moldavian the Pridnestrovian of name the under sovereignty and autonomy right to 85 281173.html europene http://m.romanialibera.ro/actualitate/politica/traian priorities. strategic without clear region, “tool policy EU’s foreign criticizing the time same the while at Neighbourhood, Eastern 84 as Moreover, Russia. ostracizing without options, policy hard and soft of number a employ can that broker” to due conflict, the in involvement EU proactive more the to accordance in Actually, to theresolutioncontribute ofthe Transnistria conflict Euro the of prospect Moldov of Republic the assisted and encouraged conflict view, of point this From theeconomic of reg potential this policy. security and aware quite been always has executive Romanian the foreign that noted be to is it However, of formulations diplomatic and sophisticated more a preferring some with forces, political internal the for discussion under remain achieved be to is strategy 2011) May (Bucharest, inte an As market. energy the of terms in prospective economic an and priority top strategic

Transnistria is a separatist or breakaway territory situated in the Eastern part of Moldova claiming Moldova of part Eastern the in situated territory breakaway or separatist a is Transnistria Press release release Press Press release release Press - va - incheia 85 vee pitd u, W ms lo t te at o pois n energy in profits for East the to look must “We out, pointed rviewee - nu

has always been a Romanian security concern. concern. security Romanian a been always has

-

- se negocierile - pot – -

President President - opri

- - la - Atlantic integration and he has spared no declaratory efforts to efforts declaratory no spared has he and integration Atlantic pentru - President granita

Băsescu Băsescu Realpolitik

Băsescu Moldova’s security conundrum with the Transnistria frozen Transnistria the with conundrum security Moldova’s eetees te en t means the Nevertheless, -

ue - de - 11129487

President

-

stresses the fact that without the resolution of the Transnistrian Transnistrian the of resolution the without that fact the stresses

est - addresses the clear economic and energetic advantages in the the in advantages energetic and economic clear the addresses Traian Traian fara has to interms of offer businession incentives -

a prah f h hawkish the of approach - - rezolvarea romaniei

Băsescu ’s vision, Romania has always enc always has Romania vision, ’s - 191 Băs -

citeste escu - con

- flictului pointed out, a hands a out, pointed a on its way toward the EU and the and EU the toward way its on a la - discursul - congresul egotiations with the European Union, Union, European the with egotiations 86 . hrough - transnistrean

the - integral - ppe

Us tts f “honest of status EU’s President hc te Romanian the which Băsescu - proiectele - al - republica - presedintelui - on NATO on - box” used in the in the used box”

ial style over over style ial - energetice a always has - ouraged a ouraged moldova

- 84 - . EU - -

its its . - ”

CEU eTD Collection (2008), 87 sh Iranian from members Administration, Obama the by Europe in plans defence missile the revamping of discussions The human and werestake. rights at freedoms whose principle, protect” to “responsibility the of claim the Russian defend to response humanitarian a Moscowcountries. theargument advanced its that Crimeamilitary was in intervention Russian protect to right legitimate Russia’s reiterated Crisis Crimean the that ironic quite is It Ishould Ossetia and, Abkhazia” dare say in it, happene what is This (...) minorities the of rights collective the of name the in dismantled are this), opposed terr and sovereignty national regarding opinions stark his to points 20, August on Chisinau by expressed clearly territory, Transnistrian breakaway post position Romanian the Nevertheless, inconflict. spurring this to crucial resolution O

C eggmn wt Rmna lyn a important an playing Romania with engagement SCE Press release, Romanian Romanian release, Press http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008 itorial integrity, itorial wt Ksv (.) n te hns oehdw smlr ieto i South in direction similar a foreshadow things the and (...) Kosovo with d Băsescu i.e.

the SM the o rtc Rsin minor Russian protect to similar

i.e.

President ttd ..t rsn, oeeg ad needn countries independent and sovereign present, “...At stated ort

-

by referring to the Kosovo independence case (Romania case independence Kosovo the to referring by 3 int 3 arguments have indeed been recently used by Russia in Russia by used recently been indeed have arguments -

and medium and

erceptor configuration configuration erceptor : Kosovo issue foreshadows similar direction in South Ossetia Ossetia South in direction similar foreshadows issue Kosovo : - 08/21/content_9563328.htm 192 - range missiles missiles range -

eri wr eadn te tts f the of status the regarding war Georgia

speaking minorities in the region under region the in minorities speaking ities 87 .

. Russian Russian . - speaking minorities in satellite in minorities speaking intended President –

mediating the Romanian Romanian the President

to protect all the EU the all protect to

Traian Traian

ldmr Putin Vladimir oe ol be could role Băsescu President

in , CEU eTD Collection Băsescu .”, added diplomacy the Russian of director deputy the of representative the basis’ any the lacking and incorrect consider we attacks ‘Such stated release press a in issue’ Transdniester the of solution Depa viable and solid a for plead 90 for Georgia.”, in office Chairman OSCE Chairman OSCE as served s Geoana Mircea 2004, diplomatic to Romanian 2000 From the corps. in ambassador youngest the was he 1996, February in 37, age at America of States United the to Romania of Plenipotentiary and Extraordinary Ambassador Appointed activity. the su a had Geoana Mircea incareer, political his to Previous ballot. casted the of 49.6% member and Senate Romanian Presidency the in Committee Inte Relations European Foreign the of Chairman the Social Romanian the of Chairman the 89 http://www.ziare.com/ attack, a hypothetical of case the in Romanian the entire 88 President pote the and decision a such by Party Democratic Social the parties, oppositional the major of one of leader former the and Romanian Senate, the of head Mircea hand, other the On we[presumablyterms] that security have” in Băsescu Romania, to advantages security important bringing d was support Atlanticist geopolitical the of regional consolidation This European configuration. Eastern the of configuration power the reflected system defence missile the regarding worries the Actually, Romania. of ally security Atalanticist and decision fundamental heard been have voices political several Nevertheless, a host territory on base its to (February,2010). Traian

Press release release Press “ “ Mircea Geoana was the was Geoana Mircea ‘Traian ‘Traian rtment of Information and Press in the Russian ministry of foreign affairs, Maria Zaharova, quoted quoted Zaharova, Maria affairs, foreign of ministry Russian the in Press and Information of rtment - Băsescu regarding

Băsescu

of Romania in 2009. In an unprecedented narrow and contested election, he received received he election, contested and narrow unprecedented an In 2009. in Romania of Băsescu post first the in gration Joint Committee of the Romanian Parliament. Mircea Geoana ran for the the for ran Geoana Mircea Parliament. Romanian the of Committee Joint gration –

President - , presented the decision of the Country’s Supreme Defence Council Defence Supreme Country’s the of decision the presented , the

usind epcal, h sneiy f h ofca Rsin ersnaie who representatives Russian official the of sincerity the especially, questioned, Băsescu

- , the shield is not meant to be “ be to meant not is shield the , transdniester -

President in Băsescu /presedinte/romania - Office in 2001 and during 2005 he was the was he 2005 during and 2001 in Office http://actmedia.eu/daily/moscow

Geoana - eiin rs dcaain “t s h bget gain biggest the is “It declaration, press decision -

conflict/47206

-

underlines the fact that the anti the that fact the underlines Democratic Party (PSD) between 2005 and 2010. Prior, 2010. and 2005 between (PSD) Party Democratic ntial of antagonizing Russia antagonizing of ntial of the Romanian Senate since December 2008 and served as served and 2008 December since Senate Romanian the of http://www.nato 89

, a former Romanian foreign minister, the former former the minister, foreign Romanian former a , (PSD) erved as Minister of Foreign Affairs of Affairs Foreign of Minister as erved - retd oe o s to move oriented 193 - va

, has drawn attention to the risks implied risks the to attention drawn has ,

- 88 gazdui - . pa.int/default.asp?SHORTCUT=2582

- scutul against - surprised i.e - . as mentioned by mentioned as . antiracheta - t h time the at missiles shield is able to protect protect to able is shield missiles

90 pot h ms reliable most the upport Russia”, then why was it was why then Russia”, - . If indeed, according to according indeed, If . by

personal representative of representative personal - the - susvl sl as sold iscursively american - statements diplomatic ccessful Romania. He also also He Romania. regarding this this regarding - 992765 President - of

he was was he - traian

-

CEU eTD Collection protv http://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/politic/discursul a short is not Moldova with 91 domestic, electoral audience. tongue and outbursts rhetorical poli the of inferences political and communicational the to left be to much is there space, Soviet the and President provider security regional a as seriously taken be to desire the Between regional and feasibility practical their and neighbourhood Eastern the in strategies interventionist strong a such of out President emerging questions obvious The region. Sea Black the in conflicts protracted the considering especially interventionism, preventive influenced ty This orientation. Atlanticist stark country’s the and trademark, security and policy foreign Romania’s as Sea Black the in protection security of reinforcement the Region, Sea Black the in security and the chief in identified Two be can US. concepts the and EU, the Russia, between interests Eastern and Western pride” th Actually, defensive and justificatory emphasized and in place. the discourse first public a such make to necessary

Traian cy engagement and its sophisticatedly moderate policy outputs, the the outputs, policy moderate sophisticatedly its and engagement cy - news.html 91 President fseig h iae f einl edr n boe a te ofune of confluence the at broker and leader regional of image the fostering , Băsescu ’s rhetoric falling in line with US or NATO expansionist interests in the post the in interests expansionist NATO or US with line in falling rhetoric ’s to related are stance rhetorical ial e - level implementation. level implementation.

President ’s ’s security policy. Compared to the EU’s Eastern foreign and security and foreign Eastern EU’s the to Compared policy. security ’s discourse for the 1 the for discourse

- term ideal”, but a matter of national pride, pride, national of ideal”, a matter but term

a awy be a im rmtr f oain “national Romanian of promoter firm a been always has

- st lui -

in of December Romanian National Day stated that “the reunion reunion “the that stated Day National Romanian December of - President

traian - he lnug ae utie mr twrs a towards more curtailed are language cheek e f htrc s lal rdln o American of redolent clearly is rhetoric of pe - Băsescu 194 a htrc te dacmn o stability of advancement the rhetoric: ial

h ata lgtmt atoiy f such of authority legitimate actual the - de - ziua - nationala

- a - romaniei - Presidency acum - live - ’s - - CEU eTD Collection 92 Eastern political and popularityposition br withinthe its in policy security and goa end as having Neighbourhood, foreign Romanian assertive an to regards the of role central interest strategic the and security issues of terms in position Atlanticist clear the first identified, were policy the by influenced directions, essential Romani in hegemony for struggle which representations, collective various the shape to power performative the as that fact the highlighted chapter The 5.5 b coupled vulnerabilities generalized nation economic social, structural internal deep towards authoritarian appealof the Furthermore, practice. in feasibility the between mismatch endemic re field, security and foreign Romania’s in hysteresis of state generalized politics identity authoritarian and nationalistic for appetite voters’ the stimulating of terms the bolster to meant are tendencies discursive Such

President Traian Băsescu’s foreign policy, policy, foreign Băsescu’s Traian President Conclusion 92 Te above The .

Presidency -

wide identity wide

in the Black Sea Region. Such an examination highlighted the highlighted examination an Such Region. Sea Black the in - etoe tnece udrie nte isac o the of instance another underline tendencies mentioned

in the strategic use of charisma and symbolic power as as power symbolic and charisma of use strategic the in

- search. a’s transitional foreign policy and security field. Two field. security and policy foreign transitional a’s Presidency l the consolidation of the of consolidation the l http://www.cadranpolitic.ro/?p=2529 Romanian the Presidency

195 oader sociooader

s htrcl upt ad hi actual their and outputs rhetorical ’s

in Romania’s foreign and security and foreign Romania’s in Presidency Presidency - political context.political Presidency - oriented

used symbolic power symbolic used ’s symbolic power in power symbolic

rhetoric points rhetoric ’s institutional institutional ’s

flecting an flecting a y CEU eTD Collection states, member EU new European Eastern and Central on focusing of choice The milieu. international the in actors order second or marginal iss specific many on influence political raw allowed aim or their to states beyond stated European power andEastern military Central have structure institutional EU’s the and framework cooperative NATO’s Europe. trans democratic strenuous the and the era on exactly more configurations, i historical and contingencies security regional specific on dependent defenc and security competitive to createattempts modest thebipolarityThe to ones specific era. Cold traditional War the to dissimilar risks, security of types new forth brought War Cold the of end The weaponsof mas proliferation the to conflicts and instabilities regional from ranging concerns, security new emerging of array an by question into put was imperialism” “democratic War Eastern milit European the of processes renewal radical galvanized defence and security Debates about Europe. Eastern and Central in transformed radically and unmistakably beenhas the Cold War of the end after securitylandscape institutional European The 6.1 Introduction CHAPTER

H UNGARYAND aries and defence industries and markets. Nevertheless, the post the Nevertheless, markets. and industries defence and aries

6 s destruction, asymmetrics destruction, warfare, and terrorism.

T HE P OST P rregularities (Lecors 2000: (Lecors rregularities OLAND

- e sectors in Central and Eastern Europe were directlywere Europe and Eastern Central in sectors e C OLD – ues, even though they may be still considered considered still be may they though even ues, W

A 196 AR

C to poess nodn i ti pr of part this in unfolding processes ition

OMPARATIVE S ECURITY

514) specific to the Cold War War Cold the to specific 514) T i.e RANSFORMATIONOF P . Hungary, and Poland, is Poland, and Hungary, . ERSPECTIVE

- Cold CEU eTD Collection 93 the new one. s the tracing wall,byBerlin the of the fall after sectorssecurity their within dynamics reform the of sense made states member EU newer two the how of explanation an offers case the in mitigated were tensions reform which in ways the illustrating of terms in tool of concept Bourdieu’s Warsaw the of conclusion the after states such of contexts transitional the plagued have that them of lack or choices policy in tensions and 2008) Papacosma & (Heiss dissent their EU the to contrasted is securitytransformation sector Poland’s Hungary’sand Consequently, interestsin their and theBlack Sea area. Vi the to affiliation their concerning wellas as EU; the and NATO both in accession earlier their to due the environment security influencing regional actors security different as relations their determining of terms in proximity geopolitical regional Romania’s prone; reform defence and security their makes vision strategic their shaping post the within argumen analytical several by for accounted

See The Visegrad Group, Group, Visegrad The See tructural discrepancies and difficulties between the previous political context and context political previous the between difficulties and discrepancies tructural security transition process. This chapter seeks to address the potential internal potential the address to seeks chapter This process. transition security f h scrt fed’ rniinl tgs post stages transitional fields’ security the of ’s

Pact Pact and NATO and

(Bischof - omns pltcl etn ad h ifune f AO n primarily in NATO of influence the and setting political communist

’s

, influences so as to trace and signify instances of of instances signify and trace to as so influences hysteresis Karner http://www.visegradgroup.eu/

& Ruggenthaler

(Bourdieu 1990,) will serve as a guiding analytical analytical guiding a as serve will 1990,) (Bourdieu 197

ts. The lack of strong military traditions traditions military strong of lack The ts.

2009)

to Hungary and Poland is important is Poland and Hungary to segrad Group segrad - odWr The War. Cold .

93 , Russia’s proximity, Russia’s , ytrss effect hysteresis hysteresis hysteresis

in

CEU eTD Collection security the open and networked more The members. its withinorthodoxy communist and states communist European Eastern and Central eight among framework defence collective the as served 1989) (Faringdon Pact Warsaw the War, Cold the of end the Before theythe security after of reforms the experienced dissolution Warsaw Pact. sub security their on predominantly falls focus the countries, adaptational these by the experienced reform or on inertia of levels the light and above mentioned dynamics further shed To Poland. and Hungary by set example cert a to impacted being trajectory transitional its game, reform late a was Romania view, of point this From EU an and 2004 in NATO state in member 2007 of part become Romania while 2004, in EU the and Bloc Eastern the of integration Atlantic Euro the spearheading their as well as Pact Warsaw the in Romania, with along membership, former their by for accounted is Hungary and Poland for choice The regional h the of image common the and pressures; external and reforms, points, juncture critical post configurati post particular the by: followswhat in for accounted are Romania of case the to compared cross or variation of degrees The - - omns isiuinl eais f ah onr; h psil tmoa and temporal possible the country; each of legacies institutional communist security War Cold on; the social, political, cultural and economic profile of each country; the country; each of profile economic and cultural political, social, the on; its overarching goal was to contain NATO in Europe and to safeguard the safeguard to and Europe in NATO contain to was goal overarching its egemon,vicinity. andits Russia,

status

- quo - ae iiaiy ewe Hnay n Pln as Poland and Hungary between similarity case

n eta Esen uoen einl security regional European Eastern Central in – 198

Hungary and Poland j Poland and Hungary

- oe i te euiy n defence and security the in comer - fields and the r the and fields oined NATO in 1999 in NATO oined i dge b the by degree ain

elevant - CEU eTD Collection 85) forces, of 94 le elements and pressures these handle states member European Eastern re to and practices and strain conditions clear not EU if the incentives clear and with requirements, NATO the and frameworks institutional the between disparity domestic a observe can one states, Bloc Eastern the of case the In security defence.of and member experienced/muscular less the to opportunities interesting creationcapacitiesThe scenarios. of the EU’s crisis management (Britz offered 2007) multi projection power agenda, projective discovered newly EU’s the with socialized more become to involved, more get to states member European Eastern and Central se have missions civilian and military CSDP The programmatic the and War that outputs shaped their national securityprocesses and reform strategies. Cold the after reform sectors security their of terms which in respon ways Poland and Hungary the to attention special pays chapter this view, of point this From toaccording doctrine democratic standards civilian and oversight. th is it likely more the influences, civilian outside to is professionals military of field defence and

Projection is seen as the basis for intervening in failed states, warring situations, rapid deployment deployment rapid situations, warring states, failed in intervening for basis the as seen is Projection

- ntuet drce a aheig euiy n saiiy n peace in stability and security achieving at directed instrument,

by using both force and rehabilitation tools. (Bigo in Dobson, Huysmas & Prokhovnik 2006: 2006: Prokhovnik & Huysmas Dobson, in (Bigo tools. rehabilitation and force both using by a at those actors will be willing to socially interact and reform their strategic their reform and interact socially to willing be will actors those at d to new institutional developments at the domestic lev domestic the at developments institutional new to d 94

hog te SP missions CSDP the through - vlae l scrt srtge. ec, h fcs s n how on is focus the Hence, strategies. security old evaluate

ded to both NATO’s and the EU’s CSDP frameworks in frameworks CSDP EU’s the and NATO’s both to ded

199

rved as one of the best platforms for platforms best the of one as rved –

expediti s to create new institutional institutional new create to s nr, utntoa and multinational onary, i.e.

potnte, what opportunities,

states in the field field the in states el, which are the the are which el, t international its

- keeping CEU eTD Collection must securityone but accommodation, and resistance countries of stages different these underwent reforms in reforms policy and institutional The making. security strug power symbolic of explicit instances fore the to brings lenses, Bourdieusean through reread states, European post The influencessecurity under NATO the standards of and theEU. the making, security in granted of for taken is case what which in the states, European Eastern in and Central hysteresis of instances fore the to bring tensions Such agendas. the natio over struggles from power and competition especially symbolic the of context, perspective security transitional within change and adaptation policy prospective offer cases two The Eastern Europe.and C in context security transitional of image comprehensive more and sharper a documents practic reconstruct By research. field intensive on based was which case, Romanian in the the from findings previous sources, the of generalizability secondary of potential of use the through evaluate, to potential the regards as Hungary and Poland of cases the of selection the view, of point this From toopen changein more whatspecific and areas in securitythe of field defence. and become states member new makes what and adaptations, these to obstacles main l oi fo scnay sources secondary from logic al - od a security War Cold used doxa

in the spirit of triangulation of thespirit in i big u it qetos y ae o rfrs n cag in change and reforms of waves by questions into put being is ,

status

ls over gles - quo

200 eti dsore ad itrcl r policy or historical and discourses certain n te rniin f eta ad Eastern and Central of transition the and -

eeat nihs ocrig tgs of stages concerning insights relevant

(Pouliot 2010: 71) (Pouliot 2010: doxic

rcie (olo 21: 3) in 235) 2010: (Pouliot practices

, the analysis can paint can analysis the , - depth analysis of the of analysis depth nal security nal is justified justified is ing the ing entral

CEU eTD Collection country each by taken steps policy important the chronologically chart to meant is it and Poland, and Hungary of reform security the in events and documents policy programmatic following The overarching Atlanticist an of development the to led it because Romania, of case the in was as paramount post field under security the in in changes 142) 2010: (Pouliot teacher a as NATO of importance The difference them. between and similarity of instances for account to and Romania besides states European Eastern and Central other two for 91) 2010: (Pouliot hysteresis of degree strug power symbolic of dimensions new highlight to is goal overall The Romania’s upon impact security reforms. its and context security European Eastern and Central broader the understand better and struggles power symbolic for potential the chart to aims chapter this framework, conceptual Bourdieu’s with along inquiry of techniques historical and inductive combining By effects i enacted been changeshave such how at look

they triggered.

in their securitytheir in policy transition. hysteresis al 6.1.1 Table

- oriented securityoriented Central andEastern in Europe. culture effects

rsns snpi oeve o te ot significant most the of overview synoptic a presents

in the cases of Hungary and Poland, with a view to to view a with Poland, and Hungary of cases the in - Cold War of the EU new member states becomes states member new EU the of War Cold 201

n practice and what type of of type what and practice n tnig the standing gle and the and gle hysteresis

CEU eTD Collection

Security and and Security Republic Bureau, Security National Government Europe Eastern and Central 95 and Eu Central Eastern security regional of thestability the in context on focused remaining time same the at while institutions, international both of part as interests security its promoting state, member EU an and ally NATO a currently is Hungary 6.2 Strategies Post National National Defence Defence

Dr. Georgeta Chirleşan, Chirleşan, Georgeta Dr. War Hungary’s postSecurity Transition -

Cold Cold Table 6.1.1Table

- of

-

Poland

– Strategy (2013) Military National Hungary’s Strategy (2012) Military National Hungary’s (2012) Strategy Security National The 1 Accession EU (2004) Strategy Security National The (2002) Strategy Security National The 12 Accession NATO (1998) Policy Defence and Security Hungarian the of Principles Basic The and Concept Principles Defence Security National The

Documents, Documents, - now

The Security ofThe Transformation Sector

- in - English.html http://en.bbn.gov.pl/en/news/332,White Romania, 110040, Piteşti, of University , Basic Elements of the Present Regional Security Environment within within Environment Security Regional Present the of Elements Basic HUNGARY st

http://www.kormany.hu/en/doc?source=2#!DocumentBrowse of May 2004 May of (1993) th

of March 1999 March of

202 - Cold

War The National Security Strategy (2003) Strategy Security National The (2001) Defence on Paper The White Strategy (2000 Defence National The (2000) Strategy Security National The 12 Accession NATO and Concept (1992) Doctrine Defence Security National The Republic of Poland (2013) Poland of Republic the of Security National on Book White The (2007) Strategy Security National The 1 Accession EU

- Hungary Book 35; Website of the Hungarian Hungarian the of Website 35; - on st - POLAND

National of May 2004 May of

and Polandand th

of March 1999 March of

-

Security

95 ; Polish Polish ; -

of

rope

) -

the - CEU eTD Collection the and debates political internal tensioned the mitigate to had Hungary time, same the At 2004. in Union European the of state member a became it and 1999, integra pursued avidly Hungary 1990s, the After join the Alliance.to Republic Czech the and Poland, Hungary, to extended being proposals membership m demonstrated countries three bloc, Centr the of out dissolution, Pact Warsaw the of wake the multi a and reforms the towards inclined and predominantly elites Bloc political Soviet the from independence wanting Hungarians of majority the peaceful Hungary’s for tone the sets it well, As country resistancethe specialthe case of a within as Pact. Warsaw marks and War Cold the during experience communist its of terms in Hungary apart in process transition the in country 2003) (Dunay successful” “most the as heralded was it and Pact Warsaw the from withdraw to country first the also was it but policy, security and foreign its of terms Hungar uprising, stifled the After killing theprocessgovernment, thousands in Hungarianof citizens. the removed and country the entered that troops Soviet the by crushed readily was Hung withdraw to declaration governmental rule Nagy’s Imre communist following of 1956, face November in the culminated in Hungary of dissidence the War, Cold the states. During neighbouring in minorities Hungarian of rights the towards especially and ary from the Warsaw Pact (Reinalda 2009: 368). This historical revolt historical This 368). 2009: (Reinalda Pact Warsaw the from ary

gnrly olwd h la o te oit lc in Bloc Soviet the of lead the followed generally y the ore readiness to become part of part become to readiness ore 90. h icdn o te15 rvl sets revolt 1956 the of incident The 1990s. 203

transition to democracy in 1989 with 1989 in democracy to transition tion within NATO, which it joined in joined it which NATO, within tion al and Eastern European Eastern and al

- at sse. In system. party

NATO, in 1997 in NATO, CEU eTD Collection Cold the after point starting better a had Hungary that were differences notable The Hungary). after years few a (albeit transition sector security its during Romania by encountered challenges same the eviden the but fragmentation, decision experience not did and choices policy cosmetic or haphazard less produced process reform defence and security Hungarian the that is expectation The NA became who countries neighbouring the to transferred were reforms and experiences security transitional practices, best where from a 263), of 2005: Kádár that & (Almási was island” “NATO NATO in role Hungary’s view, of a point this Central From in Europe. stability Eastern regional to contribution and policy defence and Hungary’s security in compass leading a as 2005), (Biró defence collective of framework NATO’s of has primacy the stressed Hungary always has it But states, CSDP. EU’s the of European importance Eastern and modernization forces armed Central its during of acknowledged most with line In missions. crisis NATO in participation the and development capabilities through 21 the of challenges security the to adjust to platform cooperative the and integrity, territorial its of protection the guarantees, defence collective NATO’s status: 259 Trianon 13 the 2003: (Dunay over Treaty Peace claims territorial unresolved the and rights minority Hungarian Slov (Romania, states neighbouring its with relations external - 274), Hungary has been enjoying the full the enjoying been Hungaryhas 274),

TO members in 2004, such TO in2004, Romania,Slovenia,members as and Slovakia. ce demonstrates that the transformation was faced with faced was transformation the that demonstrates ce

- 14). As a member of NATO (Almási & Kádár 2005: Kádár & (Almási NATO of member a As 14).

War, mainly due to its proximity to the West, its West, the to proximity its to due mainly War, 204

- fledged advantages that come w come that advantages fledged process akia, and Ukraine) over Ukraine) and akia, h ever the - management - increasing st

- century making ith this ith nd CEU eTD Collection H charge within the that institution important most the as military Defence, of Ministry the of personnel or the composed civilian them be actors security for capitals symbolic prized most Roma of case post making security professionalized of new the adaptto to had also they but themselves warsbetween turf for mitigate 25) The War. Cold the 24 (Dunay 2003: actors security of groups “incompetent” two with Defence, of Ministry the w personnel military and civilian skilled of hiring the and military the concerning balances and checks civilian of institutionalization the was problematic Especially towardsefforts the EU integration process. w expertise civilian and oversight civilian the of introduction between the developments, security difficulties NATO and balancing legacies military were communist there effects: hysteresis of instances transitio Hungary’s of case The legacies. historical tensioned on reliant heavily being steps transitional such all Soviet the from stages transition strenuous and 271) 2002: permanen by characterized was 1990s the in reform security Hungarian the expectation, above the to Contrary market. liberal more

ae ewe bt cvla ad euiy poesoas ta nt ny a to had only not that “professionals” security and civilian both between game temperate regime change, and more successful transition to democracy and a and democracy to transition successful more and change, regime temperate - 25) competing over Hungary’s new strategic culture right after the end of end the after right culture strategic new Hungary’s over competing 25) i, h crec o cmeec ad rfsinlzto bcm the became professionalization and competency of currency the nia,

hysteresis effect hysteresis ungarian review. defence t restructuring efforts (Martinusz in Gyarmati & Winkler Winkler & Gyarmati in (Martinusz efforts restructuring t i te euiy n dfne il ws o dvi of devoid not was field defence and security the in n

was manifest in a “cats and dogs” (Dunay 2003: 2003: (Dunay dogs” and “cats a in manifest was 205 - od a. ie n h aray discussed already the in Like War. Cold ti mltr rns culd y h later the by coupled ranks, military ithin

- based military heritage, heritage, military based doxa ithin ithin

CEU eTD Collection trajectory reform security Hungary’s regards as mentioning worth are stages reform 21). 2003: (Dunay practices corrupt of instances in resulted sector defence reduc the Conversely, sub among certain conflicts created that projection military and command of frameworks institutional new of creation the with along structures command of restructuring heavy a implied origin reformers the as smooth or forward straight as not were 8) 2005: (Biró forces armed contractual professional to forces inflexible and conscripted from 2000s early the in upgrades The 2002). Winkler & (Gyarmati more envision to started elites military and political both framework, cooperative defence and security European the and NATO by presented opportunities the of face the in and process transition the During fast legitimiz to threat military external traditional clear of incentive powerful the having without especially agenda, transitional the on priorities ranking high not were issues defence and security that fact the with deal to had they time, interoperabi and cooperation, projection, international of standards higher towards sector burdensome and dated a steer to task daunting the with faced 20 2001: (Danov services management and command mili of faculty the with role educational significant a playing University Defence National ZrÍnyi Miklós the with 2001), (Danov personnel military the of professionalization the in important became aspects training and Education - paced securitypaced reforms. - security fields. in f h mltr ptioy n te e aqiiin i the in acquisitions new the and patrimony military the of tion

206

miiu mltr sacs o Hungary for stances military ambitious

ly niind Te transition The envisioned. ally - 21). Such security elites were elites security Such 21). tary sciences and that of that and sciences tary (ua 20: 34) 2003: (Dunay e iy A te same the At lity.

Several CEU eTD Collection percent 96 Herzegovina . contributed having EU in serving are personnel, 200 approximately missions, foreign Hun of 30% almost framework, CSDP the within participation active civilian developing EU’s the to given influence secondary a with NATO, from assurances security hard that to attitude similar comparatively a reveals analysis The below EU within participation Hungary’s of terms In securit EU’s the in influencer an also become to ambitions defence and security for cooperation platform primary the as NATO of role the emphasized EU to adaptation the concerning response strategic and institutional specific engendered NATO role The CSDP advancements.and NATO with line integrationin and upgrade further 2000s’ late the to standards, NATO to according exitingforces armed the early restructuring of the developments, 2000s’ post

The Hungarian Ministry of Defence, Defence, of Ministry Hungarian The - e pae prtos Lk i Like operations. peace led - od a, agn fro ranging War, Cold - ’s Table 6.2.1 Table of

- hungarian vrhlig nlec i te eec rve poes bt t also it but process, review defence the in influence overwhelming lyd y h E’ CD to a eod re sau a cmae to compared as status order second a took CSDP EU’s the by played

Odecá 76 (Ondrejcsák

- , it can be, observedthe that contributionbesttentative. was at troops -

military capabilities. In terms of Hungarian Defence Forces’ latest Forces’ Defence Hungarian of terms In capabilities. military

h ms top wt te eckeig iso i Bosnia in mission peacekeeping the with troops most the - on - foreign

- 0 8) ih on with 83) 90: te ae 90’ euiy oiy n legislative and policy security 1990s’ late the m

- http://www.kormany.hu/en/ministry missions te ae f oai, ugr hs always has Hungary Romania, of case the n - serve 207

- - with led peace operations, as shown in the in shown as operations, peace led - the - eu - ie htrcl omtet and commitments rhetorical side - led - operations y and defence framework. defence and y - of Romania as regards as Romania of of - defence/news/almost

- e operations led garian troops on troops garian

- 30 96 - - , CEU eTD Collection http://www.geneva 97 Soviet inherited regards as problems embedded deeply remained still there resources, and capacities operational of terms in EU the and NATO both of requirements interoperability the meet to effort overwhelming an was there While

UN Interim Force in Force UN Interim (UNFICYP) in Cyprus Force UN Peacekeeping (MINURSO) Sahara Western in Referendum the for UN Mission following: the to personnel 88 providing was Hungary Lebanon (UNIFIL) (UNIFIL) Lebanon Rule of Law in Armed Conflicts Project, Project, Conflicts Armed in Law of Rule UN Peacekeeping Table 6.2.1Table

- academy.ch/RULAC/peace_operations.php?id_state=87

Hungary’s in Participation MayPeace as of Operations

2003. August since 300 troops deployed previously had country The Iraq (MNF). Multi the in participation its ended Hungary 2004, In December Multi National Force Force National Multi -

National Force Force National -

Iraq

–

208

Kosovo Force (KFOR) Kosovo 1999. since of NATO member a been has and 1995 with (SOFA) Agreement Forces of Status a signed Hungary ammunition. ammunition. of 150,000 rounds and arms small ~21,000 and ISAF to 337 troops of a total contributing was Afghanistan in (ISAF) Force Assistance Security International KFOR. to 195 personnel of a total contributing was Hungary

NATO Operations

NATO in NATO

: Hungary : Hungary

:

troops to EUFOR EUFOR totroops 158 contributing was Hungary 2009, 10 June of Herzegovina and in Bosnia ALTHEA EUFOR ALTHEA. - ae practices based Operations EU Peace EU 2012

97 : As

CEU eTD Collection ECB1D9ADA7A1/0/national_security_strategy.pdf http://www.mfa.gov.hu/NR/rdonlyres/61FB6933 98 military relations. Euro the the for to commitment its with line in interests grounds strategic principal Hungary’s of definition programmatic the laying was Parliament The forces. in military Hungarian of modernization institution democratic this by played role fundamental the emphasized defence, and security on Principles Basic 19 from Parliament the of resolution The SecurityNational Strategiesput forward Government. by the 1998 in Policy Defence and Security the of Principles security first its strategy from revision of stages several underwent Hungary of Republic financ the of Strategy Security National and The 283). 2002: Winkler & Gyarmati in personnel (Martinusz in re thorough a methodologies (…) and and management; approaches new radically non and offices as such categories, rank different decision in changes practical radical implied also they Nevertheless, Sovietfrom shift discursive a marked least, at formally which, documents, strategic important disposi and

The Basic Principles of the Security and Defence Policy (1998), Policy (1998), Defence and Security the of Basic Principles The - Atlantic integration and set the tone, at least on paper, for more healthy civilian healthy more for paper, on least at tone, the set and integration Atlantic

- making procedures; fundamental changes in the relationship and function of function and relationship the in changes fundamental procedures; making n 92 gig owr wt te dpin y h Primn o te Basic the of Parliament the by adoption the with forward going 1992, in - in. n wy o ake uh ocrs a te sun o doctrinally of issuing the was concerns such tackle to way One tions. based ideologicalbased rationale.

- - AE67

vlain f h mltr’ rl i society” in role military’s the of evaluation 209

8 cnenn te pae f Hungary’s of update the concerning 98,

- 47F8 - - BDD3 commissioned offices (NCOs); (…) (NCOs); offices commissioned -

98 t te 02 n te 2004 the and 2002 the to ,

saf rcie and practices “staff responsible with the the with responsible ial - CEU eTD Collection long national a of absence the to Similarly strategic ofa lack general vision & Gyarmati (Martinusz2002: 288). in Winkler a and strategy military national the in problems coherency facing still was Hungary Ir 2003 theand 2001 in attacks 9/11 the of aftermath the in especially developments,EU and up introducing further 267), 2005: Kádár & (Almási a 2002 from Government the by elaborated Strategies Security National following The government Hungarian the 18(Dunay 2003: of cabinet security national overarching and flexible high Basic the spearheaded Orbán and formal the accomplished government the Viktor time first the For resolution. Principles Minister Prime of leadership the under Fidesz conservative The Sovietobsolete with bases military outdated with charge in personnel than rather ranks military within decision higher in practitioners security more favouring of terms in 42). 2004: (Betz forces” operational of command in officers than more headquarters higher in serving officers reward to and rank over position favour “to seemed that ranks military within reforms financial i process update the Nevertheless, nd 2004 did not change the fundamental objectives outlined by the Basic Principles Basic the by outlined objectives fundamental the change not did 2004 nd - level q nain Ntihtnig h audne f uh taei documents, strategic such of abundance the Notwithstanding invasion. aq

oprto bten euiy sub security between cooperation - type ofequipme - case of Romania, the main reasons for this situation were the the were situation this for reasons main the Romania, of case 19).

- -

term vision beyond obtaining NATO and EU membership, EU and NATO obtaining beyond vision term h Hnain ii Alac ta gie pwr n 1998 in power gained that Alliance Civil Hungarian The

nt.

nitiated by the Parliament targeted structural and structural targeted Parliament the by nitiated

This situation is quite similar to that of Romania of that to similar quite is situation This 210

- ils ih h ceto o te more the of creation the with fields - to - ae sus ikd o NATO to linked issues date - making echelons making

CEU eTD Collection Counter on Profiles (CODEXTER), 2012. October Policy, National Hungary, Capacity, Terrorism on Experts of Committee Europe, of Council http://www.kormany.hu/download/4/32/b0000/National%20Security%20Strategy.pdf 99 thecollapse communism.from of terms ofin specific strategies security of fields theand last shift major marks interest, Euro the of importance the stressed strategy the 267), 2005: Kádár & (Almási 2144/2002) no. Resolution (Government 2002 in adopted was it As facing. was Hungary risks and challenges defence and t as well as interests, strategic basic national Hungarian the of grounds the lay to was documents programmatic above the of purpose The crisis manner, declaratory more a in Hungary’s partner strategic albeit mentions, it finally and crisis; economic global of context the in especially security energy of importance the states it states; p it destruction; mass of weapons or terrorism as such emphasis system international globalized lays a with associated it NATO: and EU the both th 2012 from Strategy Security National latest The strategy” military national a of (Martinusz 2002: & Gyarmati 289). in Winkler development the with started reforms defence patch ad oftentimes resembling reforms security fragmented and sectoral by coupled

The National Security Strategy of the Republic of Hungary 2012, 2012, Hungary of the Republic of Strategy Security National The e above criticism and puts forward a a forward puts and criticism above e - - management activities the CSDPmanagement 19). (page under ok we daig ih suc with dealing when works

rioritizes the rights of Hungarian minorities in neighbouring neighbouring in minorities Hungarian of rights the rioritizes

ship with the EU in terms of its “substantial” contribution to“substantial” its contribution of terms in with EU ship the

esv rfrs f h mltr. Nn o the of “None military. the of reforms cessive - tatc nerto, h divis the integration, Atlantic comprehensive 211

99 on

is in a sense a timely response to response timely a sense a in is asymmetric security problems problems security asymmetric

strategic approach as part of part as approach strategic o spell out the major security major the out spell o

; o o sectoral of ion

- Terrorist Terrorist - hoc CEU eTD Collection a sluggish and big comparatively the upgrade to was priority post years transitional the during mentioned, already As the of branches military defence securityfield. and and civilian the between competitions turf comparable eli and resources material and intellectual of mobilization similar the for called As capitals. of array wide field defence and a security Hungary’s of reform the case, Romanian the to galvanizedcontrasted and limits its beyond sector defence Hungarian the stretched process reform The 35). 2003: (Dunay Europe Eastern and Central in countries the of rest the from different no is operations peace multi in part taking of capable forces armed creating of terms in Hungary of experience the view, of point this From the as well as 122), in investment increased competitive and flexible capabilities. defence 2004: (Betz operations military Fo expeditionary deployable Defence Home it Hungarian and 2003, the from targeted Strategy Security European EU’s the and 1999 NATO’s Concept time, Strategic that at with, line in constructed doctrinally was strategy The frameworks. particip to obligation the by coupled capabilities, flexible more in investments for need illegal the recognized and also It terrorism migration. as such threats security asymmetric of terms in challenges 2 Kádár & (Almási 2073/2004) no. Resolution (Government Strategy Security National new a adopted Hungary 2004, In

005: 264) and identified new international security international new identified and 264) 005: t cmeiiey n nentoa cooperative international in competitively ate 212

- co, broad actor, cs cpct t cnut rapidly conduct to capacity rces’ - pcrm civilian spectrum, - od a, h strategic the War, Cold rmed forces (Biró 2005) (Biró forces rmed

security and security 21 st

- century military military cited CEU eTD Collection over the military. other the a wereHung push to attempt welcomed and 25), 2003, (Dunay, Defence Staff General of the of personnel Ministry military predominantly the of leadership civilian predominantly m is What duplication. tasks and redundancy avoid to as so structures competing among with tackle be to had losses and redefined being were roles institutional where context, This 7 2005: (Biró resources of waste the streamlining in and reductions personnel implementation regards as agenda the policy setting over competitions in manifested sharing were responsibilities structures institutional defence two the relations between tensioned The Forces. Defence Hungarian and of Ministry reduction the within the integration concerning its to relation in Defence of Ministry the with disagreements” “sharp experienced Staff General the Nevertheless, the of reform the and expenditure, Defence Home Forces.Hungarian military of reduction the review, national the defence of implementation the o with Ministry responsible the predominantly under was Staff Defence General The allies. Western and NATO with par up tasks and missions capabilities, of creation the for grounds the laid and forces armed Hungarian the affected that 2003) to 2002 (from reviews defence and reforms central ca government elected new the when stage important an marked 2002 year the prerequisites, 6) 2005: the (Biró 65.2002 with number line Directives Defence’s In of Minister standards. projection and interoperability NATO’s to according was

a clear instance of turf wars and hysteresis effects in a transitional security transitional a in effects hysteresis and wars turf of instance clear a r, hs tnind eain bten h two the between relations tensioned these ore,

ary towards establishing a genuine civilian oversight civilian genuine a establishing towards ary

213

security sub (Biró 2005: 7) 7) 2005: (Biró - ils the fields, rried out rried - 8). d f

CEU eTD Collection Euro the of pursuit its with independence found new its maximize to sought has Poland Pact, independence. to victim end the with Europe Eastern and Central in transition democratic went subsequently country The Lech Walesa w shipyard Polish the with regime, communist the against dissidence of forefront the at was Poland the During occupations. foreign numerous of face the in freedom for strive and resilience exemplary country’s the by coupled independence, for struggle and war and bitter Poland’s by explained be can this part, In EU. the and and setter agenda policy security a become and role manifested Poland (Betz33) aftersignificance” the end theCold 2004: theof War. to contrast in and p beginning elites Polish reforms, security Hungarian very the from However, templates. security of series Hungar of that to similar ways many in is sector defence and security its of reform the with experience Poland’s 6.3 Poland’s Securityafterthe Reform ofCold Policy theWar end - Atlantic integration. programmatic Realpolitik

setting thetone dissolutionfor ofthe Sovietlatein bloc the 19 A catch A orkers Solidarity movement (Ash 1999) and and 1999) (Ash movement Solidarity orkers from from

i pwr ahntos n t peev is new its preserve to and machinations power big - up power (Parkes 2013) after the dissolution of the Warsaw Warsaw the of dissolution the after 2013) (Parkes power up early on on early tutrl hne i ln wt Wsen NATO Western, with line in changes structural

y, with Polish political and military elites undertaking a undertaking elites military and political Polish with y,

on high

o eoe n xml o scesu liberal successful of example an become to ambitions to take over a regional leadership regional a over take to ambitions 214 aid more “attention to questions of military military of questions to “attention more aid

regional

under the leadership of leadership the under power - goal to never fall never to goal

-

fraught history fraught in both NATO both in Cold War, War, Cold - oriented - 80s. 80s. found found

-

CEU eTD Collection the least, the not but last and conflict; local and instability regional of threat the guarantees; defence collective NATO’s of promise the with: accordance in system Western a of establishment the and sovereignty its gaining after deficit security Poland’s of problems the covered documents the by addressed topics The Hungary’s Principles SecurityyearBasic of before in 1993. were Policy promulgated least at with sector security Polish the of process reform the prompted doctrines Soviet the from change radical a marked and 90), 1994: (Kubiak Defence National of Academy two the by forward put were 1992 from Doctrine Defence and Concept Security National Polish road implementation policy as well as goals, and national of definition clear the for compasses guiding normative of a by purpose the serving early1990s, shaped the startingfrom documents programmatic of series was strategy security national Poland’s Hungary, of case the in As E and NATO a of status the with associated the obligations and meeting standards demands, exacting time same the at and process reform security the during resistance with mitigating of terms in hurdles and difficulties similar faced forces armed Poland’s o transformation the Nevertheless, Romania. Hungaryand casesof the to compared the with intense, as smoothly more and forward going field defence frequent and security the in less process transition much be would Poland in process reform expectation the above, the of light In U member state.U member - based security and defence doctrine typical to the bipolar era. The new new The era. bipolar the to typical doctrine defence and security based ,

fe conflicting often

,

ntttos Te ainl euiy Off Security National The institutions, i s

that the that 215

hysteresis effects hysteresis - maps for security practitioners. The practitioners. security for maps

dur security interests interests security ing the security the ing - style securi style c ad the and ice

one ty ty f

CEU eTD Collection of sense a institutionalized and cemented further member, a also was Hungary which of 97) 1994: (Kubiak Group Visegrad the of time that at creation the well, As incontestable an ofstabilityguarantee Central in and assurance security of hallmark the Poland for represented perceptions the to akin and expectedlyquite 1990s, vision final a on partial, superficial, were reforms those were, they as Necessary now. years many for reforms of process the in been has army “our that stating officials hysteresis Cottey (Edmunds, 2003 2013: 41 Foster & of end the by 150,000 to 1988 in 400,000 around from numbers the reducing forces, Th Romanian armed the forces. of echelons higher the occupying still collaborators security state communist former ex predominantly of terms in behind lag the Romania, of case the In 119). 2004: (Betz advise” and assist to available staff expert of quality and quantity “insufficient of problem” “intractable the reforms the lead to personnel professionalized Romania, and Hungary of cases the to Alike Belarus and Ukraine, (Kubiak Russia, to regards with situation insecurity neighbouring e reforms prompted by the 1992 strategy completely restructured the Polish armedPolish strategy the restructured completely 1992 promptedthe byreforms e

1994: 90 1994: to

the letter of the strategies was however lacking, Poland being faced with faced being Poland lacking, however was strategies the of letter the during the reform process were observed, with high ranking military military ranking high with observed, were process reform the during rfsinlzd euiy rciinr ws xcrae b the by exacerbated was practitioners security professionalized ( ” - - 91). 91). omns dmntd crut oenet i te 90, with 1990s, the in governments corrupt dominated, communist s utd n dud, oty Fse 21: 41) 2013: Foster & Cottey Edmunds, in quoted as

and Eastern and Eastern Europe. 216 - 42). well, As of incoherence andinstances

in

Hungary and Romania, NATO Romania, and Hungary and not based not and .

n h early the In CEU eTD Collection experienceRomania’s an uncritical as euro euro a from evolution Poland’s that said also be could It borders. its beyond security and stability externalizing with responsible country frontline a as itself seeing Romania, its perceives Poland throughagendas theAlliance’s umbrella and theEU’ssoft power guarantees. security national their advance to sought countries Both conflict. frozen Transnistrian the regarding Bla concerns the vested in its instabilities and Romania of that to similar comparably is Neighbourhood Eastern its in interest strategic Poland’s view, of point this From especially and Europe towardsUkraine. defence and political NATO’s promoting in (Betz 41) 2004: role” “significant a play to and Alliance the in member active an become to aspiration stated Poland’s namely Strategy, Security National new the from out stood capabilitie military and forces armed of reform the to approaches updated enclosed they importantly, more and and perceptions, threat goals strategic national seasoned more for grounds the laid documents The ministrie the by 2013) Foster & Cottey (Edmunds, 2000 in adopted were Poland of Republic the of Strategy Defence National new a and Strategy Security new a NATO membership, gaining after and later decade a Almost countries. European Eastern and betw cooperation economic multilateral encouraging by solidarity regional - sceptic country to an active part active an to country sceptic s of affairsforeign defence respectively. and limes k e Rgo ad seily oad Mloa n the and Moldova towards especially and Region Sea ck

status at at status

icipant within the CSDP framework differs from differs framework CSDP the within icipant NATO’s Eastern periphery in a similar way to to way similar a in periphery Eastern NATO’s

217 - enthusiasm.

s (Betz 2004: 40). One ranking issue ranking One 40). 2004: (Betz s

agenda in Central and Eastern and Central in agenda

een Central een

CEU eTD Collection th responsib and forces, labour of armed division the of 42) 2003: (Gogolewska control executive and parliamentary better achieve to was reforms above the of aim the relations, military advisory with inspectorate President not is agenda defence and security Compa tensions rivalriesinstitutional and process.duringsecurity the reform inter further creating of consequence immediate the with 127), 2004: (Betz important Polish the of role the forces, armed the of competencies increased the regards as Romania of case the by approved and signed until policies state not were while 41) 2004: (Betz policy” “state as strategies approvin and drafting the controlling Ministers of Cabinet the with branch, executive the in competitions turf and reactions institutional mixed elicited policies the to Typical potential a as EU inits security actor the of development increased the with 240) 2010: realistic (Chappell more became to and contrast down toned in been has Conversely, Atlanticism EU. Poland’s Romania, the and NATO between 8) 2008: (Zaborowski burden promoting for advocated and orientation policy security their in pragmatic were countries both Nevertheless, e t Hnay wee h poiec o the of prominence the where Hungary, to red

a cnieal atoiy n cmie “h fntos f military a of functions “the combines and authority considerable has hysteresis

own right. own

and protocol functions” (Betz, 2004, 127). In terms of civil of terms In 127). 2004, (Betz, functions” protocol and cnro uig rniinl tgs te bv reform above the stages, transitional during scenario

lte, u te elt ws ht te eeomn of development “the that was reality the but ilities, - hrn ad viig neesr dup unnecessary avoiding and sharing Presidency as as 218 ao ad ahr eeoil te Polish the ceremonial, rather and major

, n h civil the in

ac cording to the to cording President President - military relations is very is relations military Presidency

n eemnn the determining in Presidency

Smlr o the to Similar . r uh the ough

o the of g over t over lication ,

they he - - CEU eTD Collection Security National Poland’s region. the to return Russia’s tactics power soft with and preventively address to avenue diplomatic potential a as o EU the NATO and defence with umbrella security double emulated a ways create many to in strategy Poland’s and posture strategic similar a followed has Romania its proximity Belarus. to well as reasonsand geopolitical national strategy of within because Poland’s trope significant a is Russia case, Romanian the in to like view, relation of point in this From security Russia. energy and destruction, mass of weapons of proliferation non ranking several strategy identifie Poland priorities, strategic EU the and NATO with accordance In expeditionary model territorial the of end the marked The 39). 2013: Foster & Cottey (Edmunds, developments important most the of one is 2003 from Strategy Security National the which among process, ground Several forces armed the over control (Gogolewska 49). 2003: democratic oversight civilian successful the more Romania, exert and to Hungary managed of cases the in than successful the civil the Notwithstanding obstacles, 45). numerous 2003: (Gogolewska defence” of ministers successive of agenda political the on low very always was policy defence in expertise civilian

, due to its core programmatic status for the following strategies and policy and strategies following the for status programmatic core its to due - raig oet ae f particu of are moments breaking ofsecurity making

-

rdto scrt calne sc a troim the terrorism, as such challenges security tradition - iiay tra military - ae dcrn ad eetd h multilateral the cemented and doctrine based (Edmunds, Cottey40). Foster 2013: & 219 somto o Pln ws uh more much was Poland of nsformation

a rlvne n h transitional the in relevance lar 2003 strategy officially officially strategy 2003 collective n i the in d

as

CEU eTD Collection 102 version/5043,English 101 http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital 100 EU standards. and NATO with strategy security Poland’s harmonize to and security internal integrated an advance to 2022 until up timespan prospective a established and capabilities improve expeditionary to measures implementing in efficiency political improving also targeted b within participant Europe active Eastern an in as 241) stability 2010: regional (Chappell of promoter and leader military a become to aspirations Poland’s with line in fall strategy the by proposed advancements The the in of shiftingcontext i spending defence national for standard a as well as reforms, defence and security with advancements country’s the of synopsis an be to meant was Review, National Strategic of Book Security White the document, programmatic latest Poland’s challenges in sectoraland a manner. securit international new the addressed and terms managerial in security of European issue the EU’s approached Poland counterpart, Hungarian its As (2003). Strategy Security the and (1999) Concept Strategic NATO’s of strategy influence security doctrinal national the to approach new a forward double a such of indicative is 2007 from Strategy

Ibidem Poland’s Poland’s White Book White Poland’s 101

National Security Strategy from 2007, Strategy from Security National , published in 2013 as a result of a completed National Security Strategic Strategic Security National completed a of result a as 2013 in published ,

- version.html nternational securitynternational configurations.

of Strategic National Security from 2013, from Security National Strategic of 102 - Library/Articles/Special

and holistic approach to the blurring lines o lines blurring the to approach holistic and

220

-

Feature/Detail/?lng=en&id=156796 - folded security assurance, putt assurance, security folded

http://www.spbn.gov.pl/sbn/english t NT ad h E. It EU. the and NATO oth 100

y orltn the correlating by f external and external f

y risks risks y ing - CEU eTD Collection andNATO. EU Romania and Hungary Romaniaconsider to has comparison the although of cases the to compared as operations international The NATO’s purview.under 2010: (Chappell potentia 2013). Németh & (Kurowska Brussels” in advocate region’s “the defence and security to obstacles development. national remaining the tackling to to addition was Poland for goal end the double its Romania, consolidate and Hungary of cases the in Like Figure 6.3.1 Figure l avenue for security cooperation, but only in the case of the of case the in only but securitycooperation, for avenue l Without any doubt, Poland perceives its role as a regional leader and leader regional a as role its perceives Poland doubt, any Without

226) and as long as the hard security and defence domains remain domains defence and security hard the as long as and 226)

below demonstrates that Poland has participated in participated has Poland that demonstrates below - ebrhp tts ihn oh h Alac ad h EU the and Alliance the both within status membership

221

’s

late - comer status within both the both withinstatus comer The EU is seen as a as seen is EU The

civil

a wide a - military field field military - array of of array in , –

CEU eTD Collection in 103 implem to resources economic and will political of lack a of terms in difficulties structural comparable with faced were Europe Eastern and forces armed their during difficulties Romania, of case similar with faced were theythat the demonstrates to compared as reforms advanced more and earlier their transformation sector defence and security Poland’s and Hungary’s of analysis The 6.4 -

international Centre for International Maritime Security, Security, Maritime International for Centre Figure 6.3.1 Figure Conclusion - operations

Poland’s Poland’s International in OperationsParticipation

- since -

1999

- 001/ ’

transition. Political and security actors in Central in actors security and Political transition. http://cimsec.org/polish 222

, though less prominent, less though , - strategic n rfrs Gamt & (Gyarmati reforms ent - (1999 guidance/participation

problems and problems –

2013) 103

s - ,

CEU eTD Collection and Central its for teacher of role the played NATO Europe. Eastern and Central liberal the of leaders overall being Poland security and of Hungary field the in steps transitional implementing in sluggish and reformer slower much a was Poland, and Hungary to compared as Romania, primarily theHungarian emphasized minority rightsabroad. d Hungary whereas EU, the and NATO of platforms the utilizing and agenda its advancing by region the in interest hawkish more was sub security governmental between wars turf exhibited as well as protection, national and projection international for platform primary a as NATO on relied countries Both reality in and as labelled armed professionalizationforces’ be could what in times, often resulted, This elites. European Easter and Central of or economic to compared second the and limitations budgetary of because post in corruption of phenomenon endemic the to due reforms; stan and EU NATO named has Bourdieu of what degrees different present cases above the in transformation of processes The oversight Winkler - fields regarding the regarding fields

, and , especiall 02, ope b te resistanc the by coupled 2002),

(Gyarmati & 2002) & Winkler (Gyarmati dards; by implementing formal but notexactly security but formal substantive dards;by implementing and y “idiosyncratic and y and “idiosyncratic outward

setting of the agenda during the transition process. Poland process. transition the during agenda the of setting

political ones; and the lack of will or competence from part from competence or will of lack the and ones; political ytrss effects hysteresis

- looking in terms of pursuing its security and defence and security its pursuing of terms in looking isplayed a more inward more a isplayed .

223 sui generis o cnevtv mltre t civilian to militaries conservative of e

truh h ioopi euain of emulation isomorphic the through : in formin - order status of security reforms as reforms security of status order

in practice”in (Betz 2004:

but haphazard and cosmetichaphazard and but - looking security policy and and policy security looking

- eortc rniin in transition democratic - communist societies; communist n defence, and

33).

CEU eTD Collection political of prerequisites the democratizations and thetransition towa under reforms sectors’ security their Poland experienced and Hungary transformation, sector security Romania’s of case the in As more of top on legacies, and contexts communist different the West, the to proximity geographical their countries, these case thetransitional of in experiences the of differences economic terms in and such of factors determining The and stabilitysecurityCentral Eastern Europe. and of civil for platform developing and interesting potentially a as countries three all by acknowledged been times the of most relegated been has hand, other the on EU, The professionalization. and expertise and Hungary, Pola Romania, in practitioners security apprentices, European Eastern d aig ed rm AO tnad ad riig xeine t bid their build to experiences training and standards NATO from lead taking nd -

iiay prtos n nt o eto fr h bodr economic broader the for mention to not and operations military to a second order status in status order second a to efficient governmental policies and successful reforms. successful and policies governmental efficient

differences could be accounted for by socio by for accounted be could differences rds liberal market liberal rds economies.market 224

hard hard security

- making. The EU EU The making.

has - political political also

CEU eTD Collection thesis the making, security of dimensions practical the circumvent that approaches norms, ideas, interests, actors’ in practices social of and structures security importance national between dynamics intersubjective the understanding the for advocated thesis the Consequently, practices and knowledge actors’ security the determine fully to interest that considered research The Euro on view their and practitioners Bourdieusean a forward put thus thesis The forces. armed professionalized to templates defence traditional post the during landscape institutional and policy intricate ingrained an the navigate to and learn they as practitioners, tool security such of hands survival the in disposition professional a becomes change to Adaptation of practices the upon adjustingsecurity constantly and shifting actors to The dependent comparison features. by idiosyncratic are socialization and of processes unique present contexts security transitional establis of absence the in that demonstrated thesis the literature, culture strategic mainstream the by forward put socialization defence and security of patterns and representations most to contrast In - Atlantic member such Atlantic member Romania.state as -

inspired having thus a constitutive and explanatory potential as well. as potential explanatory and constitutive a thus having

hpn te euiy n dfne pro defence and security the shaping

e ad ooeos ainl taei cultures, strategic national homogenous and hed

framework n ms importantly, most and C ONCLUSION - based or ideational variables were not enough not were variables ideational or based rniinl euiy habitus security transitional 225

ht mhszd h vie f security of voice the emphasized that

transforming security fields. - practices C l a tasto from transition War old te oe f tacit of role the , I cnrs to contrast In . ie f new a of file

CEU eTD Collection newRomania’s objectives. priorities and strategic drafting with responsible elites, military and political Romanian the by unquestioned went standards and expertise NATO that demonstrated and field security Romanian The u processes reform main strategy. the of cartography a defence forward put research and security national Romania’s of transformation the in was NATO by played role the that found analysis ref defence and security Romanian the impacted EU double the which in ways the contextualizing By Romanian securitythe field in the guidingin practice of logics ofrolethe the emphasized been transformed since transformed been theend theColdof War. how And privileged, the determined that agenda capitals important most the were Which during established was symbolic institutional power strugglesand turfwars; field security Romanian the in hierarchy the How influencetheand external NATO ofinboth andEU practice; the policy of the reforms sense made security actors which waysRomanian The in - setting security power positionsof practitioners;

ucsfly n t wa extent what to and successfully post

- Cold War. For that For the researchCold end, that on: focused War. 226

-

ground

odd nlec f AOad the and NATO of influence folded a te oain scrt field security Romanians the had orm process orm

- breaking breaking

- depth,micro

post and programmatic and ndertaken in the in ndertaken -

Cold War Cold - analysis ofanalysis , the ,

CEU eTD Collection cooperative EU’s demon As frameworks. to the and responded NATO’s practitioners both security from pressures which adaptation in considerable ways the of terms particularly in was field interesting security Romanian the of case the view, of point this From such behind reasons chaoticerratic behaviourwere: and Th practitioners. security Romanian of ranks the within reactions idiosyncratic and haphazard lagging, process deeply however reform triggered the granted, for taken and uncontested were professionalization legitimacy the While u t Rmnas epltcl oiinn ad rxmt t Rsi, the Russia, to proximity and positioning geopolitical Romania’s to Due ones; prerequisites strategic oriented NATO or Atlanticist strong towards inclination elite’s security Romanian The regard professionalizati as security doing of ways new with along defence territorial outdated lingering of coexistence The sector T defence national assurance neces he fundamental role played by NATO in reforming the security and defence and security the reforming in NATO by played role fundamental he

iy f AOs ril 5 urnes a considered was guarantees 5 Article NATO’s of sity

of c former on andon flexibility;

strated in the research, such actors had to mitigate in practice in mitigate to had actors such research, the in strated ommunist in countries Central andEastern European f AO euiy urnes n te eest of necessity the and guarantees security NATO of

;

versus

227

more Europeanist Europeanist more tei etbihd ht h main the that established thesis e - ae Cl Wr eais of legacies War Cold based

r CSDP or

h ol credible only the s

re forces armed - oriented oriented .

- CEU eTD Collection its of theory a for allowing by and the habitus the of element of relational the to immutability resorting formal Bourdieusean the bypassing in forward The actorswithof spec their transformed entren remained and practice of dimensions both o the on discourse: in field security Romanian the within it change that was framework theoretical a such of value added both account into taking by struc practice, in revealed as elements behavioural the Bourdiusean The thethe modernization of security Romanian sector. defence and know practitioners security the shaping in major was NATO of influence The structures. defence and security EU the and NATO in professionals security functioning become to necessary expertise de c now their Romanian referenced the that practitioners showed security data interviewing the challenges, such to Coupled requirementstothe pa the with and of forces, flexible and reaction rapid into transformation forces’ armed conscripted Romanian the with training, and professionalization of lack their with

ommunist and Warsaw Pact era as compar as era Pact Warsaw and ommunist

new tural and agency and tural

concept of of concept because of the interplay the of because hd ad n h ohr ad b emphasizing by hand, other the on and ched; - inspired theoretical framework advanced in the thesis focused on focused thesis the in advanced framework theoretical inspired ne hand, by hand, ne transitional security habitus security transitional - rticipate in in overseas civilrticipate driven variables shaping security practitioners behaviour. The behaviour. practitioners security shaping variables driven ific symbolic ific and material resources. - how and skills as NATO st NATO as skills and how

clarify between transitional conditions and the agency the and conditions transitional between ing why certain security habits and dispositions and habits security certain why ing 228

ed to the importance of new skills and skills new of importance the to ed - military operations and exercises. and military operations

was proposed proposed was aud otia lgc o the of legacy doctrinal valued andards were adopted during adopted were andards

highlighted in

h ohr practices other why the thesis as a step a as thesis the

habitus nri and inertia by ,

CEU eTD Collection a becoming with line in ally NATO both capable theEU. for and identity security national a of carving the also entailed Th reforms. policy and strategy security national expertise and training of importance the distinguished analysis The field. security Romanian resou of value and meaning the over struggle the in role key a played expertise, and training, knowledge, in translated capital, symbolic that fact the forward brought has thesis the perspective, this From symbolic a establish monopoly dir over the to as so practitioners security by used practices discursive of ty particular a analyse to as so applied were capital symbolic and power symbolic of stages concepts transitional during especially practice, in actors social of statesmanship and thinking the shapes and influences it how or contexts strat does where to related questions making By practices. capital, symbolic and hysteresis, field, the of concepts Bourdieusean other the with when line in habitus, analysed of concept the that was standpoint theoretical The change. social

Bourdieusean a

- pology of leadership in the Romanian security landscape. The The security Romanian landscape. the in leadership pology of use

can sanction can f orius ocpul toll conceptual Bourdieu’s of - nprd eerh ein a ta i ws be o ls ot the out flesh to able was it that was design research inspired ections in ections in national security and foreign policy.

n h smoi pwr tuge vr pcfc hne i the in changes specific over struggle power symbolic the in

variability and idiosyncrasy in security behaviour and behaviour security in idiosyncrasy and variability

gc utr se fo i post in from stem culture egic cs uig h tastoa sae i the in stages transitional the during rces 229

- i, h peet td answered study present the kit, abtos rniinl process transitional ambitious e

r oiy reforms policy or

NATO - added c ommunist - based . The The . gain CEU eTD Collection security transitional habitus: a line of in with logic the interview fell data the shownby as actors security Romanian micro doxa a of establishment the in hurdle important an was field effect hysteresis the security that involved Romanian the within position their and habitus security transitional t of terms in actors of dispositions the between discrepancy the Consequently, interactions and emerged. behaviours chaotic and quixotic more and practice in appeared standards, security NATO introduced newly the and reforms policy defence and territorial the when that evident made was it Furthermore, principles. guiding r by occupied were actors security by craved positions status and ranks the that showed data interview The security national first place. the in strategy se not common of could rules to according actors behave as norm, common the became guidance doctrinal overarching an or practice in reflected as expertise security of lack The field. security Romanian p was reforms War a thatdemonstrated thesis The estructuring pace of reforms, in spite of their lack of expertise or definitive strategic definitive or expertise of lack their of spite in reforms, of pace estructuring

- or a shared common shared a or nlss f h Rmna scrt fed te rnia srtge ue by used strategies principal the field, security Romanian the of analysis - based traditional habitus of security professionals could not keep up withup keep not could professionals security of habitus traditional based

eet and resent those - sense

who were capable to manipulate and adapt to the fast the to adapt and manipulate to capable were who generalized sense of hysteresis of generalizedsense in it

security making. As it was demonstrated by the the by demonstrated was it As making. security ipae prlxn cneune fr the for consequences perplexing displayed 230 nse if there was no central, agreed upon, agreed central, no was there if nse

during the post the during hysteresis effects hysteresis - Cold heir the the -

CEU eTD Collection clear two on took field security transitional the of influence the under that showed analysis The overtransitional Romania’s foreig monopoly symbolic a established and representations security collective various the President of case the to applied policy. security and foreign in directions the over monopoly symbolic a establish to as so practices power of use als project The civilian transfer oversight in expertise and of the military sub the to due field security transitional Romanian the in prevalent were Tensions Romanian and establish to the in currencies symbolic the were skills important Such education and training; NATO mostly by generated as capital symbolic and skills transferable for called context security transitional The creative of upshot hysteresis generalized survivalprofessional the to led which change, to ma The

Traian Traian in dispositions developed were those of an increased capacity to adapt capacity to increased an of those were developed dispositions in o addressed how a particular typology of of typology particular a how addressed o Ministries National ofForeign Affairs Defence; and Băsescu the Romanian the

hp te aiu cletv repr collective various the shape

curd n vrhlig efraie oe t shape to power performative overwhelming an acquired tactics By making use of the concept of symbolic power as as power symbolic of concept the of use making By

n policyn security and policy.

and constant Presidency 231

- u dmnin: srn Atlanticist strong a dimensions: cut

professional , the thesis found that the Romanian the that found thesis the , h cntn dvlpet of development constant the charismatic leadership charismatic Presidency esentations

reinvention;

hegemonic struggle hegemonic - field.

te Romanian the , hogot the throughout

-

based made CEU eTD Collection within change and security national transitional cont adaptation of stages the concerning patterns transformation and conclusions generalizable interesting potentially offer experiences transitional a Hungary’s of cases The sub security governmental between struggles symbolic and wars turf exhibited as well as case, reform security named has Bourdieu of what degrees different present cases above the in transformation of processes The conservative of opposition tomilitaries civilian oversight. and resistance the to to addition resources in economic reforms, and implement expertise of lack a of terms in difficulties structural we Europe Eastern and Central in actors security post transformation forces armed their during difficulties and they that confirmed reforms defence and Polan and Hungary’s of analysis the Finally, andsymbolicpower.personality markers the by played role dominant the underlined field security Romanian the of scrutiny The hand. other the on configuration power a and Sea Black the in concern geopolitical and interest hand, strategic national specific one the on guarantees defence and security of terms in orientation - fields the regards direction as the fields of

both countries depended on NATO on depended countries both in form in

but hit but nd Poland’s security reforms and their relatively similar similar relatively their and reforms security Poland’s nd hysteresis effects hysteresis -

or

- exts in the Central and extsthe Central Eastern Europe.in miss and superficial and miss ir 232

national security agenda. as a primary security and defence mentor, defence and security primary a as ae faced have

d’s earlier and more progressive security progressive more and earlier d’s , resulting in what could be considered be could what in resulting , Presidency re being confronted with equivalent with confronted being re in reality in

oprby iia problems similar comparably

n h srtgc s of use strategic the in - Cold War. Political and Political War. Cold . Like in the Romanian the in Like .

Region’s CEU eTD Collection Bucharest and than f t their of practice in NATO use make countries such from actors security which in ways interesting An international reliable credibility Russia’s a as partner decreasing dramatically. with andEastern countries suffered European Central greatlyhas recent after events, region. the European Eastern and and theircountries security geopolitical Central Russia’s context policy revisionism the in in of to dedicated be could research Future policies. double the on security needed is European Eastern and research Central more academia, the in years last the in unnoticed gone not have landscape the in transformations though Even he recent - dominated and Crimean security crisis security Crimean The meagre trust that Russia has gained since the end the since gained has Russia that trust meagre The future future or study point the the

Paris, London Paris, evenor Brussels. - folded influence of NATO and the E the and NATO of influence folded CSDP

inspired by a Bourdieusean analysisBourdieusean ainspiredby - influenced influenced

has h has ad 233

a

security

different different habitus habitus geopolitical impact for impact geopolitical

in relations to Russia, as Russia, to relations in U on national security national on U

of the Cold War War Cold the of could

reveal

Warsaw Warsaw

the CEU eTD Collection J Jan and Sven, Biscop, Sven Biscop, 2005b. Sven. Biscop, ed. 2005a. June Sven. Biscop, Bischof B Bigo 2008. Didier. Bigo, 2000. D. Bigo, 2001. Didier. Bigo, Guild Elspeth and Didier, Bigo, “ 2006. D. Bigo, 2004. J. Betz, David Berdila, Marek. Dan and Michael, Baun Costa Oriol and Esther, Barbé Press University Oxford Oxford: with Do Things To Words. How 1975. L. Austin, John Asmu 1999. Garton. Ash, Timothy 2008. C. Archer, Malcom Anderson, Jun Mariana. Ancut, 2005. Kádár. Pál and Ferenc, Almási, Adl Adler Adler r, svn Letnn Clnl 20 Colonel. Lieutenant István, iró, er, Emanuel and Vincent Pouliot. 2011, Pouliot. Vincent and er, Emanuel , Didier. 2005. 2005. Didier. , - - s, Ronald D. 2006. ed. 2006. D. Ronald s, Nissen, Rebecca. Rebecca. Nissen, Nissen, Rebecca. 2013. Rebecca. Nissen, line wt seil ead o h rlto o te ainl Securi National century the of relation the to regard Membership.” special with alliance, Strategies Integration London and New York: Routledge global Europe. global Paris. Studies. th of Years 50 After Assessment at Presented Paper Architecture.” Inte Institute for 1968 in Czechoslovakia of Pact Invasion Forces Defense Hungarian theory Sakai. York New Routledge, Community and Security Power, eds. M. Williams, 255 5: Sociology Political International Ashgate Agency eds. Prokhovnik. Raia Huysmas, 2005, Europeanization and Policy policies security and Policy Public foreign in selection rule of Patterns governance? States the United of Fund Marshall German The ESDP Macmillan. Palgrave S in Distinction?” , Günter, and and Günter, ,

Iulian, Romania's NATO Membership NATO Romania's Iulian, . Kansas, available at: at: available Kansas, . Hong Kong 4(4) Kong . Hong

“Translation, Philosophy and Colonial Difference”, Traces: a multilingual series of cultural cultural of series multilingual a Traces: Difference”, Colonial and Philosophy “Translation, . 15 September 2006. “ 2006. September 15 . New York: Routledge. York: New .” . Routledge

. “When two become one: internal and external securitisations in Europe in securitisations external and internal one: become two “When

The The

hpe 6 rtcin Sec Protection, 6 Chapter New Security Issues in Northern Europe: The Nordic Nordic The Europe: Northern in Issues Security New

“Pierre “Int . 16(

“Globalized Land Forces Land e 2008. e Civil AARMS

London and New York: Routledge York: New and London 2007. Stefan Karner Stefan rnational Rel rnational The European Security Strategy A Global Agenda for Positive Power Positive Agenda for A Global Strategy Security European The ernational Political Sociology.” Political ernational 6 tefan Gänzle, and Allen G. Sens. G. Allen and Gänzle, tefan ): ): oel Andersson. 2008. Andersson. oel

- . 2008. 2008. Military Relations in Russia and Eastern Europe Eastern and Russia in Relations Military

International 834 Bourdieu and International Relations: Power Practices, Practices of Power of Practices Practices, Power Relations: International and Bourdieu

. .” The Polish Revolution: Solidarity Polish Revolution: The

Itra ad xenl euiy n h E: s hr Ay ogr a Longer Any There Is EU: the in Security External and “Internal

“

4(2): 4(2):

Strategies Studies Market Common of Journal . Next Steps in Forging a Euroatlantic Strategy for the Wider Black Sea, Black Wider the for Strategy Euroatlantic a Forging in Steps Next - ed., Bourdieu in International Relations. Rethinking key concepts in IR in concepts key Rethinking Relations. International in Bourdieu ed., , Anna Herranz, Michal N Michal Herranz, Anna ,

852. -

“The Diplomacy of Opting Out: A Bourdieudian Approach to National National to Approach Bourdieudian A Out: Opting of Diplomacy “The 2005. . in lrbsUu?Mltr Integrati Military Unum? Pluribus E

.” Magazine 2013. . www.d -

ations (IRRI ations 259

euiy te il ad h Ban the and Field the security: Routledge Advances in European Politics European in Advances Routledge

USAWC Strategy Research Project Strategy Research USAWC

,

05. The Ambiguous Ambition: The Development o Development The Ambition: Ambiguous The Peter Ruggenth Peter -

. 274.

Relations Theory and the Politics of European Integration. Integration. European of Politics the and Theory Relations London and New York: Routledge. York: New and London

.

The New Member States and the European Union: Foreign Foreign Union: European the and States Member New The otoln fotes fe mvmn it ad ihn Europe within and into movement free frontiers: Controlling

for achieving for tic.mil/cgi Etra Atos f h EC/EU” the of Actions External e Te ainl euiy taey n Tasomto o the of Transformation and Strategy Security National “The

“The role of Hungary in NATO, as a political and military military and political a as NATO, in Hungary of role “The The Politics of Protection, Sites of Insecurity and Political Political and Insecurity of Sites Protection, of Politics The

R h Clouu “ Colloquium the “International Practices “International

3

- EFERENCES rt, ertr ad Population” and Territory urity, ( 258 , School of Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, Leavenworth, Fort Studies, Military Advanced of School , 2),

- . The EU and the European Security S Security European the and EU The KIIB).

The Harva The .

234

http://www.rft.forter.ro/2008_3/01 - bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA437456

Brussels aler in P. Williams, Security Studies: An Introduction An Studies: Security Williams, P. in

. national security policy security national

. atorski. 2009. atorski.

. 2009. . The Changing Politics of European Security European of Politics Changing The rd Cold War Studies Book Series StudiesBook Cold rd War

h E/U A od euiy co? An Actor? Security Wold A EC/EU: The .

Yale University Press Yale University .

The Prague Spring and the Warsaw Warsaw the and Spring Prague The 46(3) .” -

opticon International T International on in the European Union. European the in on

“Which rules shape EU external external EU shape rules “Which . : 663

and the Blatic States and the the and States Blatic the and /

Routledge ” n on ooo, Naoki Solomon, John in .” E Institu EU , - .

684.

n nrw Dobson Andrew in at the beginning of beginning the at . ty Strategy to NATO NATO to Strategy ty , Journal of European European of Journal ,

heory -

. trsf/03.htm

f the EU Security Security EU the f trategy Forging a a Forging trategy

. Curzon

.” te for Security Security for te

in Kelstrup, M Kelstrup, in 3 (1): 3 (1): .

. Ashgate

. . .

1

- Royal Royal 36. , Jef Jef ,

XXI

.

.” . . . .

CEU eTD Collection Dr. Georgeta Chirleşan, Chappel Manifesto. Networked A Europe. Catalan in Security to Approached “Critical 2006. Collective. C.A.S.E. Campbel 1991. Barry. Buzan, Barry Buzan T. Börzel, Lynne Analysis, for 2005. Framework New K. A Booth, Security: Wilde, de Jaap and Wæver Ole Barry, Buzan, Bu Late and Middle English the in Transformation of Technologies and Metaphors “Body J., Brück, Ch Browning, A. and M., Britz, Malena Britz, Malena Britz, 2001/2004. P. Bourdieu, 2003. June P. Bourdieu, 1999. P. Bourdieu, 1993. P. Bourdieu, Bourdieu, Bourdieu, 1990b. P. Bourdieu, Bourdieu, Pierre Bourdieu, 1984. P. Bourdieu, 1977. Pierre. Bourdieu, 2010. March Wendy. Bottero, Boia, Lucian Bloomfie and Morgan Brigg, 2013. Coelmont. Jo and Sven, Biscop, ll, Hedley, “International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach”, World Politics 18,2, 1966: 1966: 18,2, Politics World Approach”, Classical a for Case The Theory: “International Hedley, ll, Press Press University Sociology Canada and Australia of Cases The Culture: Strategic Knowledge of a as Source Power Distinctive and Eastern Eur Eastern and Policy Securitate) 1 37 (4): Dialogue Security U Post Rienner Lynne CO: Boulder, Lequesne Christian Publishers 1998. Publishers, Rienner 361 2001. Books, Oxbow Oxford: Transformation, and Tradition Landscapes. Age Bronze (ed.) Brück J. in Age”, Bronze and Eastern Establishment. Research Swedish Defence Stockholm, Report, User FOA 103. Canada). Tenth Association’s Studies Union European the capacities management crisis European of creation the of understanding 281 Press University Columbia York: Press Chicago , Gabriel, and Mircea Mircea and Gabriel, , niversity of Chicago Press Chicago of niversity , ar. 2010. Laura. l, d ln ad i Rcad osl Ags 2007. August Nossal. Richard Kim and Alan, ld , David. l,

- - P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Symbolic and Language 1991. P. 1990a. P.

2005 294. - 377. . ad oc aqat 1992. Wacquant. Loïc and P., Department of Political Science, PhD Dissertation, Stockholm University. Stockholm Dissertation, PhD Political Science, of Department Cold War Era. New York: Harvester York: Era.NewWheatsheaf Cold War . .” . 2012.

Ole , . May 17, 2007. “ 2007. 17, May . . 2004. “ 2004. .

itpe S, eti onim. 03 “ 2003. Joenniemi. Pertti S., ristopher Contemporary Security Policy Security Contemporary

“ . .

(4) . Eriksso. 2000. “ 2000. Eriksso.

Sfera Politicii Sfera o te uoenUin neat wt t Mme States Member its with interacts Union European the How 1989.

rtcl Secur Critical 1998.

the Northern the Roland Bleiker. 2010. Bleiker. Roland La : 3

Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde. Wilde. de Jaap and Wæver, “Flaubert and the French Literary Field Literary French the and “Flaubert Why is Romania Different? Humani Different? Romania is Why

The Logic of Practice, Stanford University Press University Stanford Practice, of Logic The

itnto: Sca Ciiu o te ugmn o Taste of Judgement the of Critique Social A Distinction: .

epe Sae ad er A Aed fr nentoa Scrt St Security International for Agenda An Fear, and States People, nguage and Symbolic Power, Harvard University Press University Harvard Power, Symbolic and nguage The Europeaniza The - n te Wrs Esy Twrs Rfeie Sociology Reflexive a Towards Essays Words: Other In ope, University of Piteşti, 110040, Romania, 35 Romania, 110040, Piteşti, of University ope, . 22. 22.

. “Social Space and Symbolic Power Symbolic and Space “Social Practice of a Theory of Outline

Basic Elements of the Present Regional Security Environment within Central Central within Environment Security Regional Present the of Elements Basic Routledge “Participant Objectivation “Participant Sci “Poland in Transition: Implications for a European Security and Defence Defence and Security European a for Implications Transition: in “Poland Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics if Identity. Identity. if Politics the and Policy Foreign States United Security: Writing .

The Member States of the European Union European the States of Member The

ence of Science and Reflexivity. and Science of ence Translating EU civil protection in the Nordic states: towards a theoretical theoretical a towards states: Nordic the in protection civil EU Translating

, Itrujciiy n Budesa Apoce t “Identity” to Approaches Bourdieusian and “Intersubjectivity .” Security Dialogue 34(4): Dialogue Security .” 38

.” - ity Defence French and German, British, Stănescu 48.

. - Review of International Studies International of Review . .

53,

Studies and World Politics. Politics. World and Studies

. http://www.sferapoliticii.ro/sfera/pdf/Sfera_109.pdf

tion of Defence Industry Policy.” Industry Defence of tion

“Autoethnographic International Relations: Explorin Relations: International “Autoethnographic

2004. . a of Making The Forces: Armed and Strategy Europe,

n In An 31(2) 235 : 225 .”

iain o elxv Sociology. Reflexive to vitation

cră soi a Securității a istorie Scurtă 1998.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press University Harvard Cambridge: Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute Anthropological Royal the of Journal

. The European Union’s Two Dimensions: The The Dimensions: Two Union’s European The

- tas Cambridge: Cambridge University Press University Cambridge Cambridge: 248

Biennial International Conference (Montreal, (Montreal, Conference International Biennial

. Security 463

.” .” “Towards an Explicative Understanding of of Understanding Explicative an “Towards .” . .

.”

Chicago: University of Chica of University Chicago: Sociological Theory 7(1): 147(1): Theory Sociological in The Field Field The in

Contemporary Security Contemporary - 478.

A e Faeok o Analysis. for Framework New A : 36(3):

ole L Boulder .

. . Oxford: OUP . Oxford:

Industrial Policy in the 1990s.” the in Policy Industrial

779 Stockholm Studies in Politics in Studies Stockholm of Cultural Production. Cultural of - . 798.

.” ondon: Lynne Rienner Rienner Lynne ondon: ( .

. .”

nSmn umr and Bulmer Simon in .

S Cambridge: Harvard Harvard Cambridge:

Paper presented for for presented Paper Stanford University University Stanford

ot itr o the of history hort

The University of of University The .

Policy go Press go - .

25. udies in the the in udies

.” .” 28(2). g the Self Self the g

Cultural Cultural .

9(2) New New .

” :

CEU eTD Collection 1981. Fall Gray, Colin. S. 1986. Gray, Colin “ 2002. Heather. Grabbe, 2003. Agniszka. Gogolewska, Ginsbe Gh 1995. Spring L. Raymond Garthoff, Friedman, Schimmelfennin Frank Lavenex, Sandra and Tina, Freyburg, R.. 2007. Fierke, 1989. Hugh. Faringdon, Elliott, “ 2005. M. Ekengren, an Timothy, Edmunds, Eagleton Dyson “ One Chapter 2003. Pál. Dunay, 2007. Dennis. Deletant, Delet 2001. Vassil. Danov, Counter on Profiles (CODEXTER), Terrorism on Experts of Committee Europe, of Council C. Michael Desch, 1983. Robert. Cox, Na Copsey, Nicolae Ciocoiu, enciu, Alexandra. 2005. 2005. Alexandra. enciu, ant, Dennis, and Mihail Ionescu. April 2004. April Ionescu. Mihail and Dennis, ant, , Tom, and Theodore Konstadinides, European Defence Cooperation in EU Law and IR Theory, Theory, IR and Law EU in Cooperation Defence European Konstadinides, Theodore and Tom, , War International History Project History 1990 International War the during Bulgaria and Programme. Fellowship Research Organization, Poland, Hungary, 2012. October Policy, National Hungary, Capacity, Studies Millennium Policy its Eastern of Case the Union: European Integration Process Transformation Oxford University Press University Oxford process Marsha C. George the and Forces Armed of Control Democratic the for Centre Geneva the by published Philipp Impact the Cold War Bulletin History International Cold War search Romania in Defence 16(6): Policy “ of Level Wa Operational Twenty Press p Policies Comm Studies, http://mil.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/03/23/0305829811402709 International 2013. Macmillan, Palgrave and the Forces Armed of Control Reform Sector Security in Ahead Way The weakest History Scholars, Lor rg, Roy H. Susan, and E. Penksa. 2012. Penksa. E. and Susan, H. Roy rg, U rmto o dmcai gvrac i th in governance democratic of promotion EU - ire Matthew, Pierce, raine M., and Graeme Cheeseman. 2004. Cheeseman. Graeme and M., raine George. 29 May 2013. 2013. May 29 George. hne, n Krln Pmrk. 0 uut 08 “ 2008. August 30 Pomorska. Karolina and thaniel, .

unist Europe: Reviewing the Transition the unist Reviewing Europe:

- .

-

ll Association, Bulgaria. Association, ll 23(1): Security International .” belonging 7(4) ” n . Bailes A. in .” .” first Century. first Palgrave Macmillan Palgrave H. Fluri & Velizar Velizar & Fluri H.

element of Hungary’s transformation Hungary’s of element

in Claudio R Claudio in - http://www.esiweb.org/pdf/rom

.” Stefan Z., Li Z., Stefan Critical Approaches to International Security, Polity Press, Cambridge Press, Polity Security, International to Approaches Critical - .

U.S. Army Army U.S. W Journal of International Studies International Journal of 916 . Stanford: Stanford University Pre University Stanford . Stanford:

umr 1998 Summer, Nucle

The Interface of External and Internal Security in the EU and in the Nordic Nordic the in and EU the in Security Internal and External of Interface The “Comparative Analysis of the Reforms in the Armies of the Czech Republic, Republic, Czech the of Armies the in Reforms the of Analysis “Comparative Gasi Hgmn ad nentoa Rltos A Esy n Method in Essay An Relations: International and Hegemony “Gramsci, “National Style in Strategy: The American Example American The Strategy: in Style “National - - 934. Ade Cte, nhn Fse. 2013. Foster. Anthony Cottey, Andrew d

and

‘anig h Ba’ Rmna n te asw at 1963 Pact, Warsaw the and Romania Bear’: the “‘Taunting Strategic Geography: NATO, the Warsaw Pact, and the Superpowers (The (The Superpowers the and Pact, Warsaw the NATO, Geography: Strategic uoenzto ge Es: oe ad netit i uncertainty and Power East: goes Europeanization ar Strategy and National Style. Hamilton Press Hamilton Style. National and ar Strategy

.”

Manchester University Press University Manchester Avnig Rfeie nentoa Relations International Reflexive a “Advancing NATO in the “New Europe”: The Politics of International of Politics The Europe”: “New the in NATO -

adaelli and Kevin Featherstone. eds. The P The eds. Featherstone. Kevin and adaelli ballistic - Geopolitical Weekly Geopolitical eutenant Colonel Romanian Army. May 2004. “ 2004. May Army. Romanian Colonel eutenant IR. eds. SIPRI. .

r)

Chapter Two “Security Sector Reform Reform Sector “Security Two Chapter – . Project. StrategyResearch at (USAWC) College

the be to continues reform defence why or not’ will not, does not, ‘Did

Routledge, 2 Routledge, “Geopolitical Journey: The Search for Belonging and Ballistic Missile Missile Ballistic and Belonging for Search The Journey: “Geopolitical The Core Issue Of The National Military Strategy Towards NATO NATO Towards Strategy Military National The Of Issue Core The . . hlmnv eds. Shalamanov.

“ . “When and Why Romania Distanced Itself from the Warsaw Pact the Warsaw from Itself Distanced Romania and Why “When -

missile

Culture Clash Assessing the Importance of Ideas in Security Security in Ideas of Importance the Assessing Clash Culture . Working Paper 43, Paper Working . George C. Marshall Association, Association, Marshall C. George

SP n te odc States Nordic the and CSDP bihd nie 24 online ublished

- 141

defense 5 nd . ania_Deletant

The European Union in Global Security: The Politics of of Politics The Security: Global in Union European The - Edition 170. . 236 .

published by the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Democratic the for Centre Geneva the by published 12 http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/geopolitical “Ro .

. - Routledge

” in Philipp in ” .” Paper presented at APSA, Boston APSA, at presented Paper .” . romania

ss Forces for Good: Cosmopolitan Militaries i Militaries Cosmopolitan Good: for Forces

neighbourhood e mania and the Warsaw Pact 1955 Pact Warsaw the and mania The Way Ahead in Security Sector Reform, Reform, Sector Security in Ahead Way The

.

. .

- Woodrow Wilson International Centre for for Centre International Wilson Woodrow Romania%201955 - . 98 Period 1998

g, Ttiana Skripka, Anne Wetzel. 2009. 2009. Wetzel. Anne Skripka, Ttiana g, .

Poland’s Power and Influence in the the in Influence and Power Poland’s H. Fluri & Velizar Shalamanov. eds. Shalamanov. Velizar & Fluri H.

Civil –

.” olitics of Europeanization of olitics Does It Work For Poland?” in Poland?” For Work It Does Bulgaria

. - .”

. Oxford: Oxford University University Oxford Oxford: . Journa iiay eain i Post in Relations Military .

.” .” International Security 6 Security International

Romanian Armed Forces Forces Armed Romanian

Millennium Millennium North Atlantic Treaty Treaty Atlantic North -

89.pdf . l of European Public Public European of l n the EU accession accession EU the n

March 2011, 2011, March

Socialization after after Socialization . - .

89

. - – .”

1989

Journal of of Journal Cold War War Cold - - Terrorist Terrorist journey .”

n the the n . Cold UK: UK: (2). .” .” - -

CEU eTD Collection Kor 2007. March Volker. Kirchberg, 2000. Nov. Anthony. King, Keridis, Kerninc, ed 1996. J. Peter Katzenstein, 1998. Peter. Katzenstein, and Keohane, O. Robert J. Peter, Katzenstein, 2013. Niilo. Kauppi, 2007. Johanna. Kaminska. “ 1995. Spring Iain. Alaistair Johnston, “ 2007. P. Joenniemi, 2008. P. Jackson, 2014. March 13 Paul. Ivan, Cha Ingrao, Irr Hyde 1957. Samuel. Huntington, “ 2004. March 1 J. Howorth, “ 2005. J. Howorth, “ 2004. Jolyon. Howorth, Hop Papaco Victor and Ann, Mary Heiss, 1988. Autumn Donna. Haraway, and Peter, Hall, Winkler Theodor and Istvan, Gyarmati, Stefa Guzzini, Gr “ 2007. Eva. Gross, Gram r, ail, n Fli Atn. 2013. Attinà. Fulvio and Daniela, era, s, v, n Aa . ucs 2010. Juncos. E. Ana and Eva, oss, ski, Daniel, and Richard Gowan. October 2009. “ 2009. October Gowan. Richard and Daniel, ski, , e. umr 1998. Summer Ted. f, - sci, Antonio, and David Forgacs. 2000. Forgacs. David and Antonio, sci, rc, din 20. “ 2008. Adrian. Price, State University Press University State Perspective Partial of Privilege Institutionalisms States United the and Europe in Studies International Policies and Institutions, Nation of Press University York Europe’s Civilian Capacities.” Civilian Europe’s Soc Cultural Habitus Co in Transition Security War World Second the of End Y New Press. Cornell University Politics of Study and World the Press ECPR Policy 33 127 34(1): Studies International of http://www.epc.eu/documents/uploads/pub_4257_transnistria_ Initiative Scholar’s Publishing 84(1): Affairs International Policy Defence eds Smith. Michael Flexibility of question A Initiative: Defence Security

- Franz. 2006. Franz. iirs ad hre M Pry 2004. Perry. M. Charles and Dimitris, operation In Souteastern Europe. Souteastern In operation 64. - 148. 148. ls . ad hms la Emt 2009. Emmet. Allan Thomas and W., rles .”

ork: Columbia University Press. University Columbia ork:

.” o 2005. no. Political Perspectives Political

23(1). al Crisis Management Policies?” Security Dialogue Policies?” Security Management Crisis al

Sociological Theory Theory Sociological

.

oeay . . alr Dcme 1996. December Taylor. R. C. Rosemary

iology “Pierre Bourdieu, the ‘cultural turn’ and the practice of international history international of practice the and turn’ ‘cultural the Bourdieu, “Pierre .

Germany and European Security and Security European and Germany

rm euiy o Def to Security From Political Sociology of Transnational Europe Transnational of Sociology Political

.”

Towards a Eu a Towards .” “European Security in Transition: The European Security Architecture since the the since Architecture Security European The Transition: in Security “European

West European Politics West

Political Studies Association XLIV(5): 936 XLIV(5): Association Political Studies .

Te ocp o Pwr a osrciit Analysis Constructivist a Power: of Concept “The

1

. International R . International The European Draft Constitutional Treaty and the Future of the European European the of Future the and Treaty Constitutional Draft European The Purdue University Press University Purdue Cultural Norms and National Security: Police Police Security: and National Norms Cultural (1):

The Soldier and the State the and Soldier The . 33.

. Te rms o Cntutvs i Itrainl Relations International in Constructivism of Promise “The Europeanization CFSP: the and members EU “New

. . “Thinking with Bourdieu Against Bourdieu: A “Practical” Critique of the the of Critique “Practical” A Bourdieu: Against Bourdieu with “Thinking Ashgate Discourse, i Discourse,

“Transnistria “Transnistria

‘rgc co’ A realis A actor’? ‘tragic A 115 . .

Routledge The Culture of National Security: Norms Norms Security: National of Culture The

29

“Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the and Feminism in Question Science The Knowledges: “Situated - Clua Cnupin nlss Byn Srcue n Agency and Structure Beyond Analysis: Consumption “Cultural 135. - .

44. 18(3): European Council on Foreign Relations, ecfr.eu. Relations, on Foreign Council European r 155

sma. 2008. sma. . EPRU EPRU 14(3): Studies Feminist .” .” opean Union of Post of Union opean

– .

eds. 2002. .

International Organization 52 Organization International Thinking about Strategic Culture Strategic about Thinking

Potomac Books In Books Potomac An Overview An - 181. deas, and epistemic communities in European Security and and Security European in communities epistemic and deas, elation and the European Union. Oxford: OUP Oxford: Union. European the and elation .

ne te vlto o te CFSP” the of Evolution the ence:

417 – Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis (Potomac Books Books (Potomac Analysis Policy Foreign for Institute EU Conflict Prevention and Crisis Management: Roles, Roles, Management: Crisis and Prevention Conflict EU 2(2).

Where to?” Policy Brief, European Policy Centre, EPC, EPC, Centre, Policy European Brief, Policy to?” Where The Gramsci Read Gramsci The

utltrl euiy n ED Operations ESDP and Security Multilateral -

27 433. .”

NATO and the Warsaw Pact: intrabloc conflicts intrabloc Pact: Warsaw the and NATO

237

Stephen Krasner. Krasner. Stephen (4): European Foreign Affairs Review 9: Review Affairs Foreign European .

Post

. . o Review A States? Failing Rebuild EU the Can

Defence Reform, Modernization, and Military Military and Modernization, Reform, Defence ” 211 New Haven: Harvard University Press University Harvard New Haven: in Gunther Hause and Franz Kernic, European European Kernic, Franz and Hause Gunther in -

Cold War Defense Reform: Lessons Learned Lessons Reform: Defense War Cold prpcie n ehcl oe Europe power ‘ethical on perspective t ofotn te Yugosla the Confronting - c. Defence Coordination: The Europeanization Europeanization The Coordination: Defence 234. - Security?” Cooperation and Conflict 42(1): Conflict and Cooperation Security?”

“Political Science and the Three New New Three the and Science “Political 575 er: Selected Writing. 1916 Selected Writing. er: . ECPR . -

957. - 38 599. (4). - 1998. : _where_to.pdf 501

and Military in Post War Japan. Post in War Military and

.” International Security 19(4): Security International .”

and Identity in World Politics. World in Identity and Studies in European politics, politics, European in Studies - 522

“International Organization Organization “International . ” Millennium Millennium ”

.

n Chri in of the Polish foreign foreign Polish the of v Controversies: A A Controversies: v

stopher Hill and and Hill stopher 1 . . - International ”,

26. – - 1935. 1935.

. . Journal of of Journal

.” Ashgate Ashgate

R Inc.). . eview eview

Kent Kent New New .’’ .’’ .” .”

f

CEU eTD Collection Rasa and Michael, Merlingen Frédéric. Mérand, 25 Frédéric. Mérand, Mérand Frédéric Mérand, McSwe 2003. February Karl. Maton, 2002. Zoltán. Martinusz, Mannitz, Ian. Manners, Ian. Manners, 2011. Jeffrey. Mankoff, “ 2005. C. Major, ed. 2006. Lyon, David. 2010. Oded. Löwenheim, J, Juan Linz, André Lecors, Leebaer 2008. Anna. Leander, 2010. Shilliam. R. and G. Lawson, 2005. Bruno. Latour, Lapid, “ 2002. Autumn, S. Jeffrey Lantis, and Security Common EU’s 2012. the Erwan. Lagadec, Explaining eds. 2011. Breuer. Fabian and Xymena, Kurowska, Xyme Kurowska, Né Bence and Xymena, Kurowska, 1994. Hieronim. Kubiak, Krause, Krause the Rest Pal Action. in Theory Policy. Defence Security European in encounter research Geostrategy, europe/ European Press. University Oxford ed. Karp. Cowen Methods and Politics Square Press implementation perspective. perspective. implementation Euro the Policy of Conference Defence and Security European Skills Cambri Knowledge States United the and Europe in Learned Lessons Reform: Defense Opportunities Missed and Efforts Routledge Security European Pu Littlefield nation Studies Eu Southern Culturalists.” to the Challenge Press University Cambridge Guide Pluralist A Relations: in International Affairs International of Review Cambridge Press University Boulder Publishers, Lynne Rienner 4(3): Review oe, n rerc rtcwl 19. eds. 1996. Kratochwil. Friedrich and Yosef, n, il 1999. Bill. eny, , Keith, and Michael C. Williams. 1997. eds. 1997. C. Williams. Michael and Keith, Derekm t,

Frédéric. 2008. Frédéric. et, n Mcal . ilas Ot 19. “ 1996. Oct. Williams. C. Michael and Keith, aie 21. ed. 2012. Sabine. .” -

state? Paper prepared for the Int for prepared Paper dge: Cambridge University Press University dge: Cambridge

.

2008. 2008. 36(4): . Spebr 2000. September .

December 2006. 2006. December n Afe Ste Alfred and Routledge . . 2010.

a ad ejmn . Talli C. Benjamin and na, .” , Europeanization and Foreign and Security Policy: Undermining or rescuing the the rescuing or Undermining Policy: Security and Foreign and Europeanization blishers 2 April 200 April 2 rope, South America, and Post America, South rope,

” Politics ” Space & Culture & Space 87 . n Tmty ikno. 1992. Dickinson. Timothy and

“The normative ethics of the European Union European the of ethics normative “The

1023 -

- 9 ac 20. “ 2008. March 29 “Thinking Tools “Thinking

. 113. Theorizing Surveilla Theorizing Intro An Social. the Reassembling .

Central and Eastern Europe: The Challenge of Transition of Challenge The Europe: Eastern and Central

Transatlantic Relations in the 21 the in Relations Transatlantic

Eur ESDP of Birth the and Bourdieu “Pierre

usa Frin oiy Te eun f ra Pwr Politics Power Great of Return The Policy: Foreign Russian Chapter 4. “Poland: national security in a changing environment changing a in security national “Poland: 4. Chapter 15(4): euiy iett ad neet: sociol a interests: and identity Security, - hpe Fute: “ Fourteen: Chapter . .

1045.

.”

Te I i I: n uotngahc Account Autoethnographic An IR: in “I” “The

opean Defence Policy Beyond Policy Defence opean

25 International Studies Review International eortc Civil Democratic pean Union Studies Association, Austin, TX Austin, Association, Studies Union pean 5. “ 5.

(3):

405 “Pierre Bourdieu and the Epistemic Conditions of Social Scientific Scientific Social of Conditions Epistemic the and Bourdieu “Pierre pan. 2011. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Consolidation: and Transition Democratic of Problems 2011. pan.

Social Representations and Institutional Bricolage. The Case of the the of Case The Bricolage. Institutional and Representations Social Erpa Uin Nraie oe’ n te euiy Challenge Security the and Power’ ‘Normative Union “European Strategic Cultur Strategic srukie 2007. Ostrauskaite. .

Routledge. 175 - meth. 421.

6(1): Canadian Journal of Political Science of Journal Canadian

Terzn Clua Iette: itrcl ntttoaim as Institutionalism Historical Identities: Cultural “Theorizing http://www.europeangeostrategy.org/2013/05/playground “ oilg ad nentoa rel international and Sociology . ” in in ” - ernational Studies Association. San Francisco San Association. Studies ernational 190. . The Practice of European Defence: Field, Crisis, and Social Social and Crisis, Field, Defence: European of Practice The

” in Ist in ”

. 2013. 2013. 52

. nce The panopticon and beyond. beyond. andWill panopticon The nce grave Macmillan. grave Audie Klotz and Deepa Prakash. eds. eds. Prakash. Deepa and Klotz Audie

- . 201 s. 65.

- . Defence iiay eain: odeig n 21 in Soldiering Relations: Military van Gyarmati & Theod & Gyarmati van

.” Security Dialogue 44 Dialogue Security .” .” “A playground in in playground “A

23 (1):

. 238 e and National Security Policy.” International Studies Studies International Policy.” Security National and e -

Paper presented at the 9th Biennial International International Biennial 9th the at presented Paper

Communist Europe. JHU Press. Europe. JHU Communist eds Critical

3

e h Rtr o Clue n Iett i I Theory IR in Identity and Culture of Return The .

ds. .

“Chiasmatic crossings: A reflexive revisit of a a of revisit reflexive A crossings: “Chiasmatic

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Palgrave Basingstoke: 69 Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Studies: Security of Agenda the Broadening uoen euiy n dfne policy: defence and security European Reform in Hungary: A Decade of Strenuous Strenuous of Decade A Hungary: in Reform

st oit taey n Nw iiay Thinking Military New and Strategy Soviet

-

49(2): Secur

the Nation State. Oxford University Press University State. Oxford Nation the 86. Century: Europe, America and the Rise of of Rise the and America Europe, Century: uto t Actor to duction

.

ity Studies Concepts and Cases. UCL UCL Cases. and Concepts Studies ity ” Security Studies 19(2): 342 Studies Security ” 229 Central Europe: who plays what?”, in in what?”, plays who Europe: Central . ” International Affairs International ” - tos lgce ad prospects.” and legacies ations: 254. ( ogy of international relations. relations. international of ogy or Winkler. eds. Winkler. or 1 ): .

. 73 33(3):

Potomac Books Inc. Books Potomac .” -

- 89 Network Review of International International of Review . an Publishing an

499 , A Sipri Publication Sipri A , Qualitative Methods Qualitative

st

- . etr Europe Century 522. -

Theory.

Post 84(1): .

.” in Regina Regina in .” omn & Rowman - Cold War War Cold - . 374. 374. - 40

central

Oxford Oxford - 60.

an .

. a ” - . . . ,

CEU eTD Collection Barry. Posen, a Nicu, Popescu, Karolina Pomorska, P David Phinnemore, 2006. David. Phinnemore, Paul Pierson, 3 May Roderick. Parkes, Papadimitriou, Mihai Ion Pacepa, 2006. Róbert. Ondrejcsák, “ 2002. J. Olsen, Neil. Nugent, 2001. May Christian. Nünlist, Noutche 2002. B. Iver Neumann, ‘” (2008) Zulean Marian and Liviu, Muresan, “ 2007. Liviu. Muresan, Liviu. Muresan, “ 2005. Rens. van Munster, “ 2002. Ulrika. Mörth, “ 2006. Jennifer. Mitzen, Nicolescu Valentin Andrei, Miroiu, 2012. David. Miller, Ch Meyer, 2012. Michael. Merlingen, ohl, Benjamin. 2014. Benjamin. ohl, Management, University of Southern Denmark. Southern of University Management, Terror.” on War Universit R Claudio Dilemma Pact the in Warsaw Romania Ally: Insignificant and Company Publishing Unipolarity? Georgia 2 (1): Diplomacy adapt Tracking Politics, Routledge Domestic & Research 29(2) Studies Political Comparative http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=51958 Membership? to Marginalisation Defence, mihai of http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/259038/reagan100 Ministers 4 the Europe Central in Differentiation’ of Committee Arena the Macmillan of Records ftp://budgie3.ethz.ch/php/documents/collection_3/cmd_texts/introduction.pdf Committee: 1969 EU.” the to Accession 31(3): Millennium (eds.) Trinkunas Harold and Glo Thomas, Bruneau, in Romania’ in Reform Defence and Security Press). (IOS Dynamics Societal and Human Series. Security and Peace for Science T. Dokos, States United eds. Winkler. Theodor ): va Gergana, and Dimitar Bechev. 2008. “ 2008. Bechev. Dimitar and Gergana, va 76 bal Politics of Defence Reform. Palgrave Macmillan Palgrave Reform. Defence of Politics bal

ristoph O. 2006. O. ristoph Defence in the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan Palgrave Union. European the in Defence - - - 90 90 . pacepa

1996. . .” 2006. .” . yPress .”

iirs ad ai Pinmr. 2008. Phinnemore. David and Dimitris, , Policy Brief, European Council on Foreign Relations, ecf Relations, Foreign on Council European Brief, , Policy

Apr 2002. “ 2002. .

Parallel History Project on NATO and the Warsaw Pact Warsaw the and NATO on Project History Parallel del ad ei Fahrtn. eds. Featherstone. Kevin and adaelli Security Sector Transformation in Southeastern Europe and the Middle East, NATO NATO East, Middle the and Europe Southeastern in Transformation Sector Security

European d ak enr, nrw isn Ags 20. “ 2008. August Wilson. Andrew Leonard, Mark nd The . .” Security Studies 15(2): Studies Security .”

.

. 2011. 2011. .

il . House Random A MilitaryHistory, Cold War: The . Potomac Books Inc Books . Potomac 20. “ 2007. .

2006. ed. 2006.

-

The Government and Politics of the European Union, Sixth Edition. Palgrave Palgrave Edition. Sixth Union, European the of Politics and Government The Policies Public of Editing and Translation, Interpretation, as Europeanization ue 06 “ 2006. June to ad hne n The in change and ation

“The Path to European Integration: A Historical Historical A Integration: European to Path “The .

ay ae o Europeanization of Faces Many

25 Demo with Experience Romanian The EU Foreign Policy and Crisis Management Operations: Power, Purpose, and and Purpose, Power, Operations: Management Crisis and Policy Foreign EU Defence Reform Reform Defence 627 Political Science Publications, Department of Political Science and Public Public and Science Political of Department Publications, Science Political 1, 2013. 2013. 1, -

51. Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Security the and Identity State Politics: World in Security Ontological The EU and Romania: Great Expectations, The Federal Trust for Education Education for Trust Federal The Expectations, Great Romania: and EU The .

EU Security Policy: What It IS, How It Works, Why It Matters It Why Works, It How IS, It What Policy: Security EU - The Quest for a European Strategic Culture: Changing Norms on Security Security on Norms Changing Culture: Strategic European a for Quest The “Security Policies of the Slovak Republic and Hungary Hungary and Republic Slovak the of Policies “Security Relations International of Journal

Rtrig rcie o h Lnusi Tur Linguistic the to Practice “Returning

51. M Risk School, Copenhagen The Security: of Logics East

The Impact of Enlargement: Europeanization of Polish Foreign Policy? Policy? Foreign Polish of Europeanization Enlargement: of Impact The

Reagan@100: He Knew How to Deal with Dictators, The Corner, , , Corner, The Dictators, with Deal to How Knew He Reagan@100: “Cold W “Cold

Post The EU and Romania: Accession Accession Romania: and EU The

European Politics & Societies 22(1): Societies & Politics European - “How Poland Came to Be a Major Major a Be to Came Poland “How . Cold War Defence Reform: Lessons Learned in Europe and the the and Europe in Learned Lessons Reform: Defence War Cold

European Union Security and Defence Policy: Response to to Response Policy: Defence and Security Union European

- Quintus, Quintus, ar Generals: The Warsaw Pact Committee of of Committee Pact Warsaw The Generals: ar .

Routledge .” . in Romania: An Ongoing Process.” Process.” Ongoing An Romania: in

: nentoa Ise & lvk oeg Plc Aff Policy Foreign Slovak & Issues International 123

149 - 163. - n Radu and

186. From National, Through Regional, to Universal…”: Universal…”: to Regional, Through National, From 239 Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The Hague Journal of of Journal Hague The Affairs.” Foreign of Ministry .

The Successful Laggards: Bulgaria and Bulgaria Laggards: Successful The

.”

Romanian Journal of Society and Politics and Society of Journal Romanian

.” ARENA Working Papers. WP 01/2. Oslo: Oslo: 01/2. WP Papers. Working ARENA .” T

Romania and The European Union: From From Union: European The and Romania he politics of Europeanization. Europeanization. of politics he

-

eata Ungure Sebastian

. 12(3):

cratic Control of the Security Sector Security the of Control cratic . -

he and Beyond. and - 341 knew .

114 Can the EU win the peace in in peace the win EU the Can - EU Power.” Carnegie Europe, Europe, Carnegie Power.” EU : h Cs o Diplomacy of Case The n: 370. . -

r.eu. how Pact theWarsaw of Records - ntttoait Perspective Institutionalist 144.

- I B Tauris & CoLtd Tauris B I in Gyarmat in

deal n. a 2004. May anu.

anagement and the the and anagement -

dictators Defence –

i, Istvan, and and Istvan, i,

the ‘Limited ‘Limited the . UK: Oxford Oxford UK:

L. Rienner Rienner L. Romania’s Romania’s - airs

ion Ministers,

-

4(1). XV( .

“The “The .” in in .” .”

3 in in . .”

” - CEU eTD Collection M. Stephen Walt, Adam Varga, General Defence, National of Ministry Romanian The Romani The Terry Terriff, Colo Ionel, Stoica, Au Stinga, “ 2005. J. Brent Steele, Snyder, Snyder, “ 1999. S. Smith, 2007. W. P. Singer, Ul Sedelmeier, Schm “ 2008. June A. V. Schmidt, Schimmelfennin Sa S Stone Alex Sandholtz, 1995. Spring Peter. Stephen Rose, R “ 2006. P. Rieker, 2009. Bob. Reinalda, 2013. Martin. Reichard, “ 2005. W. Rees, Radael 2002. Claudio. Radaelli, 2010. Vincent. Pouliot, Vincent. Pouliot, “ 2008. Vincent. Pouliot, ieker, P. 2004. “ 2004. P. ieker, tr Mr B, n Cn . ul. 03 eds. 2013. Mutlu. E. Can and B., Mark lter, idt, V. A., and C. M. Radaelli. 2004. “ 2004. Radaelli. M. C. and A., V. idt, Routledge Publishing Union European the and Relation International 27(2) Edition Special European Politics, West eds. Radaelli. Press. University Cambridge York: New and Cambridge Diplomacy NATO Organization International 35(2): 394, Bucharest 2001 Forces, Armed in 2010 Forces Press University eds. Defence National 1, 2014). on May (accessed of the Area Civil American War Monica Santa years twenty Press. University Governance European Issues Methodological Discourse Press University Cornell Europe. Eastern Introduction Press University Oxford Security States.” Nordic the of Identities Frenc of i Cado ad iin cmd. 04 eds. 2004. Schmidt. Vivien and Claudio, li, Craig A. A. Craig Jack. 1977. Jack. Present and in the Future the in and Present r

.” .” elian. Colonel Romanian Army. 12 March 2007. “ 2007. March 12 Army. Romanian Colonel elian. ht ocs o go: ompltn iiais n h 2s Century 21st the in Militaries Cosmopolitan good: for Forces

an Ministry of National Defence. Defence. National of Ministry an . 211 USAWC Strategy Research Project, Strategy Research Project. Research Strategy Project, Strategy Research USAWC tp://www.konyvtar.zmne.hu/docs/Volume10/Issue2/pdf/13.pdf . 2011. . 2004

h Foreign and Security Policy?” Security and h Foreign rich. 19 , rn, n Urc Sdlee. 05 eds. 2005. Sedelmeier. Ulrich and Frank, g, .” - . . 1999. ed. 1999. 2008

239.

The Ext The ( 4): ( Europeanization of Nordic Security: The European Union and the Changing Security Security Changing the and Union European The Security: Nordic of Europeanization

h increa The . From Common Defence to Comprehensive Security: Towards the Europeanization Europeanization the Towards Security: Comprehensive to Defence Common From Annual Review of Political Science Political of Review Annual Jun. 1991. Jun. nel (AF). 2011. (AF). nel .” .” . “ .

London and New York: Routledge York: New and London

2011. .

The Politics of Europeanization of Politics The The Soviet Strategic Culture: Implications for Nuclear Options Nuclear for Implications Culture: Strategic Soviet The

Contemporary Security Policy Security Contemporary

Corporate Warriors: The Rise of Privatized Military Industry Military Privatized of Rise The Warriors: Corporate “Romania. Historical development for Western integration Western for development Historical “Romania. Warfig NATO:

Routledge History of International Organizations. From 1815 to the Present Day, Day, Present the to 1815 From Organizations. International of History Routledge

– 65 b .

. “ . .” Refor nooia scrt ad h pwr f self of power the and security Ontological

nentoa Scrt i Patc: h Pltc o NATO of Politics The Practice: in Security International

weet Wayne and Neil Fligstein. 2001. eds. 2001. Fligstein. Neil and Wayne weet -

h Lgc f rciaiy A hoy f rcie f euiy Communities Security of Practice of Theory A Practicality: of Logic The ’h E ‘’The ernal Face of Int of Face ernal 93. .”

Security Community in and through Practice: The Power Politics of Russia of Politics Power The Practice: through and in Community Security Doctoral Thesis, Department of Political Science, University of Toro of University Political Science, of Department Thesis, Doctoral h EU The “Europeanisation in new member and candidate states candidate and member new in “Europeanisation

Cont Review of International Studies 31: Studies International of Review .” West European Politics 27(2): Politics European .” West

sing insecurity of security studies: Conceptualizing security in the last last the in security Conceptualizing studies: security of insecurity sing m and Euro m

6(1): . “The Renaissance of Security Studies Security of Renaissance “The

emporary Security and Strategy. New York: Routledge York: New Strategy. and Security emporary icrie ntttoaim Te xlntr P Explanatory The Institutionalism: Discursive . Cambridge University Press, 62(2):257 Press, University Cambridge . uropeanization of Public Policy.” Policy.” Public of uropeanization ,

-

5 Perspective Political and Legal A Relationship: NATO Romanian Armed Forces Cultural System System Cultural Forces Armed Romanian hters or Cosmopolitan Warriors?” in L. Elliot and G. Cheeseman. Cheeseman. G. and Elliot L. in Warriors?” Cosmopolitan or hters . -

52 Training and Doctrine Directorate, The General Staff, th Staff, General The Directorate, Doctrine and Training

. www.mapn.ro/smg/gmr/Engleza/Ultimul_nr/stoica Cooperation and Conflict and Cooperation

. Mltr Efciees Wy oit Matters Society Why Effectiveness: “Military

- Atlantic Integration.” Atlantic ernal Security.” ernal Policy Change and Discourse in Europe: Conceptual and and Conceptual Europe: in Discourse and Change Policy

The The Security Dialogue Security .

240 eerh ehd i Ciia Scrt Suis A Studies. Security Critical in Methods Research White Paper of the Government: “ Government: the of Paper White

20(3): . Oxford University Press. University . Oxford

. Oxford: OUP Oxford: . uoenzto, oiy hne n Dis and Change Policy Europeanization,

. 11:

Staff. Strategic Vision Vision Strategic Staff. 303 72

in Christoph in - European Security in the Wider Black Sea Black the Wider in Security European 101. - 183 326.

Bucharest 1999 Bucharest

519

39

h Europeanization The - 37: 210.

(4): in Kevin Fe Kevin in - . 540.

- 509 The Institutionalization of Europe of Institutionalization The identity: British neutrality and the the and neutrality British identity: .

” International Studies Quarterly Quarterly Studies International ” 369

er Hill and Michael Smith. eds. Smith. Michael and Hill er -

- 530. 288. - 394.

.

Ma

–

. atherstone and Claudio Claudio and atherstone –

2010 of the Romanian Romanian the of 2010

.” nchest A “Necessary Evil” in in Evil” “Necessary A

ower of Ideas and and Ideas of ower . AARMS 10 AARMS .” - .

usa Diplomacy Russia New York: York: New

Rand Corporation, Corporation, Rand Living Reviews in in Reviews Living Romanian Armed Armed Romanian

. er: Manchester Manchester er:

of Central and and Central of - .” p.104

In ternational ternational . e Ministry Ministry e

nto. - (2): Ashgate Ashgate 114.pdf course. course. Cornel

385 .” n - - . . , l

CEU eTD Collection Identity, Defence and Security European http://english.mapn.ro/organization/ Defence, of Ministry Romanian The Planning, and Defence of Policy of Department Diplomacy, Weapons’ Data from Agency, Defence the European of establishment the on2004 12 July of 2004/551/CFSP ACTION JOINT COUNCIL international Security, Maritime International Centre for archive/ http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/infoBios/setimes/resource_centre/bio Popescu Calin Profile, Aurescu’s Bogdan http://english.mapn.ro/leadership/minister/index.php Dusan, Mircea Minister Defence National Romanian of Biography NATO, of history A short ( sources Other “ 2001. Jan. Zielonka, Zaborowski 1999. S. David Yost, “ 2005. R. Wong, William 2007. C. M. Williams, eds. 2008. Diez. Thomas and Antje, Wiener, G.2012. West, B. Elliot Weininger, “ 2004. al. M.et Webber, “ 6 Chapter 2003. L. Larry Watts, “ 1991. Jun. M. Stephen Walt, R.2006. Walker, Lo Wacquant, “ 2005. W. Wagner, Kelstrup, Morten Buzan, Barryand O., Wæver, 17 Ole. Wæver, Accessed security Charles. Krupnick, in 35(2): N and London Politics German Europe in Agenda Security New the and Migration Int Orig their and euiy oiy n h Twenty the 507 in Policy http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/occ56.pdf Security Peace of Institute States Union European the and Relation International Czech Routledge. Press P ed. Wright. Olin 26. s, Kieran, and Dennis Deletant. 2001. Deletant. Dennis and Kieran, s, ress Tăriceanu Tăriceanu ernational Studies Association, Montreal Association, Studies ernational

- 536. Mri. eebr 2008. December Marcin. , . .

-

211 operations on May on 1, 2014) Romania and Slovakia Republic, ïc. 2006. ïc. .

Tăriceanu Tăriceanu

Rowman Rowman Privatization of Military Functions, Military Functions, of Privatization - - 20 March 2004. “ 2004. March 20

239. Exceptional Imperial, International, Insecurity: of “Lines The Europeanization of F of Europeanization The http://www.eda.europa.eu/genericitem.aspx?area=Background&id=1 _calin

ins between Core and Periphery.” and Core between ins 2005. Chapter 4 “ 4 Chapter 2005. policy defence and security European in Germany laggard: to vanguard From ew York: Macmillan, New Edition New Macmillan, York: ew

NATO Transformed: The Alliance’s New Roles in Interna in Roles New Alliance’s The Transformed: NATO

How New Enlarged Borders Borders Enlarged New How Culture and security: symbolic power and the poli the and power symbolic security: and Culture 14(4): Chapter 16: 16: Chapter lentv Fudtos f ls Analysis Class of Foundations Alternative - since

The The & Littlefield Pu Littlefield & http://www.nato.int/history/nato

Profil http://www.mae.ro/en/node/2028

Almost NATO: partners and players in Central and Eastern European European Eastern and Central in players and partners NATO: Almost governance of European Security.” European of governance 455 - 19 . The The

e, e, 99

http://stirile.rol.ro/print/diplomatia - Romania and NATO: The National The NATO: and Romania 469. Aberystwyth, Paris, Copenhagen, New “Schools” in “Schools” New Copenhagen, Paris, Aberystwyth,

- “Pierre Bourdieu.” in Rob Stone Rob in Bourdieu.” “Pierre Renaissance of Security Studies.” Security of Renaissance 001/

Pierre Bourdieu on Social Cla Social on Bourdieu Pierre

blishers, Inc. blishers, “From America’s Protégé to Constructive European, Polish Polish European, Constructive to Protégé America’s “From

http://cimsec.org/polish oreign Policy.” oreign

. Palgrave Macmillan . Palgrave European Integration Theory. Theory. Integration European Security Intelligence Services in New Democracies The The Democracies New in Services Intelligence Security

Pierre Lemaitre wi Lemaitre Pierre . 241

London: BiblioScholar. London: - is Century First

il ehp te uoen no. JM 39(3): JCMS Union.” European the Reshape will . Oxford: OUP Oxford: .

.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the the of meeting annual the at presented Paper - . London: Pinter London: . history.html

(accessed on May 1, 2014). 1, on May (accessed

in Chri in

Review of International Studies International of Review - eds. Smith. Michael and Hill stopher - th David Carlton et al. 1993. al. et Carlton David th strategic . armelor

. . s. ed. s. .

Cambridge: Cambridge: ss and Symbolic Violence.” in Erik Erik in Violence.” Symbolic and ss - Ocsoa Paper Occasional ”

Regional Security Sector Nexus Sector Security Regional

Internatio .” .

Key Contemporary Thinkers Contemporary Key

tics of international security. security. international of tics - SecurityDialogue - 57253.html guidance/participation Oxford: Oxford University University Oxford Oxford: tional Security tional Cambridge University University Cambridge nal Studies Quarterly Studies nal

22 Security Theory Theory Security

-

37.

. Identity, Identity,

United United

30: - in 56, 56,

- 3 .” .” .” - .

CEU eTD Collection surprised release Press http://www.ziare.com/ release Press 08/21/content_9563328.htm release Press rezolvarea Union, European the with negotiations its conclude release Press al proiectele Neighbourhood, Eastern release Press declaratie http://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/politic/ Press http://www. D release Press strategia Strategy, Security European release Press (2011), Bucharest in accredited corps diplomatic release, Press comandat commander, release Press mostenirea http://www.agerpres.ro/politica/2014/04/27/interviu Minister, Defence National Dusan, Mircea of declaration Press Affairs, External of Ministry 24.03.2009, of mandate.”, 6 months after in Georgia team the Romanian for result “Positive the regarding Diaconescu, Cristian Affairs, Foreign of Minister Romanian former of declaration Press of Bureau, Security Polish National version/5043,English 2013, from Security National Strategic of Book Poland’s White Feature/Detail/?lng=en&id=156796 2007, Strategy from Security National Poland’s (2004 Althea EUFOR (2003), Concordia BerlinPlus: of Operation framework in the launched Operations Union, European thewith relations NATO’s operations Support Peace NATO https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945 the Historian, of State, Office of Department 1949, US (NATO), Organization Treaty Atlantic North travel visa Moldovans’ Profile, Mircea Geoana’s 07.05.2009, States, United the of Council DC, Atlantic Affairs, Foreign of Romanian Minister former of Declaration Affairs, External of Ministry http://www.mae.ro/index.php?lang=en 28.09.2009, Bucharest, BLACKSEAFOR, the of Group Expert Level High of Meeting (ISAF), Force Assistance Security International http://www.mapn.ro/publicatii/2011/infosfera6.pdf Review Information Defence and SecurityStudies The Infosfera, Goals, Headline Helsinki strategy 2003, Strategy, Security European http://europa.eu/legis iplomatic Missions, The Office of the Romanian the Romanian of Office The Missions, iplomatic - - presedintelui the - - - - visa current), current), release, Republic / - -

de - - - by - - energetice la - de f - Presidency conflictului doctrine/ ree - pe - - securitate adresa the - http://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/politic/traian nava.html – – – - – – – – - - President President care - - http://eeas.europa.eu/csdp/about

eu President 281173.html of - The The - Traian Romanian The President President President President http://www.mae.ro/index.php?lang=en free travel in the EU, in the travel free statements - - Poland 301341 - - o

romaniei.html President - - lation_summaries/glossary/european_security_defence_identity_en.htm - Băsescu version. - europene .ro/?_RID=det&tb=date&id=13875&_PRID=s lasam - Doctrine, Operations transnistrean maritima Băsescu

http://m.romanialibera.ro/actualitate/politica/traian http://eeas.europa.eu/csdp/about Băsescu Băsescu http://www.nato

-

Băsescu Băsescu Băsescu now Băsescu Băsescu -

-

http://www.zf.ro/politica/ of celor

html

Băsescu /presedinte/romania ’s discourse at Annual Meeting of the Heads of the Romanian Romanian the of the Heads of Meeting Annual at discourse ’s - - in - traian President -

nu a http://en.bbn.gov.pl/en/news/332,White - on Russia and Transnistria, Transnistria, and on Russia English.html - of chiefs with Thursday on meeting annual at an ’s speech s quote on quote s -

- ue care

http://www.eeas.europa.eu/csdp/about

on the Tran on the se -

on the anti the on in the advantages energetic and economic the clear addresses in the be introduced to needs Sea region Black the that stressed mor on his reminisces republica

- - - 11804161 Băsescu http://www.euractiv.com/sections/europes - pot ii - vin - - raspunde - 1952/nato

- pa.int/default.asp?SHORTCUT=2582 on Kosovo (2008), (2008), Kosovo on opri - dupa http://www.nato.int/issues/nato http://publicintelligence.net/nato

the Republic of Moldova’s EU integration, integration, EU Moldova’s of Republic the - - - moldova - snistrian conflict, the Republic of Moldova will not will not Moldova of Republic the conflict, snistrian la missiles shield, shield, missiles regarding http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital http://www.isaf.nato.int/

- - -

-

noi csdp/berlin/index_en.htm 242 Băsescu granita Presidency

http://mpviena.mae.ro/en/romania - - - mircea va vi

http://www.mediafax.ro/politic/ - cepremierului Băsescu 10 - gazdui http://www.mae.ro/index.php?lang=en

- - nu - 24 - de the - e happy and glory days as a navy a as navy days e happyglory and - - - dusa eram - va csdp/military_headline_goals/index_en.htm - 29 est

- - http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008 - 2014), January (15 http://actmedia.eu/daily/moscow - transdniester scutul incheia marea http://www.spbn.gov.pl/sbn/english

- - - a integrarea , 2 , mai - romaniei - nd rus

-

antiracheta -

- fericit year, no.2/2010, year, no.2/2010, - neagra negocierile -

el

- - Book cum - - - - - csdp/european

- - eu/index.html romaniei Băsescu pe conflict/47206 - citeste peace - - trebuie Library/Articl - - - vremea se on

- - american east/moldovans - - - Băsescu pentru trezeste National - - discursul support - - - - news/1279 in la introdusa - - -

cand nato Washington Washington congresul -

ue

- - - es/Special - security 992765 - face

- fara Security - - - - 11129487

eram integral

- - - - in

o

------ppe - -

- - - -

CEU eTD Collection Romanian The The http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/permanent_structured_cooperation_en.htm Coo Structured Lisbon, Permanent of Treaty Affairs, External of Ministry Romanian The http://www.mapn.ro/smg/misiuni.php# missions, international Romanian Defence, of Ministry Romanian The http://www.historia.ro/exclusiv_web/general/articol/o States, United the tovisit state Ceausescu, Nicolae dictator’s, Romanian The Army, Romanian The http://www.kormany.hu/download/4/32/b0000/National%20Security%20Strategy.pdf 2012, Hungary of the Republic of Strategy Security National The (2000), Romania of MilitaryStrategy The percent Defence, of Ministry Hungarian The 00005_en.htm http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/foreign_and_security_policy/cfsp_and_esdp_implementation/r Committee, Security and EU’s Political The agencies/eu Staff, Military Union EU’s European The instruments Committee, Military Union EU’s European The cooperation/enpi Partn EU’s Eastern The Trade, Moldova EU and The http://eeas.europa. Plans, Action Policy (ENP) Neighbourhood European the EU and The http://english.mapn.ro/organization/ Defenc of Ministry Romanian The Planning, and Defence of Policy of Department The CNSAS, Securitate the Former of the Archives of Studies Councilfor The http://www. The Romania, of Constitution The Agreement, Plus Berlin The ECB1D9ADA7A1/0/national_security_strategy.pdf http://www.mfa.gov.hu/NR/rdonlyres/61FB6933 (1998), Policy Defence and Security the of Basic Principles The http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_27433.htm the Nort of meeting the in participating Government Stateand of Heads the by Approved Concept Strategic Alliance’s The http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_23847.htm 1991 09 Nov. Council, Atlantic North the of the Meeting in participating Government and State of Heads the by agree Concept Strategic New Alliance’s The the of Administration The 2013.” December of Council European the Treaty to Lisbon the From CSDP. to Contribution “Romanian 2013. Lucian. Aurescu, Bogdan by Speech academy.ch/RULAC/peace_operations.php?id_state=87 Project, Conflicts Armed in Law of Rule romani bureaucracy, state Romanian 19034173 Romanian Missions, CSDP in Participation Romania’s http://www.mae.ro/en/node/21222 EU Missions in Participation Romania’s lupta%27 europeana/articles|displayArticle/articleID_8072/Romania “battlegroups”, EU to contributes Romania Affairs, Foreign of Ministry Romanian capabilities, military and civilian European of development the to contribution Romania’s President President - - news of -

ale -

Traian Traian President hungarian cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_2&par1=3 - - agencies/eumc/ - military - 221529 Uniunii

Traian Traian

Presidency - east/index_en.htm Băsescu eu/enp/documents/action h Atlantic Council in Washington D.C., 24 Apr, 1999, 1999, Apr, 24 D.C., Councilin Washington Atlantic h -

- staff/ - Traian Traian

Europene.html troops Băsescu

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/ro ership, ership, President , ’s foreign policy, policy, ’s foreign http://www. - Băsescu http://eeas.europa.eu/csdp/about on

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries http://www.euractiv ’s Profile, ’s Profile, http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/neighbourhood/regional - foreign . Presidency

of Romania, Romania, of

http://www.kormany.hu/en/ministry

’s impeachment, impeachment, ’s

- Presidency missio http://www.geneva – http://www.epp.eu/party http://www.eeas.europa.eu/csdp/structures http://www.mae.ro/en/node/2064

http://english.mapn.ro/milstrategy/foreword.php4/21/2005 Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Affairs, Foreign of Ministry Romanian

http://www.euractiv.ro/uniunea http://www.mae.ro/index.php?lang=en http://www.mae.ro/node/1884 - peration, peration, plans/index_en.htm , ns http://www.cadranpolitic.ro/?p=2529 http://www.eeas.europa.eu/csdp/structures - AE67 - http://www. .com/euro serve 243

.ro/?lang=en

- vizita

- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world 47F8 - with – Strategic Impact Strategic

- 08 Nov. 1991, 1991, Nov. 08 - contribuie - sua -

- - Presidency

finance/huge BDD3 eu - csdp/berlin/index_en.htm - - . cum led -

leader - - - operations - un la - - - and - - .ro/?lang=en %27grupurile sef of traian - -

- . 47 (2): 5 47 (2): . bureaucracy http://www.cnsas.ro/

defence/news/almost - - - stat regions/countries/moldova/

army.htm

-

Băsescu - roman

- -

12. instruments

-

tactice e,

- - nu - prevents

europe

- - va - -

- de mai

-

- - - - 30 - avea

-

CEU eTD Collection http://www.kormany.hu/en/doc?source=2#!DocumentBrowse Government the Hungarian of Website Profile, Ponta Victor protv http://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/politic/discursul Traian (WEU), Union European The Western Group, Visegrad The http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/mutual_defence_en.htm Clause, Mutual Defence The Lisbon, Treaty of The - news.html Băsescu ’s discourse for the 1 for ’s discourse

http:/ http://www.visegradgroup.eu/ /www.bbc.co.uk/news/world st

of December Romanian National, National, Romanian December of http://www.weu.int/ - – lui

Documents, Documents, - traian - Băsescu 244

- europe -

de

- - ziua 17776564 - nationala

.

- a - romaniei - acum - live -