| Author (Person) | Emerson, Michael |
|---|---|
| Series Title | European Voice |
| Series Details | Vol.10, No.19, 27.5.04 |
| Publication Date | 27/05/2004 |
| Content Type | News |
|
By Michael Emerson Date: 27/05/04 THE European Commission's press release announcing a new strategy on 12 May on Neighbourhood Policy stated it was moving this initiative into "higher gear". From neutral into first gear maybe, but overdrive this was not. Positive aspects, though, are the strategy's comprehensive regional coverage, encompassing all the European CIS states (former Soviet Union members) as well as the South Caucasus and all Mediterranean states of the Barcelona Process. Belarus and Libya are still outsiders, but both are targeted as potential members of the club. The EU is thus trying to construct a ring of friends to the east and south. Taken together with the "big bang" enlargement of 1 May, this is an attempt to spread Europe's cooperative and integrative process to the borders of the Middle East. A cogent aspect of the Commission's country reports on Ukraine, Moldova, Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan and Israel was the standard framework for assessing, first, these countries' records in terms of democracy, the rule of law and human rights, then economic performance and aptness to integrate with the EU single market. The correct distinction was made between the European countries that have taken on the far-reaching obligations of the Council of Europe and the Mediterranean states that have only subscribed to the weaker UN conventions on human rights. Crucial questions New incentives are offered, notably the plan to open a new aid window by 2007, with a single set of administrative rules and procedures for regional programmes that overlap border states of the EU and neighbours. This is a useful step but, as concerns actual money, the Commission limited itself to proposing a substantial increase. In addition, the prospect of gradual inclusion in various EU policies, such as education, science and the single market, is more explicit than before. But the crucial questions are whether this is more than a token policy to try to placate the new outsiders and whether the balance of obligations versus incentives is sufficient to help drive the target states towards progress faster. The Commission, no doubt supported by the majority of member states, declined to offer a perspective of EU membership, for the European states in question. This is strongly desired by Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and Armenia. Enlargement Commissioner Günter Verheugen initially said: "Membership perspectives are not on the table. Full stop." But he later qualified this to "never say never". The alternative line could have been: "The EU holds to its treaties. Any European democracy is eligible for membership. The Copenhagen criteria set out the political and economic norms, as well as the condition that the EU has adequate absorptive capacity to enlarge further. Today this absorptive capacity has been stretched to the limit and it will not be known for many years whether enlargement beyond the list of remaining candidates will be feasible." This makes no commitments, yet is not totally discouraging. As interlocutors in Armenia recently said: "Europe is the only light at the end of the tunnel." The paper's total silence on this point can have unintended effects. It could, for example, help Russia consolidate the reintegration into the CIS of some countries such as Ukraine (surely not the EU's objective) and even have a destabilizing effect, by stimulating for instance interest in Moldova in reunifying with Romania as the only way to get into Europe. The Commission ambiguously half-included Russia in the scope of the policy, although Moscow seems not to like the idea. It virtually ignored the case for strengthening the multilateral pan-European organizations, ranging from the Council of Europe to specialized plans, such as the transit protocol of the energy charter treaty for regulating oil and gas pipelines. The Commission also prefers the bilateral "action plan" approach. Yet a stronger pan-European multilateral framework could be the way to integrate Russia into the process more effectively. Visa-free travel Freedom of movement (at least visa-free travelling) is high on the list of priorities for the target states. On this, the Commission only hints that "the European Union may consider possibilities for visa facilitation", but fails to provide a real guide to the neighbours as to what they have to do to get onto the visa- free list of countries. The neighbourhood policy has yet to reveal clearly what it is meant to be. Three models are possible. Model one is that this is a modest, practical mechanism to mitigate the unfavourable effects of enlargement for border regions on the outside. Model two is that this is an attempt to motivate serious "Europeanization" in the sense of political, economic and societal transformation of neighbouring states, albeit without foreseeable accession chances. Model three is that it is just a thin political gesture to try and placate the excluded. The Commission's policy has an element of model one, yet its geographic coverage is far wider than the border regions and, if it is to become more model two than model three, the incentives will have to be strengthened. Obligations and incentives This is why the membership perspective, even an honestly qualified one as suggested above, is an important omission. The balance of obligations to incentives is against achieving the Europeanization and transformation of target states. The optimist can say that this is a case of a glass half-full, rather than half-empty. At least the glass has been constructed, it is reasonably transparent and more could be poured into the container in due course.
Article considers the European Commission's announcement on 12 May 2004 of a new strategy on neighbourhood policy. |
|
| Source Link | http://www.european-voice.com/ |
| Related Links |
|
| Countries / Regions | Belarus, Eastern Europe, Middle East, Moldova, Northern Africa, Ukraine |
