Eastern Partnership, time for a new opening

The report evaluating the European Union’s eastern policy over the last five years, which will be accepted by the European Parliament, should include some specific ideas on how to improve the aforementioned policy. Executing the agenda described in the report can draw our eastern neighbors, such as Ukraine, significantly closer, and make their EU candidacy perspectives more realistic.

Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus are areas that have much weaker social and economic ties (trade, investments, tourism, students, Diasporas) with the European Union, than some of the union’s southern neighbors (Maghreb). This is a source of discomfort in numerous European cities. The European Union’s eastern neighbors are not Europe’s neighbors but rather its European neighbors, giving them full rights to undertake steps towards membership. Consequently, over the last five years, the European Union has attempted to increase its involvement in Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus, the most important sign of which is the Eastern Partnership, inaugurated in May, 2009. One of its main dimensions is the Europeanization of our eastern neighbors (notably Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Azerbaijan), which would mean fitting them into the “EU mold” (liberal democracy, free market, law enforcement), as well as improving their relations with the EU. The latter is to occur through mutual agreements, establishing a deep and comprehensive free trade area, including them in the Energy Community, and removing long-term visa requirements. Currently, Ukraine is the most advanced in negotiations regarding potential partnership. However, Moldova is chasing it at very high speed. Under the very pro-European government coalition, since fall 2010, Chisinau has gained the privilege to use some of the European Union’s policies, normally reserved only for countries involved in expansion.

A significant strength of the Eastern Partnership is definitely its effort to tighten cooperation between all of the EU’s eastern neighbors (multilateral initiatives), while simultaneously making room for the variety of relations between the EU and its partners. The two most important differences between the Eastern Partnership countries are variations in the form of government (imperfect democracy vs. authoritarian regime), and strictly related to it, the matter of interest in joining the EU. To put it in simpler terms, the first group of pro-European and more democratic countries includes Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, and contrasts with the other group, made up of Azerbaijan, Belarus, and, unfortunately, Armenia. The new report coming from the European Parliament should not dismiss this duality, yet it should also offer some ideas to improve the Partnership’s agenda. Its basis should be assigning a priority status to the most promising relations with our eastern neighbors. Their increased ties to the EU and resulting domestic improvements, especially in economic terms, can cause positive changes in other countries, following the domino effect. As a result, it can accomplish better multilateral co­operation. The key factor should also be re­cognized in realistic, not only ideological acceptance of democratization as a main motive of the Partnership’s agenda. In practice, that would require assuming the EU’s “up and down” approach, which includes increased financial and institutional support for non-governmental organizations, the media and universities, as well as small businesses in partner countries — and relating the level of such support to the level of democratization that is taking place.

Thanks to this approach, it will be possible to create pressure for reforms from top-down (EU) and bottom-up (citizens and society overall). Building liberal democracy based on lawful government is especially important in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, which are also the most promising partners in the east. Over the last 20 years those countries, despite many weaknesses and problems, have been democracies, albeit with defects such as authoritarian tendencies and corruption. The long-term stabilization of those countries, which is what the EU cares about, is therefore highly unlikely without thorough democratization. Without the EU’s support it even seems impossible. Liberal democracy as well as the modernization of the free market are incredibly difficult to imagine without rule of law. For this reason, fighting corruption should become another goal of the Eastern Partnership. Additionally, in this instance, the institutional and financial support of the EU should be directed at law enforcement agencies and justice departments, the increasing independence of which should be considered an image of tightening the relations between partners.

The matter of financing the Eastern Partnership has already been mentioned twice. It is necessary for it to be increased in order to fully accomplish its goals. This concern is especially important in regards to economic cooperation. It is worth mentioning that the relations negotiated with our eastern partners are very much like those with the countries of the Western Balkans that were called, unlike our eastern partners, potential candidates and therefore financially and institutionally privileged in contrast to the latter. The worst-case scenario would be signing association obligations that are too ambitious, and therefore would result in a fiasco due to the inability to implement them, resulting from the countries involved being unable to realize their obligations.

To summarize, the EU and its eastern partners should use all tools available to countries that are not (yet) included in the expansion procedures. For example, Moldova’s ability to implement some of the EU’s policies should be considered a “carrot” to tempt the other countries in the Eastern Partnership. At one point however, the EU should accept the obvious, in regards to prolonged cooperation without a long-term European perspective for our partners. Obviously, pro­gress in democratization, fighting corruption and economic modernization of the east would all help tremendously in changing the attitude of the EU towards possible expansion. The ball is in the neighbors’ courts, and they should not lose determination in conducting difficult reforms that are all in their best interest. Supporting them will also be a test for their EU advocates, Poland being one of the most important ones.