Complaints about an imbalance in the levels of EU engagement in the Southern neighbourhood compared to the Eastern neighbourhood are wide-spread. The new EU member states like to point to the fact that EU funding for the Mediterranean neighbours is much bigger than for the Eastern neighbours; and EU diplomatic engagement in the Middle Eastern conflicts (be it the Israeli-Palestine conflict or Lebanon) has been much less shy than in the post-Soviet space.
But Southern EU member states also have their grudges. The Portuguese EU presidency in 2007 gave a sense of it. Many in Portugal think (and here) that the EU has spent almost twenty years cajoling and baby-sitting the Eastern neighbours of the day (beginning with Central Europe which is already in the EU, and then the Balkans), and now it is time to turn to the South where a “new” generation of threats such as terrorism, migration and conflicts are threatening Europe.
Two recent EU summits with their neighbours provide a good snapshot of the balance of priorities and the foreign policy solidarity gap: the July 2008 summit of the Union of Mediteranean in Paris and the May 2009 summit of the Eastern Partnership in Prague. Stanislav Secrieru, a blogger, contrasts the attendance of the two summits by EU leaders. The full lists of atendees are here: for the Eastern Partnership summit and for the Euro-mediteranean summit.
Take summit attendance as a proxy that can reveal a certain solidarity gap in the way EU member states support each other’s foreign policy priorities. The question is which of the new EU member states attented to the Euro-med summit in 2008, and which of the Southern EU states paid back in kind by attending the Eastern Partnership summit in Prague in 2009?
Here is the crude data. The Euro-med summit in Paris in july 2008 was attended by 25 heads of state – presidents or prime ministers. Finland sent both its president and prime-minister. Only the Czech Republic was represented by a deputy-prime-minister and Belgium by the foreign minister. The important thing is that virtually all of the new EU member states showed solidarity on this occasion with the Mediterranean priorities of the rest of the Union.
The Eastern Partnership summit provides a strikingly different picture. Ten EU member states were not represented at “heads of state level”: Sarkozy, Zapatero, Berlusconi, and Gordon Brown ignored the summit. The leaders of Austria, Luxembourg, Malta and Portugal as well. Stranger, though, was the fact that Lithuania sent its foreign-minister, and that Romania’s president Traian Basescu also stayed away. Strangely enough the Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt, one of the “parents” of the Eastern partnership, also stayed away (though Sweden was present at PM level). But the fact that Italy was represented by its minister of welfare, while Austria by its ambassador (perm.rep) to the EU – was outright offensive. I also hear German diplomats were furious at the lack of diplomatic solidarity of so many EU member states (Merkel was in Prague).
The bottom line: on the issue of pressing the reset button of EU policy towards its neighbours – Sotuh and East – the new EU member states showed more solidarity with their fellow (older) EU member states than vice-versa. The attendance lists of the two summits are proof of that.
#1 by Kazimierz on May 29, 2009 - 6:37 pm
Everyone promotes his/her ideas. And we all skip some important points that don’t support our ideas. That is human. That is why monopolization of the media is so damaging to society (it damages information base that citizens get). Unfortunately, English language media, on many important issues, act as one united monopoly. One of such issues is EU – Russia relations.
That is why it is difficult to respond to Nicu’s writing. Eastern partnership was designed by an American neocon, Radoslaw Sikorski. Guess for what?
Last time I checked the map Rusia was to the east of EU. Strangely, Russia was not invited to EP. But Azerbaijan was.
Are any other arguments needed?
#2 by enfant.terrible on May 30, 2009 - 12:26 am
Kazimierz as far as I know Mr. Sikorski is not “American neocon” but Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs..Eastern Partnership created by Poland with Swedish support is a project that supposed to fill in the gap that exist between EU and its eastern partners from Europe.Russia was not invited from very simple reason: type of EU relations with Russia and their nature are different that those between EU and members of EP.Becouse of its size and potential is treated individually.Another thing is that EU have separate agreements with Russia as well as summits.If you are writing about monopolisation of media..One of top priorities in EU members is democracy it means free media as well.Personally i didnt noticed any type of information monopoly in any media in EU.You can read and here opinions from very different pionts of view.One of the issue of Russian policy is that existance of independent media is very difficult and unfortunately Russia as a country is very far from democracy.Examples of that case we can see in EU too often especially in winter time.
#3 by MihaiP on May 30, 2009 - 12:29 pm
One possible explanation why Romania’s Basescu stayed away is Moldova.
After the Communists in Chisinau accused Romania of organizing the protests, he doesn’t want to meet them (he won’t go to the SEECP summit in Chisinau either).
Then, even tough Romania strongly supports Moldova’s path towards the EU, Romania was not exactly the strongest supporter of the Eastern Partnership. It casts a shadow over its own project (the Black Sea Synergy) and it lumps Moldova together with states that are far from getting any European perspective (Belarus and others).
#4 by Kazimierz on May 30, 2009 - 4:39 pm
@enfant.terrible,
Mr. Sikorski worked at an American think tank associated with neo-conservatives (popularly neocons). I referred to that position of his, not to his present position. I think, it is common in polemics to refer to someone’s previous position, isn’t it?
Now to the most important thing. How do we recognize if media form a monopoly or not? It is actually easy.
Pick an issue on which reasonable people disagree, any issue. Then analyze media coverage of that issue. Pick, for example, deepening of EU-Russia cooperation. Some EU countries support it, some oppose. People disagree. Now look at media coverage of that issue, both at how they select information on that issue and at what language they use. Look also at what they say in open opinion pieces.
On EU-Russia cooperation all media coverage is negative in all three respects. I cannot recall even one article supporting, directly or indirectly, EU-Russia cooperation. Since a lot of countries support it, the same should be with the media. But it is not. My obvious conclusion: on that issues media are ruled from one center and that one center opposes deepening of EU-Russia cooperation. Hence, all media are negative on that issue.
I suggest you pick your own issue and look at it! (of course, on many issues media are free and democratic, but on some issues they are not, they act like a monopoly).
#5 by Kazimierz on May 30, 2009 - 4:49 pm
@enfant.terrible,
I forgot about your point on Russia -EP.
Ukraine also has summits with EU but it is invited to EP. So separate meetings with Russians should not be an obstacle to inviting them to EP. Russia should be invited to EP, at least as an observer.
#6 by Marcel on May 31, 2009 - 11:38 am
The word ‘solidarity’ as used by the central/eastern European countries has only one definition, ie ‘western Europe must give us money’. Well it happens so that we western Europeans are sick of treasonous politicians giving our money to other countries. It must stop.
#7 by enfant.terrible on June 1, 2009 - 1:37 am
Kazimierz in discussion we surely can reffer to facts from the past and someones pravious position but from your post was impossible to judge if Mr. Sikorski is an American citizen, politic or secret agent who is planning how to humiliate Russia..Next point is media.Why do you think that there is somwhere an intrique to show Russia in European media in a bad light?I really follow informations in few EU countries about that issue and guess what there is many different opinions about the relations between both and only thing that is common for most of them is: Russia have to make itself real democracy and create civil society and only if it really gonna make an effort we can start talks about further cooperation.If you think thats some kind of conspiracy well its not, its just EU public opinion who have ears and eyes and free media.It’s not that we don’t want Russia to achieve more from cooperating in some projects with EU, first it have to start respect its own citizens before it gonna concentrate on further issues.
About your post on Ukraine.I am not saying that countries who have separate summits can’t join EP.My point is that Relations with Russia are different with many reasons: its size, lack declarations about joining EU so its not one of the issues, separate agreements like Strategic partnership.As u know Russia asks not to join to European Neighbourhood Policy becouse it intend to have individual treat.All countries of EP are members of ENP as its just improved ENP itself how simple is that Kazimierz.At the end Im just gonna say that its a good way to treat post soviet republics of EP cos without Russia they gonna be probably lets say, little bit more self-confident.
#8 by King Wenceslas on June 1, 2009 - 8:29 am
At least now we have the right to ask our question: How successful was Prague presidency of the EU?
#9 by B Reis on June 1, 2009 - 11:12 am
Nicu Popescu needs to be more rigorous in his analysis.
Lack of solidarity regarding the Eastern Partnership? I do tend to agree with him in a couple of cases – ambassador or minister for social affairs do seem a bit too much, or too little.
But on the others isn’t this lack of commitment largely a reflection of the poor job done by the Czech Presidency?
After all Portugal and France invested a great deal of effort to ensure the not-at-all-spontaneous show of solidarity in the case of the Africa and Mediterranean summits.
Where his lack of rigour is very clear is in his statement that “the Portuguese prime-miniser implied once that the EU has spent almost twenty years cajoling and baby-sitting the Eastern neighbours”
If you can find any such implication in the rthe FT report that Popescu himself offers as reference, please let me know where it is. To help out I add bellow the pertinent quotes where it is clear that nothing of the sort was said:
Sócrates stated that: “My intention is to convince Europe we must turn our eyes a little bit more to the south.”
He then added that “the EU had done a “good job” in stabilising its eastern neighbourhood since the fall of the Berlin Wall and that the work was continuing. But Europe’s southern flank now needed shoring up, and more co-operation was needed on issues such as migration, energy, development and human rights in the Mediterranean region.”
#10 by CEPS alumni on June 1, 2009 - 5:25 pm
Hi Nicu, I like your chosen terminology for the title.
To me, the answer to the question you ask in this post is simple: the level of attendance of EU leaders in Euro-Med summits reflects the direction of courting in this context – North-South. By contrast, with the eastern neighbourhood, certain EU member state leaders do not feel they need to make as much effort as in the South, for the eastern neighbours are constantly knocking on the door.
My view may seem crude and parsimonious, but EU normative and policy-making dynamics aside, this has to be factored in. Remember the 2005 anniversary summit of the Barcelona process? Only Erdogan and Abbas attended from southern Med countries.
Southern Med countries have now realised once and for all that they have very little to gain from the EU’s policy initiatives (as they stand – no agricultural access, no easier movement of people, no money, no genuine technological transfer, no conflict resolution, nothing). The EU is demandeuse on many fronts, and EU leaders’ seemingly enthusiastic attendance of the relevant summitry is but a reflection of that.
#11 by Kazimierz on June 1, 2009 - 7:54 pm
@enfant.terrible,
1. Mr. Sikorski is a Polish and British citizen, I would be surprised if he was also American citizen. Is he a secret agent? How could I imaginably know that???
2. Media. Read them. Apply the test I described in my previous post # 4 (I talked about English language media, I don’t know other language media)
3. Russia. And where do you gain all your knowledge about Russia?
4. Eastern Partnership. If EP is not a Partnership against Russia, then there is a simple way to prove it. Invite Russia as an observer.
#12 by Slim K on June 2, 2009 - 9:18 am
Nicu,
could you please let also the money do the talking? How much is spent on Eastern and how much on Southern flank?
As regards Russia – Russia DEMANDS to have a special program, not to be lumped in with the beggar-countries it once ruled…
#13 by Nicu Popescu on June 2, 2009 - 12:39 pm
sorry everyone for not answering in greater details. i on a trip to moldova, ukraine and georgia. a few responses though.
- B Reis: What i wrote reflects whhat many think in Portugal. i had a chance to hear quite a number of such opinions in Lisbon in Sept. 08. Technically you are right, the wording of the blog post is not perfect. but the Portuguese gov did suggest quite a number of times during its poresidency what I wrote. Also see http://www.rferl.org/content/Article/1077448.html The wording was not perfect, but the essence of what I wrote stands. And anyway there is nothing wrong with what pt thinks. They have a point that deresrevs to be understood and discussed.
Slim K: I know many complain that the eastern neighbours receive much less than the Southern neighbours (1/3 vs 2/3). But in reality the gap in per capita terms – is not as great as many think. Moldova is the second biggest per capita recipient of EU funding in the neighbourhood (after palestine) and in Georgia – if you add the post-conflict reconstruction funding – it is quite a lot of money. so the money gap is not as big per capita as it is implied.
Marcel: I thought the term solidarity emerged in the context of EU funding for the South: Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy. long before EU enlargement to the East. anyway – the point here is not about money, but about political solidarity. sending prsidents to summits is not that expensive. and new EU member states do support Southern priorities – i do not remember Lithuania or Poland blocking EU operations in DR Congo or the Middle east.
#14 by Robert on June 5, 2009 - 11:21 am
What is the problem of EU in relations with the Ukraine and other EaP countries? Absence of any real interest. Since the last Saturday the country has been shaken by political earthquake, that may determine the (non-European) political fate of Ukraine for decades. Euobserver keeps silence. The same was with Orange revolution, when EU realised what’s going on only in the end of the story.
#15 by Maria Duarte on June 6, 2009 - 4:06 pm
Dear Nicu,
Southern Europe countries, and Portugal in particular may feel so, however Portugal spent 20 years using Brussel’s funds many times in a erroneos way, without tight control. Now that funds have to shared by others. Eastern/Central Europe need to be “helped” and encouraged by Brussels to fully engage with EU. We musn’t forget that the past may play a trick on those countries, should they be left down.
#16 by B Reis on June 9, 2009 - 1:34 pm
Dear Nicu
Thank you for your reply, and partial correction. The view you describe may be shared by some in Portugal, but certainly not by many (at least not for now). Polls (e.g. Eurobarometer) have consistently shown support for enlargement which has largely consisted of integrating Central and Eastern European countries.
“Cajoling” i.e. suporting countries facing democratic transition is something the Portuguese, because of their relatively recent experience of the same, tend to look kindly to.
But you are right that many in Portugal are determined to avoid that this would mean the EU ignoring the Southern Mediterranean and Africa, or “emerging powers” like Brazil, India or China, to which we have a close historical connection, and are a great source of interest and concern.
But certainly your core argument does deserve attention and discussion.