The Swedish EU presidency, which starts on 1 July 2009, is getting a lot of advice on what to do during its presidency. But here is one idea more idea for the Swedish EU presidency (contained in our recent ECFR report on the Eastern neighbourhood). The Swedish Presidency should convene a “listening tour” of the Eastern neighbourhood – a Troika visit by the Swedish foreign minister, Javier Solana, the Commissioner for External Relations, and the future Spanish EU presidency to each of the six Eastern neighbours of the EU: Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Russia). Here is why such a tour is needed and why the Swedish presidency is the best actor to initiate it.
To begin with, the Eastern Partnership summit in Prague, judged by its attendance list, was a near-failure. If the objective of the Eastern partnership was to relaunch the neighbourhood policy and raise its political profile, its start was not impressive. The Swedish presidency-led “listening tour” would help relaunch politically the neighbourhood policy in the East. It would repair some of the political damage done by the unimpressive Eastern partnership summit in May 2009. But the purpose of such a tour should not only be symbolic.
The EU “listening tour” would serve a second purpose of starting to involve the neighbourhood states in the debates on the new European security architecture, initiated by president Medvedev in June 2008. The EU thinks of a possible respone to Medvedev as outlined in the Munich 2009 speech by Javier Solana. But listening to the neighbourhood countries’ concerns would be a good way for the EU to formulate its response to Medvedev’s proposals. At the end of the day many, if not most, of the sensitive issues in EU-Russia security relations are in the Eastern neighbourhood.
Third, there are very few high-level visits to most of the Eastern neighbourhood by EU heads of state, foreign ministers or senior EU officials. The Eastern neighbours feel ignored precisely at the moment when this region causes increasing trouble to the European security and EU-Russia relations. New EU member states used to visit the neighbourhood relativley often. But they lacked the political weight and now they are too busy with the economic crisis. They are also dissapointed by the likes of Youshchenko, Saakashvili and Voronin. The feeling of “neighbourhood fatigue” is pervasive, but this will only make the neighbourhood more likely to cause trouble. The EU needs to be present in the region, through high-level visits as well. Especially when things are bad.
Fourth, the last time an EU Troika tour of the Eastern neighbourhood took place was in 2001 – during the previous Swedish EU Presidency. That visit is remembered in the region. At that time, the Troika consisting of the late Anna Lindh, Javier Solana, Chris Patten and Louis Michel visited Ukraine, Moldova, Russia, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan (only Belarus was off the map). There has been no similar tour to the region since then. For example, the only time Javier Solana visited Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Moldova (except a second visit to Moldova in April 2009) was during that tour.
The Swedish EU Presidency has the standing and credibility to launch such a “listening tour”, which would help relaunch the Eastern Partnership as well as feed into the EU’s response to a debate on the European security architecture that is likely to keep the EU-Russia-neighbourhood security agenda busy for the next few years.
The US and Russia are a bit too busy dancing their great power tango under the sounds of a realpolitik syrene. The EU has been busy elbowing itself into the debate. As a result no one tried to involve the Eastern neighbourhood states in a meaningful discussion on the new European security architecture. The neighbourhood states themselves are too busy with their daily security, economic or post-election crisis to think strategically about the bigger picture of European security. The EU should be the one that starts listening and involving the small and fragile states of the European periphery into the discussion of their own future. This is what the EU should come with to the great powers’ negotiating table.
#1 by Ion on June 23, 2009 - 11:23 am
Hopefully the tour will take place in a form or another. It would be expectable that Sweden brings and added value to its own initiative. Speaking about Moldova, Sweden is well aware about what’s going on here, SIDA being among the most important country’s donors. The representative of Sweden’s upcoming EU Presidency already visited Chisinau and it seems he will have a special assistant on Moldovan affairs. There is a hope that this interest will positively affect the quality of the new EU-Moldova agreement to be developed in the next six months.
#2 by EaP-fan on June 23, 2009 - 1:19 pm
Dear Nicu, it seems to me that in your articles about EaP you are steadily downplaying the importance of EaP process using such a weak argument as participating list of Prague Summit (by the way, 18 heads of government including Francois Fillon were there). It would be better to look at the substance of Summit declaration and of the relevant Commission Communication which really do not lack of high purposes with regard to political association and economic integration (deep and comprehensive free trade areas, regional integration, visa-free travel as a long terma goal etc.) between EU and EaP countries. Even your suggestions about mobility of persons which you made in your EaP policy paper were already mentioned in the Commission Communication. Moreover, the COM already launched discussion process in thematic platforms and now everything depends on how the eastern partner do their homework. The EaP is based on principles of differentiation and conditionality, so if one of these countries will do well with the reforms than the EU won’t be able to deny what it promised. So they should do their utmost if they are interested in association process and not just wait for the help from outside.
#3 by EU-fun on June 23, 2009 - 2:42 pm
Dear EaP-fun:
Indeed, the fact Gordon Brown did not show up at the mostly ceremonial launching of the EaP in Prague does not mean the UK is hardly interested in this initiative. Though, some of the “European neighbours” that after the Prague Summit became simply “EU partner countries”, need a hope they could be considered as members. They don’t need an exact date, just a hope, as a faraway lighthouse they unfortunately are not seeing now. A free trade area with the EU involves compliance with the acquis communautaire, an expensive exercise, especially for a non-member/candidate country. If the visa-free term is too long, most of active Moldovans, for example, could get into the EU either illegally, or by getting Romanian citizenship. We all should be aware that if you don’t go to trouble, the trouble will come to you.
#4 by EaP-fan on June 23, 2009 - 3:33 pm
Thanks for your response. About becoming “partner countries” I would refer to paragraph 1 of the Summit Declaration, where it stands as follows: “The Eastern Partnership is launched as a common endeavour of the Member States of the European Union and their Eastern European Partners (hereinafter the partner countries)”. What matters legally is the term “Eastern European Partners” (the term “partner countries” is just its abbreviation) and this new term has for states of Southern Caucasus a huge value, since in its documents the Commission used always the term “partners in Eastern Europe and the Southern Caucasus” what in case of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia could be regarded as a denial of their European identity. I personally see the term “Eastern European Partners” as an indirect promise of the possible membership and see it in the light of Art. 49 TEU according to that “any European State which respects the principles [of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law] may apply to become a member of the Union.” Since the promise of membership is hard to sell in the European public it is too early to make such promises (how little such promises mean is also evidences by the example of Turkey). Only when the enlargement fatigue is over and the EaP-countries themselves make more progress in the framework of this new initiative, can such promises become more feasible and worth to made.
#5 by Kazimierz on June 23, 2009 - 4:01 pm
Nicu,
Would you have any arguments against my vision?
***
Foreign policy of EU should be, ideally, both moral and consistent with EU interests.
What EU eastern policy would be both moral and consistent with EU interests? To answer this question we should start by recalling some basic facts.
First, population of Eurasia is concentrated in three clusters: east China and neighborhood, Indian subcontinent, and Europe. Overwhelming majority of Russians live in Europe, most of them within several hundred kilometers from western border of Russia.
Second, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia are three eastern Slavic nations with very similar languages, with shared religion and culture for last thousand years, and with shared statehood for last 200 years.
Third, Russia is a “mineral power”, rich in all kinds of minerals, not only in oil and gas. Russia is also a leading technological power in selected areas like space exploration. Consequently, Russian economy seems to be very complementary to EU’s industrial and technological power.
In view of those three basic facts, what kind of EU eastern policy would be both moral and consistent with EU interests?
First, any attempts to separate Russia from EU are both immoral and inconsistent with EU interests. Such attempts are immoral because where does 100+ million Russians are supposed to go and join? Far away China or India? Such policy of separation would go also against historical tradition of Europe. Such policy is also inconsistent with EU interests because it deprives EU of economic benefits that naturally arise from complementarity of EU and Russian economies.
Second, EU should abandon attempts to tear apart Ukraine and Belarus from Russia. Such policy of tearing apart, or divide and rule, lowers moral stature of EU, stature that is very valuable in 21 century. Such policies are also not likely to be successful due to close affinity of those three nations. Actually, such policy may create problems in Ukraine – it already does – and thus negatively influence EU interests. It is much better to approach these three countries as one bloc.
Third, due to complementarity of EU’s and Russia’s economies, it is in EU interest to develop close economic cooperation with Russia and, by extension, with Ukraine and Belarus. Economic cooperation usually leads to cooperation in other areas.
In summary, moral and self-interested EU eastern policy should lead EU to deepening of relations with all: Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. Such a policy can be named EU+3.
#6 by Nicu Popescu on June 23, 2009 - 11:44 pm
Dear EaP fan
I think the EaP is an initiative the EU should put all its weight behind, and that all the eastern neighbours should join it (including Moldova and Ukraine which are ambivalent) without any reservations and use it to the maximum to advance in their attempts to come closer to the EU. The EaP provides some instruments to do that and they should be used to their fullest.
However, I have been following comission communications and council letters, conclusions and documents on the ENP since august 2002. the EU has not delivered on many of those things it promissed. the reasons for that has been lack of political support from the EU member states. the EaP (just like the black sea synergy, new ostpolitik, enp plus etc) was launched as an attempt to re-energise the ENP and mobilise political support from the capitals. therefore the list of the leaders who attended the prague summit is a very good methodological indicator (proxy) that would allow to judge how successful is the political mobilisation behind the stated objectives of the ENP/EaP.
I am also VERY suprised when people write “EaP WILL” do this or that. so far the experience with ENP has been not so straighforward. I prefer to have a discussion about what EU policies achieved already, not what they WILL achieve. the truth is that we do not know. partly because we do not know whether the EU will deliver, partly becuase we know the ENP states will NOT deliver, and partly becuase Russia activley plays a game that undermines the ENP/EaP. So using “WILL” in relation to any EU policies in the East is misplaced. I support the EaP but I will judge the EaP according to its results and progresses.
#7 by Nicu Popescu on June 23, 2009 - 11:53 pm
Kaziemerz, what you suggest is basically a bi-polar Europe. One EU-centric Europe, and one European pole centred around Russia. That is also the Russian vision for Europe. I think such a vision goes against the European project of building up a continent without spheres of influence where states are free to choose their alliances. So this is against the declared values of the EU.
As for the “attempts to tear” post-Soviet states apart from Russia. This is exagerated. If Armenia or Belarus have largely chosen a policy of strategic alignment with Russia – the Eu has little to say about it, and does not try to tear them aprt from Russia. It is true there are some geopolitical consideration in EU policy towards Belarus – trying to support it against Russian pressures for geopolitical reasons. But this is based mainly on Belarus activley seeking such EU support. For over a decade (since roughly 1995 to 2007/2008) the EU has been rather open to accepting Belarus’ choice in favour of a state union with Russia etc.
So the premise that the EU is behind many of the problems in By-Ru or Ukr-Ru relations is false. the problems there arise from post-soviet legacy, state weakness, russian attempts to solidify a sphere of influence, corruption, etc. the Eu plays a role in that, but the importance of the EU factor in the post-Soviet mess is overestimated. Most of the problems are regional-grown.
#8 by Kazimierz on June 24, 2009 - 4:00 pm
Nicu, thanks for youe answer.
I do not suggest bipolar Europe, I suggest unipolar (united) Europe. I suggest to include Russia into Europe. (Although not as a full member of EU). It is you who wants to exclude Russia from European cooperation. And if you exclude Russia then you automatically make bipolar Europe. So, please, don’t put your opinion into my mouth.
You also write:
“the Eu has little to say about it, and does not try to tear them aprt from Russia.”
I fully agree that EU is not the primary force in tearing apart Ukraine and Belarus from Russia. The primary force is the western media (or, more exactly, their owners).
The secondary force is policy of the U.S.
The EU policy is only the third, and the weakest, force in that respect.
#9 by Nicu Popescu on June 25, 2009 - 11:49 am
Kazimierz, but if you refer to the fact that EU cooperation with Ukraine and Belarus is “breaking countries apart from Russia” – you imply that Russia is separate and different from Europe, and that it is not part of the European mainstream. This is not in line with the idea of a fully integrated Europe.
Repeating again: the main problem in Russian-Belarussian or Russian-Ukrainian relations is not the West, Western media or the US. The main and primary problems is Lukashenko, Youschenko, Putin and Medvedev. all other, external factors, are only secondary. If there was no US or EU in this world – Lukashenko would have similarly difficult relations with Putin.
#10 by no name on June 25, 2009 - 4:39 pm
Hey Nicu,
May I ask, what is the EU supposed to be listening to? The concerns of its Eastern neighbours? Do they listen to the concerns of the EU? The way Ukraine is handling the gas issue, almost having the audacity to ask the EU to fit its bill for the Russian gas it’s consuming, well, Im not too sure anyone really cares about the EU there.
And your last paragraph, the US and Russia dancing tango under realpolitik syrene… Sorry, this type of rhetoric I find quite outdated. Where do you fit China in the picture? Iran? Brazil? India? And do you include Obama’s presidential style also in the realpolitik logic? Finally, Im not too sure the EU will ‘elbow’ its way to the ‘great powers negotiating table’ (negotiating what, btw??) by ‘listening to’ its Eastern neighbours, as if they are the ones who will actually bring clout to the EU. Come on, that’s laughable. Turkey might have a much better contribution in this sense than Moldova, let’s be fair.
Best regards.
#11 by Kazimierz on June 25, 2009 - 9:49 pm
Nicu, again the same.
Let’s try differently: do you accept all three facts I listed in my post #5?. Here they are.
First, population of Eurasia is concentrated in three clusters: east China and neighborhood, Indian subcontinent, and Europe. Overwhelming majority of Russians live in Europe, most of them within several hundred kilometers from western border of Russia.
Second, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia are three eastern Slavic nations with very similar languages, with shared religion and culture for last thousand years, and with shared statehood for last 200 years.
Third, Russia is a “mineral power”, rich in all kinds of minerals, not only in oil and gas. Russia is also a leading technological power in selected areas like space exploration. Consequently, Russian economy seems to be very complementary to EU’s industrial and technological power.
In view of those three basic facts, what kind of EU eastern policy would be both moral and consistent with EU interests?
#12 by Nicu Popescu on June 25, 2009 - 10:38 pm
No name, such diplomatic tours exist precisely to discuss with problematic countries. According to your logic if Ukraine steals gas – there is nothing to talk about with them, if Iran developes a nuclear progra,m – there is nothing to talk about, and if Serbs and Kosovars kill each other – there is othing to talk about… The truth is that diplomacy exists precisely to discuss when there are problems. Hence the listening tour. No one meeds such a tour to Switzerland or Norway.
On Moldova bringing leverage. no one said anything about leverage. the EU got involved in the Balkans or the Middle East not because it wanted/needed to use these countries as leverage, but because these places affect the security of the EU. The same with the Eastern neighbourhood. obscure places like Moldova or Georgia – have a serious destabilisation potential for European security (and EU-Russia relations for that matter) – and that’s the reason the EU cares about such places.
#13 by Nicu Popescu on June 25, 2009 - 10:41 pm
Kazimeirz, I accept one and three. Number 2 is disputable. It is true, but it does not matter. Armenian and Turks, Greeks and Turks also lived for thousands of years together and share the same food for example. Serbs and Croats also share a language. Romania and Moldova, Macedonia and Bulgaria (which are way closer than Russia and Ukraine) – also have very problematic relations. History is not always a good guide for predicting the political future.
on your question: EU’s interest is to see an integrated Europe which is democratic, where relations with Russia are strong and the states in between are sovereign, stable and have the freedom to choose the course of their foreign policy and domestic developments.
#14 by Peter on June 26, 2009 - 8:38 am
Hi Nicu, very interesting read!
What I would be interested to hear your viewpoint on is why the Swedish presidency is considered appropriate for this kind of listening tour? The Swedish Foreign Minister was quite vocal during the Georgian war. Isn’t there a risk that he might be seen as a provocation by Russia?
Also, without underestimating the importance of dialogue, isn’t the real issue that most of the “neighbourhood” states feel that there isn’t anything substantial on the table from the EU’s side, rather than vague promises?
#15 by Nicu Popescu on June 26, 2009 - 11:24 am
Peter, well. to begin with the presidency represents the EU in such circumstances. especially with all the others on board (commission, solana and future presidency). provocative? if one judged whether to engage and discuss with country leaders by the number of tough and noisy statements they made – this would mean that a whole bunch of European heads of state should be excluded from most of Europe
just think of putin’s sharp tongue. and there are so many others like basescu, kaczynski, voronin etc.
You are right with the “little on the table”. but even worse is the fact that there is also little internal drive for reforms… both are mutually reinforcing – in a negative sense.
#16 by Kazimierz on June 26, 2009 - 3:14 pm
Nicu wrote:
“on your question: EU’s interest is to see an integrated Europe which is democratic, where relations with Russia are strong and the states in between are sovereign, stable and have the freedom to choose the course of their foreign policy and domestic developments.”
I would add only one word ‘friendly’ in “…relations with Russia are strong and friendly…” in order to achieve complete agreement.
Please notice that friendly relations of EU with Russia will make the countries in between more stable and free.
#17 by EU-Fun on July 3, 2009 - 10:25 am
To EaP Fun: #2
Since the EaP had been postponed, are u still optimistic?
#18 by eut on July 3, 2009 - 11:14 am
kaz…are you somehow the russian ambasador at euobserver?…just wait a bit for the next winter when probably the democratically elected tzar will cut again the gas supply to europe…they will really need good ambassadors to explain it…
#19 by eut on July 3, 2009 - 11:25 am
i like the “mineral power” argument…it’s a very democratic one…the bulgarians experienced it few months ago…they can tell you more about this and about the ‘word ‘friendly’ in “…relations with Russia’…:)
i bet they had a revelation about the bigger slave brothers…talking about their common slavic heritage.
#20 by Nicolas on July 6, 2009 - 11:00 am
Dear Mr. Popescu,
I have a question regarding Moldova. I have some friends there so I feel closely related to the things that happen there. I;m going to play the Devil’s advocate here so please do not take my words as my personal opinion.
Why should the EU care about Moldova. What interests has it there? Why would the EU risk a bad relationship with Russia over Moldova? The Western Balkans posed a security threat for the EU because of the previous wars and the still ongoing ethnic tensions. In what way does the political instability in Moldova reflect such threat to the EU? Isn’t it better for stability to have a frozen conflict than an open conflict? What with transnistria? Can Europe afford a second Cyprus? Besides, the Turkish have every incentive not to let it escalate, the Russians obviously not (as we saw in Georgia). We saw the poor reaction of the EU in Georgia although it has huge interests there (energy supply). In Moldova it has no such interests so I cannot even imagine what kind of a weak response or no response at all the EU will have if for instance Russia decides to jump in after the elections of July 29 when Voronin’s power is seriously threatend.
Thank you for your answer.
Nicolas
#21 by Wim Roffel on July 6, 2009 - 11:18 am
Nicu, I tend to agree with Kazimierz. Russia belongs to Europe and the EU should let that reflect in its policies. If Russia does not become a member it will have mainly to do with its resource rich economy (Norway isn’t a member either).
Unfortunately too often during elections in Ukraine EU and US leaders talk about the Ukraine choosing between pro-Russian and pro-EU parties. I consider this extremely harmful talk. The EU has to stop upholding this artificial opposition.
In your covered opposition to Russia you use two keywords: “democracy” and “sovereign”. With democracy you seem to imply that Russia is not democratic enough and doesn’t belong in the EU for that reason. I disagree. When Spain, Portugal and Greece were dictatorships they were not allowed into the EU, but there was no doubt that we believed that they belonged to Europe and that they could become part of it once the dictators were gone. There is also an economic dimension. Nowadays economies are much more intertwined as in the
1960s. As we are also discovering in the Balkans it is no longer acceptable to keep countries in the waiting room for a long time. Once you decide that their place is in Europe some economic integration has to start.
With “sovereign” you seem to criticize Russia for interfering in its neighbors affairs. You have some point. But a lot of what is labeled as such in the Western press is simply Russia pushing back against Western politicians who are pushing anti-Russian policies in Russia’s neighbors.