For almost two decades the driving force of EU foreign policy was the idea of the EU as a transformative power. “Transformation” was achieved by enlarging the union and exporting its acquis, values and prosperity. The EU managed to successfully transform Central and Eastern Europe (though the business is still unfinished) and push the Balkans in the right direction. Then the EU tried to transform the Eastern neighbourhood through a similar policy mix of dialogue, economic assistance and exporting the acquis, though all in reduced doses.
But after 7 years the European neighbourhood policy the EU discovers that its policies are failing to even prevent the drastic deterioration of the situation in the Eastern neighbourhood. Even the fact that the EU tries to relaunch its neighbourhood policy on an almost annual basis (ENP Plus, New Ostpolitik, Black Sea Synergy and now the Eastern Partnership) is proof of a lingering dissatisfaction of how things stand. In the last years every single eastern neighbourhood country went through a series of major political, economic or security crises: Georgia cracked down on demonstrators in November 2007 and ran into a war with Russia in august 2008; post-electoral violence in March 2008 in Armenia left at least 10 persons dead; Moldova recent post-electoral protests lead to riots, the burning down of the parliament, and then a crackdown against the protesters (leaving three persons dead, possibly, in police detention), opposition parties, media and journalists; Azerbaijan is locked into an unsolved conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh and recently abolished constitutional limits on presidential terms opening the way for Ilham Aliev to remain president for life. And Ukraine seems in a perpetual state of crisis: gas crises, political crises and economic crises. In Ukraine pluralistic politics goes hand in hand with a systematic self-destruction of state institutions. Against such a background, even Belarus looks better than it ever before.
In such a context the EU is brutally exposed to the limits of its “transformative power”. In official EU speak “security starts with human rights”. But this seems to not be the case anymore in the east, at least. The EU discovers that it cannot behave in the unilateral and confident way it behaved in Central Europe and the Balkans. In the eastern neighbourhood Russia and local political regimes greatly constrain EU’s transformative power, as Andrew Wilson and I argued in a recent report on “European and Russian Power in the Troubled Neighbourhood“. These limits are imposed not because the EU is weaker than it was in the 90s, but because the internal (pro-)European consensus in the Eastern neighbourhood is much lower than in Central Europe in the 90s.
The Eastern neighbours have no sense of direction, but the EU is also loosing its own sense of direction. EU’s pro-democracy talk is more muted than ever before in the last two decades. Since a few years ago the EU learned not to criticize Russia for its domestic (undemocratic) politics. But that was perhaps easy to explain and justify: Russia is big, stubborn, energy-reach and irritated by EU attempts to transform it. But now a similar “realist” policy starts to inform the EU approach to almost every state of the region: on energy-rich Azerbaijan and energy-poor Armenia, on consolidated authoritarian regimes like Belarus, or states where politics is relatively pluralist but increasingly problematic like Georgia and Moldova. More often than not, democratic deterioration in the last two years in the states of the Eastern neighbourhood have not lead to serious worsening of relations with the EU. EU’s professed attempts to defend democratic principles in the Eastern neighbourhood are increasingly dissapointing.
Of course, the way to support democracy is not only through loud statements or sanctions. Criticism and coercion rarely work, especially if done half-heartedly. The EU policy on Belarus for over a decade is proof of that. External pressures seemed to only strengthen authoritarianism in Belarus.
Engagement and cooperation with insufficiently democratic governments is a legitimate policy. The logic of engagement is to cooperate and strengthen links with authoritarian regimes without criticizing them too openly, in the expectation that such cooperative links will build up internal constituencies for reform and will help the EU gain leverage over time. But it is also true that often “engagement” becomes an excuse for ignoring values for quite a number of EU member states. For many European states are more interested in selling BMWs than democracy. But this is a mistake. The less democratic neighbourhood states will be, the more problematic their relations with the EU will become. So if the EU wants a policy of engagement with its neighbours, demoracy will have to be part of that package of engagement more than it has been in the last two-three years. Or risk further deterioration of both neighbourhood stability and relations with the EU.
#1 by Freeborn John on July 23rd, 2009 - 1:29 pm
Nicu Popescu lives in a parallel universe where the EU that ignores or bypasses the verdicts of the citizens of its member states is somehow bringing democracy to other parts of the world. He even suggests that exporting the undemocratic body of European law (the ‘aquis’), that neither they nor we can change via the ballot box, is the means to give them democracy!
Democracy is a flower alien to Central and Eastern Europe (where collectivist doctrines are native) brought there by Anglo-Americans. The political class in a number of key EU states has created the EU power cartel as a way of exercising political power in a manner unaccountable to their voters. There is no way on Earth that the EU that was deliberately designed by politicians to allow them to shake off the shackles of functioning democratic constraints on their power, and which cannot win popular support for its own constitutional rules, will bring real democracy to others. Its ‘transformative effect on democracy’ is to render it increasingly obsolete in Western Europe.
#2 by Freeborn John on July 23rd, 2009 - 2:11 pm
You can always spot a collectivist; they use the word ‘power’ a lot and are more interested in having power over other peoples lives, that power over their own lives. They think the EU is a great idea but do not want everyone to be a member, because this would defeat its primary purpose for them of being a coercive tool that they can direct at other nations. So they instead favour a ‘neighbourhood’ policy which is really just dangling carrots in front of other countries to persuade them to cave in to the EU’s undemocratic ways, with the biggest carrot of all (as far as the collectivist is concerned) being that the poor unfortunate ‘neighbour’ may, eventually, if they are very good and acquiesce in every way possible to Brussels for a very, very, very, very long time, may eventually be allowed to get behind the EU steering wheel and redirect its collective power onto some unfortunate new ‘neighbors’ instead.
Thus spins the collectivist vortex until eventually a large part of the world has come under its grip and begins to decay from within as citizens are no longer free to make the choices necessary to improve their own lives.
#3 by Seamus on July 23rd, 2009 - 2:59 pm
Good job , interesting article, we should try and make more visible pushes for democratic reform in the east but should not let Russia use that to its spere of influence advantage.
Financial help the more democratic the countries get maybe?
#4 by Lawrence on July 23rd, 2009 - 11:39 pm
Freeborn John
People have yet to learn that democracy can also be spelled The Mockracy
#5 by andrew on July 24th, 2009 - 8:42 am
Freeborn John – alien flower? as a Polish person, allow me to note that we elected our kings as far back as the 16th century. people in CEE love freedom because they have had to fight for it. and all this Klaus-ish talk of the EU as an undemocratic superstate sounds like the juvenile fantasy of someone who has never lived in a genuinely repressive country.
#6 by simao on July 24th, 2009 - 1:12 pm
The link between security and democracy has become one of the most difficult challenges not only for the EU but for the West in general. Often democracies present themselves as fragile institutional frameworks, providing opportunities for all sorts of political agents to contest power. Democratic procedures are long and do not always yield to strong power-based results. Especially since 2001, democracy, as an attractive political system, has suffered a great deal, and this is linked to Nicu’s argument that the lack of consistency in putting forward democratic standards as a condition in bilateral relations has weakened the EU’s transformative appeal to the neighbours.
The question is to provide evidence that democracies can also address security challenges (including the protracted conflicts in Europe’s east), while developing instruments that safeguard slow but important progress towards democracy in highly unstable contexts. NATO and EU accession provided such a framework for Eastern Europe, but in the Eastern neighbourhood of the EU there has been no similar offer. The EU has been too naive and uncoordinated, too inward looking and has showed little vision. It has been entrapped by a single focus on state relations while neglecting the wishes of local populations. It has sought to safeguard itself through pre-emption and half-hearted engagement instead of developing true partnerships.
Swedish Foreign Minister Karl Built’s statements in the first month of Swedish Presidency of the EU mark a sharp contrast to other approaches. He has notoriously addressed inconvenient issues at the highest level and has made human rights and democracy a central tenet of the EU’s relations with its partners. It won’t be enough, but it certainly is a welcomed change.
#7 by Just Me on July 24th, 2009 - 1:15 pm
Europe is a colonizer, that is all what it is. UK, Germany, Spain, France, Portugese, even the tiny Netherlands had all the world as their colonies. Millions of people killed. Anybody worried?
But – hey! – now lets make the world free! Anyone remembers when it was that Egypt nationalized its river, and UK and France wanted to punish the naughty boy by starting a war? How long ago was it?
Transformation of EU has not even started. It will, when Nigerian oil and gas corporations will have the same size as Dutch. Then it will be fair. A long way to go. But worth it.
As for Europe transforming Russia – be my guest. Transform me.
#8 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on July 24th, 2009 - 2:53 pm
Not to defend at all the Suez intervention, of course, but Egypt did not nationalize its river, it nationalized the Suez canal, build by the French and (at the time) mainly used by the English. This said, I certainly agree that most Western European countries were colonizers at some point and to a certain extent, at least until the middle of the XXth century. However, the EU as it is now has rejected this path quite clearly. So saying that Europe is a colonizer is misleading.
This said, Europe has always seen itself as a transforming power, even at a time when it was not called the European Union. In my opinion, it is even one of the most important common point unifying it, from a philosophical point of view. It used to be called Humanism, Enlightenment, Social-Democracy and so on. It is the idea that Europeans can and should try to export their model of development by other means than violence and oppression. And that it would be both profitable for them and those choosing to follow and/or join.
I don’t think, to summarize, that the wish to transform is always wrong, nor that it equals “colonialism”…
#9 by Just Me on July 24th, 2009 - 3:44 pm
Well said. But the “wish to transfom” somebody has to be based on the right to do it. What is the (moral) right of EU to transform others? Looks like Islam is going to transform Europe soon. Will you let it?
The whole idea of the right to transform others is wrong. It is nicely covered by words of democracy but ends with things like Bush’s thumbsucked war in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands people killed – anybody worried?
Humanism, Enlightenment, Social-Democracy – long forgotten. We live in a different world. Which I am sorry for.
#10 by Lawrence on July 24th, 2009 - 8:27 pm
Jean-Baptiste Perrin
Re the Sues issue a short history will not go amiss.
The Egyptians had every right to nationalize the Suez Canal. It was built in Egypt, run by a company registered in Egypt, it employed mostly British and French persons with only a minute number of Egyptians at the lowest levels and with the profits going outside Egypt to the British and the French.
The first attempt to undermine Nasser was to amass the greatest number of ships to pass through the Canal at the same time because the French and the British believed that Nasser wouldn’t be able to handle them and it would give them a pretext to intervene militarily because they would say that Nasser was endangering international navigation.
This did not work because all the ships were passed without a problem.
To try to get it back, the British and the French conspired with Israel for Israeli commandoes to start a fight at Mitla Pass which is very near the Suez Canal so that the British and French would give them an ultimatum to stop the fighting because they were endangering international navigation. Mitla pass was also very near the Egypt/Israel border at the time so that if anything went wrong the Israelis would be able to go back to Israel very quickly.
The attack was carried out as planned and when the Israelis and the Egyptian forces kept on fighting the British and French invaded Egypt.
However, both England and France were bankrupt at that time with Britain more so and being indebted to the USA.
Now the USA wanted to get Egypt as regional influential to counteract the USSR influence that was spreading through the region.
So the USA threatened the British and French Government to retreat and when they were ordered to do so by the UN they had to retreat.
However, the dirt of international can be seen in the fact that although after each attack the British and French air forces were taking photos at low altitude to see what damage had been caused, the USA was furnishing the British with much clearer photos taken from an altitude of 21km by U2 aircraft which at the time until 1962 when one of the U2’s was shot over Russia, were only known to a handful of people.
This shows the conspiracies and lengths to which colonialist countries go to, to further their colonial interest at the expense of other countries.
The eu is now simply a colonialist power or rather a collection of colonialist powers who want to get back their colonies and the other European countries to exploit them and their people.
A typical example is Malta which was used as a foreign base by the British and which the eu now wants to use it again as a military base as evidenced through the many visits by foreign warships including from NATO when Malta is according to its constitution a neutral and non-aligned country.
They are only doing this to get the people accustomed to warships and because we only have an eu QUISLING in government which is playing lackey to foreigners.
These are some of the reasons why the eu is a modern colonialist power which is a collectivity of colonialist powers seeking to get back their colonies through modern means through the eu.
It may be true that presently they are not doing so through military occupation, but are doing it in through trade and other methods such as customs duties and levies.
This does not exclude that they may also intervene militarily as they had previously done to pursue their colonial interests and that is why the eu is pressing for its own army so that they will act collectively in their own colonial interests through the eu.
#11 by Anna A on July 25th, 2009 - 8:16 pm
Nicu, thanks for all the thought-provoking articles. The fact that you’re now writing via the Euobserver is a tiny light, proving that there’s a shift here in Brussels as far as the Neighborhood is concerned. Much of what you state is a harsh reality and many locals, particularly from Caucasus and CA, wish that the EU had had accepted that reality a decade ago. It seems the EU ambitions are unable to overcome the basic need for democracy before development the region is crying for.
What surprises me, though, is that you barely analyse the Neighborhood Program from the perspective of EU-Russia talks. In fact, you’ve only mentioned Russia once (”In the eastern neighbourhood Russia and local political regimes greatly constrain EU’s transformative power.”). The lack of balance in diplomatic ties both between the EU and Russia; and the Member States and Russia, is the root problem of the limited character of so-called “transformative power”.
You do correctly and much to an awe describe the urge of selling BM-s being higher than spreading democracy. And this mechanism, unfortunately, is in the heart of the EU “transformative power” – the belief that the free flow of goods/capital/people/services will bring development and subsequently an urge to self-democratize. If in old Europe this sytem could work (considering the social and political circumstances of the time), the newly-joined states are still going through major shifts in order to fit into the process. These shifts have elements of transformation to countries such as Ukraine and Moldova more than Caucasus and Central Asia. The core cultural values of both regions have to be taken into account. The Caucasus people are very hard to be bribed with BM-s; sure, they’ll take the BM, but they’ll also point blankly that BM and democracy aren’t on the same dimension and barely ease the pain of segragation, bloddsheds, inability to forgive and forget. On this background, the shifts within the RF Institutional System have been easier to adapt to neither out of fear, or business clan systems. The EU ought to accept that being geographically aligned closer with Russia, the economic formulae of supply-and-demand keeps people together as much as it did during the Soviet period. There’s a lot of sympathy for the Eurasianist movement among these countries ruling elites as much, as the youth. At times, I bump into conversations here in Bxls where it’s simply fashionable to chant how much we crave for democracy, how much we’re core pro-Europeans. This has also created a fashion of recalling anything and everything Russian as pure evil, dictatorial and incapable of progress. And they do so whether or not they come from those regions. Those who honestly have a different opinion, prefer to keep a humble silence and never speak out of the facts that not everything about Russia is so bad, just as much as not everything about the EU is so bad.
In conclusion, for an alcoholic to turn into an eternally sober being, the first step to be taken is for him/her to admit that s/he’s an alcoholic. We’re thus entangled in a social drinkers’ paradise where we tost to the glory of the EU at the expense of doomsday for Russia (or vice versa), while fears of unrest, wars and hunger consistently remain the daily companions of the most worthwhile capital of the regions – the people.
#12 by Kazimierz on July 25th, 2009 - 11:03 pm
All six Eastern Partnership countries – Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan – were part of Soviet Union. More, all six were part of Russian Empire since at least 1800.
If the goal of EP was democratization, then Russia would be naturally included, at least as an observer.
It is not hard to notice that the Jewish-American Empire is on a mission of global conquest. Russia is an obstacle, so it needs to be dealt with. EP is a small part of that dealing with Russia, its goal is to turn those six countries of EP against Russia. The bigger part is media “information” policy about Russia that turns young Bxls into good tools of that policy (unconscious tools).
#13 by Jean Brochier on July 26th, 2009 - 5:48 pm
Let’s think about it : Europe is fully dedicated to the European construction because of the the awareness of historical change of scale started after WWII and consequently because of the danger to let the European countries alone in a world where the power was seized by bigger sets, yesterday the Soviet Union and USA, today the USA, tomorrow China and India. This strategical and survival goal was more important than the democratic aspect of the process. And indeed we so far totally failed to build a democratic european process.
For its ”foreign policy” Europe plays the exact opposite card: only one word in the mouth, democracy and nothing about strategy. Maybe because Europe has no external strategy so far and how could it be otherwise since Europe has no real foreign policy and no real instruments of power so far, except soft power. The first thing would be to define a strategy, then to implement it. It is only at this second stage that we would need to consider that in order to reach some strategical goals you might be obliged to go beyond democracy.
Today indeed the relationship with the six eastern partnership countries is challenging for Europe. First they belong to the Russian sphere and Europe has absolutely no strategy towards Russia; second these countries did not make their any democratic value, and Nicu very much acknowledges this in his report posted in ECFR.
Democracy is naturally always the objective but let us take in consideration also the reality of the local culture . It took 2000 years for west-Europe to be democratic, or 100-150 years after enlighting that Eastern Europe did not enjoy, so let us give some more years to those countries to integrate these value. Even if we should remain vigilant. I love those words of a song of Patricia Kass about Germany, ”I know where indulgence stops”. Indeed. But let be sure that all our nice (and necessary) speeches about democracy do not constitute a very usefull and easy hypocrisy hiding a total lack of strategy toward these countries.
#14 by Nicu Popescu on July 26th, 2009 - 11:59 pm
Jean, agree with you on lack of strategy, and even there is a strategic vision for the neighbourhood (”ring of friends”) there is strategic commitment to implement that vision.
BUT it did NOT take 2000 years for europe to be democratic. until a few decades ago germany, spain, portugal and greece were hardly democratic… but of course we should not expect central asia or the caucasus be like spain, but i see little reason why albania or peru can hold contested (and in many ways problematic) elections while belarus cannot.
AND: the neighbourhood countries do NOT bel;ong to tthe Russian sphere of influence (perhaps with the exception of Armenia and largely Belarus). Russia wants to assert a sphere of influence – but what I see in Ukraine, Moldova, Azerbaijan and Georrgia – does not seem at all like a Russian sphere of influence. these are places where Russia has majour influence, but so does the EU and US, in various ways. Today’s Russia i very influentail in the region, but not enough to achieve its foreign policy objectives in most of the Eastern neighbourhood states (witness georgia, belarus, ukraine, or most strikingly kyrgyzstan’s adventures with the US military base etc).
Kazimierz, the historical argument is not serious. If i would take the map of 1800 as a basis – we should change the borders of nearly all the European states, abolish Belgium, split Italy, give Greece to Turkey (Greece was part of Turkey for a longer period of time than Georgia or Moldova part of Russia). the historical argument does not stand. it only obscures the meaning of the current realities.
#15 by Anna A on July 27th, 2009 - 9:45 am
Nicu, I wouldn’t call Armenia as a sphere of Russia’s influence, let alone put it on the same line as Belorussia. In fact, I didn’t refer to the Russian influence the way you put it. I simply noted that to view EU’s relationship with the Neighbourhood independent of EU-Russia talks does not correspond to the current dominating reality. To claim that Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and Azerbaijan are on an independent path with the EU, thus, is only a claim to the wishfulness of the GUUAM. The patters of economic growth and institutional developent in all the countries mirror Russian institutional patters as much as the EU’s. With Saakashvili almost admitting his share of guilt in the Ossetia conflct (today in the WSJ), with Azerbaijan allowing its pro-militarist president get a till-death-parts-us deal with their home-grown democracy, with Ukraine’s voters sympathizing with Timoshenko’s balanced foreign policy approach both to Russia and the EU; with Moldova’s ongoing inability to put a truly pluralistic government together, I would be very careful to claim they have absolutely no connection whatsoever with Russia. It seems you, too, are better inclined to a priori declaim the pragmatism. Armenia, on the other hand, seems to be the only country that openly declares what they have with whom. There’s as many investments from the West as from Russia. The ongoing economic growth in the country is backed by a very intelligent foreign policy strategy, set up by Vartan Oskanian – the diplomacy of complimentarity. Let me also remind you, that being an American-Armenian by descent, Mr. Oskanian successfully declined from brandishing any of the country’s economic lifelines and left the doors open to all who wish to participate in the development of the country.
#16 by Wim Roffel on July 27th, 2009 - 10:38 am
In my opinion Europe doesn’t understand what democracy is. Democracy is a set of values, that include elections, but also justice, property rights, freedom of expression and movement, etc. Europe still thinks that Yeltsin was good for democracy. In fact he introduced a robber baron era where many of those democratic values were abolished.
As long as Europe doesn’t understand what democracy is and acts as if democracy means free elections where the West can use its money for PR to bring “pro-Western” politicians to power we will never succeed.
#17 by Kazimierz on July 27th, 2009 - 6:54 pm
@Nicu,
I wrote:
“All six Eastern Partnership countries – Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan – were part of Soviet Union. More, all six were part of Russian Empire since at least 1800.
If the goal of EP was democratization, then Russia would be naturally included, at least as an observer.”
I add now: it didn’t occur to me that you would understand this text as calling for, using your words, “we should change the borders”.
My point was that there are long lasting historical connections that EP attempts to break down. EP attemts to pull those countries away from Russia toward EU. It is basically fight for influence. I even gave likely reasons for such an EP attempt initiated by R. Sikorski (presently Polish FM, previously neocon)
#18 by Jean Brochier on July 27th, 2009 - 6:59 pm
2000 years Nicu and 100-150 years after Enlightenment. Take a map and follow the history to step by step build the European civilisation which is our acceptance of democracy. First the Greek world, fights and wars among cities and among political and philosophic concepts. Second the Roman Empire and a marvellous tool called the Roman Law. Detrhone Cesar and put afront of him a young bearded revolutionary, the Son of a unique God came on Earth to teach Charity. Improve your law by trying to solve all these conflicts between the cities(i.e. the rich merchants), the proud Lords, all the princes and few kings, not forgotten the Church. Develop science against the criminal obscurantism to let prevail the truth. The truth which become also reason and the justice, i.e a new fight in the political. And then yes you end few hundreds years afterwards with a pretty great democracy. You are right Spain made all this trip. Was just a bit long to kill its dictatorship, the European smartest fashion of the 30-40’s. Russia, unfortunately had to leave the European train somewhere in the XIIIth century, because of the awful Mongolian colonisation. Since then Russia always tried to catch up. But not very easy. I am sure you heard Russians telling you that if Ukrainians are so strangely interested by politics it is because they were not colonised by Mongols. I tend to think that this is true… You know better than I do that Belarus is a bit Poland, a bit Lithuania and a bit Russia. You are right Russia may be too weak to really achieve its dream and rebuilt a real sphere of influence, you perfectly analysed this and showed that its biggest weakness is the lack of softpower. But the mistakes of EU might help it a lot. But OK by shere of influence what i mean is more cultural sphere + field of influence, and that’s why in all this sphere, it will not be the smiling EU which shall build democracy. It is each of the very courageous demonstrators, each of the admirable journalists or stubborn free thinkers, such as Natalia Estemirova.
I am sure Belarus will have one day free election, I am even 100% sure Belarus will be in the EU, but it will be their success, not ours. EU is a model and a dream for people not belonging to it, dreams are useful, but as Baudelaire and Goethe said, is free the one who conquers his freedom alone… Our mission is to maintain the flame of the dream, to believe in it, and to maintain the door open and be there to show that there is an alternative to obscurantism and bad devlopment. At least I think. And therefore hope….
#19 by Bojan on July 28th, 2009 - 5:51 am
@ Kazimierz #19:
Good point, but note that the EU is being very careful in trying to pull away the six from Russia and embrace them fully within its own sphere of influence. Take, for instance, the western Balkans, where countries have been given clear EU membership perspective, unlike eastern partnership countries. And the reason for that is EU’s consideration of Russia’s interests in the region.
Furthermore, EU member states are divided on the issue. While Poland, Scandinavians and the UK are in favour of it, others like Germany, Italy and France (who for some strange coincidence happen to be Russian friends) are against it.
#20 by Bojan on July 28th, 2009 - 6:24 am
@ Jean Brochier # 20:
As much as I appreciate your overall point that eastern partnership countries ought to be left alone to pursue democratic development, I must say your arguments behind it are inaccurate to say the least.
Ancient Greece / Roman law and democracy? Hmmm, if I recall correctly it was perfectly normal in both Greece and Rome to have human slaves in those days. Doesn’t sound too democratic to me.
Ukraine was never under the Mongols? Think again, the Mongols went all the way to Poland mate. Moreover, there was no Ukraine in those days.
Belarus is a bit of Polish, a bit Russian and a bit Lithuanian? In the modern world we believe in something called state sovereignty. I surely wouldn’t like to perceive Belgium as partly Dutch, French and German. Or Switzerland as partly German, French and Italian. Or Bosnia as partly Serbian, Croatian and Muslim.
I believe some background reading would be in order.
#21 by Jean Brochier on July 28th, 2009 - 10:13 pm
@20 : some (hopefully fair) background reading
did I say Greece or Roman Empire were democratic? please read my comment again, I just say they are the starting point of 2000 year history which at the very end brought democracy in Europe. Not the same. ..
Ukraine and Mongol: you are right some background reading would have been useful since the Mongol conquered Kiev on 06.12.1240. But the big difference with what became afterwards Russia is that the Kieavian Rus was ”liberated” (please consider the big brackets…) from the Golden Horde by the Great Prince Olgerd of Lithunia. I am sure you will say well a barbarian drives another barbarian away. You would not be totally wrong, none of them were democrat! but well the Lithuanians helped Kiev to quickly recatch the European train, Moscow had a more difficult and long way…
Belarus : it is certainly one of the most interesting country to think about the concept of frontier in Europe. And hereagain please do not misunderstand me. By chance I was in Minsk today and one of my interlocutors, relatively closed to Lukashenka, told me that Belarussians thinks that they have only 2 alternatives, either becoming Russian or entering the EU!!! If you may totally disagree with some of my comments I have the impression that you would agree with my answer to him. I told him :just be Belarussians, pursue your balance policy, and be where geography and history put Belarus on the European map. This is for the soverignty I very much respect. Now yes Belarus is a bit polish because one third of its territorry was polish before WWII, yes Belarus is a bit Lithunian because the Principality of Polotsk was integrated to lithuania at the begining of XIVth century and belong then to the Lublin Union (Poland+Lithuania) until Russia took it in 1772 in the first partition of Poland. Soverignty does not mean lack of culture and forgotten history. Culture and history this all about Europe… A bit complicate, but fascinating, in any case, to handle with care…
Best regards