Comments on: The limits of EU’s transformative power

By: nino

nino — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 06:05:40 +0000

John! As a native of a Southeastern European country, I fully agree with your claim. Glory days of the EU are behind us. What awaits us is a hard core realism. @Freeborn John

By: Jean Brochier

Jean Brochier — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:13:32 +0000

@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

By: Bojan

Bojan — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:24:49 +0000

@ 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.

By: Bojan

Bojan — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 03:51:28 +0000

@ 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.

By: Jean Brochier

Jean Brochier — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:59:11 +0000

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….

By: Kazimierz

Kazimierz — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:54:08 +0000

@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)

By: Wim Roffel

Wim Roffel — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:38:27 +0000

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.

By: Anna A

Anna A — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:45:20 +0000

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.

By: Nicu Popescu

Nicu Popescu — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 22:59:21 +0000

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.

By: Jean Brochier

Jean Brochier — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:48:29 +0000

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.