EU’s neighbourhood policy should be more than placebo

Date: 10/11/04

THE EU has been observing elections in two big neighbours, Ukraine and the United States, going the "wrong way" at the same time. Russia was intervening so heavily in Ukraine that it too was part of the drama of last week.

Is the EU being completely surrounded by peoples that have different views of the world? Has Europe alone got it right, or has it got something wrong? Or is it just that there are several world regions, of which the EU is just one, that are all structurally different in their politics?

The Ukrainian and US contests show some striking similarities. Both were neck-and-neck two-horse races, with the opposing candidates standing for radically different conceptions of their nations and their external relations. Each nation was deeply polarized, ideologically and regionally. In both cases the EU could empathize with one half, and regard the opposite half as the 'other'.

The Ukrainian election is not yet over. In the first round, the two main candidates were virtually equally placed, with 39.9% for Russia-oriented Viktor Yanukovich and 39.2% for European-oriented Viktor Yushchenko, but a run-off has now to take place on 21 November.

Exit polls suggested a lead for Yushchenko, implying electoral abuse aided or permitted by the authorities. The election was a dirty affair.

A similar story, but worse, is going on in little Abkhazia down in the South Caucasus, too obscure for most people to notice. To cap it off, the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was back in Moscow, enjoying photo opportunities in a regal Kremlin setting and maybe doing some good business too.

Whatever one thinks of the results, the US election was an impressive exercise in democracy. This time Bush had an undisputed majority.

Europeans were broadly on the same wavelength as 48% of the US population, finding John Kerry to be a thoughtful, careful man with good judgment on international affairs.

They can agree with Bush that it is a good idea to promote democratic values worldwide, but they would prefer to do so without the bombing.

The Bush re-election is deeply significant because until now the Iraq war could be regarded as Bush's personal affair.

Now, the American people have decided to 'persist and sign', as the French say. This means that the US body politic has moved away from the European one, with European public opinion much more united than their leaders.

The commentator Robert Kagan's view about Mars and Venus, or about the two peoples understanding each other less and less, often portrayed as a witty exaggeration, has been seriously vindicated.

The only two countries that were hoping for Bush's re-election were Russia and Israel. The Russian President Vladimir Putin chimed in immediately that the American people had elected a leader who was not intimidated by terrorism, so pulling the rhetoric over to cover himself too with the good news and deflect criticism over his increasing authoritarianism and neglect of human rights.

Both Russia and Israel place all terrorists in the same basket, with the phrase "we do not negotiate with terrorists". Fair enough, when the enemy is al-Qaeda. But Russia will surely have to negotiate one day with Chechnya and Israeli leader Ariel Sharon one day with the Palestinians. Should the UK's Tony Blair not have negotiated with the IRA?

If indeed the EU, Russia and the US all have structurally different polities, what are the consequences?

The EU has to focus on its prime interests and values. Its huge economic interdependence with both the US and Russia has to be managed. Its huge exposure to the fortunes of its neighbours is next on the list.

This is where the emerging European Neighbourhood Policy should come in - and not as a mere placebo.

For its northern neighbours, starting with Ukraine, it has to mean, as outgoing European Commission President Romano Prodi once put it, "everything but the institutions".

The EU should offer to its neighbours maximum advantages under every relevant line of policy in its hands - trade, aid, visa and migration facilitation and a host of other socializing mechanisms sufficiently weighty to induce these countries along the path of democratic Europeanization (EU policy documents are so far all about its neighbours' obligations, without doing their homework on the incentives).

For its southern neighbours, and on into the wider Middle East, the EU has to work out a somewhat different formula for countries not yet ready for fast-track democratization.

It has to emphasize the search for compatibility of civilizations with its Muslim neighbours, starting with its own minorities at home, extending then into the moderate Arab states, such as Morocco and on into the fundamentalist regimes of the Middle East.

If Bush's re-election is to coincide with a post-Arafat Palestine, maybe the window of opportunity will open for decisive progress in the Middle East, in which case the prospects for harmony in EU and US efforts to democratize the Muslim neighbourhood will improve.

• Michael Emerson is senior research fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies.

Analysis feature in which the author, who is senior research fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies, suggests that the European Union should offer its neighbours a true perspective of close cooperation in order to promote its values.

• Primary Source