If you read the declaration signed by the EU leaders to celebrate EU’s 50 anniversary, the "consensus" reached says a lot about the commitment for Europe to move forward. It’s a political statement that sounds pretty but remains very vague, trying to please everyone and therefore not committing itself to anything. The word "enlargement" doesn’t even come up, although it’s been the most successful EU policy so far. Sure, they talk about reunification and integration, but enlargement implies a strategy with political AND economic aims. And that seems to be forgotten.
Europe’s wealth lies in the knowledge and ability of its people; that is the key to growth, employment and social cohesion. We will fight terrorism and organized crime together.
We stand up for liberties and civil rights also in the struggle against those who oppose them. Racism and xenophobia must never again be given any rein.
We are committed to the peaceful resolution of conflicts in the world and to ensuring that people do not become victims of war, terrorism and violence.
The European Union wants to promote freedom and development in the world. We want to drive back poverty, hunger and disease. We want to continue to take a leading role in that fight.
We intend jointly to lead the way in energy policy and climate protection and make our contribution to averting the global threat of climate change.
The Economist published this week a very realistic analysis about how the EU and the US are completely losing their leverage and power to attract former Soviet countries to commit to democracy and transatlantic values. The so-called "orange era" is coming to an end, the revolutionary spirit that sparked across Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia or Kyrgyzstan, but one could argue also about Romania, Bulgaria or Hungary.
The bottled-up anger with the petty humiliations of daily life that fuelled past protest movements in ex-communist countries has weakened, partly because life has improved and partly because of the opportunities offered by migration. The EU—to put it mildly—no longer looks like a lighthouse beckoning new members towards peace and prosperity. As Mr Krastev says, the clearer the EU’s borders become, the less attractive it is to outsiders, and the weaker its promise that “if you are like us, you could become one of us”.Plus, there is serious competition. Russia has learned the importance of the people-power game, and is going to play it with increasing skill. The Kremlin looks set to invest more money, more time and more expertise in winning over wobbly post-Soviet countries than the West ever will. It can call now on sinister pro-Putin groups, such as Nashi (Ours), which know how to mobilise a crowd. If you applaud orange-clad activists making history on the streets of Kiev, it is hard to explain why those trying to do the same in the Kremlin’s red white and blue are inherently more objectionable.
The conclusion of the b-day declaration, "Europe is our common future" - a sort of a milder "United we stand" - might be a good PR-thing, but it’s hardly a reality among the EU members. And this is known and exploited by Russia. The losers seem to be always the same - the satellite and former Soviet countries, especially those who tried to commit themselves to Euroatlanticism. But looking at the way the EU works and acts right now, they might consider this was a big mistake.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Other posts of interest
Mar 24th, 2007
Loading ...
I have no idea what this commentary means. It is not analysis, because it makes only unsupported and emotional assertions, allegations, innuendos and implications. There is not a single honest, direct statement of firm opinion in the whole work, only hints and hidden secrets. There is no conclusion stated, only dire implications and colored, slanted speculations.
The essay suffers from a stark lack of facts, and an utter absence of practicality. EU enlargement has been an economic disaster, nearly destroying the Union with the inclusion of feudal East European states living in the 1700s, with ignorant, primitive peasants traveling by horse-drawn wagons, swarming over civilized Europe like rats chewing their way into a storehouse of grain. The image of Europeans wanting even more parasitical primitives from out of the 1700s is hilariously absurd.
No competent analyst would ever think something so detached from the reality of international affairs. Folk who do that to earn a living need to be sensible, something the writer of this essay does not appear to comprehend. The piece is more sad in its delusional nature than anything else.
I suppose this is what you call an “honest”, “direct statement of firm opinion” - that EU enlargement has been an economic disaster. In fact, it has been a great success. The growth of the French and German economies in the past 2 years are mainly due to the exports on the Eastern European markets. And to the opening of new producing locations on European soil, not in China..
I’m not making this stuff up, here is what the EU Commission stated in 2006:
“Two years later, the biggest enlargement ever of the European Union is an economic success: the 10 new Member Statesà€™ economies are growing at a rapid pace enabling them to progressively bridge the gap with their richer neighbours. But the latter also win as the increase of the EUà€™s single market by 75 million to 450 million inhabitants brings a wealth of trade and investment opportunities. More importantly, enlargement has acted as a force of modernisation in the EU as a whole à€“ a timely force given the sudden emergence on the world scene of China and India.”
But i guess your haven’t caught up with the news since the 1700s.. It’s ok. Read us more often, you might find out that the world is changing faster than you think.
@Home412AD
Tragic, dreadful comment sprung out from a mind incapable of reasoning outside self-imposed frameworks for mental safety. The 1700’s might have been a good century for you to display your ignorance. But then again, you would have been faced and sanctioned by some brilliant minds who lived during that period of time. Like Voltaire, for example.
Your comment is totally out of place and it shows that Allan Bloom was once more extremely accurate in his analysis from “The Closing of the American Mind”.
A book you have probably never read. Or if you have, you have understood abolutely nothing of.
The New European doesn’t post comments on this blog because he/she has nothing else to do during sparetime. They are solidly documented, dearing and provocative in reasoning and have nothing of the stereoryping simplistic frame you read the world through.
Read some more PS and IR books before displaying your lack of knowledge on matters of politics.