Перспективи входження України до Євросоюзу
12/03/2004 | Englishman
Серйозна стаття у впливовому журналі Економіст. Зважені за і проти такого кроку (економічні, політичні та моральні), висновок- місце України в ЄС.
Charlemagne
Another faraway country
Dec 2nd 2004
From The Economist print edition
Brussels faces up gloomily to the prospect of further eastward enlargement
WHO can fail to be moved by the sight of young people braving freezing weather to demonstrate for freedom and democracy? Certainly not the soft-hearted internationalists who tend to be found in the offices of the European Union in Brussels. But the admiration and excitement generated in Brussels by events in Ukraine are tempered by a certain dread. The official policy has been that Ukraine is not a serious candidate for membership of the EU. Romano Prodi, who has just stepped down as head of the European Commission, once said that Ukraine was about as plausible a candidate for EU membership as New Zealand. Earlier this year the EU underlined this, by launching a new “neighbourhood policy” that unflatteringly lumped Ukraine in with such countries as Morocco and Syria. But Ukraine's fate can no longer be brushed aside. The demonstrators in Kiev's Independence Square want their country aligned with Europe not Russia—and alignment with Europe means, these days, aspiring to membership of the EU.
Why does this thought arouse such alarm in Brussels? The EU's enlargement to include ten new member countries, which took place last May, was sold as a golden opportunity to expand a European zone of peace, prosperity and co-operation into the former Soviet block. The same arguments could be applied even more strongly to Ukraine. The EU proclaims itself a “union of values”; here is another European country struggling to embrace liberal democracy. Moreover, if the EU is serious about turning itself into a superpower, the voluntary adherence of a big new country should surely be welcomed. In territorial terms, Ukraine would be larger than any of the present members, and it would rank fifth by population.
Russia's interference in Ukraine's election
Dec 2nd 2004
Ukraine's post-election mess continues
Dec 2nd 2004
Romania's dubious elections
Dec 2nd 2004
Ukraine, America and debt
Dec 2nd 2004
Brussels
Ukraine
EU enlargement
The EU outlines its relations with Ukraine.
Hesitation about the reaction in Moscow to absorbing such a large chunk of the former Soviet empire only partly explains the reticence in Brussels towards Ukrainian aspirations to “join Europe”. Far more important is the onset of enlargement fatigue. After admitting ten new countries, most of them considerably poorer than the existing members, Eurocrats are now contemplating without much pleasure the prospect that Romania and Bulgaria will join in 2007. This despite the considerable doubts that exist about the quality of Romanian democracy, to say nothing of corruption and a creaky judicial system. At the next EU summit, there will be a painful debate that seems sure to lead to a controversial decision to open membership negotiations with Turkey. All the Balkan countries, including such troubled places as Albania and Bosnia, have been promised that they too can aspire to eventual EU membership. Many politicians from richer and more stable western European countries have argued for setting a limit to the number of poor, developing democracies they take on. And that limit, the Brussels authorities had previously decided, would be the Polish-Ukrainian border.
Even the prospect of Turkish membership poses a threat to many EU policies and power structures that have been carefully built up over 50 years. Add Ukraine to the mix, and the EU of today would become unrecognisable, and probably unsustainable. The common agricultural policy, which still accounts for over 40% of EU spending, is already strained by enlargement; adding the vast grainfields of Ukraine would ensure its bankruptcy. The CAP is an historical relic that deserves to be scrapped. But there is a fear that other, more valuable achievements may also come under threat. There is already discussion in Brussels about permitting permanent limits to the free movement of people within the EU, to assuage western European fears of Turkey. Such talk will become louder if Ukrainian membership becomes a real prospect. The single currency would become a lot harder to manage if it included countries as diverse (and poor) as Ukraine and Turkey. And there are questions of raw power. The EU makes around 50% of the new laws of its member states, and big western European powers such as Germany, France and Britain are used to dominating proceedings. They could be more easily outnumbered in a club that might, once it decided to admit Ukraine, stretch to almost 40 members.
Farewell, ever closer union
It is not just the current structures of the EU that are threatened by further enlargement. So is the dream of the Union's founding fathers of creating an “ever closer union”, culminating in something like a single European state. Much progress has already been made towards this goal. The EU has a supreme court, a parliament, some military capacity and 80,000 pages of law covering everything from the environment to safety at work. But for true believers, the journey will not be complete until there is a Europe-wide welfare state, featuring harmonised taxes and common social legislation. Such a dream (or nightmare) already seems remote given the diversity of the 25 countries that are now members of the EU—and the refusal of the poorer countries to be saddled with the expensive burdens of Franco-German welfarism. But the idea of a tightly regulated European superstate would surely be delivered the coup de grace by the admission of Ukraine and Turkey.
It is understandable that believers in the old European federalist dream should be reluctant to see it disrupted by quarrels in a faraway country between people of whom they know nothing. But enlightened self-interest, as well as principle, dictates that they cannot ignore what is going on in Ukraine. The goal of the founding fathers of the European project was above all the establishment of peace on the European continent. Another war between France and Germany is now unthinkable. But the first world war started in the Balkans and the second with the invasion of Poland. Ensuring that these regions are safely incorporated into a liberal, democratic club may be thought a higher task than trying to guarantee that all Europeans enjoy the dubious delights of CAP subsidies and directives on working time.
Charlemagne
Another faraway country
Dec 2nd 2004
From The Economist print edition
Brussels faces up gloomily to the prospect of further eastward enlargement
WHO can fail to be moved by the sight of young people braving freezing weather to demonstrate for freedom and democracy? Certainly not the soft-hearted internationalists who tend to be found in the offices of the European Union in Brussels. But the admiration and excitement generated in Brussels by events in Ukraine are tempered by a certain dread. The official policy has been that Ukraine is not a serious candidate for membership of the EU. Romano Prodi, who has just stepped down as head of the European Commission, once said that Ukraine was about as plausible a candidate for EU membership as New Zealand. Earlier this year the EU underlined this, by launching a new “neighbourhood policy” that unflatteringly lumped Ukraine in with such countries as Morocco and Syria. But Ukraine's fate can no longer be brushed aside. The demonstrators in Kiev's Independence Square want their country aligned with Europe not Russia—and alignment with Europe means, these days, aspiring to membership of the EU.
Why does this thought arouse such alarm in Brussels? The EU's enlargement to include ten new member countries, which took place last May, was sold as a golden opportunity to expand a European zone of peace, prosperity and co-operation into the former Soviet block. The same arguments could be applied even more strongly to Ukraine. The EU proclaims itself a “union of values”; here is another European country struggling to embrace liberal democracy. Moreover, if the EU is serious about turning itself into a superpower, the voluntary adherence of a big new country should surely be welcomed. In territorial terms, Ukraine would be larger than any of the present members, and it would rank fifth by population.
Russia's interference in Ukraine's election
Dec 2nd 2004
Ukraine's post-election mess continues
Dec 2nd 2004
Romania's dubious elections
Dec 2nd 2004
Ukraine, America and debt
Dec 2nd 2004
Brussels
Ukraine
EU enlargement
The EU outlines its relations with Ukraine.
Hesitation about the reaction in Moscow to absorbing such a large chunk of the former Soviet empire only partly explains the reticence in Brussels towards Ukrainian aspirations to “join Europe”. Far more important is the onset of enlargement fatigue. After admitting ten new countries, most of them considerably poorer than the existing members, Eurocrats are now contemplating without much pleasure the prospect that Romania and Bulgaria will join in 2007. This despite the considerable doubts that exist about the quality of Romanian democracy, to say nothing of corruption and a creaky judicial system. At the next EU summit, there will be a painful debate that seems sure to lead to a controversial decision to open membership negotiations with Turkey. All the Balkan countries, including such troubled places as Albania and Bosnia, have been promised that they too can aspire to eventual EU membership. Many politicians from richer and more stable western European countries have argued for setting a limit to the number of poor, developing democracies they take on. And that limit, the Brussels authorities had previously decided, would be the Polish-Ukrainian border.
Even the prospect of Turkish membership poses a threat to many EU policies and power structures that have been carefully built up over 50 years. Add Ukraine to the mix, and the EU of today would become unrecognisable, and probably unsustainable. The common agricultural policy, which still accounts for over 40% of EU spending, is already strained by enlargement; adding the vast grainfields of Ukraine would ensure its bankruptcy. The CAP is an historical relic that deserves to be scrapped. But there is a fear that other, more valuable achievements may also come under threat. There is already discussion in Brussels about permitting permanent limits to the free movement of people within the EU, to assuage western European fears of Turkey. Such talk will become louder if Ukrainian membership becomes a real prospect. The single currency would become a lot harder to manage if it included countries as diverse (and poor) as Ukraine and Turkey. And there are questions of raw power. The EU makes around 50% of the new laws of its member states, and big western European powers such as Germany, France and Britain are used to dominating proceedings. They could be more easily outnumbered in a club that might, once it decided to admit Ukraine, stretch to almost 40 members.
Farewell, ever closer union
It is not just the current structures of the EU that are threatened by further enlargement. So is the dream of the Union's founding fathers of creating an “ever closer union”, culminating in something like a single European state. Much progress has already been made towards this goal. The EU has a supreme court, a parliament, some military capacity and 80,000 pages of law covering everything from the environment to safety at work. But for true believers, the journey will not be complete until there is a Europe-wide welfare state, featuring harmonised taxes and common social legislation. Such a dream (or nightmare) already seems remote given the diversity of the 25 countries that are now members of the EU—and the refusal of the poorer countries to be saddled with the expensive burdens of Franco-German welfarism. But the idea of a tightly regulated European superstate would surely be delivered the coup de grace by the admission of Ukraine and Turkey.
It is understandable that believers in the old European federalist dream should be reluctant to see it disrupted by quarrels in a faraway country between people of whom they know nothing. But enlightened self-interest, as well as principle, dictates that they cannot ignore what is going on in Ukraine. The goal of the founding fathers of the European project was above all the establishment of peace on the European continent. Another war between France and Germany is now unthinkable. But the first world war started in the Balkans and the second with the invasion of Poland. Ensuring that these regions are safely incorporated into a liberal, democratic club may be thought a higher task than trying to guarantee that all Europeans enjoy the dubious delights of CAP subsidies and directives on working time.