The boundaries of (re)unification

A recent report from the Heinrich Böll Foundation, entitled Twenty Years After: Post-Communist Countries and European Integration, is reflective and ambitious in opening new avenues about the present and the future of the European continent. It would thus be unfair to consider it as simply another study on the integration of the Eastern European countries in the EU after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The report is much more than that, for it reviews how (and if) the hopes of those countries after the collapse of the communism have materialized. It evaluates how the EU expectations  regarding structural change and integration have been met, and, more generally, which are the challenges, successes and failures of a (re)united Europe, and where its boundaries lay.

Challenges and successes

Eastern European Integration has faced enormous social, political and economic  difficulties. However, many of them have been dealt with in a successful manner, since most of these countries are quickly becoming liberal, flourishing democracies.

Nevertheless, this is happening at a cost, and not only in economic terms. Choosing to deepen a Union of more or less developed Western countries, or enlarging it to encompass the whole continent instead are very different options.

The report also points to some failures along this integration process, two of which deserve being mentioned. Europe could not foresee the violent events developing in its own soil, that is, the wars in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990’s. It could not understand their historical background and, worst of all, did not know how to confront them, once more needing external help to put an end to this bloody conflict.

We could also mention the European position towards a neo-imperialist Russia. Here, the EU is apparently trapped in a dilemma composed of its energy needs, its stance on human rights and its own lack of clarity regarding the future Eastern borders of the Union. All of this often results in an incoherent and disunited policy towards the Russian neighbour.


 

Where should we draw the line?

Reflecting on Eastern integration invariably leads us to think about the boundaries of a unified Europe. Though currently the debate is basically centered on the internal development of the Union, the integration of the Eastern countries is still forcing us to define its geographical limits. Should Ukraine, Georgia and Belarus, for instance, join the EU at some point in the future? Should they become instead a kind of geopolitical buffer? What about the ‘cultural’ nature of the Union? Should a predominantly Muslim regional power such as Turkey be admitted? On which grounds can we answer yes or no? How would that change the power balance and alter the functioning of European institutions?

Answering these questions is not easy, and implies addressing a number of complex political factors. A concerted effort is needed here, since otherwise these will always remain mere tools in the internal political battles of each country, preventing Europe from speaking with a single voice in matters of foreign policy.

Certainly, it would be desirable for the Union to decide as soon as possible what the outcome ought to be in the current negotiations with Turkey if it meets the criteria to join. Be it either a full membership or a privileged association, clarity would be beneficial both for the EU and Turkey. I personally favour the first option, which would boost the prospects of democracy and the rule of law in the region, sending out a clear message to its neighbouring countries. I don’t think the EU should fear the possibility of welcoming a big, Muslim (but with important and growing secular parts) and democratic Turkey, provided the criteria for its inclusion are strictly met, and the internal functioning rules of the Union and its guarantees system (the combination of political and judicial institutions that uphold and enforce human rights and the common European legislation) are respected. I think fears about the EU altering its nature should be dismissed, provided we know what the European nature is, and we should think instead about how the Union would benefit from a dynamic and (hopefully) increasingly secular nation.

Regarding the former Soviet republics of Belarus, Georgia and Ukraine, which now represent the Eastern limits of the Union, setting a common benchmark is a difficult task. In any case, this should include institutional, historical and geopolitical considerations. Some countries could make a smooth transition in the long run (the Western half of Ukraine, for instance, has traditionally been very European in terms of values, borders and history), whereas other cases point in an opposite direction. For example, thinking of Minsk as part of the EU is plainly political fiction in the current circumstances, since Belarus is arguably as far as one could be from the rule of law, and then more.

The fact that in all these cases the EU should take into account Russia’s interests, and perhaps negotiate its policies with Moscow, represents another difficulty. Nevertheless, acknowledging this fact doesn’t imply bowing down before the Kremlin or disregarding the legitimate aspirations of those countries.


 

Forget the maps, what we need is a moral compass

The authors of the report are quite right in stressing an essential feature of the Union which we all seem to assume, but altogether forget: “Although a United Europe needs strong common institutions it cannot rely on institutions alone. Without shared values and ideals, without a clear public debate on how we want our society to develop, a united Europe will lack the necessary impetus to progress”.

Ultimately, this is what the European Union represents, for its boundaries will not only be established in geographical terms, but primarily with regards to that set of common values. In other words, answering the previously-mentioned questions on the enlargement of the Union and clarifying the European stance on a wide range of subjects from economic development to security and more, amounts to a collective decision on the moral and political foundations of the European polity.

More than rivers, mountains, history and cardinal points, these are the essential borders of Europe.


Francisco Beltran

Researcher, Institute for European Studies, University of British Columbia

Photo © criticalurbanism.wordpress.com