The European Union (EU) bases its existence on a set of shared values and doctrines as well as on the assertion that any European country that respects them may apply to become a member state of the EU (Olli, 2009). It has been classified as one of the most successful organisations in the world (Moller, 2008). The EU contends to establish a zone of peace, stability and prosperity and enlargement is therefore a vital transformational force in peaceful democracy and ensuring increased stability and peace to the EU (Olli, 2005). The argument towards enlargement of the EU in the security context is supported by the interest of the EU to export stability to the neighbourhood instead of having to import instability from the neighbourhood.
The enlargement of the EU to Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) was as a result of pressure on behalf of the EU following the dismantling of the Warsaw Treaty Organization which saw the CEECs in a security vacuum (Carmen, 2008). Faced with evolving security concerns, the CEECs have had to choose whether to join the EU as a security mechanism.
The purpose of this essay is to analyze the ways in which the enlargement of the EU has improved security in Central and Eastern Europe. The essay is organised as follows. It first tackles the effectiveness of enlargement of the EU as a security mechanism citing the ways in which it addressed security concerns. It further analyses the benefits of the means used with respect to both internal and external security concerns followed by the limitations of each method. The final section concludes and gives some policy recommendations in line with the limitations that have been cited.
Effectiveness of EU enlargement as a Security Mechanism
EU membership has been argued to be one of the best ways of improving security for the CEECs. The EU has had a remarkable expansion of membership over the years with no serious opposition to enlargement due to the civil nature of the Union (Olli, 2005). The enlargement of the EU has itself been considered as an EU foreign policy as it helps the EU to be in a position to mould the domestic and foreign policies of member and applicant states (Sjursen, 1998).
EU enlargement for the purpose of this essay is analysed in relation to its impact on security concerns. The foundation of enlargement has been said to be paradoxical with the argument that the process of transforming neighbours into members automatically brings new countries as neighbours to the EU orbit (Moller, 2008). The arguments in favour of enlargement are however overwhelming in terms of security (Heather, 2001). The EU enlargement improved security in Central and Eastern Europe in three ways. This is through normative and motivational power, economic power and finally through institutional power all of which have both benefits and limitations.
EU Normative and Motivational Power
The EU enforces its motivational power by offering membership and establishment of accession criteria hence imposing standards of democratisation market economies with an aim of reducing the threat of a return to dictatorial regimes and centrally planned economies (Bosold Brockmann, 2009). Assessment of membership candidates through the Avis and regular reports also contributes to the maintenance of these standards throughout the CEECs as stipulated in the Copenhagen criteria.
It is the aftermath of the Kosovo crisis that thrust the EU motivational power in the limelight with the European commission starting accession negotiations. For example, Poland enhanced relations with Germany and Lithuania following increased protection of minority rights which diffused some security concerns (Carmen, 2008).
Enlargement of the EU has also played a part to achieve a relative homogeneity of political parties and through conditionality has continued to guarantee that standards of democracy and market economies are not compromised by the philosophical point of view of the parties in power (Ioana, 2008). This ensured that for example the return of post communist in Poland and Romania was not viewed as a danger and similarly the return of socialists to power in Hungary was encouraged as the governments were committed to economic reforms hence positively affected security (Carmen, 2008).
The enlargement of EU has also minimised the impact of extremist parties for example the extremist League of Polish Families of Poland and the Greater Romania Party that were marginalised after elections despite winning. This shows that EU membership has strong motivational and normative power.
Finally, the enlargement has also impacted CEECs concerns of external security through motivational power. The Balladur pact was founded on the premise that Euro-Atlantic integration was reliant on good neighbourly dealings and this assisted the EU to avert prior threats posed by recognition of borders. Examples of actual impact of EU motivational power include the signing of mutual agreements by Poland and its neighbours in 1992 so as to be incorporated as a member in the EU and the initial threat that existed between Poland and Germany was averted by Polands determination to become a member of the EU as it had to seek Germanys support in the accession process.
On the other hand, there exist some limitations of the EUs normative and motivational power in improvement of security in the CEECs. To begin with, with increased observation of human rights, there arose disputes as to the interpretation and limitation of such rights for example in Romania. Similarly, Turkey in 2005 had a poor record of human rights prior to the commencement of accession negotiations which was followed by limitation of the right to freedom of speech in 2006 through a proposed anti-terrorist bill.
Secondly, the carrot of EU membership is unable to stop the emergence of extremist political parties and their being elected into parliament across the CEECs (Carmen, 2008). It is argued that it is the disappointment presented by some of the results of economic and political transition that led to the voters turning to the extremist parties. It is therefore apparent that there is a definite weakness associated with transition hence the requirement for continued external support for democratic consolidation in the CEECs (Carmen, 2008).
Finally, the economic criteria applied in assessing progress towards EU membership faces a number of limitations. The market economy is linked to greater risk exposure thereby making it difficult to dissociate it from economic insecurity and the privatisation process employed has also led to the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor in terms of wealth creation both of which are a threat to political stability.
EUs Economic Power
To establish the relation that exists between the EU economic power and its functioning as a security mechanism, it is important to understand the economic criteria that are imposed by the EU. This is in particular with respect to promotion of reforms for transition to a market economy. The economic criteria included conditionality aimed at attracting foreign direct investment, improving economic growth and prosperity and finalising the privatisation process (Carmen, 2008). The EU used these recommendations in the enlargement process of vetting candidate countries.
Using these criteria has had a number of benefits in terms of security improvement. Through provision of funds, trade liberalisation and encouraging foreign direct investment, the enlargement of the EU into CEECs has positively impacted their economic development. This in turn has led to a significant reduction of political and economic instability which translates to increased internal security.
Provision of funds for building the civil society has enhanced democratisation in the CEECs which has played a vital role in minimising the threat of a comeback to dictatorial regimes. Provision of the pre-accession funds provided a safety net to the CEECs countries that were most affected by the transition hence minimising political instability and insecurity. Additionally, the funds have helped enforce the condition of institutional building which is vital for political and economic stability, prosperity and internal security (Carmen, 2008).
Finally, the provision of export markets and attraction of foreign direct investment which are associated with enlargement of the EU have contributed immensely to the economic growth and stability of the CEECs. This has had positive impacts on the integration process of the EU especially with regard to welfare and economic security. Trade liberalisation between the EU and the CEECs encouraged trade and foreign direct investment and improved security as it encouraged economic co-operation and growth in the region. It also reduced the potential economic hold of Russia while raising the standards of living of the people in the region minimising the risk of protests and strikes generally improving the internal security. Foreign direct investment led to improved skills, employment opportunities, greater consumer choice, and higher wages and also acts as an external sign of commitment to reforms which improves the perception of security generally (Carmen, 2008).
On the contrary, there also exist some limitations to the economic criteria. The first one is the reservations on the misuse of the pre-accession funds which translated to increased perceptions of corruption and internal insecurity for example in Poland and Romania (Heather 2001). Secondly, there is too much bureaucracy which despite institutional building is a deterrent to foreign investment (Carmen, 2008).
T
rade liberalisation to a certain level led to over-dependence on the EU market and the fact that access to the market did not integrate industries such as agriculture, steel and textiles meant that countries like Poland and Romania had a relative advantage over the EU (Carmen, 2008). This frustrated the efforts made by trade liberalisation in respect to economic growth and security.
Finally, some of the CEECs had poor competitiveness in the market and therefore the increase in trade led to increased balance of payment deficits and economic insecurity. This clear dominance of some EU member countries over the CEECs meant increased foreign direct investment which led to closure of some domestic plants which were not competitive enough which increased unemployment, economic insecurity and internal security in general (Carmen, 2008).
EUs Institutional Power
The EU has a number of institutional arrangements at its disposal that it used to address the CEECs external threats in line with its enlargement. To begin with, the EU filled the security vacuum that was left after the dismantling of the USSR by enlargement eastwards and complementing the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO (Carmen, 2008). The influence on internal reforms of the CEECs also helped reduce the political influence that Russia had through the use of economic or political means on the region. Russia and the EU have established good relations with EUs support to Russia being conditional on upholding human rights and observing the rule of law. It is speculated that the continued co-operation between the EU and Russia is bound to influence democratisation and trade liberalisation in Russia especially under the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement. This minimises the risk of future instability.
Secondly, the EU is able to monitor the inflow of migrants, drugs, arms and human trafficking through contribution of securing the CEECs eastern borders such as Poland and Romania. For example, the Schengen Agreement saw the securing of Polands and Romanias borders which improved the internal security. Additionally, the EU enlargement into CEECs enhanced the external security with the use of its European Neighbourhood Policy which protects against export of political and economic instability as well as security threats like crime and terrorism (Kamov, 2006).
The European Neighbourhood Policy is founded on co-operation, economic integration, closer political ties and reform assistance to encourage economic and social development. Apart from the conditions of observing the rule of law and upholding human rights, it requires co-operation on vital foreign policies on issues such as terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflict, organised crime, state failure and regional instability (Edwards, 2006). The CEECs therefore benefit from reduced external security concerns and increased economic development.
However, there are a number of limitations of the use of EU institutional power in CEECs as a security mechanism. First, the EU membership is itself marred by fears that joining the EU means foregoing sovereignty and it has been seen as a replacement of former Soviet influence with a European one (Carmen, 2008).
The second limitation is that the threat posed by Russian economic and political influence still lingers on and was not entirely eliminated. For example, Russia has established itself as a major investor in some CEECs such as Poland and Romania. There is also the reliance on Russian oil by many CEECs which makes it difficult to break ties. The EU has also suffered in its efforts to pursue a joint approach to Russia due to disunity and practice of self interest for example with Germany and France pursuing independent Russia-friendly policies. The refusal by France on Russias involvement in the EU defence policy has reassured the CEECs that there is a limit to Russias influence (Carmen, 2008).
The European Neighbourhood Policy has been put to task on the fact that the increased security measures will lead to formation of new division lines in Europe. For example on the Polish and Romanian eastern borders, the freedom of movement of citizens of Ukraine, Belarus and Kaliningrad will be limited thereby creating a sense of exclusion (Ioana 2007).
Finally, it emerged that the EU after the Kosovo crisis could not independently manage crises. It lacked the means of ensuring military security hence the need for better collaboration between the EU, NATO and Russia. The EU does not therefore have the capacity to fully guarantee safety against external threats due to lack of military capacity but it has managed to eliminate the security concerns between its members (Carmen, 2008).
Recommendations
The role of the EU enlargement in improvement of security concerns clearly remains that of a civilian actor hence there is need to complement it with the military power of NATO (Carmen, 2008). It is however safe to generalise and say that EU enlargement has played a vital role in the improvement of security both internal and external to the member states regardless of the existence of a number of limitations.
In response to the limitations of the EU as a security mechanism to the CEECs, there are a number of policies that can address them. To begin with, the pre-accession funds should be directed towards building the civil society, encouraging inter-ethnic co-operation and provision of safety nets so as to reduce the risks of return of authoritarian regimes and occurrence of public disturbances. The financial assistance should also support the implementation of a body of legislation (acquis communautaire) that ensures that the available resources are channelled towards the necessary economic reforms (Giamoridis, 2007). The implementation of such legislation ensures transparency and improves the business climate hence encouraging economic activities such as trade and development. This would reduce the economic influence of Russia in the CEECs and eliminate external security concerns.
The European Neighbourhood Policy should be given adequate consideration with EU enlargement and the new member states should be given an opportunity to contribute to its agenda (Stefan Batory website, 2003). The countries themselves should be the engines of change and therefore the EU should be cautious on how they deal with conditionality and withdrawal of assistance to countries. Russia should not be underestimated as it is growing stronger economically especially with the powerful gas lobby it enjoys and its impact on foreign policy. The EU should therefore continue to use its conditionality with regard to dealings with Russia but at the same time try to maintain a strong partnership with it (Ioana, 2007). EU enlargement therefore meets its primary aim of improving security in the CEECs but should continue to collude with NATO for military capacity to guarantee security (Olli, 2005).
In conclusion, the essay has analysed the ways in which the EU enlargement improved security in Central and Eastern Europe. This is through motivational power whereby the EU provides the accession criteria and prospect of membership, economic power through giving fund assistance and enhancing trade and foreign direct investment and finally through institutional power using different institutional arrangements. The limitations of EU enlargement are dealt with and policy recommendations such as resource allocated financial assistance and effective use of the European Neighbourhood Policy is cited. Following this analysis, it is therefore safe to conclude that the EU enlargement has played a major role in improving the security situation of Central and Eastern Europe.
The enlargement of the EU to Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) was as a result of pressure on behalf of the EU following the dismantling of the Warsaw Treaty Organization which saw the CEECs in a security vacuum (Carmen, 2008). Faced with evolving security concerns, the CEECs have had to choose whether to join the EU as a security mechanism.
The purpose of this essay is to analyze the ways in which the enlargement of the EU has improved security in Central and Eastern Europe. The essay is organised as follows. It first tackles the effectiveness of enlargement of the EU as a security mechanism citing the ways in which it addressed security concerns. It further analyses the benefits of the means used with respect to both internal and external security concerns followed by the limitations of each method. The final section concludes and gives some policy recommendations in line with the limitations that have been cited.
Effectiveness of EU enlargement as a Security Mechanism
EU membership has been argued to be one of the best ways of improving security for the CEECs. The EU has had a remarkable expansion of membership over the years with no serious opposition to enlargement due to the civil nature of the Union (Olli, 2005). The enlargement of the EU has itself been considered as an EU foreign policy as it helps the EU to be in a position to mould the domestic and foreign policies of member and applicant states (Sjursen, 1998).
EU enlargement for the purpose of this essay is analysed in relation to its impact on security concerns. The foundation of enlargement has been said to be paradoxical with the argument that the process of transforming neighbours into members automatically brings new countries as neighbours to the EU orbit (Moller, 2008). The arguments in favour of enlargement are however overwhelming in terms of security (Heather, 2001). The EU enlargement improved security in Central and Eastern Europe in three ways. This is through normative and motivational power, economic power and finally through institutional power all of which have both benefits and limitations.
EU Normative and Motivational Power
The EU enforces its motivational power by offering membership and establishment of accession criteria hence imposing standards of democratisation market economies with an aim of reducing the threat of a return to dictatorial regimes and centrally planned economies (Bosold Brockmann, 2009). Assessment of membership candidates through the Avis and regular reports also contributes to the maintenance of these standards throughout the CEECs as stipulated in the Copenhagen criteria.
It is the aftermath of the Kosovo crisis that thrust the EU motivational power in the limelight with the European commission starting accession negotiations. For example, Poland enhanced relations with Germany and Lithuania following increased protection of minority rights which diffused some security concerns (Carmen, 2008).
Enlargement of the EU has also played a part to achieve a relative homogeneity of political parties and through conditionality has continued to guarantee that standards of democracy and market economies are not compromised by the philosophical point of view of the parties in power (Ioana, 2008). This ensured that for example the return of post communist in Poland and Romania was not viewed as a danger and similarly the return of socialists to power in Hungary was encouraged as the governments were committed to economic reforms hence positively affected security (Carmen, 2008).
The enlargement of EU has also minimised the impact of extremist parties for example the extremist League of Polish Families of Poland and the Greater Romania Party that were marginalised after elections despite winning. This shows that EU membership has strong motivational and normative power.
Finally, the enlargement has also impacted CEECs concerns of external security through motivational power. The Balladur pact was founded on the premise that Euro-Atlantic integration was reliant on good neighbourly dealings and this assisted the EU to avert prior threats posed by recognition of borders. Examples of actual impact of EU motivational power include the signing of mutual agreements by Poland and its neighbours in 1992 so as to be incorporated as a member in the EU and the initial threat that existed between Poland and Germany was averted by Polands determination to become a member of the EU as it had to seek Germanys support in the accession process.
On the other hand, there exist some limitations of the EUs normative and motivational power in improvement of security in the CEECs. To begin with, with increased observation of human rights, there arose disputes as to the interpretation and limitation of such rights for example in Romania. Similarly, Turkey in 2005 had a poor record of human rights prior to the commencement of accession negotiations which was followed by limitation of the right to freedom of speech in 2006 through a proposed anti-terrorist bill.
Secondly, the carrot of EU membership is unable to stop the emergence of extremist political parties and their being elected into parliament across the CEECs (Carmen, 2008). It is argued that it is the disappointment presented by some of the results of economic and political transition that led to the voters turning to the extremist parties. It is therefore apparent that there is a definite weakness associated with transition hence the requirement for continued external support for democratic consolidation in the CEECs (Carmen, 2008).
Finally, the economic criteria applied in assessing progress towards EU membership faces a number of limitations. The market economy is linked to greater risk exposure thereby making it difficult to dissociate it from economic insecurity and the privatisation process employed has also led to the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor in terms of wealth creation both of which are a threat to political stability.
EUs Economic Power
To establish the relation that exists between the EU economic power and its functioning as a security mechanism, it is important to understand the economic criteria that are imposed by the EU. This is in particular with respect to promotion of reforms for transition to a market economy. The economic criteria included conditionality aimed at attracting foreign direct investment, improving economic growth and prosperity and finalising the privatisation process (Carmen, 2008). The EU used these recommendations in the enlargement process of vetting candidate countries.
Using these criteria has had a number of benefits in terms of security improvement. Through provision of funds, trade liberalisation and encouraging foreign direct investment, the enlargement of the EU into CEECs has positively impacted their economic development. This in turn has led to a significant reduction of political and economic instability which translates to increased internal security.
Provision of funds for building the civil society has enhanced democratisation in the CEECs which has played a vital role in minimising the threat of a comeback to dictatorial regimes. Provision of the pre-accession funds provided a safety net to the CEECs countries that were most affected by the transition hence minimising political instability and insecurity. Additionally, the funds have helped enforce the condition of institutional building which is vital for political and economic stability, prosperity and internal security (Carmen, 2008).
Finally, the provision of export markets and attraction of foreign direct investment which are associated with enlargement of the EU have contributed immensely to the economic growth and stability of the CEECs. This has had positive impacts on the integration process of the EU especially with regard to welfare and economic security. Trade liberalisation between the EU and the CEECs encouraged trade and foreign direct investment and improved security as it encouraged economic co-operation and growth in the region. It also reduced the potential economic hold of Russia while raising the standards of living of the people in the region minimising the risk of protests and strikes generally improving the internal security. Foreign direct investment led to improved skills, employment opportunities, greater consumer choice, and higher wages and also acts as an external sign of commitment to reforms which improves the perception of security generally (Carmen, 2008).
On the contrary, there also exist some limitations to the economic criteria. The first one is the reservations on the misuse of the pre-accession funds which translated to increased perceptions of corruption and internal insecurity for example in Poland and Romania (Heather 2001). Secondly, there is too much bureaucracy which despite institutional building is a deterrent to foreign investment (Carmen, 2008).
T
rade liberalisation to a certain level led to over-dependence on the EU market and the fact that access to the market did not integrate industries such as agriculture, steel and textiles meant that countries like Poland and Romania had a relative advantage over the EU (Carmen, 2008). This frustrated the efforts made by trade liberalisation in respect to economic growth and security.
Finally, some of the CEECs had poor competitiveness in the market and therefore the increase in trade led to increased balance of payment deficits and economic insecurity. This clear dominance of some EU member countries over the CEECs meant increased foreign direct investment which led to closure of some domestic plants which were not competitive enough which increased unemployment, economic insecurity and internal security in general (Carmen, 2008).
EUs Institutional Power
The EU has a number of institutional arrangements at its disposal that it used to address the CEECs external threats in line with its enlargement. To begin with, the EU filled the security vacuum that was left after the dismantling of the USSR by enlargement eastwards and complementing the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO (Carmen, 2008). The influence on internal reforms of the CEECs also helped reduce the political influence that Russia had through the use of economic or political means on the region. Russia and the EU have established good relations with EUs support to Russia being conditional on upholding human rights and observing the rule of law. It is speculated that the continued co-operation between the EU and Russia is bound to influence democratisation and trade liberalisation in Russia especially under the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement. This minimises the risk of future instability.
Secondly, the EU is able to monitor the inflow of migrants, drugs, arms and human trafficking through contribution of securing the CEECs eastern borders such as Poland and Romania. For example, the Schengen Agreement saw the securing of Polands and Romanias borders which improved the internal security. Additionally, the EU enlargement into CEECs enhanced the external security with the use of its European Neighbourhood Policy which protects against export of political and economic instability as well as security threats like crime and terrorism (Kamov, 2006).
The European Neighbourhood Policy is founded on co-operation, economic integration, closer political ties and reform assistance to encourage economic and social development. Apart from the conditions of observing the rule of law and upholding human rights, it requires co-operation on vital foreign policies on issues such as terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflict, organised crime, state failure and regional instability (Edwards, 2006). The CEECs therefore benefit from reduced external security concerns and increased economic development.
However, there are a number of limitations of the use of EU institutional power in CEECs as a security mechanism. First, the EU membership is itself marred by fears that joining the EU means foregoing sovereignty and it has been seen as a replacement of former Soviet influence with a European one (Carmen, 2008).
The second limitation is that the threat posed by Russian economic and political influence still lingers on and was not entirely eliminated. For example, Russia has established itself as a major investor in some CEECs such as Poland and Romania. There is also the reliance on Russian oil by many CEECs which makes it difficult to break ties. The EU has also suffered in its efforts to pursue a joint approach to Russia due to disunity and practice of self interest for example with Germany and France pursuing independent Russia-friendly policies. The refusal by France on Russias involvement in the EU defence policy has reassured the CEECs that there is a limit to Russias influence (Carmen, 2008).
The European Neighbourhood Policy has been put to task on the fact that the increased security measures will lead to formation of new division lines in Europe. For example on the Polish and Romanian eastern borders, the freedom of movement of citizens of Ukraine, Belarus and Kaliningrad will be limited thereby creating a sense of exclusion (Ioana 2007).
Finally, it emerged that the EU after the Kosovo crisis could not independently manage crises. It lacked the means of ensuring military security hence the need for better collaboration between the EU, NATO and Russia. The EU does not therefore have the capacity to fully guarantee safety against external threats due to lack of military capacity but it has managed to eliminate the security concerns between its members (Carmen, 2008).
Recommendations
The role of the EU enlargement in improvement of security concerns clearly remains that of a civilian actor hence there is need to complement it with the military power of NATO (Carmen, 2008). It is however safe to generalise and say that EU enlargement has played a vital role in the improvement of security both internal and external to the member states regardless of the existence of a number of limitations.
In response to the limitations of the EU as a security mechanism to the CEECs, there are a number of policies that can address them. To begin with, the pre-accession funds should be directed towards building the civil society, encouraging inter-ethnic co-operation and provision of safety nets so as to reduce the risks of return of authoritarian regimes and occurrence of public disturbances. The financial assistance should also support the implementation of a body of legislation (acquis communautaire) that ensures that the available resources are channelled towards the necessary economic reforms (Giamoridis, 2007). The implementation of such legislation ensures transparency and improves the business climate hence encouraging economic activities such as trade and development. This would reduce the economic influence of Russia in the CEECs and eliminate external security concerns.
The European Neighbourhood Policy should be given adequate consideration with EU enlargement and the new member states should be given an opportunity to contribute to its agenda (Stefan Batory website, 2003). The countries themselves should be the engines of change and therefore the EU should be cautious on how they deal with conditionality and withdrawal of assistance to countries. Russia should not be underestimated as it is growing stronger economically especially with the powerful gas lobby it enjoys and its impact on foreign policy. The EU should therefore continue to use its conditionality with regard to dealings with Russia but at the same time try to maintain a strong partnership with it (Ioana, 2007). EU enlargement therefore meets its primary aim of improving security in the CEECs but should continue to collude with NATO for military capacity to guarantee security (Olli, 2005).
In conclusion, the essay has analysed the ways in which the EU enlargement improved security in Central and Eastern Europe. This is through motivational power whereby the EU provides the accession criteria and prospect of membership, economic power through giving fund assistance and enhancing trade and foreign direct investment and finally through institutional power using different institutional arrangements. The limitations of EU enlargement are dealt with and policy recommendations such as resource allocated financial assistance and effective use of the European Neighbourhood Policy is cited. Following this analysis, it is therefore safe to conclude that the EU enlargement has played a major role in improving the security situation of Central and Eastern Europe.
No comments:
Post a Comment