The Eastern Partnership – An Institutional Bid Essential for the Development of the European Union
Radu-Alexandru CUCUTA
August 3, 2009
The recent comments of Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt concerning the future of the Eastern Partnership, the dedication of the European Union to its success and the relation between the Union and Russia have been an important subject on the international media agenda. The Swedish minister, who last year compared the Russian attack on Georgia with Hitler’s reasoning for invading the Central European countries and heavily criticized Moscow’s recognition of Ossetian and Abhazian independence, declared that there is no geopolitical agenda behind the Eastern Partnership. Furthermore, he added that Russian cooperation is essential for the success of the European initiative, only as long Moscow respects the wishes of its former-Soviet neighbors and the core values of the project and of the European Union. In a recent article, the Swedish Foreign Minister added that the Eastern Partnership may not be the heal-all solution Eastern countries expect in the wake of the international economic crisis, but, when taking into account Europe need no reset buttons with its neighbors and the perspectives of the initiative, the partnership is the Eastern Partnership is these countries’ best hope for political, institutional and economic development. (The Moscow Times, CNN, BBC)
The Swedish Foreign Minister’s statements represent a strong political message in regards to the EU’ Swedish Presidency’s short and long-term objectives. First, one has to notice that the stress put on the Eastern Partnership is the most important international relations political move taken by the Union in a long time (France’s development of the Union for the Mediterranean was largely overshadowed by the debates concerning the Lisbon Treaty, whereas the Czech Presidency seemed to be ineffective due to the internal political instability). Following the debates on the foreseeable adoption of the Lisbon Treaty and the institutionalization of the Union for the Mediterranean (which, although recently endorsed by the EU has an important background behind), the Eastern Partnership is an initiative whose bid is not limited only to a regional area of interest of the Union. The stakes are higher. The Eastern Partnership is a direct attempt to thoroughly change the political environment of the Union’s neighborhood at a time when the institution itself seemed to be bogged down by enlargement-fatigue (following the 2004 and 2007 accession of 12 countries). Furthermore, the Eastern Partnership is a test of the EU’s capacity of influencing in a concrete manner Russian policy.
Secondly, Carl Bildt’s remarks are relevant not only for the political debate in the European concerning the institutional future of the Union, but also for the paradigmatic debate between Ernst Hass’s neofunctionalism and Stanley Hoffman’s and Andrew Moravcsik’s paradigm of intergovernmentalism. Taking into account the Swedish Foreign Minister’s experience and background, one has to concede that Carl Bildt is as CER’s Charles Grant put it “the think-minister”. His strong and clear messages, his direct approach to politics, his appeal to journalists and academia alike make Bildt one of the most experienced and popular European leaders. This dedication to the development of the European Union cannot be put into question – he was Sweden’s Prime Minister when his country signed the treaty of accession to the EU, he was the UN and EU envoy for the Balkan nations for a considerable period of time and now he is back in the spotlight as a foremost participant to Sweden’s EU Presidency, discussing a joint Poland-Sweden initiative and a near future enlargement (although Iceland’s bid is not spectacular and many observers have considered that in spite of the economic crisis, the country was bound to join the Union, Sweden has taken large steps to make the issue a matter past debate and speculations). International observers can argue that the results of Sweden’s presidency are insofar spectacular although only a month has passed since Bildt assumed his duties.
Another interpretation of Bildt’s message is that his recent comments are an invitation for other EU members to support the Eastern Partnership – the recent members should be the most prone to do that. Bildt makes clear that Russia’s recent bolstering rhetoric is being answered by the EU and that the Kremlin’s recent political line is being answered. Without extending the perspectives of the Partnership - which he credits as not being a panacea – Bildt underlines that further regional commitment could be supported in the future (therefore, Romania’s or Bulgaria’s fears that the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation may be sidelined in the wake Eastern Partnership launching are thoroughly answered; the fact that Bildt approaches the Turkish position should be perceived as an encouraging message to these two countries).
His message to Russia, to the EU members and to the six countries the Eastern Partnership aims at is not only a political test. One has to acknowledge the bold tone the minister took against Russia, the encouragement message to the six ex-Soviet countries and the reminder of the Unions’ core principles addressed at the EU members, but Bildt’s message is not only about realist-like principles. The test the EU faces with the Partnership is that of its long term foreign policy credibility. As Bildt boldly puts it, the Union has been a success model in terms of institution building, political, cultural and economic development only because it institutionalized the spill-over effect neofunctionalist talked about. Its enlargement, its political development have been possible only because its members were dedicated to principles such as cooperation, free trade, free movement, human rights and rule of law. Enhancing the six countries capabilities, making Russia cooperate with the EU (the fact that the Kaliningrad is comprised in the Partnership is an encouraging prospect meant to counter Russian allegations that the initiative is hydrocarbons related) are not political objectives that can be reached by bilateral agreements, but milestones that can be attained throughout a steady process of cooperation that countries can build upon in the years to come. Bildt’s comments are to show that only following this path and proving its success once again can the Union move forward (instead of negotiating a new institutional compromise, as it has been doing for the last five years). Intergovernmentalism, both inside and outside the Union has proven its limits. Both Russia and the former Soviet space need the EU to tackle this region in an unitary fashion in the way it knows best – not through hard-line realist thinking, but by using the spill-over potential the Union has proven again and again at its best.
