The limits of the European neighborhood policy

Résumé du document

After the last European enlargement on 1st May 2004, the European Union got new neighbors, mainly in the East but a few also in the Middle East. But the neighbors do not all have the same juridical status. For some of them inclusion is already on its way, like for Romania and Bulgaria who signed the treaty of accession, or like Turkey and Croatia who finally opened, very recently, their first chapters of negotiation for accession. As far as the Balkans are concerned, the membership is also envisaged in the long-term perspective for some countries. Croatia as we said, but also Macedonia have the most advanced status, but things have moved recently for Montenegro and Serbia and for Albania which started a « stabilization and association process » a few days ago. But for many other neighbors of the EU, their relations with the latter are made of bilateral agreements, association and cooperation process, with no perspective of political integration.

Extraits

[...] The main innovation in the ENP is its new instrument of financing. Until 2003 when the policy was created, several aid programs were financing the transnational and cross-border cooperation: Interreg cross-border cooperation in the frame of the PHARE program, CARDS in the Balkans, MEDA in the Mediterranean countries, and TACIS in Eastern Europe. All of these programs were managed by three different DG (general direction) at the European Commission. It was as many different budgets and juridical mecanisms, all of which really complicated the achievement of the projects (sometimes several programs being applied in the same area). [...]

[...] This instrument seems to bring an added value, it is a political tool which would help the harmonisation concerning all the actions at the European borders. We also see that, compared to the existing programs, this instrument would be a way for the EU to have a political power and a strong influence in the neighbour countries. From all of this, it follows that the ENP is neither such an original policy nor method, but it definitely has strong ambitions which are expected to be achieved through this new instrument. But the question is: has it given itself all the means to achieve them? [...]

[...] The main weakness of the ENP is the fact that it settles an unequal partnership. If we analyze the commercial relations between the EU and its neighbours within the frame of the International Political Economy, to Vitaliy Denysyuk[9] we can observe the theory of the Hegemonic Stability : a country - or entity - which would have enough political and economic power to stabilize regional commercial relations, either by showing it (directional leadership), by setting some rules (structural leadership) or by playing an active role in the commercial negotiations between countries (instrumental leadership). [...]

[...] European Commission ( 12.05 .04) European Neighbourhood Policy Strategy Paper (COM 2004 373). http://ec.europa.eu/comm/world/enp/index_en.htm The four common spaces were created in May 2003 at the St Petersburg Summit between the EU and Russia, and are composed of : Common Economic Space, Common Space of Freedom Security and Justice, Common Space of Co-operation in the Field of External Security, Common Space in Research Education and Culture. This is the case for Belarus and Lybia at the moment. Regarding the conclusion of the European Council A Secure Europe in a Better World - European Security Strategy, December 2003. [...]

[...] This was mentioned from the very origins of the policy. Many expressions were used to sum up the idea of the ENP such as ring of friends or sharing everything but insitutions But from the point of view of the so-called new neighbours, bilateral agreements, taking a part in the Common Market, benefitting of some aid programs, without any chance of accession is worse than disappointing. As a matter of fact, in the country where the cooperation is the strongest and giving the most results Ukraine it is an official purpose to join the EU in the long- term. [...]