Groucho Marx once famously quipped that he wouldn't join any club that would have him as a member. But in today's EU, Groucho need not apply. The EU now does not want to accept anybody who applies for membership, because the countries queuing up to join are too big or too poor, or both.
Tomorrow the EU formally admits 10 new members, eight from central Europe. All are far poorer than the EU average. Bulgaria, Romania and possibly Croatia are supposed to join in 2007. By the end of this year, the EU is to decide whether to open membership talks with Turkey -- a country that is not only poor and big, but Muslim. If the EU is to talk about membership with Turkey, is there any legitimate reason for keeping out my country -- Ukraine?
Current EU thinking, however, holds that Ukraine should be placed in the same framework as countries in North Africa and the Middle East. The EU's "Wider Europe" strategy does call for closer ties to Ukraine, and for allowing us increased access to the EU's "single market." But it does not view Ukraine as a candidate for EU membership, at least not in the foreseeable future.
One reason for this is that the EU does not want to pick a fight with Russia, which still sees us
as its close ally, natural business partner and as members of an enlarging Russian-led economic zone. Indeed, last week Ukraine's parliament ratified a treaty creating "a single economic space" with Russia. But this supposed free-trade zone seems more like a recipe to enrich oligarchs and stifle competition, not promote trade.
Of course, Russia won't look
on happily if the EU tries to lure Ukraine. But membership in the EU does not mean estrangement from Russia. Besides, excluding Ukraine from eventual EU membership will encourage Russia's imperial ambitions. This will diminish Russia's chances of ever becoming a full democracy, for it can rule an empire only as a militarized state.
It is the mark of a good club that people clamor to become members. An ever-larger EU including Ukraine would create a political unit with a huge population, furthering the EU's ambitions to be a global power.
As the latest round of enlargement proves, the EU is very effective at molding the governance and behavior of would-be members. Preparations for EU entry strongly motivated the eight former communist Central European states to entrench or restore democratic institutions and market economies.
The further Europe exports
its laws and values, the more it expands a zone committed to peaceful, democratic and prosperous co-existence. A country equipped to join the EU is a country equipped to make its
way in the world peacefully, if it chooses to do so. Europe needs such countries on its borders.
So far, the EU's actions have achieved the opposite. For example, three years ago Ukrainians crossed the border with Poland 6 million times. Most were small traders buying goods for resale at home, boosting the economy of eastern Poland, the poorest part
of that country. Others worked cheaply in Poland as cleaners and building workers.
As a step toward imposing EU border controls and visa rules, Poland began demanding visas from its neighbors. Crossings at Polish border stations quickly fell by over two-thirds. Thus the new EU border with Ukraine is making its presence felt in the most negative way imaginable -- by hurting business on both sides of the border.
In the EU, only Poland seems
to want Ukraine as a prosperous, stable and accessible neighbor, not as a poor and rickety one with a dodgy democracy and even dodgier nuclear power stations. Poland worries that the more Ukraine is shut off from the EU, the more it will fall behind, economically and politically.
But today's other EU members view the prospect of an ever-expanding EU that includes Ukraine with fatalism and dread, for several reasons. The first, inevitably, is money. The EU redistributes billions of euros from rich to poor members.
A second is immigration. One of the EU's fundamental principles is that there should be freedom to move from one member country to another. But anti-immigration parties are gaining ground across western Europe; they could make huge political capital out of potential Ukrainian membership. There is also a feeling that a larger EU might simply be unable to function.
Creating plausible-sounding objections to Ukrainian membership is easy. We are not really European, we are too poor, we are too different. But the EU has consistently rejected the idea of insisting on a minimum income level for members. Its only serious economic demand is that members have a "functioning market economy."
Where Europe, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus rub up against one another, an economic fault line is forming. What the EU does now to bridge this fault line will determine whether these countries Westernize or stagnate. The dream of a Europe free and whole, from the Atlantic to the Urals, is yet to be realized.
Yuliya Tymoshenko is a former deputy prime minister of Ukraine and a leader of the opposition in parliament. Copyright: Project Syndicate
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS