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 aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS