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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS