By Dhananjay Tripathi In 2012, the European union (EU) was awarded the Nobel peace prize to acknowledge its contribution “to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe”. Indeed, regionalism played a vital role in the transformation of Europe after the end of World War (WW)-II. The European integration process brought […]
By Dhananjay Tripathi
In 2012, the European union (EU) was awarded the Nobel peace prize to acknowledge its contribution “to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe”. Indeed, regionalism played a vital role in the transformation of Europe after the end of World War (WW)-II. The European integration process brought two big but antagonistic European powers, Germany and France, into a cooperative framework that also included other European countries. Post-WW-II, Western Europe attained peace and registered impressive economic growth, thanks to regionalism that eliminated several political and economic boundaries.
<After the collapse of the Soviet union in 1991, European regionalism faced another major challenge. There was political disarray in the former socialist countries of Europe, and an eruption of violence in erstwhile Yugoslavia aggravated the crisis. The European leaders, despite sincere efforts, failed to pacify the Serbian aggressor and demagogue Slobodan Milosevic. With the situation worsening, it was NATO’s military intervention in March 1999 that finally forced Milosevic to surrender.
The European Way
However, NATO’s action in Europe was not appreciated much, and Germany proposed the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe on 1st April 1999. This pact’s primary objective was to “strengthen countries in South-Eastern Europe in their effort to foster peace, democracy, respect for human rights and economic prosperity, in order to achieve stability in the whole region”. It was to prevent any future conflict in the region. Moreover, this pact was like a window of opportunity for South-Eastern European countries to integrate with the EU.
This is an example of a non-conventional/European way of resolving disputes. Thereafter, the EU expanded eastward, and in 2004 it was formally joined by eight Central and East European states and two Mediterranean island countries. In the words of leading European expert Andrew Moravcsik, European power “does not lie in the deployment of battalions or bombers, but rather in quiet promotion of democracy and development through trade, foreign aid and peacekeeping”. No wonder the EU is rightly acclaimed as a “Civilian power”.
Recent Struggles
The EU had an outstanding track record of mitigating conflict, particularly in its region. Nonetheless, we have witnessed that for some time now, it has struggled to meet political challenges uniquely as per its reputation.
The EU’s effort to amicably find a solution to the influx of Syrian refugees in 2015 faced several roadblocks from European governments. It met an unprecedented event in 2016 when the people of the United Kingdom opted for Brexit. The rise of political Right, those opposed to supra-nationalism in several member states, is like persistent opposition to the idea of regionalism.
Besides, the cluelessness in dealing with the Russia-Ukraine crisis is the biggest disappointment in recent times for those who believed in European capabilities to resolve disputes. In 2014, after the annexation of Crimea, Putin’s Russia had given a clear indication of what it may do to deter Ukraine from joining NATO. The disturbing question is how the EU remained oblivious despite the simmering tension in its backyard. Member states like Germany and France engaged with Putin, but there was a lack of collective response from the EU.
The Europeans would have anticipated Russian action and its fallout. They depend highly on Russia for their energy requirements. It appears that, unlike in the past, the Europeans remained overconfident about the USA’s ability to handle Putin. The EU was shy and divided on approaching Moscow, and cold war geopolitics still guides part of its policy towards Russia. It was to alienate Russia and view it as a strategic competitor.
The cold war is over, and the political geography of Europe has changed over the years. One can see that some of the new entrants in the EU from the former socialist bloc are not entirely opposed to Russia. Therefore, among the members of the EU today, there is no unanimity on how to deal with Russia. All do not endorse the EU’s decision to impose stringent sanctions on Russia. Members like Hungary take a contrary position on the EU’s embargo on Russian oil. Others, mainly from Western Europe, are bandwagoning with the USA in supporting armed resistance in Ukraine against the Russian invasion.
Ukraine’s EU Candidature
In the midst of these, on 17th June, the European Commission (EC) recommended granting candidature status to Ukraine. The EU has also assented to the EC’s suggestion, and it is a welcome move. Every EU candidate must fulfil difficult conditions for EU membership, which is not easy and quick. Although, in contemporary situations, even the candidature of Ukraine will be interpreted as a response to the Russian invasion. Russia has already expressed its displeasure at the announcement of the EU. Remember, the initial downturn in Russia-Ukraine relations started with Western countries supporting the anti-Russia protest in Ukraine in 2013. The reason was that the pro-Russia President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych preferred getting closer to Eurasian Economic union over the EU. The popular Maidan uprising against Yanukovych compelled him to resign. The unceremonial exit of Yanukovych brought Russia into a direct confrontation with the West regarding Ukraine, and we know how the relationship deteriorated thereafter. Thus, while the present move of the EU to open the door for Ukraine is good, it shall not be projected in terms of an anti-Russia move.
The EU needs careful political-economic calibration on Russia and must maintain a line of difference from the US. Several EU policy documents reiterate its ambition to play a decisive role in world politics. Still, in reality, it preferred outsourcing its security concerns to the USA.
Nonetheless, it would be wrong to underestimate the real potential of the EU; it is the best example of regionalism and crossed several difficult phases in the past. We expect the EU to deal with the Russia-Ukraine crisis more innovatively and re-emerge stronger as it has done in the past.
(The author is Associate Professor, Department of International Relations, South Asian University, New Delhi)