What the economic crisis means for the EU’s eastern policy By Tomas Valasek ★ In May 2009 the EU is launching its ‘eastern partnership’, an enhanced version of the neighbourhood policy that is specifically tailored to those East European countries that are seeking closer ties with the Union. The aim of the new initiative is to draw countries such as Armenia, Belarus and Ukraine closer to the EU and encourage them to adopt European norms of democracy, open markets and the rule of law. ★ But the economic crisis risks undermining the eastern partnership before it gets going in earnest. Protectionist pressures in Western and Eastern Europe could frustrate the plans for deeper economic integration and easier visa regimes that are central to the EU’s new eastern policy. ★ The EU governments should persevere with the eastern partnership, but complement the initiative with additional short-term loans to help those East European countries worst affected. They should also do a better job of co-ordinating their assistance to the region. The unfolding economic crisis will make it more difficult for the European Union to draw its neighbours in Eastern Europe closer. The EU’s eastern policy has encouraged neighbours to align their economies and political systems with its own. The Union uses the prospect of partial integration or full EU membership to spur the necessary reforms. Its latest attempt to forge tighter links with its neighbours, the ‘eastern partnership’ (EaP) for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, is due to be launched in Prague in May 2009. This promises, among other things, to increase EU assistance to the region, open the EU’s markets to the neighbours’ goods and simplify visa requirements. But the economic crisis is undermining the eastern partnership even before it gets off the ground, for several reasons. The downturn has spurred a rise in protectionism and nationalism on both sides of the EU’s border. This has reduced the appetite for closer trade relations – the main pillar of the eastern partnership. Also, some partnership states have wrongly come to view the EaP’s (relatively modest) offers of financial support as the EU’s main response to their economic woes. The amounts compare unfavourably with those offered by other actors like the IMF or Russia, which hurts the EU’s image in the region. Lastly, many of the member-states most supportive of the eastern partnership and other assistance programmes for Eastern Europe, like the Baltic states, are among the
Centre for European Reform 14 Great College Street London SW1P 3RX UK
countries worst hit by the crisis. They will have less money available to assist their neighbours. This policy brief argues that the eastern partnership remains the right vehicle for the EU’s eastern policy, and that the economic crisis has not diminished its importance. But it ought to be complemented with additional measures to address the neighbours’ economic woes. The EU should accelerate the disbursement of grants under the EaP, and it should expand its macro-financial loan scheme to help Eastern Europe (and other neighbours) to stave off default. The EU member-states most active in assisting the eastern neighbours should also make a greater effort to coordinate or pool their assistance programmes.
The eastern partnership For much of the post-Cold War period, the EU’s eastern policy had rested on the assumption that all East European countries wanted to emulate the EU’s economic and political model. Given enough time, EU money and attention, it was thought, countries from Belarus to Azerbaijan would adopt European norms. For the past six years, the European Union has treated the eastern neighbours little differently from other countries on its borders, lumping them all under one ‘European neighbourhood policy’. It counted on the
T: 00 44 20 7233 1199 F: 00 44 20 7233 1117 info@cer.org.uk / www.cer.org.uk