Nusret ÖZGÜL
Bircan Ünver
redaksiyon
Nazmiye Halvaşi
halitumar
©PhotoCredit
Challenges for enlargement policy in 2011.:
As a growing regional power, Turkey taking steps to bring its secular democracy closer to European Union standards.
Commission and Azerbaijan sign strategic gas deal
Štefan Füle European Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy Address at Chatham House
* * * * *
London, 13 January 2010
Mr Chairman, Ladies and gentlemen,
It is a great privilege to be with you here today.
It is not my aim to be exhaustive – or exhausting. Rather, I aim to provide some key elements to provoke a lively discussion and to hear your thoughts and ideas.
First, I would like to set the EU’s enlargement policy in the context of the current global economic situation and argue that the Enlargement policy is more relevant than ever in the current climate.
Second, I would outline some challenges for enlargement policy in 2011.
Third, I will give a brief overview of the review of the European neighbourhood policy.
Now, let us consider enlargement and neighbourhood policy in context.
The economic crisis and its aftermath are at the forefront of everyone’s attention. At a time like this, people may ask “Why does enlargement matter?”
Enlargement and the neighbourhood policy matter because they reinforce peace, democracy, prosperity and stability in and around Europe.
It is in the EU’s strategic interest to take the enlargement process forward on the basis of the agreed principles and conditions and the renewed consensus on enlargement.
The enlargement process helps us to better achieve our own policy objectives in a number of areas that are key to economic recovery and sustainable growth. These include dealing with the economic crisis, promoting the objectives of the 2020 reform agenda, and making the EU a safer place.
The UK is a key beneficiary of this: as the European Union expands so do the opportunities for UK traders, investors, consumers, tourists and property owners abroad. For example, Poland now takes as many exports from the UK as China does.
Beyond this, the UK also benefits from the broader stability in the region. We recognise the importance of the United Kingdom’s military contributions to peace and stability in the western Balkans. The Enlargement process aims to ensure that such interventions will never be needed again.
Over the past year, we have seen some notable progress across the enlargement countries towards the European Union. This progress demonstrates that enlargement is an effective policy.
To maintain this momentum we must maintain the credibility of the process. Credibility is a two-way street.
For Member States, credibility means applying rigorous conditionality towards the applicants, but also providing them with a tangible European perspective as they fulfil the relevant conditions. Accordingly, membership will only be recommended once a candidate country is fully prepared.
For candidates and potential candidates, credibility is built through a track record of credible reform and implementation. We have to provide them with a framework to support their transformative efforts to achieve real change with real reform and real results. Only this can guarantee that the reforms undertaken will bring the expected changes and benefits to society – including a tangible European perspective.
I have always stressed the importance of giving the enlargement countries as much political guidance and support as possible. This approach will be tested this year.
The list of horizontal issues that need to be tacked is formidable:
We face the challenge of establishing track records in:
· the reform of public administration
· reform of the judiciary,
· the fight against organised crime and corruption.
These are all essential to avoid the need for co-operation and verification mechanisms upon accession.
We also face challenges to:
· strengthen freedom of expression and of the media.
· work to resolve bilateral issues
· step up regional co-operation.
In our neighbouring countries that are not part of the Enlargement process, the EU promotes its values and interests through the European neighbourhood policy. Here too, there is no lack of challenges.
Let me outline some concrete examples:
In Ukraine, there is an acute need for progress on democracy and human rights. For example, recent decisions of Ukrainian law enforcement bodies convey the impression of selectively targeting members of the former government. If substantiated, such practices would not be in line with the values to which Ukraine and the EU have committed themselves.
We also need to prevent the deterioration of the business and investment climate, including the fight against corruption.
In Belarus, we have been shocked by events after the Presidential elections of 19 December. The EU has condemned the unacceptable repression of the opposition and of civil society, and has called for the immediate release of all those detained on political grounds.
We must now find the right combination of measures in response to those events. On the one hand, we must target the regime. On the other, we must support civil society and our long-term relations with the population.
In the Southern neighbourhood, we need to balance our interests for stability with the need for genuine political reform that should improve political accountability and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The Middle East Peace Process has a crucial impact on the neighbourhood of the EU. How can the EU build on the new opportunities offered by the Lisbon treaty and help find a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?
Over the past six months, the EU has carried out wide-ranging consultations on a strategic review of the ENP. This has sought answers to the following questions.
· Does the current focus on stability ensure the optimum long term security for the EU?
· On which areas and on which players should the EU focus its attention?
· How can we help to provide the right incentives?
· Does the EU have the necessary resources and political will?
The EU will host a ministerial conference on 1 February, after which the Commission will publish a Communication and discuss it with the EU Council and Parliament, to find ways to make this policy even more effective in the coming years.
In conclusion, both our Enlargement policy and our neighbourhood policy bring substantial benefits to the European Union. Both polices have been successful and credible to date, but 2011 will be a testing year.
Ladies and gentlemen, in view of the considerable expertise at this meeting, I look forward to hearing your comments and insights on how we can best pass this test.
Štefan Füle European Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy Address at the EU Sub-Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Development Policy House of Lords London, 13 January 2010
House of Lords
London, 13 January 2010
Mr. Chairman, Honourable Members,
It is a pleasure to be with you in London for this exchange of views.
In my speech today, I would like to share with you some ideas on what the European Union can do to strengthen its relations with its neighbours.
Make no mistake: if the EU wants to become a credible global player, it must start within its neighbourhood. Our capacity to act convincingly in our neighbourhood will be a measure of our ability to implement the Foreign Policy provisions of the Lisbon Treaty.
Last July, the EU launched a Strategic Review of European Neighbourhood Policy. This review is very timely. As the EU embarks into a major strategic effort to overcome the effects of the economic and financial crisis – and to emerge even stronger by the year 2020 – we must ensure that our neighbours are not left behind.
Our consultations so far have been extensive. We have listened to experts and academics. We have consulted partner countries and Member States. We have spoken with Civil Society organisations and with the European Parliament.
In these consultations, we systematically asked three questions.
· What should our vision for the ENP be within a 10-15 year horizon?
· What medium-term objectives should the current Commission pursue?
· What can we improve in terms of our instruments and resources to meet these objectives?
Let me begin by outlining the emerging vision for ENP in the medium-term. All of our partners want stronger relations with the EU, based on high-level political dialogue. They all look forward to deeper economic integration, based on the approximation of legislation and regulatory convergence. They hope for easier mobility and increased financial co-operation.
Expectations are high and the EU needs to be unambiguous about what it can offer and what it expects in return. In the past, we have not always been so clear.
The EU has often shied away from expressing its expectations on shared values. We should be more forceful in underlining that good governance and political reform are not “optional” elements of our policy. In fact, they are necessary requirements for deepened political and economic relations and for new contractual relations or “advanced status” with some of our partners.
When it comes to economic integration, the vision that has emerged from the consultation is one of integration into the EU internal market and of the extension of the four freedoms, in exchange for the adoption and effective implementation of a large part of the EU acquis. Here, there are some important gaps between partners’ expectations and what the EU may be prepared to offer, notably in the areas of freedom of movement and of financial support.
Possibly, the key to bridging these gaps lies in a clearer and more rigorous differentiation. A Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement or a visa-free regime requires not only clear commitments from partner countries but also the administrative capacity to credibly implement these commitments.
But we should also be ready to reward real progress and give ourselves the requisite means to do so. Financial allocations should be much higher for those countries that really undertake reform. This underlies the ‘more for more’ approach.
Let me also stress that differentiation should be based on partner countries’ ambition in their relations with the EU, on their readiness to accept shared values, on which the EU is based, and on their performance in governance and reform — rather than on their geographical position.
Of course, some of the neighbouring countries are European and see themselves as potential EU members. But this is not a reason to offer less to others, or to be less demanding. If European neighbours are more ambitious, it will be up to them to set the bar higher.
In the medium term, I see seven issues deserving further reflection.
First, several of our partners request for more political steering in our relationships. Our partners wish to have more frequent ministerial meetings to address our numerous areas of cooperation. I see this as a legitimate request. Continuous and substantial dialogue can help us address difficult issues in a spirit of confidence and partnership.
Second, the prospect of participating in the Internal Market is a powerful agent of change. Our neighbours highlight the importance for them of having easier market access, in particular for agricultural and agro-industrial products. We offer our most advanced partners Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements. For partner countries to fully reap the fruits of such an agreement, we should stress that serious reforms are needed – to ensure the independence and fairness of the judiciary and to curb corruption.
The third issue concerns facilitating the mobility of people. It would be hard to ignore the insistence of all our partners on this point. We may need to think outside the box here. We need to work towards a broader, win-win, approach to mobility and migration. We need to improve security at the same time as mobility. We can do this by setting the right security conditions for our partners to achieve greater mobility. And we can use our financial and technical resources to help our partners achieve these conditions.
The fourth issue is protracted conflicts. What the EU can do to help advance a resolution? Partners have asked us to be more active. There are clear expectations among our neighbours that, with the Lisbon Treaty, the EU will be able to deploy all its instruments in a more coherent way.
The fifth issue involves deeper co-operation in areas such as energy, environment, climate change, education and industry. Such cooperation is also in our interest. Indeed, partners are also very keen to have more access to EU programmes and to participate in EU agencies.
A sixth issue concerns the involvement of civil society. Civil Society Organisations in partner countries are our best allies when it comes to promoting values and good governance. We need to help link them up with their counterparts in the EU, while strengthening their capacities and involving them more in policy formulation and monitoring.
Finally, there is the question of the regional specificities within our neighbourhood. I believe that the EU should not ignore regional differences. The ENP should promote co-operation not only between the EU and each partner but also among ENP partners in a regional context, particularly in the framework of the Eastern Partnership and of the Union for the Mediterranean. In turn, this regional approach should contribute to our overall policy objectives.
Finally, let me address the thorny issue of resources.
I hesitate to speak about this in the difficult economic and financial situation faced by the EU. However, I believe that we can increase efficiency by better targeting and delivering assistance. We can gain mileage by developing innovative financial instruments. Assistance from EU and Member States can be better coordinated.
But let’s be frank, we need to give ourselves the financial means to support an ambitious policy. We cannot ask for far-reaching reforms and decline much-needed support. The ENP will need to be treated as a priority in the next EU financial framework.
Mr. Chairman, Honourable Members, before I conclude I would like to say a few words about the European Union’s enlargement policy.
In many respects, the benefits of our enlargement policy are similar to the benefits of neighbourhood policy, but magnified considerably. This is a consequence of the very specific nature of enlargement. The ultimate goal of membership of the European Union often requires the most profound domestic reforms.
It is in the European Union’s strategic interest to take the enlargement process forward on the basis of the agreed principles and conditions.
Our enlargement policy shows how we can turn serious challenges on our doorstep into opportunities: opportunities for a more secure and prosperous Europe and a stable world.
Consider the Western Balkans. Fifteen years ago, the region appeared in everyone’s mind as a place of destruction and despair. Now, it is consolidating peace and stability through a clear European Union membership perspective. This perspective prompts regional cooperation and the diplomatic resolution of bilateral issues.
Consider Turkey, a growing regional power, taking steps to bring its secular democracy closer to European Union standards.
Or consider Iceland, a country hard hit by the financial crisis which opted for the European Union’s model of stability and solidarity and is now negotiating membership.
All these countries made a sovereign choice in favour of the European Union values-based model.
Why?
Because the European Union remains attractive – even in the current climate. The history of enlargement has been a success. We have cemented democracy in countries which were dictatorships, reinforced the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights and promoted market economies.
Realising this potential is far from automatic. For the aspiring countries, the tough preparations for membership require a process of profound reform and reorientation.
That countries undertake these efforts is in large measure due to the unique nature of the enlargement process. Enlargement goes far beyond foreign policy. It requires real political and economic reform and will only happen when the political, economic, legal and administrative criteria are fully met.
I will be happy to go into more detail in our discussion.
Mr Chairman, honourable members let me say a few words to conclude.
Thus far, I have outlined our thoughts on issues that are emerging from this Strategic Review of the European neighbourhood policy.
In February, Baroness Ashton and I will discuss these issues with the Foreign Ministers of EU Member States and ENP Partners in a Ministerial conference. We expect this conference to provide us with guidance for proposals, which we will put forward in April in a Communication to the Council and the European Parliament.
Today, I wanted to share these initial thoughts with you. I would be very interested in your reactions and suggestions.
If we want the ENP to become an anchor for our neighbours we need to act decisively. Let me stress that this is also in our interest. After all, building an area of stronger political co-operation and deeper economic integration will improve security and boost trade and investment, which is in the direct interest of the EU and the UK.
European Union, Turkey girildi
