Contested Neighbourhood, or How to Reconcile the Differences

Abstract

The geopolitical and cultural boundaries that exist between the European Union (EU) and its eastern neighbourhood – Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and Russia – are subject to development as the various sides seek to construct and maintain distinctions and to delineate potential grounds for their reconciliation. Analysis of the foreign policy considerations of the countries, their relations with the EU and mutual perceptions and socio-cultural values reveals that the EU reinforces the boundaries rather than accommodating them, and much less transforming them. In contrast to the EU's ‘politics of exclusion’, the eastern neighbours are more ready to negotiate ‘disturbances’ and transform the rigid boundaries erected by the EU. The grounds of reconciliation lie in two-way positive perceptions of the various polities, and more importantly in certain cultural values that pertain to the EU but are seen by the countries' citizens as being important for their own societies.

Notes

Michael E. Smith, ‘The European Union and a Changing Europe: Establishing the Boundaries of Order’, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol.34, No.1 (1996), pp.5–28.

Elena Korosteleva, ‘The Limits of EU Governance: Belarus’ Response to the European Neighbourhood Policy', Contemporary Politics, Vol.15, No.2 (2009), pp.229–45.

In the fieldwork of the nationwide surveys, conducted in Oct.–Nov. 2008, 1,503 respondents from Russia, 1,200 from Ukraine and 1,000 each from Belarus and Moldova took part. Russian respondents represented 24 subjects of the country of 66 urban and rural localities. The survey in Moldova encompassed 56 localities, including 17 towns and 39 villages. Participants from Belarus represented 6 regions of the republic with 62 urban and rural localities. Finally, in Ukraine 1,200 respondents took part in the survey.

The national survey in Ukraine was undertaken in Oct.–Nov. 2008, when European Union membership was considered to be a priority of the Ukrainian government under President Viktor Yushchenko. However, after the 2010 presidential elections, the course towards European integration was re-evaluated by the government under Viktor Yanukovich and sharply redirected towards Russia. Thus, it is to be expected that the survey results in 2010 would differ considerably from those of the year 2008. For more analysis, see Oleksandr Stegniy, ‘Ukraine and the Eastern Partnership: “Lost in Translation”?’, in this collection.

Given that the nation-wide survey in Moldova took place in Nov. 2008, when the communist government under the leadership of President Voronin was still in power, it can be argued that the survey population disapproved the foreign policy primarily because the latter ignored the formally declared course towards EU integration. For more information, see Olga Danii and Mariana Mascauteanu, ‘Moldova Under the European Neighbourhood Policy: “Falling Between Stools”’, in this volume.

This is explained by the fact that the territory of the present Belarus had been under the influence of Russia for two centuries: it was annexed to the Russian empire in late 18th century and regained its independence only in 1991, except for a short period from 25 March 1918 until 1 Jan. 1919, during which the Belarusian People's Republic enjoyed independence from Bolshevik Russia. For more information, see Vitaliy Silitski and Jan Zaprudnik, Historical Dictionary of Belarus (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2007).

For a more detailed analysis of the Belarusian survey participants' attitude towards the Russia–Belarus Union State see David Rotman and Natalia Veremeeva, ‘Belarus in the Context of the Neighbourhood Policy: Between the EU and Russia’, in this volume.

The 1999 Treaty on the Creation of a Union State of Russia and Belarus that superseded the 1997 Treaty on the Union between Russia and Belarus and the 1996 Treaty on the Formation of a Community of Russia and Belarus, envisaged a federation on the model of the Soviet Union. As the political leadership of both countries exploited the post-Soviet nostalgia of the population and used the idea of reunification to win electoral competitions and to stay in power domestically, with time the support for the union state on the USSR model waned. For more information, see Alex Danilovich, Russian–Belarusian Integration: Playing Games behind the Kremlin Walls (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006).

Focus groups composed of participants who were sampled using a snowballing method and a screening questionnaire. Individual groups included (i) students; (ii) female with higher education; (iii) male with higher education; (iv) think-tanks with some knowledge of the ENP/EaP; and (v) a control group of mixed origin. Interviews lasted up to 2 hours; and were audio- and video-recorded, using local languages for interlocution. The focus-group scenario mirrored the three thematic blocks used for the survey.

Interviews with experts composed of members of parliament, officials of ministry of foreign affairs (MFA), civil servants, mass media and think-tank representatives, businessmen and members of political parties. Interviews were semi-structured, in-depth, audio-recorded when permitted and anonymized when requested, and they lasted on average 40–50 minutes. The questionnaire largely mirrored the three thematic blocks of the survey.

According to Sergey Tumanov, Alexander Gasparishvili and Ekaterina Romanova, ‘the urge of post-Soviet states towards independence from Russia … is quite natural’, but at the same time ‘[Ukraine] can hardly expect to become a member of European structures in the nearest future, while Russia has at its disposal real economic, military and political levers of influence’: for more information see to Sergey Tumanov, Alexander Gasparishvili and Ekaterina Romanova, ‘Russia–EU Relations, or How the Russians Really View the EU’, in this volume.

Elena Korosteleva, ‘Moldova's European Choice: Between Two Stools’, Europe–Asia Studies, Vol.62, No.8 (2010), pp.324–46.

Danii and Mascauteanu, ‘Moldova Under the European Neighbourhood Policy’.

Tumanov et al., ‘Russia–EU Relations’.

Heather Grabbe, The EU's Transformative Power: Europeanization Through Conditionality in Central and Eastern Europe (London: Palgrave, 2006).

For more information on the debate ‘partnership versus membership’ see Rotman and Veremeeva, ‘Belarus in the Context of the Neighbourhood Policy’.

School essays were prepared in March–April 2009. Sampling involved a random selection of secondary schools in urban areas, in which school leavers were requested, without prior warning, to write an essay to a maximum of two pages on pre-set questions. The survey lasted on average 30–45 minutes. Essays were anonymized and analysed by computer. The numerical and geographical breakdown of the survey per country was as follows: Belarus – 50 essays, 4 schools in Minsk and Mozyr; Ukraine – 80 essays, 3 schools in Kyiv; Moldova – 50 essays, 3 schools in Chişinău; and Russia – 100 essays, 4 schools in Moscow.

Stegniy, ‘Ukraine and the Eastern Partnership’.

Ibid.

‘How far Belarus’ relationship with the EU develops will depend on its readiness to embark on fundamental democratic and economic reforms', according to Commissioner for Enlargement and the ENP, Štefan Füle, ‘Eastern Partnership – New Challenges for EU Business’, speech at the Eastern Partnership Event at the Czech House in Brussels (Brussels, 4 March 2010), SPEECH/10/65; see also 12 conditions for the full participation of Belarus in the ENP in Commission of the European Communities, ‘What the EU Could Bring to Belarus’, Non-Paper (Brussels, 2006).

According to Olga Danii and Mariana Mascauteanu, Moldova's foreign policy for the last 19 years has been directed primarily towards Russia, with the exception of a couple of years when Moldova pursued the pro-European vector: for more information see Danii and Mascauteanu, ‘Moldova Under the European Neighbourhood Policy’.

The national survey participants are still influenced by the so-called ‘confrontational’ period of EU–Belarus relations that started with the 1996 change of Constitution of Belarus and lasted until 2007, when the country undertook steps to thaw the relations with the EU and the latter changed its approach to the pro-active one of involvement: for more information see Rotman and Veremeeva, ‘Belarus in the Context of the Neighbourhood Policy’.

There is a growing Euro-scepticism in Ukraine originating in the lack of an EU membership perspective. It is argued that the ENP should not have been signed by Ukraine as it compromised the prospects of Ukraine's accession into the EU: for more information see Stegniy ‘Ukraine and the Eastern Partnership’.

Smith, ‘The European Union and a Changing Europe’.

Lykke Friis and Anna Murphy, ‘The European Union and Central and Eastern Europe: Governance and Boundaries’, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol.37, No.2 (1999), pp.211–32.

Tumanov et al., ‘Russia–EU Relations’.

Commission of the European Communities, A Strong Neighbourhood Policy, Communication from the Commission, COM (2007) 774 final (Brussels, 5 Dec. 2007).

Elena Korosteleva, ‘Change or Continuity: Is the Eastern Partnership an Adequate Tool for the European Neighbourhood?’, International Relations (forthcoming, 2011).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Tanya Radchuk

Tanya Radchuk is a Research Assistant attached to the ESRC-funded project ‘Europeanising or Securitising the Outsiders? Assessing the EU's partnership-building approach with Eastern Europe’ (RES-061-25-0001), Aberystwyth University, led by Dr Elena Korosteleva.