Tweet
WHERE ARE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE EU?
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Nov 27 2013
by Ali Yurttagul*
27 November 2013 /
The summit meeting of the European Union to be held in Vilnius, the
capital of Lithuania, on Nov. 28, will necessarily be a meeting on
the boundaries of the EU.
Indeed, the main agenda item of this summit, which German Chancellor
Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande are expected
to attend, is the association agreement and a number of commercial
cooperation agreements to be signed with Ukraine. While human rights
violations tend to be the main obstacle to the signing of such
agreements, all preparations must have been made before the signing
procedure can take place.
However, the Ukrainian government has since suspended its preparations
for the association agreement's signing procedure.
The problem stems from the Kremlin, not the EU. It is rumored that
the five-hour meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin
and Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was an effort by Putin
to dissuade Ukraine from signing this agreement with the EU. Putin
claimed that Ukraine would have "all-dependent" or "semi-colonial"
status within the EU, implying at the same time that he will have to
resort to punishments if Yanukovych does not toe the line.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov brought up the fact that Russia
may treat Ukrainian citizens living in Russia (who number around 1.3
million) as "aliens," requiring them to abide by certain passport
requirements. This, in turn, created panic among these Ukrainian
citizens and their relatives. Then Russian Prime Minister Dmitry
Medvedev stressed that Ukraine has been failing to pay its natural gas
bills on time, describing the situation as "critical." This approach
actually points to the fact that cold winter days are ahead and the
gas valves are controlled by Russia, thus it can be seen as a first
sign that Ukraine may be pressured using gas prices. In terms of the
draft resolution at the lower chamber of the Russian parliament, the
Duma, that condemns the "unacceptable pressures" the EU is exerting on
Ukraine, we can counter that the Kremlin has resorted to all sorts of
"persuasive" means.
To make the economic aspects of the bill more visible, Putin halted
imports of chocolate from Ukraine and milk from Latvia citing "health
concerns" (Le Figaro, Nov. 7, 2013). The Ukrainian administration
believes the association agreement it will sign with the EU will
not overshadow its ties with Russia and tries to make clear that its
strategic relations with the Kremlin will continue. In the coming days,
we will see how the process evolves.
'Kremlin's attitude an eye-opener'
An interview with the Lithuanian president published in Le Figaro
indicates how the matter is perceived by the EU. President Dalia
Grybauskaite pointed out that the Kremlin's attitude was an eye-opener
for many European leaders, explaining: "It [Russia] has failed to learn
anything from the 1990s ... When Lithuania declared its independence in
1991, it was blockaded for eight months in winter. It was deprived of
natural gas and oil. What happened in the end? Our economy turned its
face more quickly westward. Twenty years later, Putin has repeated
the same mistake." Russia is going to shoot itself in the foot,
Grybauskaite argued, as the Customs Union Russia is building does
not rule out free trade with the EU.
It is not wrong to assume that Ukraine's attitude will be decisive
in relations between the EU and Russia. This country, perceived
as the cradle of Russian culture, is indispensable for Russia's
Customs Union, particularly in terms of its population and area. This
country's decision will determine the fate and orientation of the
Black Sea region. A brief comparison between the pre-1990 state of the
Baltic Sea and its current state is enough to indicate that there is a
likelihood the Black Sea will become an inland sea for the EU. Russia
is now occupied with blocking such a development using everything in
its power, and we can say that this is quite successful.
Georgia's NATO and EU plans resulted in a partial occupation of
the country, and today it appears that Georgia is aligned with
the Kremlin. Although Nicolas Sarkozy, former president of France,
marketed it as a "victory," the "agreement" on Russian troops pulling
out of Georgia remained inconclusive, and it is known that Sarkozy
had buttonholed Lavrov, calling him a "liar" for this reason. The
fact that Lavrov claimed that the Abkhaz and Ossetia regions of
Georgia are "independent," and Russian soldiers are in Georgia under
"international" agreements, may seem a joke to many, particularly
given the country's attitude to the situations in Kosovo or Cyprus,
but it certainly sheds light on Russia's behavior in international
relations. Lavrov is known for being impolite in his "dialogue" with
Western politicians, and he even chided British Foreign Secretary
David Miliband, saying, "Who are you to f*cking lecture me?" in his
clean English (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Sept. 14, 2013).
Russia-West relations tense
In larger issues, such as Syria and Iran, it is possible to see
"dialogue" and "cooperation" from Russia, but relations between Russia
and the West are tense, as seen in the Armenian case. It is not wrong
to say that this country is under Russian occupation. Russia does not
have a shared border with Armenia, but it ensures "domestic security"
with its bases and "peacekeeping force" in the country. These days,
Armenian diplomats make frequent references to the term "balance," and
we see that Armenia is moving closer to Russia and Iran and abandoning
its policy of opening up to the West and the EU. Recently, Armenia
shelved the "association agreement" with the EU after two years of
negotiations. Instead of this agreement, which involves a customs
union with the EU, Armenia "preferred" to go with the Russian-led
Customs Union of which Kazakhstan and Belarus are the only current
members. It is said that Russia "persuaded" Armenia to join this union
by making a deal on arms sales amounting to $4 billion with Azerbaijan.
Brussels was not only unprepared for such an eventuality, but also
helpless. The EU believes that it was duped, as it was not informed
of the talks Armenia had been conducting with Russia for months. I
am not sure if the process of Armenia's "persuasion" can be called
"negotiations," but I do not think this "persuasion" process lasted
many months. It is known that the Armenian public, and even the
Armenian cabinet, learned about the suspension of the EU association
agreement only after it was decided. In other words, the decision
was not made in Yerevan, but in a northern city.
The Armenian case tells us that there is not much room for optimism.
Ukraine may force both the EU and Russia to be more flexible and open.
For this reason, Ukraine-EU relations are of great concern for Turkey.
Sarkozy had said, "I wasn't taught at school that Cappadocia is
located in Europe," to stress that he believes Turkey is located
outside the EU's boundaries. While his opinion is not shared by the
majority within the EU, he is not alone. The debate over Ukraine,
Georgia and Armenia has the potential to be decisive for the EU's
boundaries. Turkey benefited from the end of the Cold War not only
economically, but also in other respects. In addition to improving its
commercial ties and developing relations across the former Soviet zone,
Turkey had access to new and direct energy resources and emerged as
a hub for international energy.
Russia's policy of polarizing relations once again, with the help
of China and Iran, and questioning the boundaries of the EU, will
certainly restrict Turkey's mobility in the region. Turkey, as a NATO
member, will have to be aligned with the US and the EU in a potential
polarization, and it will not have to make a "choice" between Brussels
and Shanghai, but it will pay the price of polarization. And it is
not incorrect to say that the seriousness of this price will be
dependent on Russia's economic ties with the West. I do not know
if those European politicians who locate Turkey outside Europe's
borders are happy with the new borders Putin is drawing for Europe,
but this development is certainly worrisome for the EU and Turkey.
Turkey's interests lie not in a re-polarization of the world and
the redrawing of borders, but in abolishing borders and developing
international dialogue. If Ukraine chooses to move closer to the EU,
this will make Turkish-Russian ties easier and less problematic,
and it may turn the Black Sea into a new inland sea, similar to the
Baltic Sea.
________________________________
*Ali Yurttagul is a political adviser for the Greens in the European
Parliament.
From: A. Papazian
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Nov 27 2013
by Ali Yurttagul*
27 November 2013 /
The summit meeting of the European Union to be held in Vilnius, the
capital of Lithuania, on Nov. 28, will necessarily be a meeting on
the boundaries of the EU.
Indeed, the main agenda item of this summit, which German Chancellor
Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande are expected
to attend, is the association agreement and a number of commercial
cooperation agreements to be signed with Ukraine. While human rights
violations tend to be the main obstacle to the signing of such
agreements, all preparations must have been made before the signing
procedure can take place.
However, the Ukrainian government has since suspended its preparations
for the association agreement's signing procedure.
The problem stems from the Kremlin, not the EU. It is rumored that
the five-hour meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin
and Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was an effort by Putin
to dissuade Ukraine from signing this agreement with the EU. Putin
claimed that Ukraine would have "all-dependent" or "semi-colonial"
status within the EU, implying at the same time that he will have to
resort to punishments if Yanukovych does not toe the line.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov brought up the fact that Russia
may treat Ukrainian citizens living in Russia (who number around 1.3
million) as "aliens," requiring them to abide by certain passport
requirements. This, in turn, created panic among these Ukrainian
citizens and their relatives. Then Russian Prime Minister Dmitry
Medvedev stressed that Ukraine has been failing to pay its natural gas
bills on time, describing the situation as "critical." This approach
actually points to the fact that cold winter days are ahead and the
gas valves are controlled by Russia, thus it can be seen as a first
sign that Ukraine may be pressured using gas prices. In terms of the
draft resolution at the lower chamber of the Russian parliament, the
Duma, that condemns the "unacceptable pressures" the EU is exerting on
Ukraine, we can counter that the Kremlin has resorted to all sorts of
"persuasive" means.
To make the economic aspects of the bill more visible, Putin halted
imports of chocolate from Ukraine and milk from Latvia citing "health
concerns" (Le Figaro, Nov. 7, 2013). The Ukrainian administration
believes the association agreement it will sign with the EU will
not overshadow its ties with Russia and tries to make clear that its
strategic relations with the Kremlin will continue. In the coming days,
we will see how the process evolves.
'Kremlin's attitude an eye-opener'
An interview with the Lithuanian president published in Le Figaro
indicates how the matter is perceived by the EU. President Dalia
Grybauskaite pointed out that the Kremlin's attitude was an eye-opener
for many European leaders, explaining: "It [Russia] has failed to learn
anything from the 1990s ... When Lithuania declared its independence in
1991, it was blockaded for eight months in winter. It was deprived of
natural gas and oil. What happened in the end? Our economy turned its
face more quickly westward. Twenty years later, Putin has repeated
the same mistake." Russia is going to shoot itself in the foot,
Grybauskaite argued, as the Customs Union Russia is building does
not rule out free trade with the EU.
It is not wrong to assume that Ukraine's attitude will be decisive
in relations between the EU and Russia. This country, perceived
as the cradle of Russian culture, is indispensable for Russia's
Customs Union, particularly in terms of its population and area. This
country's decision will determine the fate and orientation of the
Black Sea region. A brief comparison between the pre-1990 state of the
Baltic Sea and its current state is enough to indicate that there is a
likelihood the Black Sea will become an inland sea for the EU. Russia
is now occupied with blocking such a development using everything in
its power, and we can say that this is quite successful.
Georgia's NATO and EU plans resulted in a partial occupation of
the country, and today it appears that Georgia is aligned with
the Kremlin. Although Nicolas Sarkozy, former president of France,
marketed it as a "victory," the "agreement" on Russian troops pulling
out of Georgia remained inconclusive, and it is known that Sarkozy
had buttonholed Lavrov, calling him a "liar" for this reason. The
fact that Lavrov claimed that the Abkhaz and Ossetia regions of
Georgia are "independent," and Russian soldiers are in Georgia under
"international" agreements, may seem a joke to many, particularly
given the country's attitude to the situations in Kosovo or Cyprus,
but it certainly sheds light on Russia's behavior in international
relations. Lavrov is known for being impolite in his "dialogue" with
Western politicians, and he even chided British Foreign Secretary
David Miliband, saying, "Who are you to f*cking lecture me?" in his
clean English (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Sept. 14, 2013).
Russia-West relations tense
In larger issues, such as Syria and Iran, it is possible to see
"dialogue" and "cooperation" from Russia, but relations between Russia
and the West are tense, as seen in the Armenian case. It is not wrong
to say that this country is under Russian occupation. Russia does not
have a shared border with Armenia, but it ensures "domestic security"
with its bases and "peacekeeping force" in the country. These days,
Armenian diplomats make frequent references to the term "balance," and
we see that Armenia is moving closer to Russia and Iran and abandoning
its policy of opening up to the West and the EU. Recently, Armenia
shelved the "association agreement" with the EU after two years of
negotiations. Instead of this agreement, which involves a customs
union with the EU, Armenia "preferred" to go with the Russian-led
Customs Union of which Kazakhstan and Belarus are the only current
members. It is said that Russia "persuaded" Armenia to join this union
by making a deal on arms sales amounting to $4 billion with Azerbaijan.
Brussels was not only unprepared for such an eventuality, but also
helpless. The EU believes that it was duped, as it was not informed
of the talks Armenia had been conducting with Russia for months. I
am not sure if the process of Armenia's "persuasion" can be called
"negotiations," but I do not think this "persuasion" process lasted
many months. It is known that the Armenian public, and even the
Armenian cabinet, learned about the suspension of the EU association
agreement only after it was decided. In other words, the decision
was not made in Yerevan, but in a northern city.
The Armenian case tells us that there is not much room for optimism.
Ukraine may force both the EU and Russia to be more flexible and open.
For this reason, Ukraine-EU relations are of great concern for Turkey.
Sarkozy had said, "I wasn't taught at school that Cappadocia is
located in Europe," to stress that he believes Turkey is located
outside the EU's boundaries. While his opinion is not shared by the
majority within the EU, he is not alone. The debate over Ukraine,
Georgia and Armenia has the potential to be decisive for the EU's
boundaries. Turkey benefited from the end of the Cold War not only
economically, but also in other respects. In addition to improving its
commercial ties and developing relations across the former Soviet zone,
Turkey had access to new and direct energy resources and emerged as
a hub for international energy.
Russia's policy of polarizing relations once again, with the help
of China and Iran, and questioning the boundaries of the EU, will
certainly restrict Turkey's mobility in the region. Turkey, as a NATO
member, will have to be aligned with the US and the EU in a potential
polarization, and it will not have to make a "choice" between Brussels
and Shanghai, but it will pay the price of polarization. And it is
not incorrect to say that the seriousness of this price will be
dependent on Russia's economic ties with the West. I do not know
if those European politicians who locate Turkey outside Europe's
borders are happy with the new borders Putin is drawing for Europe,
but this development is certainly worrisome for the EU and Turkey.
Turkey's interests lie not in a re-polarization of the world and
the redrawing of borders, but in abolishing borders and developing
international dialogue. If Ukraine chooses to move closer to the EU,
this will make Turkish-Russian ties easier and less problematic,
and it may turn the Black Sea into a new inland sea, similar to the
Baltic Sea.
________________________________
*Ali Yurttagul is a political adviser for the Greens in the European
Parliament.
From: A. Papazian