 |
|
| Dionis Cenuşa | |
The distancing of the European capitals from the decision-making center in Brussels and the discrepancies in visions and actions between the member states of the European Union (migration, asylum) that were visible in 2014-2015 represent a dangerous reality for the survival of the European project. The idea of lack of unity within the EU and insufficiency of European/community spirit (non-populist and non-nationalist) was the starting point in the 2016 State of the Union address delivered by the European Commission President Jean-Claude Jucker on September 14. The European official diagnosed the EU with a partial existential crisis and called on the member states to contribute, together with Brussels, to overcoming the chain of crises (unemployment, social inequity, enormous public debts, integration of refugees, fragility of homeland and foreign security).
The solutions proposed by Juncker in his State of the Union address have a visible social component such as investment in youth, intensification of intra-European communication or social equality. Besides, Juncker makes a powerful approach in favor of securing the EU’s external borders and mobilizing the financial resources for defense purposes. It’s definite that Juncker’s message is a critical one of the populist and destructive and self-critical anti-European forces, when he makes an objective diagnosis of the difficult situation in the EU. He does not yet renounce the idea of deepening European integration that is present in his speech, even if in a rather camouflaged form (proposal to create the post of EU Foreign Minister).
In parallel, regardless of the relationship with and attitude to Brussels, even the most Euro-skeptical European countries agreed in Bratislava on the necessity of identifying common solutions, even on matters that cause division. In this regard, the 27 member states adopted the “Bratislava roadmap” (September 16, 2016), which includes actions centering on migration and external borders, homeland and foreign security, defense as well as on socioeconomic development and youth.
One of the actions planned by Brussels and the European leaders refer directly to the European neighborhood, including Moldova. These envision additional costs for those who travel in the EU and new investment possibilities for stimulating economic growth in the neighborhood of the EU and, respectively, for discouraging irregular migration.
2016 State of the Union report, key proposals
Several of the proposals formulated by Juncker deserve special attention. It is the idea of doubling the duration and financial capacity of the European Fund for Strategic Investments, from €315 billion in 2015 to €630 billion in 2022. About 200,000 small and medium-sized companies already benefitted from investments to the value of over €100 billion. However, for this economic stimulus to work better, the involvement of the member states and participation of private investments are needed. The EU does not have the power to substitute national governments when managing economic policies, even if it can make complementary contributions.
Creating the European Solidarity Corps by the end of 2016 is another interesting proposal. Young people across the EU will be able to volunteer their help where it is needed most, to respond to crisis situations, such as the refugee or other crises related to natural disasters (recent Italy quake). According to Juncker, such an initiative would consolidate solidarity at European level, increasing interaction among the European youth.
The interconnection of Europeans is another area to which Juncker refers when he suggests to equip every European village and every city with free wireless Internet access around the main centers of public life by 2020.
Among other important proposals are to lay the basis, in 2016 already, of a European Defense Fund, to boost research in the European defense industry. In the same connection, Juncker admits that the EU cannot cope with the challenges generated by an ‘increasingly dangerous neighborhood’, based only on ‘soft power’. That’s why he reiterates the importance of an EU defense policy and of delegating broader powers to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini. To optimize the European diplomatic service, Juncker stresses the necessity of the position of EU Foreign Minister, while for the defense capacity – the necessity of building joint European military capabilities, complementarity to those of NATO. Furthermore, several proposals refer to the securing of the EU borders by launching the new European Border and Cost Guard Policy (decision adopted by EU Council on September 14, 2016) and provision of emergency assistance to Bulgaria and other countries from the EU’s external borders in dealing with the flow of irregular migrants.
“Bratislava roadmap”
The informal meeting of the EU leaders in Bratislava, in the context of the Slovak Presidency of the EU and without the UK’s participation following the Brexit, and of the heads of European institutions (European Commission, European Council) centered on the EU’s existential problems.
The tone of the declaration signed in Bratislava was balanced, even if this contains an assertion that betrays the intention of the Euro-skeptical countries (in particular, the Visegrad group) to redefine national areas with powers to deal with particular problems (migration, refugees). However, even if not in the text of the statement, the Visegrad countries suggest that the EU’s migration policies should be based on the principle of flexible solidarity.
Also, the Bratislava declaration includes a “roadmap” with actions divided into three blocks: (1) migration and external borders, (2) domestic and foreign security, (3) socioeconomic development and youth.
The priority given to migration and securing of the control of the EU’s external borders shows how acute this subject is for most of the EU member states and European institutions. These set concrete objectives to reduce the number of irregular migrants and to prevent an uncontrolled flow of persons, similar to that of 2015. They also demand ensuring the control of the external borders and restoring free movement within the Schengen Area that is still disturbed by the introduction of temporary checks in a number of EU member states (France, Austria, Denmark, etc.). As regards internal security, the “Bratislava roadmap” suggests intensifying the relations between the intelligence services of the EU states, interconnecting databases and checking the data of all the persons who cross the EU borders (including EU citizens), and introducing the ETIAS system for travel in the EU in case of people from third countries. In the area of external security, the proposed actions refer to the cooperation with NATO and intensification of cooperation at EU level. The economic block of the “roadmap” contains activities aimed at utilizing the European Investment Fund and improving the economic situation of the youth.
Juncker’s proposals concerning vicinity and effects on Moldova
The European neighborhood was also mentioned in Juncker’s speech on two major dimensions. Firstly, he proposed an ambitious investment plan for Africa and the neighborhood, with financing of almost €44 billion. Evidently, when this becomes available, the largest part of the funding will be allocated to the countries of origin of refugees and irregular migrants who come to Europe (Northern and Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East). Therefore, Moldova could benefit from not much or nothing of this investment plan for the neighborhood. However, Moldova remains a country of origin for many Moldovan migrants who settle in Italy, Ireland, Germany, Spain, etc. But the slowdown in migration, both legal and irregular, from Moldova to Europe, depends on the Moldovan authorities and their capacity to maximally use the Association Agreement and the free trade regime with the EU (DCFTA). Many funds available to Moldova have been frozen and unused owing to the poor political and economic governance in the country.
The second relevant aspect for the countries from the EU neighborhood raised by Juncker is the introduction of a European Travel Information and Authorization System (ETIAS) by the model of the U.S. system (ETSA). The given system will be applied to people from third countries that were spared from Schengen visas, which, in Moldova’s case, refers to owners of biometric passports. During the first year of the liberalization of visas (2014-2015), about 400,000 Moldovans travelled based on biometric passports. Consequently, the introduction of the ETIAS system will imply costs of €13 per person or at least €5 million a year (for 400,000 persons), which is to be covered by Moldovans with biometric passports who will travel to the EU. These aspects must be clarified with the European side and communicated appropriately to the population so as to avoid erroneous interpretations as regards the costs applied by the EU. If this aspect is ignored, the Euro-skeptical forces will be able to exploit the poor informing of the people in order to discredit the visa-free regime and, in particular, the EU as well as the pro-European forces in Chisinau.
Instead of conclusion
The European Union is adjusting to the new security and geopolitical realities in order to survive. All the EU countries, including the Euro-skeptical ones, want to make effort to strengthen the European project. Evidently, the interests in priorities differ from a group of states to another, but now most of these are focused on the securing of external borders and restricting of migration policies, strengthening of domestic security and formulation of a common defense policy. In this connection, the neighborhood is regarded as a source of problems, including the Eastern one, even if most of the crises are connected to the southern borders.
The actions taken by the European players are aimed at ensuring the European people’s welfare and security, but the costs of some of these actions will be covered both by the Europeans and by people from third countries connected to the EU. In particular, this refers to the European Travel Information and Authorization System that will most probably cover the Moldovans with biometric passports too.
The Moldovan authorities must make the necessary effort to feel the pulse of Brussels. All the actions initiated by the EU must be understood by the Moldovan decision-makers and explained to the Moldovan people sincerely and in a plain language. The EU’s adjustment to the new realities has a major significance for the country’s European course. That’s why Europeans’ signals must be interpreted correctly and on time in the Republic of Moldova. Even if the European perspective for Moldova is far away, the distance should no way increase even more.
IPN publishes in the Op-Ed rubric opinion pieces submitted by authors not affiliated with our editorial board. The opinions expressed in these articles do not necessarily coincide with the opinions of our editorial board.
