Barriers to European integration. Commentary by Ion Osoianu for Info-Prim Neo Agency

The noble intentions of the state authorities to reduce the permeability of borders have negative effects on the population living in border zones. Although separated by artificial barriers, the people tend to transform the idea of “border – line that divides” into “border – contact area” and this fact contributes to the shaping of political, economic, social and cultural realities over time. The identity and language affinities do nothing but accelerate these processes, giving birth to small border traffic. Somebody earns money from selling agricultural products over the border, knowing that two buckets of apricots are more expensive in Iasi than in Ungheni or further in Chisinau. Someone else is married on the other bank of the Prut River and goes very often to visit the relatives. The third person crosses the border for cultural-religious purposes, going on a pilgrimage to holy places for instance. The list can be extended: studies, permanent job or seasonal works, vacation on the seaside etc. The major objective of the European Neighborhood Policy, from the moment of its formulation, is to reduce the discrepancies and remove the lines that demarcate the new borders of the enlarged European Union. This means that the benefits of the enlargement should be shared with the neighbors. For these reasons, in 2003 the EU started to adopt a series of derogations from the Schengen Borders Code, which regulates the small border traffic. For example, the Regulation (CE) No. 1931/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union of December 20, 2006 says that it is in the interest of the extended Community to make sure that the borders with its neighbors do not hinder the trade, social and cultural exchanges and regional cooperation. The Moldovans had great expectations related to these regulations, expectations that generated rises in the price of land and property in the border zones as the people perceived them as a liberalization of the visa regime with the EU. The multiple controversial discussions on this topic call for explanations: 1. The facilitated crossing of the border with Romania applies to the residents of the territorial-administrative units located within 50 kilometers of the border. This zone embraces at least 11 border districts of Moldova as well as settlements from several other districts, which have a population of about 1,000 million overall (according to the last census). 2. The people that have lived in border zones for at least a year (with possible exceptions for minors, marriages or inheritance of land in these zones) can receive a permit for crossing the border that will include the picture of the owner, personal data, the issuing authority, the period of validity (from one to five years) as well as the border zone within which the permit holder is authorized to move. Even if the permit is a liberal document, as the person can cross the border without entry/exit stamps, some other travel documents justifying the trip will be required in certain cases. 3. The permit is issued for trips to Romania only and enables the movement only within 50 km of the border. If the permit holders cross this zone, they break the law. Avoiding the checks, some of them could reach the border with Hungary, but they could not cross it if they do not have a Schengen visa. The sanctions for such cases are similar to those applied when the border crossing regime is violated. 4. Though not compulsory, the European regulations provide for a tax for issuing the permit, which should not exceed the tax paid for a multiple entry Schengen visa, For instance, the Ukrainians will pay 20 euros for such permits. Normally, the children and the disabled should receive this permit free of charge. 5. The permits will be issued by Romania’s consulate. Given that there are no Romanian consulates in Cahul and Balti, the population will have to travel to Chisinau and queue up for visas, as in the case of entry visas. The permits for Ukraine and Poland are issued by the Polish Consulates in Lvov and Lutsk. 6. The period of staying is limited. The European norms stipulate a term of at most three months without interruption. Impressed by Poland’s accession to the Schengen area at the end of 2007, the Ukrainian citizens from the Polish-Ukrainian border were the first to express their dissatisfaction. During January and February 2008, they repeatedly blocked the border crossing points and demanded that the signing of the agreement on small border traffic and visa facilitation be hastened. The agreement was signed on March 28, 2008 in Kiev. The first permits will be issued in June, after the document is ratified by the parliaments of the two states. As regards the draft convention on small border traffic between the Governments of Moldova and Romania, the ball is in the court of the Moldovan authorities, who say that they will sign the convention only after the Treaty on the State Border between Moldova and Romania is signed. The only argument they invoke is that the draft convention contains the phrase “the state Moldovan-Romanian border” that exists de facto, but is not stipulated in the bilateral documents. Given that the European integration builds on the idea that the borders in Europe should disappear gradually and turn from lines that divide into lines that unite, it is not rational to invoke banal legal formulations. Moreover, the Moldovan-Romanian border is much more protected and has an infrastructure that is superior to the one on the Moldovan-Ukrainian border and its delimitation is not such a difficult task. We should only follow the course of the Prut River and read attentively the Declaration of Independence of August 27, 1991, which confirms the joining of the Charter of Paris for a New Europe and of the Final Helsinki Act, fact that was also confirmed by the Statement of Alma-Ata of December 1991. Other details can be easily found in the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947 and other documents on demarcation and re-demarcation signed later. Consequently, the determinedness to keep over one million Moldovans waiting is not justified, especially because this harms the interests of the citizens and, implicitly, of the governors, in a pre-election year.