 |
|
| Dionis Cenuşa | |
On January 1, 2016, the Netherlands took over the presidency of the Council of the European Union, being in a group with Slovakia and Malta. Each of the three countries will hold the presidency of the Council of the EU for a period of six months, until June 2017.The trio will use a common presidency plan that will dominate the European agenda. This program includes a set of ‘conjuncture’ priorities like the swift and sustainable solving of the refugee crisis. Also, the priorities reflect the structural problems related to the economic recovery in the EU, the European citizens’ welfare and the integration of the EU energy market. Furthermore, the priorities of the new presidency cover the foreign policy objectives. These are aimed at improving the EU’s position at global level and more at overcoming the numerous difficulties that multiply continuously in its neighborhood. Even if the Eastern Partnership countries or the countries that signed Association Agreements with the EU are not exemplified in the common presidency plan, the document underlines the importance of reviewing the European Neighborhood Policy and the meaning of ‘differentiation’ in the relations between the EU and the neighboring countries.
Priorities of the trio
The efforts made by the Netherlands, Slovakia and Malta will be aimed at achieving five major goals: 1) to revitalize the EU’s economy; 2) to ensure the socioeconomic empowerment of the European citizens; 3) to advance the integration of the EU energy market; 4) to strengthen the EU’s actions in the area of migration and circulation inside the Schengen Area etc.; and 5) to strengthen the EU’s position as a global player.
‘Instability arch’ in EU’s vicinity
Though the EU has economic and political ambitions in Asia, Africa or other regions, the problems in its immediate neighborhood continue to consume a large part of the EU’s attention and resources. Thus, according to the document of the trio, the EU will focus on the elimination of problems that generate the ‘instability arch’ on the European borders, which threaten the European security and values. Besides the problems in the southern neighborhood (conflicts, human rights violations, etc.), reference is subtly made to Russia’s actions in Eastern Europe, the ignoring of the principles of the international law and generation of geopolitical tensions (destabilization in Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, etc.). The document does not yet refer to the need to reduce Russia’s negative impact on the Eastern neighborhood of the EU. Also, nothing is said directly about the Eastern Partnership or the countries that signed the Association Agreement and the DCFTA.
Do they allude to Moldova or not?
Even if the trio involves Slovakia, which is an active supporter of Moldova’s European course, the common presidency plan does not make direct reference to Moldova, Ukraine or Georgia and to the Eastern Partnership or Russia. This is due to the strategic character of the document drawn up by the Netherlands, Slovakia and Malta together with the European institutions. Nevertheless, the trio makes an allusion to the Eastern Neighborhood countries, including Moldova, when it underlines the importance of reviewing the European Neighborhood Policy and of developing the principle of ‘differentiation’. The document says it clearly that the ‘differentiation’ will become the key element that will determine the EU’s relationship with the ‘partner countries’. Thus, the EU will take into account the progress made by the partner countries in fulfilling the commitments made to the EU and their political interest in the European integration, in general. Therefore, it is alluded that Moldova and other countries from the European neighborhood will have to make effort to make themselves observed in Brussels and less vice versa.
Instead of conclusion…
The trio’s program highlights the fact that the EU’s agenda is dominated by internal problems, while the external ones are regarded as a threat to the European security and identity. This fact generates tiredness, fear and, respectively, carefulness on the part of the EU to the ‘instability centers’ in its neighborhood. Consequently, the Eastern Partnership countries, in particular Moldova, must seriously reconsider their European course so as to fully profit from the ‘differentiation’ principle, avoiding thus slipping behind the EU’s foreign policy priorities.
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.